Fallout 3 - Yet Another Roundup

[Dhruin]

I'm not even going to attempt to catch up on Fallout 3 but here's a small collection of some of the better or more interesting articles over the last couple of days (some courtesy of NMA (http://www.nma-fallout.com/) - thanks).
First, A blog at Wired caused a little controversy, declaring the look was right but the writing missed the mark:
The key problem with the game though is in the writing. It really feels like someone wrote a fanfic based on the Fallout universe and somehow got the funding to create a game based on it. Though the story and characters are suitably gritty and conflicted, none of them are terribly likeable and the entire thing simply feels like it's trying too hard to adhere to the tenets of its predecessors.
I predict a heavy backlash from long-time fans. At best Fallout 3 will be the blacksheep of the series: An oddity played only for completion's sake by those who absolutely adore the original games.
Luckily for Bethesda, the game will sell tons of copies to those gamers less in love with the series' past if only for its gorgeous graphics, entertaining gameplay and ridiculous levels of gore.
As a counterpoint, on the Qt3 forums, game writer Tom Chick questions (http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showthread.php?p=1408257#post1408257) if you can assess the writing after 30 minutes:
Man, that's really disappointing to read that stuff on Wired. I had my thirty minutes with the game today and it was over like *that*. I barely had time to meet a few characters, dig the combat against a couple of molerats and dogs, and do a little perking up, all the while tuned into a crackly broadcast playing some Billie Holiday. Based on these preliminary bits of awesomeness, I couldn't even begin to comment on the quality of the writing. Because pretty much all I've seen are a few dialog choices.

It's a mystery to me how Earnest Cav. can make pronouncements like he's made based on the thirty minutes of time we get at E3. That's a pretty sad smear job.
Back to actual previews...Rock, Paper, Shotgun are really excited about the VATS system (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/07/19/rps-ish-at-ish-e3-day-4-bethesda-softworks/#more-2160):
That it feels like Oblivion is a pretty important thing to note, I think. Because as a result (and I have to note that I played this with an Xbox 360 pad, not a mouse and keyboard) I didn’t like the real time fighting any more than I did in Oblivion. In fact less, because there was a great and immediate satisfaction to using Oblivion’s bows that the guns of Fallout (or at least, the ones from the early game) don’t have.
But that’s where the V.A.T.S system comes in. It is incredible. I refuse to believe anyone is going to play the game using real time combat when V.A.T.S is available. You see, V.A.T.S. turns every battle into an amazing cinematic event, and not in a lame way like a Final Fantasy game or something. The minute you spot an enemy, you choose your position to attack from, enter V.A.T.S mode, select the body part et cetera (classic Fallout stuff, you know the drill) and watch what happens. The cinematics are generated on the fly and delightfully satisfying. While shooting an enemy stalker (damn, er, just enemy) who is miles away with a pistol is a boring exercise in shooting at a dot, in V.A.T.S you’re able to watch as your bullets batter him with a pounding velocity, crippling his body parts or exploding his head [“or her head, obviously.” – Equal Opportunities Ed.]
Worthplaying has a nicely detailed article (http://www.worthplaying.com/article.php?sid=53936):
[quote]
<font color="#000000">After a brief exploration of the school, I ventured back to the comparatively brighter wasteland, and after a short trip, I encountered the game's first town. It was a small town, as these things go, but it absolutely packed to the brim with sub-plots, sadly few of which I got to explore. The most interesting of these was the Children of the Atom, a cult-slash-church that worshipped an unexploded nuclear bomb located in the center of the town. I had a few options for what I could do with these fellows, including tinkering with the bomb itself. My explosive skill wasn't high enough, though, so I didn't get to see if it was possible to set it off or simply disarm it. Beyond the many sub-plots, there were simply a ton of areas to explore in the town. I was able to venture in any house I could see, and I discovered a lot of areas that I'd want to explore if I had greater stats, such as a mysterious locked house that required a Lockpick skill substantially higher than even a 10t...More information. (http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/newsbit?newsbit=9669)

[Rizzla]

"As a counterpoint, on the Qt3 forums, game writer Tom Chick questions if you can assess the writing after 30 minutes:"

I love the Qt3 forums. I can't decide if my favorite part is their ever more desperate attempts to put down NMA in order to convince themselves that they are somehow less nerdy and obsessive about games or their slagging off the Wii because it is dumbing down console games. And they say Americans don't get irony.

[DArtagnan]

I'm not sure why, exactly, but I'm nauseated every time I visit QT3. Strange that I keep going there, then, but still.

They seem to have an unspoken cult-like fondness for all who support profit focused game development, and like to put down everyone that tries to suggest that developers can still do some things the old way, without necessarily ruining themselves.

