Fallout 3. Change is good, as long as it's done properly. (Sorta long read)

Again you twist and misconstrue my words. I'm not going on an all out war banner against Beth. I've clearly illustrated time and time again that I will buy and enjoy this game, but to say that it is faithful to Fallout is WRONG.Vandalvideo

dude. lay off the java. it was a reply to someone else, of course it will look like i'm twisting your words. lol.

[QUOTE="hip-hop-cola2"]

[QUOTE="organic_machine"]Will Fallout 3 be more complex than Fallout 2? No? then I won't be buying it, sorry, I like complex games. But I hope you people like it. organic_machine

well that wasn't patranising at all...

What do you mean? I was trying to speak my opinion without being a fanboy about the issue .:?

lol, come on, i was joking but "i like complex games, but i hope you "people" like it (you simpletons, who will never understand the immense power of my master brain).

but nvm, you are a kind soul

it absolutely isn't if you examine 1 or take tactics in to consideration. he's one of the group that love fallout 2 and wanted a remake - because 1 certainly is no dark humour collection.

i meant it's fact these have changed, but whether you care is another thing. i am so used to change in every bit of my life and the fictional works i enjoy that i couldn't care less unless they did something akin to what happened with Shadowrun.

to scream bloody murder about retcons when you have Kirby in your sig, or enjoy mario or final fantasy, or star wars, or star trek, or any number of fictional words is absolutely hypocritical and backwards.

this is why i've come to the conclusion this is an emotional thing for some people, as emotion often ignore logic. you can't argue with these people, you let them vent and try to point out where they're wrong.. but it doesn't do a thing. the next thread you see them in it's the same argument all over again and you have to say the same things.

i say let em be. everyone is entitled to opinion, but i have no reason to agree.

3picuri3

I agree, but with VV, he obviously feels that "mood" is important. With Mario, the "mood" has been essentially the same, even though there have been many changes. It's about preference.

[QUOTE="organic_machine"][QUOTE="hip-hop-cola2"]

[QUOTE="organic_machine"]Will Fallout 3 be more complex than Fallout 2? No? then I won't be buying it, sorry, I like complex games. But I hope you people like it. hip-hop-cola2

well that wasn't patranising at all...

What do you mean? I was trying to speak my opinion without being a fanboy about the issue .:?

lol, come on, i was joking but "i like complex games, but i hope you "people" like it (you simpletons, who will never understand the immense power of my master brain).

but nvm, you are a kind soul

Oh darnit, I knew the "you people" was an offensive term. :oops: . That term has had an ugly hostory. Let me rephrase myself. AHEM...

I prefer games that are increasingly complex. I hope, however, that everyone who think otherwise will enjoy this! FIXED!

:)

it absolutely isn't if you examine 1 or take tactics in to consideration. he's one of the group that love fallout 2 and wanted a remake - because 1 certainly is no dark humour collection. 3picuri3

[QUOTE="3picuri3"]it absolutely isn't if you examine 1 or take tactics in to consideration. he's one of the group that love fallout 2 and wanted a remake - because 1 certainly is no dark humour collection. Vandalvideo

and if you add up everything in one its about a half a page of 'funny' remarks. which im guessing Beth has included in 3

you must be remembering things wrong, or i'm replaying a different fallout. i've been backed up on this point several times too, so no point in screaming im absolutely and utterly wrong.

either way, yet again, i disagree.

ICONOCLASM!!!

and if you add up everything in one its about a half a page of 'funny' remarks. which im guessing Beth has included in 33picuri3

you must be remembering things wrong, or i'm replaying a different fallout. i've been backed up on this point several times too, so no point in screaming im absolutely and utterly wrong.

either way, yet again, i disagree.

Whoever created your avatar is a despicable iconoclast!

