PC Gamer UK on NMA and AoD

[EuphoricOneTriesAgain]

This. Explain this to me. Why does a post from a user with a history full of humorous, untrue{?} posts and stories is taken fucking seriously and used as an example of NMA stupidity? Or the obvious joke about girlfriend slapping? Do we not have a right to joke around? Will I prove SA is stupid if I dig up some posts containing idiocity?

The posts I read did not seem the least bit like stories. Even if they were stories, there is no disclaimer on the site that says “ATTN: Insane, borderline psychotic posts on this may just be stories. Please don’t take them seriously.”

Some people just don't get it that the reason for most of the negative critique is that Bethesta is forcing their game to be canon, and the official sequel, tho it misses very important parts of the original games.

therefore, many of the things that are heavily discussed and criticised here, won't ever keep FO3 from becoming a successful game.

thats why the pc gamer dude (among others) thinks NMA is making a fuss out of nothing, and thus treats NMA as extremistic freaks.

this wont change soon, because only a few people understand the spirit of the original games (FO1+2). The others wont mind playing a game that is in no way true neither to the original fallout gameplay nor the canon, because it may be a relatively good game in itself.

I also believe that there would be only a minimum of hatred if they didnt make it a sequel but called it "based on fallout".


but now to something else; i keep wondering why the game press keeps attacking NMA on this unprofessional level. there's nothing more easy than scimming an online forum and taking quotes out of context that have a not-so-balanced attitude.

people who know what website the author is talking about would propably take a look theirselves, and those who don't wouldn't care at all. NMA wouldn't have a loss, either way, because it's open and free.

Why do they think that FO3 will become more popular if they keep bashing the most important FO Fansite?


ive been lurking for ages but this is my first post... please dont delete me...

I would start quoting and breaking down this post, but I think I addressed almost all of it through previous posts in this thread. Again, anyone wondering why NMA has the rep it has and why it gets attacked like it does needs only to read some of the posts on NMA.

Of course there a LOT of people who come here and post something aggressive and unconstructive against Bethesda. So what? Most of us simply don't agree with them, or at least not with the way the present their opinion. We just ignore them most of the time. But apparently these are the exact people who post things that are worth quoting according to the people who bash NMA.

So what? Not only is that a kickass Metallica cover song, but it’s also a good attitude to take. Unfortunately, NMA does not take that attitude when receiving flames from every corner of the internet.

Straw-man. Shoo. Go awa'!

Blah.

What the hell?! If they really wanted to make their own game, they should have made a new I.P. from start. How would you feel if some unkown guy, no, better yet, what if Uwe Boll would continue writing Tolkien's work? Or Lovecraft's? On top of that, what if he wanted to "reinvent" everything?! THAT is the problem sir. Is it hard to understand?

They didn't want to start a new IP from scratch, they wanted to resurrect a dead franchise. Since I don't worship Fallout as my lord and personal savior in life, I don't care if they reinvent things AND it turns out well. If they change everything and it turns out like shit, then I'll be right there flaming them with everyone else.

Wow! Y'know? Somehow, I had the idea you were not trolling and were actually presenting arguments about things... Guess I was terribly mistaken... Wow... Stupid me, really.

Strawman, shoo! Go away!

The "flies" in this case are the folks who give NMA the reputation it has. Since I haven't kept a journal of who these folks are, it's nice that they pop out of the woodwork to save me the time from searching.

Oh! The unbearable bittertaste of irony in my veins! Huh, wait, he actually had a counterpoint...

...and a strong one at that.

It doesn't. At all.

Because you've seen enough of the game to make that determination. I meant setting more as in the general feel of the setting in the originals, not as in west coast - east coast.

Maybe... From what I've seen, it doesn't.

You haven't seen anything, so that counts for a lot.

Maybe, I'm optimistic on this one, and the majority here is. I think so, at least.

ha, this is a funny one, because out of everything people gripe about, this is the one I am least optimistic about. The dialog in Oblivion was decent, but no where near at the level of Fallout. I'll be very impressed if they can pull this one off.

It probably doesn't.

Good, let's assume it doesn't, then flame Beth based on that assumption!

