Fallout Enforcer Announcement Aftermath

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Sun Mar 16, 2003 5:29 am

Here's a little more... erm, something: The following is from a guy who writes Force Monkeys, a so-so webcomic hosted by GameSpy.

idjit wrote:While I already mentioned it on Thursday, I feel I have to rant some more about the whole issue since it's been bugging me so much.

Before this week I've heard some horror stories about what goes on with some of the major fan sites. People being banned or cussed out by site administrators and forum moderators for posting something in their forums that didn't go along with their narrow viewpoint of what Fallout is and should be. I didn't give these stories credence until this whole situation with Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel erupted. I now have nothing but the deepest loathing for the Fallout community.

Duck & Cover (who I'm not even going to bother linking) seems to be a perfect example of why I feel this way. Saint Proverbius seems to have made it his goal in life to feed the flames of the situation and thereby decrease the likelihood of seeing Fallout 3. I suppose no one ever told him that crying about it isn't the way to get what you want. What's most despicable about it is that he's gone as far as posting the e-mail of Chuck Cuevas (one of the primary people responsible for Fallout: BoS) and encouraged his readers to send what will essentially amount to a stream of hate mail. I decided to send Chuck an e-mail of encouragement and support instead. He's also posting "fan art" featuring Chuck's head on a platter, which is just sad. Now he's bitching about Interplay banning people from their forums for acting like five year-olds. From the stories (from people I trust, I should add) about how I've heard he runs his site, he's really not one to talk. It's small wonder why his site was booted from GSI.

Let me get something straight: I love Fallout. It's my third favorite game of all-time right behind Deus Ex and X-Com. Also, I really have no opinion on this new game one way or the other. I can see how Interplay would benefit from it, and I have no problem with expansion of the universe beyond the borders of the main series. There's just nothing shown about the game to cause me to have any feelings about it one way or the other. My problem is with the community reaction and especially how community leaders are handling the situation. The people who should be investigating more about the game to allow people to form honest opinions and possibly expand the community are instead judging something based on a handful of screenshots and isolating Fallout fans from the mass gaming community.

I really wouldn't want to be in Black Isle's shoes. There's really no way they can win with Fallout 3. With a community like this, if Fallout 3 is anything short of the greatest RPG ever made, the Fallout community will once again be throwing a tantrum like spoiled little brats who didn't get what they wanted for Christmas. It's pretty fucking sickening and even more pathetic.

I felt this was worth posting here for the personal attacks on our dear Saint_Proverbius and the general wrongness of what he's saying.

Mad Max RW · Post by **Mad Max RW** » Sun Mar 16, 2003 6:29 am

The guy has a point about the hostility and shit, but never even tried to see what's going on from the fanbase's point of view. His whole argument is built around the idea an action console game will speed up production of Fallout 3, a PC RPG. It's way too optimistic and anyone with any knowledge of Interplay would know this is impossible. Saint is 100% right, but should be more of a no brainer to people who can read and pick up patterns in certain companies.

Although, the Force Monkeys article had a point about all the flames and child-like attacks on Interplay and specific people. Saint, and Rosh and Killian respectively, would be taken more seriously if they didn't constantly shoot people down and spend so much time attacking every single idiot that comes along. Others who see this won't care what they have to say and turn around laugh at them from a distance. That's what's going on. Your arguments are completely right. The problem is people don't like opinions (facts) forced on them. You have to treat everybody like children, but with a cool attitude. It's hard and takes time, but is worth it if you want to spread the truth.

I learned all this the hard way in a similar game community a number of years back. I was doing the exact same things as Saint. Few people saw what was going on and even fewer wanted to do anything about it. Nothing changed and eventually the whole damn thing collapsed on itself. Years of attacking the root of all the problems and the people who were too stupid and lazy to see what was happening didn't accomplish jack shit. Towards the end I kept my viewpoints but changed the way I expressed them. Put together the most active and successful site since the community's birth in 1996 instead of attacking the corrupted "leaders" and bullshitters. Got a lot of people to change their ways and things were finally looking good. Unfortunately, you can't stop the inevitable and the collapse came barely a year later.

