Zero Punctuation: Fable 2

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

Knight Templar:

Ragdrazi:

Knight Templar:

Hell even if you do buy Fable 2 Peter isn't geting your money so stop bitching.

Hmm. Are you sure. Because I'd think he would.

Screw you, if you're not going to speek stright or stop dancing around questions I'm through talking to you.

If you honestly think he's talking in riddles then he's wasting his time with you, plus make read your posts for grammatical errors before posting otherwise you look like an idiot.

You can, but why would you want to?

Because you bought the bloody game knowing that's what you were going to get, thats why.

Shiuz91:

If you honestly think he's talking in riddles then he's wasting his time with you, plus make read your posts for grammatical errors before posting otherwise you look like an idiot.

Intentional or not, that was hilarious.

Shiuz91:

If you honestly think he's talking in riddles then he's wasting his time with you, plus make read your posts for grammatical errors before posting otherwise you look like an idiot.

Very funny, because of course a typo is a good way to intelligence.
(No really, that is funny)

Anyway if you are so smart tell me what he "means", because he has gone out of his way not to say it. He won't give a straight answer, I call that talking in riddles and many other people would as well.

But I'm a little confused with "he's wasting his time with you" It's pretty clear that's what's happening or has nobody explained the internet to you?

I think he's being a little too confused by it, definitely.

Though the entire "I don't want to put money into Peter Molyneux's filthy hands" idea is just fallacious. Unless you're talking about him earning more in stocks because of your purchase, or him getting a bonus because of your purchase. Much like with a movie release, everyone who worked on Fable 2 already has been paid.

He doesn't mean anything, because Peter Molyneux won't get his money, he's just trying to justify his non-purchase by personalizing the result. "I won't give (EA/Peter Molyneux/Micro$oft) my money", it's just a way for people to justify their ignorance of a subject under the insinuation that they feel buying a product(educating themselves) would be somehow a violation of their moral beliefs. This is what allows him to talk about Fable 2 in a thread about Fable 2 without ever having played Fable 2.

It would be interesting to put the ability to kill children into the game, but then again why not let you rape people rather than seduce them?

If you get raped than I demand that ability.

Why in the name of arse has this game not been recalled? TWICE

Because, games can be updated on 2 of the 3 consoles.

i love fable 2 like the review somewhat seen better ah who am i kidding all reviews suck and this just help me to keep saying that

Worm4Life:

The first resort of someone winning an argument? Pure class.

Well, thank you. I started out with pure class here, but responses like "Your bullshit is my responsibility unfortunately," have started to make me wonder if you're unbalanced. I'm asking you again: Why is this conversation so personal for you? Answer.

Worm4Life:

Hey great you just admitted that what this Aquaria guy does has absolutely no bearing or relation on what someone does with a multi-platform major release, case closed on that.

Ok, I give up. If you want to change history so that what you said about Yahtzee creating a game becomes someone with a multi-platform major release creating a game I'm not going to try to stop you anymore. Anyone who wants to check the thread before this can see what you said anyway.

Worm4Life:

Haha, what? It certainly wasn't equivalent to the shit storms over console video games.

See, now I know you weren't around back then. In 1994 the senator from my state was pushing hard against Doom, holding hearings, looking to put down some radical restrictions, and after Columbine you couldn't turn on a TV without hearing the word Doom. It was a shit storm. Every politician was looking to use it as a reelection plank. Doom has had shit following it ever since its release, and it was the single most important game in launching the this era's repression at the hands of Jack Thompsons and Hillary Clintons. I'm impressed I have to tell people this. Doom was the catalyst. Doom was the game that got them all started.

Worm4Life:
Did you also boycott Manhunt because Yahtzee told you so, or do you just not know what gore means?

Manhunt just looked gross. Didn't want to play it.

At no point in Fallouts one and two are entrails portrayed slowly oozing out. That's gore.

Worm4Life:

Just because Artificial Girl is fully rendered now doesn't make it any more controversial now then
Custer was then.

If you had anything like either on a modern console, yes, you'd see far more controversy.

Now, wait a second, kid. Custer was on console, which, up until this point, in spite of all evidence given to you to the contrary, has been the single factor you've said is necessary for a video game to become controversial. Now you're saying it needs to be a modern console or it doesn't count?

This is like arguing with a spaghetti noodle. Figure out what stance you're going to take and stick to it.

