GameSpy wishes for the Fallout fans to die

[AnalogKid]

That's only true if those are the ONLY points on the scale -- which isn't true.

It isn't true, really? Ok then, without bringing ANYTHING ELSE into the conversation to divert or obfuscate:

1) Please tell me which points on your scale exist between 3.5 (exclusive) and 5 (inclusive), but aren't listed in the set {4, 4.5, 5}?

2) Next, please tell me which points exist between 97 (exclusive) and 100 (inclusive) that aren't listed in the set {98, 99, 100}?

I'd love to know.

 

[Calis]

Uh, if you were to present the figure with the right amount of significant digits, it wouldn't have been a problem; you know the reactor can take 4 +/- 0.5 * 10^3 K. You see instantly the temperature you cited might not fall within this range. Though of course you are correct in your example in that if you are able to calculate all those margins, you can provide more exact boundaries on the region your value should fall in.

I don't think game review scores allow for this though.

 

[galsiah]

Uh, if you were to present the figure with the right amount of significant digits, it wouldn't have been a problem; you know the reactor can take 4 +/- 0.5 * 10^3 K. You see instantly the temperature you cited might not fall within this range. Though of course you are correct in your example in that if you are able to calculate all those margins, you can provide more exact boundaries on the region your value should fall in.

I don't think game review scores allow for this though.

Then use these values:
3956 [+/- 500K]
Round to give 4000 +/- 500K, and you've got another potential meltdown.

If you're suggesting rounding to e.g. 4000 +/- 550K, you've simply lost information needlessly. Why do it? A scientist gets no misguided impression of accuracy from the 3956 [+/- 500K]: he can see the margin of error clearly stated. You're losing information for no reason.

 

[Calis]

Uh, if you were to present the figure with the right amount of significant digits, it wouldn't have been a problem; you know the reactor can take 4 +/- 0.5 * 10^3 K. You see instantly the temperature you cited might not fall within this range. Though of course you are correct in your example in that if you are able to calculate all those margins, you can provide more exact boundaries on the region your value should fall in.

I don't think game review scores allow for this though.

Then use these values:
3956 [+/- 500K]
Round to give 4000 +/- 500K, and you've got another potential meltdown.

If you're suggesting rounding to e.g. 4000 +/- 550K, you've simply lost information needlessly. Why do it? A scientist gets no misguided impression of accuracy from the 3956 [+/- 500K]: he can see the margin of error clearly stated. You're losing information for no reason.

I concede that in the situation you cite, with precise upper and lower boundaries for the error, you lose nothing by presenting that info. I still don't think this applies to the discussion though.

 

[galsiah]

I concede that in the situation you cite, with precise upper and lower boundaries for the error, you lose nothing by presenting that info. I still don't think this applies to the discussion though.

The relevance to the discussion is in the reasoning behind it.
When you present a measurement, you're actually presenting a probability distribution over possible cases. Whatever the internal complexity of that distribution, you have at least two basic factors: the two bounds on the range. You might know one limit precisely, the other vaguely. Alternatively, you might know the total range precisely, but the value of either limit vaguely. Either way, even with the simplest model, you have two degrees of freedom in the measurement - each of which may be known either vaguely or highly precisely. That gives you the motivation to separate the value precision from the range precision.

By tying the precision of value to precision of range (or vice versa), you lose a degree of freedom on margins of error. You're using one margin of error to cover two independent values - which doesn't work (as above, to be safe you'll need to choose the largest margin, and therefore lose information).

This applies to any measurement situation. It's simply often the case that the two separate margins of error are quite similar - so conflating them doesn't lose you much. (e.g. where you've obtained all measurements using the same ruler)

In the case of a percentage game rating system, there seems little motivation to think the accuracy of ratings would be directly proportional to the certainty [EDIT - and of similar magnitude in the first place]. It doesn't follow immediately that if I can only give a rating with +/-10% certainty, that I can only rate it to the nearest 10%. ["it's obvious" not being a clear argument]

There are naturally two degrees of freedom. You're choosing to drop one of those. To do that with justification, you need to show that in this case accuracy (i.e. value precision) is proportional [EDIT - and of similar magnitude] to certainty (i.e. range). The burden of proof is on your side, since you're making the (as yet unjustified) simplifying assumption.


I do concede that it wouldn't necessarily be worth it to give margins of error in rating systems - the extra information might not be worth the cost of confusing some readers. However, your argument against percentages on the basis of uncertainty alone doesn't work. If you can show (or think) that reviewers are both highly uncertain AND highly inaccurate, it works.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Whatever though, as long as it gives the impression that this guy is full of shit and not to be listened to, it's all good.

Hey, wouldn't "gaming journalist" accomplish the same thing?

Why would I even be here trolling? Time spent writing is time I spend normally earning money.

1. Because whenever you lose an issue, you drop the point, avoid talking about it and move onto the next technicality. Just like you did right here.

They keep getting lashed out under things like someone misquoting me and people then discussing that misquote as if I said it;

2. We've already established that VD quoted you precisely. It was his second quote, in the same post, only two sentences down, where he quoted only the last part. Instead of answering the question, you tried to avoid it on a "technicality", despite the fact that it was still something you said.

3. We've established that your "technicality" is meaningless. "The best" is always still "one of the best". You didn't clarify that Oblivion's combat wasn't "the best" until you were called on it. That's when you went into your technicality bullshit, which backfired on you.

people skipping their own point to get into metrics discussions they don't seem qualified for;

4. Because you derailed his argument by focussing on a technicality he didn't even mean to raise.

or pot shots at me for being a journalist (a troll or a retard, or both if I'm since I'm a journalist? Was that the quote?)

Yup, that was the quote.

while calling my honesty into question because I disagree with another journalist -- who people have "no reason to disbelieve," since he's a published journalist on a bigger site than this one.

5. You fail to back up most of your statments. Like here, you've not given us any reason to disbelieve that article.

That's five reasons right there.

In the case of Fallout it did, didn't it? Is there some cult of vulgarity and banality in the games industry that i am not aware of?

Fallout did what?
Do well financially?
Oh, you jokers.

Actually, it did. That's why they made the sequel and the two spin-offs. You have any proof otherwise? No really, I'd like to see just one person who says "Fallout didn't sell" prove it. I'd like to see you back that statement up with even a single fact.

After all, if that was true:

1. Why did Bethesda pay millions of dollars for the rights to a licence that didn't sell?
2. How come every major internet forum at the moment seems to have at least one massive discussion of Fallout 3 happening?
3. Why is it that since Fallout 3 news started circulating, all of the fan sites related to Fallout (NMA / DAC, here, FMF, Bethesda's own) have had a massive increase in visitors?

Seems there are an awful lot of people out there who think Fallout was worth playing.

Man, I don't know how to make this more clear, but there is a real chance that
most of the media disagrees with you guys about Fallout 3. Just like Oblivion.

What I find funny about this is how we called Oblivion on its level scaling and dodgey graphics while all the previews were salivating the impressiveness of it all. Now look at all the Fallout 3 previews. What do they say? "Well, gee, we messed some stuff up with Oblivion like level scaling but that's not in Fallout 3"... and then watch as the mainstream rejoice with comments on some forums I've seen like "No level scaling! Yes, that sucked in Oblivion".

Noble, no doubt. But why not just ignore what Bethesda is doing? Take all this message board time, grab the tactics engine, and build this game for each other. Don't sell it, obviously. Use all that insight only you guys have and make the game. Show Bethesda why they're wrong.
From here, either you
a) Do it, and it is better, and all is well for you and Bethesda;
b) Do it, it's not better, and that's that; or
c) You say "Oh, well, we're not developers!"

You left out d), are already doing it but haven't finished yet: http://www.fanmadefallout.com/

Of course the only problem is, no-one's paying us for it so it takes time to do.

By the way, can someone here make the WEASEL tag graphic?

 

[Section8]

But readers understand that a 7, 70, 3.5, whatever, is about a "C." This really isn't an arbitrary setting for average for an American-based outlet set. It's designed to make sense to the greatest part of the people reading it.

So why exactly do sites like metacritic have to make exceptions for games?

Oops.

