Fallout 3 - Yet Another Roundup

DArtagnan · July 21, 2008

Kalle said:
"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 · July 21, 2008

DArtagnan said:
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 · July 21, 2008

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 · July 21, 2008

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 · July 21, 2008

Dhruin said:
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 · July 21, 2008

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 · July 21, 2008

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 · July 22, 2008

Brother None said:
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.

Hedek said:
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 · July 22, 2008

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 · July 22, 2008

Dhruin said:
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 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.

Dhruin said:
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.

Dhruin said:
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?

Dhruin said:
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 · July 22, 2008

Dhruin said:
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 · July 22, 2008

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 · July 22, 2008

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 · July 22, 2008

DArtagnan said:
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 · July 22, 2008

Kalle said:
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 · July 22, 2008

DArtagnan said:
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.

Alrik Fassbauer said:
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 · July 22, 2008

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 · July 22, 2008

DArtagnan said:
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 !

Fallout 3 - Yet Another Roundup

DArtagnan

Guest

kalniel

SasqWatch

DArtagnan

Guest

Dhruin

SasqWatch

Brother None

SasqWatch

Hedek

Sentinel

woges

SasqWatch

Dhruin

SasqWatch

woges

SasqWatch

Brother None

SasqWatch

Hedek

Sentinel

Hedek

Sentinel

DArtagnan

Guest

Alrik Fassbauer

TL;DR

guest

Guest

kalniel

SasqWatch

DArtagnan

Guest

Alrik Fassbauer

TL;DR