Worm4Life:

Can anyone claim complete freedom in any game it's claimed in? No of course not, it's a non-point made by a non-reviewer.

You talking to me or to Yahtzee?

Worm4Life:

Defend it, fine. However you lose this whole 'first amendment' angle when you act as if it's something we should expect. If you want to pave new ground for the first amendment you should, but don't decry other people for doing what you never would.

We shouldn't expect people to defend the first amendment? Why?

Child endangerment was in Fallouts one and two, and as sick as they sounded, they enriched the game. The only reason it wasn't in three was because today's game developers don't want to take the same risks earlier developers did. Economics, the "free market" trumping the constitution.

Why shouldn't I decry that?

Worm4Life:
If you really gave a shit you'd be out there trying to 'Free Max', but you probably don't even know what I'm talking about.

You really have no idea who I am, and how connected I am to my political beliefs. But if you're going to throw out "Free _____"... there's a shit load of "Free _____" cases.

But let me ask you this. Were where you when we were in the streets shouting "Free Lieutenant Watada." Because, kid, I did not see you at our protests, and that was about the most important "Free _____" case this country has seen in the last 30 years.

Knight Templar:

Ragdrazi:

Knight Templar:

Hell even if you do buy Fable 2 Peter isn't geting your money so stop bitching.

Hmm. Are you sure. Because I'd think he would.

Screw you, if you're not going to speek stright or stop dancing around questions I'm through talking to you.

Well, have a good day then.

Worm4Life:

This is what allows him to talk about Fable 2 in a thread about Fable 2 without ever having played Fable 2.

I don't see as how I've yet talked about Fable 2 here, as much as debated one element of the review with someone who couldn't keep their personal issues out if it.

But as far as how me not buying an inferior product amounts to a lack of desire to educate myself... What, you go around buying every crappy thing you see? You're going to have to explain that one to me, kid.

Christ start using the PM system to argue, you're not talking about the video anymore.

EDIT: Also personal attacks are never a good thing, the net resoult of this will be a banhammer-ing for all invoved so now would be the time to stop trying to get the last say in.

I don't want to PM this guy. He's got enough of a weird focus on me as it is.

Ragdrazi:
have started to make me wonder if you're unbalanced. I'm asking you again: Why is this conversation so personal for you? Answer.

You're worried for your safety I'm sure. Look if you don't want to parlay, log off. Don't threaten moderation so you can declare final victory. I've eroded point after point with you and I'm going to keep up the more you respond.

Ok, I give up. If you want to change history so that what you said about Yahtzee creating a game becomes someone with a multi-platform major release creating a game I'm not going to try to stop you anymore. Anyone who wants to check the thread before this can see what you said anyway.

Absolutely not. That game the Aquaria guy made is no where near the level of normal violence in Fable 2, and certainly no where near the level of child killing or infanticide in FIRST AMENDMENT APPROVED Fable 2. Furthermore it doesn't fit my example, well because it's my example, not yours. You brought up something you thought was sufficient I said "not quite what I had in mind" and then you just had a fit.

See, now I know you weren't around back then. In 1994 the senator from my state was pushing hard against Doom, holding hearings, looking to put down some radical restrictions, and after Columbine you couldn't turn on a TV without hearing the word Doom. It was a shit storm. Every politician was looking to use it as a reelection plank. Doom has had shit following it ever since its release, and it was the single most important game in launching the this era's repression at the hands of Jack Thompsons and Hillary Clintons. I'm impressed I have to tell people this. Doom was the catalyst. Doom was the game that got them all started.

Yeah, they used it pointlessly as something to beat their chests over and people didn't care because most families did not have computers. Enter the home console and controversies over those and you have yourself the things that actually matter. I'm sure like any staunch first amendment supporter you think everyone is an idiot, but you must accept that there is a major difference to the citizen whether this content is hypothetically accessible to their child or not, right?

Manhunt just looked gross. Didn't want to play it.

At no point in Fallouts one and two are entrails portrayed slowly oozing out. That's gore.

Well Manhunt really didn't have gore, and Manhunt 2 was censored because they made really violent torture mini-games (as far as I know) and because of previous controversy. The whole thing was pretty calculated on Rockstar's part(or so people say). Though there is a perfect example of what Lionhead was trying to avoid. Fie on them for not living every moment of their lives as an affirmation of the first amendment, like you do!