Ok, before I forget where this all started I'll end with this: You guys already have all the facts, knowledge and experience of how things work. That's a HUGE advantage. What you have to do is spread it around in ways that everybody can take seriously. Even the stupid and lazy people. Because that's the majority of what you're dealing with and it'll never change. Or you can dissect my post for a few laughs.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Sun Mar 16, 2003 6:34 am

Well said, Max.

axelgreese · Post by **axelgreese** » Sun Mar 16, 2003 7:22 am

Doyle wrote:Well said, Max.

OnTheBounce · Post by **OnTheBounce** » Sun Mar 16, 2003 7:25 am

Max, this might not mean shit to you, but you just grew considerably in my estimation.

Cheers,

OTB

Saint_Proverbius · Post by **Saint_Proverbius** » Sun Mar 16, 2003 7:31 am

This guy's typical of gamespy staff, frankly. I'd have been shocked if I wasn't attacked by GameSpy at some point, just because they love to support any game corporation no matter what they do. So, I emailed him:

A reader just informed me that you wrote a rather nasty little rant about me and Duck and Cover. So, I figured, I have twenty minutes to kill, I'd respond to you on the subject of what exactly you got wrong.

Being against Fallout Enforcer has absolutely nothing to do with being against Fallout 3. In fact, when you think about it, it's exactly the opposite. Why? Let's follow my logic for this a bit, but I'll go in to history first.

Many people said that buying Fallout Tactics would get us Fallout 3 faster. A heck of a lot of people pre-ordered it. Chris Taylor even said that Fallout Tactics was the most pre-ordered game from Interplay's store in history. Pretty amazing, isn't it? Well, early projections for this game's sales were stellar, baby. Simply stellar. Brian Fargo, then CEO of Interplay, put out a press release on how happy he was with Fallout Tactics' sales, and then greenlighted Micro Forte to make Fallout Tactics 2.

See the problem there? They thought Fallout Tactics was going to be insanely popular, so they gave the go ahead to make Fallout Tactics 2, not Fallout 3!

That's what happens here. If Fallout Enforcer gets massive sales, you're going to see Fallout Enforcer 2 get the greenlight, or Fallout Enforcer Plaid for the GameBoy Advance, or something similar in the works... Not Fallout 3.

A company will only release so many titles in a given franchise at any given time, and will only have so many in development at the same time. That's a simple marketing rule there. You don't want a franchise to compete with itself. So, the more and more spin offs that get tossed on to the queue if one does get successful, the less likely you are to get a sequel to the original.

Don't believe that? Well, look at X-Com. It's a classic example of how spin off after spin off has done nothing towards revitalizing the original. Now, Sid Meiers might make a traditional X-Com game now, but that's only because he has the pull to do it.

There's also the problem of what happens when a spin off does extremely well, and the original is killed off in favor of the spin off. That's happened several times. I think the best two you can name would be Starsiege/Earthsiege and Ultima. There's the promise of more Tribes games to come, but no Starsiege 2. Likewise, Ultima only exists now in Ultima Online.

Now, on a different, but related subject, I think it's glaringly obvious there are drastic differences between Fallout's setting and what's being shown off in this upcoming title. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't remember thonged women in Fallout or Fallout 2. In fact, I don't remember any in 1950s pulp sci-fi, which is the basis for Fallout's universe. Not only is this degrading to women, by pointlessly making them nothing more than tits and ass on parade, but it makes no sense in either the Fallout setting, nor in any post apocalyptic warrior scenario.

It's rather interesting that you proclaim yourself a Fallout fan, but don't seem to mind this rather disgusting gimmick of leather clad, crackwhore looking women used to sell a Fallout game. Yeah, there's nothing wrong with gender stereotyping at it's most blatent, is there?

Welp, my twenty minutes are up, but that's the deal. If you don't get it after that concise explanation, complete with examples of past precedent, then that's fine by me too. Keep on writing your rants about me and Duck and Cover. We enjoy reading them.

Toodles!

There, Max. Was that nice enough for you?

Saint_Proverbius · Post by **Saint_Proverbius** » Sun Mar 16, 2003 8:19 am

Just for shits and giggles though, I'd like to point out how ignorant old Sean is.

idjit wrote:Duck & Cover (who I'm not even going to bother linking) seems to be a perfect example of why I feel this way. Saint Proverbius seems to have made it his goal in life to feed the flames of the situation and thereby decrease the likelihood of seeing Fallout 3. I suppose no one ever told him that crying about it isn't the way to get what you want. What's most despicable about it is that he's gone as far as posting the e-mail of Chuck Cuevas (one of the primary people responsible for Fallout: BoS) and encouraged his readers to send what will essentially amount to a stream of hate mail. I decided to send Chuck an e-mail of encouragement and support instead.

