Preview A truly idiotic Fallout 3 article - read it your own risk

[Naked Ninja]

IS THERE ANYONE LEFT WITH A SENSE OF MORALITY WHO ISNT YET BRIBED?! What is this world we live in where everyone is a scumbag with no ethical views?

Now now dude, steady on, you can't say he was acting unethically. There aren't any universal ethics after all. He probably just rates the value "Personal Success" greater than the value "Honesty" within his own personal ethical scale. And since he was acting perfectly within his own personal definition of what's ethical you can't say he is unethical. Because that would make you stupid.

No, you need to say "He isn't acting in a way I want him to act based on my own completely unverifyable viewpoint of what's ethical." or the relativist squad will get angsty. Seriously, there is a thread explaining this, it makes it totally clear


But yeah, lol, that article is pretty stupid. I prefer 1st person real time RPGs to turn based, but in no way do I believe they are unplayable or unfun.

 

[Kraszu]

Nothing non-moral there, maybe he write what he asked to write in private conversation of somebody that trust him, breaking trust is non moral. Braking trust is always non moral you relativist make me sick.

 

[Kortalh]

You know, I've been on the edge this whole time. I'm aware of Bethesda's track record, and to be quite honest, I was very worried that they would completely distort and destroy everything I loved about Fallout.

Which is why I'm very glad for this quote:

For starters, fans of the original games need to know this: much of what you loved about Fallout is in there. The Pip-Boy has been faithfully updated

Now that I know that the Pip-Boy has been faithfully updated, I can rest easy in the knowledge that Fallout 3 will be, after all these years, the game that I've been waiting for. Thank you, Escapist!

 

[Hellraiser]

3 and a half years is almost 10? Wow no wonder the motherfucker picked a job where he only has to write he can't count for shit. I'm not surprise that the result of his work is the most retarded piece of game related writing I have ever seen.

 

[Futile Rhetoric]

Now now dude, steady on, you can't say he was acting unethically. There aren't any universal ethics after all. He probably just rates the value "Personal Success" greater than the value "Honesty" within his own personal ethical scale. And since he was acting perfectly within his own personal definition of what's ethical you can't say he is unethical. Because that would make you stupid.

No, you need to say "He isn't acting in a way I want him to act based on my own completely unverifyable viewpoint of what's ethical." or the relativist squad will get angsty. Seriously, there is a thread explaining this, it makes it totally clear

In a purely philosophical sense, you might be right. In the real world however, objectivity is a well-recognised tenet of ethical journalism, and so is the duty to check your facts. You might want to start here, and keep reading until your pretty little head asplode. Not reporting on private conversations, however, is not; in fact, doing so may be in direct violation of other journalistic principles. You couldn't provide an ethical standard, relying only on what felt right to you, which is why you lost the argument.

But hey, don't let that stop your whining, you're awfully bitter.

P.S. Can someone deserve both a weasel and a dumbfuck tag? Just throwin' it out there for your consideration.

Edit: looks like the url-tag doesn't like parentheses. Ah well.

 

[DarkSign]

IS THERE ANYONE LEFT WITH A SENSE OF MORALITY WHO ISNT YET BRIBED?! What is this world we live in where everyone is a scumbag with no ethical views?

Now now dude, steady on, you can't say he was acting unethically. There aren't any universal ethics after all. He probably just rates the value "Personal Success" greater than the value "Honesty" within his own personal ethical scale. And since he was acting perfectly within his own personal definition of what's ethical you can't say he is unethical. Because that would make you stupid.

No, you need to say "He isn't acting in a way I want him to act based on my own completely unverifyable viewpoint of what's ethical." or the relativist squad will get angsty. Seriously, there is a thread explaining this, it makes it totally clear


But yeah, lol, that article is pretty stupid. I prefer 1st person real time RPGs to turn based, but in no way do I believe they are unplayable or unfun.

Oh great. So one flamewar and you think you're the arbiter of ethics. He could very well be unethical, its just we have no proof.

He could have simply handed the keyboard to Pete Hines and said "write what you want." This would be unethical because readers expect separation between journalist and game dev. If you lie about who is writing the article that's unethical.

He could have accepted any of the numerous bribes (travel, money, prostitution) that have been confirmed to exist in the trade of honest opinion for dishonest game review. This would be unethical because you are again lying - telling the reader that your honest assessment is something that it is not.

By the way...lying is pretty universally wrong. Every major religion denounces it and even small wacko cults in Waco do too. Deception is something that nature even has hardcoded into it as something worth killing for.

