Game News More Fallout 3 drama

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Very few people like to be told how and why they're wrong, no matter how you put it, especially those who are accustomed to fans praising them.

That may be true, but they like it even less if such is related to them with insults.

Anyway, to respond to your point, yes, you are right, people don't appreciate that, but do you think we, the fans, appreciate being lied to? I do believe that Pete could have been more honest with usl. He chose not to, hence my reaction. That doesn't affect my attitude toward Kathode and MrSmileyFace. I will respect them unless they give me reasons not to. It's a very simple philosophy.

As Exitium before me did, I also understand your point of view and where you're coming from. You don't like being lied to. I don't like being lied to, either. I doubt anyone likes that, in fact, and having being lied to repeatedly in the past, I can understand your frustration and perhaps a certain need to lash out and make it clear you don't tolerate it. I just feel there's different and possibly more constructive ways of doing that.

I agree, and when I made my comment I felt that both the time and the place were appropriate.

Thats pretty much where we disagree, then. I think you were entitled to say you weren't buying into any of that, but fell you were out of line in how you phrased it.

I don't really care about any situation I create for myself. I need nothing from Pete and Bethesda. If they choose to ignore me, that's fine.

What if they don't? All you've got for show is a post where you claim Pete "Full of shit" Hines is lying. What if they want your feedback and look at that? I know, you've said so already, you don't care about the situation you created for yourself. But what if it makes developers avoid the site completely?

I highly, highly doubt that. I don't believe that they are willing or interested in making a TB ISM game. If they were, we wouldn't be in this situation right now. Since they aren't, I really don't care what kind of game they will make.

Hey, fair enough. But why limit that point of view to a perspective and combat model? Like you I prefer isometric (or free floating cameras with diverse options) and turnbased combat, but I don't ignore what developers are working on simply because it doesn't fit those two elements. They could be making a fine game, and I won't risk not having a say in what I feel the game should do just because its not TB or isometric (or both). If I can be constructive and helpful to a game's development in spite of it not having my favorite elements, why should I not do it?

I simply don't believe in any of that. Beth is a business, not a charity. Developers do what they want (way too many examples of that, how about JE's guns handling for example), and that's just how it goes.

How about the debates between JE and IPLY forum users about wheter Icewind Dale 2 should go 2E or 3E? How about several instances of Bioware developers asking forum users what they felt should go and should not go into their games? How about Bethesda doing it as well? Obsidian, even?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Maybe he's just handling this situation rather poorly, but of course that can't be the case, since bad PR management could never, ever[b/] happen.

I don't really care about his reasons for lying. I'm sure he has a good explanation.

That is both immature, and pointlessly inane. Using personal insults like calling Pete Hines 'full-of-shit' to extend shock value to a subject does not make your point any less, or any more valid.

Then why you were using that on me?

particularly because calling someone 'full-of-shit' without even bothering to clarify your position depicts a standoff-ish idiot of a person with nothing valid say.

Let's go over it again. Pete claims that there is nothing to tell and no work is being done because there are no developers. Then two article appear. Both state very specific details, some of which rule out the isometric view. I post a news post and ask the readers to email Pete the answer to the question "What view would support the light sensitivity feature?" So, it was very clear for anybody who paid attention and knew how to read.

You could have just said the above in the beginning and no one would have made a fuss about your attitude.

I don't really care about any fuss regarding my attitude. I'm not going to seek your approval and run my ideas by you every time I'm about to post something. If my attitude doesn't fit the Codex, Saint only needs to ask.

Do you honestly think that calling Pete "Full of Shit" is more effective than simply saying, "It would be nice if Pete and the rest of the Bethesda clan were more forthcoming about this information to us, the fans, and not disrespect us."

Sounds kinda boring.

VD, do us all a favor and stop behaving like a simpleton. Simply because someone chooses to give Bethesda or any other company the benefit of some doubt doesn't mean we're automatically brown-nosing.

Wow, that was like almost a normal response. I just want to clarify a few things though. When you say "someone chooses" do you mean yourself? Because I don't see anybody else doing that. Anyway, it's not the point. Since you've asked nicely, I will stop behaving like a simpleton whatever that means in your understanding and stop posting news for awhile. I'm doing that for the site, as I'm sure that people are sick and tired now watching these flame wars every time I post something. Since I'm the problem, I'll do the right thing.

 

[Vault Dweller]

But what if it makes developers avoid the site completely?

Kathode is still here. MrSmileyFaceDude's just registered. I don't see any problems.

They could be making a fine game, and I won't risk not having a say in what I feel the game should do just because its not TB or isometric (or both). If I can be constructive and helpful to a game's development in spite of it not having my favorite elements, why should I not do it?

Good point, and I agree, just because the game is FP and RT doesn't mean it sucks automatically. What I meant is we, the Fallout community, can help only if they are making a Fallout game, if they are making a survival-horror-esque game set in ONE city, then it's an entirely different game. It could be good or it could suck. My point is that I know nothing about such a game and its mechanics. In that case it would be better to let the developers handle the game without any input.

