Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Ziggy Stardust, Feb 27, 2019.
please comment with any passionate opinions
Have you ever seen either of the games you've mentioned?
I assume this is just some level of shitposting that is more self-aware than it should be but never proves to the spectator that it is self-aware and comes off as ridiculous and lacking in humor.
I don't know him; does anyone here know him well enough to have an opinion?
*I think his actions have been such at times in the past, but that's his job... and unfortunately he seems to be pretty good at it; their profits are undeniable, even despite this misstep with 76, and to some degree with FO4.
They make crap RPGs, but it's couture crap, and that does not come from laziness, or lack of skill.
Todd is just doing his job yall. The game was just rigged from the start, due to Zenimax. Pete Hines is a piece of shit though.
Coudn't resist to vote that I Worship Todd the Godd. I hope it isn't a official election where he must vacate if he loose.
But to really answer the question, it depend of what he really think.
Does he truly believe in the quality of his, products?
If yes, then he is indeed the perfect video games maker for the mass market, which doesn't make him a dick but, well, something else.
If no, then he is a dick in his job but he is also in his right, since the blame for it mostly goes to his customers above, who keep droping their pants.
No, I wouldn't say he is a Dick.
Man's just doing his job, and from what I can gather, he seems like an alright Person in real life. He is just the face of many mediocre games.
He doesn't get into Twitter drama and seems to generally dislike the games he works on (that E3 showing of Fallout 4 and 76 made it seem like they really aren't the games he wants to make).
He isn't a dick, I think his talents are best suited elsewhere to be honest. If he really wants to make RPGs, then I guess he'll do alright at somewhere like Obsidian.
Pete Hines seems to have more control over the games and that guy is a Dick.
I remember listening to one of the podcasts and I think @RangerBoo mentioned Pete Hines hates RPGS.
Guy in charge of a RPG franchise that was known to be dialogue heavy everyone!
I don't know how much push Hines has on the series but he doesn't seem to mind the direction. I think he even said the more streamlined their games are, the better.
And why not? More sales. Most of the people, especially the higher up you go, in these companies don't care about good products. They care about good sales.
Who cares if your game is remembered 25 years from now when you're working somewhere else? Just make your money and go. How many games that EA has published in the past 10 years will be remember 30 years later as classics compared to the titles they put out 10 years before that period? What do you think they care about more? Seeing 9/10 scores will a million units sold or a 6/10 with 6.5 million units sold?
I get the impression that Pete's public comments (as with Todd's) are a scripted facade; gaming the crowd, by trying [always] to garner empathy with their average consumer—in the hopes of selling them the product. Regardless of the atmospheric fiction and packaging, their product is empowerment fantasy. Always.
I truly doubt that anyone will ever hear their true opinions on gaming said publicly, because their statements have a direct impact on consumer perception of their studio. They speak in manner to best reassure the potential buyer that this [current product] is what the buyer wants... One way of doing it is to parrot the buyer's own internal thoughts— like "Why can't I walk away, I don't care about this [quest]".
"I don't have the attention span for long dialogue", is that not in fact part of his daily job (and likely aptitude)? I doubt this is the truth, and I view this as more likely a [disingenuous] self effacing admission meant to please and attract those who actually feel that way; presenting a kindred spirit.
No, YOU come off as ridiculous and lacking in humor. Have some sympathy for a beta tester of 76.
Sorry, dude. 76 testers should have know better. Your humor is lacking a bit.
I have no sympathy for anyone that decided to become a beta tester of Fallout 76. That thing looked like a trainwreck from the get-go.
Conceptually, it was good. Even Chris Avellone agrees with me there, but the problem was the execution, and the focus on monetary gain that eventually overcame the novelty of the original idea.
No NPCs, next to no story, only like 24 people per server, PVP being nigh pointless, randomized perks and the survival elements being pointless (thirst and hunger hardly do anything). No, it was and it's a terrible concept. Completely misses the point of an online game.
And Chris Avellone is known for saying some dumb shit. Just because he wrote some great stuff doesn't excuse him from saying stupid stuff every once in a while.
How was it conceptually good to create an online multiplayer game set in a world destroyed, and mostly devoid of people—and intending that the game not have any NPC interaction to give it a story; just passive quests issued by machines.
This seems awfully dull in concept, and seems to share none of the concepts that the IP is known for.
(This is just my curiosity, please don't construe it as accusation or snarky retort.)
I had thought it was 32. (?)
No NPCs means that you can’t know beforehand whether someone will be peaceful, which adds to the Fallout experience. The story is in the hands of the individuals and how they interact. 24 players, randomized perks, and useless PVP were in the execution. But why am I trying to talk reason to Norzan.
What? This is the dumbest thing i ever read. And NPCs can't do this? Are you gonna tell me that NPCs can't do this, running up to them and not know if they are peaceful or not? The no NPCs makes the world feel completely dead.
NPCs are part of the Fallout experience. Without them you lose a big chunk of the point of the series, regardless of offline or online.
Are you seriously defending the no NPCs thing?
No story means no driving force to make the player go forward. Bethesda thought people would make up their own story and we see how that backfired.
Because you are trying to defend a clearly deficient product.
What is the Fallout experience?
But at best this means no story at all, at worst, it means —this:
You've seen it; we've all seen it. Would a defensible (or moderately redeemable) product provoke this kind of reaction? This is what you'd get if a guy had bought take-out food and found feces in the bag, instead of his order.