Actually, Killian posted that. Not me. Way to use those fancy literacy skills, Sean.

He's also posting "fan art" featuring Chuck's head on a platter, which is just sad. Now he's bitching about Interplay banning people from their forums for acting like five year-olds.

Actually, they don't ban the five year olds, they just ban people who don't like the idea of the game! They also censor the negative posts so it looks like more people like the idea than they do.

Who's acting like five year olds now?

From the stories (from people I trust, I should add) about how I've heard he runs his site, he's really not one to talk.

The last person I banned from DAC was Sheriff_Fatman. If that's who he trusts, then he's got trust issues.

It's small wonder why his site was booted from GSI.

Oh, where to begin with what's wrong with this one!

1.) I wasn't even at DAC when it was "booted" from GSI.
2.) DAC wasn't booted, Kreegle said he wanted to leave because he didn't like Silverdawn censoring our news posts because Silverdawn thought posting a rumor would offend Interplay - even though that rumor turned out to be true as of March 11th, 2003!!! IRONY!
3.) It's a small wonder George Lucas hasn't sued this guy over using Star Wars charactatures to make a comic.

Stevie D · Post by **Stevie D** » Sun Mar 16, 2003 2:48 pm

This Enforcer thing is a fucking outrage. Just fucking outrageous. I cannot remember the last time I was so angry.

Is it worth bringing things of such calibre, like Fallout, into the world if it can be prostituted in this way?

Anyone and everyone involved in the production of this foul, misformed abortion should be whipped through the streets of Aberdeen. And then brutally buggered.

Killzig · Post by **Killzig** » Sun Mar 16, 2003 3:22 pm

I too wrote Sean, though I think I was actually a little friendlier than Saint--- If you can believe that, horrors.

Hi Sean,

I just felt like giving you a better insight into what's going on over on this end of the world. I'm 99% convinced you're not going to listen because you're already set in your mind in regards to what we, the fallout community, are. That's fine, but at least give me the chance to explain ourselves. You say that it's a narrow viewpoint of what Fallout should be but then like anything else there has to be some set standard.

A recipe to follow, and things that go with the name "Fallout." A Post Nuclear Role Playing Game, it says it right there on the box. What's that imply? In the case of Fallout it was a well thought out, immersive game world where the devil was in the details.

The things we, you and I, loved about it-- Turn Based combat, interesting non linear story, and cool setting. Ever since you stopped off of Gecko in Fallout 2, Interplay has been systematically bastardizing the canon. The continuity errors in Fallout Tactics made Fallout 2 look as tightly written as Camus' The Stranger. That being said, I'm sure you're still thinking -- It's just a game. Well, yes and no. We're hobbyist, for the most part a lot of the people in the Fallout community this is their main hobby and most other games are only good for a day or two's worth of play.

Overzealous, passionate, vocal... yea, all of the above. We expect more for our buck. As should all other gamers, it's all the rage to lament the state of the gaming industry and the copy cat, bug laden release after release. But as soon as a community actually gives a rat's ass and starts complaining vocally they're the ones demonized -- I don't get that. I understand you, for example, can't very well shout the vitriol from the mountain top over at GameSpy but why piss on us for looking out for the interest of the Fallout fan? It's funny you should mention X-Com as one of your favorite franchises, if that's the case then you too should be very aware of what's in store for the future of Fallout. The writing's on the wall, Interplay's driving the license into the ground.

Now that the Fallout portion of this e-mail is concluded I'd like to address some of your accusations towards Duck And Cover. First off, we weren't kicked off of GameSpy. I was. For what? Reporting the same story that just broke, 6-8 months ahead of time. "Fallout Action game slated for the console." Joosty Fruit aka Silverdawn questioned my sources and didn't want the story up. I put it up again and again completely confident. He removed my access from our own site without contacting the site admin (Kreegle.) Kreegle told him to shove his hosting up his ass, he couldn't manage the site by himself so we sought an alternative host and have been very happy with the Gate Network over at DAC.net ever since. Saint Proverbius doesn't enter the fold until later, he was writing for Vault13.net (don't visit--it's a porn site now) and when JC (admin) let the domain rights go (he saw no hope for Fallout while it was under IPLY's control) Saint came to us.