I dont think The Escapist should be killed, but their journalism credentials pulled. As journalists, it's egregious that they wouldnt even do the slightest bit of fact checking on the date of Van Buren, thinking they could get away with saying "nearly" ten years ago.

All respect for this mag is shot. I honestly think Pete wrote this.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

Well. He liked what he saw, and he explained why. He gives the facts of what changed and what didn't mostly correctly. Nothing particularly idiotic about it, as far as I can tell. The only idiocy I can discern is assuming that (the hardcore part of) Fallout fandom would agree with his assessment.

I don't share his optimism, but what is particularly idiotic about it, except that you don't agree with his opinions?

 

[psycojester]

He could have simply handed the keyboard to Pete Hines and said "write what you want." This would be unethical because readers expect separation between journalist and game dev. If you lie about who is writing the article that's unethical.

Its unethical to put your dick in the pink right after the brown, you need a 3rd party to lick it clean first. Welcome to the world of gaming journalism

 

[Naked Ninja]

In the real world however, objectivity is a well-recognised tenet of ethical journalism

But Galsiah says there isn't a single unifying ethical standard. Whats ethical is dependent on each individuals personal rating of Values, so we can't say any behavior is or is not ethical! Galsiah wouldn't lie to me like that.

lying is pretty universally wrong

No, now you're just talking crap, Galsiah proved conclusively that there is no universal anything. And how can you say lying is considered "universally" wrong but breaking a trust isn't? Lying is just a form of verbal trust breaking. No, you must be incorrect. Galsiah ftw. Relativism ftw.

Every major religion denounces

He also disproved religion! Truly he is a hero to philosophers everywhere.

 

[MF]

bullshit

Stop derailing other threads just because no one wants to argue with you any more in the other one, asshole. There being no universal standards does not mean, or even imply, that there are no sets of standards applicable to groups of people. This is worse than weaseling, this is spamming.

 

[MacBone]

I'm looking forward to all the kids who pick up Fallout 3, like it, then go looking for the originals and wonder why FO3 wasn't more like 1 and 2.

 

[galsiah]

Illustration: You, Naked Ninja, are an idiot.

That's not by any Ultimate Standard Of Idiocy - it's my judgement based on my (unfounded) convictions, and their bearing on your posts. Oddly enough, I'm not the only person to reach this conclusion.

It's perfectly possible to talk about your idiocy with people who happen to have some common convictions by which they judge idiocy. All that's necessary is to outline/compare fundamental convictions when the reasons are analysed - rather than appeal to some absurd Ultimate Standard Of Idiocy.

Of course, as I made clear in the other thread, you're free to have the idea that there are such universal standards as one of your fundamental convictions. Other people are similarly free to conclude that you're an idiot, based on this and theirs.

If you want to develop some useful notions, read Philosophical Investigations. That might help you to realize that your notions of universal standards are not only essentially meaningless, but also entirely miss the point. [we can play the "NN is an idiot" language-game all day, entirely independent of the presence/absence of a universal standard.]

Again, can you please get it into your thick head that relativism has next to no implications for life/debate/argumentation. All it means is that people require some commonality of conviction for meaningful debate - and that they don't seek spurious justification for their essentially arbitrary fundamental convictions.

 

[aries202]

I still don't get why Bethsoft, and other developers are trying to make a living, breathing world aka a sims game meets the rpg genre : It sounds like the ONLY new thing in AI development will be that a son and his father have a (scripted) meeting, and then just randomly starts to talk about things.I'm not entirely sure that if you stomped out the bad guys in Fallout 2, there would be a gaping whole in the world. I'm pretty sure that if Bethsoft looked at their own past fallout forums, they would learn that in the original Fallout series, people who didn't show up at Necropolis at the correct time, would have seen Necropolis overrun by supermutants etc.

As I have told you earlier I'm all for a change to fully 3D world in which I can explore every nook and cranny. I'm not that worried about the traditional turnbased combat being overhauled to more of realtime with pause features with an aiming possiibility built into it. I happen to like realtime with pause more than any other combat mechanics. (don't know why though, it is just a matter of preference).I'm more concerned about the apparently : totally misunderstanding of Fallout's humor that espeically mr. Howard (todd) has shown.

According to Todd, Fallout's humor is very violent. To me, this is not true. Fallout's humor was always the dark, dry, witty, ironic, and somtimes even sardonic humor, not violent humour as seeing exploding heads or something like that. Afterall, it is not a Quintin Tarantino movie that Bethsoft is trying to make - or maybe it is : I have been much more concerned about the choice & consequence parts of the game. At least, Bethsoft did get that part right, if we are to believe the info from the previews. It seems that there at æeast 2, or maybe 3-4 options when it comes to solve the quest with Mr. Burke and the Megatob bomb. [Whoever that got that idea needs to seriously rethink what Fallout is all about, imo, but nevertheless this quest seems to feature 2-4 possible ways of solving the quest].

