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

[Diogo Ribeiro]

The author has been replying to criticisms in the comments, by the way. Be sure to read for clarification.

Clarification would imply he's actually explaining his points, but he's basically making it worse for him with his "opinions lol" shtick.

 

[Brother None]

The author has been replying to criticisms in the comments, by the way. Be sure to read for clarification.

Clarification would imply he's actually explaining his points, but he's basically making it worse for him with his "opinions lol" shtick.

Arguably, yes.

 

[xedoc gpr]

News flash: Fallout was a static, boring world with no choices and no consequences, whereas Bethesda are experts at making malleable worlds that react to everything you do.

I can't believe I never noticed.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Oh, I get it now. The Escapist. They're trying to get away from reality. The reality that they're morons. Yes, I see it now.

 

[Brother None]

Oh. Everyone, please stop talking about this. Escapist producer "Landslide" has the perfect explanation:

DO think that it is a testament to the quality of the original Fallout games, that they have tied such strong emotions to their worlds and game experience. Still, today, they provoke such strong reactions. That's certainly the reason for the outcry we've seen in this thread.

So please stop talking, there's nothing wrong with the article, the only reason it's being discussed is because Fallout provokes strong reaction.

Gudhuryehuy!

 

[Kotario]

Well, I'm glad Russ Pitts cleared this point up:

Third, again to Brother None, it's been brought to my attention that what you're asking in regards to perfection is whether or not what i saw of Fallout 3 looked perfect, or if I had any problems with it. If that is indeed the question, the answer is "yes, it was perfect."

Obviously what we were seeing was an E3 demo built specifically to impress, but I've seen plenty of these that did not, in spite of the developers' best intentions. This one was flawless. I saw nothing in the demo that gave me pause. Nothing at all. That in and of itself is remarkable.

Will the same be applicable once the game is final and playable? I don't know. I'm guessing there will be problems, but right now it looks like it's on track for perfection.

 

[merry andrew]

Oke I changed my mind: Fallout 3 is probably perfect. Oh, the power of argument.

 

[Gambler]

rational people may have different preferences or premises that yield different opinions than my own, even if those opinions seem ludicruous to me

Relativism strikes back. Who would have thought?

Why do people feel entitled to put their "opinions" into articles anyway? Shouldn't articles be about... like... um... describing something? Sharing substantiated impressions? Because, you know, when I need an unsubstantiated opinion, I can make one myself. I don't need to read any magazines for that.

 

[DarkSign]

Well, I'm glad Russ Pitts cleared this point up:

Third, again to Brother None, it's been brought to my attention that what you're asking in regards to perfection is whether or not what i saw of Fallout 3 looked perfect, or if I had any problems with it. If that is indeed the question, the answer is "yes, it was perfect."

Obviously what we were seeing was an E3 demo built specifically to impress, but I've seen plenty of these that did not, in spite of the developers' best intentions. This one was flawless. I saw nothing in the demo that gave me pause. Nothing at all. That in and of itself is remarkable.

Will the same be applicable once the game is final and playable? I don't know. I'm guessing there will be problems, but right now it looks like it's on track for perfection.

Wait. Is this a preview or a review. I know you prufeshunal journaliszts have some wiggle room there.

 

[galsiah]

rational people may have different preferences or premises that yield different opinions than my own, even if those opinions seem ludicruous to me

Relativism strikes back. Who would have thought?

Do you even try to think about what it would mean were that an argument that were:
(1) Relevant to that discussion.
(2) Based on relativism. [rather than your warped notion of it]

To be relevant as an argument, it needs to apply to the lines of reasoning in that thread.
To be about relativism alone, it needs to be dependent on differences in fundamental beliefs.

For relativism to work as a defence, they'd have to argue that something like: "Games which might have great graphics and action are wonderful sequels to turn-based RPGs", is one of their fundamental beliefs.
I.e. they'd be utterly retarded - and you can attack them for having utterly retarded beliefs.

On the other hand, if the premises they're using are not fundamental beliefs, a relativism argument has absolutely no force. The burden is on them to demonstrate that [absurd statement X] is actually reasonable according to their beliefs. If it really is an absurd statement, that'll require them to have absurd beliefs - at which point you can point and laugh, and judge them [and be "right" to the extent that others are pointing and laughing with you].
If their absurd statements don't follow from their beliefs, relativism again has no force.

Again, you only find it inconvenient because you fail to understand.
And, again, inconvenience is no argument against truth in any case. [whether or not we're talking about global warming]

 

[psycojester]

Well they've banned me from the escapist. Who's up next

 

[Koby]

Well they've banned me from the escapist.

Of course, it’s a preview, it wouldn’t be fair to the developer to be negative, and that extends to the fanbase also, the fanbase can't be negative, its unfair to the developer, it would be unprofessional and unethical, good fans are always positive, it is your job as good fan to spread the word that preview looks awesome and game will be amazing, good fans only buy the game if the review is good, but as long as it's a preview they have to be positive, LIVE ARE AT STAKE.

 

[Bradylama]

Well they've banned me from the escapist. Who's up next

Of course they banned you, you were being an annoying twat.

 

[psycojester]

Yeah true enough.

I stand by my position that Ross Pitt is a moron not a shill.

 

[Bradylama]

You probably shouldn't have called him a shill, then. One could see how that would cause misunderstandings.

 

[psycojester]

Yes i retracted that point in my last post. They edited that one to unicorns. After all his "its an opinion lolz i dun't need to justify" arguments i changed my stance from shill to just a moron.