So no, we weren't kicked off of GameSpy -- I was. And Saint had nothing to do with it. As for banning people who don't agree with us, it's funny you should pose the statement that way. 9 times out of 10, people that get banned on the DAC forums are folks who come in starting threads like "I THINK FALLOUT 3 SHOULD BE A MMORPG" then when they're promptly spanked in a logical discussion they resort to spamming. Yes, I'll be the first to admit that Saint's a bit trigger happy with the banning but whenever that happens the banned usually e-mail myself or Kreegle and it's fixed when the ban is unwarranted. I can't think of anyone who's been banned on my forum who wasn't a spammer. If you have proof of the contrary I'd be glad to see it and correct whatever perceived injustice there was.

I posted Chuck Cuevas' e-mail address and the phone number for Interplay. All available on Interplay's website, for the sake of letting people voice their concerns -- the majority of the e-mails sent to Chuck have been well thought out pleads for explanations (if you've looked in the comments for the news article). I don't think it's unfair at all for the game's producer to answer to the consumer about his product. As for Saint's fan art gallery, yea -- I can't justify that but people are angry and so they're trying to find humour in the situation.

If Interplay were simply broadening Fallout's horizon that would be great, but they're not. They're trying to flip it and in the end they're just going to destroy it (see X Com). I'm sorry you can't see that but I thank you for giving me the time to express my position.

Best Regards,

Killzig
DAC.net

Saint_Proverbius · Post by **Saint_Proverbius** » Sun Mar 16, 2003 4:09 pm

I got my reply back, Killian! You?

On Sun, 16 Mar 2003 01:33:48 -0500, <proverbius@rpgcodex.com> wrote:

Damn. Saw the other e-mail before this one. Here I was all ready to go to
bed too...

> Being against Fallout Enforcer has absolutely nothing to do with being
> against Fallout 3. In fact, when you think about it, it's exactly the
> opposite. Why? Let's follow my logic for this a bit, but I'll go in to
> history first.

I never said that you were AGAINST Fallout 3 nor did I say anything that
could resemble such a statement.

> Many people said that buying Fallout Tactics would get us Fallout 3
> faster. A heck of a lot of people pre-ordered it. Chris Taylor even said
> that Fallout Tactics was the most pre-ordered game from Interplay's store
> in history. Pretty amazing, isn't it? Well, early projections for this
> game's sales were stellar, baby. Simply stellar. Brian Fargo, then CEO of
> Interplay, put out a press release on how happy he was with Fallout
> Tactics' sales, and then greenlighted Micro Forte to make Fallout Tactics
> 2.
>
> See the problem there? They thought Fallout Tactics was going to be
> insanely popular, so they gave the go ahead to make Fallout Tactics 2,
> not Fallout 3.
>
> That's what happens here. If Fallout Enforcer gets massive sales, you're
> going to see Fallout Enforcer 2 get the greenlight, or Fallout Enforcer
> Plaid for the GameBoy Advance, or something similar in the works... Not
> Fallout 3.

Do you know why these will get the green light and now Fallout 3? Because
Black Isle is BUSY! Do you really want someone else to handle it? Or do
you
just expect them to drop what they're doing and meet your wishes?
Interplay
is giving something that can hold you over in the mean time. What's wrong
with that?

> A company will only release so many titles in a given franchise at any
> given time, and will only have so many in development at the same time.
> That's a simple marketing rule there. You don't want a franchise to
> compete with itself. So, the more and more spin offs that get tossed on
> to the queue if one does get successful, the less likely you are to get a
> sequel to the original.
>
> Don't believe that? Well, look at X-Com. It's a classic example of how
> spin off after spin off has done nothing towards revitalizing the
> original. Now, Sid Meiers might make a traditional X-Com game now, but
> that's only because he has the pull to do it.

That's because they were pretty damn crappy games. Had they been quality
games, you never know what might've resulted. The simple fact is that
Enforcer and Interceptor SUCKED and nobody bought them. At this point you
don't know if Fallout: BoS will be shit or not, yet you're treating it as
if it's already the worst game ever.