How about the debates between JE and IPLY forum users about wheter Icewind Dale 2 should go 2E or 3E?

I don't think they've switched to 3E only because the forumites wanted it. As for the rest, yes, sometimes developers ask people or pay attention to what people want. In most cases, such features are relatively minor (FO2: lotsa guns, the car, etc). Take Bio for example, we've been saying for years that we like non-linear games with multiple-paths. Do they care? No, because that's not what they do.

 

[Elwro]

First, suppose that the RPGCodex staff cares about views of people who only come to read the news here from time to time, or are first-time viewers. If you don't want to make this assumption, just skip my post.

I believe that a problem with calling people "full of shit" on the main news page is that the majority of viewers will think "Gee, these guys just threw random shit at the poor fella". The whole motive for calling him so-and-so is not visible on the page. It's like if I was going down a street and saw someone kick another guy in the nuts. I'd think "Well, the attacker might have his legitimate reasons for doing so, but one thing that I'm sure of is that from now on I'm staying far away from this street".
It's not hard NOT to insult people; even if they don't show class, do it yourself. Just my 2 cents :D

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Kathode is still here. MrSmileyFaceDude's just registered. I don't see any problems.

I don't either. Yet.

Good point, and I agree, just because the game is FP and RT doesn't mean it sucks automatically. What I meant is we, the Fallout community, can help only if they are making a Fallout game, if they are making a survival-horror-esque game set in ONE city, then it's an entirely different game. It could be good or it could suck. My point is that I know nothing about such a game and its mechanics. In that case it would be better to let the developers handle the game without any input.

True, in that case, you could end up getting a game which would not be Fallout. But lets assume that they won't be making a Fallout game you want. Wouldn't it be preferable to try and make it more like Fallout giving your input rather than dismissing it automatically and not bothering with it? What do you think has more chances of being a Fallout game: a game that is different than its predecessors but still has many elements in comparison provided by fan input, or a game that is different than its predecessors but has very few elements in comparison which had almost no fan support?

Note, that I'm not advocating that you, or anyone else, accepts the proposed design of it as is, or as will be; I'm simply looking at it from the perspective that, if the core design is radically different and set in stone, I know I won't be able to do anything with it, but I can still try and shape it to be more like Fallout.

I don't think they've switched to 3E only because the forumites wanted it.

I think their opinions were likely taken into account.

As for the rest, yes, sometimes developers ask people or pay attention to what people want. In most cases, such features are relatively minor (FO2: lotsa guns, the car, etc). Take Bio for example, we've been saying for years that we like non-linear games with multiple-paths. Do they care? No, because that's not what they do.

Which doesn't mean they won't ever do it.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Wouldn't it be preferable to try and make it more like Fallout giving your input rather than dismissing it automatically and not bothering with it? What do you think has more chances of being a Fallout game: a game that is different than its predecessors but still has many elements in comparison provided by fan input, or a game that is different than its predecessors but has very few elements in comparison which had almost no fan support?

Let's assume for the sake of the discussion that they are making a one town survival game. It could be a great game based on a great concept that we know nothing about. For example, Fallout that we played was a relatively peaceful game, you could travel a lot, you visited cities that were friendly overall (even Necropolis wasn't hostile), etc. Suppose that the game Beth has in mind is much darker: a city that is a death trap were survivors are fighting for scraps of everything that's worth anything, a city ruled by gangs, a city with dead zones overrun by mutants, a city where a trip across the street could be your last. What would be the point in tryng to make it more like Fallout if it's not in reality a Fallout game? We might as well accept this game for what it is, become interested if it's any good, or disregard it if it's a spiritual successor to FOBOS and that's it.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Suppose that the game Beth has in mind is much darker: a city that is a death trap were survivors are fighting for scraps of everything that's worth anything, a city ruled by gangs, a city with dead zones overrun by mutants, a city where a trip across the street could be your last. What would be the point in tryng to make it more like Fallout if it's not in reality a Fallout game? We might as well accept this game for what it is, become interested if it's any good, or disregard it if it's a spiritual successor to FOBOS and that's it.

Point taken.

So, for the sake of discussion, lets assume the game is, as you said, in a single city and has a Survival Horror background to it. But lets also assume, for the sake of discussion, that the game is basically filled with character choices and consequences, good old karmic titles, reputations, SPECIAL, turnbased combat (I can imagine you rolling your eyes and saying "Yeah right!" on that one :razz, multiple approaches and solutions to problems, diplomatic paths, a cohesive 50's pulp sci-fi feel, and different endings. And is consistent with canon, to boot.

Why would the above be Fallout in name only?

Additionally, lets assume (again for the sake of discussion) that the game will look and feel like Morrowind or Brotherhood of Steel *shudder* on first impressions. Will you resign and complain from a distance, or will you try, together with other like-minded fans, to give suggestions that could make the game turn into the example I gave above?

 

[Whipporowill]

I can't help but liking the idea of a single city setting - the world map is great and all, but being able to explore different sectors in a full 3d city (preferrably top down of course) would be kickass. Roaming through deserted streets, fighting off crazed mutants crawling from the sewers, dealing with rival gangs vying for control over different parts of the city. Think of a more savage and radiated take on Snake Pliskens visit to N Y.

