Old World Blues wins 'Best DLC' award at IGA 2011

[Tagaziel]

Thanks for not taking my examples into consideration and ridiculing it as "lesser users opinion" like it shines through so often from admins these days here. Thank you also for practically saying that a huge user group (of the very site you seem to manage) is "dumb" by - following your definition - not being able to "understand" something - even though it was never about the "understanding" - do you really think certain Users were "dumb" and didn't "get" the "serious business" in Old World Blues? Really? Thank god you put me out of of the misery, without you I would have never "understood" the meaning of it - I am so pleased you could teach me in the deeper meaning of derp, it's not that I am literate or anything, or could read it in the game.

Maybe you could come back from your high horse and see that it is not the problem of users playing said DLC "not getting" it but Users not accepting certain ridicolous "lulz" factors to stomach the "serious business"? But ah ok, I see, we as the lesser folk, we don't get what it is about, we can't "understand" the "deeper meaning" of it.


Why are talking deathclaws now a design inconsistency, but talking robot brains in an almost 300 year old factory, talking about penisses, teddies and dogs are totally normal? Why is suddenly my argument "a joke" when it is practically the same that you are saying? Really?


Anyway, thank you for pointing out how dumb we all are, how dare we to not "understand" something the same as the admins here!

Do you really think it takes so much to "understand" the "meaning" of said DLC? It does not, it still doesn't make the overall tone less ridicolous. Just because one adds elements that tie into the overaching tone of the DLC it does not make the silly elements less silly. Judging by your last post, you ridicule a huge part of your very community as people who "don't get it", which is just, duh, silly.

Defensive much?

I didn't really insult you, nor treated you as lesser people. I simply pointed out that you didn't understand the premise and meaning of Old World Blues. You focus too much on the form and not enough on the substance.

It's fine if you don't understand something or didn't catch the meaning. What I disagree with is bashing someone's work because of your own shortcomings. I'll give you an example: I am not a poetic person: I never understood poetry and deeper meanings of said works elude me. However, I never bash poets or their work, claiming that what they write is confusing or distracting, because I'm well aware of my own inability to understand poetry.

Thus, I'd have no problem with you if you wrote eg. "The comical content in Old World Blues has been too distracting for me to focus on the story". But using derogatory slang? Please.

To everyone: Yes, I am a bastard. I might sound condescending, but, again, that's just the form.

 

[Makagulfazel]

Man, wish I could inject my thoughts and opinions into this juicy topic.. Unfortunately addicted to Mount and Blade for the time being - the New Vegas DLC has been postponed.

 

[gumbarrel]

.......


How does that make any sense? The engine would make the content different? The Think Tank would be mroe coherent if they had the same lines in an isometric perspective and 2-D graphics?

It's funny how many things lead to "Make it EXACTLY how it was done in the previous games and it will be better!", regardless if it makes sense or not. Or at least that's what it looks like to an outsider like me.

But I am not a usual target audience anyway (for example I think the "fog" in the first DLC is pretty stupid ... but so be it).

Aaaaaand...what do you think the target audience for that fog was? DotA players?

 

[Crni Vuk]

no I am just basically saying that I am some overcticial pedantic asshole when it comes to games and that people should not let that get in their way of having fun with a game.

I don't like fog because I think it feels silly. So I don't like Fallout DLCs about fog.

It's funny how many things lead to "Make it EXACTLY how it was done in the previous games and it will be better!", regardless if it makes sense or not. Or at least that's what it looks like to an outsider like me.

Yeah. How dare I to think that "style" and "design" come before "visuals" and "Graphic". You know. Fallout 3 could look like Crysis 3. And I would not care more about it then now.

What I am talking about is the engine as whole. The shit animations. The shit faces. The shit textures. The shit everything. The engine is not just "old" its outright "ugly" in my eyes. There are old engines which still look "ok" in my eyes. One example is Jedy Outcast 2.

Some engines age faster then others. And it has something to do with how well the visuals have been used and worked with. Bethesda isnt really that skilled when itcomes to the use of engines. So naturally their games age very fast. Its all about the "shiney" and "awesome" gimicks like bloom and such. But those are not the reason why you stay.

 

[TorontoReign]

Actually, talking Deathclaws go back to Fallout 2. You can even recruit a Deathclaw companion in that game.

Yeah but he was the only one. Unless I'm mistaken Tactics made all the Deathclaws talk.

 

[Ohaimerk]

You are mistaken, it was all Fallout 2. Vault 13 was full of them, and Xarn in navarro was a talker as well.

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Talking_deathclaw

 

[Sobboth]

About the engine, i find that you don't react the same way in first person view than with isometric 2D.
Some crazy things in fallout 2 was ok for me because the isometric put a distance with them and leave space to imagine the details.
First person is much more"on your face", less forgiving if it's something you don't like because it's more focused.
The general feeling can be very different according the engine/view used.
For exemple the Sierra Madre Depot in Fallout 2, you find something that could look like a dead alien. I quite like it because it's just an element of the screen, not imposing and with the perspective of the isometric it was fine. I think the same thing in the falllout 3 engine would have feel very wrong.
Maybe The Think Tank would have feel more coherent if it was in an isometric perspective, making the "atmosphere" more serious.

 

[gumbarrel]

Yeah. How dare I to think that "style" and "design" come before "visuals" and "Graphic". You know. Fallout 3 could look like Crysis 3. And I would not care more about it then now.

You missed my point, but whatever.

"style" and "design" come before "visuals" and "Graphic".

And it just so happens, that the prefered style and design always seems to be isometric

I don't like fog because I think it feels silly. So I don't like Fallout DLCs about fog.

That's rather obvious. Doesn't answer my question about the target audience.

What I am talking about is the engine as whole. The shit animations. The shit faces. The shit textures.

Um, aren't textures and faces part of the "visual" part, the one that you didn't care as much for?

And as various mods have proven, all of those can look great in the engine.

 

[Surf Solar]

Defensive much?

I didn't really insult you, nor treated you as lesser people. I simply pointed out that you didn't understand the premise and meaning of Old World Blues. You focus too much on the form and not enough on the substance.

It's fine if you don't understand something or didn't catch the meaning. What I disagree with is bashing someone's work because of your own shortcomings. I'll give you an example: I am not a poetic person: I never understood poetry and deeper meanings of said works elude me. However, I never bash poets or their work, claiming that what they write is confusing or distracting, because I'm well aware of my own inability to understand poetry.

Thus, I'd have no problem with you if you wrote eg. "The comical content in Old World Blues has been too distracting for me to focus on the story". But using derogatory slang? Please.

To everyone: Yes, I am a bastard. I might sound condescending, but, again, that's just the form.

I stand corrected and admit that I was a bit too hazy. Sometimes, I get too distracted by other things, then read some post which gets my nerves boiling. Basically, I still disagree with you, but your last post sounded good to my eyes, so let's call it a day. The discussion, or rather the topic to discuss is a good one, anyway.