> There's also the problem of what happens when a spin off does extremely
> well, and the original is killed off in favor of the spin off. That's
> happened several times. I think the best two you can name would be
> Starsiege/Earthsiege and Ultima. There's the promise of more Tribes games
> to come, but no Starsiege 2. Likewise, Ultima only exists now in Ultima
> Online.

Ultima Online didn't kill the main Ultima series. 9 was ALWAYS intended to
be the last (though it was an unfinished product, so you may have a point
there). As for Starsiege... was Starsiege on any lists of the greatest
games of all time? I think not. Interplay wouldn't be so retarded as to
stop a series that is not only one of the most revered but also still has
a
large consumer base just because a spin-off did pretty well.

> Now, on a different, but related subject, I think it's glaringly obvious
> there are drastic differences between Fallout's setting and what's being
> shown off in this upcoming title. I don't know about you, but I certainly
> don't remember thonged women in Fallout or Fallout 2. In fact, I don't
> remember any in 1950s pulp sci-fi, which is the basis for Fallout's
> universe. Not only is this degrading to women, by pointlessly making them
> nothing more than tits and ass on parade, but it makes no sense in either
> the Fallout setting, nor in any post apocalyptic warrior scenario.

OH, OH, OH! So a woman in a thong is degrading but getting married on a
whim and pimping out your wife isn't? Explain that one to me, please.

> It's rather interesting that you proclaim yourself a Fallout fan, but
> don't seem to mind this rather disgusting gimmick of leather clad,
> crackwhore looking women used to sell a Fallout game. Yeah, there's
> nothing wrong with gender stereotyping at it's most blatent, is there?

I hate to say it but this kind of thing is pretty standard in games. So
much so that I've become immune to it. I always like to see female gaming
characters that aren't portrayed as sex objects but it's become a tool of
the trade. If that's a problem for you then you should probably just give
up gaming all together.

> Welp, my twenty minutes are up, but that's the deal. If you don't get it
> after that concise explanation, complete with examples of past precedent,
> then that's fine by me too. Keep on writing your rants about me and Duck
> and Cover. We enjoy reading them.
>
> Toodles!
>
>
> ---------------------
> Saint Proverbius - "I do stuff!" - proverbius@rpgcodex.com
> http://rpgcodex.com
> http://duckandcover.net
> http://terra-arcanum.com

I'll say it again... My major problem is that you're inflaming the
situation based on little knowledge and six fucking screenshots. You could
at least wait until you've played the game or read a review or even read a
thorough preview and watched some gaming footage.

He's a fun one, that's for sure!

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Sun Mar 16, 2003 4:36 pm

I agree with madmax, but I'm not to bothered. If Fallout 3 doesn't get made, oh well. If it gets made into a rt magic game, it doesn't matter that much. If it get's made and it's good then 5 years of bitching will become justified.

That ForceMonkey guy sounds like a prick though. Did he even bother to check DAC or his information first? And judging from his top 3 games he probably likes the sequels of the mentioned games more.

Killzig · Post by **Killzig** » Sun Mar 16, 2003 4:37 pm

nope, no reply on this end -- yet.

Mad Max RW · Post by **Mad Max RW** » Sun Mar 16, 2003 4:54 pm

I would be sincerely pissed if Fallout 3 was less than fantastic. If I thought Fallout was "just a game" I wouldn't be here. To me it's like a classic movie or book. I hate it when I see old movies re-tooled or remade for younger generations.

If developers treated games less like a product and more like art we'd be seeing great stuff. But when you have companies like Interplay to deal with it will never happen.

Heh. I think I finally found a decent signature :P

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Sun Mar 16, 2003 5:16 pm

Mad Max RW wrote:I would be sincerely pissed if Fallout 3 was less than fantastic. If I thought Fallout was "just a game" I wouldn't be here. To me it's like a classic movie or book. I hate it when I see old movies re-tooled or remade for younger generations.

If it is made like that though, what could we do about it? More bitching and fan art? I think everyone hopes it would be what made the original great, with hopefully the original devs working on it. It'll probably end up being made by interplay and blackisle though, and probably mass-marketed so much it becomes a prequel set in new york or some other shit.

