Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'NMA News and Information' started by Per, Jul 5, 2010.
OK, best fallout related interview ever.
I would say an 'FPS' where you only race a rally car wasn't an FPS consequently, using FPS criteria to judge it would be... strange. As you say, FO3 isn't really an 'RPG' in the traditional sense, so judging it as a failed RPG misses the point. It's neither a bad RPG nor a bad FPS, it's something else. Something, which posses a quality that neither a straight FPS or RPG alone can replicate. That doesn't make it inherently better or worse than a straight FPS or RPG, just different. Everyone is entitled to like one over the other.
Well, I've never claimed that any FO game was 'of greater importance' than any other. If you mean which game was the most influential then you're discussing objective facts, in which case it's entirely possible for one person to be right or wrong. It's a matter of fact.
I hate post-modernist, relativist mumbo-jumbo more than most, but whether or not a game or a piece of music is 'good' or 'bad' is not a matter of fact, it's just an opinion. Opinions like this can be ill-informed, poorly reasoned, or just plain stupid. But to claim that one opinion is inherently wrong implies that some kind of empirical evidence could be shown to contradict it. No one can prove that FO3 is 'bad'. That would be meaningless.
Evidently, empirical arguments can be offered about the qualities/failings of each FO game. FO3 defiantly isn't a turn-based isometric RPG. That might mean that you like it less, but that doesn't make it objectively worse.
All these things are true. But a person who likes the game likes it despite those things, not because of them.
So it's not an RPG, it's something else. Call it whatever you like. Maybe Bethesda were wrong to call the game an RPG, but that's not really a reflection of the game itself, it just means that Bethesda have a poor grasp of the English language (and as you say, the writing in FO3 isn't very good). Either way, my enjoyment of FO3 wasn't dependent on the quality of the writing, it was something else entirely. If that means that FO3 shouldn't be called an RPG, that's fine by me.
wow... thanks for linking to this. Great interview. Very good find.
Comparison between marketing a somewhat decent looking videogame...and a raw steak...yeeeeah....
Well then, you claiming that we cannot claim F3 to be universally not good is also just an opinion, thus you cannot claim that F3 is not, universally not good, because it's just an opinion.
Your accusing me of relativism, when all I did was to distinguish between facts and (subjective)opinions. I never said that all claims can't be universal, merely that the terms 'good' and 'bad' are context dependent, subjective terms and not facts.
If they would be purely subjective, then we wouldn't have standarts to abide by (even in the gaming industry). We also wouldn't have classics etc. I recognize that using these terms (good, bad) is sometimes pretty hard when talking about games, but it is possible to weigh the different aspects of the game and its coherency according to the standarts set by the previous games, general perception and experience. Well, at least quality wise.
Subjectivity doesn't necessarily rule out consensus. Defining a game as good or bad is, at some level, a question of utility (good at what...?). The fact that most people have broadly similar expectations of what they want from a game (fun etc), as well as basic universals of human biology, inevitably leads to a kind of broad consensus regarding quality.
But there's no basis for claiming that these standards are objective, epistemological facts. And there's still plenty of room for difference of opinion without claiming that anyone is objectively 'wrong' about what is or isn't 'good'.
Then what is it?
Now, the inherent problem with Hybrids like this is thus; "Jack of all trades, master of none". The majority of games like this can't pull off multiple aspects succesfully. As far as i can see, Fallout 3 is a FPS/RPG Hybrid and has notable deficiency's in both the FPS and RPG Category's, so it might not be a bad FPS or a bad RPG, But its a bad hybrid.
That's not true. It is a flaw. The fact its marketed as another Fallout game despite missing these prerequisite RPG elements is a flaw. Your free to enjoy it as you want and ignore these faults, But it's definitely a poor Fallout game because it fails at what is required to be a good one.
Edit: This might not make it a bad game depending on personal opinion, as you've said. But you can see how its flaw's detract from its ability to be a proper successor, regardless of how much you enjoyed the game.
All these arguments around the notion that FO3 is supposed to be something other than what it is. Essentially your arguing that it has the wrong name, and that Bethesda marketed it wrongly. The logical conclusion is that if it had been called 'Laffout 3' and been described by Bethesda a 'First Playing-Role Shooter Game', people would be justified in liking it (because then it would contain the things that a Laffout game in the First Playing-Role Shooter Game genre are supposed to have!).
To say that a Fallout game must contain certain 'prerequisite elements' is essentially just stating your own personal expectations. It says nothing about the quality of the game itself. Saying that FO3 wasn't what you wanted or expected is fine, but that doesn't mean that other people are 'wrong' for having different expectations.
I love all three. Maybe I'm the missing link between the old and the new generation of gamers.
Yes that doesn't seem very constructive (or logical), but what do you think about the constant and bitter bashing of and whining about FO3 and Bethesda on this forum? Constructive? Enjoyable? Best possible use of time?
