Bethsoft vs Community Sites

Off-Topic :

Originally Posted by abbaon
blackborscht

This is the very first time I read this word. Is it new ?

Originally Posted by Kharn
cum hoc ergo propter hoc

And what does that mean ?

Originally Posted by abbaon
impugn

Another word I don't know …

Guys, couldn't you just write plain understandable text ? Thank you …

I chuckle every time I read these threads. Dhruin shouldn't give any press to fan-site moderators who have delusions of grandeur about their importance in the scheme of things. A fan-site, even the best, is a mild diversionary place to visit if you happen to have the same tastes of the people who post on the site. I've never made a purchase decision based on a particular site's recommendation. Why would I? I make my decisions based on past history of the company, word of mouth of people who like the same games I like for the same reasons, and articles that are printed by folks who have shown themselves to be trustworthy (Desslock, Scorpia, Corwin, Greg Kasavin) etc. I give much more weight to a news site over a fan site because fan sites are too narrowly focused most of the time.

An example: There is a person in this thread who is posting all about Bethesda, NMA, STG and so forth in at least 5 forums that I'm aware of. Why would I trust anything this person said, as he/she obviously has an agenda? When someone froths at the mouth in this manner, you just chuckle and move on.

Originally Posted by crpgnut
Why would I? I make my decisions based on past history of the company, word of mouth of people who like the same games I like for the same reasons, and articles that are printed by folks who have shown themselves to be trustworthy (Desslock, Scorpia, Corwin, Greg Kasavin) etc. I give much more weight to a news site over a fan site because fan sites are too narrowly focused most of the time.

Good inductive reasoning there. Talk about a frikkin' fallacy of the lonely fact.

Also, not being a steady poster here, I don't know if you were around at the time when RPGDot got all its Van Buren news from NMA. The fan site you speak so denigratingly of was useful back then, wasn't it?

Originally Posted by crpgnut
An example: There is a person in this thread who is posting all about Bethesda, NMA, STG and so forth in at least 5 forums that I'm aware of. Why would I trust anything this person said, as he/she obviously has an agenda? When someone froths at the mouth in this manner, you just chuckle and move on.

Posting in more than one forum = having an agenda?

Oohkay…

Alrik:
blackborscht - not a word, just another creative way of naming "blacklist"

cum hoc ergo propter hoc - "correlation implies causation", a logical fallacy that states that because two cases share one common element, they are equal in all elements

impugn - to assail by words or arguments

OKay, thanks, Kharn.

Originally Posted by Kharn
"wont add up to a case of blackbanning a site for criticism, in my perspective." You mean.

No, I meant that they're not the same thing. Bethsoft can do one without doing the other, evidence of one is not evidence of the other, and to conclude that it's doing one because it does the other is something other than an exercise of reason.

And Blue's, please. His original newsbit read something along the lines of, "No Mutants Allowed discusses a fan site's issues with BethSoft, but our issue is with that site's plagiarism." He used his link to complain about STG forum users copying and pasting Blue's News articles without attribution, then replaced the last part of the newsbit with an ellipsis when he got the result he wanted.

I withdraw my contention of unethicality. Vic didn't defame anyone. And I'm not suggesting that he shouldn't be heard. By all means, interview him for your hate-Bethsoft website. Link to him on your blog. My opinion of the newsworthiness of the piece doesn't imply that I vant him zilenced.

Originally Posted by Briosafreak
This is not news for the the front page of this site, that seemed clear to me, that's why I didn't called your attention. And I'm not convinced that this is a policy of Bethesda, it might be simply their lack of know how regarding fansites with critical views, but still I wouldn't dismiss any of this as simple conspiracy theories, but issues that require further analysis, at a deeper level.

I don't have a crystal ball to tell me the future, so I like to gather all the info I can get to have a better understanding of what is at stake, so I follow these issues in that sense.

Bradylama's post as quoted above is a meticulous array of background material on this. Thanks for posting it, Briosafreak.

I find this quote (which I will snip, since Mr. Hines is rather verbose to no purpose) from a Shacknews interview particularly disturbing:

Shack: Have you spoken at all to the original creators of the franchise--who from what I know already had less complete involvement with Fallout 2 than with the first game--in any capacity?

Pete Hines: We have, on an individual basis. Some of those folks have contacted us on varying levels, whether it's a "Hey, good luck" or a job inquiry or what have you. Not really formally though, no…I was a huge Black Isle fan, and all those RPGs coming out of Interplay at the time. I loved Baldur's Gate, Fallout. It was fantastic……They did great stuff for which I will always have tremendous respect. But at the same time, if we're going to move forward, we're really going to have to move forward. We can't just…ask these guys what they think. As Fallout fans and guys who make roleplaying games and have for over a decade, we have pretty good ideas about what we want to do and how to do it. *

Almost as scary as hearing that Donald Trump is on the board

*(my bolding)

I liked this part:

Originally Posted by International Man of Mystery Bradylama
He's certainly lied about company loyalties, possibly lied about being a lurker, and possibly even lied about thinking well of NMA.

