Roguey vs the Grognards Thread

[MasterSmithFandango]

NV:
Horrendous UI.
Awful as a 3rd person melee game.
Bad as a shooter.
Boring story wise.
Boring quest wise.
Mediocre NPC wise.
Horrendous UI.
Competently written.
Mediocre to bad exploration wise. (With some positive exceptions)
Bad graphically.
Horrendous UI.
Horrible character system.
Horrible character system - environment interaction. (Though some improvements from FO3)
Incredible dumbing down of the character/item system compared to FO2.
Awful itemisation.
Rather good atmosphere. Can actually be described as a Fallout game (in contrast to FO3), though not a good one.
Horrendous UI.
Some nice survival mechanics ideas badly implemented.
Ghouls in Space.
Horrendous UI.

Overall it was ok for an OE game, though I fail to understand how anybody could plod through the whole game. I quit out of boredom after ~40h. Though 40h is not bad for a modern game. *shrug*

I don't give a shit about 3rd person
I don't play enough shooters to judge whether one is good or bad. Killing things was satisfying and fun, and that's all that matters to me.
I didn't like the motivation for finding benny, but I really enjoyed nearly everything else.
I liked the quests.
I thought the dialogue was great. There's a skill in getting as much information across a possible in the fewest lines of writing, and I think Obsidian excelled in doing this.
Exploration wasn't the best, but I still wanted to explore it.
You can live with the UI.
I say well written.
I like the gamebryo look.

This is my earlier point in a nutshell. Instead of saying "yeah, this game is clearly flawed, but due to some combination, I personally find it enjoyable", you say "Yeah but those legitimate critiques don't apply to my enjoyment of the game, ergo the game is good." It's a shitty, intellectually lazy argument and dismisses very legitimate critiques. Even your defenses of the game are of personal taste, not of an objective measurement. "I liked the quests". So? Some people like shitting on other people's chests - what you like is irrelevant.

 

[Athelas]

Even your defenses of the game are of personal taste, not of an objective measurement. "I liked the quests". So? Some people like shitting on other people's chests - what you like is irrelevant.

You realize the 'arguments' he was rebutting were equally subjective (i.e. 'boring quests')?

 

[Rake]

Even your defenses of the game are of personal taste, not of an objective measurement. "I liked the quests". So? Some people like shitting on other people's chests - what you like is irrelevant.

You realize the 'arguments' he was rebutting were equally subjective (i.e. 'boring quests')?

Not all of it though. Half the things he said were objectivly true. (with comparison in other contenporary games to prove it)

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

Even your defenses of the game are of personal taste, not of an objective measurement. "I liked the quests". So? Some people like shitting on other people's chests - what you like is irrelevant.

You realize the 'arguments' he was rebutting were equally subjective (i.e. 'boring quests')?

Not all of it though. Half the things he said were objectivly true. (with comparison in other contenporary games to prove it)

This. "Boring" is a judgment based on taste. "Bad" is an objective statement (as is horrendous, horrible, etc.). Instead of debating the things that are objectively bad about the game (by saying they aren't bad), instead he focused on the statements made based on taste, and said he "liked" what the other person didn't. That's an entirely separate discussion, but it's telling that he could not rebut any of the objective critiques, and chose instead to focus on the subjective ones. It's basically an implicit admission that the original post was correct on those counts.

 

[Seaking4]

Even your defenses of the game are of personal taste, not of an objective measurement. "I liked the quests". So? Some people like shitting on other people's chests - what you like is irrelevant.

You realize the 'arguments' he was rebutting were equally subjective (i.e. 'boring quests')?

Not all of it though. Half the things he said were objectivly true. (with comparison in other contenporary games to prove it)

This. "Boring" is a judgment based on taste. "Bad" is an objective statement (as is horrendous, horrible, etc.). Instead of debating the things that are objectively bad about the game (by saying they aren't bad), instead he focused on the statements made based on taste, and said he "liked" what the other person didn't. That's an entirely separate discussion, but it's telling that he could not rebut any of the objective critiques, and chose instead to focus on the subjective ones. It's basically an implicit admission that the original post was correct on those counts.

Bad is just as subjective as boring. Not sure how you can even think that calling something bad is objective. What matters is the reasoning behind it. So and so is bad because it prevents the player from doing A. You need to be able to explain the why for your criticism to be valid and have even a shred of objectivity.

 

[Rake]

NV:
Horrendous UI.
Awful as a 3rd person melee game.
Bad as a shooter.
Bad graphically.
Horrendous UI.
Horrible character system - environment interaction. (Though some improvements from FO3)
Incredible dumbing down of the character/item system compared to FO2.
Awful itemisation.
Horrendous UI.
Horrendous UI.

