Pete Hines on negativity

[Tannhauser]

Pete Hines talked to videogaming247 on the subject of negative comments from their previous E3 demo<blockquote>“Everybody has their reasons why they do or don’t like something, so it’s not really for me to say, ‘That’s a good reason not to like it,’ or, ‘That’s not a good reason not to like it,’” said Hines when asked if some negativity surrounding the game after the show surprised him.

“You play the game and you see what you think. At E3 we let people play the game for a half hour, and if in a half hour you can make up your mind one way or the other, OK. I don’t really get into judging the rightness or wrongness of it. I just give people a chance to play it and they draw their own conclusions.”</blockquote>Link: Fallout 3’s Hines shrugs off post-E3 preview negativity

From Fallout 3: APNB

 

[rcorporon]

Hines is an asshat. Plain and simple.

On the other side of things, NMA gets a mention a few times in the comments section.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

You play the game and you see what you think.

ORLY?

Link to the demo.

Of any Bethesda game.

Ever.

 

[TheSHEEEP]

Doesn't seem that unreasonable. He is just dodging the question, which is kinda ok in his position

 

[horse]

what did you expect him to answer? cmon, seriously?

"oh my, we had some bad critics, so we saw the errors of our ways, killed the fallout-3 project and funded several independent fallout-related modding communities. alsoplustoo, we made the fallout franchise public domain. now, if you will excuse me, ill have to go to my new job as social worker in the cidade de deus."

 

[sai | GLYPH]

"Everybody has their reasons. [...] I don’t really get into judging the rightness or wrongness of it."

Yeah. It's all subjective anyway y'know? What can Bethesda possibly do?

Oh right...
- Excessive swearing.
- Explosions up the arse.
- Overabundant limb detachment.
- First person shooting.
- Houses with themes.

Really... it's up to the consumer to judge. Obviously, Bethesda have no interest in making the game appealing to anyone. All they can do is sit back and hope someone likes it.

 

[Xenophile]

"Everybody has their reasons. [...] I don’t really get into judging the rightness or wrongness of it."

Yeah. It's all subjective anyway y'know? What can Bethesda possibly do?

Oh right...
- Excessive swearing.
- Explosions up the arse.
- Overabundant limb detachment.
- First person shooting.
- Houses with themes.

Really... it's up to the consumer to judge. Obviously, Bethesda have no interest in making the game appealing to anyone. All they can do is sit back and hope someone likes it.

Well he has a point.. because at least 3 of your five items I like.. it's subjective and I think it degrades very quickly into personal preferences..

What he is saying is "It's not my place to tell people they are wrong about their criticisms.. they will like it or not like it."

 

[ookami]

what did you expect him to answer? cmon, seriously?

"Oh my, we had some bad critics, so we saw the error of our ways, are changing the name of the project from Fallout 3 to a more spin-off appropriate title to reflect the differences and if the profits are great enough on this game, we can make a RPG on a somewhat smaller budget and have it be more faithful to the Fallout series all around and call that Fallout 3. Alsoplustoo, we're making sure that the entire development team on Fallout 3 has played enough of Fallout 1 and 2 to really understand it. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go take a nap, all this truthfulness without PR spin has given me a headache."

That would have worked just fine for me.

 

[Brother None]

Well he has a point.. because at least 3 of your five items I like.. it's subjective and I think it degrades very quickly into personal preferences..

Of course, that point stands. Do you like Bethesda's style of open-world gameplay? Their tip-toeing around hard choice and consequence? A lot of qualitative judgements can simply be a matter of preference, of course, when judging Fallout 3 as a game on itself.

There's two things that can not degrade to personal preference.

1. Things that are wrong, period. Either by mass consensus or simple objective fact. I'm thinking the buggy status of Oblivion on release, the broken RAI and level scaling, and the horrible faces and animations, and for Fallout 3 I'm thinking low-res graphics and still terrible animations (dunno what else might not be good, we'll see).

