Gamespot user soapbox

I'll be the first to say that all the badmouthing from other sites is ridiculous and immature.


But I'll also be the first to say that we have some members here that sort of lend to that presentation of the forum.


Sorrow said:
The valid tools to use on NMA is reason and logic. One uses them to discover the truth.
A lot of people dislike using reason in discussion because a reasonable discussion means that some people are obliged to lose, when they are proven to be wrong.
Which means that to be a successful NMA member one must be prepared to actually lose debates and to replace some of his/her beliefs.
For example, I used to believe that RT combat is better than Turn Based for Fallout, but I changed my belief after learning about the Fallout's core design.
Click to expand...


This whole argument is slighty ironic, if I do say so myself.
 
Brother None said:
With "some members" you mean "Sorrow"?

Sorrow, you just replied to the same post twice. Lulz
Click to expand...

:lol: nahhh.

Sorrow is a-ok in my book.



I mean, we often get those threads where "noobs" come in here without doing the proper research and are greeted rather harshly.

I think it should be a personal responsibility of most of the members to at least TRY and redirect people and point out their mistakes in a friendly manner before jumping down their throats.

And oftentimes the vatting of threads, while consistent and easily understood for members who have been here, confuses and angers new members who just don't understand.

sure the current system works, but it leaves some pretty bad impressions on people, especially new members, and now we are getting a sort of backlash for it from other sites.
 
And soon we can read: "NMA members threaten to make suicide bombing against Bethesda's office, if Fallout 3 is released!!!"

We're doomed...
 
Sorrow said:
But reason isn't designed to be nice, reason is a sword that separates true from false.
Click to expand...

The problem is that there is no "true" or "false" when it comes to personal taste and appreciation in entertainment forms like games. You are taking a viewpoint and trying to make it a truth when it is only personal perspective. The only "truth" about a game is "does it run properly or is it buggy" and "how many copies did it sell". Everything else is how you respond emotionally to the game, and there is no truth to be found in your emotional response.

I like playing turn based strategy games and I came to that perspective from playing old SPI and Avalon Hill war games. I don't like RT strat games because I like to micro-manage carefully planned combat. I don't think RTS games are shit, but I am annoyed because they are driving my choice of game into a niche status. There is no truth to be found here, only my emotional reaction to the presentation of the game.

The same thing applies to FO3. There is no "truth" in your negative opinion of the game or in my decision not to form an opinion until I have played it, there is only our different emotional reactions to the game. We have different priorities that drive our reactions, that's all.
 
Things are quite different from how you portray them.

We don't claim everybody should want the same thing from Fallout 3 as we do. Nobody said that. We only claim we know what Fallout 3 should be in order to be a true sequel.
So, some people want that and that. That's fine. We want this and this. Fine too.
The problem is when THOSE people come here and tell us what we want is old, obsolete etc. and we should accept change, because change is always good.
They are the ones telling us what to like. We're not telling them what to like. We tell them what we want from Fallout 3 - that is a, a true sequel.

Sure, in the process, insults may arise but hey.. life's not a fairy tale, and let's not forget the people who come here only to post "ZOMG! FALL OUT SUKZ!! Y NOT LIEK OBLIVIONZ?!!!!11"
 
Matt Helm said:
Sorrow said:
But reason isn't designed to be nice, reason is a sword that separates true from false.
Click to expand...

The problem is that there is no "true" or "false" when it comes to personal taste and appreciation in entertainment forms like games. You are taking a viewpoint and trying to make it a truth when it is only personal perspective. The only "truth" about a game is "does it run properly or is it buggy" and "how many copies did it sell". Everything else is how you respond emotionally to the game, and there is no truth to be found in your emotional response.

I like playing turn based strategy games and I came to that perspective from playing old SPI and Avalon Hill war games. I don't like RT strat games because I like to micro-manage carefully planned combat. I don't think RTS games are shit, but I am annoyed because they are driving my choice of game into a niche status. There is no truth to be found here, only my emotional reaction to the presentation of the game.

The same thing applies to FO3. There is no "truth" in your negative opinion of the game or in my decision not to form an opinion until I have played it, there is only our different emotional reactions to the game. We have different priorities that drive our reactions, that's all.
Click to expand...
Okay, so it's opinion. The prevailing opinion on this site is that FO3 is straying from the source. We base this opinion on facts given to us by previews and the developer. I don't know what your point it other than to bash our opinions. This site's been around forever. Of course it's going to favor a game similar to the originals. Expecting a favorable reaction to people coming in praising FO3 and approving of the changes and saying it will be better is like going to a WW2 veteran society and telling them that their generation pales in comparison to the current one. Not gonna get a nice response.
 