Now, wait a second, kid. Custer was on console, which, up until this point, in spite of all evidence given to you to the contrary, has been the single factor you've said is necessary for a video game to become controversial. Now you're saying it needs to be a modern console or it doesn't count?

Uh no. I'm trying to prove that you can't just point back and say "this is over there is absolutely no reason people can't do this anymore". It's not about an example counting, it's about the two worlds being different. Look at the controversy over Hot Coffee (nearly inaccessible on consoles, but reported on thoroughly) and Custard's Last Stand. They're totally incomparable. This is because the climates Custard and GTA were released in are different and because the climates Fallout 3 and Fallout 1/2 were released in are different. Not to mention the games are totally different. Fallout 1 and 2 were paid no heed not because mankind at once decide the content was perfectly acceptable, but because they were RPGs and on the computer and no one really gave a shit either. Where Fallout 3 being advertised in primetime, is under much more scrutiny than Fallout 1 or 2.

Worm4Life:

Can anyone claim complete freedom in any game it's claimed in? No of course not, it's a non-point made by a non-reviewer.

You talking to me or to Yahtzee?

Just sinking that awful non-point.

We shouldn't expect people to defend the first amendment? Why?

Child endangerment was in Fallouts one and two, and as sick as they sounded, they enriched the game. The only reason it wasn't in three was because today's game developers don't want to take the same risks earlier developers did. Economics, the "free market" trumping the constitution.

Why shouldn't I decry that?

Because you're presuming people will only ever disagree with you because they are not as pure of purpose (as a guy who sits and posts about the first amendment on the escapist's forums). The only possible reason they could have decided to not take the risks is because they don't have the artistic integrity (of a guy who posts about the first amendment on the escapist's forums).

So there you have it, you're presuming their exercise of first amendment rights to NOT INCLUDE CONTENT is fallacious just because someone in the past chose a different path. What you have here amounts to nothing, and is just some kind of stupid piggy back argument, where future developers are not allowed to make decisions based on what they believe but need to pointlessly provoke to meet the high standards (of a guy who posts about the first amendment on the escapist's forums).

But let me ask you this. Were where you when we were in the streets shouting "Free Lieutenant Watada." Because, kid, I did not see you at our protests, and that was about the most important "Free _____" case this country has seen in the last 30 years.

No, freeing Max Hardcore is endlessly more important than that.

Worm4Life:

But let me ask you this. Were where you when we were in the streets shouting "Free Lieutenant Watada." Because, kid, I did not see you at our protests, and that was about the most important "Free _____" case this country has seen in the last 30 years.

No, freeing Max Hardcore is endlessly more important than that.

Freeing a pron star, who is going to jail for maybe four years, is more important than freeing a military officer who did what he thought was correct in a war-time situation.
Honestly, I don't need a flame war, but your position seems a little off.

uh that might have been a little bit of a goof, I dunno. I mean how else can I respond to this guy?

He's saying he didn't see me in the streets during the protest, while we don't know what one another looks like, or where one another lives. He's just presuming that I can't possibly support the 1st amendment because he supports it and I disagree with him on this single issue, it's a horrible and counter-productive way to think. I'm happy to continue to respond to his points until time ends frankly.

It's getting more and more difficult to take him seriously when he wants everyone else to put everything on the line to provoke in the name of the 1st amendment, when he can only point out that he walked into the street anonymously and shouted a little. Bethesda/Lionhead should just add this content, hope it can slide under the radar (which was the case with Fallout 1/2) and to hell with anyone it might effect negatively like employees or stockholders.

It's just extra delicious irony that he so early pulled the "I'll have these posts deleted" line.

Worm4Life:

Ragdrazi:
have started to make me wonder if you're unbalanced. I'm asking you again: Why is this conversation so personal for you? Answer.

You're worried for your safety I'm sure. Look if you don't want to parlay, log off. Don't threaten moderation so you can declare final victory. I've eroded point after point with you and I'm going to keep up the more you respond.

Fanboys are so tiresome.

