You do know it's comments like this that show you're only here "to win".deadairis said:Seriously.DarkUnderlord said:<snip>
Adorable.
Answered you 3 pages ago buddy. Back when you asked it the first time. Go back here and read it.deadairis said: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.
Yes, you keep going on about it. Note how VD corrected himself a few posts later though. Oh wait, you didn't notice that did you because then it'd mean you don't get to keep going on about it. And let's face it, without that, you don't have much left to go on about, do you?deadairis said: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.
Oh, wow, and you can't give us Fallout's sales figures. Funny how that works both ways. I guess you must be lying too.deadairis said: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.
Can I disprove you're a liar? Apparently, no-one can prove anything in your world.deadairis said: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?
You get back what you dish out. If you stopped the posts full of stupid questioning, feigned ignorance and wild accusations that everyone apart form yourself is lying, you'd be doing better here, maybe? Dunno, just maybe.deadairis said:But, no, seriously, you found me out. I'm a troll. After all, I'm the one making personal attacks
deadairis said:Ah, nice to meet you all, but the I'm honestly not going to stick around with a slam on my profession as a custom tag.
Enjoy explaining to yourselves how it was all someone elses fault; I'll be reading and checking my messages.
Desslock said:Just according to PC Data's stats [noted as incomplete earlier in the conversation], the game sold around 150,000 units, and Fallout 2 sold around the same (slightly less). And both games sold well in Europe as well -- a very basic rule of thumb is to double the sales to get worldwide figures (for games developed in North America). At the time, Fallout was one of the most successful games ever for Interplay (passed only by Descent 1 & 2).
Relax, there are people around here with "Dumbfuck" tags and they post even more, whether because of or in spite of this. Besides, if you don't even care at all about Allen's death wish, then why care about this?deadairis said:Ah, nice to meet you all, but the I'm honestly not going to stick around with a slam on my profession as a custom tag.
Enjoy explaining to yourselves how it was all someone elses fault; I'll be reading and checking my messages.
Maybe in a few decades people will begin appreciating hardcore/niche games, just as the occasional unorthodox movie triumphs over the fields of B-list popcorn flicks that make money solely from pandering to the widest audience possible."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.
If that was true Wizard of the cost and others would have been out of business a long time ago, add to that the fact that Crpgs are much more accessible in the broder sense then their P&P counter parts, and zing, market.deadairis said:"hardcore RPG" into a market segment, but that's not quite how it goes.
Now look what you've done. You've gone and scared him away with the facts! Now no-one will believe his lies.Kotario said:Are you familiar with Desslock, deadairis? After some research, I found a statement by him on the rough sales figures of Fallout, from back in 2000. It appears to disagree with your secret information.
Desslock said:Just according to PC Data's stats [noted as incomplete earlier in the conversation], the game sold around 150,000 units, and Fallout 2 sold around the same (slightly less). And both games sold well in Europe as well -- a very basic rule of thumb is to double the sales to get worldwide figures (for games developed in North America). At the time, Fallout was one of the most successful games ever for Interplay (passed only by Descent 1 & 2).
Edit: You left, so soon?
deadairis said:Ah, nice to meet you all, but the I'm honestly not going to stick around with a slam on my profession as a custom tag.
Enjoy explaining to yourselves how it was all someone elses fault; I'll be reading and checking my messages.
Not at all. We both agree that 2D/3D is a similar stylistic choice as is b&w/color today. That is good.Futile Rhetoric said: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.robur said: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.
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 I'm trying to describe was the one I was getting from reading the messages in this thread and a few others over the last few weeks. Glad that it seems not as entrenched. Really am.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.
Nah, no Fifty please. I'd rather listen to Bags & Trane, Brad Mehldau, Dvorak.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.
More power to Telltale! Maybe that would be a good way for a RPG as well? Not super high end engine stuff, episodic content where the designers can react to public demand, once the core functions are running?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.
Our opinions aren't that far apart from one another. Funny, no one ever asked me for my opinion on Fallout 3. Everybody wanted to know who paid the flight, how the demo went, whether the previews reflect the stuff we've been shown etc. You want to hear what I think about the game?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).
As I have written in the other long thread: I did not review Oblivion. I wrote the very first preview in our mag after a one man visit at Bethesda. I did not play the code there. I was shown some scenes, talked in depth to the level designers, art directors, dungeon builders. And I have not had enough Oblivion play time to be able to do a justified call really.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.
Bradylama said:Read through Fallout 3 thread #234411 to find out! :D
Vault Dweller said:Edit:
"Weasel" custom tag?Dark Underlord said:I like how you weasel arguments around. I really do.