You mean ignore the fact that Fallout 1 had dark irony humour?Vandalvideo

had nowhere near as much as 2, and my point is that 3 might end up having as much as 1. we don't know this yet - you grasp at review and preview comment by people that might also have insanely unrealistiv expectations.

either way i'm not disputing your facts. i'm disputing how much weight they carry in establishing the overall tone of the series - but like the last 10 times we've had this clash you forget where i'm coming from with it and quote me and call me out and i have to explain myself over and over and over again :) funny how i remember yours and don't try to hammer you over and over and over again on the bits i think you're wrong on eh?

lets just leave it at this: interpretation of a games overall tone and feeling are subjective like all fiction, yes? let's agree that we both have different ideas of what is critical to that overall tone, ok? you place far too much importance on things that myself and other fallout vets don't feel are critical or central to the overall tones and feeling of the canon to this point.

had nowhere near as much as 2, and my point is that 3 might end up having as much as 1. we don't know this yet - you grasp at review and preview comment by people that might also have insanely unrealistiv expectations.3picuri3

either way i'm not disputing your facts. i'm disputing how much weight they carry in establishing the overall tone of the series - but like the last 10 times we've had this clash you forget where i'm coming from with it and quote me and call me out and i have to explain myself over and over and over again :) funny how i remember yours and don't try to hammer you over and over and over again on the bits i think you're wrong on eh?

You can ignore them all you want, but the facts are the facts. In their absence, it is not faithful by very definition. Vandalvideo

if your statement wasn't based on logical fallacy, or more specifically the misunderstanding that 'faithful' is subjective and not factual, then your point would have more weight. all of your points would.

but like i said, you and i differ greatly when it comes to our subjective interpretation of what makes fallout 'fallout'. ok? fair enough? you can't argue with blatant logic.

might want to stop using words like 'wrong' when arguing opinions too, comes off a bit 'holier than thou'. i can acknowledge and accept you have a different view, but that doesn't stop me from disagreeing with nearly all of your points due to the subjective nature of interpretation.

i'm not trying to belittle your stance, personally i find it fascinating the lengths people go to defend video games or fictional worlds. it's a really interesting topic which is why i often question you. but it's never personal - please don't take it personally.

if your statement wasn't based on logical fallacy, or more specifically the misunderstanding that 'faithful' is subjective and not factual, then your point would have more weight. all of your points would. 3picuri3

but like i said, you and i differ greatly when it comes to our subjective interpretation of what makes fallout 'fallout'. ok? fair enough? you can't argue with blatant logic.

[QUOTE="3picuri3"]if your statement wasn't based on logical fallacy, or more specifically the misunderstanding that 'faithful' is subjective and not factual, then your point would have more weight. all of your points would. Vandalvideo

Lol, you just said faithful and true to "facts."

It could then be argued it is not being faithful if it were not a 2d isometric RPG.

FACT: Fallout and Fallout 2 were isometric 2D turn-based RPG's.

FACT: Fallout 3 is not an isometric 2D RPG.

FALLOUT 3 = ICONOCLASM!!!

Or, I could say:

Fact: Fallout 3 recreates characters from the original Fallout franchise in 3 dimensions.

FALLOUT 3 = FAITHFUL!!!!!!!!

Who is to draw the line? You?

Of coruse, you're that important. YOU ARE LORD OF FALLOUT! Obviously you are the only one who can determine what Bethesda should be allowed to do.

Fallacies? Misunderstandings? I supplied the definition of faithful from the most well respected source of the english language in the world. I would also like to know exactly what fallacies I'm committing here. It is simple logic. Vandalvideo

i shouldn't have quoted faithful as it was misleading. but you are arguing on fallacy and misunderstanding.

what i meant is your opinion of the source - i.e. your interpretation of what the spirit or tone of fallout is - is subjective. so what something is being 'faithful' to, or the subject of faith, is subjective. showing a definition of faith is meaningless - it's the definition of the tone of fallout that is at question. not how faithful it is or what faith means.

it's not factual stuff at all, so don't try to treat it as such.

you feel dark humour defined fallout, i don't think it plays as central a role as you do.

end of story.

Vandelvideo don't bother anymore, just remember the people who are against you in all the fallout threads, when the KOTOR MMO is announced and if there is no SP version, just show them back these threads when they complain.Espada12

wow - why would i care? i want KOTOR to be an MMO with no SP and I'm also a hardcore KOTOR fan. please send me a PM when that happens as I'd like to hear the news :).

how do you know there is NO humor, when people have only played the begining of the main quest....hip-hop-cola2

oh don't try going up that road. i've tried many times...

Who is to draw the line? You?Of coruse, you're that important. YOU ARE LORD OF FALLOUT! Obviously you are the only one who can determine what Bethesda should be allowed to do. RuprechtMonkey

it's not factual stuff at all, so don't try to treat it as such.