Look, Worm4Life, do you want to know something? Peter Molyneux doesn't give a crap whether or not you go charging into forums, lance in hand, to crusade for his game. The developers don't care, Microsoft doesn't care, average fans who enjoyed the game don't care. I don't mean that in the sense that if you called at Peter Molyneux house today, knocked upon his gold-plated front door and you asked hum if you loan a few bucks, bits of you would be found in the feces of his guard dogs the next day. Well that's true, but that isn't my point. My point is they simply don't care about you, they don't know who you are, they will never get you a Christmas card and are not looking here saying "By golly that Worm4Life is a damn fine fellow!". You aren't going to reduce Yahtzee to tears. You aren't going to convince his viewers that he is wrong about everything ever (ostensibly) because you happen to like Fable 2.

Yahtzee did a good job of picking apart this games flaws, of which there were many. But in my opinion he didn't go far enough in holding this ultra-hyped and cripplingly-bugged piece of crap to account.

cuddly_tomato:
Fanboys are so tiresome.

Dude I don't even know how to spell that Molyneux's last name, I've googled it every god damn time, so give me a break. Furthermore, if you would explain to me for a second how anti-fan boys are somehow fresh and new, that would be great. For me they always come off as "BLAH BLAH CORPORATIONS, BLAH BLAH ADVERTISING, BLAH BLAH RETRO, BLAH BLAH BULLSHIT".

Look, Worm4Life, do you want to know something? Peter Molyneux doesn't give a crap whether or not you go charging into forums, lance in hand, to crusade for his game. The developers don't care, Microsoft doesn't care, average fans who enjoyed the game don't care. I don't mean that in the sense that if you called at Peter Molyneux house today, knocked upon his gold-plated front door and you asked hum if you loan a few bucks, bits of you would be found in the feces of his guard dogs the next day. Well that's true, but that isn't my point. My point is they simply don't care about you, they don't know who you are, they will never get you a Christmas card and are not looking here saying "By golly that Worm4Life is a damn fine fellow!". You aren't going to reduce Yahtzee to tears. You aren't going to convince his viewers that he is wrong about everything ever (ostensibly) because you happen to like Fable 2.

Haha, you wrote a entire paragraph that sums up to "grr fanboys".

The entire first amendment thing is barely related to Yahtzee and dead and buried, which wass my major problem. Now you're trying to tell me any of those previous posts were even about Yahtzee's review? Nonsense. It was about the specific opinions held by specific posters who think it is the duty of everyone to push the limits of free speech constantly in all things they do.

I can take issue with the review if you want, but I think in the process you might see yourself as a Zero Punctuation fanboy and have some sort of a meltdown, and that wouldn't be cool.

If I'm such an unreasonable fan boy why even try to logically argue with me? Well, because you know you're misrepresenting me and doing it so obviously it's more like a child's game of truth or dare than honest to god trolling.

Yahtzee did a good job of picking apart this games flaws, of which there were many. But in my opinion he didn't go far enough in holding this ultra-hyped and cripplingly-bugged piece of crap to account.

Why don't you do it right now, and I'll be here to respond.

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

awh yes!
i was oddly dissapointed about fable 2.
thank you Zero Punctuation for proving myself right :D
or rather... :(
i still enjoyed it xD

Worm4Life:

Ok, I give up. If you want to change history so that what you said about Yahtzee creating a game becomes someone with a multi-platform major release creating a game I'm not going to try to stop you anymore. Anyone who wants to check the thread before this can see what you said anyway.

Absolutely not. That game the Aquaria guy made is no where near the level of normal violence in Fable 2, and certainly no where near the level of child killing or infanticide in FIRST AMENDMENT APPROVED Fable 2. Furthermore it doesn't fit my example, well because it's my example, not yours. You brought up something you thought was sufficient I said "not quite what I had in mind" and then you just had a fit.

Um... what?

Can anyone explain to me what Worm is trying to say here.

Worm4Life:
Yeah, they used it pointlessly as something to beat their chests over and people didn't care because most families did not have computers. Enter the home console and controversies over those and you have yourself the things that actually matter. I'm sure like any staunch first amendment supporter you think everyone is an idiot, but you must accept that there is a major difference to the citizen whether this content is hypothetically accessible to their child or not, right?

By 1995 the internet was firmly in place, the dot com boom was just beginning, and even poor households like mine had a computer. Doom was the "threat" to our children that launched the modern batch of video game regulators.

Worm4Life:

Uh no. I'm trying to prove that you can't just point back and say "this is over there is absolutely no reason people can't do this anymore".