Matt Helm is right, there are a huge number of ad hominem attacks on this board.

People all think they're right, but only a small number of members realize that their own opinion is just that, an opinion.
 
xdarkyrex said:
Matt Helm is right, there are a huge number of ad hominem attacks on this board.
Click to expand...

Superficially, perhaps, a lot of it is just a part of our own community dynamic. If you're used to it, you realize that while a lot look like derogatory remarks and insults, they're not actually ad hominems.

A lot of the others are just ad hominems, yeah. We act like honey to the bees that is internet tough guys, I'll be first to admit that (remember the Escapist interview?), but writing off the entire community because we attract a few bad elements that usually don't last in our community anyway is pushing it, way way pushing it.

There is no "truth" in your negative opinion of the game or in my decision not to form an opinion until I have played it, there is only our different emotional reactions to the game.
Click to expand...

Everything is opinion, there's only two sets of objective truths:
1. The original design that made the franchise.
2. The design that Bethesda is applying.

We value the former highly, that is true, but writing it off as "just opinion" is just a weak bit of post-modernist deconstructivism, there.

Proselytizing
Click to expand...

Also untrue. People can have whatever opinion they want, as far as I'm concerned, I just want people to have informed opinions, and I consider it NMA's job at this time to offer news without hype, a look based on a chunk of bias, but an unique chunk of negative bias it is. If people still decide to buy Fallout 3 after knowing all the facts, that's great, I hope they'll enjoy the game, but we're here trying to make sure people do know all the facts before buying it, as opposed to the situation with Oblivion.
 
Brother None said:
xdarkyrex said:
Matt Helm is right, there are a huge number of ad hominem attacks on this board.
Click to expand...

Superficially, perhaps, a lot of it is just a part of our own community dynamic. If you're used to it, you realize that while a lot look like derogatory remarks and insults, they're not actually ad hominems.

A lot of the others are just ad hominems, yeah. We act like honey to the bees that is internet tough guys, I'll be first to admit that (remember the Escapist interview?), but writing off the entire community because we attract a few bad elements that usually don't last in our community anyway is pushing it, way way pushing it.
Click to expand...


But herein lies the problem. The first impression is the most important impression. Period. It leaves a lasting mark.
 
Vault 69er said:
Brother None said:
Sorrow said:
Enemies of Fallout feel need to vilify NMA, because it's the most rational and learned Fallout community.
Click to expand...

Ahahaha.

Ok, sorry, even I found that remark hilarious, and I'm not even an "enemy of Fallout" (wtf?)

Man, you're like a bad villain in a bond-flick, Sorrow. No wonder people love quoting you so much :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

And now watch as somebody, somewhere quotes it out of context and labels NMA a bunch of Commie Nazis who are out to get the "enemies of Fallout".
Click to expand...


Bingo ..you won a pie!

weemadando

YES!

I got featured on the front page of NMA!

And the attacks keep rolling in, why is it that when you target an already marginalised minority, you're suddenly treated like a Nazi?
 
weemadando said:
And the attacks keep rolling in, why is it that when you target an already marginalised minority, you're suddenly treated like a Nazi?
Click to expand...

Heh, funny remark. He stereotypes and attacks an entire community and then becomes upset because a couple of people repay the compliment? What the hell?

Interesting logic too, "they're already marginalized, it doesn't matter if we attack 'em!"

The thread on that forum (stardestroyer) is kind of funny. It's amusing how some posters admit to never having even looked at our site and then jump in ready to judge us, and others just throw in stereotypes or outright laws (like this guy who apparently forgot death threats are against NMA's rules and will get a poster banned).

Still, let's not go this route. Those guys are welcome to post here if they're interested in finding out anything for themselves rather than relying on other people's stereotypes. But sitting here commenting on their behaviour borders on cross-site trolling.

Time to let this rest, I say. I'd lock this thread, but it's a news-thread and locking it removes it from the frontpage
 
The way I meant it is that some people can't handle the fact that everyone has freedom of speech and there are people that will criticize their work and words due to their private reasons, so even if the criticism is logical and understandable, these people say that they are pressured by "those criticizing butcher monsters"
 
That weemamando says that he could be a gamer although he said that had not much time for playing. Of course you can be a gamer, but you can't say that short games are better than depper and complex games. You could not have time for reading Cervantes, Shakespeare or Umberto Eco, but don't tell me that Michael Crichton is a better writer.

And it's supposed that a professional videogames writer should have time for playing games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top