Either way, they're going to buy that Spiderman 3, regardless of what Jimmy or the critics say.

I can't help but think something like a 28% might sway them, and that's essentially what's happening if you work on the assumption < 50% isn't worth playing/buying.

Honestly, it's still an editorial based an incredibly early hands-on.

No, you did a good job talking about what you want from the game. What you hope to see. Where is the line from "preview of what I saw with some potential issues" to "here's what *I* wish for from the game!"? Tough to say, but if you packed all that in, it's definitly the latter.
They're interesting points, as I've noted, but you aren't really "previewing" in any meaningful way.

Okay, say someone doesn't take a look at the screenshots. Which is "previewing" in a more meaningful way -

While they look very impressive, the supermutants are stylistically bland. They look as though they could belong in just about any next-gen game

he runs into Super Mutants for the first time

Take your time, it would be embarrassing if you gave the wrong answer and made a fool of yourself.

Um...that's great? But it's not the industry standard. Whether it's right or wrong, most publishers wouldn't show this much, this early, for the reasons I outlined.

Think about what we're getting on our end. Half a dozen screenshots, and a quick summary of the games key features. How is that unusual exactly? Most publishers are forthcoming with that sort of information when they announce the game. Besides which, I'm just not seeing that it's somehow not the industry standard to show off a selected gameplay segment to invited members of the press a year or more out from release. In it's declining years, that was the biggest criticism levelled at E3 - the fact that the public would get looping teaser trailers and such, while all the good stuff was going on behind the scenes.

Well, largely, because what worries you guys doesn't worry a whole lot of other people. Oblivion, case in point -- most people liked it. A lot. A whole lot.
That's one reason.

No, you've missed the point entirely. It may not worry people, but that's no reason for them to remain ignorant and unconcerned. As for Oblivion - think Independence Day, AKA ID4. It's still one of the highest grossing flims of all time. At least the critics didn't downright fucking embarrass themselves by claiming it was anything other than light-hearted and mildly entertaining tripe.

Also, you don't necessarily have "critics" doing previews. 1up seperates their site by news, reviews, and previews, not console pages.

As for your speculative quote...honestly, the source material didn't move enough copies to justify a sequel, let alone 2.

You've got to be fucking kidding me. And even if we assume your statement is true - why pay $7 million dollars for the property?

You're not seeing many concernes raised yet for the various issues I've brought up, as well, largely summated as: it's too early to ask any intelligent questions and get reasonable answers.

Yeah, save that for a year after release, when you finally start admitting the glaring flaws of a game in order to help sell the next one because it improves upon them all!

Honestly, if we ask "Hey, what about feature X," and they say "We're not discussing that yet," what doyou want? Just hit them until they talk?

Is this the same developer who knocked your socks off by daringly showing so much? Quips aside, my issue is more with you guys not asking the questions than the developers refusing to answer them.

At this point in development, they don't even HAVE answers.

They fucking well ought to. Any "industry standard" developer would, (they may withhold them from you) but given Bethesda's design track record, I can totally dig that. But you're still fucking kidding youself if you think you can't ask questions like "why did you redesign the iconic style of the supermutants and power armour?"

I can see you don't like my breakdown of how these games get built or when most publishers show what, but it's a pretty accurate one from industry experience. Don't know what else to tell you.

It's okay, I appreciate hearing from an insider as to the way games get built. It's interesting!

Well, that's rough for you, man.

Yeah. Might explain why I'm critical of the way things currently work.

Okay . I assure with the same certainty that they are done well. Your subjective opinion really doesn't "disprove" mine.

My subjective opinion? Pick any "little thing", from Oblivion and I will factually explain to you its fundamental design flaws, in other words, why it isn't "done well". It may be done well to your standards, but that doesn't mean it's actually done from a technical and design standpoint.

Reviews of games are subjective. That's it. There's no objective scale that exists that's useful. Your graphics example -- ""The graphics are technically impressive, but stylistically similar to contemporary products" -- what are you actually saying here? It sounds like you looked at the back of the box and had to fill a word count, since you're not actually telling me anything I couldn't find out by looking at screens.

Great, now we see eye to eye. Lobby your colleagues to scrap review of graphical content and instead say "look at the screenshots". A better example then - "The voice acting is repetitive, as each race uses a single male actor and single female actor to voice all NPCs of that race."

And what if I disagree with the technical implimentation -- there's no standard to hold to. What if I disagree with your sense of "style?" What contemporary products?
Yeah, I'm hooked on technicalities. Ooph, I write for a living. They're related traits.

If only you obsessed over the technicalities of Oblivion "delivering in full" on all of it's promises. You may disagree with the technical implementation, but you'd be a fool to do so in the face of good sense. It doesn't take a genius to realise that a well-designed, gamepad-driven interface on a SDTV across the room does not automatically become a well-designed, mouse-driven interface for a PC monitor.

As for "style", whether you disagree with my sense of style is irrelevant. The fact that Oblivion's "style" is commonplace when contrasted against something like Fallout is exactly that. A simple fact. Note how I didn't comment on my preference of style, I simply stated, factually, that it is essentially indistinct.

We really don't hire people based on how good they are at disagreeing.

Maybe you out to rethink that policy. Real journalists are encouraged to question everything.

Man, I don't know how to make this more clear, but there is a real chance that
most of the media disagrees with you guys about Fallout 3. Just like Oblivion. Not moneyhats, not "oh noes, they didn't see it!" They might just disagree with you.
And since your reaction to stuff like "no, it could really change, they showed early" is "no, you're wrong! Lots of studios work harder!" it makes it...hard to get a dialogue going, you know?

Yeah, we get that you disagree. I'll even give you some insight as to why. Given that most of the people here disagreeing with your views are also critical of the ethical implications of your job? The people with the opposing views don't want your job, ergo "most of the media disagrees" with us.

Regardless of whether you see yourself this way or not, here's the ideal game journo - someone who wants to play games for a living, and has no principles that will obstruct their continued employment as someone who plays games for a living. So maybe, that guy is a lying asshole willing to spout positive rhetoric about every game his advertisers send him, or maybe that guy is just someone who doesn't care about or analyse games in any depth at all, and enjoys just about everything.

We're always going to disagree with you guys, because we're cut from a different mould.

You guys can prove me wrong all you like; I still have a job playing and writing about video games. I'm not here to win an arguement, I'm here to look into this disparity between what the hardcore want and what the majority of the gaming population wants.

Where are the majority of the gaming population in this? You're contrasting the disparity between the gaming media and us. The "majority of the gaming population" only "want" what you want because they're largely ignorant to anything else. If you weren't all such self-serving cunts, you might actually work toward helping them reach educated opinion.

Ten years ago, I probably would have loved Oblivion, as I did Daggerfall, because my standards were based a much smaller set of experiences. My tastes are now much more refined, and it saddens me that most gamers are kept ignorant to the same opportunity.

How complicit is a community that won't accept any compromise, making their opinions largely meaningless to the developer?
I'll tell you: a lot.

A "compromise" is something where mutual concessions are taken to mediate a quarrel. What concessions are Bethesda making in our favour? I'd happily accept true compromise, but I'm not going to just be someone's fucking bitch and accept concessions exclusively against my own interests.

It's not a lack of insight. It's an understanding that the world isn't perfect, and sometimes you have to make the game that will not bankrupt you and your entire company. That might not be exactly the game you want to make.

I recognised long ago that "exactly the game I want to make" is free from industry "best practices". And you must forgive me if I have no fucking sympathy for these poor darling developers and their finances. My selfish needs as a gamer are far more dear to me than the profit lines of some shady cunt and the development house he bought up.

"And there are the fans who don't accept that compromise. " Sorry, guys. There's a compromise to turning the Fallout license into a game that can be made.

Fallout was made. Fallout 2 was made. Fallout Tactics was made. Fallout Tactics 2 was being made until Interplay pulled the plug due to financial failures in other departments. Fallout BOS was made.

There's no reason why Fallout 3 couldn't be made to the standards of the original series and its spin offs. It's not like the fanbase has evaporated in the last ten years. Just because most develops have the flawed belief that spending millions on "next gen" graphics, voiceovers and "production values" doesn't invalidate our presence as not only a viable market but also a largely untapped one.

