Fallout Enforcer Announcement Aftermath

[Saint_Proverbius]

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.

You know one thing about it. I really halfway wonder if he didn't post the link to Duck and Cover so he could say whatever he wanted on the subject without people going and seeing the other point of view. After all, he posted a great deal of things in that rant which were hardly accurate, such as DAC getting kicked off GSI, when the truth was DAC left because GSI was keeping us from posting THE TRUTH(tm).

Actually, I typically start off nice with newbies. I give them a few nice replies, explaining things. Then, at some point, with some of them, they just refuse to listen.

I'm a big fan of Teddy Roosevelt's motto. Speak softly and carry a big stick. If you spell things out for people, and they just refuse to listen or start flaming, then it's time for the big stick.

I have a big stick reputation, sure. That's because I'm really good at using the big stick when speaking softly doesn't work. I can be fairly brutal. I've just always found it funny when people flame me, and then I knock the crap out of them with my reply, that they whine about me being mean.

However, I'm willing to bet that Sean's not the type of guy that actually wants reason here. After all, reasonable methods only go so far with unreasonable people or situations. Judging by his rant, fraught with half truths and flat out misrepresentations, well.. I'm not sure he's wanting to be reasonable.

The same thing goes for a lot of the posters on the IPLY forum. There's gobs of the IE fanboys who toss off on trolling the Fallout forums, just trying to piss off Fallout fans. Then they go running around talking about how evil we are because of it. It's like, d00d! Did you see how that Fallout fan flamed me when I told him Fallout sucks and he should get a life? What assholes they are! which is par for the course with those kids.

Look at Hell Kitty's posts on there, or Meatball's. Hell Kitty was basically saying, "I'm going to buy this game just to piss you off!", which is a pretty weak troll attempt. Then there's Meatball's who said things like, "You're f'ing jealous because you don't have an XBox! f'ing ingrates!" Again, that's just par for the course on the IPLY forums. Odd they don't ban those chaps, ain't it?

[Spazmo]

This is all true. Saint is a kitten with the new people on RPGCodex making introduction threads. He's even civil to people defending Neverwinter Nights.

[Mad Max RW]

They're trying to bait you into long winded arguments over stupid shit. Then potentially intelligent people will see your responses and never believe anything you say. Rosh's comments about some random dumbass at NMA is a perfect example. We all know Rosh is right. But look at it from the perspective of somebody who hasn't been around to see what's going on. Are they gonna side with the guy calling people "clueless shitheads" or the overly optimistic guy acting like a victim?

[axelgreese]

acting like a victim?

Acting like the victim is fun, in fact that's the card I"m playing on the I'play boards.

[Phias]

I side with those with some sense. Not many, if any people who are arguing that "we can't judge it cause of 6 fucking screenshots" are making a good argument at all. So until then...

[Mad Max RW]

We don't need screenshots to know it's crap.

[axelgreese]

We don't need screenshots to know it's crap.

and why would they chose those spefic screens to go with the news press?


Because they represent what the game is gonna be like.

[Phias]

We don't need screenshots to know it's crap.

That's the point. The "screenshot" argument is their main argument. Otherwise it's "You can't call it shit until you've played it d00d".

Here's my advice to THEM:

1.Go HERE:http://www.interplay.com/games/product.asp?GameID=533
2.Read the "features" for the game on it's page.
3.Go away.

[Sykotik]

There will always be those dipshits who see that a group of people feel strongly about something - then they'll just take the other side and rant at those disgruntled ones to tick them off even more.
I suppose it gives them some kind of pleasure. Dicks.
This pretty much reeks of it, everybody is bashing each other for the reasons they think are right, everyone is getting mightily pissed off at each other, and some ignorant people who don't seem to get THE TRUTH(tm) just keep on fueling that fire with their smart-assed and snide remarks - which, once again, they think are right.
Needless to say, this angers me more than just a little bit. Not just IPLY acting the role of the $$$-slaving franchise-fucking game company (I almost choked on the bile that rose into my throat reading about this mess), but all this needless provoking on the part of irritating little shits all over the net. I've had enough of those people everywhere I have been, and this is no better.

Rant over. Sorry. Ignore any invalid points and silliness. Thank you. ^_^
--Syk

[Rosh]

Mad Max RW, I do see how you can be right with that on one aspect, but then you have to remember something else. You can indeed attract more flies with honey than vinegar. I'll keep that in mind when I want to attract flies. A bitter pill is also hard to swallow.

Then you have to remember with something like this, feelings are infectious, emotions can run wild. You show outrage and also present the facts, those with a clue will pick up on it and if they feel the same way about it, it gets the ball rolling and it spreads like wildfire; it is also what basically dried up sales for FOT.