Ok, Seaking4 this things aren't subjective at all. Feel free to prove otherwise.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

Even your defenses of the game are of personal taste, not of an objective measurement. "I liked the quests". So? Some people like shitting on other people's chests - what you like is irrelevant.

You realize the 'arguments' he was rebutting were equally subjective (i.e. 'boring quests')?

Not all of it though. Half the things he said were objectivly true. (with comparison in other contenporary games to prove it)

This. "Boring" is a judgment based on taste. "Bad" is an objective statement (as is horrendous, horrible, etc.). Instead of debating the things that are objectively bad about the game (by saying they aren't bad), instead he focused on the statements made based on taste, and said he "liked" what the other person didn't. That's an entirely separate discussion, but it's telling that he could not rebut any of the objective critiques, and chose instead to focus on the subjective ones. It's basically an implicit admission that the original post was correct on those counts.

Bad is just as subjective as boring. Not sure how you can even think that calling something bad is objective. What matters is the reasoning behind it. So and so is bad because it prevents the player from doing A. You need to be able to explain the why for your criticism to be valid and have even a shred of objectivity.

I've said this many times - that was an itemized list of what he saw as the flaws in the game, not an exhaustive analysis of each. We've been down this road many times, and the majority of the things on his list have been discussed ad nauseum with no need to go back over them again. Moreover, the lack of a rebuttal on those points implies implicit agreement with those critiques.

Face it, you faggots just like shit games.

 

[Seaking4]

And you didn't respond/rebut to me saying that you are wrong about bad equalling objectivity. So according to your own logic you implicitly agree with me. I didn't say anything about New Vegas. I haven't even played it yet. Just wanted to point out that you were talking out of your ass (which we now know that you believe too).

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

And you didn't respond/rebut to me saying that you are wrong about bad equalling objectivity. So according to your own logic you implicitly agree with me. I didn't say anything about New Vegas. I haven't even played it yet. Just wanted to point out that you were talking out of your ass (which we now know that you believe too).

Bad/Good is, or at least can be (and the way it was used) as an objective measure. If you're credit score is 750, that is objectively Good, while if it's 400, it's objectively bad. I don't think you scored the point you think you did.

 

[Seaking4]

Well you already changing what you said. It went from bad is objective to "at least can be". You are even admitting that these points have been "discussed ad nauseum" which proves that these complaints aren't as objective as you made them out to be.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

Well you already changing what you said. It went from bad is objective to "at least can be". You are even admitting that these points have been "discussed ad nauseum" which proves that these complaints aren't as objective as you made them out to be.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

Half the faggots here who "enjoyed" NV forced themselves to play NV cause Chris was part of it and developed Stockholm Syndrome.

The mental gymnastics here...

 

[Athelas]

IIRC Avellone was barely involved with the base game of New Vegas.

 

[St. Toxic]

You realize the 'arguments' he was rebutting were equally subjective (i.e. 'boring quests')?

It's undeniable, but when someone says "Yeah, it may very well be shit, but I don't care that it is and neither should you." it's probably worth raising at least one eyebrow. Not that there's any way to actually convince someone that NV is objectively good or bad, unless maybe someone came up with an agreeable definition of what makes an RPG that doesn't include NV, hm will have to investigate...

Thankfully, I don't remember much about the game. Just bits and pieces, like settlements with a population cap of 3 (the gamist essential: shopkeep, questgiver and filler npc) but with 5-6 habitable buildings to "flesh out the scenery". Clearing a deathclaw infested mine with a non-combat character. A Vault inhabited by some friendly teenage raiders, who didn't care that I had killed all their buddies because they gave me some quests to prove my loyalty. Exploring a ruined building which mere seconds later contained a volatile hostage situation that hadn't triggered because I approached it from the south rather than the east. There was some sidequest which featured really good writing, but the dialog was delivered by a guy wearing a Team Fortress 2 hat and the quest itself was about walking up a hill and shooting some rangers or something along those lines. I can't help but think of NV in terms of quests and design particulars rather than events and places, but there's just something about Bethesda games that screams single player mmo.

 

[Rake]

Half the faggots here who "enjoyed" NV forced themselves to play NV cause Chris was part of it and developed Stockholm Syndrome.

The mental gymnastics here...

Coinsidence? The only parts of Vegas that Chris was involved,the DLCs, were way better than the base game. At least in atmoshere and writing, it's imposible to have good gameplay in that crap engine.
And i don't know about them being forced, most of the people that liked New Vegas propably finished Fallout 3 and Skyrim as well, so there is no excuse realy.

 

[Untermensch]

Half the faggots here who "enjoyed" NV forced themselves to play NV cause Chris was part of it

So you can read the minds of others?