It doesn't. At all. At all, no way. If you care enough, read my (reasonable) opinion here: http://fallout3.wordpress.com/articles/morbus-gameplay-rant/

No, it may not. I will be happy if I can play most of the game in VATS mode, but then when I'm leveled up, I won't have to wait in TB mode to fight a pack of rats or radscorpions. That was a major annoyance in the first two for me. With VATS, I can blow them away real quick and move on.

So what? You won't say "I'm not liking the way this looks" and such?! You don't really care that much about whether the game is good or not do you? I don't think you do...

This is another thing you guys always do...understate your opinion after the fact. I can guarantee you there is a lot more "Bethesda fucking sucks. FO3 is going to be a piece of shit." than there is "I'm not liking the way this looks."

Lol. Don't you tell me you NEVER saw anyone praising something about Fallout 3 here

It's pretty rare.

Don't you know of his infamous post explaining how Fallout 3 was being shaped? From his words, he saw the game. Wow, you are talking about him and you DON'T KNOW about "his post"?!

No, I haven't made it my life's work to have a first hand knowledge of every post Roshambo ever made. Good thing you provided a link to it...oh wait.

Argumentum ad verecundiam. Again. Anyway, it makes you illiterate RPG players, just that.

Oh noeZ!!! My gaming creds are under teh attacks!!

My boss just called. He is decreasing my pay 15%, effective immediately, because I don't like the same games you do and I'm an illiterate RPG player.

Gotta love video game elitists. hahaha 2 notches higher than Star Trek elitists.

You either pirate games or you have loads of money... Well, FYI, for many people here a game costs 1/5 of their revenues... How about that? Ah! Sweet USA, where a prison guard earns 11$ an hour... I'd be rich if I earned that much! And Portugal is not the worst of the worst...

Download a demo. Or you can do like I have in the past, download the game, determine whether it's worth you money, and buy it if it is.

BTW, most prison guards earn a lot more than $11 here in the states. haha I suppose you would freak if I told you what I make.

Hm, so in other words: despite having read negative criticism that made you doubt the quality of the game, you choose to ignore that criticism completely and buy the final product, when it will be too late to voice any criticism, because the product will have already been finished. How can criticizing a game because you have doubts about its quality make you a fucking dumbass? Doesn't it make YOU the fucking dumbass for being gullible and buying the game anyway?

Congratulations to you for earning enough, but there are actually people out there who can't just buy every game they see on the shelves. Many of them rely on the gaming press. Yet if the gaming press refrains from negative criticism - an anomaly you yourself note to be true - how can it be trusted to provide an accurate evaluation of a product?

Uh, no. I'll rent it, download a demo, or go other routes before I pay money to own it. Also, my statements about the gaming press only apply to previews. EGM and Games for Windows are usually spot on in their reviews as I've bought a couple games based on reviews only.

EGM and Gamespot FTW.

So why, then, does the movie journalism industry not suffer from this ailment? Really?
There's a very easy fix for this: game journalism needs to grow the fuck up. In any other review industry, if a reviewer gets shut out for a previous critical pre- or review, all hell would break loose. In the game industry everybody says 'What can we do, we're obligated to give good (p)reviews."
Which is absolutely retarded.

Again, I don't see it as an epidemic like you folks do. Don't buy a game based on a preview. Not so hard. I don't feel as if I'm missing out too much because my choice gaming magazine can't say "this game looks like a piece of shit so far."

See, this is what I also don't get.
Go look up Oblivion previews, Oblivion reviews and Fallout 3 previews. Note how all Oblivion previews are gushingly positive, almost all Oblivion reviews proclaim it to be 'best game evar', yet a lot of Fallout 3 previews then continue to almost bash Oblivion for all of its 'obvious' faults, such as level scaling, stupid NPCs and bad voice acting. Why, when all of these faults are so very obvious, did they not factor into any of the Oblivion reviews?

Another solid point. My only rebuttal would be maybe some of these faults are not as immediately obvious as other (although level scaling pissed me off after less than 10 hours of Oblivion).

Based on what?