I've never met him, but Tom Chick just has an aura of unjustified arrogance that makes me want to damage his health, but for some reason he's gathered an abundance of ass-kissers over there. Maybe it's his writing style, which does show some measure of intelligence and wit - but sadly smacks of poorly veiled conformity in the guise of an edgy attitude regarding the gaming industry. I'm sure he's a sweety pie in reality, though, as are we all ;)

I much prefer the jaded fanatics over at NMA, as they don't make me feel queasy. Instead, they rather amuse me :)

[Rizzla]

I'm not sure why, exactly, but I'm nauseated every time I visit QT3. Strange that I keep going there, then, but still.

That Fallout 3 thread is great, they are even turning on each other now. Poor old Desslock.

[Kalle]

"Profit-focused game development" is bad?

Sheesh, are you proposing some radical new theory of the distribution of capital and the means of production? A scientific theory perhaps? Is a revolution in order?

People who make games like to be paid for what they are doing. It lets them have fancy stuff like houses and cars and buy food and support families. It's hard to pay people if you're not looking to make a profit.

[Kalle]

<apologies for the doublepost, hit the submit button by accident>

And since when is it ok to call out peoples freaking forum posts as OFFICIAL COMMENT! If Tom Chick wants you to use his forum posts as press releases then I'm sure he'll let you know.

[Hedek]

"Profit-focused game development" is bad?
Sheesh, are you proposing some radical new theory of the distribution of capital and the means of production? A scientific theory perhaps? Is a revolution in order?
People who make games like to be paid for what they are doing. It lets them have fancy stuff like houses and cars and buy food and support families. It's hard to pay people if you're not looking to make a profit.

Yes yes of course you're right. The problem isn't Bethesda trying to make profits, everybody is. The problem is deciding to buy the Fallout franchise when no one asked/forced them to. They did it just because Oblivion brought them enough cash to do it. And by doing so they prevented less rich developers who were also interested in buying the franchise, the catch is among those devs there were actual developers who were behind Fallout 1 and 2 so yes I believe they would have made a much more faithful Fallout 3 if only because they've already proved their writing skills.

And now Bethesda is turning that game into the only thing they are used to make : a FPS/action RPG hybrid. They could have made a great game creating their own post-apoc setting, it's not like Fallout had exclusive rights on such settings. But no they chose to make a sequel to Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 and by deciding so, other attempts at making Fallout 3 were canceled. So if Fallout 3 turns out to be just nice graphics nice guns and lots of mutants which only purpose is to be shot at, they'll deserve all the criticism the industry can produce, if only to teach other devs not to mess up deep and smart franchises in the future.

But as you said, it'll sell by the millions, and that's the only measure for quality and a "job well done". Well from a strictly financial point of view it'd still be dumb as they would have been able to make more money selling the same amount of copies had they not spend money buying an existing franchise.

[Dhruin]

Who said it was an official comment? I offered it as a counterpoint to Wired because I couldn't find anyone else talking about the writing quality. Qt3 is hugely popular - are Tom's comments there meant to be private? I think that's way too precious.

By the way - I like Tom and mostly like Qt3. One of the best games journalists out there in my opinion, although it's a shame it's impossible to talk about RPGs there.

Edit: Just noticed NMA linked his comment, after spotting it here. Everyone is entitled to see it their own way but I wasn't using it in any anti-Tom Chick or even anti-FO3 way. In fact, I was trying to present a balanced view from someone I give credence.

[Turok]

I don't understand why this "chick" get pissed because someone don't like the game, also talk bad about other journalist and making accusations to nma and rpgcodex is just childish, telling that just 30 minutes is not enough to see how good or bad is a game, then why he don't make criticism against the 12312313 reviews that say FO3 is awesome, i think those previews go in the same sack no?.
________
Art car (http://www.bmw-tech.org/wiki/BMW_Art_Car)

[Rizzla]

I don't understand why this "chick" get pissed because someone don't like the game, also talk bad about other journalist and making accusations to nma and rpgcodex is just childish, telling that just 30 minutes is not enough to see how good or bad is a game, then why he don't make criticism against the 12312313 reviews that say FO3 is awesome, i think those previews go in the same sack no?.

Because he is a graduate of the Harry Knowles school of journalism along with every other computer game reviewer out there. These people aren't professional journalists, they are just a group of enthusiastic gamers who got together to talk about, and earn a living from their hobby.

Nothing wrong with that, you just have to keep in mind that the title of 'journalist' is a self appointed one and is not something to be taken seriously, because just as the movie studio's learned that they could influence Harry Knowles by pandering to his ego with exclusive interviews and set visits, the game studio's learned the same thing about game reviewers.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

"Profit-focused game development" is bad ?

Museums are profit-oriented, too.

Yet fewer people go into museums than into ... let's say a food shop. Or into the latest football game. And that, although - or rather: because - Museums are rather demanding.

What's actually bad is the optimization of games into best-selling. It's as if suddenly everyone things : "W00t ! Lets's make a newspaper like the SUN, because it SELLS !"