You're seeing the compromise and presuming that it was done because no one "gets" what you get. That's not the case; the case is they do, but they have other concerns than appealing to a community that, by all apperances, will make no compromises.

No, we understand perfectly that they're making a game to sell to millions. Our assertions are thus -

[/list][*] Their token efforts to appease us are wayward (that's the "don't get part")
[*] There's no reason why "accessibility" has to insult the intelligence of the end user
[*] You can sell the game to the mass market, and make it for us without needless concessions on either side
[*] The casual gamers aren't the fucking retards Bethesduh believes them to be[/quote]

Noble, no doubt. But why not just ignore what Bethesda is doing? Take all this message board time, grab the tactics engine, and build this game for each other. Don't sell it, obviously. Use all that insight only you guys have and make the game. Show Bethesda why they're wrong.
From here, either you
a) Do it, and it is better, and all is well for you and Bethesda;
b) Do it, it's not better, and that's that; or
c) You say "Oh, well, we're not developers!"
Well, why not? Because it's hard? Because you have other things to do? Because it's functionally impossible to do this thing you'd like -- make the perfect fallout 3 -- and do what you have to do to get by?

You miss the point where some of us are doing just this but don't feel the need to bring the fact into irrelevant discussions.

Well, every dev would love to make the game EVERYONE would love. Especially for a sequel. But they have other demands in making a game, and have to settle for "making a game enough people will love."

How about settling for "not overspending so much that you have to ignore the wishes of people who love the prequels"? Seems reasonable to me.

So what? Greed gets games made. Greed is what gets sequels made. Someone, somewhere, wants money.

And we shouldn't speak out against that because why?

And while your plan sounds great, to be honest, that's about what happens -- but fans who can't compromise are the ones who get left behind. Don't believe me? How come the majority of the press (and our audience) seems excited about Fallout 3?

Because you like Fallout, but don't love it. Oh and your standards are terrible.

Because everyone BUT a few small, close-knit communities is wrong?
Just like they were for Oblivion?

Give it ten years, and those same people will be disillusioned with the current crop of games that are no better (arguably worse) than the classics of ten years past. Just wait.

How? As I understood it, it was another human directing you to choose the good, evil, or neutral choices -- that is, blow up the town, snitch out/ beat up the guy, or ignore him?

Do you seriously think Burke and his plan are a good facsimile of a believable human character and his motives?

Really? The pleasure of proving everyone else wrong, and maintaining yourselves as "right," because you aren't being pandered to.

Glad you've come to your senses and realised that we do, in fact, prove everyone else wrong. If only we were friendly about it, we might be able to pass it off as education.

At the end of the day, the reason you guys seem to not like things is because once you've made up your mind, it won't be changed.
Someone with more relevant knowledge about publishing than me says something about publishing? He's wrong.
Someone with relevant knowledge says "you know, it's just how sequels happen, some people get left behind"? He's wrong.
I mean, it's not that "you wanted to out it from the outset," it's that it seems like you guys won't compromise, at all, ever.
Which is fine. It keeps the forum full of totally correct posts, as long as the assumption is "no compromise, ever," and that gives you guys plenty to talk about.

Fuck off. Just because Bethesda are proving us right doesn't mean we're predisposed to disliking their game for the sake of it.

But you don't you wonder why nothing seems to be up to your standards when it's okay for the vast majority of the same market you're a part of? This isn't "oh, well, smoking is popular! I don't smoke! So what!" This is "I smoke, but I hate (some common brand of cigarettes), because they aren't like they were ten years ago," paired with a sense of outrage that an entire brand of cigarettes isn't being made for you and your smoker friends who hate the new (some common brand of cigarettes)."

Again, fuck off. There are clear comparisons of quality to be made here, and there are plenty of games "up to our standards". It just so happens that Bethesduh's mass-market horseshit doesn't fit the bill, nor do most other mass-market RPGs. That doesn't mean I can't find fulfilment within other genres that are actually progressing in more ways than graphics tech.

By what? I still don't see by what.
Due diligence?
The ethics of reporting?
Not turning a preview into a review?
It seems like our "facts" are forever tainted by not agreeing with you guys.

I hope for your sake you don't actually believe any of this, but I suppose you'd probably have to in order to get to sleep at night and actually get of bed each day to go to a job that anyone with a discerning eye can clearly see is sheer fucking whoredom.

 

[Amasius]

By the way, can someone here make the WEASEL tag graphic?

I'd prefered gaming journalist, but here you go:

or

 

[deadairis]

Why would I even be here trolling? Time spent writing is time I spend normally earning money.

1. Because whenever you lose an issue, you drop the point, avoid talking about it and move onto the next technicality. Just like you did right here.

Wait, so I'd be here trolling because I'm winning or losing issues?
Boy, you really don't get that there's no winning or losing these to me, do you? Whether you guys think I'm right or not...doesn't mean anything to me.
Sorry.
I'm into the job I do. Part of that job is finding ways to reach people.
I know you're super excited about winning this argument or proving that point; that's charming.
Honestly, you're adorable. Yeah, I'm writing on my own time instead of getting paid for it so I can win an internet argument.
Seriously.
Adorable.

 

[Bradylama]

I dunno who taught you these kind of things (if any), but acting condescending isn't the best way to demonstrate that you're not trolling.

 

[Futile Rhetoric]

Difficilis in otio quies...

Let's compare apples and oranges for a moment. Let's compare 2D/3D with b&w/color movies. There are great movies in b&w as there are great games in 2D. Good Night, and Good Luck was in b&w. Loved that one. Would have lost lots to color. Now, that said, how many b&w movies are out there today? And what's the number of tickets sold? Well, even if you say that moviegoers nowadays are young and raised on color, consider this: my grandma would always scan the tv program and state: oh, that's a b&w movie, we've seen enough of those in the last decades. Does that mean that she hated all b&w movies? No. She was just open for something new - the color movie.

Now, that was talking about form, not content. Let's move back to games. Say that Fallout 3 would 2D, isometric, all the good old form factors. Would it automatically resonate with the fans? Of course, because that's the experience they were used to. But what about all those other people, now raised on 3D, gaming's equivalent of color? Would a developer not try to reach those, too? Remember, after all is said and done, gaming is part of capitalism, too. So let's say Interplay were still around today. Don't you think that they would go the 3D route as well? I sure do think that. Would people here give that game a chance? Maybe. Most likely not - UNLESS the same guys who made the first two games made it. Because then they knew that it would have the same spirit, the same humour, all that kind of stuff.

You're not comparing apples with oranges, friend; you are comparing apples with partial-birth aborted babies. The reason that black and white movies are all but gone is simply due to the lifting of technological limitations. Shooting a film in black and white was not a stylistic choice, until the option to shoot in colour became widely available (fun fact: "good night, and good luck" was filmed in colour). Black and white is not the obvious choice for moving pictures (most of us perceive the world in colours, after all), and so you will not see too many films using it -- but when they do, it is always a conscious stylistic choice, which tends to add to the movie (good night, and good luck; the man who wasn't there; Sin City; 13 Tzameti.) To reiterate: it is a conscious choice, not a technological constraint.

Now, let us look at the 2D/3D distinction: it is certainly true that the 3D (polygon) graphics technology was severely limited when Fallout came out; it has since improved to such an extent, that any developer can make the choice between 2D and 3D graphics freely. It is now a matter of stylistic choice, rather than technological limitations. Unfortunately, this is as far as the comparison goes; the fact that 3D technology was poor does not mean that 2D became obsolete when that changed. 3D is by no means the obvious choice for the medium. 3D is not technically superior to 2D; both have their up- and downsides, and both can and do coexist peacefully to this day. If anything, the advent of cel shading, which attempts to (and only partially succeeds in) mimic the 2D style, shows that there's still demand for that form of artistic expression in games. No, the comparison is a poor one. I would suggest that as long as we're talking about movies and television, a better comparison by far would be that of live-action films with animated ones; neither the technologically superior choice, both with their own stylistic implications.