You know, Brother None, it's none of my business, but perhaps you should hold people accountable when they make posts like these ones. Like it or not, Roshambo was a big part of NMA and he deserves some respect.

I'd humbly suggest either asking that fella to support his opinion of Rosh with some arguments or throw his dumb ass out.

Based on what?

You know, Brother None, it's none of my business, but perhaps you should hold people accountable when they make posts like these ones. Like it or not, Roshambo was a big part of NMA and he deserves some respect.

I'd humbly suggest either asking that fella to support his opinion of Rosh with some arguments or throw his dumb ass out.

Uh, take a look at this thread: http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=355207&highlight=#355207

That's just a simple search of his posts. Wow, here's how to win an argument; call someone dumb because they like different games than you and repeatedly call them a child. What's worse is we're not talking about a vengeful, pimple faced 15 yr old making these posts from his mom's basement, it appears we're talking about a vengeful 30-something making these posts from his mom's basement. This requires no further explanation as far as I'm concerned.

It's just his opinion, which makes him sound like the asstard troll he is, VDweller. Actually, the less drivel I hear from him, the better, much less would I ask for it.

Besides, I believe he's goten a strike just. Might not last long.


But thanks for the suggestion.

Ah, forgot to add that to the NMA mainstay; when someone doesn't agree with us wholeheartedly, he/she is either a troll, dumb teenager, Beth plant. I think I covered them all that time.

Also, good to see mods/admin leading by example (asstard troll=flames me thinks).

I'm almost sure you were baiting me on that one though...

 

[Sorrow]

Re: the weigh in lasted 2 secs - world record!!!

The ammo is marked as lightweight, yes.

However, that doesn't make other ammunition heavy.

Alone not, but combined with a weigh difference in inventory, it does make .223 heavier.

Also, take note that the ammo is used in AK-112 and Rockwell's CZ-53, which may also mean that it's primarily assault rifle ammo later adapted for the CZ-53 to make logistics easier (kind of like the 5.56mm of today, used in M16/M4/M249, which are different class of firearms.

Except that there aren't 5.56mm Personal Miniguns IRL - military tried to make such weapon, but recoil was too high.
On the other hand, it can work with lighter ammo. 5mm ammo is what makes such thing as a Personal Minigun possible.

Do you have any reliable source that the .223 miniguns did not exist? No, you don't.

I have a source that .223 miniguns did exist - Fallout 2. They were Heavy Dual Miniguns mounted on immobile defence turrets.

Do you have any reliable source that the .223 miniguns did not exist? No, you don't. Numerous real life cartridges exist within the universe of Fallout (.44, 10mm, 5.56mm etc.) alongside fictional ones, so the move to introduce more variety in ammunition (9mm, which existed in Fallout and was used) wasn't all too uncommon.

You're missing the point - I'm not talking about just adding new RL ammo types, but about removing the old Fallout ones - 5mm, 10mm and 14mm.
The .223 Minigun was .223 because 5mm ammo was no more.
What's the point of such revision?

(9mm, which existed in Fallout and was used)

Only for one antique weapon.

Plus, note how 5mm ammo is used for AK-112, which is marked as old and outdated. Maybe the round was being taken out of circulation and a new one introduced?

A new round that is a century old and is less suitable to be fired at extreme rpms?

You are worshipping Fallout, and that is highly disturbing.

Am I? I didn't know that...

Fallout was not, is not and will not be perfect in any way, shape or form.

Which I said many times.

 

[urikireOCS]

Everything is relative.

Yup


but saying that too much gets boring -_-

...so having PnP geeks on the team doesn't necessarily make a cRPG good.

Indeed

my words were - "I have no evidence of Bethesda being made up of the PnP geeks BIS was so why in the world would I even consider them to use BIS's work as a basis for their games beyond name only?"

Avellone, Sawyer, etc were what personified what Interplay used to stand for. That sentence on their old graphic from years past that you can check out if you don't remeber by firing up the Fallouts. Something about for the gamers.... I simply don't see that from Bethesda in the slightest. The ones in charge exude that corporate snarkiness more than gaming nerdness. It's what I get from Howard nearly everytime he speaks. I base all this on what I have read and gathered over time. BTW, I really want to see if the numbers back up your theory Morbus. We might both be surprised...