Again, I want to critisize Fallout 3's main quest. It is banal, corny, on a line somewhere between bleeh and meh, and has been done before many times. There's absolute nothing original in having a son going to look for his lost Father. The worst part of it that there seems to be no reason as to why the son is going out of Vault 101 to look for his Father. He just does this. The Overseer in Vault 101 doesn't throw the son out of the vault, which, imo, would be a natural thing to do, since the Overseer suspects the son (your character) to have something to do with Qui Gong's disapperance. (and by Qui Gong I'm referrering to Liam Neeson who plays the part of the Father in Fallout 3).

 

[Naked Ninja]

No MF, it's just amusing to throw your own shite back in your face. Its always amusing to watch relativists backpedal when it's something they care about.

Again, can you please get it into your thick head that relativism has next to no implications for life/debate/argumentation

Oh, I got it. I just said it in a simpler manner : Relativism is pointless hot air.

Don't worry Gally, you're still MY hero.

 

[Futile Rhetoric]

This:

All it means is that people require some commonality of conviction for meaningful debate - and that they don't seek spurious justification for their essentially arbitrary fundamental convictions.

equals this:

Relativism is pointless hot air.

-- really? You aren't awfully bright, are you?

 

[Vault Dweller]

I don't share his optimism, but what is particularly idiotic about it, except that you don't agree with his opinions?

The article states that due to the advances in gaming (like dumbing down), a new Fallout game would have been unplayable.

The article states that while it's not the Fallout anyone would remember, it's still Fallout, and in the next sentence states that it's actually Oblivion meets Fallout.

The article states that in Fallout your actions had no consequences, while Bethesda's Fallout will give you a "chance to change a few lives".

The article states that the sense of isolation in Fallout 1 came from technological limitations and wasn't a design element.

The article states that we didn't have the technology to create "living, breathing worlds" before. The idiot obviously missed quite a few decade old games.

 

[Trash]

The fallout franchise was lost when Troika failed to get the IP (and went under) Perhaps Beth will make a cool game, but fallout it ain't.

Still, all these articles amaze me. I understand that previews on gamesites and in mags aren't that sceptical, but I expected something better from the escapist. Well, at least something more intelligent.

 

[DarkSign]

Wont someone start an honest gaming mag for the masses who wont come to The Codextm?

 

[psycojester]

Theres no money in honesty.

 

[Naked Ninja]

All it means is that people require some commonality of conviction for meaningful debate - and that they don't seek spurious justification for their essentially arbitrary fundamental convictions.

No, that means Gally must be awesomely fun to talk to at parties.


But back to the argument, the reviewers proposition that a new turn based RPG would be unplayable is silly. I consider the Final Fantasy games shite but that doesn't mean millions haven't played and thoroughly enjoyed those turn based games. And there are many other examples of fun turn based games. It's a fundamentally silly point that denies all evidence to the contrary. His only form of proof is that it is "old"? So what? The basic concept of shooters and platformers has been around since the beginning of gaming. Should we throw out WSAD movement because it is an "old" concept too? What is the difference between an old concept and one that has been proven over time?

 

[Seboss]

God, what happened to the Escapist? It used to be a pretty darn good magazine.
Bethesda has this dreadful aura of retardation no journalist seems to resist.

 

[Kotario]

The infamous Russ Pitts has taken to the comments:

I also have to add (and I can't believe I forgot to put this in the article) that having seen the Van Burn tech demo over at NMA, and having now seen Bethesda's Fallout 3, I have no doubt whatsoever that Bethesda's will (or would have been) the finer game.

 

[Gambler]

The article states that due to the advances in gaming (like dumbing down), a new Fallout game would have been unplayable.

Fallout was almost ten years ago. I think it's time to make a leap forward from that.

Sounds familiar?

 

[Dementia Praecox]

Bethesda has this dreadful aura of retardation no journalist seems to resist.

It's called money.

 

[Vault Dweller]

The article states that due to the advances in gaming (like dumbing down), a new Fallout game would have been unplayable.

Fallout was almost ten years ago. I think it's time to make a leap forward from that.

Sounds familiar?

Are you implying that these comments are the same? They are not. The second comment calls for gameplay improvements, WITHOUT stating that Fallout is now obsolete, unplayable, and disappointing.

The first comment attempts to justify the dumbing down by claiming that the original is now obsolete, unplayable, and disappointing, and that Bethesda simply had no choice there.