Now, with that out of the way, I must ask: could you please clean that straw man after you're done with it? You won't find many people arguing against 3D technology in general. In fact, I would posit that Fallout could have been entirely 3D, while remaining the exact same game; people (even Codex ones) would not have lost too much sleep over it. The choice of technology is mostly superficial. The gameplay elements however, are not. I would furthermore like to point out that there isn't a single gameplay element in Fallout which was forced on the designers by technological limitations. The top-down view was a conscious choice, and they could've gone the first-person route, polygons or not; so was the turn-based combat. These have nothing to do with the game being in 2D and black and white; are you going to argue that they are obsolete, too?

The picture you are trying to paint here is simply deceptive. You're a trickster, you are. You're trying to make it seem like we're clinging to things which no longer matter. We're not Amish, cupcake. We simply know what we like, and lament the utterly regrettable lack of that lately. The fact that you're an "older" gaming journalist and do not share that feeling at all saddens me, but doesn't surprise me in the least. What it does show is the growing disconnect between my tastes and what's "popular"; this is fine -- I'll keep my Beethoven, Mahler, and Stravinsky, and you can have your Fitty Cent. In the meantime, I'll just have to hope that someone will actually service this niche of ours (there's some hope, Telltale Games are making money off a much-eulogised genre as well, after all), while writing you and your ilk off as tasteless; a sad byproduct of our times, perhaps.

So my ultimate point is: any Fallout sequel, be it in 2D or 3D is automatically deemed a failure in here. Because it is not made by the original guys. Because only the original guys can capture the humour, the style, all that kind of stuff. Oh, wait. There is another group that knows how to exactly do that - the fellowship of rpgcodex. And here's the uplifting part: some actually do something, like VD. Seems to be a medieval game, not a post nuclear wasteland one, but still: Huzzah! Not all is lost!

Could you be any more obnoxious, I wonder? If Bethesda were actually making a Fallout sequel, people would be overjoyed. Nothing they have said, done, or shown so far gives us any indication of anything resembling Fallout (and no, Vault Boy bobbleheads do not count).

One last thought; Vault Dweller's Oblivion review is littered with direct quotes from Bethesda which turned out to be utter and complete lies. None of you called them on that. I can accept that these didn't break the game for you, but it certainly makes it hard to take anything you write seriously.

 

[Amasius]

Wait, so I'd be here trolling because I'm winning or losing issues?
Boy, you really don't get that there's no winning or losing these to me, do you? Whether you guys think I'm right or not...doesn't mean anything to me.
Sorry.
I'm into the job I do. Part of that job is finding ways to reach people.
I know you're super excited about winning this argument or proving that point; that's charming.
Honestly, you're adorable. Yeah, I'm writing on my own time instead of getting paid for it so I can win an internet argument.
Seriously.
Adorable.

So you have typed all this horrible formated posts in this epic 13-pages thread why again? Your arguments mean nothing to you. You don't want to convince anyone about your viewpoints. You aren't even having fun trolling... Baffling.

Now I get it - you are researching for an article about the stubbornness of hardcore RPG/Fallout fans. Should be an interesting read. That would mean that you get payed for this shit... But no - you wouldn't lie to us, would you?

 

[galsiah]

Whether you guys think I'm right or not...doesn't mean anything to me. Sorry... Part of that job is finding ways to reach people.

Which part of that post is aimed at reaching people exactly? To my naive eyes, it seems more like an attempt to win an internet argument.

In any case, you're missing the point. If you simply "lose" through rhetorical ineptitude, that's largely irrelevant. However, often you'll lose because you are, in fact, wrong. If you don't care about that, you're being intellectually lazy. You're missing opportunities to learn, and you're missing opportunities to get better at your job. [and no, that doesn't mean achieving higher ratings/sales/salary/entertainment - it means becoming a better journalist]

Happily enough, I'm not usually wrong. When I am, at the least I think about the issues involved. Where it's helpful (and it usually is), I also concede where I've made errors.

You, however, seem quite prepared to believe that you're right - in the face of the evidence. For instance, you're perfectly happy to come away from a discussion on metrics assuming that you were right - even though you wouldn't know a metric space if it hit you in the face. If you can't even back down and learn something in such clear-cut cases, there's little hope for more subjective (yet important) issues.

 

[deadairis]

So why exactly do sites like metacritic have to make exceptions for games?

Because it's a different scale, used by a newer industry?
So what? It's a different scale. As long as its consistent, so what?

Either way, they're going to buy that Spiderman 3, regardless of what Jimmy or the critics say.

I can't help but think something like a 28% might sway them, and that's essentially what's happening if you work on the assumption < 50% isn't worth playing/buying.

So they're too stupid to read? Tough.

Honestly, it's still an editorial based an incredibly early hands-on...No, you did a good job talking about what you want from the game. What you hope to see. Where is the line from "preview of what I saw with some potential issues" to "here's what *I* wish for from the game!"? Tough to say, but if you packed all that in, it's definitly the latter.
They're interesting points, as I've noted, but you aren't really "previewing" in any meaningful way.

Okay, say someone doesn't take a look at the screenshots. Which is "previewing" in a more meaningful way -

While they look very impressive, the supermutants are stylistically bland. They look as though they could belong in just about any next-gen game

he runs into Super Mutants for the first time

Take your time, it would be embarrassing if you gave the wrong answer and made a fool of yourself.

The second. What's "very impressive"? What's "any next-gen game?" They'd fit in Madden? They'd fit in Viva Pinata? They'd fit in Prey?
The first one is clearly, factually, incorrect -- the super mutants couldn't fit in in any next-gen game. What makes sense in Madden doesn't make sense in Prey. Both are next-gen games. QED.

Um...that's great? But it's not the industry standard. Whether it's right or wrong, most publishers wouldn't show this much, this early, for the reasons I outlined.

Think about what we're getting on our end. Half a dozen screenshots, and a quick summary of the games key features. How is that unusual exactly? Most publishers are forthcoming with that sort of information when they announce the game. Besides which, I'm just not seeing that it's somehow not the industry standard to show off a selected gameplay segment to invited members of the press a year or more out from release. In it's declining years, that was the biggest criticism levelled at E3 - the fact that the public would get looping teaser trailers and such, while all the good stuff was going on behind the scenes.

All right, you're right. I'm wrong. Let me know about the full level of Mass Effect they showed last summer.
Or the full levels of MGS4 they're showing last spring.
Because I totally missed them.
A press release and screens doesn't equal getting press in and letting us actually see where the game stands.
And a showing at E3 definitely doesn't equal getting undivided time with a game.
But, hey, you're right. I'm wrong. Your experience in whatever it is you do clearly gives you a better perspective than my experience seeing games and writing about them.

Well, largely, because what worries you guys doesn't worry a whole lot of other people. Oblivion, case in point -- most people liked it. A lot. A whole lot.
That's one reason.

No, you've missed the point entirely. It may not worry people, but that's no reason for them to remain ignorant and unconcerned. As for Oblivion - think Independence Day, AKA ID4. It's still one of the highest grossing flims of all time. At least the critics didn't downright fucking embarrass themselves by claiming it was anything other than light-hearted and mildly entertaining tripe.

But the critics aren't embarrassed about plugging Oblivion. I know you guys don't like to hear it, but there's no embarrassment there.

Also, you don't necessarily have "critics" doing previews. 1up seperates their site by news, reviews, and previews, not console pages.

As for your speculative quote...honestly, the source material didn't move enough copies to justify a sequel, let alone 2.

You've got to be fucking kidding me. And even if we assume your statement is true - why pay $7 million dollars for the property?

Go get your NPD sales figures, or find someone willing to risk their license to show you.
Fallout sold shite; Fallout 2 was made because great reviews still moved games then. Why would I be kidding you? Why would I spend time I could spend making money tricking forum readers I have no obligation to convince of anything?
And Bethesda bought the property in the hopes of making a game that made them money, why else?

You're not seeing many concernes raised yet for the various issues I've brought up, as well, largely summated as: it's too early to ask any intelligent questions and get reasonable answers.

Yeah, save that for a year after release, when you finally start admitting the glaring flaws of a game in order to help sell the next one because it improves upon them all!

Yup, you're right. I'm wrong. Got me again.
I mean, you realize that I don't agree with your assessment of Oblivion?