"Possibly lied" is a revolting phrase. When you decide to attack someone's integrity, you make your case and you stand behind it. If you don't have a case to make, you don't couch your accusation in weasel words, you shut the fuck up.

And Emil, of all people. You will never meet a more genial and well-intentioned human being. Fallout fans just blow my mind.

Maybe they should change their name to Egosoft!!

Originally Posted by Corwin
Maybe they should change their name to Egosoft!!

Or since that name is already taken… Smartsoft*









* …for not hiring those no talent Troika hacks who would probably even manage to fuck up a 'Hello World' program in one way or another. OK. That was almost a little mean. But only almost.

Mo, are you Trolling??!! You KNOW that Troika comment will attract flames!! Can't you do that in one of the forums Jaz moderates!!

Originally Posted by Kharn
Dhruin: I'm not sure what VDweller pm'd you, but remember my pm specifically noted "Probably not your topic." I only sent it to you after Blue's News posted it, since I figured "hey, if Blue thinks it's newsworthy, maybe Dhruin will too".

It is slightly weird that you think there's no story whatsoever in a company trying to dicate a fansite's actions.

Yes, you did say that. VD's pm was different, but that doesn't bother me - people are free to send us stuff; sometimes I won't post it. No big deal. Better to send the pm than not and I appreciate being kept in the loop.

Game producers regularly try to control PR, and by extension, fansites. It may be as subtle as dangling exclusives or beta access for toeing the line and it may be more blunt. At the end of the day, nothing is stopping STG from doing whatever they want with their own site or elsewhere, other than Bethsoft's forums. You've seen forum wipes, forums taken down…all sorts of stuff way beyond this assumed conspiracy.

And again, the ridiculous behaviour of some "fans" is enough for me to be disinterested in any other explanation. I may be wrong - but that's how I see it.

Originally Posted by Corwin
Mo, are you Trolling??!! You KNOW that Troika comment will attract flames!!

Meee? Trooolling? No. Never. What makes you think so?

Can't you do that in one of the forums Jaz moderates!!

OK, will do that next time .

Originally Posted by Dhruin
And again, the ridiculous behaviour of some "fans" is enough for me to be disinterested in any other explanation.

Well said .

Originally Posted by Corwin
Mo, are you Trolling??!! You KNOW that Troika comment will attract flames!! Can't you do that in one of the forums Jaz moderates!!

Now wait - what are you alluding to? I'm just a cute widdle guy with pink shoes!

Originally Posted by Moriendor
Or since that name is already taken… Smartsoft*

More likely ToddIamagodsoft.

In any event, last time that I bothered to look at Bethesda's list of Oblivious reviews they listed not a single review in which the score was less that 90+%. At the time several sub-90% reviews existed, although one would never appear as it originates from a nother blacklisted site.

As far as FO3 goes, I think that I've lowered my expectations to nil as I fully expect a first person shooter with cars that you can ride around in and kill monsters as that's what makes an RPG to Toddles.

I saw a radscorpion the other day…

Originally Posted by cutterjohn
More likely ToddIamagodsoft.

In any event, last time that I bothered to look at Bethesda's list of Oblivious reviews they listed not a single review in which the score was less that 90+%. At the time several sub-90% reviews existed, although one would never appear as it originates from a nother blacklisted site.

OK, please post the link to a single publisher's website that links to the critical reviews of their games. Then come back and tell us again that 'behtesda r teh devil!!!111' for ignoring critical reviews. I got a hint for you in the meantime and it's called: General business practice. Does that ring a bell?

Come on, cutterjohn. Take a look at Obsidian's collection of NWN2 reviews to see the same thing - even Jeff Vogel does it; you won't find my review of Avernum 4 listed in Spiderweb's news because I "only" gave it 7/10.

Originally Posted by cutterjohn
As far as FO3 goes, I think that I've lowered my expectations to nil as I fully expect a first person shooter with cars that you can ride around in and kill monsters as that's what makes an RPG to Toddles.

At least people could try to get the quote right.

Fantasy, for us, is a knight on horseback running around and killing things.

There is quite a difference between what constitutes a setting, and a genre.

Originally Posted by Moriendor
OK, please post the link to a single publisher's website that links to the critical reviews of their games. Then come back and tell us again that 'behtesda r teh devil!!!111' for ignoring critical reviews. I got a hint for you in the meantime and it's called: General business practice. Does that ring a bell?

