View Single Post

Default 

July 14th, 2007, 05:28
The Escapist has been on my reading list for ages now, they've run some great articles in the past. I was surprised by the Editorial though. The author appears to be unfamiliar with the ground he arguing on and is unwillingly to accept legitimate criticism. I'm not bothered by his argument but he could have been far more straight forward in his method*. He did fix a dating issue in the piece but he made no note of it outside the comment thread. That seems to me poor form. I was taught corrections should be visible to the reader but then the internet isn't print media.


* I suppose I should explain that. You express your fondness of thing or topic to gain legitimacy but then use that credibility to take it apart. Done well it can be persuasive but done badly it reduces the credibility of the author. I believe his piece would have been far stronger if he'd tacked the other direction and pointed out the genuine advantages to doing Fallout in the Bethesda mode. Something on the order of "Its not Fallout as you knew it but it can stand on its own." I for one love the idea of exploring a ruined Washington DC. I do think it would be fun to see the vault door roll open. Neither though diminish the merit of the previous two titles which was his assertion.
Last edited by Incendiary Lemon; July 14th, 2007 at 05:43.
Incendiary Lemon is offline

Incendiary Lemon

Traveler

#20

Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6