I’m not going to speak to which approach I favor…

…

Why is this the case? Because ultimately, gamers (and in specific RPG fans) are not sheep. They will not bow to concepts like Bethesda’s “We Know Best” theory.

Where have they done this? One could argue that the whole Elder Scrolls series development tells a story of listening to their fans, or, at the very least, their critics. Morrowind attempted to reduce Daggerfall’s absurd filler while still retaining the open world (which I think it did quite well, even if some fans disliked not being able to join 20 different guils all of which did the same thing). Oblivion, which many accuse of being more dumbed down than Morrowind, was really an attempt to address the concerns raised in the previous title, from combat, to creating the illusion of a living city, to that stupid hand-holding compass, which was a direct result of people whining about not knowing what to do after they’re pushed through the bureaucratic process involved in creating a character and dumped in Seyda Neen to make it on their own.

They achieved this refinement with varying degrees of success (or failure), but to say that they’re blind demi-urges of gaming is, I think, very wrong.

The debate you’re both running is very old, as you’ve both pointed out, and comes down to a simple point – games companies either respect and listen to their fans or they don’t.

The debate I’m having is very much here and now, and it has nothing to do with whether games companies listen to their fans or not (that is their prerogative at the end of the day). Whether they are financially successful or not as a result of their actions is of little consequence to me, because it is not a gauge of success I’m interested in (it has no bearing on the subject). What I am interested in is Brother None coming up with some legitimate argument to support his assertion that Journalists should somehow defer to NMA as an official point of reference when discussing Fallout 3.

Regardless of how big a game fansite is, it’s rare even in these days of interconnectivity that one exists that purports to represent the majority viewpoint of fans/consumers of a series. NMA has about 13k members registered, though barely more than 1500 have more than 20 posts, at a conservative estimate the actual active community is probably about 150 – 200 posters tops. I don’t have the exact sales figures for Fallout, but given it’s high regard it’s probable it sold somewhere around half a million units. Is it fair to assume those 200 posters represent the views of all those past consumers? Is it fair to believe their dedication to visiting a website entitles them to more of a voice as to fallout 3s direction? Those are the questions I’m interested in.

*grins* Personally, I found the Elder Scrolls series completely predictable – disappointingly so considering the number of places where they could have gone for an original concept and didn’t. Their games under the Star Trek franchise were both unoriginal and boring – though I will give them credit for making Star Trek games that are no worse than anyone else’s concepts.

The fact is, Bethesda makes wonderful game engines. Beautiful, masterful game engines. Then they tack on a bunch of easily predictable plot and an interface that’s more of a hindrance than a help and pay a bunch of game magazines to tell us all how the new game is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

I agree with you, Blizzard and Bungie don’t aim for original any more, much to my regret. One could argue that they don’t need to – they ARE the original, in virtually every category except MMO, and there they basically rewrote the book (from what I hear – I still refuse to play a Warcraft game that doesn’t involve armies ;-))

Find me a game company in the last 10 years that set a standard, and I can find you the game it’s based on – if not a video game then a tabletop RPG, war game or board game. In many ways, that goes for Blizzard and Bungie, too.

Regardless, my point wasn’t that they were original – a concept I no longer believe in – but that they were successful. Wildly successful – based in large part on the fact that their fans trust them (mostly because the company listens to its fan base).

*grins* If I don’t like a shirt, I don’t buy it. If a coffee shop has bad coffee, I avoid it. I don’t need anyone else to agree with the assessment – hell, Starbucks would be out of business if they did. But I do have to admit Starbucks must be doing something right if it’s America’s coffee house – even if I don’t agree with the reason for the success.

Oh, and Fallout 3: yay! I wish Bethesda had found a more interesting franchise to revive, or made something original, but I’m still looking forward to it.

I’m a fairly old gamer. I’ve seen games make the successful leap to 3D (Warcraft is the only one I can think of off hand, but I’m a little tired) and I’ve seen games land like dead fish by changing platform.

While not a “rabid fallout fan”, I am looking forward to seeing how this game does. I would like to think that the game is intrinsically strong enough to survive – even flourish – as a 3D game. But, ultimately, the game will have to be Fallout at its core, rather than Elder Scrolls: Wasteland.

