Gammers vs. Programmers

[rogerdsl]

I'm just a little ticked because a group of Talon Mercs "materialized' next to me with guns drawn as I exited a building. I usually lay out mines around an entrance to prevent an ambush and for the most part it works quite well. Because, they "materialized" out of thin air no mines went off and Physcially that's impossible.

 

I know it's a game and the point is to have fun and I do. It just urks me when crap like this happens and it's not consistent, which is the point of this topic. The rest of my discussion of some really excellent mods (gamers) and some really bad mods (programmers). Since I am going to discuss different mods, I'm putting on a spoiler tag. Continue if you want or not :)

 

 

 

 

My ideal combat scenerio is a lot of shot em up, using tactics, ambush etc. and you're rewarded with a cache of ammo, weapons, stim pack and maybe even a bed. The ammo cache has a variety of ammo, not every ammo type just a variety, which happens most of the time in the game. Clearly the majority of programmers are gamers.

 

Another great gamer technique is finding medicine cabinets with lots of stim paks and ammo boxes with heavy ammon BEFORE combat and this is a good clue that there is great battle comming up. This is all stuff programmed by gammers.

 

Hamilton's Hideaway on the other hand... I thnk there's 8-10 ammo boxes and most of them are filled, FILLED with railway spikes????? OK so there is a Mini Nuke but my feeling was the programmer was thinking, "a bunch of railway spikes 'eh oh and I'll throw in a mini nuke that should make them happy."

 

Ok one last example and great gaming vs poor programming and that's Operation Anchorage. I really, really like this DLC and it's an excellent example of great gaming. Just when you think your dead and out of ammo, there's ammo and health around the corner. It's just excellent. And then there's the end (written by a programmer I'm sure). You've spent most of your ammo and health getting tot he pulse field and there is not more. You meet the general and then 1 of 2 things are going to happen (the last time I played I won the speak challange and was not happy) Yup there's no pleasing me on this stuff. On the other hand if you fail the speach challange, he's hard to kill, which is part of the game but remember, you left with very little health and very little ammo AND if you hit one of your team members, then EVERYONE starts firing at you. 'Cmon. I think of the song "Wacky Sax" during this mod because that's just what's happening. I'm running around trying to avoid that damn sword, firing at him and avoiding my guys, it's just a goofy, non-gaming mod. HOWEVER, the reward at the end of the game is most excellent.

 

 

 

 

So, I fell better I got that stuff off my back. I'll go back now and deal with the "Out-of-Thin Air" mercs and just continue having fun :D

[ninjafish]

I'm confused....

Whats a Gammer? Unless you mean Gamer?

And how does you compare Gamers vs Programmers as good mods vs bad mods?

[Ranger910]

Personally I was pretty psyched the first time the talon company mercs showed up. Thy put up a decent fight which was good. Also, it was realistic because if there were mercs tracking me down they would def surprise me. Where's the fun in knowng exactly when and where all the action is gonna go down in a game? Also I think the limited ammo is in keeping with the theme of the game. It's not a nice ordered world where you're guaranteed to make it. Everythings blown to hell and there's shortages of just about everything. There's a lot of unknown and nothing is certain about te future. Hence you have to adapt and survive. Idk, just my 2 cents.

[rogerdsl]

I'm confused....

Whats a Gammer? Unless you mean Gamer?

And how does you compare Gamers vs Programmers as good mods vs bad mods?

 

 

Thanks, Not too good with spelling so I'll go back and fix it. The intent of my entry is the original coding of FO3, I wrote commercial in my entry. As far as I'm concerned anyone who does a "3rd party" mod is excellent and I wouldn't be critical of their mod moslty becasue I know there is a lot of work involved with it. I am critical of someone who "sells" software and does it ONLY for the money. Ya gotta love what ya do.

[rogerdsl]

Personally I was pretty psyched the first time the talon company mercs showed up. Thy put up a decent fight which was good. Also, it was realistic because if there were mercs tracking me down they would def surprise me. Where's the fun in knowng exactly when and where all the action is gonna go down in a game? Also I think the limited ammo is in keeping with the theme of the game. It's not a nice ordered world where you're guaranteed to make it. Everythings blown to hell and there's shortages of just about everything. There's a lot of unknown and nothing is certain about te future. Hence you have to adapt and survive. Idk, just my 2 cents.

 

Hey thanks for the reply, it gives me a chance to clarify my commnets. I agree with you that the surprize of the a merc or any creature is part of the game. I know there is a potential to get ambushed when I exit a building so, I anticipate by laying mines before I go in. So, when I come out I have a chance to react. It's a tactic I use because, I've been caught off guard several times. What happened, I think it was Jack's, is the Mercs materialized inside the mine perimeter. This was the 3rd time it happend. 2 dogs just appeard in a metro tunnel, no physical way to do it and a Centaur appeared in Fawkes cell in 87 again no physical way to get in as I was standing in the door.

 

As far as ammo, again I agree with you, as far as the Wastes go. I mentioned the Hideaway location because 3-dog gave me a key and said it was a great weapons and ammo cache and when I got there, it was filled with railway spikes, no guns and a *censored* to get to AND their was more ammo just outside the entrance.

 

Anyway, it's a game and I was just upset that I laid the mines and they didn't go off, which I get a kick out of especially when the Talons step on them :)

[ninjafish]

I'm confused....

Whats a Gammer? Unless you mean Gamer?

And how does you compare Gamers vs Programmers as good mods vs bad mods?