 

[urikireOCS]

Sorrow - Perhaps you should consider the possibility that Bethesda is scared and guarded about their baby Elder Scrolls. FO3 gives them the opportunity to branch out and do things they refuse to do normally. I could be completely wrong about them, but I want to see what they do with this liberty. Since that is exactly what FO3 is to me in their hands...

 

[welsh]

I read this kind of thing and get the feeling people want us to defend our position here, to be apologetics.

Fuck that.

We're an NMA community and we're critical. That's the nature of this community. We're thoughtful. We want to hear good arguments, we have expectations.

We've been waiting ten years for a decent sequel and have helped keep this franchise alive. If we say things that hurt your feelings, well that's unfortunate that you're so damn sensitive.

Seriously, we have simple rules- don't flame, don't troll and don't spam. We have standards- good and logical argument is appreciated, bullshit is not.

BN is right- we invite criticism and argument. That we get visited by trolls on occassion might be because there are people who don't like the stand of this community. Ok, so that's the nature of things. We will police this community as we normally have.

This is, and has always been, a community site. The interests of this site is to support and promote the interests of the fallout fan community.

If Bethesda wants to re-organize or claim the mantle of leading fallout community, they are welcome to try.

I think the core of this site has been an appreciation of what was great about Fallout 1 and Fallout 2. As long as people appreciate those games and want to see the quality that those games represent continued in a future game, then we at NMA have a reason for being here.

Yes, we're critical. That's a good thing. Being critical forces people to think. It forces game developers to pay attention and not be sloppy, it imposes standards and expectations. Since those standards and expectations represent the consensus of this community, great.

If Bethesda or the Bethesda fan crowd doesn't like that, too bad. They don't have to come here. If they do come here than they should comply with our rules as our members comply with the rules of the Bethesda forums.

Frankly, I could give a flying fuck what other sites say or do. They don't matter and I rarely visit them. If they want to jerk off over what we do here, piss and whine, fine. I don't have the time to waste to be bothered with that nonsense.

And yes, Rosh was a very valuable and respected member of this community. Did he flame, yes. Did he have extreme opinions, yes. Rosh had an idealized vision of what Fallout was about and what this community stood for. While I do not agree with all that he did, he was a valued member of this community and I certainly respect his vision and his commitment to Fallout and the Fallout community.

As for Fallout 3. I'd hope that Bethesda would honor its promise to give a game that Fallout Fans would love. So far, I don't thing that happening. So far, they are making a game they want and what many fans do not. So far, they don't seem to consider criticism. So far, I am unimpressed with their consideration of the high expectation of the Fallout community. And if they create a cluster fuck of a Fallout 3, that's too bad.

Does it matter? Not as long as people continue to play Fallout and Fallout games. Not as long as people continue to write mods or participate in discussions, or otherwise embrace those games.

We're a pretty big community. We've got people like Per who must have spent hours working on those walkthrought. People who dedicate time to modding Fallout Tactics, who translate Fallout news into different languages, and a lot of people who just come here to share their ideas. People come and go, and some we miss.

So yes, people will bad mouth us. Fuck em. This is a great fucking community and I proud to be a member of it.

 

[Sorrow]

Sorrow - Perhaps you should consider the possibility that Bethesda is scared and guarded about their baby Elder Scrolls. FO3 gives them the opportunity to branch out and do things they refuse to do normally.

It gave them that opportunity, but they missed it - they choose to "do what they do the best".

So yes, people will bad mouth us. Fuck em. This is a great fucking community and I proud to be a member of it.

I second that .