I'm confused. In spite of how far off you've pushed this conversation, the only people that really matter to it are the ESRB, and when they're willing to give an AO rating. If Custer (not Custard, that's pudding) was released today with nextgen graphics, it would receive an AO and be behind the counter in unmarked boxes all the same. You're damn right it's my point that nothing has changed.

A game designer might lose their career for making a violent AO game; that's true and I'll concede that. The ESRB has it's first amendment right to rate games, so I'm not going to attack them for it. Rockstar was afraid of the AO on Manhunt, so they toned it back. There was controversy on the game, yeah... Some. Hasn't hit congress. Not like, say, Doom. But violent torture, oozing innards. That's a violent game. Way more violent then Fallout was, and would have had if its creators weren't gutless. So how's Rockstar doing? Anyone lost their jobs yet?

Let me ask you again. Where's your point in this conversation?

Worm4Life:

Worm4Life:

Can anyone claim complete freedom in any game it's claimed in? No of course not, it's a non-point made by a non-reviewer.

You talking to me or to Yahtzee?

Just sinking that awful non-point.

I think the point was that Molyneux hyped it up by saying you would be able to claim you had complete freedom in his game. More then that, I'm pretty sure Yahtzee isn't such a fan of games striving for complete realism and complete freedom. He's said multiple times now that it's self-defeating and impossible. I disagree with him here. I think it's a vaild thing for game to strive for.

Worm4Life:
Because you're presuming people will only ever disagree with you because they are not as pure of purpose (as a guy who sits and posts about the first amendment on the escapist's forums).

Really? Huh. Pure of purpose. What the hell does that even mean. Because I thought we were discussing one element of Yahtzee's review here. Let's stay on those tracks, shall we.

Worm4Life:

No, freeing Max Hardcore is endlessly more important than that.

Just another Larry Flint. It's important yeah. But no one dies.

Worm4Life:

It's just extra delicious irony that he so early pulled the "I'll have these posts deleted" line.

That's an interesting point. I wonder the laws that make it illegal for people to be stalkers are impinging on the freedom of speech of stalkers everywhere.

And by interesting, of course, I mean stupid.

Worm4Life:

If I'm such an unreasonable fan boy why even try to logically argue with me?

Yeah, why am I doing this.

I wonder what's next in the upcoming 2 weeks? He has loads of options. CoD5, Gears 2, Left For Dead, Fallout 3...

Ragdrazi:
Can anyone explain to me what Worm is trying to say here.

I brought up an example of a game that would strain personal and professional relationships if anyone found out about it, and you mentioned something which is just barely PG-13. When I informed you that you didn't meet the standards of my example you stomped your feet. The game that Aquaria dude made is nowhere near as violent as Fable 2 or Fallout 3, end of story.

By 1995 the internet was firmly in place, the dot com boom was just beginning, and even poor households like mine had a computer. Doom was the "threat" to our children that launched the modern batch of video game regulators.

Okay sure. I had the advantage of being a kid in 1995 and not having a computer (and knowing one friend with a computer and Duke Nukem 3D) while I guess you were battling for the rights of American citizens everywhere. Growing up in that time, let me tell you I remember more TV coverage about it in 1999 than 1995, what happened in congress doesn't matter, how people actually feel is what matters.

Eventually my brother got a computer and got Ultima Online, here's another great example. Why could you cut up people in UO but not in WoW? Because of the differing size in audiences and social climates, not to mention requiring specific modifications for international releases.

it would receive an AO and be behind the counter in unmarked boxes all the same. You're damn right it's my point that nothing has changed.

If I could get a list of game shops which carry AO games, that'd be just ... dandy.

A game designer might lose their career for making a violent AO game; that's true and I'll concede that. The ESRB has it's first amendment right to rate games, so I'm not going to attack them for it. Rockstar was afraid of the AO on Manhunt, so they toned it back.

I think we can just wrap it up right here. Companies don't want to lose money and people don't want to lose their jobs, this is perfectly understandable and infinitely defensible. If pushing the envelope of gaming is so important to you, do it yourself.

But violent torture, oozing innards.

The GTA engine can't make anything "ooze" okay? I think there was some thing where you ripped off a guy's ball sack with pliers and the wiimote, but it's not like they rendered the ball sack (the GTA engine couldn't render a ball sack).

That's a violent game. Way more violent then Fallout was, and would have had if its creators weren't gutless. So how's Rockstar doing? Anyone lost their jobs yet?