THIS is bad.

[Kalle]

Yes yes of course you're right. The problem isn't Bethesda trying to make profits, everybody is. The problem is deciding to buy the Fallout franchise when no one asked/forced them to. They did it just because Oblivion brought them enough cash to do it. And by doing so they prevented less rich developers who were also interested in buying the franchise, the catch is among those devs there were actual developers who were behind Fallout 1 and 2 so yes I believe they would have made a much more faithful Fallout 3 if only because they've already proved their writing skills.

Since this is a thinly veiled reference to Troika let me just say that I am hardly disappointed by the fact that the people who in three attempts never came close to the bar set by Fallout and managed to completely ruin the potiential of a decent Vampire game will have nothing to do with Fallout 3.

As for the ridiculous claim that no one asked them to buy the Fallout license, why the hell should they have to ask for permission? And who should they ask? The fans, and I'm using the term very loosely here, are not freaking entitled to the franchise unless they actually pony up the money to buy it.

And lets not forget that maybe, just maybe, the guys at Bethesda played and liked Fallout and didn't want to see the franchise languish in obscurity. Maybe Bethesda won't make the Fallout 3 you want to play but they're one of very few developers who have the financial muscle to make their vision of Fallout into reality. For all we know the Fallout franchise would have languished in obscurity if not for Bethesda, only brought out when Interplay wanted to stamp it on shovelware like Fallout:BOS.



And now Bethesda is turning that game into the only thing they are used to make : a FPS/action RPG hybrid. They could have made a great game creating their own post-apoc setting, it's not like Fallout had exclusive rights on such settings. But no they chose to make a sequel to Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 and by deciding so, other attempts at making Fallout 3 were canceled. So if Fallout 3 turns out to be just nice graphics nice guns and lots of mutants which only purpose is to be shot at, they'll deserve all the criticism the industry can produce, if only to teach other devs not to mess up deep and smart franchises in the future.

Other attempts? The only attempt I know of died with Interplay. No one else is gonna start developing a game unless they have the rights already sorted out. Anything else is a waste of time and money.

And I don't mean to be insulting but did you even play Fallouts 1 and 2, or did you just play without killing anyone or something? The Fallouts I remember had me gunning down hundreds of mutants. Random encounter, 5-7 Super Mutants, rinse, repeat. The mutants who wanted to talk could be counted on one hand. The purpose of practically every creature in Fallout 1 and 2 was to be shot at for crying out loud.

Well from a strictly financial point of view it'd still be dumb as they would have been able to make more money selling the same amount of copies had they not spend money buying an existing franchise.

Buying up an existing franchise buys them a fanbase and name recognition (which in this case is of somewhat dubious quality, PR-wise) and they also buy the rights to use the art and lore which saves them the time and effort of starting from scratch.

And maybe Bethesda are a bunch of Fallout fans. That's a pretty compelling reason to start a project.

[Maylander]

The only "right" developer of Fallout 3 would have to be Obsidian, since Black Isle went down with Interplay, and I doubt they would've done it. They seem to have more than enough on their hands for now. Besides, they probably don't even have the money to buy the Fallout lisence at all. Also worth noting is that the actual designers behind Fallout no longer work with single player RPGs at all.

Other than Obsidian, I feel Bethesda is as good as any to do it - any other company would be in the exact same position Bethesda is: Fans of the original series, but without actually being the original developer.

[woges]

I think it's fair enough to write a negative preview, it's way out balanced by the positive ones at this time. There is far too much of this 'awesomeness' previewing going around I'm just getting too old for that (most of the time).

Nobody really likes people being negative about their 'thing' but the reality is that peoples tastes differ so they don't have to, and you don't have to care.

[Brother None]

Edit: Just noticed NMA linked his comment, after spotting it here. Everyone is entitled to see it their own way but I wasn't using it in any anti-Tom Chick or even anti-FO3 way. In fact, I was trying to present a balanced view from someone I give credence.

I would've liked to use it much the same way, but he invalidated his own opinion by grouping anyone negative in with NMA, thus dismissing the opinion. That's just not valid criticism, anymore than a bunch of kids screaming all gaming journos are corrupt is.

Other than Obsidian, I feel Bethesda is as good as any to do it - any other company would be in the exact same position Bethesda is: Fans of the original series, but without actually being the original developer.

They could have hired original developers.

They did not want to, though.

[Kalle]

They could have hired original developers.

They did not want to, though.

Hey, here's a thought. Lets say the sacred original developers over at Troika got their hands on a premier RPG license for Vampire: The Masquerade.

They would then proceed to release a game that was buggy as hell, half-finished, and just make the last third of the game into a crappy action-RPG with endlessly respawning enemy troops. Would you wish that on Fallout?