 

[TheWesDude]

As for Fallout 3. I'd hope that Bethesda would honor its promise to give a game that Fallout Fans would love. So far, I don't thing that happening. So far, they are making a game they want and what many fans do not.

i dont think i have seen anyone at beth promise a game that the fallout fans would like, they said they would make their version of fallout doing what they do best which we have known since the beginning that meant oblivion with guns.

have they tried in some areas and put forth a good faith effort in limited areas? sure. are they making a game worthy of the fallout franchise and how it started? hell no. hell, i am not even a serious hardcore fan of fallout, im moreso a fan of ultima. but fallout was the only worthy successor to the RPGs of old that i remember in ultima. when ultima 8 came out, i was a little puzzled, when ultima 9 came out i was horribly dissapointed. so far it looks like FO3 is going to be to FO1+2 as ultima 9 was to the ultima series.

and that makes me sad inside to see such great legacies fall as they have.

no, first person is not more immersive than any other view. it just means the designer is so incompetent that they dont know how to make an involving game in any other perspective. is real-time more immersive? i think real-time is far less immersive because it means that me the player depends on the success rather than the charecter which makes it hard to believe i am the charecter if the actions of the charecter dont matter because the player trumps the charecter. thats not immersive to me.

to me immersiveness is determined by how believeable is the charecter as seprate from myself. I am not strong IRL. if the charecter i am playing is supposed to be strong and i cannot seperate myself from the consequences that the charecter goes through. i think thats the biggest problem. the younger console kiddies are used to thinking they ARE the person in the game and acting like it, while older gamers KNOW they arent so when game designers try to force that perspective it breaks immersiveness because we know we arent.

when the old school gamers play a FPS they say " i killed the boss in doom! " knowing they directed the actions of mr space marine who killed the boss, while console kiddies say " i killed the boss in doom! " knowing that they as a person did it themselves. and thats the problem.

 

[ivpiter]

Some disgruntled forum inhabitants at www.nma-fallout.com have been wallowing in their own misery since finding out details of Bethesda's plans for Fallout 3. They're moaning about not being able to kill children and whether drinking from toilet bowls should be a feature.

Simpleminded and derogatory. How uninspired. I do appreciate the irony of reducing NMA to "!Fallout = evil" when I find things so morally ambiguous.

I believe a slightly more eloquent and accurate way to depict this is:

No Mutants Allowed, the dedicated fanbase that’s part what keeps the Fallout IP so vibrant are oft-times critical of Bethesda’s approach. They question every aspect of design - especially those that take out preexisting material, such as killing children - and the addition of new mechanics, such as whether drinking from toilet bowls should be a feature. Through in depth discourse and research every aspect of the Fallout 3 project are scrutinized by the most informed Fallout community in existence. The subtext seems to be that because Fallout 3 doesn't maintain elements of the past games and is adding game elements not found first two games then it is somehow not a faithful quality successor to the original Fallout.

Anyways, I hope interested readers stop by NMA and grab a tall glass of CRPG goodness.

Oh and Trivia Dragon I couldn’t agree more, I want my character to interact with the game world – not me.

 

[Ausir]

Oh well, at least the protectrons will be a worthy addition to the Fallout canon .

 

[Maphusio]

Let the fireworks soar... Welsh, I think its safe to say you are my NMA hero. If you were to do an audio take of that, just put some patriotic tune in the background and you've got... something.

Reading these threads in their entirety becomes quite tiering. I feel all points I could think of have been made; yet, I get the feeling we will be right back here a week down the line when the next game media organization decides to play dirty with the name of NMA.

Cheers to a fat, lifeless area of journalism. Cheers to an end nowhere in sight.

 

[jfreund]

I played Fallout shortly after its release, and bought Fallout 2 (which included Fallout) pretty close to release. I played Fallout Tactics and enjoyed it (though I'm replaying it now and it's a bit tedious). I lurked NMA for years before I finally registered (after Bethesda had bought the license and begun development of "FO3").

I started here with the attitude of "let's see what Bethesda delivers before we hate them". The Beth haters have been vindicated with every bit of info that has surfaced concerning Fallout 3. Bethesda is totally ignoring the PnP and PC roots of Fallout and making some FP-RT-action-RPG targeted at console gamers. They did NOT need the Fallout IP to make this game. It's as if they spent more than $5 million just to piss off Fallout fans.

Any decent game consists of much more than its setting. Bethesda is focusing solely on the setting of Fallout (their success so far is debatable) and ignoring GAMEPLAY. Bethesda's Fallout 3 is no more a Fallout sequel than a realtime strategy game can be a Tetris sequel.