Honestly, if we ask "Hey, what about feature X," and they say "We're not discussing that yet," what doyou want? Just hit them until they talk?

Is this the same developer who knocked your socks off by daringly showing so much? Quips aside, my issue is more with you guys not asking the questions than the developers refusing to answer them.

Are you...like, I don't know what to say.
So, you're mad about us not asking questions.
I just pointed out that we do -- I've said this over and over. But if we have no answer to the questions, we're not going to publish the questions. That's not informative, that's editorial.
How do you know what questions we ask? Ah, right. By the power of assumption, and the power of not actually reading what we've been going back and forth about. Or at least, reading it trying to "win," as opposed to reading it trying to find something out from someone outside your usual circle.

At this point in development, they don't even HAVE answers.

They fucking well ought to. Any "industry standard" developer would, (they may withhold them from you) but given Bethesda's design track record, I can totally dig that. But you're still fucking kidding youself if you think you can't ask questions like "why did you redesign the iconic style of the supermutants and power armour?"

Man, you know so much more about the flow of information and development than me. I mean, here I am, with clearly contrary experience from both sides of the fence -- but man, I'm just wrong.
I mean, what can I say. If you tell me any industry standard dev would, I mean...what do I know to the contrary? You're totally right, man. Let me know who your sources are someday, they're amazing.

I can see you don't like my breakdown of how these games get built or when most publishers show what, but it's a pretty accurate one from industry experience. Don't know what else to tell you.

It's okay, I appreciate hearing from an insider as to the way games get built. It's interesting!

See, now I feel a little bad for the sea of sarcasm, but for all that it's "interesting," you don't give what I tell you an ounce of belief, so is it really interesting?

Well, that's rough for you, man.

Yeah. Might explain why I'm critical of the way things currently work.

ahahaha, fair.

Okay . I assure with the same certainty that they are done well. Your subjective opinion really doesn't "disprove" mine.

My subjective opinion? Pick any "little thing", from Oblivion and I will factually explain to you its fundamental design flaws, in other words, why it isn't "done well". It may be done well to your standards, but that doesn't mean it's actually done from a technical and design standpoint.

Go ahead and google my review. Why don't we start a "Patrick Joynt loves Oblivion!" thread and bash it out there?

Reviews of games are subjective. That's it. There's no objective scale that exists that's useful. Your graphics example -- ""The graphics are technically impressive, but stylistically similar to contemporary products" -- what are you actually saying here? It sounds like you looked at the back of the box and had to fill a word count, since you're not actually telling me anything I couldn't find out by looking at screens.

Great, now we see eye to eye. Lobby your colleagues to scrap review of graphical content and instead say "look at the screenshots". A better example then - "The voice acting is repetitive, as each race uses a single male actor and single female actor to voice all NPCs of that race."

We're not actually looking eye-to-eye -- screenshots simply aren't a valid representation of how a game looks. Neither, for that matter, or video clips.
Honestly, the issue with your graphics discussion is that it brings no insight. The voice acting is a good start, but is that honestly repetitive? How come? How about "The voice acting is repetitive, as each race uses a single male actor and single female actor to voice all NPCs of that race, and it shows. They don't sound like a variety of characters, but the one same person, dialing in lines that might as well have been recorded by the devs."

The same person doing the voice recording doesn't make it bad. Bad voice acting makes it bad. Make that clear.

And what if I disagree with the technical implimentation -- there's no standard to hold to. What if I disagree with your sense of "style?" What contemporary products?
Yeah, I'm hooked on technicalities. Ooph, I write for a living. They're related traits.

If only you obsessed over the technicalities of Oblivion "delivering in full" on all of it's promises. You may disagree with the technical implementation, but you'd be a fool to do so in the face of good sense. It doesn't take a genius to realise that a well-designed, gamepad-driven interface on a SDTV across the room does not automatically become a well-designed, mouse-driven interface for a PC monitor.

As for "style", whether you disagree with my sense of style is irrelevant. The fact that Oblivion's "style" is commonplace when contrasted against something like Fallout is exactly that. A simple fact. Note how I didn't comment on my preference of style, I simply stated, factually, that it is essentially indistinct.

What you said was "filler." You didn't contrast it with anything. You didn't explain to a reader who doesn't know what you mean, what you mean -- you made them guess. Your preference of style determines what you consider "contemporary". And it sounds like you're describing design style, not art style. But I can't tell, because what you wrote wasn't very good critisicm.

And "common" sense, despite your disagreement, is that Oblivion was great. You can tell . It's the common consensus.

We really don't hire people based on how good they are at disagreeing.

Maybe you out to rethink that policy. Real journalists are encouraged to question everything.

Really? I'll, uh, I'll let them know. Strike out writing, investigatory skills, ability to coordinate. We'll hire people for being good at disagreeing.
Because, you know. That's a rare talent, tough to find. God, if only we could get some fat people who like comics, too, that'd be...wow. Well, we can't expect to find a fat, disagreeable person who likes comics, can we?
Sorry to steal the Simpsons gag, but the fact is disagreeing isn't a skill. Questioning everything isn't a skill.
Getting, analysing, and condensing data are skills.

Man, I don't know how to make this more clear, but there is a real chance that
most of the media disagrees with you guys about Fallout 3. Just like Oblivion. Not moneyhats, not "oh noes, they didn't see it!" They might just disagree with you.
And since your reaction to stuff like "no, it could really change, they showed early" is "no, you're wrong! Lots of studios work harder!" it makes it...hard to get a dialogue going, you know?

Yeah, we get that you disagree. I'll even give you some insight as to why. Given that most of the people here disagreeing with your views are also critical of the ethical implications of your job? The people with the opposing views don't want your job, ergo "most of the media disagrees" with us.

But you guys made those ethical issues up! They're fiction! They're things you're outraged about that aren't real!

Regardless of whether you see yourself this way or not, here's the ideal game journo - someone who wants to play games for a living, and has no principles that will obstruct their continued employment as someone who plays games for a living. So maybe, that guy is a lying asshole willing to spout positive rhetoric about every game his advertisers send him, or maybe that guy is just someone who doesn't care about or analyse games in any depth at all, and enjoys just about everything.

We're always going to disagree with you guys, because we're cut from a different mould.

Wha...what? Ideal to who?
What?

You guys can prove me wrong all you like; I still have a job playing and writing about video games. I'm not here to win an argument, I'm here to look into this disparity between what the hardcore want and what the majority of the gaming population wants.

Where are the majority of the gaming population in this? You're contrasting the disparity between the gaming media and us. The "majority of the gaming population" only "want" what you want because they're largely ignorant to anything else. If you weren't all such self-serving cunts, you might actually work toward helping them reach educated opinion.

Coulda woulda shoulda, the vast majority of the gaming audience still sees, mostly, eye to eye with the journalistic community. I'm actually not contrasting the gaming media and you; I think it's awesome that you are. Good fun.
I think it's sad that you think you know what I'm here for better than I do. Honestly, are you that...I don't know, self-centered? You really think I have no idea why I'm here, and only you do? You don't think that sounds a little weird?

How complicit is a community that won't accept any compromise, making their opinions largely meaningless to the developer?
I'll tell you: a lot.

A "compromise" is something where mutual concessions are taken to mediate a quarrel. What concessions are Bethesda making in our favour? I'd happily accept true compromise, but I'm not going to just be someone's fucking bitch and accept concessions exclusively against my own interests.

All right. No, you're right. You guys are totally being reasonable, and it shows to outside observers.

It's not a lack of insight. It's an understanding that the world isn't perfect, and sometimes you have to make the game that will not bankrupt you and your entire company. That might not be exactly the game you want to make.

I recognised long ago that "exactly the game I want to make" is free from industry "best practices". And you must forgive me if I have no fucking sympathy for these poor darling developers and their finances. My selfish needs as a gamer are far more dear to me than the profit lines of some shady cunt and the development house he bought up.