You can't help the stupid and naive, I'm afraid.

Then again, it really says something that even the most steadfast Fallout Tactics supporters are waving the bullshit flag on this one. That's pretty fucking remarkable and should be the clue for the optimistic cattle like Sean. The FOT supporters can see where the Fallout setting is raped, compared to Fallout Tactics.

For fuck's sake, is Sean completely illiterate, or just likes making spin while not looking at the facts he does at hand? It doesn't take much by looking at the game info that you can tell the character system isn't going to be that of the previous games, and that the story summary looks like it was borrowed from Fallout 1&2. Even a console site says (sounds familiar) in regards to it. The screenshots show that the setting is ignored. You can't have the style depicted in those sreenshots when it's supposed to be right after the first game. It completely disregards the second Fallout already.

You'd think some of these idiots could also read a press release, too:

The fear of an apocalypse has become a reality. Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel begins after the first Fallout PC title in which humans emerge from the safety of underground vaults to explore the earth following a nuclear holocaust. In joining the Brotherhood of Steel, players will uncover a sinister plot that could transform the remainder of humanity into a race of mutants. The Brotherhood of Steel have come together to wage battle against the mutant raiders and pirates to fulfill their search for a mysterious and heavily sought-after device, one that could be used to help rebuild humanity or as a monstrous toll of war.

You heard that right, kiddies. Pirates. Arrr, matey!

[Phias]

I still think "Hordes of Ghouls" is amazingly stupid.

The thing that makes me ANGRY is the setting. No 1950's style anywhere.

[Araanor]

Actually, I typically start off nice with newbies. I give them a few nice replies, explaining things. Then, at some point, with some of them, they just refuse to listen.

I can testify to this, it was about some Fallout issue over at the old BIS boards. I disagreed with Saint so he motivated his arguments, I know reason when I see it. :)

Things aren't as simple with everyone.

Some will do their utmost not to understand.

[Mad Max RW]

Mad Max RW, I do see how you can be right with that on one aspect, but then you have to remember something else. You can indeed attract more flies with honey than vinegar. I'll keep that in mind when I want to attract flies. A bitter pill is also hard to swallow.

It's so much easier to silence a "bitter pill". Look at what happened to Saint at the Interplay forums. To me he wasn't that bitter, but to others he went too far.
And you also run the risk of attracting the wrong people. Nutjobs who don't care about a cause but love attacking everybody else will gather around you. We're all getting bad press because of it.

[Jeff]

Hehe Max, trying to convert the zealot community into some kind of a goody-two-shoe club?

[Mad Max RW]

Of course not. Being pissed off is what keeps everybody here after the same thing. Just gotta stop acting like children and get organized for once.

[Killzig]

First off, I want to apologize to you and the rest of the guys at DAC for
some incorrect statements in my newspost regarding being booted from GIS
and what not. Proverbius already pointed these out to me, and I'm sorry I
said them. While I stand by my argument, I'd like all parts of my argument
to be based on fact. Some of them weren't. For that, I'm sorry.

> 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.

I consider myself a (usually) objective and (almost always) fair person so
I'll definitely listen to what you have to say. And I agree there has to be
a standard but how narrow does that standard have to be?

> 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.

See, I don't think the game should set the standard of what the universe
should be. There's no good reason to restrict the universe to just role-
playing games when the potential is there for more. Faithfulness to the
core universe should be what matters, and I think that's currenly
impossible to judge from six screenshots.

> Overzealous, passionate, vocal... yea, all of the above.

Lacking in objectivity and rationality is how I see it. It's okay to be
angry about it, but I think fan sites are should still act as journalists,
since that's basically what a fan site is. It's a newspaper or magazine on
a focused subject. Me? I'm just an idiot ranting while he writes a silly
little comic. Instead of focusing your site on bashing something you
haven't played, you should be treating it in an unbiased way. That's what
editorials are for.

> 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.

It's because they're acting on something they know little to nothing about.
Of course, I probably shouldn't be blaming the entire community. I think
blame should be on sites like DAC who are encouraging the outrage.

> 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.

Again, I apologize for the incorrect statements I made in my newspost. I
wrote my rant on the spur of the moment and I regret saying certain things
before I knew the complete facts.

> 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.

I agree that developers should answer to their consumers. I don't find the
fact that most of the e-mails sent to him have been well thought out very
likely though. Do you know this for a fact? How?

I think my major gripe is how the community sites are handling the
situation and encouraging the behaviour of the community as a whole.
Saint's gallery is a good example fo this. People have the right to be
angry but that doesn't mean you should be advertising and encouraging it.

> 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.