The Fallout sequels so far haven't been that bad though. Fallout 2 was a good game, just not as good as most people hoped. Fallout tactics was a good tactical game (with a crappy end) wich didn't need the fallout name tagged onto it. This game just takes the piss though. A 3d action adventure on the console. The marketing people at interplay are probably people they found on the street and asked what they think would be 'kewl'

Mad Max RW · Post by **Mad Max RW** » Sun Mar 16, 2003 5:57 pm

Pyro wrote: If it is made like that though, what could we do about it? More bitching and fan art?

There are other more productive ways that might actually accomplish something. It's better to start now before Fallout 3 is officially announced so we can better our chances of them looking at us as more than whiny fanboys.

Maybe it won't change anything. So far yelling and screaming hasn't worked.

Post by **DarkUnderlord** » Sun Mar 16, 2003 6:26 pm

Saint_Proverbius wrote:
Do you know why these will get the green light and not Fallout 3? Because Black Isle is BUSY! Do you really want someone else to handle it? Or do you just expect them to drop what they're doing and meet your wishes? Interplay is giving something that can hold you over in the mean time. What's wrong with that?

Busy? Didn't they semi-start Fallout 3 like, 3 times already? Then go on and start making other games instead? That's not busy, that's prioritising.

Saint_Proverbius wrote:
That's because they were pretty damn crappy games. Had they been quality games, you never know what might've resulted. The simple fact is that Enforcer and Interceptor SUCKED and nobody bought them. At this point you don't know if Fallout: BoS will be shit or not, yet you're treating it as if it's already the worst game ever.

No, the point is they sucked AND killed the series. Had they just made another decent "standard" X-Com, the series could still be alive, but no, they tried to diversify, found it didn't work, and killed the series. At this point, Fallout: BOS is a risk I wouldn't like to take. Especially if it works. If it WORKS, guess what? More Fallout: BOS. You can forget about FO3 at this point.

Saint_Proverbius wrote:
Interplay wouldn't be so retarded as to stop a series that is not only one of the most revered but also still has a large consumer base just because a spin-off did pretty well.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

Saint_Proverbius wrote:
I'll say it again... My major problem is that you're inflaming the situation based on little knowledge and six fucking screenshots. You could at least wait until you've played the game or read a review or even read a thorough preview and watched some gaming footage.

So far, with regards to BOS we have:

- A story brief that seems to be a rehash of FO1 and 2. This ain't "a new game in the Fallout setting" this is "A new game CHANGING the Fallout setting". Everything that occured in FO1 and 2 will have to be disregarded in this game. That's called bastardisation.

- A logo, a logo that looks NOTHING like the BOS logo in FO1 OR FO2. Again, bastardisation. Why change the logo? What's the need there? Oh wait... BECAUSE WIELDING DUEL DESERT EAGLES IS COOL!!

- BOS now have a mission to: The Brotherhood of Steel, warriors determined to bring their own sense of order to a nuked-out wasteland.
Read the FO Bible Part 6 and you find that's not what BOS are all about. Play FO1 and FO2 and see if that makes sense. If BOS are so determined bring the wastes their own sense of order, where the fuck were they in dealing with the Enclave? They would've walked in there with troops and enough firepower to level a small city. They're BOS, that's what they do, apparently.

- Six screenshots. Screenshots that show BOS troops walking around in anything OTHER than Power Armour or combat armour. BOS didn't send out non-armour wearing troops did they?

- I'm sorry, based on what little we do have, we can already say one thing:
BASTARDISATION

Saint_Proverbius wrote:He's a fun one, that's for sure!

Fun? Can you say fucking delusional?

EDIT: That's interesting, check the news release:
-Fallout(tm): Brotherhood of Steel(tm)

Notice that there are TWO trademarked items in that sentence?

Saint_Proverbius · Post by **Saint_Proverbius** » Sun Mar 16, 2003 7:23 pm

Mad Max RW wrote:There are other more productive ways that might actually accomplish something. It's better to start now before Fallout 3 is officially announced so we can better our chances of them looking at us as more than whiny fanboys.

Maybe it won't change anything. So far yelling and screaming hasn't worked.

Give it time. The only people who are interested in this game are interested in it because they think it'll get them Fallout 3 faster. There's no logic behind that way of thinking, so all you have to do is point that out to them.

Killzig wrote:nope, no reply on this end -- yet.