 

[Kyuu]

Sorrow - Perhaps you should consider the possibility that Bethesda is scared and guarded about their baby Elder Scrolls. FO3 gives them the opportunity to branch out and do things they refuse to do normally. I could be completely wrong about them, but I want to see what they do with this liberty. Since that is exactly what FO3 is to me in their hands...

That's bullcrap, unfortunately. Bethesda is, quite obviously, not doing anything different. Hell, one of the first bits of PR to come out of Pete Hines's (or was it Todd Howard's? can't recall) mouth was that they wouldn't be doing isometric-view or turn-based because it's not what they do best. That's a pretty explicit statement that they're not going to be thinking outside the box they formed developing the previous TES games. They can't fathom any viewpoint having merit besides first-person, they can't fathom a combat system that's not real-time, they can't think outside of dungeons with leveled loot (yes, those are going to be present in FO3), or standard-fantasy-fare orcs as supermutants, or the Brotherhood as anything but foul-mouthed knights-in-shining-armor (instead of the more neutral, technology-hoarding, insular (and more interesting) organization they're were established as in the originals).

You haven't seen anything, so that counts for a lot.

Of course... we haven't seen screenshots, or read scores of previews, or had two members of this site actually see the demo and give very detailed facts and impressions of it. And there certainly aren't tons of interviews where Pete and Tood and Emil have revealed things about the game. Nope, we don't know anything.

The only valid point you can make in this regard is that we haven't seen the actual, final finished product, but then no one claims they have, so it's really not valid. People can, quite legitimately, say that from what is known so far, they feel that the game is going to suck, either as a Fallout game, an RPG, a game in general, or some combination of all three.

 

[EuphoricOneTriesAgain]

Of course... we haven't seen screenshots, or read scores of previews, or had two members of this site actually see the demo and give very detailed facts and impressions of it. And there certainly aren't tons of interviews where Pete and Tood and Emil have revealed things about the game. Nope, we don't know anything.

You mean the same 11 or so screen shots and 900 previews all on the same 1 HOUR of gameplay footage? Wow, information overload!!

The only valid point you can make in this regard is that we haven't seen the actual, final finished product, but then no one claims they have, so it's really not valid. People can, quite legitimately, say that from what is known so far, they feel that the game is going to suck, either as a Fallout game, an RPG, a game in general, or some combination of all three.

It's quite valid and folks who declare "this game is going to suck" are utilizing about as much knowledge as folks declaring who the SuperBowl winner is going to be for the 2008 season.

Also, statements like this make the opinion of the community as a whole quite hypocritical. If dialogue, writing, story, and humor all mean sooo much (and I agree they do), then how can you make this determination without seeing the finished product? Oh, you can't.

 

[Jiggly McNerdington]

EDIT:

I've actually asked for rationale a time or two, and some of it seems alien to me. Like I mentioned in the other post up there, the "It might be a good game but it isn't a good Fallout game" theory doesn't mesh with me. I can sort of see where they're getting it, it just doesn't click particularly well in my head.

Compare it to a Star Wars sequel that focuses on the Ewoks' struggle for a free moon, fighting against the Empire while the Ewoks have Jedi and a few spacefighters.
Sure, it has some of the Star Wars elements and hell, it might even be a good movie. But it's an absolute travesty when it comes to fitting with the previous movies. It wouldn't be a good Star Wars movie.

Similarly, Bethesda might be making a pretty good game right now. Maybe the combat system will work well for fans of FPS-games, for instance. But that it might be a good game, doesn't mean that it is a fitting Fallout sequel. It's pretty safe to say that it wouldn't be a good Fallout sequel, at least in my eyes.