3picuri3

You haven't learned the lesson of System Wars then.

If he says the same asinine things enough times they automatically become facts.

All he has to do is comletely ignore every logical counterpoint, keep spouting the same nonsense, and that's the recipe for SW infallibility.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]Vandelvideo don't bother anymore, just remember the people who are against you in all the fallout threads, when the KOTOR MMO is announced and if there is no SP version, just show them back these threads when they complain.3picuri3

wow - why would i care? i want KOTOR to be an MMO with no SP and I'm also a hardcore KOTOR fan. please send me a PM when that happens as I'd like to hear the news :).

I didn't mean specifically I mean't around all the threads, and it's supposed to be later this month, I can send you the PM if you still want.

It will be done properly, the game will be critically acclaimed and loved by its fans, and thinking Bethesda should cater the game they OWN to you and a tiny, tiny group of insane fanboys is extremely arrogant.

This sums it up well, he even cites Fallout 3 specifically:

http://hellforge.gameriot.com/videos/Adam-Sessler-Tackles-Diablo-III-Fanboys/

RuprechtMonkey

I mean, Zelda is a perfect example, people are still crying over that. I mean, I guess im different or something, but im a decade long Zelda fan, and I played WW with an open mind and it became tied as my favorite Zelda game ever.

but you are arguing on fallacy and misunderstanding.3picuri3

what i meant is your opinion of the source i.e. your interpretation of what the spirit or tone of fallout is is subjective. so what something is being 'faithful' to, or the subject of faith, is subjective. showing a definition of faith is meaningless it's the definition of the tone of fallout that is at question. not how faithful it is or what faith means.

you feel dark humour defined fallout, i don't think it plays as central a role as you do.

[QUOTE="RuprechtMonkey"]Who is to draw the line? You?Of coruse, you're that important. YOU ARE LORD OF FALLOUT! Obviously you are the only one who can determine what Bethesda should be allowed to do. Vandalvideo

and we're saying they aren't facts but your interpretation of what makes fallout 'fallout'.

we don't think it's as important, and we're not convinced it won't be present.

[QUOTE="RuprechtMonkey"]Who is to draw the line? You?Of coruse, you're that important. YOU ARE LORD OF FALLOUT! Obviously you are the only one who can determine what Bethesda should be allowed to do. Vandalvideo

How can you argue with my cherry-picked facts?

It is a solid gold FACT that the two original Fallout games were 2D isometric RPG's. This isn't a subjective matter of perceived "tone" either, those are solid, non-debatable facts.

If they're not being faithful to the original precedent set out by those two games, the fact that they were 2D isometric turn based RPG's, then it is by definition not being faithful; and thus, has performed ICONOCLASM!!!

See how silly that is?

I'm a hardcore Fallout fan, but I gave up the dream of a proper Fallout sequel a long time ago, I don't really mind the more action oriented direction it might be heading, afterall I managed to like Fallout Tactics.

My only problem with Fallout 3 is that it's made by Bethesda. Atm there is no developer that could do justice to the series, but Beth... :( c'mon ..I'd rather have Bungie have a go with it, at least then it would be fun, Bethesda only knows how to make boring games, it's written in their genes or something.

how do you know there is NO humor, when people have only played the begining of the main quest....hip-hop-cola2

Hmm? I clearly saw a review stating that.

It has lost, it seems, a good deal of the humour and even irony that was part of the series. Cinematographic references or completely twisted conversations with NPCs are gone.

I am going to bet you be literally and say that there is going to be humour even though the guy here says most of it is gone because you have the word NO in caps.

http://www.n4g.com/pc/News-210614.aspx

It is a solid gold FACT that the two original Fallout games were 2D isometric RPG's. This isn't a subjective matter of perceived "tone" either, those are solid, non-debatable facts.RuprechtMonkey

If they're not being faithful to the original precedent set out by those two games, the fact that they were 2D isometric turn based RPG's, then it is by definition not being faithful; and thus, has performed ICONOCLASM!!! See how silly that is?

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="RuprechtMonkey"]Who is to draw the line? You?Of coruse, you're that important. YOU ARE LORD OF FALLOUT! Obviously you are the only one who can determine what Bethesda should be allowed to do. 3picuri3

and we're saying they aren't facts but your interpretation of what makes fallout 'fallout'.

we don't think it's as important, and we're not convinced it won't be present.