And speaking of unfinished games, lets not forget the sacred original devs now at Obsidian! Enjoy that KOTOR2 ending? Did it make sense to *anyone*? Thought not.

And this is the point where people start crying out in their defense "they didn't have enough time!, they didn't have enough money!". Which is true. But what makes you think they would have had that time or money on any project, even Fallout 3?

Whatever made the magic happen at Black Isle, whatever crazy alignment of planets or whatever, it's gone now. Black Isle is dead, never to return. I was sorry to see them go, but I moved on and so did everyone who worked there. If you judged developers out there on their current merits instead of what they did ten years ago you might not feel so damn angry at Bethesda.

[JemyM]

And speaking of unfinished games, lets not forget the sacred original devs now at Obsidian! Enjoy that KOTOR2 ending? Did it make sense to *anyone*? Thought not.

Do not blame Obsidian for LucasArts.

[kalniel]

Do not blame Obsidian for LucasArts.

Out of interest, why not? I don't know the background to this one, but did LucasArts suddenly cut short the pre-agreed time/financial budget that Obsidian had to make this game? Or was it just the case that Obsidian couldn't do it in the agreed time?

[Brother None]

Hey, here's a thought. Lets say the sacred original developers over at Troika got their hands on a premier RPG license for Vampire: The Masquerade.
(etc)

I'm sorry, but was any of that in response to me?

Maylander said "but without being the original developer". I point out at this point that Bethesda has had at least one application from an original developer, but wasn't interested.

I have no idea why that set off some kind of Troika spiel, but whatever.

[woges]

Out of interest, why not? I don't know the background to this one, but did LucasArts suddenly cut short the pre-agreed time/financial budget that Obsidian had to make this game? Or was it just the case that Obsidian couldn't do it in the agreed time?

Their time was cut I believe.

[DArtagnan]

"Profit-focused game development" is bad?
Sheesh, are you proposing some radical new theory of the distribution of capital and the means of production? A scientific theory perhaps? Is a revolution in order?

Ehm, what?

I didn't say it was bad, I said that Tom Chick and those who agree with him seem to think it's the only way to go. At least they seem to be extremely supportive of this practice. Many of the QT3 people have connections in the industry, or are developers themselves, and they're zealously padding each other on the back. I think that's understandable, but it's not a good environment for bringing problems in the industry to light.

Just like the NMA crowd is not a good environment to bring out the good aspects of Oblivion or similar.

Personally, I don't think it's bad if what you care about mostly is the profit. I do, however, think that with an increase in artistic compromise - in an effort to sell as many copies as possible - there will be an inevitable decrease in the ultimate quality of the end-product. But the decrease is only noticable to those who really care. It's really about pleasing a lot of people versus making a few very happy.

Some people equate success with quality, and that's fine. They're the same people who think that Titanic or Spiderman 3 are among the best motion pictures ever made, and maybe they are.

People who make games like to be paid for what they are doing. It lets them have fancy stuff like houses and cars and buy food and support families. It's hard to pay people if you're not looking to make a profit.

I think you're missing my point.

I said profit-focused, which means that the focus is on profit before everything else - which is definitely a very common approach to making games, or to make any kind of entertainment.

I'm simply saying that it's not the only one.

I'm saying that if you target a smaller market, you have an opportunity to avoid compromise at the same level, but naturally you will have to adjust your budget accordingly. The Bethesda people are the kind of developers who want to create blockbusters and for that they need big budgets, and in effect they need to target a large market to make the kind of profit they're evidently seeking. Nothing wrong with that, not at all.

But I don't think the end-result is the best game.

Beyond that, I don't think highly of Bethesda as game designers, as I think each of their previous titles have been excessively flawed. Oblivion, being their most wholesome game so far, still suffers from some incredibly poor design decisions and boring game mechanics. So, even if they WERE inclined to make the least compromised game, I really don't see them doing it - so it's no great loss.

[kalniel]

Ehm, what?

I didn't say it was bad, I said that Tom Chick and those who agree with him seem to think it's the only way to go. I don't know who Tom Chick is, but it *is* the only way to go, unless you only want games to be made by governments or the odd individual.

At least they seem to be extremely supportive of this practice. Many of the QT3 people have connections in the industry, or are developers themselves, and they're zealously padding each other on the back. I think that's understandable, but it's not a good environment for bringing problems in the industry to light. True - the best place for that to happen is in the financial reports, and if an entertainment company isn't making a profit then it demonstrates a problem.

Personally, I don't think it's bad if what you care about mostly is the profit. I do, however, think that with an increase in artistic compromise - in an effort to sell as many copies as possible - there will be an inevitable decrease in the ultimate quality of the end-product. Why though? Is it purely because you believe:

It's really about pleasing a lot of people versus making a few very happy.? I don't take that viewpoint at all - the opposite in fact: something of high quality for the same price will appeal to more people, not less. So in order to appeal to the highest number of people you need the highest quality product. It seems pretty weird to me to suggest you would deliberately make a lower-quality product in order to appeal to more people.