See, that doesn't bother me that much. Hell, his actual prequels messed with a lot of Star Wars lore (Midichlorians or whatever they're called? Anakin built C3-P0? OH MY ANGER FAT IS A-JIGGLIN') and for the most part WEREN'T good movies (They got a bit more tolerable as they progressed, I'd put episode 3 somewhere around Return of the Jedi. God damn ewoks) but even the shitty episode 1 had enough cool Star Wars nuggets that every once in a while I'll watch it, or skip to the fun bits (Snazzy Darth Maul fight scene (Which even that could be argued is sort of un-Star Warsy due to flipping around like maniacs and being all fancy with their fighting instead of hacking at people with lightsabers like in the earlier movies)) anyway. I'm kinda rambling, but what I'm getting at is even something as bad as episode 1 has a few redeeming features, and if Bethesda does as bad of a job with FO3 as that then I'll probably wait until it's $20-30 somewhere and then pick it up, since it most likely will have enough nuggets of goodness.

Still, the prequels annoy me less than Lucas dicking with the originals. If Bethesda does (Or even can, I was under the impression they bought the Fallout rights but not actually the original games) re-release Fallout 1 and 2 that'd be cool, even cooler if they updated it to run better on XP/Vista (Dunno about you guys but for me the end-game cutscenes for both games are borked. Skips most of them) or even went so far to patch it that'd be cool. If they actually changed things then I'd be waving torches and pitchforks, but since the got the rights to FO3 at least at worst I'd expect an episode 1 level of shittiness and at best (Now anyway, overall my hopes have decreased a bit) episode 3 levels of fairly acceptable meh, but either way it's new content to me.

Bleh, I think I sort of derailed from what I was trying to say. Guess that'll teach me to come here when I'm just running on coffee.

Seriously, we have simple rules- don't flame

So yes, people will bad mouth us. Fuck em.

o god

I'd just like to add that you guys do seem a bit over-zealous on whatever the strikes are (3 strikes and banned I'd assume?). Euphoric didn't seem to do any worse flaming than anyone else, no trolling, and sure as hell no spamming. 'course you can say "Well I guess it is good you're not a moderator hyuk" but with rules as apparently nebulous as "Trolling" which apparently means something different to you than it does to me (That's the only thing I figure you striked/struck him on, since he didn't seem flamey and didn't seem spammy) then I'd think it'd be right to call such things in to question. Especially since for the most part he appeared to be trying to back up his statements.

 

[Edge386]

Of course... we haven't seen screenshots, or read scores of previews, or had two members of this site actually see the demo and give very detailed facts and impressions of it. And there certainly aren't tons of interviews where Pete and Tood and Emil have revealed things about the game. Nope, we don't know anything.

You mean the same 11 or so screen shots and 900 previews all on the same 1 HOUR of gameplay footage? Wow, information overload!!

The only valid point you can make in this regard is that we haven't seen the actual, final finished product, but then no one claims they have, so it's really not valid. People can, quite legitimately, say that from what is known so far, they feel that the game is going to suck, either as a Fallout game, an RPG, a game in general, or some combination of all three.

It's quite valid and folks who declare "this game is going to suck" are utilizing about as much knowledge as folks declaring who the SuperBowl winner is going to be for the 2008 season.

Also, statements like this make the opinion of the community as a whole quite hypocritical. If dialogue, writing, story, and humor all mean sooo much (and I agree they do), then how can you make this determination without seeing the finished product? Oh, you can't.

I'm not sure if anyone is exactly saying the game is "going to suck". It will be better than Oblivion most likely. However, when you take a title as immersive, impacting, and well crafted (despite the technical bugs) as Fallout, you better damn well keep your hands off the elements that made that game great to begin with. DONT TOUCH THE RED BUTTON! (Unless your in the Sierra Army Depot in fallout 2, then go ahead.)

Also, Fallout really deserves its own engine. Its like a Mack truck of a game being powered by a ford tempo engine. It just isn't going to make it 15 feet. (Poor analogy perhaps, but im not a car guru)

 

[Maphusio]

It's quite valid and folks who declare "this game is going to suck" are utilizing about as much knowledge as folks declaring who the SuperBowl winner is going to be for the 2008 season.

Seattle Seahawks, hands down. Tatupu is the absolute destroyer on the defensive side of things. The Hasselbeck, Alexander, Brown trio are not to be trifled with.