Any Valve or Valve published game is one that springs to mind immediately as they directly link to an aggregate review score site.

NWN2 is a poor example as Obsidian is not a publisher, unlike Bethesda. A reputable company would either publish ALL reviews or none at all, anything else is disingenuous.

[EDIT]Ascaron is another. e.g. look at the UFO afterlight review list, I see a whole bunch of low score reviews listed.

This could go on for a while, so I'll cut it short with these two shining examples of honesty and integrity.[/EDIT]

@Dhruin, there's a big difference between your review and a review published by gamespot, for example. Additionally Vogel doesn't appear to pay all that much attention to his web site as it's rarely updated, and most frequently update around the time of a "new" game release from him.

Originally Posted by cutterjohn
Any Valve or Valve published game is one that springs to mind immediately as they directly link to an aggregate review score site.

OK, but that's because they know *exactly* that people will get nothing but a good impression from looking at the average score .

NWN2 is a poor example as Obsidian is not a publisher, unlike Bethesda. A reputable company would either publish ALL reviews or none at all, anything else is disingenuous.

Then 99% of developers and publishers are disingenuous.

Ascaron is another. e.g. look at the UFO afterlight review list, I see a whole bunch of low score reviews listed.

Gotta admit it. That's a good find . But why Ascaron? The site mentions Cenega (publisher) and Altar (developer). I doubt that Ascaron is behind that. Ascaron is actually well known for only posting positive scores on their corporate site (www.ascaron.com). Anstoss 2007 received its fair share of negative scores. Never seen a single one on Ascaron's corp website.

This could go on for a while, so I'll cut it short with these two shining examples of honesty and integrity.

No. Please go on for a while .

By the way, that's *one* shining example of honesty and integrity since Valve doesn't really count with its average score linkage. One "shining example" out of…?

Anyway, even if you could find 2 or 3 more examples, the point of the whole debate is that it is rather strange to accuse Bethesda of something that must be considered general business practice across the entire developer and publisher scene (or actually the entire "business scene" as a whole since this is not an "issue" that is exclusive to the gaming business). The very vast majority of developers and publishers (or in general businesses who try to sell a product) does not link to negative reviews of their games (products). So why should Bethesda?

Originally Posted by Moriendor
OK, but that's because they know *exactly* that people will get nothing but a good impression from looking at the average score .

Sorry to disappoint you, but some of their games that I like barely manage to hit the 70s.

Originally Posted by Moriendor
Then 99% of developers and publishers are disingenuous.

Well, I can't possibly argue with this one as I happen to agree with that assessment.

Originally Posted by Moriendor
Gotta admit it. That's a good find . But why Ascaron? The site mentions Cenega (publisher) and Altar (developer). I doubt that Ascaron is behind that. Ascaron is actually well known for only posting positive scores on their corporate site (www.ascaron.com). Anstoss 2007 received its fair share of negative scores. Never seen a single one on Ascaron's corp website.

It's linked to directly from ascaron's listing of games, and there are other games that they list as theirs WITH low review scores on the "official" sites. I only looked here as you asked for som examples, and, well, there are some. As far as the ascaron corp site, WTF would I look for reviews on a generic corp site?

Originally Posted by Moriendor
By the way, that's *one* shining example of honesty and integrity since Valve doesn't really count with its average score linkage. One "shining example" out of…?

Really. Why ever not? TO actually see the reviews you HAVE to click on the aggregate score link which then shows ALL of the reviews from any that might be 10/100 to those that might be 100/100. Try again.

BTW: You sound awfully defensive. Not a business "development" employee of a developer or publisher employee by any chance are we?

Originally Posted by Moriendor
Anyway, even if you could find 2 or 3 more examples, the point of the whole debate is that it is rather strange to accuse Bethesda of something that must be considered general business practice across the entire developer and publisher scene (or actually the entire "business scene" as a whole since this is not an "issue" that is exclusive to the gaming business). The very vast majority of developers and publishers (or in general businesses who try to sell a product) does not link to negative reviews of their games (products). So why should Bethesda?

Sorry, I don't plan on wasting my time looking for any more examples. If you want to please feel free to do so. i.e. you're argument boils down to it's ok to do whatever is necessary to make your business look good and push crap out the door whether or not it meets certain criteria, and then to censor anyone who points out any deficiencies. OK, gotcha.

Your collection of statements, are exactly what I would expect from a marketer with flexible ethical standards, hiding behind the excuse "well, everyone else does it, so its gotta be good…" while providing absolutely zero supporting evidence of your own.