Game News Pete posts about previous interviews

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Briosa, i'm not trying to confuse quotes here. Look closely. Hines made that mistake in the past of assuming KoTOR was turnbased, and we all threw virtual rotten vegetables at him and there was much rejoicing. Now, look to the quote on this thread... Hines said TB and PB were similar, to which Saint responds that they aren't equal. It's like me saying a 1954 Buick and a 1964 Buick are similar, then someone comes on and tells me "HUR HUR HUR they're not the same HUR HUR".

We all know Hines fudged that one a while back, but what is the point of making a distinction between both systems again? By Saint's reaction, one would assume Hines said both systems were the same, when he didn't.


Briosa, repara bem. O meu ponto não é que o Hines tem razão, longe disso. Ele cometeu o erro de dizer no passado que o KoTOR era um exemplo de combate por turnos, e está errado, obviamente. A minha idea não é contestar essa frase dele. Se reparares, o Hines diz que o combate por fases é semelhante (ou seja, parecido) com o combate por turnos, nesta citação. O Saint remata com a frase "combate por turnos e combate por fases não são iguais", isto derivado daquela frase do Hines, não da inicial em que ele menciona que o KoTOR usa combate por turnos. Quando o Nomad apontou o erro, o Saint foi buscar a citação antiga para tentar explicar em que contexto foi usada. Percebes o problema? O problema não é o Saint apontar o problema, o problems é o Saint fazer um comentário desnecessário dada a situação, e tentar usar uma citação antiga como razão para o post dele.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I disagree.

Why am i not surprised?

I think that main issue here is Pete's ability to define, understand, and identify different combat systems.

That's a bit of a generalization. That i recall he only showed an inability to understand that KoTOR wasn't turnbased. I haven't seen him fumble up the definition of other systems... yet.

So, first Pete demonstrated that he doesn't have a clue what system KOTOR had, then he says that TB and PB are merely similar. Well, they are, but that's very vogue since similarity depends on the point of view.

That may be true, but the point is not quite that. The point is that, wheter he is wrong or right about it being different, Saint's comment was made in a way that one would think Pete had said they were the same thing... when all he said was they were similar (with autopause options enabled, even). That i recall, he said they weren't quite the same thing, so that baffles me even more in regards to Saint's comment, which seemed to be much more aimed at Hines' past misinformed statement than this one.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Wooohoooo, page 3! Go daddy, go daddy!

 

[Vault Dweller]

I think that main issue here is Pete's ability to define, understand, and identify different combat systems.

That's a bit of a generalization. That i recall he only showed an inability to understand that KoTOR wasn't turnbased. I haven't seen him fumble up the definition of other systems... yet.

You have, when he claimed that KOTOR RT system was, in fact, turn-based. :wink:

The point is that, wheter he is wrong or right about it being different, Saint's comment was made in a way that one would think Pete had said they were the same thing... when all he said was they were similar (with autopause options enabled, even).

Well, he also implied right there that BG combat was also similar to TB. Is there anyone here who thinks that BG with all kinda crap enabled was exactly like/similar to/strongly reminded of TB? Can somebody say that ToEE combat was similar to BG or IWD? Just curious.

which seemed to be much more aimed at Hines' past misinformed statement than this one.

It always surprises me when a PR person makes "misinformed" statements. Kinda extremely unprofessional, considering that that's his entire job, but maybe it's just me.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Well, he also implied right there that BG combat was also similar to TB. Is there anyone here who thinks that BG with all kinda crap enabled was exactly like/similar to/strongly reminded of TB? Can somebody say that ToEE combat was similar to BG or IWD? Just curious.

Those pauses don't follow the same guidelines as the pauses inherent to turnbased systems, but realtime phasebased with automated pauses - activated under certain conditions - does approximate it to turnbased.

It always surprises me when a PR person makes "misinformed" statements. Kinda extremely unprofessional, considering that that's his entire job, but maybe it's just me.

I may be mistaken (which wouldn't be a first), but a PR, as far as i'm concerned, only has to spin the company line and establish some good will between a company and its consumers. His lack of knowledge of the intrincacies of one combat system seen in several CRPGs might be abhorent to some people, but this is a negligible statement in the end. Note that this isn't meant to excuse him from his erroneous statement, because i don't think it is excusable; i'm simply pointing out that i don't think this is extremely unprofessional, as you put it.

In the end, it could be worse. He could've said Morrowind was a reflex-driven turnbased game.

 

[Vault Dweller]

...realtime phasebased with automated pauses - activated under certain conditions - does approximate it to turnbased.