Yeah, basically the Fallout community has at its upper echelons, a few brilliant minds who can make great points. Saint_Proverbius was one of them. These are the people who make everyone else look like brain dead drones. Now, also in the Fallout community, are the lower echelons. Like the scum and villany of some GameSpy journalists who want everyone dead, these are the people that say dumb things. The problem is, they say it in some other forum. We never hear about it and next thing you know "Fallout fans only want a 2d game ZOMG backwards peoples".robur said:The picture I'm trying to describe was the one I was getting from reading the messages in this thread and a few others over the last few weeks. Glad that it seems not as entrenched. Really am.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.
Yes.robur said:Our opinions aren't that far apart from one another. Funny, no one ever asked me for my opinion on Fallout 3. Everybody wanted to know who paid the flight, how the demo went, whether the previews reflect the stuff we've been shown etc. You want to hear what I think about the game?
He he he, I know he said he left (thank the multi-headed dicks!), but you just don't get too many people being so incredibly, provably, WRONG on the internet and it's kinda fun to put another nail in the coffin for posterity...deadairis said: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.Section8 said: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 gameTake your time, it would be embarrassing if you gave the wrong answer and made a fool of yourself.he runs into Super Mutants for the first time
Kotario said:Are you familiar with Desslock, deadairis? After some research, I found a statement by him on the rough sales figures of Fallout, from back in 2000. It appears to disagree with your secret information.
>I do believe than an FO3 is inevitable, though... let's hope.
I don't think so. If it was coming, it would have arrived already. Or
at least be in late stages of development. You know what's going to
happen with it? It's going to be picked up by a new team when Black
Isle finishes milking the infinty engine. And it'll be a pathetic
little uninspired piece of shit brought to market by a half dozen
entry level coders in 6 months, who get their marching orders from a
margetting drone. Fallout was a labor of love - that's the only way
great games get made - and a sequel done by different people will
never do it justice.
(nods)DarkUnderlord said:Now it's true that some of us here (me included) really do think Fallout should be in an isometric perspective (think "The Sims 2") and have turn-based combat. Those things are stylistic. The actual 2D vs 3D thing most of us don't care about. The problem is, I'm able to articulate that. The lower echelons can't. So what happens is you end up getting someone say "I want it 2D" when they really mean "isometric perspective" (like Diablo) or they say other dumb things when they really mean something else.
I have a sweet spot for that viewpoint actually myself. I even like bitmap graphics, Infinity Engine and such. And even Mythos, the action RPG from Flagship Studios (the guys behind Diablo and Hellgate: London) is pretty much good old isometric gameplay. And it's not even released yet. First person is for shooters and racing games.The other contentious point is the whole "isometric perspective" itself. That one's come up every year for the last 10 years since Fallout 2 came out. We all know that a proper, by the book, definition of isomeric prespective is 2D trickery. Some people jump on that and use that as the "They wants teh 2D!!". We're really talking about that "viewpoint" though. Not whether it's 3D models or 2D sprites. That part is mostly irrelevant. We really mean that "over the shoulder" cam that no-one has come up with a better name for.
Sure is. Look at WarCraft 3 and StarCraft 2. Same thing. 3D engine, but isometric view. Well, I have yet to see a first person strategy game. The only one I can think of right away is Machines, Acclaim's long forgotten one. Not that great either. Well, and Sacrifice. That was great, but not a great hit. You could argue about Black & White. God game more likely, though.As I said, I'd call The Sims 2 "isometric" because that's a nice way of describing what it looks like, even though it actually uses 3D models of objects now (unlike its predecessor) and you can zoom in / out and rotate it around all you like. Don't care, I still call it isomeric. Note how the franchise was able to add all the advantages of 3D without breaking everything that made the 2D version so usable. Imagine playing The Sims 2 in first-person. No really, try to imagine it. How would you control your character? WASD? Isn't that awkward when you could just "click" and have the Sim do what you want? And how would you build walls? Isn't that easier in an isometric view?
Unlucky stuff. That's why I went to the source and stick my head in here, too. To find out what the upper echelons really want and think.In short, those who rage against the Fallout fans have been taking one or two points, misinterpreting that and going nanna's about it against the fan-base for years.
robur said:Our opinions aren't that far apart from one another. Funny, no one ever asked me for my opinion on Fallout 3. Everybody wanted to know who paid the flight, how the demo went, whether the previews reflect the stuff we've been shown etc. You want to hear what I think about the game?