The debate you’re both running is very old, as you’ve both pointed out, and comes down to a simple point – games companies either respect and listen to their fans or they don’t.

I’m not going to speak to which approach I favor, but has it occurred to either of you that if you look at the two highest-grossing games companies of all time – Blizzard and Bungie – you need only to look at their operating methodology to see why.

Blizzard and Bungie both listen to their fans.

In both cases, both companies admit that they were wildly successful because of – not in spite of – the massive amount of support and input they receive from their fans.

The Elder Scrolls, while a healthy franchise, has never and will never generate sales figures like “Most sold media in history” – that’s media of any kind, kids. No movie, no music, no game – in fact, no combination of the above – ever sold more than Halo 3. World of Warcraft, the next highest grossing media of all time, was the product of a studio the listens to its fan base.

Why is this the case? Because ultimately, gamers (and in specific RPG fans) are not sheep. They will not bow to concepts like Bethesda’s “We Know Best” theory.

Real gamers want someone to listen to their input on their games, and make changes as needed. More modernly, they will accept other members of the community repairing a game in the absence of the designer’s involvement (see also: 3rd party hacks needed to make Oblivion remotely realistic/playable), but that doesn’t absolve the game company of the need to work with, rather than against, their fans wishes.

Just the perspective of a moderately interested general gamer who’s vastly more interested in the Starcraft 2 release and is mainly looking over this Not Really A Fallout Game ™ in his spare time.

It’s not my opinion that audi alteram partem is a core journalistic value, it’s fact. If you want to refute it, you’ll have to come up with something better than “it’s just your opinion”.

I’m not disputing audi alteram partem, I’m making the point that your opinion on fallout 3 is yours alone, and you shouldn’t mistake it as a universal one, simply because you have a website.

I listened to the Game theory Podcast (the source of the interview) and although the interviewer does name check your site, he only does so only when outlining his experience with RPGs such as fallout/Morrowind, not to speak on your behalf or to misrepresent you as you claim.

Besides, mentioning “rabid fans” in general and then pretending there is no one available to speak for said fans is just a cop-out. It’s true, there’s less of an obligation there, but that doesn’t mean it’s not journalistically unsound.

It’s not my opinion that audi alteram partem is a core journalistic value, it’s fact. If you want to refute it, you’ll have to come up with something better than “it’s just your opinion”.

The obsession comment is so funny when you consider Fallout isn’t even my favourite game, and the same goes for several staff members.

*IF* game journalists pretend to speak for us, it becomes their duty to apply audi alteram partem because that’s journalism, *IF* they never mention us or pretend to speak for us, they have no such obligation.

Where exactly are these Journalists whom are pretending to speak exclusivelyfor NMA? Not those speaking for fans of fallout as a whole, as in:-

‘Fans of the series might appreciate the way in which Beth has cleverly reinterpreted the 2D gameworld into 3D’

but those exactly saying:-

‘Members of NMA appreciate the way in which Beth has cleverly reinterpreted the 2D gameworld into 3D’.

Being a fan of fallout I’ve read plenty of previews, and listened to plenty of podasts, and heard a fair amount of the former, but none of the latter. If there’s someone out there you feel the need to out for a lack of journalistic integrity go for it. But unless someones citing you directly I’m not seeing a case. Either way though, your opinions are your own alone and you shouldn’t mistake them as anything more than that.

long story short, the moral of all things we learn from the internet is the same:

liking anything is bad.

Agreed. When passion turns to obsession, no good can come of it.

I’ve repeated that multiple times now, very clearly, and you’re either being obtuse in your intended disliking of NMA or – sorry – kind of stupid.

liking anything is bad.

No games Journalists are out there bemoaning the fact that in GTAIV Liberty City is nothing like Liberty City in GTA 3. I’m quite sure there are some fans of the series railing against that very matter, but is it fair to assume their views even if organized represent the opinions of all, or that those opinions should used to attempt to hamstring the project? If it fair and reasonable to put continuity above creativity?