How so? Turn-based, imo, has two key aspects: sequence and tactical moves (like 5-foot step, keeping distance, etc). Both are impossible in RT, phase-based or not.

...a PR, as far as i'm concerned, only has to spin the company line and establish some good will between a company and its consumers. His lack of knowledge of the intrincacies of one combat system seen in several CRPGs might be abhorent to some people, but this is a negligible statement in the end. Note that this isn't meant to excuse him from his erroneous statement, because i don't think it is excusable; i'm simply pointing out that i don't think this is extremely unprofessional, as you put it.

You and I, RP, have the liberty of talking out of our asses all day long, a PR guy does not. Wouldn't you agree that Pete's interviews are directly responsible for all that negativity and damage done? He could have calmed people, instead he pissed everybody who isn't a MW fan off. Very unprofessional.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

turn-based (or round-based, let's not split hairs)

That's enough right there. There is a fundamental difference between turn based and phase based, it's not splitting hairs. One is sequential, one isn't, and the sequential part is the important aspect of turn based over the other types of systems. It's like saying the difference between third person over the shoulder and first person is splitting hairs. While there may be similarities, they are different.

 

[Country_Gravy]

Most people here seem older than the retards I knew when I was 17, is the point.

Yeah. The retards here seem pretty mature.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

How so? Turn-based, imo, has two key aspects: sequence and tactical moves (like 5-foot step, keeping distance, etc). Both are impossible in RT, phase-based or not.

If i'm not in the wrong, i think those things can be used in phasebased, although at first glance i don't think they can be used in realtime. However, the point is, what would you consider to be closer to turnbased, a purely realtime system, or a system that used pauses (even if they were different from the ones used in pure turnbased)?

You and I, RP, have the liberty of talking out of our asses all day long, a PR guy does not. Wouldn't you agree that Pete's interviews are directly responsible for all that negativity and damage done? He could have calmed people, instead he pissed everybody who isn't a MW fan off. Very unprofessional.

Actually, I found IGN's misquotation of Pete Hines' statement, coupled with that incident with the Bethesda developer mouthing off against the Fallout community in some forum (Something Awful?), were much more unprofessional than Hine's ignorance of the inner workings of a combat model.

While there may be similarities, they are different.

Wasn't this the point, Saint? He said they weren't the same, but that they had similarities. Being similar, or carrying similarities, doesn't mean they are the same. Which is why i thought your comment was unecessary.

As for him saying "let's not split hairs", that appeared to be a way of not having message board users go on yet another rampage regarding combat models, which was (is) a recurring theme at their boards. But of course, i am speculating on this one.

 

[Country_Gravy]

Let me see if I have this phase based and turn based thing right.

In phase based combat, both parties move at the same time. You choose you move, and then YOU AND YOUR OPPONENT MOVE AT THE SAME TIME. The game pauses. Repeat.

Turn based is where each person takes turns. Only one person moves at time. You move, then they move. It doesn't happen at the same time.

That's it. That's the difference.
It is a HUGE difference.

Phase based is like playing chess and having you and your opponent move at the same time.

 

[Nomad]

I don't believe anyone is disagreeing about how PB, RT w/ P and TB combat are all different. I'm not even disputing the fact that Pete got it wrong in an earlier interview or whatever. All we're saying is that in the original "news" post SP made that started this thread, he quoted Pete as saying one thing and then proceeded to comment on it as if he'd said something else. That's not right, especially in something that tries to pass itself off as "news".

Argue all you want about the degree to which Pete's statements are correct or incorrect, but it doesn't change the fact that SP screwed up in the original post. If SP wanted to comment about statements made by Pete previously, SP should have quoted them in the first place. The funny thing is, I wouldn't have even posted anything after SP provided the quote that was the source of his comments if he'd done so in a more agreeable manner.

It's not like it's the end of the world, though. People make mistakes all the time - evidenced, by Pete's statements, SP's comments and, of course, my continuing to post in this thread. I'm going to correct my mistake - how about you, SP?




N.

 

[Briosafreak]

I give up, going to watch Underworld on dvd and get a few beers instead

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I give up, going to watch Underworld on dvd and get a few beers instead

Traidor!

 

[Vault Dweller]

i think those things can be used in phasebased, although at first glance i don't think they can be used in realtime.

They can't be used in RT, and tactical moves and actions become from less effective to pointless in PB.

However, the point is, what would you consider to be closer to turnbased, a purely realtime system, or a system that used pauses (even if they were different from the ones used in pure turnbased)?

What would you consider to be closer to drinking water, wall paint or gasoline? The answer is irrelevant, because no matter which one is technically closer, it can't be used as drinking water.