Well, here's my reply to Sean's reply:

On 16 Mar 2003 at 2:00, Sean Simpson wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Mar 2003 01:33:48 -0500, <proverbius@rpgcodex.com> wrote:
>
> Damn. Saw the other e-mail before this one. Here I was all ready to go to
> bed too...

Bed's a wonderful thing. I was about to go to bed when I was told about
your rant. Funny how that all works out, isn't it?

> I never said that you were AGAINST Fallout 3 nor did I say anything that
> could resemble such a statement.

"Saint Proverbius seems to have made it his goal in life to feed the
flames of the situation and thereby decrease the likelihood of seeing Fallout 3."

Well, that's what you said. You basically claimed that by being against
this new title, I was hindering Fallout 3 by proxy. That's simply not true at all. Perhaps I should have used the wording, "Hindering Fallout Enforcer isn't the same as hindering Fallout 3", but that's my point.

> Do you know why these will get the green light and now Fallout 3?Because
> Black Isle is BUSY! Do you really want someone else to handle it? Or do you
> just expect them to drop what they're doing and meet your wishes? Interplay
> is giving something that can hold you over in the mean time. What's wrong
> with that?

Black Isle wasn't busy around that time. They'd just abandoned TORN,
remember? Instead, they went on to make IWD2, which the sales haven't met expectations. Oh yeah, and they commissioned Reflexive to make Lionheart.

Oddly enough, TORN could have been Fallout 3, but the developers of TORN decided they wanted to make a fantasy game using SPECIAL instead of Fallout 3.

> That's because they were pretty damn crappy games. Had they been quality
> games, you never know what might've resulted. The simple fact is that
> Enforcer and Interceptor SUCKED and nobody bought them. At this point you
> don't know if Fallout: BoS will be shit or not, yet you're treating it as
> if it's already the worst game ever.

Do you know why they sucked? Because they were shovelware. Companies often do that with spin offs because they know they can sell a few extra units of a game by putting a franchise name on it and milk the name. Fallout Tactics is a good example of shovelware. If you look at the graphics on Fallout Enforcer, it looks like there's just not a heck of a lot of time being spent on this project.

> Ultima Online didn't kill the main Ultima series. 9 was ALWAYS intended to
> be the last (though it was an unfinished product, so you may have a point
> there). As for Starsiege... was Starsiege on any lists of the greatest
> games of all time? I think not. Interplay wouldn't be so retarded as to
> stop a series that is not only one of the most revered but also still has a
> large consumer base just because a spin-off did pretty well.

Ultima 9 was always intended to be the last from the day it was announced,
which was after Ultima 9. I really don't think EA would have allowed Ultima 9 to be the last if UO hadn't been a cash cow, and Ultima still was, do you?

However, you do know that developers were pulled off of U9 to work on UO2 during the production of U9, right? U9 was never intended to be a success, really, because UO was already a success. They bare bones'd the development of U9.

> OH, OH, OH! So a woman in a thong is degrading but getting married on a
> whim and pimping out your wife isn't? Explain that one to me, please.

And here's the difference. You don't have to put your wife in the porn
industry. It's an option for the evil character. However, even then, I didn't agree with it because it wasn't in the style of the universe. Chris Avellone, the guy who designed New Reno, even admits that many of the things he did with New Reno weren't good with regards to the setting, and that was one of them.

> I hate to say it but this kind of thing is pretty standard in games. So
> much so that I've become immune to it. I always like to see female gaming
> characters that aren't portrayed as sex objects but it's become a tool of
> the trade. If that's a problem for you then you should probably just give
> up gaming all together.

There's a huge difference between Lara Croft, who is always clothed, and
what you're looking at in Fallout Enforcer. Skimpy outfits like T-Shirts and
shorts, and large breasts, are a far cry for what's going on here. Leather clad dominatrixes have no justification in this setting, period. It's just a cheap gimmick that Interplay is hoping will boost sales. It's pointless, tasteless, and vile.

> I'll say it again... My major problem is that you're inflaming the
> situation based on little knowledge and six fucking screenshots. You could
> at least wait until you've played the game or read a review or even read a
> thorough preview and watched some gaming footage.

Actually, we know a lot more because there are people inside Interplay who aren't really thrilled with this either. Then again, look who's running Interplay now, co-CEO of Titus, Herve Caen. He's a franchise virus, as you can see by looking at Titus Games' webpage and count the poorly done console titles he's made with all the licenses he's gotten access to over the years. Remember that Superman game for the N64? Ugh.