 

[onemananadhisdroid]

Re: A truly idiotic Fallout 3 article - read it your own ris

<

It's been a decade since the original Fallout was released, and so much has changed about gaming, and games, that <font><b>a new Fallout made like the originals would be largely unplayable, and deeply disappointing.</b></font> And before you start saying "Van Buren" remember that that game, too, was made almost ten years ago. It would not be the same game today.

All of that said, though: games, as the products of technology of the times they were created in being interpreted as fucking idiotic design dogma which to adhere to AT ALL COST - all of which without every getting a grasp of why everything worked so well at that time in the first place... that sounds familiar, sadly.

 

[Fallouted]

http://www.gameplaymonthly.com/games/fallout3/3.JPG
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b12/C ... Ranger.jpg

To recap, Oblivion wtih guns and Chuck Norris.

 

[Futile Rhetoric]

Relativism strikes back. Who would have thought?

Why do you use terms you do not understand?

 

[elander_]

Nothing new on the Chuck Norris stuff. If you check Van Buren design docs they use real images of actors to define characters faces and expressions.

 

[gc051360]

I read it. And it is pretty funny...but at the same time it angers me.

 

[Lumpy]

Fallout 3 puts you in the shoes of one of the descendants of a brave, careful few who hid themselves away from the nuclear terror in a communal fallout shelter called a vault.

Just icing on the cake, but still...

And yes, the entire thing was narrated by Ron Perlman, and yes, he said "War never changes" (the tagline from the original) at least twice.

The more times he says it, the more Fallouty the game is.
Seriously now, does anyone really give a fuck about Perlman?

 

[Fallouted]

Nothing new on the Chuck Norris stuff. If you check Van Buren design docs they use real images of actors to define characters faces and expressions.

Yeah but picking Chuck is typical Bethesda fanatism for action crap, IMO.

 

[DarkSign]

Here's my post after reading all that garbage:

So here's a recap of the thread so far...

Posters came on the forums more than a bit heated at 3 main points: 2 of which were blatant, cub-reporting factual errors - the other being an assertion that the original fallout was "unplayable" (with an implied "by today's standards").

Some of the responses were rabid retorts, some of the responses were thoughtful responses. Others were flat out claims of bribery and shilling.

Escapist employees responded by calling out the rabid retorts, but without actually addressing the problems.

Then Escapist employees hid behind the idea that the article in question was an editorial, (implying that non-journalists dont know the difference between a normal article and an editorial), meaning that anything can be said under the guise of an editorial.

Certain excuses were made about writing things live.

The quote of the original Fallout being "unplayable and deeply disappointing" were changed to "not worth playing."

The misquote about the year was given lip-service, then the mistake about the engine was explained away since the project began 10 years ago.

That about cover it?

Ok. Lets get to brass tacks.

1) The mantra of "Fallout fans will never be satisfied" is tired, dead, kicked in the teeth. It shows that you're not listening to the people you're trying to serve. Remember, we're your (say it with me) cus-to-mers. If you had your ear to the ground, the majority of Fallout fans have resigned themselves to turn-based gameplay being out of the realm of possibility for FO3. Before you judge a group of people, why not go learn about them. Any full reading of multiple threads that exist on NMA and RPGCodex will yield such understanding. Lawyers and journalists have to do a lot of reading. Its part of the job even though it sucks.

2) Your defense and non-retraction of the engine comment was utterly obliterated by Ratty who explained that it was put into use around 2002 and is still being used for games. Sorry, pal. He got you there.

3) How is it that Fallout is continually played and loved, put on 10,000 "Best RPGs of All-Time" yet it was unplayable and an utter disappointment? Taking into account the fact that you meant to say "if you played it again now it would be unplayable" - man, you're a journalist. Even if you are writing live, "unplayable" in this context is a term of art. It means the damn thing wont run. And Fallout clearly will. As a journalist, editorial or no, you need to use the terms of your industry correctly.

Furthermore, to say that it would be deeply disappointing is hyperbole of the first order. You didnt say "it would be disappointing to me" you implied that it would be for ANYONE. Sure there are people who hate turn-based games. More power to them. But for anyone who truly loves a game that has choices and consequences, they wont be disappointed in the least.

That's really the most egregious error you made man. Oblivion (whatever you think of it) has frick-all to do with choices and consequences - it's graphics and exploration. You have text choices that say the same thing no matter what your character is like and all roads lead to the same train rail. For someone that claims to have over 200+ hours on the original Fallout (which means you've replayed it with different characters), you ought to be able to rattle off at least half a page, if not a full page, of choices and consequences. But you cant or think that you've seen something in a 45-min pre-demo that equates to better than the original?

Even an editorial has standards. You dont have carte blanche to do whatever you wish and get away with it. I suggest you read PBS's Editorial Standards which can be found here: http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/aboutpbs_st ... dards.html#IV

I know that gaming mags get put out of the loop if they dont play the game, but when you criticize a game for the thing it does best, it just makes you look like you cant do your job.

All of this is an exercise in insanity. They're not going to change their minds at all - and worst of all will probably put out more PR-style reviews in the future.

This is the problem with the world-village. There are enough dumbasses out there that will support this mag (or any product, say BethSoft's pos) that it's impossible to give feedback to a merchant and have it matter.

 

[Leo Valesko]

It's a damn shame BlackIsle didn't made Fallout 3 using Brotherhood of Steel 2d engine. The whole shit with "Fallout going 3d" is making me sick.

As for Bethesda - they should buy Wasteland title instead of Fallout... ^( but the only thing they care for is money. Not hard-core Fallout fans.