2. If you go by a certain given fact, like "it is a given that any Fallout sequel should strive to evolve the basic principles of its predecessors", then you can discuss this on a factual basis. Though for some reason a lot of people aren't very good at that.

 

[gc051360]

Pete Hines, relativist.

Really though, how do you expect him to answer that question? You can't trash people who dislike your game.

 

[Xenophile]

1. Things that are wrong, period. Either by mass consensus or simple objective fact. I'm thinking the buggy status of Oblivion on release, the broken RAI and level scaling, and the horrible faces and animations, and for Fallout 3 I'm thinking low-res graphics and still terrible animations (dunno what else might not be good, we'll see).

2. If you go by a certain given fact, like "it is a given that any Fallout sequel should strive to evolve the basic principles of its predecessors", then you can discuss this on a factual basis. Though for some reason a lot of people aren't very good at that.

I won't disagree about many of the criticisms of their past games. I think on the whole they have been pretty forward admitting to the short commings in Oblivion without totally trashing themselves.

I do think it gets hairy as we have seen over and over and over when discussing the "features" that should have been carried over from the originals. So that gets back to.. "We have created our re-envisioning of Fallout, people will either like it or dislike it."

Choices were made that people either will like or won't. In my opinion I think they made a pretty good choice, but that's just my opinion.

To me.. my major concern that was raised from my experience with Oblivion was that they would depend too much on proceduraly created content. I am now satisfied that that will not be an issue, so I am happy.

But I totally understand why other people are upset.. and while I would like to tell them they are wrong for those sentiments, really it is just there subjective view of the developments.. they are not really any more right or wrong than I am. (We can devolve this situation by going into the classic arguement of "intentions" of the original creators, but often creations have a way of diverging and growing in ways never intended. I am one of the fans that loves the "setting".)

Yeah, In the past I have told people I disagree.. and when I do think people are TOTALLY wrong.. I have no problem saying it, but everyone is intitled to their opinion on subjective matters and most of the critisisms are subjective.

 

[Brother None]

I won't disagree about many of the criticisms of their past games. I think on the whole they have been pretty forward admitting to the short commings in Oblivion without totally trashing themselves.

Not they haven't. They completely ignored all the criticism until they announced Fallout 3 and could start saying "we learned now, we're improving". They didn't start recognizing flaws of Oblivion until a year ago.

I do think it gets hairy as we have seen over and over and over when discussing the "features" that should have been carried over from the originals.

Not really, as long as you agree on the premise. The problem with people that come in here to discuss with us is that they do not agree with the premise. But if there is no common premise there is nothing to discuss. For us, Fallout 3 holding true to core elements of Fallout as defined by its developers or arguments from the game itself has primacy over everything. You can hold very, very rational discussions about what should or should not be in Fallout 3 based on that, as we did during the days of Van Buren or when discussing Fallout 3 internally.

It's when people come in from the outside who simply hold a different view on what sequels entails that things become hairy and irrational.

Choices were made that people either will like or won't.

See? An argument like this simply is unrelated to the tacitly-agreed-upon premise we share here. There is simply very little point on debating if you're not departing from the same premise.

 

[sai | GLYPH]

What he is saying is "they will like it or not like it."

Except their design decisions clearly sway toward pleasing a particular audience, what many refer to as the "casual" gaming crowd, and those that liked oblivion. In other words... their design decisions depend on certain people liking it.

Naturally theres a point as which you cannot please everyone. But they're still trying to please someone. And saying things like "they will like it or not like it" is just plain misleading - incomplete.

EDIT: I'd just like to make it clear that I don't think he could have said much more. I'm simply pointing out what I take issue with. I've no interest in changing Pete, but highlighting his 'wrong'. Ah crap. Is that subjective too?

 

[Xenophile]

Not really, as long as you agree on the premise. The problem with people that come in here to discuss with us is that they do not agree with the premise. But if there is no common premise there is nothing to discuss. For us, Fallout 3 holding true to core elements of Fallout as defined by its developers or arguments from the game itself has primacy over everything. You can hold very, very rational discussions about what should or should not be in Fallout 3 based on that, as we did during the days of Van Buren or when discussing Fallout 3 internally.