Well, enjoy the games that never get made. You claim you're willing to compromise -- and then you prove you're not.
Listen to the podcast. There's only 8 up so far, it's a short investment. I'm the last person to forgive companies for having issues and the first to rail on them about it. But you expect games to get done regardless of profits?
Sure, enjoy more quality titles from Clover and Black Isle, man. Because your games are being made in imaginary land, apparantly. Where were you willing to compromise again -- was it the part where the game has to meet your standards, or the part where you didn't care that costs have to be limited and money made, since games aren't actually being made just to make you a happy little tyke?

[quote"deadairis"]"And there are the fans who don't accept that compromise. " Sorry, guys. There's a compromise to turning the Fallout license into a game that can be made.[/quote]

Fallout was made. Fallout 2 was made. Fallout Tactics was made. Fallout Tactics 2 was being made until Interplay pulled the plug due to financial failures in other departments. Fallout BOS was made.

There's no reason why Fallout 3 couldn't be made to the standards of the original series and its spin offs. It's not like the fanbase has evaporated in the last ten years. Just because most develops have the flawed belief that spending millions on "next gen" graphics, voiceovers and "production values" doesn't invalidate our presence as not only a viable market but also a largely untapped one.

Fallout didn't do well fiscally. None of them did. And as for this market being "untapped," it's not "untapped." There's a whole array of people making games for it -- they're called "casual games." It's a tapped, viable market.
But honestly, grab some old NPD figures if you can. None of the Fallouts did well. If there was easy money to be made with the license Interplay wouldn't have failed to do so.

You're seeing the compromise and presuming that it was done because no one "gets" what you get. That's not the case; the case is they do, but they have other concerns than appealing to a community that, by all apperances, will make no compromises.

No, we understand perfectly that they're making a game to sell to millions. Our assertions are thus -

[/list][*] Their token efforts to appease us are wayward (that's the "don't get part")
[*] There's no reason why "accessibility" has to insult the intelligence of the end user
[*] You can sell the game to the mass market, and make it for us without needless concessions on either side
[*] The casual gamers aren't the fucking retards Bethesduh believes them to be

[/quote]

Man, you can say that, but I'll tell you what: That's not what it seems like from what you guys actually say. From what you guys actually say, it seems like if the olive branch offered isn't an isometric Fallout in turn-based combat, you're going to rail against it.
Guess what? That's compromise one and two.
Not willing to make them?
Wow, guess who's not going to figure into the sales plans anymore, since catering to that market brings companies to their grave?


[quote"deadairis"]Noble, no doubt. But why not just ignore what Bethesda is doing? Take all this message board time, grab the tactics engine, and build this game for each other. Don't sell it, obviously. Use all that insight only you guys have and make the game. Show Bethesda why they're wrong.
From here, either you
a) Do it, and it is better, and all is well for you and Bethesda;
b) Do it, it's not better, and that's that; or
c) You say "Oh, well, we're not developers!"
Well, why not? Because it's hard? Because you have other things to do? Because it's functionally impossible to do this thing you'd like -- make the perfect fallout 3 -- and do what you have to do to get by?[/quote]

You miss the point where some of us are doing just this but don't feel the need to bring the fact into irrelevant discussions.

Then stop whining about Bethesda and help. It's relevant, because as far as you've said, there is no way for a major developer to please you guys enough to matter.

Well, every dev would love to make the game EVERYONE would love. Especially for a sequel. But they have other demands in making a game, and have to settle for "making a game enough people will love."

How about settling for "not overspending so much that you have to ignore the wishes of people who love the prequels"? Seems reasonable to me.

And yet, somehow, the industry seems to act in a way you find unreasonable. Which is more likely: the whole industry knows something you don't, or you're the one person in the world/one forum in the world/one community in the industry to see how easy it is to fix?

So what? Greed gets games made. Greed is what gets sequels made. Someone, somewhere, wants money.

And we shouldn't speak out against that because why?

Uh...because it doesn't matter?
Because greed is the fundamental driving force in the entire world economy?
Why should you speak out against it? What is it you're speaking out against, the people who make games making money? Are you from imaginary land? I mean, honestly, what's the issue with wanting to make money?

And while your plan sounds great, to be honest, that's about what happens -- but fans who can't compromise are the ones who get left behind. Don't believe me? How come the majority of the press (and our audience) seems excited about Fallout 3?

Because you like Fallout, but don't love it. Oh and your standards are terrible.

Well, at least I have company in terrible standards land.

Because everyone BUT a few small, close-knit communities is wrong?
Just like they were for Oblivion?

Give it ten years, and those same people will be disillusioned with the current crop of games that are no better (arguably worse) than the classics of ten years past. Just wait.

Baited breath! Waiting!
For what it's worth, do I think Oblivion is "timeless?" No.
But neither is Pong. Is Pong crap because it's a subpar game NOW?
Go on. I dare you to say that Pong sucked when it released because ten years later it was clearly not all that great.

How? As I understood it, it was another human directing you to choose the good, evil, or neutral choices -- that is, blow up the town, snitch out/ beat up the guy, or ignore him?

Do you seriously think Burke and his plan are a good facsimile of a believable human character and his motives?

Don't know anything about his motives yet, do we? Doesn't blowing up the city (Is that burke's plan? It is, right?) open up a whole new city of quests?
Also, how does that eliminate the choice of a neutral quest? If you ignore him, that's still a neutral choice, right?

At the end of the day, the reason you guys seem to not like things is because once you've made up your mind, it won't be changed.
Someone with more relevant knowledge about publishing than me says something about publishing? He's wrong.
Someone with relevant knowledge says "you know, it's just how sequels happen, some people get left behind"? He's wrong.
I mean, it's not that "you wanted to out it from the outset," it's that it seems like you guys won't compromise, at all, ever.
Which is fine. It keeps the forum full of totally correct posts, as long as the assumption is "no compromise, ever," and that gives you guys plenty to talk about.

Fuck off. Just because Bethesda are proving us right doesn't mean we're predisposed to disliking their game for the sake of it.

Ah, I see now! That totally explains how you guys will listen, even if someone disagrees with you.

But you don't you wonder why nothing seems to be up to your standards when it's okay for the vast majority of the same market you're a part of? This isn't "oh, well, smoking is popular! I don't smoke! So what!" This is "I smoke, but I hate (some common brand of cigarettes), because they aren't like they were ten years ago," paired with a sense of outrage that an entire brand of cigarettes isn't being made for you and your smoker friends who hate the new (some common brand of cigarettes)."

Again, fuck off. There are clear comparisons of quality to be made here, and there are plenty of games "up to our standards". It just so happens that Bethesduh's mass-market horseshit doesn't fit the bill, nor do most other mass-market RPGs. That doesn't mean I can't find fulfilment within other genres that are actually progressing in more ways than graphics tech.

Sounds awesome, being right all the time.

By what? I still don't see by what.
Due diligence?
The ethics of reporting?
Not turning a preview into a review?
It seems like our "facts" are forever tainted by not agreeing with you guys.

I hope for your sake you don't actually believe any of this, but I suppose you'd probably have to in order to get to sleep at night and actually get of bed each day to go to a job that anyone with a discerning eye can clearly see is sheer fucking whoredom.

I am so excited for all of my bribes and swanky trips from imaginary land to arrive. Seriously. I'll let my coworkers know that we're all getting bribes at some point.
AWESOME!
I really can't wait.
Again: doesn't it worry you that your communities "discerning eye" is the vast majorities "guy in the subway muttering to himself paranoid talk?"
If not...doesn't it worry you that it doesn't?

 

[OccupatedVoid]

Come on give him the Weasel tag. We got TEH GRAFIX for it.

 

[sabishii]

Fallout sold shite; Fallout 2 was made because great reviews still moved games then.

Hm, so the great reviews of Fallout moved the game but on the other hand the game still sold like shit. Which is it?

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

Fallout didn't do well fiscally.

Bullshit. My sources say it sold around a half a million. Feel free to bust out your own sources though. Although I'm damn sure you will just ask me to show mine first because you have none to back up your absurd claims.

None of them did.

Bullshit again. Fallout 2 sold almost the same amount as Fallout. And Tactics sold enough to warrant a sequel that got canned along with Van Buren in favor of PoS.

And as for this market being "untapped," it's not "untapped." There's a whole array of people making games for it -- they're called "casual games." It's a tapped, viable market.

