What was the Funniest Argument You've had with a Bethesda Apologist?

Bubba Zanetti said:
I also dig the options that allow you to fill in details regarding your Courier's past travels--you can tell Bruce Isaac you saw him at the Shark Club, inform Jed Masterson you've been to Utah before, or wonder aloud whether or not the Lonesome Drifter could be the son of a lady you banged in Montana.

No wonder I can't put this game down.

Fallout 4, on the other hand, I doubt I'll even bother to pick up.
Click to expand...
Yeah it's interesting and means that you can decide your past, and it gets noticed by others.
 
Because I wanted to see the Bethesdrone (along with other fanboys) in their natural habitat, I made an account on Reddit that I'm using. That was a mistake but it led to this particular exchange on this post by a newbie of the Fallout games (https://www.reddit.com/r/falloutlore/comments/51cep1/is_the_world_of_of_fallout_advancing/):

  • Me (same user name): (Reply to OP...) Aside from that, I find it odd that the Capital Wasteland (after 200 years) had not formed some form of proper government before the Lone Wanderer showed up. The fact that there are hostiles around would be greater cause to unify and form settlements that would be the beginnings of a new nation.

  • Apologist: I dunno, 200 years isn't really a long time, though. In the long run it's chump change.

  • Me: ... It's 200 years... 200 years is a very long time (anything that is more than 200 years old is regarded as old so it implies a significant time gap) so with modern tech at hand, I imagine that a lot could be done to restart civilization. Within that time, the NCR managed to form a post-apocalyptic civilization and actual cities were being built in the West Coast Regions. In fact, one can say that life in the NCR (as inferred from New Vegas and 2) is similar to modern life minus the excessive luxuries.

    If 200 years is not a long time, why is it generally notable when any person is able to become a centenarian or live beyond 100?

    So no, it is not chump change as you claim it is.

  • Apologist: You're telling me in the context of the entirety of human history that 200 years is a long time?

    The Great War reset all human cultural progress to near zero, and different regions had to deal with entirely different and new challenges. The West Coast and the pre-NCR had a desirable, if not perfect mix of factors (including two legendary heroes) to form the kind of progress that eventually birthed the NCR. The East Coast wasn't so lucky, for reasons varying from 1. Complete and total nuclear annihilation resulting from the East Coast being more urban and dense to things like 2. The lack of safe drinking water. 3. Who knows? For whatever reason, the people of the East Coast had the stack decked against them for rebuilding civilization. There could be any number of societal, environmental, or other reasons.

    Human progress isn't like a game of Civilization where everyone starts from the same place, progresses in a linear fashion, and ends on the same place. It's like asking "Why haven't undocumented tribes in the Amazon invented the combustion engine yet!? What's the holdup!?"

  • Me: Yes, 200 years is a long time and why are you even bringing up the context of the entirety of human history? I never even raised such a point in my comments, I only mentioned 200 years in the context of Fallout. 200 years is a big deal for any nation as some may rise and fall within that time. May I point out that that a lot can change in the course of human history within even a century? Norms, culture and idealogies can often shift within a couple of decades. So 200 years would contain plenty of developments and on the West Coast Regions, there was such developments within that 200 year gap as nations like the NCR and Caesar's Legion along with settlements large enough to be their own nations like Vault City etc.

    A lot can happen in 200 years and I'll remind you that the West Coast had to deal with being hit by nukes as well (or are you forgetting about the Glow), a large hostile mutant army along with an advanced pre-War faction that attempted to wipe them all out. It wasn't sunshine and rainbows over there as well (I'd argue that it would have gotten worse than the East Coast if not for the intervention of the Vault Dweller and the Chosen One) but they made far more progress than the East Coast people did (and those points you raised would work as justifications on why the East Coast can't advance if it wasn't for the rather large (yes, it is a large time lapse, unless you want to argue that 200 years is comparable to 2 seconds) time lapse).

    I have to ask you at this point; why are you so defensive about 200 years not being a large time lapse? It's numerically proven that in the long run for the people, 200 years is a big deal.

At this point, the apologist stopped replying. I still wonder why this particular apologist got so defensive about the East Coast and the 200 year stasis it was clearly in.
 
Last edited:
That's pretty stupid, he cites human history but he doesn't realise that great empires have risen and fallen within shorter periods than 200 years and with a whole lot less advantages (Rome didn't have industrial schematics to work with).
 
Izak said:
he cites human history but he doesn't realise that great empires have risen and fallen within shorter periods than 200 years and with a whole lot less advantages
Click to expand...
I think realising this is why the apologist stopped replying to me. He probably became aware on how stupid his argument got (not helped by him suddenly citing the entirety of human history when I did not even bring said history up).
 
"New Vegas was totally linear and railroaded and forces you to follow a set path because it doesn't let you go through the pack of Deathclaws near Sloan at the beginning of the game and forces you to go South from Goodsprings/Primm instead."

"Fallout 4 is the greatest Fallout RPG ever made because it sold the most copies, that means it's the best"

These aren't arguments I've had, just stupid things I've read other people arguing.
 
Irwin John Finster said:
"New Vegas was totally linear and railroaded and forces you to follow a set path because it doesn't let you go through the pack of Deathclaws near Sloan at the beginning of the game and forces you to go South from Goodsprings/Primm instead."
Click to expand...
I have seen this particular argument raised by a New Vegas hater (or someone salty about the love for New Vegas) on r/Fallout. I guess the hive-mind has to repeat the same arguments about New Vegas all the time lest they begin to recognise quality.