Don't be so brazenly full of shit. They took back the game retooled it and made it far less violent than the original release candidate, so that violent game wasn't made, a very toned down game was made and released. Even then it was still less gory than say Soldier of Fortune, which was still less offensive than Kingpin. All of these however pale in comparison to when you pin a child's head to a wall with a railroad spike in Fallout 3.

I think the point was that Molyneux hyped it up by saying you would be able to claim you had complete freedom in his game.

He made even more absurd promises about Fable 1, and generally there was way less hype about Fable 2's freedom than Fable 1's, so it's just a pretty lazy thing to harp on and it could be applied to effectively any open ended game that doesn't feature children.

That's an interesting point. I wonder the laws that make it illegal for people to be stalkers are impinging on the freedom of speech of stalkers everywhere.

Mister free speech becomes a screeching old lady the second someone disagrees with him. Welcome to meaninglessness, enjoy your stay, and remember that I brought you here.

:)

Worm4Life:

cuddly_tomato:

Yahtzee did a good job of picking apart this games flaws, of which there were many. But in my opinion he didn't go far enough in holding this ultra-hyped and cripplingly-bugged piece of crap to account.

Why don't you do it right now, and I'll be here to respond.

1. RETARDED money making mechanics. A game should be fun. That is not only important, it is the entire point. Pressing 'A' in time to a moving circle going through a coloured line is not only repetitive and not fun, but it is also something that could have been done on a damn ZX81 in 1980. It wasn't. Do you know why? I'll give you 3 guesses, and also a clue - think of the word "utter crap".

2. Relationship micromanagment. This was tried in GTA 4, and it was universally hated. When we are playing a game we are doing so to have fun. Sometimes this is done by the gameplay, in others it comes from advancing the story forward. When, in a game, you are stopped from gameplay, and stopped from advancing the story, because your god-damn wife is threatening a divorce and wants you to go and burp in her face for 10 minutes it makes me wonder what the hell I am playing this game for. Before you say "ohh but you don't have to do that in this game!" Peter M trumpetted all this kind of crap as the next great thing in gaming and said that most of the game consisted of material outside the main quest... I.E. this stuff. So if even if you agree that this kind of crap is indeed crap, 90% of the game is crap.

3. Main quest. The 10% that consists of the main quest consists of this...

Correct me if I am wrong, but that is considerably worse than the story of Fable 1. That is even worse and more simplistic than a Garfield cartoon.

4. Bugs. This game has some of the most cripplingly stupid bugs I have ever witnessed in a game. A Lionhead developer has actually posted work arounds on the offical forums to deal with some of them. Click.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3170894

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3170876

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=HzKN7bOpLNo

Look at what happened to this guy. And due to Peter Ms hubris, the game won't let you back up saves. That would detract from his vision of a game so pure where every decision counts (not that anyone would play for fun or anything). So when you do get a bug that breaks your game, you have to start again.

5. Tedious. Every point I made makes the game fail, and makes it tedious. The worst crime any game can commit is to become tedious for the player. I am doing this to have fun, not to have the will to live sucked right out of me by soul-crushing tedium.

The hype of this game is directly proportional to how bad it is.

Worm4Life:

I brought up an example of a game that would strain personal and professional relationships if anyone found out about it, and you mentioned something which is just barely PG-13.

Personal and professional relationships? What are you talking about. That's nothing like what you said. And, again, I'm not the one who brought the example to you. Go back and look at what you said, ok?

Worm4Life:
Growing up in that client, let me tell you I remember more TV coverage about it in 1999 than 1995, what happened in congress doesn't matter, how people actually feel is what matters.

Climate, not client.

Wait, originally congress was the only thing that mattered to you. I mentioned right wing groups, you derided that example. Now, that you can't ignore the fact that Doom was on my TV in 1995 with my senator pushing against it, and in 1999, with Columbine, now it's how those groups feel is all important.

You are the single most entertaining person I have ever argued against. Your flat refusal to hold a single position is amazing and refreshingly fun.

Worm4Life:
Why could you cut up people in UO but not in WoW?

Now, you're making my point for me. And you don't quite see it. Experimenting, including experiments with adding shocking violence, were once hallmarks of the video game industry. And sometimes they succeeded, such as in Fallout and Doom, and sometimes they did hurt a games sales figures, such as in ROTT and Manhunt. But no one's careers have been destroyed over any of these games. Developers have been increasingly worried not about making an interesting new product, but in the bottom line. And that means not experimenting.