Nice job missing the point. The hardcore RPG market is untapped.

But honestly, grab some old NPD figures if you can. None of the Fallouts did well.

Bullshit. They made Interplay quite a profit. Sure, they weren't a mega-blockbuster like Diablo, Baldur's Gate, or Starcraft, but they sold nicely.

If there was easy money to be made with the license Interplay wouldn't have failed to do so.

Huh....I remember Fallout as being Interplay's bread and butter. I also remember a certain Frenchman named Herve coming in and making terrible decisions for the company like canning Torn in favor of Lionheart and Van Buren in favor of PoS.

 

[deadairis]

Wait, so I'd be here trolling because I'm winning or losing issues?
Boy, you really don't get that there's no winning or losing these to me, do you? Whether you guys think I'm right or not...doesn't mean anything to me.
Sorry.
I'm into the job I do. Part of that job is finding ways to reach people.
I know you're super excited about winning this argument or proving that point; that's charming.
Honestly, you're adorable. Yeah, I'm writing on my own time instead of getting paid for it so I can win an internet argument.
Seriously.
Adorable.

So you have typed all this horrible formated posts in this epic 13-pages thread why again? Your arguments mean nothing to you. You don't want to convince anyone about your viewpoints. You aren't even having fun trolling... Baffling.

Now I get it - you are researching for an article about the stubbornness of hardcore RPG/Fallout fans. Should be an interesting read. That would mean that you get payed for this shit... But no - you wouldn't lie to us, would you?

Because I'm not interested in winning or losing the arguments. If I'm right, I'm interested in seeing my ideas tested and surviving.
If I'm wrong, I'm interested in seeing why.
Your assumption that not wanting to win or lose means my arguments don't mean anything to me is really indicative of why it's so tough to get past that need to "win" the thread, don't you think?

And no, I wouldn't lie to you. I don't lie to anyone.

 

[deadairis]

Fallout sold shite; Fallout 2 was made because great reviews still moved games then.

Hm, so the great reviews of Fallout moved the game but on the other hand the game still sold like shit. Which is it?

Sorry, that is totally unclear.
Great reviews still moved to create sequels -- as opposed to, say, flush a studio (Clover) regardless of sales.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Why would I even be here trolling? Time spent writing is time I spend normally earning money.

1. Because whenever you lose an issue, you drop the point, avoid talking about it and move onto the next technicality. Just like you did right here.

Wait, so I'd be here trolling because I'm winning or losing issues?

• "You are so far beyond being able to understand anything anyone here says that this is just converging on uselessness. The really sad part is that you really believe that you're winning. You are a shocking waste of natural resources — kindly re-integrate yourself into the food-chain. Just go die in your sleep you mindless flatulent troll."

You don't seem to understand either what anyone here is saying or what you're actually talking about yourself. We raise an article another journalist wrote about "be positive" and dodgy agreements and your response isn't "well, that's not what happens to me" or "I've never heard of that in my 5 years experience sweeping floors at GameSpy", oh no. Your response is an immediate attack without any facts. "Who is this guy?". He's a journalist. See how you didn't actually need to ask that question? Actually, most of the questions you ask don't need to be asked, yet you ask them. Now I know you're trying to make a point by asking them but it's not working. It wasn't worked for the last 10 pages so far. All it does is make it look really, really stupid and like you're avoiding the issue because while you ask all these questions and we answer them, you never seem to answer very many yourself.

Now, by dropping a point, I don't mean you acknowledge it and admit defeat. I mean, you ignore it completely. Someone points out why what you're saying doesn't make any sense (say for example, me with "the best" is "one of the best" winning move which was quite stellar, even if I do say so myself, don't you think?), you then never address it again but you don't admit you're wrong because later on, you reference it as if we're the ones who didn't make our points clear enough. Thing is, everyone else here seems to "get it". You don't. Now either you're a clueless moron, mentally retarded or are only here to stir the pot. Well, have fun with that. We're doing this for fun and mostly from home or work. You're apparently spending time you should be spending earning money. So I guess you lose either way.

Boy, you really don't get that there's no winning or losing these to me, do you? Whether you guys think I'm right or not...doesn't mean anything to me.
Sorry.

Yes, yes, so you keep telling us. You're "posting from your mobile" and "should be writing". Here's a thought, maybe you'd be a better journalist if you spent more time writing your reviews, instead of uselessly arguing on the internet?

I'm into the job I do. Part of that job is finding ways to reach people.
I know you're super excited about winning this argument or proving that point; that's charming.

Hey, I'm not the one posting from my mobile phone here. I mean, is it so hard to wait until you get home / find a computer? Maybe GameSpy don't pay you enough to have a home? Maybe you're being egged on by the rest of the GameSpy staff? Who knows what you're doing here. It certainly isn't discussing the things you say you're here to discuss. As I said, all you keep on doing is asking useless questions, which we answer quite adequately for you only to have you ask more useless questions. Really, learn to google already or buy an encyclopedia.

Honestly, you're adorable. Yeah, I'm writing on my own time instead of getting paid for it so I can win an internet argument.
Seriously.
Adorable.

Why are you here then? Oh that's right, you find this enjoyable. Yet you're not actually talking about what you're supposedly finding enjoyable. You're posting crap for the most part and yes, it would seem there's no other purpose than an attempt to win an internet argument, from a mobile phone even. Nothing better to do? Oh wait, you should be writing, that's it. So you have something better to do and yet you're still here posting useless crap.

Now, do you have any more questions for us or do you have something better to do because to be honest, I'm getting a bit tired of doing all your work for you. I know that's how you do your job, by asking useless questions to game developers but really, you need to learn to do a bit of investigative journalism. Maybe you could take a course and learn some new skills? You know, get better at what it is you're supposed to be doing instead of seemingly wasting your time here?

 

[deadairis]

NPD figures. Internal sales figures.
Anecdotal evidence from team members.
Interplay's fiscals.
Where are your sources? I'm really excited to see how they're better. You can claim the Fallout games made "quite a profit," and the idealism there is charming, but they didn't make nearly enough.
As for the hardcore RPG market being untapped, it's either
a) not untapped, it's just not making the games you like; or
b) it's untapped, and it's not worth exploiting, because god knows the publishers have tried.
Untapped? Honestly? You're talking about making a game "technologically" true to the original fallouts.
That's a casual game, regardless of genre.
The casual space is tapped.

Fallout didn't do well fiscally.

Bullshit. My sources say it sold around a half a million. Feel free to bust out your own sources though. Although I'm damn sure you will just ask me to show mine first because you have none to back up your absurd claims.

None of them did.

Bullshit again. Fallout 2 sold almost the same amount as Fallout. And Tactics sold enough to warrant a sequel that got canned along with Van Buren in favor of PoS.

And as for this market being "untapped," it's not "untapped." There's a whole array of people making games for it -- they're called "casual games." It's a tapped, viable market.

Nice job missing the point. The hardcore RPG market is untapped.

But honestly, grab some old NPD figures if you can. None of the Fallouts did well.

Bullshit. They made Interplay quite a profit. Sure, they weren't a mega-blockbuster like Diablo, Baldur's Gate, or Starcraft, but they sold nicely.

If there was easy money to be made with the license Interplay wouldn't have failed to do so.

Huh....I remember Fallout as being Interplay's bread and butter. I also remember a certain Frenchman named Herve coming in and making terrible decisions for the company like canning Torn in favor of Lionheart and Van Buren in favor of PoS.

 

[deadairis]

<snip>

Seriously.
Adorable.
Here, real fast: Explain to me how being one of the best, as opposed to *the* best, when only one member of the set -- the *best* person in it -- gets to live is the same?
Note the word "opposed."
Honestly, I can't wait to hear.
And then explain how paraphrasing something and including it as a quote is something you can defend as "quoting"? Yes, VD quoted me -- he also misquoted me.
As for the "be positive" poster, I responded -- the guy's lying or he works with a totally different version of the gaming industry than anyone else. There's no way to prove or disprove that. He claimed that he is forced to lie to write his previews; good for him. Did he prove it? Oh, wow, no he can't say who made him sign that.
How can I disprove that he's a liar?
I don't know, have previews (oh, like my Kane and Lynch. Or my (any except Bioshock)) that aren't entirely positive.
Oh, wow, he lied, didn't he?