That's where the agrument fails.. agreeing on the "core premise", again I have to say that as a work of art, which is what I consider Fallout to be, the original intentions and the actual reception can vary greatly. I can tell you that what many here hold dear as the "core" of fallout, holds little relevance to my enjoyment of the oringnal as a source of entertainment. So again it really is a pretty subjective measurement.

As someone that creates art myself, I understand that. Fallout is also a unique beast because it was created as a licensed product for GURPS originally. I understand the history.. and I understand the intentions (and limitations) of the original creators.. but I still have to say my enjoyment had little to do with TB play or viewpoint and more to do with the world they created. For the time it was different and fairly imaginative. So to me a continuation (or reimagining) of that world is extremely attractive. But I fully understand why others don't like it.

 

[sai | GLYPH]

And ... isn't it kind of a sign of something that they respond with, "some will like it and some won't," rather than some explanation of why they feel justified in the direction they've taken? It almost makes subjectivity look like their justification.

 

[gc051360]

That's where the agrument fails

The argument doesn't fail.

It's just that one side refuses to have that argument....because they dislike the conclusions that you can draw from that premise.

So they go the "yeah, but that doesn't matter" avenue...to change the subject completely.

 

[Brother None]

agreeing on the "core premise", again I have to say that as a work of art, which is what I consider Fallout to be, the original intentions and the actual reception can vary greatly. I can tell you that what many here hold dear as the "core" of fallout, holds little relevance to my enjoyment of the oringnal as a source of entertainment. So again it really is a pretty subjective measurement.

Really? Can you offer a better, more objective measurement? It is the most objective measurement available, and thus the only basis on which to hold rational debates that don't devolve into flame-fests or "that's just your opinion"-isms. Yet another reason to love it.

I find your counter-point somewhat dubious. Perception can vary on art so perception is more important than intention? But perception is variable, it's not a value you can rely on, while there is only one intention: that means if you wish to recreate or approximate a piece of art, you have to begin with the intention, not the perception.

This is that whole literature student thing, where a writer explains his book and a student stands up and says "Excuse me, but who do you think you are telling us what your book means?" It's taking relativism and primacy of personal opinion to a ridiculous level.

but I still have to say my enjoyment had little to do with TB play or viewpoint and more to do with the world they created.

So?

What is this, the primacy of fun debate? We're just going to turf off what people get enjoyment from and then adapt Fallout to the lowest common denominator?

Then what is the function of franchise integrity? What's the function of franchises at all? What is the meaning of calling something a sequel if I'm just going to eclectically pick what I like and what I don't?

 

[sai | GLYPH]

That's where the agrument fails.. agreeing on the "core premise", again I have to say that as a work of art, which is what I consider Fallout to be, the original intentions and the actual reception can vary greatly.

Art is subjective - everything is subjective - but art is also communicative. And to abstract fallout as a work of art is likening it to an expressionist painting.

Is music art? Yes. Yet a love song is clearly a love song.

And in any case, with art, the intention is to be recieved. There's a difference between saying, "Well I still think I'm right and here's why," and, "it's all subjective anyway." The latter dismisses reception on principle - unless it's your intent to be an example of subjectivity itself, in which case it's a paradox. But it's clear that Bethesda has an audience.

 

[Eyenixon]

Please let us not mingle the discussion of gaming with art - gaming is about as much art as a board game is. Calling gaming "art" is just attempting to legitimise the hobby, which is quite frankly, insulting, we don't need anymore reason to play games than have fun and be challenged, however a game may do that effectively is subjective, but art it isn't.

 

[Brother None]

Oh Frith no.

Art is a subjective concept, Eyenixon, and as a historian I tend to side with the argument that the status of something as art is generally determined in retrospect, by the course of history. Most of what we call art now were just commercially produced products.

That said, we're seriously not going to get into the "game is art" discussion here. It's already hard enough to keep this thread on topic without going for that horrible debate. So anything below this that addresses the game is art point will be vatted.