It's feedback. Developers should listen to feedback, but considering BethSoft doesn't give a shit about us, maybe there's no point arguing. At least Obsidian seems to have picked up a clue of what we wanted.
It is! , though I don't use to do it so much, but the comments are quite hilarious. Sometimes it seems like a competition of who can come up with funniest phrase and/or metaphor, analogy, etc.
Ah, but do you know what could be the best possible way to use your time? Nobody does. Ever heard of the term, "cost of opportunity"? I'm sure some people come here when they're tired, for example, back from work, or bored in work, or just want to relax a bit. I don't think they're logged 24/7 to bash everyone's opinion.
sad tim makes alec sad...
I've gotten the impression that most criticism isn't intended as feedback. To begin with feedback should be sent to Bethesda, include explanations (not just empty bashing and whining, however witty, though some posts here are probably decent enough in that regard), and so on.
Fair enough. I'm not against bashing as such, just think it gets a little too much here at times (maybe because I like FO3), though I don't mind that much and I certainly won't spend half my time bashing the bashing of FO3 and Bethesda, but I did feel like making my view known at least once.
The loss of opportunity of working at Bethesda? (j/k)
And btw, thanks for posting these interviews Per, really enjoyed them.
Decide that absolute maximum bottom line profit is the only important aspect of a game. Then do market research to see what people want in the game. You will get the modern crop of beautiful-to-look-at, uninspiring, more or less OK games. See also: modern radio.
This reminds me of the "most wanted song"...designed by market research as an experiment.
I enjoyed Fallout 3 -- indeed, I'm playing through it again to check out the DLCs. Point Lookout, by the way, is garbage.
Despite my enjoying the game as what it is, I enjoy NMA and agree with the criticisms voiced by most of the posters -- while FO3 is a fairly enjoyable game, it's hard (or impossible) to make a serious case that it's a faithful sequel.
How would StarCraft fans have reacted if SC2 had been announced as an FPS, still name StarCraft 2? A bit of exaggeration, I know, but it's to make a very valid point which people seem to be willfully ignoring here. Fallout 3 is not at all similar to the established gameplay for the franchise, so it is not a proper sequel.
Saying it's a good or bad game is purely opinion; this point everyone keeps dodging is not, it can be and has been backed up by logical point-by-point analysis.
Exactly. It shouldn't be called Fallout at all. The title of a game is it's brand. The point of the brands is that it marks the things that are different from each other and makes it easy for people to find the things that they would like. When you start meshing and changing stuff of a title, you ruin the point of sequels, because things that people loved or things that really distinguished the game from the mass can be removed.
The bigger question is, who the fuck are you to tell me that i am wrong when i say that i am not satisfied by a product? Did you make the game? Is your life in any point in danger if someone doesn't like the game? Are you going to lose your job if people bash this game? How does this concern you in any way?
Seriously... Nothing is made, so everyone can like it and nothing can be liked by everyone. You know what? I don't like Deus Ex at all, but you know what i do? I don't play the game and i don't tell other people that they are wrong for liking it. Because they are not. And i am not wrong for not liking it. I know how wonderful it is to have a big group, who shares your interests and likes what you like, but there is always the other group with different interests. Without us liking the game, you don't lose anything. We are the only ones that lose. A good sequel forever. And that's why we bitch and moan about it. If you people are not with us, the least you can do is be neutral. There is no point to waste anyone's time.
But F3 had neither! Oh. Never mind.
(But they won an award for writing! I wonder why F3 didn't win an award for its FPS combat too?)
Edit: well, in MY PERSONAL OPINION F3 had crappy FPS combat, boring quests, boring people, grey dull locations... maybe I'm different from most Fallout fans in that I've played a lot of FPS games as well as a lot of adventure games, a lot of RPGs, I've played a lot of different types of games. So, therefore, I expect my FPS combat to not suck, I expect my conversations and quests to be vaguely interesting, I expect my character stats to be meaningful, and of course I expect any "crafting" element in any game to be a boring snipe hunt.
In my opinion, F3 got crafting right. Everything else was mediocre at best.
Second Edit: OK, they were technically sepia-toned dull locations, but I played with fellout because the endless grey sky reminded me too much of Chicago and I needed some color!
Third Edit: I'm giving my opinion here because there's the whole "well it may not be an RPG but I really liked it and why can't you leave it alone". For the slow-witted among you, I am saying that not only was it not good as an RPG, it wasn't very good at being the "new" type of game it was supposed to be either. If you enjoyed it, great. I enjoy the occasional Big Mac myself. About once every two years. When there's nothing else open.
Boo yah. Best point since the original analogy. I want more of the steak I fell in love with.
Oh, for fuck's sake! Why people keep saying this? I know you can't pinpoint the exact value of a game/movie/book/whatever on a scale but saying it's all subjective is bullshit.