The mental gymnastics here...

beautiful Irony

 

[Volourn]

"NV:
Horrendous UI.
Awful as a 3rd person melee game.
Bad as a shooter.
Boring story wise.
Boring quest wise.
Mediocre NPC wise.
Horrendous UI.
Competently written.
Mediocre to bad exploration wise. (With some positive exceptions)
Bad graphically.
Horrendous UI.
Horrible character system.
Horrible character system - environment interaction. (Though some improvements from FO3)
Incredible dumbing down of the character/item system compared to FO2.
Awful itemisation.
Rather good atmosphere. Can actually be described as a Fallout game (in contrast to FO3), though not a good one.
Horrendous UI.
Some nice survival mechanics ideas badly implemented.
Ghouls in Space.
Horrendous UI."

IDIOT. FOUND. ON. INTERNET.

 

[Duraframe300]

Half the faggots here who "enjoyed" NV forced themselves to play NV cause Chris was part of it and developed Stockholm Syndrome.

The mental gymnastics here...

Coinsidence? The only parts of Vegas that Chris was involved,the DLCs, were way better than the base game. At least in atmoshere and writing, it's imposible to have good gameplay in that crap engine.
And i don't know about them being forced, most of the people that liked New Vegas propably finished Fallout 3 and Skyrim as well, so there is no excuse realy.

Never made it past Megaton in Fallout 3 and never got far in Skyrim because of boredom.

Also while I love the dlcs and appreaciate the Dlc's avellone emphazised problems.

Dead Money: Terrible Maze design + Trial and error radios
Old World Blues: Holy bulletsponges
Lonesome Road: Linear Shooter

And thats just not going into detail. But, I appreaciate them. What I would never do though is associate Avellone with good gameplay.

 

[St. Toxic]

Eh, maybe if he got the chance to design his own game one day, he would do it with good gameplay.

 

[TheGreatOne]

Isn't PoE just that? Sawyer's chance to show the world his design skills with out Sega, grognards nor Neverwinter Nights/Fallout 3 engine weighing him down. And what did he do? Chose RTwP and to make a spiritual successor to a game with D&D rules. If POE isn't an utter fucking flop, he has a chance to redeem himself and start a new kickstarter of his own that
A) is TB
B) isn't riding on the coat tails of games he hates
If does that and succeeds, then he'll have begin to have some credibility. But given how big his mouth is, the game would have to be the best RPG ever and super amazing, just doing an OK game wouldn't be enough, he'd have to make a game that's better than any old school CRPG.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

I would even go so far to agree with him. The damage of sniper rifles was very OP even without having to invest any points in perks and even with mid-range stats. Just sneak and let them drop like flies to your 100% criticals. Didn't feel like my character was getting stronger at all while I used that sniper rifle. Great roleplaying mechancis there, Josh.

Well, that's kinda how a sniper rifle should work, isn't it?...

Spoiler

I'm ok with the rest so no vaultdwellerian wall of text reply.

This. "Boring" is a judgment based on taste. "Bad" is an objective statement (as is horrendous, horrible, etc.).

What about "banal"?

 

[Untermensch]

And what did he do? Chose RTwP and to make a spiritual successor to a game with D&D rules.

Did he?

Did Sawyer become Obsidian's CEO while I wasn't looking?

 

[Rake]

Half the faggots here who "enjoyed" NV forced themselves to play NV cause Chris was part of it and developed Stockholm Syndrome.

The mental gymnastics here...

Coinsidence? The only parts of Vegas that Chris was involved,the DLCs, were way better than the base game. At least in atmoshere and writing, it's imposible to have good gameplay in that crap engine.
And i don't know about them being forced, most of the people that liked New Vegas propably finished Fallout 3 and Skyrim as well, so there is no excuse realy.

Never made it past Megaton in Fallout 3 and never got far in Skyrim because of boredom.

Also while I love the dlcs and appreaciate the Dlc's avellone emphazised problems.

Dead Money: Terrible Maze design + Trial and error radios
Old World Blues: Holy bulletsponges
Lonesome Road: Linear Shooter

And thats just not going into detail. But, I appreaciate them. What I would never do though is associate Avellone with good gameplay.

I agree. But you make it sound like base NV( or any other Obsidian game for that matter, with the posible exception of DS3 and SP that were marely average instead of bad) had good gameplay to begin with. And i disagree with that.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

And what did he do? Chose RTwP and to make a spiritual successor to a game with D&D rules.

Did he?

Did Sawyer become Obsidian's CEO while I wasn't looking?

Despite his chance at P:E, he still whines about how this is not a classless TB Ars Magica game he wants to do. All his work till now is riddled with shit and P:E won't be an exception. And all he has to offer are those same rehashed excuses.

 

[Untermensch]

P:E won't be an exception.