Now, on the free speech side, you're right in saying, if indeed you were saying, that Bethesda didn't owe anyone anything. Maybe they had a moral objection to including child endangerment in their game. And if that's the case I would have encouraged them to have not attempted a sequel to Fallout. But, the idea that somehow their jobs would have been ruined if they had is ludicrous. Extreme and shocking violence never cost any developer their job. I don't think Bethesda had any moral objection at all, and they damn sure weren't afraid for their jobs. They just put the bottom line as number one.

Worm4Life:

If I could get a list of game shops which carry AO games, that'd be just ... dandy.

I don't know. How many carried the directors cut of Leisure Suit Larry.

The problem is, the ESRB has only given an AO to 23 games in its whole history.

Worm4Life:

A game designer might lose their career for making a violent AO game; that's true and I'll concede that. The ESRB has it's first amendment right to rate games, so I'm not going to attack them for it. Rockstar was afraid of the AO on Manhunt, so they toned it back.

I think we can just wrap it up right here. Companies don't want to lose money and people don't want to lose their jobs

Ok, you're conceding that companies not wanting to lose money is a major factor in this. Thank you. That is my point. However, no violent game has ever been a "career killer." If you want to agree to disagree that's fine. But let's be clear what we're disagreeing about.

Worm4Life:

The GTA engine can't make anything "ooze" okay?

It's almost like you don't get YouTube on that computer of yours.

Worm4Life:

Don't be so brazenly full of shit. They took back the game retooled it and made it far less violent than the original release candidate, so that violent game wasn't made, a very toned down game was made and released.

Um-hmm. They surely did, kid, and even then, oozing entrails.

Worm4Life:
Even then it was still less gory than say Soldier of Fortune, which was still less offensive than Kingpin. All of these however pale in comparison to when you pin a child's head to a wall with a railroad spike in Fallout 3.

That's not for you or I to say, but for the ESRB. And they've shown what their opinion is about this pretty clearly. It seems they rate based on gore, and not the context of the gore. Pinning a kid's head to a wall seems nice and clean compared to someone screaming as their insides fall out. And no one's entrails ever fell out in Fallout.

But, Worm, no matter how many times you try to churn the butter on this one it comes out the same for you. You can point out a billion highly offensively violent video games, including Fallout, from all eras of video game production, and no one lost their jobs over it. Sometimes it hurt the bottom line, sometimes it didn't. The point is, it's a risk. And one they aren't willing to take anymore.

Worm4Life:

Welcome to meaninglessness, enjoy your stay, and remember that I brought you here.

See, I wouldn't be so proud about bringing conversations to meaninglessness if I were you. Personally I like substance. I know that's not your thing, but if we try, I bet we can get there. And just because you've lost the argument doesn't mean it was meaningless, kid.

tomato, I lied, there's absolutely no way I can respond to you seriously. Sorry.

Climate, not client.

Nice catch there, deadeye!

Now, that you can't ignore the fact that Doom was on my TV in 1995 with my senator pushing against it, and in 1999, with Columbine, now it's how those groups feel is all important.

You can't be arguing a correlation between earlier controversy with Doom and it being a big deal with Columbine, right? The thing with Columbine wasn't about the game specifically as much as it was about the "murder simulator" angle and desensitization. If those kids were Unreal players you would have gotten the same arguments, the games are meaningless. What matters are the realities they mimic.

Now, you're making my point for me. And you don't quite see it. Experimenting, including experiments with adding shocking violence, were once hallmarks of the video game industry.

But aww, they all sold out.

And sometimes they succeeded, such as in Fallout, and sometimes they did hurt a games sales figures, such as in ROTT and Manhunt. But no one's careers have been destroyed over any of these games. Developers have been increasingly worried not about making an interesting new product, but in the bottom line. And that means not experimenting.

Few points, for Fallout do you mean succeeded commercially, or in just not causing a massive fuss? If the former are you attributing child killing with that success? Anyway, Bethesda could have made it much more difficult for users to mod in killable children, but they didn't.

I still don't see why not wanting bad press is such a horrible thing, and how is re-enacting the provocations of yesteryear experimenting? Maybe you're so hung up on developer's products no longer being interesting because they're not wiley mavericks that you're unable to see what do make the products interesting to so many people.