Considering the setting of the Fallout universe is also no where to be
found in those six shots, including the style of building design, and BIS wasn't even consulted on this project, what's that tell you?

On that subject, notice how BIS employees have played the distancing act
ever since this game was announced. Read between those lines for a bit. Think they're jumping for joy over this?

See, I'm still being nice! NIIIIIIIIIIIIIIICE!

Wonder if niceness is actually working, Max. Think it is?

Mad Max RW · Post by **Mad Max RW** » Sun Mar 16, 2003 7:43 pm

You're gonna piss him off by not flaming and being totally truthful. I think it's damn funny.

I also really like the editorial you posted on the homepage. As long as they aren't overly hostile I say keep 'em coming!

Here's the hard part. You have to do this ALL THE TIME. One slip and you've gotta start from scratch. People are stupid. If more and more see you doing this they'll fall in line.

Insane-Lark · Post by **Insane-Lark** » Sun Mar 16, 2003 7:45 pm

Mad Max RW wrote: Maybe it won't change anything. So far yelling and screaming hasn't worked.

A few things that Sean addresses do ring true & while I hate to admit it I can see some of his viewpoint. I have been scanning the Fallout boards for years & despite having just joined into open discussion on them a bit before V-13 exited the scene I have known who many of you are for what seems ages. Who? Why, the most vocal of the member of course, most notably Saint, Rosh & previously Greg.

Can't say that it wasn't a delight to watch Saint & Rosh in action & in full out war on the Interplay boards It was & occasionally still is. There have been a steady stream of other voices & leaders into the fray but none so readily vocal as these. Fanatical, knoledgable & venomous were my first thoughts & these have not been much changed except to note that there is a air of humor & dedication there as well. These are not men to disagree with unless you are prepared to be logical express your points clearly & concisely, then discuss ideas, or want a full out flame war. Anything less than clear points & similar ideas lead to the full weight of their derision.

It takes a form of love & fanatacism to be a member of a group like NMA, or DaC (Could also be said for a number of other long enduring groups that many of us have been members of over the years) for a long haul. There will always be faces that come & go but those that choose to stay often end up quick to jump on the dissenter or the asker of apparently foolish questions. Some of these can be addressed with a good FAQ & god help the newbie who doesn't bother to read it, but more often than not the poster is young & inexperienced & does not understanding that it is often a good idea to listen to the currents of opinion before expressing theirs in a glaring often very foolish way. A grumble & hitched finger towards the FAQ or rules can be helpful but some folk understand nothing short of being whacked upside the head with a brick.

Well, we're apparently widely known for stoning folk who come here uninformed or who disagree with the general concensus. It IS NOT a democracy & is actually fairly gentle compared to some other groups I have been a member of. Heck we're downright polite compared to V-13 but there are areas where it might be nice if we had a bit more patience.
I don't think that FO:BOS is one of them but I do think that if we don't express some ideas with a bit more grace that the audience we are trying to speak to will turn a deaf ear to even the best thought out arguments & ideas.

FO:BOS stinks from what I have seen. While it is true that the screens may not reflect the completed product there is enough displayed there that is so far off what Fallout should be to anyone who enjoys the universe that I can't help but feel something of a hopeless despair combined with anger. This game is not anything that I can even see leading to a version of Fallout that I would like to play but I shall try to at least discuss the reasons rationally & without baiting. Can't say that will be the easiest task & imagine it is much worse for those that have literally put years into the community & tried to shape the general quality of the gaming industry.

As for much of that Force Monkey editorial, it pissed me off. It wasn't even particularly accurate. Both Saint & Killian did use some restraint in replying conscidering the level of slander, but I can't really see any change of opinion from that quarter & can't say that I've not seen things just as opinionated here.

I thought I had a bit else to add but seem to have forgotten it with all the noise here in the hse. I may edit this later to clean it up. /me crosses fingers against server demons eating this thing.

Saint_Proverbius · Post by **Saint_Proverbius** » Sun Mar 16, 2003 7:57 pm

DarkUnderlord wrote:Fun? Can you say fucking delusional?

I doubt he reads these forums. So, if you actually want to tell him what you think, I suggest emailing him. His email can be found on the force monkey site, which is easy to google.com for and find.