We saw one possible solution for one quest. We were told about SPECIAL, skills, perks, but didn't see the full list or how the tests (?) in the Vault will influence those numbers. Ultima style? Oblivion? I prefer a classic sheet with points actually. We saw three, four battles. Ant, mutants, super mutants, behemoth. We saw no sub quest. We saw the world and I have to say that I like its looks. We were told that there would be more voice actors for less NPCs, instead of 1500 (Oblivion) "just" a few 100. We were not able to play the game ourselves. So, where does that leave me and my opinion? I think it *can* be a good game - *inspired* by Fallout. Kinda like a remix version with Bethesdas flavour. But not a direct sucessor that many F1/F2 fans would have liked it to be. You know, it's Bethesda, not Bioware or Obsidian. They are for example not going to change their art pipeline and forget all that they have done before. Now, do I like that? The jury is still out on that. I wish I could've played it myself and would have been able to mess around with VATS and dialogue (the new and improved Radiant AI) and character stuff myself. That's how I so far have ended each of my previews. Cause there is not more I can say at the moment about it. Anything else would be unfactual, wild guesses. Apologies if this wasn't jubilant or spiteful enough - I wish I had more facts and experiences.Yes.
Fuck, man, a breath of fresh air at last. I know what you just wrote is a forum post and not a "preview" that's going to sell magazines or attract traffic, but I would seriously click through every add on a page where thoughts like that were presented. I'm almost afraid that you and the weasel are alts. Anyway, thanks for your opinion.robur said:We saw one possible solution for one quest. We were told about SPECIAL, skills, perks, but didn't see the full list or how the tests (?) in the Vault will influence those numbers. Ultima style? Oblivion? I prefer a classic sheet with points actually. We saw three, four battles. Ant, mutants, super mutants, behemoth. We saw no sub quest. We saw the world and I have to say that I like its looks. We were told that there would be more voice actors for less NPCs, instead of 1500 (Oblivion) "just" a few 100. We were not able to play the game ourselves. So, where does that leave me and my opinion? I think it *can* be a good game - *inspired* by Fallout. Kinda like a remix version with Bethesdas flavour. But not a direct sucessor that many F1/F2 fans would have liked it to be. You know, it's Bethesda, not Bioware or Obsidian. They are for example not going to change their art pipeline and forget all that they have done before. Now, do I like that? The jury is still out on that. I wish I could've played it myself and would have been able to mess around with VATS and dialogue (the new and improved Radiant AI) and character stuff myself. That's how I so far have ended each of my previews. Cause there is not more I can say at the moment about it. Anything else would be unfactual, wild guesses.
Heh. The spite and vitriol is the first thing that smacks everyone in the face when they come to the codex. Most people are immediately attracted to the novelty or immediately hate the childishness. But I secretly think that 95% of it is just for fun, like an artist who chooses on a lark to paint with only shades of red. There are a few posters here who forego the spite and post calmly, but even those who don't: for me it's the content under the veneer that interests me in the codex. I think that's true of almost all the long-time posters (not claiming to be one, myself).robur said:Apologies if this wasn't jubilant or spiteful enough - I wish I had more facts and experiences.
Vault Dweller said:Patrick: Let me know when you have a preview build. I'll pass the site over to PC and see what they think, but a site with some images and text doesn't necessarily equal a game to cover.
VD: Double standards? When a non-indie company announces a new game, which at that point is nothing but a site with some images and text, the media is all over it. Anyway, if someone at GameSpy is interested, great, if not...
Patrick: And as for double standards, you're right: Established companies do get coverage based on screens. We know those games will ever see the light of day, mostly.
Indie games, we know those games never will, mostly.
Vault Dweller said:Patrick: Let me know when you have a preview build. I'll pass the site over to PC and see what they think, but a site with some images and text doesn't necessarily equal a game to cover.
VD: Double standards? When a non-indie company announces a new game, which at that point is nothing but a site with some images and text, the media is all over it. Anyway, if someone at GameSpy is interested, great, if not...
Patrick: And as for double standards, you're right: Established companies do get coverage based on screens. We know those games will ever see the light of day, mostly.
Indie games, we know those games never will, mostly.
And here I naively thought that gaming journalists should cover gaming news, something that could be interesting to their readers, new concepts and ideas that are being tried, but apparently gaming journalism is all about covering games with the highest sales potential. Not to mention that there are plenty of successfully released indie games.
Vault Dweller said:Patrick, you will be missed.
Thu Jul 05, 2007, never forgetdeadairis said:Ah, nice to meet you all, but the I'm honestly not going to stick around with a slam on my profession as a custom tag.
Enjoy explaining to yourselves how it was all someone elses fault; I'll be reading and checking my messages.
Not by me. The first time he facetiously suggested what we supposedly want instead of what he deliered, it was clear to me that he's a two-faced douchebag not worth talking to.Vault Dweller said:Patrick, you will be missed.