[QUOTE="3picuri3"]but you are arguing on fallacy and misunderstanding.Vandalvideo

what i meant is your opinion of the source i.e. your interpretation of what the spirit or tone of fallout is is subjective. so what something is being 'faithful' to, or the subject of faith, is subjective. showing a definition of faith is meaningless it's the definition of the tone of fallout that is at question. not how faithful it is or what faith means.

you feel dark humour defined fallout, i don't think it plays as central a role as you do.

i already outlined your misunderstanding and fallacy. that literary interpretation is objective. it isn't. you don't think it's faithful to 'your version of events and how fallout is defined'.

you use terms like DE FACTO, and FACTS, and tell us our opinions are wrong.

we don't care because we know you're talking opinions too.

we have differnet ideas of what fallout is as a whole. i don't feel that humor has to maintain a status quo or percentage of content for the series to remain fallout. i don't think the level of humor was the same from fallout 1 to fallout 2 to tactics.

you can scream til your blue in the face but all of us here are individuals that know we have different interpretations, you just decide to disrespect ours, and through that us directly - by telling us we're wrong. you're just displaying arrogance imo and people are right in calling you the so-called 'king of fallout'.

if you can prove to me that fiction and literature and cinema are not open to interpretation i'll recant. until then consider this argument over. if you can't be civil i'm not going to discuss things with you ;).

A guy from PC game sweden also said that Fallout 3 is a great game once you stop comparing it to the originals. Heh luckily I wasn't doing that(expected it to be really different) so I'm still keeping my preorder. But he does reinforce vandalvideo's point, the game strays very far from the original, in certain areas.

[QUOTE="RuprechtMonkey"]It is a solid gold FACT that the two original Fallout games were 2D isometric RPG's. This isn't a subjective matter of perceived "tone" either, those are solid, non-debatable facts.Vandalvideo

If they're not being faithful to the original precedent set out by those two games, the fact that they were 2D isometric turn based RPG's, then it is by definition not being faithful; and thus, has performed ICONOCLASM!!! See how silly that is?

My point is that under your set of rules and regulations I could, in about 15 minutes, come up with a 19 foot-long list of sequels that have committed iconoclasm, and that is 100% ridiculous.

i already outlined your misunderstanding and fallacy. that literary interpretation is objective. it isn't. you don't think it's faithful to 'your version of events and how fallout is defined'. 3picuri3

you use terms like DE FACTO, and FACTS, and tell us our opinions are wrong.

we don't care because we know you're talking opinions too.

we have differnet ideas of what fallout is as a whole. i don't feel that humor has to maintain a status quo or percentage of content for the series to remain fallout. i don't think the level of humor was the same from fallout 1 to fallout 2 to tactics.

you can scream til your blue in the face but all of us here are individuals that know we have different interpretations, you just decide to disrespect ours, and through that us directly by telling us we're wrong. you're just displaying arrogance imo and people are right in calling you the socalled 'king of fallout'

if you can prove to me that fiction and literature and cinema are not open to interpretation i'll recant. until then consider this argument over. if you can't be civil i'm not going to discuss things with you ;).

[QUOTE="hip-hop-cola2"]how do you know there is NO humor, when people have only played the begining of the main quest....Espada12

Hmm? I clearly saw a review stating that.

It has lost, it seems, a good deal of the humour and even irony that was part of the series. Cinematographic references or completely twisted conversations with NPCs are gone.

I am going to bet you be literally and say that there is going to be humour even though the guy here says most of it is gone because you have the word NO in caps.

http://www.n4g.com/pc/News-210614.aspx

They played the entire game? fair enough. they also say the spirit of fallout is there... so why are you people arguing, it looks like they did fallout justice?

i said once you prove to me that literary or fictional interpretation isn't subjective i'll continue. last time i'll say it, or anything else on the matter.

even if it were objective, the mere fact you think that things need to remain at the same level just astounds me. star trek: sometimes funny, sometimes serious, sometimes sappy.

still fascinated by your view - but you need to thoughtfully, and concisely explain to me how fiction and literature aren't subjective works. i've got every school / university / college / english teacher to back me up. what's your argument?