But, no, seriously, you found me out. I'm a troll. After all, I'm the one making personal attacks:
"Maybe GameSpy don't pay you enough to have a home?"
"...my 5 years experience sweeping floors at GameSpy"
"You are a shocking waste of natural resources "
So, I'm the one responding without facts again...how?

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

NPD figures. Internal sales figures.
Anecdotal evidence from team members.
Interplay's fiscals.

Would you so care to provide these? Google isn't bringing it up.

You can claim the Fallout games made "quite a profit," and the idealism there is
charming, but they didn't make nearly enough.

Oh...so sustaining a company for a few years and keeping them afloat among quite a few flops isn't "nearly enough"? I mean...Interplay wasn't exactlu cranking out many great titles besides Fallout ones.

As for the hardcore RPG market being untapped, it's either
a) not untapped, it's just not making the games you like; or

Jeff Vogel is doing pretty decent making "the games we like".

b) it's untapped, and it's not worth exploiting, because god knows the publishers have tried.

And good CRPGs sell. They make a tidy profit. Shadows of Amn, Fallout, and even Arcanum. Problem is....because the gaming media lumps them in the RPG catagory along with Diablo and Final Fantasy, publishers never give them a chance. See why we aren't too friendly to the gaming media?

Untapped? Honestly? You're talking about making a game "technologically" true to the original fallouts.

Where did you get the asinine idea of it being on the same level of technology as Fallout? We want it on the same level (or higher) in gameplay. But I expected nothing other than a "technology is supreme" statement from a gaming journalist.

That's a casual game, regardless of genre.
The casual space is tapped.

What part of "hardcore RPG" do you not understand? It's the gameplay that makes something "hardcore" or "casual"....not the technology.

 

[deadairis]

NPD numbers are something the company I work for pays money for, so no; the internal sales figures are confidential, so no; and the anecdotes were mostly over beer.
Interplay's fiscals you could bug a shareholder for; if you really want I could get them from someone, but I don't know if he's held onto them for the last few years. He's not a secret source or anything, just a friend who has a stake in Interplay.

"Oh...so sustaining a company for a few years and keeping them afloat among quite a few flops isn't "nearly enough"? I mean...Interplay wasn't exactlu cranking out many great titles besides Fallout ones."

Got it in one.
Because the company tanked.
Sound shitty? It is.

"Where did you get the asinine idea of it being on the same level of technology as Fallout? We want it on the same level (or higher) in gameplay. But I expected nothing other than a "technology is supreme" statement from a gaming journalist."

Uh...Where did you read that statement? I'm curious.
That noted, the impression I've gotten from the forums is that an isometric Fallout in turn-based combat is the only 'acceptable' Fallout to the hardcore community. If that's not the case, you guys have done a poor job representing that to an outside observer.

"And good CRPGs sell. They make a tidy profit."

A tidy profit isn't enough to sustain a major publisher anymore, for better or worse. Midway had their best quarter since 1999 (when their slump began) winter of 06, based on two things: happy feet and mortal kombat, both of which moved over a million units cross-platform (Happy feet over a million five). "tidy" isn't good enough.
As for that source, that was the Midway Gamer's Day in January.

"What part of "hardcore RPG" do you not understand? It's the gameplay that makes something "hardcore" or "casual"....not the technology."
It's not that I don't understand, it's that I don't see the benefit. The casual market is tapped, neatly -- the companies in it can't keep up.
The "hardcore" market, as it is, are the people who buy the blockbusters and influence their friends to do so -- and they're pretty well tapped. Most of the blockbusters bust blocks.
The no-quotes hardcore market -- this group here -- doesn't seem to present many advantages to a publisher. It's fine that you want to group "hardcore RPG" into a market segment, but that's not quite how it goes.

NPD figures. Internal sales figures.
Anecdotal evidence from team members.
Interplay's fiscals.

Would you so care to provide these? Google isn't bringing it up.

You can claim the Fallout games made "quite a profit," and the idealism there is
charming, but they didn't make nearly enough.

Oh...so sustaining a company for a few years and keeping them afloat among quite a few flops isn't "nearly enough"? I mean...Interplay wasn't exactlu cranking out many great titles besides Fallout ones.

As for the hardcore RPG market being untapped, it's either
a) not untapped, it's just not making the games you like; or

Jeff Vogel is doing pretty decent making "the games we like".

b) it's untapped, and it's not worth exploiting, because god knows the publishers have tried.

And good CRPGs sell. They make a tidy profit. Shadows of Amn, Fallout, and even Arcanum. Problem is....because the gaming media lumps them in the RPG catagory along with Diablo and Final Fantasy, publishers never give them a chance. See why we aren't too friendly to the gaming media?

Untapped? Honestly? You're talking about making a game "technologically" true to the original fallouts.

Where did you get the asinine idea of it being on the same level of technology as Fallout? We want it on the same level (or higher) in gameplay. But I expected nothing other than a "technology is supreme" statement from a gaming journalist.

That's a casual game, regardless of genre.
The casual space is tapped.

What part of "hardcore RPG" do you not understand? It's the gameplay that makes something "hardcore" or "casual"....not the technology.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

NPD numbers are something the company I work for pays money for, so no; the internal sales figures are confidential, so no; and the anecdotes were mostly over beer.
Interplay's fiscals you could bug a shareholder for; if you really want I could get them from someone, but I don't know if he's held onto them for the last few years. He's not a secret source or anything, just a friend who has a stake in Interplay.

Ah...so your sources are completely secret from mine eyes and the rest of the "unprivileged plebians" here. You industry types know so much better than we do. Yep....

Got it in one.
Because the company tanked.
Sound shitty? It is.

It tanked when it ditched it roots and stopped making Fallout RPGs. Coincidence? I think not.

Uh...Where did you read that statement? I'm curious.

I implied it from the part of your post I quoted.

That noted, the impression I've gotten from the forums is that an isometric Fallout in turn-based combat is the only 'acceptable' Fallout to the hardcore community. If that's not the case, you guys have done a poor job representing that to an outside observer.

Ah....that's not true. You're operating on the same shittacular stereotypes as your friend Allen. We want a game that continues to use the interesting artistic and writing style of the series and furthers the role-playing as well. The turn-based combat is part of the role-playing and in no way has any relation to technology. Isometric...we could live without although a nice third person view a la Neverwinter Nights would be nice.

A tidy profit isn't enough to sustain a major publisher anymore, for better or worse.

Ah....but isn't it? As long as a firm makes profit, would it not be sustained? I mean profit is considering that all costs are paid for and accounted.

And plus, that's only because publishers spend resources foolishly and devote massive budgets to every game nowadays. They aren't operating on a healthy business model, that's their fault.

The "hardcore" market, as it is, are the people who buy the blockbusters and influence their friends to do so -- and they're pretty well tapped. Most of the blockbusters bust blocks.

I think you need an analogy here. Let's equate "hardcore RPG fan" with "film buff" and "casual gamer" with "casual movie watcher".

The film industry makes plenty of movies for "casuals". They make them to appeal to the mainstream, spend a lot, make a lot. Film buffs might not like these mainstream movies. They might go watch a smaller-scale movie and appreciate it for it's intricacies as opposed to big-budget actors and special effects. Smaller firms in the film industry fill in the niche these film buffs create with smaller-scale movies that are deeper and maybe not appealing to the casuals. The don't make as much as the blockbusters but they spend far, far less.

The no-quotes hardcore market -- this group here -- doesn't seem to present many advantages to a publisher.

Yes it does. Are you daft? They are willing to accept lesser graphics and visuals, which are usually the number one cost in games nowadays. They read more stuff on the internet that's off the beaten path, removing the need for a huge marketing budget. Firms want to reduce cost, and appealing to the hardcore RPG fans is a great way to do that. Thay won't get blockbuster returns, but they don't need to since they didn't have blockbuster costs.

It's fine that you want to group "hardcore RPG" into a market segment, but that's not quite how it goes.

Actually....yes...it kind of is.