Also, statements like this make the opinion of the community as a whole quite hypocritical. If dialogue, writing, story, and humor all mean sooo much (and I agree they do), then how can you make this determination without seeing the finished product? Oh, you can't.

Based on that statement I get the feeling you are implying that one would need to purchase and then evaluate the product... If I could get my money back I would but... Thats not how this works. Bethsoft has to sell me the product and what they are creating is not a product I'm interested in supporting. Yes, its just because the vault suits are baggy (I can't wait to see that line taken out of context).

 

[EuphoricOneTriesAgain]

I'd just like to add that you guys do seem a bit over-zealous on whatever the strikes are (3 strikes and banned I'd assume?). Euphoric didn't seem to do any worse flaming than anyone else, no trolling, and sure as hell no spamming. 'course you can say "Well I guess it is good you're not a moderator hyuk" but with rules as apparently nebulous as "Trolling" which apparently means something different to you than it does to me (That's the only thing I figure you striked/struck him on, since he didn't seem flamey and didn't seem spammy) then I'd think it'd be right to call such things in to question. Especially since for the most part he appeared to be trying to back up his statements.

It's weird how we both don't hate Bethesda and all things Bethesda and oddly enough we get strikes. Crazy how it always seems to work like that.

That being said, I'll give NMA credit, on most sites, your first strike is being banned.

 

[Eoz]

[...]

This same old PR fallacy again when a previewed game takes flak. The demo is not representative of the game.
The funny thing is that this flawed argument is only used to dodge bad critics. Unless you took time to actually leave comments on overexcited previews to temperate people about their irrational praises of the game too ? Yep, sure you did

Now if you aren't able or don't want to judge the direction Fallout 3 is taking based on released informations that's your call. But don't pretend noone should, because between Beth past games, the demo, good and not so good previews and actual statements of the devs there are far enough informations to do so. [/i]

 

[Jiggly McNerdington]

It's weird how we both don't hate Bethesda and all things Bethesda and oddly enough we get strikes. Crazy how it always seems to work like that.

That being said, I'll give NMA credit, on most sites, your first strike is being banned.

I can't even remember what my strike came from, but I think it was when I registered to tell people to try to cool their jets a bit, then got called a troll a few times since asking people to settle down a little is trying to incite an uprising/trouble I guess. Though IIRC I was surlier then than I am now. After I vented I'm mostly content to just lurk now and post once in a while.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

They're moaning about not being able to kill children and whether drinking from toilet bowls should be a feature. The subtext seems to be that because Fallout 3 doesn't look like the first two games then it is somehow evil. Here's an example of the posts on the forums.

I'm curious as to how he determines the "subtext" of all our posts. How does "you can't kill children" and "drinking from toilets doesn't fit the theme" equate to "OMG ITS NOT TURN BASED OR 2D!"?

Also, statements like this make the opinion of the community as a whole quite hypocritical. If dialogue, writing, story, and humor all mean sooo much (and I agree they do), then how can you make this determination without seeing the finished product? Oh, you can't.

Just because you lack some basic deductive reasoning skills doesn't mean everyone else does too. We're able to make basic assumptions based on what we've seen so far. EG: "Who wouldn't want Liam Neeson as their father?". More specifically, the dialogue and examples of humour that have been shown to date. "Let us the fuck in!" signs and the "You stupid git" hilarity of Mr. Handy robots and so on.

Despite protestations otherwise, you don't need to see much of anything to draw some reasonable conclusions. EG: If you saw the front half of a car and it was red, it's reasonable to assume that the back half would be red too. Granted there's a chance it may not be but it's highly unlikely. Likewise if the car takes 20 seconds to accelerate to 100 KPH, it's likely to have a low top speed and not corner too well.

When it comes to games, if you see the first couple of dialogues and they're shit, that Mutants are "evil" for the sake of it, you're drinking out of toilets because the water is less radiated than other sources which have been radioactive for years, yet radiation from nukes you fire disappates in seconds and the stupidly named weapons do things like shoot random junk and so on, it's reasonable to assume that the rest of the game is going to be like that too. Again, while there's a chance the last part of the game might be brilliant or everything beyond that point brilliant, it's highly unlikely.