Some people equate success with quality, and that's fine. They're the same people who think that Titanic or Spiderman 3 are among the best motion pictures ever made, and maybe they are. Well they're pretty high quality films, sure, even if they're not to my personal taste.

Or do you actually mean something else when you use the word 'quality'? It sounds like when you say quality you actually mean 'in line with my minority tastes'.

[DArtagnan]

I don't know who Tom Chick is, but it *is* the only way to go, unless you only want games to be made by governments or the odd individual.

Of course it's not.

Are you saying that you must give priority to profit above all else, to actually generate profit?

What if you simply focus on the quality of the product - meaning don't compromise unless it's absolutely necessary to make a return?

True - the best place for that to happen is in the financial reports, and if an entertainment company isn't making a profit then it demonstrates a problem.

Is it really so hard for you to grasp the concept of simply making a profit, rather than focusing on it?

? I don't take that viewpoint at all - the opposite in fact: something of high quality for the same price will appeal to more people, not less. So in order to appeal to the highest number of people you need the highest quality product. It seems pretty weird to me to suggest you would deliberately make a lower-quality product in order to appeal to more people.

You need the highest quality of product WITHOUT pushing people away, that's true. But that's not the highest quality of product overall, now is it.

Well they're pretty high quality films, sure, even if they're not to my personal taste.

High quality in what way, and what would be your favorite film?

Or do you actually mean something else when you use the word 'quality'? It sounds like when you say quality you actually mean 'in line with my minority tastes'.

Everyone means something different when they use the word quality.

Here's my definition in this context:

The "perfect" game would be the game that is made from a purely subjective desire to create the best of its kind, and with no compromise made to please anyone but yourself.

If the artist(s) is 100% satisfied with the end-result, then it is perfect, no matter if he's the only one who likes it.

That's my definition of perfect art.

No such thing exists, naturally, so it's an extreme concept. But that's pretty much the idea.

If you want to create something, but you keep making compromises because you know it will appeal to more people, then you're moving AWAY from the original vision.

Unless, of course, the ultimate objective is to create a game that appeals to the most people. That's another kind of goal, that I can't personally identify with - but I'd never say it's objectively a bad goal.

But I would - in all likelihood - consider such a game unsatisfactory.

[Dhruin]

Yeah, so back to the original point.

Those of you who dislike Tom's comments and like the idea of a negative preview to balance the ledger...you really want to champion that piece from Wired as being a good thing? Really?

Because if that's the case, I throw my hands up at the incessant complaints about bad games journalism. That article was poorly written and should be called on that basis. Full stop.

[Brother None]

Because if that's the case, I throw my hands up at the incessant complaints about bad games journalism. That article was poorly written and should be called on that basis. Full stop.

Yes. However, we had - what - two-three dozen previews in this round. Of that amount, I would consider about 5-6 unbiased and well-written.

Game|Life's piece was not one of the best. Singling and calling it out because it's a negative one - however - is sheer nonsense. There were significantly worse previews in this lot.

From an emotional viewpoint, I can understand people who feel relieved from the pressure of hype by occasional negative pieces - even if the quality of said piece is no more than of the wave of positives pieces.

If you're just looking for solid previews, then you can skip most of the recent round and just read the PC Gamer and PC Zone previews.

[Hedek]

What I don't like about Tom Chick comments is that in the end he seems to believe there are prerequisites, or dare I say "ethics" that have to be respected before writing anything about a game. Some sort of "minimum amount of time" that has to be played before being allowed to comment on such things as the storyline of a game.
If so, all previews -positive or negative- should be forbidden? Heck even day-of-release-reviews, how long is enough time for someone to have a "fair" opinion of a game? Was it at NMA that article about how the same people who reviewed Oblivion when it was released slowly started criticizing it a lot a year or 2 later when writing on another game?

So no one should be allowed to write anything about any game unless they've played it for at least 2 years?

All that crap about "journalism and gaming" leads nowhere. I mean no one really gives a damn about what "gaming journalists" think/have to say except those journalists themselves. I bet 99% of people who buy games don't even read any of those. I for example am more interested in the parts where journalists just describe the game rather than where they give their own opinion/feelings. I don't know what it's like for you but when I think of the 10 last games I bought, 5 were because real life friends recommended them to me, 3 because they were sequels to games I liked and 2 because I liked the demo/trial. Reading gaming websites is more to keep me informed and help me wait for a game I've already decided I was going to buy. Does any of you once decided to buy a game based on Gamespot or IGN's review for instance?

[woges]

I was making a general statement on previews not only on this round of Fallout 3 previews. I'll not champion anyone else. Personally, I like what I've seen but I'm not counting the chickens just yet.