Actually, I found IGN's misquotation of Pete Hines' statement, coupled with that incident with the Bethesda developer mouthing off against the Fallout community in some forum (Something Awful?), were much more unprofessional than Hine's ignorance of the inner workings of a combat model.

His ignorance of that isn't unprofessional, his failure to do his job is. Regardless of the IGN screwup, that BG comment was bad. There is little difference between stating that "we are not going.." and "I don't think we are going" - both are negative. Had he said "we are considering all options including the isometric one", things would be different. Also, why Baldur's Gate reference? Is it supposed to be the favourite game of the FO fans? What license did they buy? Whom are they trying to talk to? That was bad too. Saying we're going to do what we do well was bad too. Making all the KOTOR references, from "whoa, you can play both good AND bad guy in KOTOR" to KOTOR was TB and on consoles and did well too was also bad. Yep, I'd say the guy is pretty unprofessional.

 

[Volourn]

Uh. No it isn't. Not if you realize what goals Bethesda has in buying the FO license. ic an guarantee you they didn't do so to please the FO hardcore fanbase. if yout hink theyc are about the FO hardcore fanbase you are naive. For starters, contrary toe goists like Rosh, not all FO dvelopers *need* the ahrdcore FO fanbase to make a successful game. Bethesda alreayd has a winning formula. With the FO license, they'll get the Fo fans who'll buy anything with the Fo symbol on it, they get their own fanbase (which is very large as it is),a nd a whole bucnh of lackeys who buy games because they can.

He *is* doing his job. Afterall, people are disucssing what he is saying left and right. game over. He wins.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I agree that Bethesda was never planning to make a true FO sequel, yet they could have handled the PR thing differently, and they didn't. That's the point.

 

[Volourn]

That doesn't mean they're acting unprfoessional, however. All sorts of licenses are boguht and then changed to meet the new owners' goals. Afterall, if BG3 and NWN2 are made by someone other than BIO (most likely), it's going to have changes as well. Hopefully good ones; but you never know. 'tis just the way it is sadly it means FO3 is doomed because it is the hands of the crappiest developer of all time tm.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I don't mean uprofessional in an unethical sorta way, I mean it in an amateurish way. It's not because Beth isn't using the FO license properly, it's because Pete turned things from bad to much much worse with few idiotic and clueless comments.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

They can't be used in RT, and tactical moves and actions become from less effective to pointless in PB.

I'll take your word for it.

What would you consider to be closer to drinking water, wall paint or gasoline? The answer is irrelevant, because no matter which one is technically closer, it can't be used as drinking water.

This barely makes sense and doesn't address my point. Nowhere did i tried to make it seem either could be considered the same, and as such, a substitute, so i'd have to say your dismissive retort is what is irrelevant.

The point is not about seeing wheter either of the alternatives can be used as drinking water, the point is establishing which has more similarities - and therefore which can be considered to be more similar.

His ignorance of that isn't unprofessional, his failure to do his job is. Regardless of the IGN screwup, that BG comment was bad. There is little difference between stating that "we are not going.." and "I don't think we are going" - both are negative.

Eh? are you telling me there's little difference between a confirmation and a doubt? Are you telling me both of those statements are negative? So the next time you tell me you're not certain of something, it's safe to take it as "no"?

Had he said "we are considering all options including the isometric one", things would be different.

Come on Vault, you know bloody well it wouldn't. People fret over any measly crumb developers or PRs drop. If they had told they were considering all options, including the possibility of using isometric, people would still throw the same fits, because Bethesda weren't giving any expressed guarantees that isometric would be in. You know this as well as i do, don't bother telling me it would be different.

Also, why Baldur's Gate reference?

You'd have to ask Hines about that, but my guess is that it's because both KoTOR and Baldur's Gate use a similar system, as he said so himself.

Is it supposed to be the favourite game of the FO fans? What license did they buy? Whom are they trying to talk to? That was bad too.

Remembered when i said people threw fits about everything?

Saying we're going to do what we do well was bad too.

So, are you suggesting they're unprofessional by being honest in saying that they are not certain of being able to work with something entirely different, because it's not what they do well? It's bad being honest? Would it be preferable to lie and present something totally different as the end result instead of being honest about their capabilities from the start? I seriously question your concept of professional at this point.

Making all the KOTOR references, from "whoa, you can play both good AND bad guy in KOTOR"

KoTOR isn't exactly innovative on the approach to good and evil, but mentioning the better aspects of a commercially successful title when asked about what should be important in an RPG seems fairly professional. If he said it was the amount of cleavage and breats size, then i'd be pretty suspicious of his PR skills, though.

 

[Vault Dweller]

This barely makes sense and doesn't address my point.

