• 1Aug 07

  NMA? What in the blazes is that?

  No mutants allowed, that's what NMA stands for. But what exactly is it? A gaming community for some, a bunch of psychopathic wife-beaters to others. Hmm.

  Let's start of by saying that I have heard the argument that everyone in favor of Bethesda's approach for Fallout 3 is being branded by "true" Fallout fans, as some kind of idiot... From what I have seen so far, this seems to be the other way around.

  As someone who is not a member of NMA, hell I hadn't even heard of that place until I saw it popping up in practically every Fallout 3 related thread on forums I lurk on, this really seems to be the stellar opposite as to what people are claiming. Never ever have I seen such a general distaste, hatred if you will, being spewed at a gaming community. People affiliated with NMA are being accursed of such despicable acts against humanity that I would make your skin crawl. They are being called lunatic psychopaths who are danger to themselves and society in general. Hell it has gotten so far that anyone, who even has so much of a pessimistic outlook at the general development direction that Bethesda has taken, is being branded at NMA-troll that is not to be taken seriously? Every thread quickly turns into a massive "anti-NMA" bashing circle jerk and then I wonder: do they deserve this?

  Now if I was gullible and I believed everything I read on the Internet (and SomethingAwfull in particular), I wouldn't come near that NMA with a ten foot pole. But (un)fortunately for me, I'm blessed with a critical mindset who needs to get to the bottom of things. So I had no choice but to visit NMA and read there articles and forums to understand just what the hell was going on. I came to the conclusion that the general population of that community had taken the art of cynicism to a new high. It's somewhat disheartening and completely different than other (most?, all?) gaming communities I've visited and been a part of.Now the question becomes: are they wrong? Do they have (a) valid reason(s) to take such a pessimistic, downright negative approach? After reading most of their well-written articles and discussing these things with them (yes you can actually have a civil discussion with these people, in contrary to what some are saying), I'm inclined to say yes!

  I admit, I played and enjoyed Fallout 1&2 for a long time but never had such a strong connection with the series like the people at NMA and several other fansites do. I did however understand the basic development ideas that were used at the time to create Fallout. It went against the grain of upcoming 3D action games like Duke Nukem and Bethesda's own 3D RPG masterpiece called Daggerfall. It used turn-based combat just because everybody else was switching over to real-time, it was non-linear, had tons of dialogues and choices and consequences which affected the gameworld in a meaningful way. It was considered a B-game in development and was never expected to garner such success and such a cult following.

  I also came to an understanding that the Fallout community has also been screwed over multiple times by the consequent delay of Fallout 3 at the time. The release of Fallout: Tactics, the release of Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel and eventually the cancellation of Fallout: Tactics 2 and Project Van Buren what would have been Fallout 3 (which had a 3D(!) engine and utilised turn-based combat and seemed to be widely accepted by the die-hard fans at NMA). So that crosses the 2D-sprite lunatics of the list.

  I personally think it's a combination of all these reasons plus the general lack of communication Bethesda has with the fanbase itself, an attitude which is completely different then Black Isle had. These things have given the fallout fanbase such a pessimistic, bitter viewpoint on Fallout(3) and perhaps even on the gaming industry itself.

  If we accept all that then we have to pose the big question: just why aren't they happy with Bethesda reviving the franchise? A common answer to that question which was given to me seems to be the lack of experience Bethesda has with this particular type of cRPG.The design goals of the Elder Scrolls games have always been completely different then those of Fallout. It was a common fear that some of these design elements could find their way into Fallout. And this fear has already somewhat been confirmed thanks to the recent slew of E3 previews. And this reason I think is the most important one for understanding their motivations completely.

  There are a whole other slew of reasons too, ranging from removing the turn-based combat and replacing it with V.A.T.S, to mini-games, to an overuse of vulgar language, to applying player skill when it comes to firing weapons (a fear that this could encourage twitch gaming).

  I understand what there problems are: the thing is, they would love to be proven wrong by Bethesda, they would love Fallout 3 to be true in spirit to the original Fallout games, but with everything that has been released by Bethesda so far their criticisms are being proved to be right! They do not want to take a wait-and-see approach just because of these reasons.

  Do I look forward to Fallout 3? More or less. Do I have reservations about it? Off course, criticism is part of human nature. Do I think Bethesda can deliver a worthy Fallout sequel? Maybe, going from my personal experiences with Daggerfall and Morrowind the answer would be (hell) yes, going from my experience with Oblivion the answer would be no. We'll have no other choice but to wait and see.

  In the mean time let's at least keep these discussions civil and try to understand this from both sides of the fence, it will turn out to be a lot healthier for all of us.

  • Posted Aug 1, 2007 5:34 am GMT
  • Category:
  • 0 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg

See Previous Blog Posts