[Dhruin]

Game|Life's piece was not one of the best. Singling and calling it out because it's a negative one - however - is sheer nonsense. There were significantly worse previews in this lot.

You're way out of context. Ridiculously so. "Singling it out" implies reading through a majority of these apparently poor previews and intentionally criticising this one based on a bias, as opposed to just reading a thread on his forum and a guy says "how about this article!", and he simply comments on that one piece having just returned from viewing the game.

What I don't like about Tom Chick comments is that in the end he seems to believe there are prerequisites, or dare I say "ethics" that have to be respected before writing anything about a game. Some sort of "minimum amount of time" that has to be played before being allowed to comment on such things as the storyline of a game.
If so, all previews -positive or negative- should be forbidden? Heck even day-of-release-reviews, how long is enough time for someone to have a "fair" opinion of a game? Was it at NMA that article about how the same people who reviewed Oblivion when it was released slowly started criticizing it a lot a year or 2 later when writing on another game?

So no one should be allowed to write anything about any game unless they've played it for at least 2 years?



No, no, no, no, no.

The issue isn't whether he has played the game for 2 years before putting pen to paper. Let me quote the original article:

Though the story and characters are suitably gritty and conflicted, none of them are terribly likeable and the entire thing simply feels like it's trying too hard to adhere to the tenets of its predecessors.

I predict a heavy backlash from long-time fans. At best Fallout 3 will be the blacksheep of the series: An oddity played only for completion's sake by those who absolutely adore the original games.

So, on the basis of 30 minutes this guy finds the entire thing (not just the tiny bit he played - the entire thing) feels like it's trying too hard to be like the originals? Does that even support what you guys want it to - that it tries "too hard to adhere to the tenets of its predecessors"?

And does anyone seriously think only NMA is going to play this "to completion". Seriously?

Did some people even read this before jumping to "Hell yeah! Stick it to Bethesda! Yeah!".

[woges]

There's not much stick it to Bethesda in the thread.

'Entire thing' could mean the demo here also not the whole game. The completion sentence I believe the guy was meaning that NMA type fans would complete it for that reason not other gamers.

[Brother None]

You're way out of context. Ridiculously so. "Singling it out" implies reading through a majority of these apparently poor previews and intentionally criticising this one based on a bias, as opposed to just reading a thread on his forum and a guy says "how about this article!", and he simply comments on that one piece having just returned from viewing the game.

Let's not be naive, Dhruin. Oh, and you're way off course (I guess, since we're waying away).

Would Tom Chick have been as vituperant if he were linked to any of the other previews (http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=516026#516026) that make the same mistake but are positive about the game?

He specifically targets it as NMA/Codex infected. Even jokingly that is very telling of his angle here. It also happens on QTT, which is more telling than you might suspect. You can disagree with me if you want to and claim Tom Chick would have called any of the pieces linked above sewer journalism, but I have some serious doubts about that one.

Anyway, I also find it odd that you hammer so on Game|Life's choice of words. Are we really going to require journalists to use completely redundant terms, to tag a "IMO" onto every remark, or "as far as I've seen" in front of every sentence. Game|Life's tone is definitely one of overt finality, but there's nothing wrong with the use of the word "entire" in a preview, no matter how much Tom Chick harps on it.

"The entire world was somewhat gray" just reads somewhat better than "All of the world that I saw in my hands-on demo was somewhat grey", especially if you have to repeat that again and again.

And does anyone seriously think only NMA is going to play this "to completion". Seriously?

You misread. "For completion's sake" means for the fans to complete their Falllout gaming experience. Kind of like some fans played F:BoS only because it was called Fallout.

Does that even support what you guys want it to - that it tries "too hard to adhere to the tenets of its predecessors"?

My dear Dhruin, what does it supporting anything anyone wants to read into it have to do with its quality?

Did some people even read this before jumping to "Hell yeah! Stick it to Bethesda! Yeah!".

I'm looking, but I can't find any comments here or on NMA that say "hell yeah, stick it to Bethesda".

[Hedek]

No, no, no, no, no.
The issue isn't whether he has played the game for 2 years before putting pen to paper. Let me quote the original article:
So, on the basis of 30 minutes this guy finds the entire thing (not just the tiny bit he played - the entire thing) feels like it's trying too hard to be like the originals? Does that even support what you guys want it to - that it tries "too hard to adhere to the tenets of its predecessors"?

And does anyone seriously think only NMA is going to play this "to completion". Seriously?

Did some people even read this before jumping to "Hell yeah! Stick it to Bethesda! Yeah!".

My comment had nothing to do with Bethesda. I'm just talking of gaming "journalism" in general. I believe gaming isn't a serious matter, and it doesn't matter to me whether the people who write about games are good or not, whether they're biased or not, whether they can produce a balanced piece of criticism based on actual facts and not feelings.
The problems start when people like Tom Chick "expect" things from those gaming journalists. When they start saying there are professional journalists who know how to write and those who are just a bunch of biased amateurs (be it positive or negative) whose personal tastes directly dictate what they write.