Then why do you think that it makes sense to seek similarities between 2 very different systems? Even if they exist on some levels, they serve no purpose, not in the context of this discussion and Pete's comment.

Nowhere did i tried to make it seem either could be considered the same

You didn't, Pete did. Since we're discussing his comment and its various interpretations, it's relevant.

the point is establishing which has more similarities - and therefore which can be considered to be more similar.

No, the point was that Pete claimed that
a) KOTOR with autopause is "more of a TB experience"
b) turn-based=round-based
So, it wasn't about some abstract discussion on what's more similar, it was about specific, but false claims.

There is little difference between stating that "we are not going.." and "I don't think we are going" - both are negative.

Are you telling me both of those statements are negative? So the next time you tell me you're not certain of something, it's safe to take it as "no"?

The answers are yep, and pretty much. If you are applying for a job, is there any practical difference between "no, we won't hire you" and "I don't think we will hire you"? Wouldn't you say that both answers are negative no matter what?

Come on Vault, you know bloody well it wouldn't...If they had told they were considering all options, including the possibility of using isometric, people would still throw the same fits

Of course, but there would have been hope and thus more people willing to give Bethesda the often spoken of benefits of the doubts. Some people wouldn't have trusted them, but some people would have. Thus, it would be different.

Also, why Baldur's Gate reference?

You'd have to ask Hines about that, but my guess is that it's because both KoTOR and Baldur's Gate use a similar system, as he said so himself.

And that makes sense why?

So, are you suggesting they're unprofessional by being honest in saying that they are not certain of being able to work with something entirely different, because it's not what they do well? It's bad being honest?

In some cases it's stupid. Saying that was stupid because it served no purpose, reassured nobody, but confirmed the worst fears. Overalll, do you disagree that Pete's involvement made the matters much worse?

Would it be preferable to lie and present something totally different as the end result instead of being honest about their capabilities from the start? I seriously question your concept of professional at this point.

The answer to the question is yes. Without reaching for a dictionary, professional=competent, experienced, highly skilled. Pete demonstrated neither of these qualities, unless of course he was asked to piss the FO fans off in which case he was very professional.

KoTOR isn't exactly innovative on the approach to good and evil, but mentioning the better aspects of a commercially successful title when asked about what should be important in an RPG seems fairly professional.

Here is the exact quote for your convinience, since your memory is failing you:

Finally, what do you think will be the next big progression in the RPG genre?

Hines: An increased emphasis on immersion and allowing players to play the game any way they want. Obviously the Elder Scrolls has always been about that very thing, but games like KOTOR were great not just because they were fun to play, but because you could have a blast playing as the good guy while your friend was enjoying it as the most evil son-of-a-gun you can imagine. Same game, but completely different experiences and choices that let you customise your experience.

Any questions?

 

[Transcendent One]

For the record, it's "I don't know if...", not "I don't think". Of course I don't think is negative. But I don't know is exactly what it states - it's uncertain. Of course both can be perceived as negative, but one is not necessarily going to be so.

 

[FrankHorrigan]

Uh. No it isn't. Not if you realize what goals Bethesda has in buying the FO license. ic an guarantee you they didn't do so to please the FO hardcore fanbase. if yout hink theyc are about the FO hardcore fanbase you are naive. For starters, contrary toe goists like Rosh, not all FO dvelopers *need* the ahrdcore FO fanbase to make a successful game. Bethesda alreayd has a winning formula. With the FO license, they'll get the Fo fans who'll buy anything with the Fo symbol on it, they get their own fanbase (which is very large as it is),a nd a whole bucnh of lackeys who buy games because they can.

I dont know if i would agree with that... If you make some comparsions to IPlay.. Dark Alliance 1 sold pretty well but that fan base didnt buy into Fallout POS, so to make a leap saying MW fans will jump right on board because its the same company is just wrong. Moderate Fallout fans wont buy *anything* just cause it has the FO brand name on it, again i'd point FOOS, although different formats, so im not pushing that point to hard. Your right in saying they are not making the game for hardcore fallout fans, but.. its hardcore fans who have kept the franchise "alive" & "commericaly viable", theirs very few games as old as fallout 1&2 that publishers would be even bothered picking up these days, so the hardcore fans cannot be just dismissed as irrelevant.

 

[POOPERSCOOPER]

 

[Greenskin13]

Rolling on the river.

Poops, I need clarity.

 

[plin]

OMG POOPS YOURS SOE FUNnYYYYY OMG LOLZERZ. ..asahahaAAHAHAHAHahaAHAHA POOOOOPS.

OMG FUNNIES, FUNNNIIIESSSS