Now, on the free speech side, you're right in saying, if indeed you were saying, that Bethesda didn't owe anyone anything. Maybe they had a moral objection to including child endangerment in their game. And if that's the case I would have encouraged them to have not attempted a sequel to Fallout. But, the idea that somehow their jobs would have been ruined if they had is ludicrous. Extreme and shocking violence never cost any developer their job. I don't think Bethesda had any moral objection at all, and they damn sure weren't afraid for their jobs. They just put the bottom line as number one.

Actually there is an interview in Edge(I think) where Emil Pagliarulo says that specifically, but he's probably just a dirty liar, right?

The ability to produce extreme and shocking violence changes with technology, you can continue to sit and argue that Robotron 2084 = Fallout 1 = Fallout 3 = Fable 2, but those things are totally unrelated.

The problem is, the ESRB has only given an AO to 23 games in its whole history.

And they were just about to do it for Manhunt 2 which featured no sexual content, so there's the same theory shot to shit all over again.

Ok, you're conceding that companies not wanting to lose money is a major factor in this. Thank you. That is my point.

Well yeah, why shouldn't it be? That's the reality of it, they'd lose money, they'd lose image(money), they'd need to retool the games for international release(money), they may possibly need to retool the game for a national release(money), they'd get lots of bad press before a holiday(losing money). Also if a company loses enough money or can't hold on to enough customers guess what? They go belly-up! Lead developers who needlessly inserted ultra violent content to impress escapist forum members might have a hard time finding work.

However, no violent game has ever been a "career killer." If you want to agree to disagree that's fine. But let's be clear what we're disagreeing about.

Thrill Kill, granted EA canned it, but it still fits the build.

It's almost like you don't get YouTube on that computer of yours.
...
Um-hmm. They surely did, kid, and even then, oozing entrails.
...
That's not for you or I to say, but for the ESRB. And they've shown what their opinion is about this pretty clearly. It seems they rate based on gore, and not the context of the gore. Pinning a kid's head to a wall seems nice and clean compared to someone screaming as their insides fall out.

Yeah, it's great you can talk with such certainty about a game that makes you puke in your mouth. However they put a noise filter over all the kills and cut the really objective material, at least that's what I remember from following the story. Anyway, if you want to post a youtube link to what the hell you're talking about go ahead.

The point is, it's a risk. And one they aren't willing to take anymore.

It's more of a risk now. The more realistic a game gets, the more realistic the violence gets, the more people react, and on top of all of that it's becoming easier and easier for people to learn about these games in advance and become outraged in advance. Fallout 1 was turn based, isometric, 2d, slow, and majorly consisted of text. However when you put content like child killing into a first person perspective which allows players to take action in real time you're really dealing with a totally different thing.

See, I wouldn't be so proud about bringing conversations to meaninglessness if I were you. Personally I like substance. I know that's not your thing, but if we try, I bet we can get there.

Actually I meant you specifically.

My favorite line was "Why can't I marry my dog?"

damn you Yahtzee! I just lost the game!

Wow...the two of you please...don't ever do that again. Honestly, it just hurts the eyes and is a pain to scroll through, that coupled with the fact that only you two seem to care about what you're talking about...

There appears to have been a glitch in the forum. We broke forum. Sorry sorry.

please...please review Fallout 3. I despise it for everything its worth and maybe its not the game, but if you dont rip shreds on Bethesda for ruining possibly the only gaming sequel i could consider marrying then i will disown you as whatever sort of gaming guru i ever thought you were.

And or Far Cry 2, I'm yet to know if i should get it

Fable was disappointing, like the first, but still playable.
I have to admit that your criticisms can be a little harsh, (stress on "a little"), but you have skillfully included valid information within the practically endless stream of wondrous insults, while keeping it entertaining and insightful. I can't wait to see the next installments of over-the-top criticism.

I love Yahtzee's videos and this one was no exception, but I disagree with him regarding the combat system. I found that the combat system was very fun engaging and unique in this sea of terrible rpg and fps games, however it did have flaws like it taking far too long to charge for higher spells. Like many rpgs it is much easier and faster to take a direct approach and melee everything down. and mobs glitching a bit bla bla. over all I enjoyed the game and the combat system.

Yahtzee does bring up many valid statements that I agree with.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here