 

 

Thanks, Not too good with spelling so I'll go back and fix it. The intent of my entry is the original coding of FO3, I wrote commercial in my entry. As far as I'm concerned anyone who does a "3rd party" mod is excellent and I wouldn't be critical of their mod moslty becasue I know there is a lot of work involved with it. I am critical of someone who "sells" software and does it ONLY for the money. Ya gotta love what ya do.

 

"I am critical of someone who "sells" software and does it ONLY for the money. Ya gotta love what ya do."

 

Let's completely ignore the thousands of man hours put into the game.

The release of the G.E.C.K for the sole purpose of the general gaming population of fallout 3, to have access to create, change and remove content of their own game.

 

Sells Software ONLY for the money?

I think you're looking at EA games on that one.

 

And 99% of the best mods out there, are only really good because the mods are nothing other then basic scripting and the use of G.E.C.K.

Granted, some do have a lot of work put into them, such as texture work being done in other programs, rendering work and animation work.

But i'd love to see you make a game with thousands of hours of time put into making it, then go through and pick out every single bug in the game lol.

[LadyMilla]

 

Sells Software ONLY for the money?

I think you're looking at EA games on that one.

 

Newsflash: every game publisher sells software ONLY for money. Capitalist enterprises are not charity organizations that work for the benefit of all, or to uphold some sort of game lore. Developers may love what they do, but at management level, even if some of them love games, the first and foremost consideration is the profit margin, and to look good at the annual shareholders' meeting. When you are a manager, you are not expected to love the product your company produces, you are expected to fill the investors' pocket. If it means dumbing down a game so it is available to a larger group of customers, castrating the developers' vision of how the game should be built, pressing them to finish it sooner than it would be advisable, they will do it. Maybe small companies that are publishers/developers, or companies where the management consists of former developers who have a solid insight into what is going on within their development studios fare better in that regard, but once a holding company, or a giant publisher takes over... I'd say expect the worst, and if they still deliver quality at least you will be pleasantly surprised. Remember, corporate image, publicity, consumer-friendliness... they are just part of the corporate 'sales pitch'.

[ninjafish]

 

Sells Software ONLY for the money?

I think you're looking at EA games on that one.

 

Newsflash: every game publisher sells software ONLY for money. Capitalist enterprises are not charity organizations that work for the benefit of all, or to uphold some sort of game lore. Developers may love what they do, but at management level, even if some of them love games, the first and foremost consideration is the profit margin, and to look good at the annual shareholders' meeting. When you are a manager, you are not expected to love the product your company produces, you are expected to fill the investors' pocket. If it means dumbing down a game so it is available to a larger group of customers, castrating the developers' vision of how the game should be built, pressing them to finish it sooner than it would be advisable, they will do it. Maybe small companies that are publishers/developers, or companies where the management consists of former developers who have a solid insight into what is going on within their development studios fare better in that regard, but once a holding company, or a giant publisher takes over... I'd say expect the worst, and if they still deliver quality at least you will be pleasantly surprised. Remember, corporate image, publicity, consumer-friendliness... they are just part of the corporate 'sales pitch'.

 

Agreed, however. There have been instances of game companies doing a game less for money, and more for the fans or what they think.

One instance is Damnation, they lost a huge budget for the game because the developers refused to change certain aspects of the games that the publishers felt would be a good idea.

This ended up losing them a massive foothold to make the game, however they still went along with a smaller-time producer.

 

Same has happened with other games. Granted, every game company, developer and publisher are in it for some sort of monetary gain, but while that is up top, a lot of developers stand true to the game formost.

 

EA just keeps pumping out s*** for money.

[LadyMilla]

Newsflash: every game publisher sells software ONLY for money. Capitalist enterprises are not charity organizations that work for the benefit of all, or to uphold some sort of game lore. Developers may love what they do, but at management level, even if some of them love games, the first and foremost consideration is the profit margin, and to look good at the annual shareholders' meeting. When you are a manager, you are not expected to love the product your company produces, you are expected to fill the investors' pocket. If it means dumbing down a game so it is available to a larger group of customers, castrating the developers' vision of how the game should be built, pressing them to finish it sooner than it would be advisable, they will do it. Maybe small companies that are publishers/developers, or companies where the management consists of former developers who have a solid insight into what is going on within their development studios fare better in that regard, but once a holding company, or a giant publisher takes over... I'd say expect the worst, and if they still deliver quality at least you will be pleasantly surprised. Remember, corporate image, publicity, consumer-friendliness... they are just part of the corporate 'sales pitch'.

 

Agreed, however. There have been instances of game companies doing a game less for money, and more for the fans or what they think.

One instance is Damnation, they lost a huge budget for the game because the developers refused to change certain aspects of the games that the publishers felt would be a good idea.

 

 

Same has happened with other games. Granted, every game company, developer and publisher are in it for some sort of monetary gain, but while that is up top, a lot of developers stand true to the game formost.

 

EA just keeps pumping out s*** for money.

 

----> "This ended up losing them a massive foothold to make the game, however they still went along with a smaller-time producer."

 

This is the keyword! But the exception does not invalidate the rule. Sometimes people are able to make ends meet. Sometimes they will be gobbled up by the big fish because people are easily tempted by the smell of dollars. Some of them will want to play big, some will be content with staying small-time in exchange for the freedom to develop things that they see as quality games. Unless you find a really eccentric investor who is like minded and willing to shovel money into a risky business, you will have a hard time guarding your original vision from folks whose only vision is the 'return of investment'.

 

(But I kinda agree with your comments on EA.)