Again, how do you know this? I think you're jumping the gun a little here.
Fallout Tactics may have had continuity errors but it was a great game.
Fallout: BoS could be the same, or it could be a terrible game and an
insult to the universe. Hell, it could even be a great game that's mostly
faithful to the universe. There's simply not enough information out there
right now to make that judgement. Right now it seems to me that Interplay
is just trying to make a Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance for the Fallout
series. There's no indication if BoS will be as good as Dark Alliance
(which was well received critically and financially) but I can't say that
will be bad either. Which is why I choose to WAIT and SEE instead of
jumping to conclusions.

--
Sean "Kaigen" Simpson
Writer/Co-Creator
Force Monkeys (http://www.gamespy.com/comics/forcemonkeys)
Game Reviewer
Stratos Group (http://www.stratosgroup.com)
News Hound
Planet Deus Ex (http://www.planetdeusex.com)

[OnTheBounce]

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.

What a specious position, not to mention a pusilanimous attitude...

His argument to support the "strumpets R us" aspect of gaming is, "I've become desensitized to it, ergo it is okay."

However, if he really did like "to see female gaming character that aren't portrayed as sex objects" I don't think he would be so flippant about it being "a tool of trade."

I personally have a problem w/the way women are treated in games. I don't think the bullet-boobed Lara Croft is much better than a leather-clad-dual-Desert-Eagle-wiedling dominatrix. I didn't like the way the female characters were drawn in FoT w/their wasp waists and mammaries that any artilleryman would be proud to cram into a cannon. (I have to say that I like the use of horse-faced female portraits, though. Farsight was a great sniper, but that's all she was. No eyecandy there.) I've voiced my opinion as to this before, but I don't think that I should quit gaming because Dr. Ruth was either wrong, or gamers aren't of the intellectual calibre they like to think of themselves as.

I guess the gist of Sean's attitude is that we should quietly roll over and take whatever the industry gives us. No matter where they put it...

OTB

[axelgreese]

Again, how do you know this? I think you're jumping the gun a little here.
Fallout Tactics may have had continuity errors but it was a great game.
Fallout: BoS could be the same, or it could be a terrible game and an
insult to the universe. Hell, it could even be a great game that's mostly
faithful to the universe. There's simply not enough information out there
right now to make that judgement. Right now it seems to me that Interplay
is just trying to make a Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance for the Fallout
series. There's no indication if BoS will be as good as Dark Alliance
(which was well received critically and financially) but I can't say that
will be bad either. Which is why I choose to WAIT and SEE instead of
jumping to conclusions.

If people keep ranting on about how "it's too early to tell" I might just get pissed off enough to get off my lazy ass and write an editorial about the idiocy of that.

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

Faithfulness to the core universe should be what matters, and I think that's currenly impossible to judge from six screenshots.

True but I think the choice of which screenshots where posted speaks volumes. I for one look forward (with dread) to the release of screenshots that show Vaults, Power Armour, Super Mutants, Ghouls and other recognisable Fallout Icons

I think my major gripe is how the community sites are handling the situation and encouraging the behaviour of the community as a whole.
Saint's gallery is a good example fo this. People have the right to be
angry but that doesn't mean you should be advertising and encouraging it.

Saint's gallery might not be the finest example of satire, but it certainly follows in a fine tradition. I don't know much about other community sites, NMA other than the news section doesn't seem to have noticed yet. DAC on the other hand is providing a useful forum where people can vent their feelings, hopes and desires. Otherwise there would probably be far more poisonous emails being sent to Interplay.

[OnTheBounce]

See, I don't think the game should set the standard of what the universe should be. There's no good reason to restrict the universe to just role-playing games when the potential is there for more.

I agree that the FO universe does not necessarily have to be restricted to RPGs. I really looked forward to FoT and pre-ordered it, even w/o having played the demo. Why? Because I liked the idea of getting to do things in the FO universe that I'd never been able to do in FO/FO2, e.g. leading a group of BoS paladins against [insert foe].

That being said, it wasn't the idea of FoT that was flawed, it was its execution...and the fact that it was rushed to market along w/little piggies screaming "wee-wee-weeeeee!"

The flaws that FoT had were mainly that it violated the canon of the previous games. Chris Taylor even said during development that it represented "another view" of the FO universe. One closer to what he had wanted FO to be in the first place, I suppose, since I gather he's not big on the whole "retro-thing".

Faithfulness to the core universe should be what matters, and I think that's curren[t]ly impossible to judge from six screenshots.

Show me one example of Art Deco architecture, if you would. Yes, six screenies is light fare when compared to an entire game, but I think what is telling here is that there are only six screenies that look like what they look like. These have been selected as being representative of the game, or at least the aspects that the designers/marketers are want to push on gamers. Methinks this would set of alarm bells...

OTB