Also they clearly do not know that it is possible to go through the pack of Deathclaws. It requires skill, tools and a lot of running.
 
Ediros said:
The original Fallout game was a clunky mess. Its gameplay was utter shit
Click to expand...
I'm just going to use this opportunity about the argument that you had to make a point about something that has really been destructive to criticism of games in the recent years. AND THAT'S THIS FUCKING WORD, "CLUNKY"
Don't like story? Clunky.
Don't like controls? Clunky.
Don't like combat? Clunky.
FUCK THIS. It has become a cancer because it has taken the place of genuine arguments, and it's just a single word with no explanation. I have yet to encounter a single critic who could explain what "clunky" actually means in the context of game criticisms. He'll just say, for example, "combat in Morrowind is clunky" and can't explain it. He won't use a valid criticism, and would just say clunky. Well, simply said I think that anyone who sees someone using "clunky" as an argument (myself included) from this point on should at least try to point out how shitty it is, because nowadays it's just a word that anyone can use to refer to anything he or she doesn't like. Sorry to rant about it, but this happens a lot with the type of people that some of us have encountered and posted about in this thread.
 
It's pretty easy to get responses like these on certain websites and social networks if you bait properly, but this time I wasn't even baiting. As usual, I tried to step into an argument about why Fallout 4 has no rights to be called either a good game, or a Fallout game.

Here's a good drinking game to guarantee you won't be able to breathe by the end of it - whenever you see somebody using an arguement of "good game, but bad fallout" in F3/4 discussions, drink a shot.

In any case, here's an amazing response.
JSUXJiVl.jpg

Now I really want Fallout Solitaire to happen just so we can say that it's all canon and this is GOTY material.
 
I actually came across a guy who loved Fallout 3 but hated New Vegas because there were "too many factions, too many choices, too much dialogue" & that the game was "too complicated & required too much thinking". Summarily, he hated New Vegas for all the reasons we love it & loved Fallout 3 for all the reasons we hate it.

I mean taste is subjective & all but the whole conversation felt so bizarre.
 
Aurelianus said:
I actually came across a guy who loved Fallout 3 but hated New Vegas because there were "too many factions, too many choices, too much dialogue" & that the game was "too complicated & required too much thinking". Summarily, he hated New Vegas for all the reasons we love it & loved Fallout 3 for all the reasons we hate it.

I mean taste is subjective & all but the whole conversation felt so bizarre.
Click to expand...
That's... when you meet people who hate smart.
 
hag said:
there's no accounting for taste. some people just want mindless entertainment from their games
Click to expand...

And you know what? That's perfectly fine with me. I'm not trying to convert anyone. What really gets me though is that despite having so many developers pump out metric fuck-tonnes of shit geared specifically for them, it's still our favourite franchises that end up getting hijacked. It's like, "you couldn't just let us have that one thing?" Is nothing sacred?
 
I don't quite remember the details but on old Bethesda forums there was this weeb called AiTenshi or something. He would always post long paragraphs about how Bethesda's approach is superior to old Fallout and New Vegas, putting great emphasis how it's an objective fact and how any opposing view is fundamentally wrong and flawed.. and then he'd vanish into the aether, probably to shitpost elsewhere or harass other free thinkers.

Doesn't matter if you'd tear down/challenge/debunk his argument piece by piece on multiple levels (and many people did actually), he'd never come back to defend his points or try to engage in a discussion.

Maybe not the *funniest* per se, but seeing how this process was repeated for almost 4 years, I found it kinda funny in a way. Who knows, maybe he still slinks aroud the new Bethesda forums as well.
 
hag said:
there's no accounting for taste. some people just want mindless entertainment from their games; they skip through all dialogue and only care about the action. could you imagine that? it's truly frustrating to watch, they miss so many details. it's unsurprising that they'd have no patience for RPGs.* i hope they never have influence over a creative project—prioritizing instant gratification is cancerous to the development of nuanced and truly fulfilling content.

i will never understand that, personally i get the most enjoyment out of reading dialogue and learning about game lore. it's not tedious to me at all—i have the opposite stance, in that i feel combat and action sequences are sometimes tiresome.

i have to wonder what that guy would think about Fallout and Fallout 2, if he hated New Vegas so much.

*Bethesda's "RPGs" excluded. they are not RPGs as much as they are power simulators, so naturally they appeal to those kinds of players.
Click to expand...

I'm right with you. I pretty much just force myself through combat so I can get to the dialogue, especially in New Vegas (VATS, run around, VATS, run around & so on).
 
Black Angel said:
This just in.

"You cannot, objectively say in any meaningful capacity, that Fallout 4 is not a Fallout game."

"then the rest of my statement stands, and 2 is not a Fallout game."
Click to expand...
I mean, you could have at least given context, since those comments were several posts apart, and they wanted to use a different train of logic, so I followed suit.
 
Izak said:
That's pretty stupid, he cites human history but he doesn't realise that great empires have risen and fallen within shorter periods than 200 years and with a whole lot less advantages (Rome didn't have industrial schematics to work with).
Click to expand...
I don't even know how you begin to address this level of absolute ignorance. In America of 200 years ago, slavery was still legal and the ratification of the 13th Amendment was still 50 years in the future, longer than the average lifespan at a time when the discovery of penicillin was still over a century away. 200 years ago, Napoleon Bonaparte had been defeated at Waterloo only a year in the past. Steam power was in its early infancy, and even the telegraph was decades away. And this guy wants to argue that not much has happened between then and now?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top