This lack of professionalism would only be a serious issue if reviews actually affected sales. But I believe they don't although I don't have hard evidence to back up this statement.

I personally never understood how things who depend so much on personal tastes such as movies, records or games could be reviewed and how people who write about them, no matter how good they are, can be called "journalists". I don't understand how magazines such as the Rolling Stones can even exist, you're not going to tell me with words whether a record is good or not, I'll listen to it, and I'll like it or not, and yes I might be the only one in the world to like it, but I still like it and your review changes nothing to it.

I believe gaming journalists are gamers like me who have the time/opportunity to get to play games before they're released and between the lines where they talk about their personal opinions they often give info about the game that has not yet been released by the developer.
For example take this piece from Wired now controversial blog (http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/07/hands-on-fallou.html):
"Though the story and characters are suitably gritty and conflicted, none of them are terribly likeable and the entire thing simply feels like it's trying too hard to adhere to the tenets of its predecessors."

I actually read "the first 30 minutes of the story are dull, not so charming and none of the characters I met so far were memorable".
Well guess what that terribly reminds me of Fallout 1 (if I recall I went directly from Vault 13 to Vault 15 on my first playthrough and was going to stop playing for ever after an hour if a RL friend had not warn me of the crappy beginning) and Fallout 2 (I hated Arroyo and Klamath and that took me way over 30 minutes) so what Wired describes of Fallout 3 actually sounds very fallouty to me. The blogger then concludes based on what he saw/felt "it's trying too hard to adhere to the tenets of its predecessors" which is a personal judgement which I disagree with based on my own experience of the Fallout series.

Do people really read all those gaming articles believing/agreeing all that's written? Can't people make the difference between what's description and what's personal judgment and confront the latter to their own views?

Oh and I shall I remind that blog is actually honest about the fact he only played it for 30 minutes: he opens his article saying so. I'm not sure I saw all those positive previews say the same "guys I loved the 30 minutes I played but mind you it was 30 minutes the game might end up being totally disappointing had Bethesda let me play it for 10 hours".

I think people like Tom Chick expect too much from gaming journalists, and by doing so underestimate those who read them. People are used/know that most gaming articles are biased, as long as it doesn't affect what they decide to buy, I don't see the problem.

[Hedek]

I guess I've just been proven wrong: I visited the Wired blog again, and the first comment posted was the following:
This is very disappointing news and I now may cancel my preorder based on this news. One of the things that I loved about the Fallout universe was the dialog. It was funny at the right moments, and serious when it needed to be. The humor was always spot on. I had a feel Bethesda would get the dialog wrong. Look at what they did with Oblivion. The dialog wasn't that great either.

I realize to the teeming masses, a lot of that stuff isn't important. They just like to look at pretty pictures all day.

Unfortunately, this is what gaming has been reduced too. Even AAA titles are dumbed down so everyone can enjoy them. I think that the Golden Age of gaming has long passed.

Some people are indeed easily influenced, sad.

[DArtagnan]

If you really think reviews or previews don't matter, then you have a lot to learn about people.

Don't you see - out there in the world - how much influence the media has on society and how people think?

You're basically a weirdo if you have your own opinion and dare to act on it.

No, reviews matter A LOT, and they generate sales. That's why you see Halo 3 and GTA4 get perfect scores.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

I think you're missing my point.

I said profit-focused, which means that the focus is on profit before everything else - which is definitely a very common approach to making games, or to make any kind of entertainment.

That is the point :

What becomes out of an entertaiinment product that is profit-oriented ?

Or in other words: What becomes Art if it is produced only to be profit-oriented ?

Is profit-oriented Art still Art ?

Can it be Art if it has been developed and producted with nothing but the appealing to the highest possible number of buyers in mind which proviode then the most possible amount of profits, then ?

What is actually Art if it has been stripped down of everything but only that which appeals to profit-givers ?

And this is valid for entertainment, too. I think.

[guest]

Hey, here's a thought. Lets say the sacred original developers over at Troika got their hands on a premier RPG license for Vampire: The Masquerade.
They would then proceed to release a game that was buggy as hell, half-finished, and just make the last third of the game into a crappy action-RPG with endlessly respawning enemy troops. Would you wish that on Fallout?

Yeah but the first two thirds are better then anything Bethesda has ever done, is doing and will ever be able to do. Troika were RPG gods amongst men.

[kalniel]

Are you saying that you must give priority to profit above all else, to actually generate profit?Generally, yes. But giving priority to profit means focusing on quality. Focusing on quality at the expense of profit just means that no-one gets to enjoy your product because you don't have a business case for it.

What if you simply focus on the quality of the product - meaning don't compromise unless it's absolutely necessary to make a return?Then you can't actually generate a quality product. You need money to make quality in this business. Or you never get to release.