This isn't a metter of interpretation, this is a matter of facts of presence.Vandalvideo

Will you join me in my campaign against Halo Wars, Resident Evil 5, and the new Banjo? These iconoclasts can not be allowed to exist.

After that we can stare at a wall for 45 minutes and have some tea.

My point is that under your set of rules and regulations I could, in about 15 minutes, come up with a 19 foot-long list of sequels that have committed iconoclasm, and that is 100% ridiculous.

RuprechtMonkey

There is always a line. The question is this: what exactly IS important when crafting a sequel? What you seem to be arguing is that the answer is "whatever the developer wants because it's their property." And that's a fine answer, except you nullify your credibility whenever you express any dislike of any sequel ever made.

i said once you prove to me that literary or fictional interpretation isn't subjective i'll continue. last time i'll say it, or anything else on the matter.3picuri3

even if it were objective, the mere fact you think that things need to remain at the same level just astounds me. star trek: sometimes funny, sometimes serious, sometimes sappy.

still fascinated by your view - but you need to thoughtfully, and concisely explain to me how fiction and literature aren't subjective works. i've got every school / university / college / english teacher to back me up. what's your argument?

I'm going to buy it and enjoy it.

[QUOTE="RuprechtMonkey"]

My point is that under your set of rules and regulations I could, in about 15 minutes, come up with a 19 foot-long list of sequels that have committed iconoclasm, and that is 100% ridiculous.

organic_machine

There is always a line. The question is this: what exactly IS important when crafting a sequel? What you seem to be arguing is that the answer is "whatever the developer wants because it's their property." And that's a fine answer, except you nullify your credibility whenever you express any dislike of any sequel ever made.

There's a difference between expressing dislike for a sequel (I've done it plenty of times, you know what the only reasonable solution is? Not buying the game) and being arrogant enough to not only suggest how the developer should make a sequel, but how they have to make a sequel, and then, after deeming a developer to have not marched and sang according to my specifications, to go on and on and on about how said developer has committed an unforgivable act of ICONOCLASM!!!! If you can't see the difference, I can't help you. There is indeed a line, the line you're talking about is called "reason and sense," and it separates those two things.

[QUOTE="3picuri3"]i said once you prove to me that literary or fictional interpretation isn't subjective i'll continue. last time i'll say it, or anything else on the matter.Vandalvideo

even if it were objective, the mere fact you think that things need to remain at the same level just astounds me. star trek: sometimes funny, sometimes serious, sometimes sappy.

still fascinated by your view - but you need to thoughtfully, and concisely explain to me how fiction and literature aren't subjective works. i've got every school / university / college / english teacher to back me up. what's your argument?

sorry, i'll have to repeat myself.

thoughtfully, and concisely, explain to me how literary and fictional interpretation is objective and not subjective. then we'll go from there.

i think you have tone and plot confused to be honest, i think that's central to the problems going on here and why we don't see eye to eye.

and to go with your 'if a part is missing it's not whole' analogy. are you ******* kidding me? are you ******* joking?

so star trek - humor in one episode .... next episode - no humor, pure drama. are you telling me that they aren't both star trek? my oh my this is getting interesting ;).

There's a difference between expressing dislike for a sequel (I've done it plenty of times, you know what the only reasonable solution is? Not buying the game) and being arrogant enough to not only suggest how the developer should make a sequel, but how they have to make a sequel

RuprechtMonkey

Very true. But at the same time, what is wrong with saying "I think Bethesda should not have done ____ to Fallout 3."? That is what he's saying. Is he crossing a line by implying fact into what he's saying? Yes. But he has his ideas of what's important in a sequel, and according to his standards Fallout 3 doesn't come close to achieving it.

How about asking him what his definitions of a good sequel are?

thoughtfully, and concisely, explain to me how literary and fictional interpretation is objective and not subjective. then we'll go from there.3picuri3

i think you have tone and plot confused to be honest, i think that's central to the problems going on here and why we don't see eye to eye.

[QUOTE="RuprechtMonkey"]

There's a difference between expressing dislike for a sequel (I've done it plenty of times, you know what the only reasonable solution is? Not buying the game) and being arrogant enough to not only suggest how the developer should make a sequel, but how they have to make a sequel

organic_machine

Very true. But at the same time, what is wrong with saying "I think Bethesda should not have done ____ to Fallout 3."? That is what he's saying. Is he crossing a line by implying fact into what he's saying? Yes. But he has his ideas of what's important in a sequel, and according to his standards Fallout 3 doesn't come close to achieving it.

