another "morrowind praise and filthy casuals thread"

Very insightful.

It's not the so called casual player's fault ~for simply existing in mass; it is the developer's fault for http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/FO3_Arrow_to_the_Knee.jpg, instead of aiming for the bullseye of just one. That's a cash grab, instead of the desire to craft a quality product that suits one demographic as close to perfect as possible.
(And it's made worse by the previous title's established reputation and expectations ~left un-met; or discarded completely.)

The discussion has been productive without resorting to "filthy casuals". Vargrin is just messing around. The politically correct term probably isn't "casual", but we can't be expected to ignore the elephant in the room and not talk about the concept. Personally, I prefer the term "Streamlined". That way no one gets their feelings hurt and gets salty at me.

Alright sorry, I shouldn't have taken his bait.

If you're talking about me, Rogue's right, I'm messing around. Otherwise yes there are people who feel that first person games are for casuals. I don't understand either

I don't know anyone who thinks FPP games are for casuals.

Any game [regardless of the presentation's perspective choice] can be designed for casual players (as the primary market), and it would seem the more profitable design route.

There you go, mistaking a superficial aspect of Fallout for core design.

Bethesda-did-Fallout-wrong arguments seldom if ever base themselves on what Fallout was meant to be, and instead concern themselves with how Fallout was made to be. The situation is comparable to programmers arguing that an inventory-management system is not a true inventory-management system if its design is procedural instead of object-oriented.

You're right, I should have said first person shooters.

Prove it.

And that, in a nutshell, is the root of the problem. Devs don't make games to appeal to niche markets. (hard core RPG fans) They make games to please the bean-counters. I.E. games that appeal to a larger demographic.... because THAT is where the MONEY is.

This is why Interplay get enmity for their actions; FOBOS was but the first step, and selling the Fallout IP ~the last straw.

Some devs still make games for a niche following, it's just hard to find.

There's a game called Distant Worlds : Universe. It's a very complex sci fi strategy game that straddles the line between 4x and Grand Strat. It's also very expensive because the demand is low.

Here's the thing, it's 60 dollars. The price of what Fallout will be day one. I'm perfectly okay for paying 60 dollars for a game with a bit more depth to it. I don't wanna pick up a game like Fallout first try and be a master at it by just playing normally. I wanna learn the ins and outs of the game over the course of multiple characters.

Skyrim suffered from that, "YOU CAN BE A WEREWOLF AND THE ARCH MAGE AND THE LEADER OF THE THIEVES GUILD AND ALL THESE OTHER AMAZING THINGS".

Even the term "streamlined" connotes a rather abhorrent undertone, it implies that complexities of which numerous players like are ultimately superfluous.

That was intentional design. All Bethesda titles are intentionally quite servile in this regard; it's a key selling point. It's why a ghoul transformation would have an obtainable cure.
(And also why the ghoul PC would not get tossed out of a house or establishment for being a ghoul; and/or not even be insulted by those doing it to them.)

*The Ghoul PC option, would be just a skin-change, and minor observations from passer's by.

I'll try to cobble something together, but I think the post limit will arrive before I get back. Your arguments aren't easy to counter.

Counter this one; just this one:
https://youtu.be/FnFKEWCzVCo?t=4m58s

It's possible to counter it some way I'm sure, but they really did design it because the liked it that way.

*Before Fallout, they shipped a first person dungeon crawler with dual wielded weapons and a spell casting PC. Interplay also published FPP shooters the same year as Fallout. The Fallout team was even pressured to convert the game into a [realtime] Diablo competitor.

___________
That link is actually pretty good from beginning to end, for those interested in the subject.

I'm pretty sure that the video he uses of the prototype, was snagged from my Youtube Channel; it's my map as far as I can tell.

I'm at a loss, Mr. Eden. I simply don't know how to address this without pissing someone off.

The other day I got a novel response from someone for just mentioning the world casual about how I'm an unlikeable elite and I'm wrong.

It's true, but I'd just like to see a little bit of limitation. At least an effort to make the game not...Accessible? That sounds silly when I put it that way. For example, in New Vegas if you did a Legion playthrough the game discouraged you from doing so as a female, because it made sense lore-wise. They won't let you fight in the arena if you're female, the legates berate you regularly for being inferior, etc.

You could still do it though! I'm not saying we should be denied entry, but the little things like I just mentioned would be nice.

Since we're approaching the post limit I'd just like to say I'm sorry to anyone I might have annoyed with my passive aggressiveness. It's annoying seeing people say the series is being ruined by having more fun, smoother, less points-based gameplay.

Can we all be friends

I'm not upset that the gameplay is going to be smoother, just apprehensive that it'll be TOO similar to Skyrim. Both sides have brought up greats points, and at the end of the day I can say I empathize with both camps.

I'll be your friend

Personally, I've always seen it as meaning the improvement of unoptimized/poorly-designed/clunky features & elements.

(one certainly has to admit that game design in the 80s/90s had a number of very obtuse design decisions.... partly due to the fact games were being designed by geeky computer programmers - dudes who were all about numbers & convoluted programming languages - for geeky computer users.)

Don't put it all on money.... there's plenty of people out there (even "creators" making "art") who would like the things they make to be popular/appreciated/widely-known/etc, not just personal projects to be appreciated only by a handful of in-the-know connoisseurs.

(and then, of course, there are the people wanting to do that second thing.... like "indie" musicians, Sundance filmmakers, etc. But they're not typically making big-budget industry stuff.)

We can be friends.

*But consider that the series was intended to have points-based gameplay; and that deviating away from core design is seen as a detriment... like chopping off a leg from a three legged stool.

There are a lot of good types of fun, but there is such a thing as the wrong fun. Imagine ~hypothetically a puzzle game series with maniacal brain teasers in it, and the second game releases with very addictive and fun platformer gameplay... and no puzzles; or nothing comparative to the first game ~the game that made the name and reputation.

I agree, streamlining is (should be) a positive thing. The problem is too many people equate it with "dumbing down", just like a lot of people around here mistake "complexity" for "depth".

Please piss people off, it's the whole point of the "freedom of speech".

http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-what-is-freedom-of-expression-without-the-freedom-to-offend-it-ceases-to-exist-salman-rushdie-160156.jpg

Bonus profound quote:

http://i.imgur.com/MUYhFT4.jpg

Don't know how it works in Scotland, but here in the US freedom of speech only guarantees that the federal government will not censor you or arrest you for your opinion.

It does not protect you from public opinion.

NV improved on some things and added some things to the base game, but it wasn't some sort of miracle cure for something that was "spoiled". But I guess over-exaggeration of opinion is what one should expect in these forums.