Is it really so hard for you to grasp the concept of simply making a profit, rather than focusing on it?I can grasp that - it's called bad business and inability to think about creating even higher quality things in the future. Is it hard for you to grasp the concept of making quality games for the reason of profit?

You need the highest quality of product WITHOUT pushing people away, that's true. But that's not the highest quality of product overall, now is it.Depends who you're asking - why is one unqualified person's viewpoint more important than 100 other unqualified people's?

High quality in what way, and what would be your favorite film? I'm not a film expert, but all the scenes were correctly lit, all the multiple camera edits came together correctly, sound synced up properly, pacing was good overall and so on and so forth. My favourite film is Pan's Labyrinth.

Everyone means something different when they use the word quality.

Here's my definition in this context:

The "perfect" game would be the game that is made from a purely subjective desire to create the best of its kind, and with no compromise made to please anyone but yourself.

If the artist(s) is 100% satisfied with the end-result, then it is perfect, no matter if he's the only one who likes it.

That's my definition of perfect art. Cool.

If you want to create something, but you keep making compromises because you know it will appeal to more people, then you're moving AWAY from the original vision. Only assuming the original vision was so unusual that most people wouldn't like it - that's nothing to do with quality though. If your vision is to create the best quality game you can then there's no reason that can't appeal to more people naturally, without you having to change the vision at all.

That is the point :

What becomes out of an entertaiinment product that is profit-oriented ?

Or in other words: What becomes Art if it is produced only to be profit-oriented ?

Is profit-oriented Art still Art ? Good question, but most professional artists in fact create art to make them a living, so they think it still is, as do the people who buy it.

Can it be Art if it has been developed and producted with nothing but the appealing to the highest possible number of buyers in mind which proviode then the most possible amount of profits, then ? I think it's dangerous to assume that appealing to the highest number of people necessarily equates to highest profit.

What is actually Art if it has been stripped down of everything but only that which appeals to profit-givers ? Why would you have to strip it down? I don't like the assumption that something must be unappealing to be art, that doesn't make sense to me.

[DArtagnan]

Then you can't actually generate a quality product. You need money to make quality in this business. Or you never get to release.

Again, you fail to distinguish. No one is saying you can make games without investments. I'm saying you don't need large investments, and in effect you don't need huge returns to make a profit.

I can grasp that - it's called bad business and inability to think about creating even higher quality things in the future. Is it hard for you to grasp the concept of making quality games for the reason of profit?

You're demonstrating that, for you, higher quality things means things that have larger monetary investments. You believe that the more money something costs, the better it is.

I don't agree.

Depends who you're asking - why is one unqualified person's viewpoint more important than 100 other unqualified people's?

I'm not weighing importance. I'm speaking in terms of my own personal perception of what quality is in this context.

I'm not a film expert, but all the scenes were correctly lit, all the multiple camera edits came together correctly, sound synced up properly, pacing was good overall and so on and so forth. My favourite film is Pan's Labyrinth.

If you're no expert, then how on earth do you know if they were lit correctly or that camera edits came together correctly? Are you even sure there's such a thing as correct lighting or editing? Maybe it's about the individual style of the people involved.

But apparently, the films in question are quality films because they're technically "correct". What an interesting but incredibly hollow perception of quality you have.

Cool.

Only assuming the original vision was so unusual that most people wouldn't like it - that's nothing to do with quality though. If your vision is to create the best quality game you can then there's no reason that can't appeal to more people naturally, without you having to change the vision at all.

I never said it wouldn't appeal to more people naturally. I'm talking about the active process of making compromises to the vision to appeal to more people. If that hasn't happened, then it's not compromised and as such it's great art.

Good question, but most professional artists in fact create art to make them a living, so they think it still is, as do the people who buy it.

You don't know the motives of most professional artists, and neither do I. But I'd like to claim that there are many who create art because they like to do so, and since they can make money doing it, they're financially secure on top of that. They don't necessarily start simply because they need the money, as you can do that in any number of ways.

I think it's dangerous to assume that appealing to the highest number of people necessarily equates to highest profit.

Dangerous? It's incredibly obvious.

Why would you have to strip it down? I don't like the assumption that something must be unappealing to be art, that doesn't make sense to me

I didn't say it had to be unappealing, and that's your basic misunderstanding. I said that the moment you start compromising to appeal, you're stripping it down.

There are times when the original vision is so appealing, that you don't have to compromise and yet you can still make millions. That doesn't happen often, though.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Dangerous? It's incredibly obvious.

I'd agree.

Okay, there's the exception of absolute luxury items. Luxury cars, for example. Or anything else in the high-price regions.
They might provide quite a big profit, too.

But they're not easy to develop, which makes the costs for development a lot higher !

Thus they can't be sold in high numbers !