How about asking him what his definitions of a good sequel are?

Yes, according to HIS standards. He doesn't realize they are HIS standards, he treats his standards as universal facts. That's extraordinarily arrogant. The quoted sentence you invented isn't silly, that is not at all what he's doing.

And he didn't suggest how they "should" make the game (which is silly enough,) he suggested how they "had" to make the game. That is absolutely absurd.

To go on and on about how Bethesda has committed an unforgivable "Iconoclasm" is absolutely absurd.

There's a difference between those things and saying "Damn, I wish Bethesda had made this sequel *this* way, guess I won't be buying it," and what he, and people like him, are doing. One is reasonable, one is laughably silly and pathetic.

[QUOTE="RuprechtMonkey"]

There's a difference between expressing dislike for a sequel (I've done it plenty of times, you know what the only reasonable solution is? Not buying the game) and being arrogant enough to not only suggest how the developer should make a sequel, but how they have to make a sequel

organic_machine

Very true. But at the same time, what is wrong with saying "I think Bethesda should not have done ____ to Fallout 3."? That is what he's saying. Is he crossing a line by implying fact into what he's saying? Yes. But he has his ideas of what's important in a sequel, and according to his standards Fallout 3 doesn't come close to achieving it.

How about asking him what his definitions of a good sequel are?

its the part where he calls the definitions facts...

Yes, according to HIS standards. He doesn't realize they are HIS standards, he treats his standards as universal facts. That's extraordinarily arrogant.RuprechtMonkey

And he didn't suggest how they "should" make the game (which is silly enough,) he suggested how they "had" to make the game. That is absolutely absurd.

To go on and on about how Bethesda has committed an unforgivable "Iconoclasm" is absolutely absurd.

[QUOTE="3picuri3"]thoughtfully, and concisely, explain to me how literary and fictional interpretation is objective and not subjective. then we'll go from there.Vandalvideo

i think you have tone and plot confused to be honest, i think that's central to the problems going on here and why we don't see eye to eye.

well i gave your 3 chances and you still refuse to acknowledge why this can't continue. what you're doing is taking your interpretation of things, and what defines the tone (even though you wrongly confuse plot with tone) and calling it fact. either you don't know what literary interpretation is, or don't want it to enter this conversation because it absolutely destroys your argument at it's very root.

you know that doesn't fly around here - you could keep screaming what you're talking about, i understand it, but it's pure fallacy based argument. and you know what happens with that stuff in SW :).

you CAN factually state that things happened in Fallout. that does not mean they define fallout. take a look at star trek (you always refuse to quote the good argument don't you :)) tell me it's changes in plot (which is what you're calling out) change what the series is - or make it not star trek.

anyway, done with this. again i've laid out my argument for all to see and i'm 100% satisfied with it despite your refusal to acknowledge some pretty straightforward stuff.

well i gave your 3 chances and you still refuse to acknowledge why this can't continue. what you're doing is taking your interpretation of things, and what defines the tone (even though you wrongly confuse plot with tone) and calling it fact. either you don't know what literary interpretation is, or don't want it to enter this conversation because it absolutely destroys your argument at it's very root.3picuri3

you know that doesn't fly around here you could keep screaming what you're talking about, i understand it, but it's pure fallacy based argument. and you know what happens with that stuff in SW :).

[QUOTE="3picuri3"]well i gave your 3 chances and you still refuse to acknowledge why this can't continue. what you're doing is taking your interpretation of things, and what defines the tone (even though you wrongly confuse plot with tone) and calling it fact. either you don't know what literary interpretation is, or don't want it to enter this conversation because it absolutely destroys your argument at it's very root.Vandalvideo

you know that doesn't fly around here you could keep screaming what you're talking about, i understand it, but it's pure fallacy based argument. and you know what happens with that stuff in SW :).

last you get from me:

1) pointed them out, don't care if you can't read them - others can.

2) there is no facts when it comes to tone, your literary interpretation differ from ours. you failed to explain how literary interpretation and tone are objective.

/argument.

*waves goodbye*