Maybe not Fallout, but a game I'd probably like - if it featured as much choice as the original Fallouts did.

 

[Spazmo]

So, for the sake of discussion, lets assume the game is, as you said, in a single city and has a Survival Horror background to it. But lets also assume, for the sake of discussion, that the game is basically filled with character choices and consequences, good old karmic titles, reputations, SPECIAL, turnbased combat (I can imagine you rolling your eyes and saying "Yeah right!" on that one :razz, multiple approaches and solutions to problems, diplomatic paths, a cohesive 50's pulp sci-fi feel, and different endings. And is consistent with canon, to boot.

Well, gee, let's assume the game will give you a blowjob while it installs, too. If being pessimistic about all these things is "OMG BIASED" or bullshit or whatever, how is being optimistic about them--especially given BethSoft's track record and the stuff in Game Informer saying Oblivion would be shorter because nobody even finishes games anymore, let alone replays them!*--less bullshit? You can go on about how it might be a good game as much as you like, but, without really trying to echo Volourn here, Bethesda is just not a good developer. If they gave FO3 to ValuSoft, would you suddenly think they'd pull a great game out of their asses, even if they promised all the stuff that Vault Dweller, I and others feel makes a real Fallout game? No! Why? It's freaking ValuSoft!

*Also, I like how Howard equates choice with being able to (for example) be the leader of all guilds at once. Sounds to me more like you don't have to choose since you can pick options a, b, c and d all at once.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Why would the above be Fallout in name only?

What you described sounds like a good FO game. No arguing here.

Additionally, lets assume (again for the sake of discussion) that the game will look and feel like Morrowind or Brotherhood of Steel *shudder* on first impressions. Will you resign and complain from a distance, or will you try, together with other like-minded fans, to give suggestions that could make the game turn into the example I gave above?

Here is my opinion on that. If the developers want to make a good game like you described above, they don't need my help because they know what they are doing. If the developers want to make a game as described in Game Informer, then there is no way anyone can convince them to do something else. The ideas shown in the article (people don't finish involved titles, must make activities fun for people with ADD, combat as exciting as that in FPS, join all the factions, etc) represent Bethesda's design foundations. They are reflected in their past games. Do you think they didn't know how to make games like you described before? Of course, they knew. They chose to make something else, and that something else worked out well. I'm sure that a great looking sci-fi game will be equally well received. Blizzard did the same with StarCraft, now they have 2 properties, one fantasy, one sci-fi, featuring similar gameplay style.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

I'm going to have to go with Spazmo on this. Bethesda has never really made a game that had many of what you listed that we could assume that game even had, Role-Player.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Well, gee, let's assume the game will give you a blowjob while it installs, too.

Note: context is important.

If being pessimistic about all these things is "OMG BIASED" or bullshit or whatever, how is being optimistic about them--especially given BethSoft's track record and the stuff in Game Informer saying Oblivion would be shorter because nobody even finishes games anymore, let alone replays them!*--less bullshit?

Where did I say being pessimistic (or optimistic, for that matter) is bullshit? It wasn't even my point.

You can go on about how it might be a good game as much as you like, but, without really trying to echo Volourn here, Bethesda is just not a good developer. If they gave FO3 to ValuSoft, would you suddenly think they'd pull a great game out of their asses, even if they promised all the stuff that Vault Dweller, I and others feel makes a real Fallout game? No! Why? It's freaking ValuSoft!

No, I wouldn't trust them simply because they promised something. But that's not quite the issue I was talking with Vault Dweller about.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I'm going to have to go with Spazmo on this. Bethesda has never really made a game that had many of what you listed that we could assume that game even had, Role-Player.

I know that. What I mentioned above was for the sake of conversation with Vault Dweller. I'm not claiming Fallout 3, developed by them, will have any of that. I've said before I'm being as neutral as possible on this one. I know they've yet to show any of those elements which make Fallout what it is in their games, but I also know some companies have managed to produce successful games which they had no previous experience working on.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Fair enough, VD. I take your point.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

I know that. What I mentioned above was for the sake of conversation with Vault Dweller. I'm not claiming Fallout 3, developed by them, will have any of that. I've said before I'm being as neutral as possible on this one. I know they've yet to show any of those elements which make Fallout what it is in their games, but I also know some companies have managed to produce successful games which they had no previous experience working on.

Well, even being neutral, you have to accept that Bethesda has never done anything remotely like Fallout. They would have to pull off something completely unlike anything they've ever done to make a proper Fallout 3. As as neutral a stance as you can honestly get is to say that maybe they can pull off something they've never done before but admit that the odds of that are unlikely.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

But that is my stance, Saint.

 

[Volourn]

Just like to point out my stance is Bethesda makes shitty games and ES4 and FO3 won't change that. Next.

 

[Sarkile]

Just like to point out my stance is Bethesda makes shitty games and ES4 and FO3 won't change that. Next.

It's possible. Just not plausible.