A genuine, worthy sequel

[thefalloutfan]

..Or maybe some people genuinely love the game?

Could it be?!

Fallout 1 and 2 got great scores too, so I guess the reviewer (let's take gamespot) was bought eh

 

[Eyenixon]

Fallout 1 and 2 did not receive perfect scores from many notable publications, and most reviews pointed out their glaring problems and adequately deducted an appropriate amount from their scores.
They were both criticized for their bugs and other problems, however, most "gaming journalists" see fit to ignore these redundant problems in Fallout 3 and plaster 10/10s or 100%s all over the game.

I have posted multiple times that these ingrates know nothing of recognizing problems in video games, if they cannot figure out exactly what it is, they'll merely dismiss it and present the game as having no faults without investigating further into the matter.
For example, notice Fallout 3's SPECIAL system, there is something genuinely wrong with it, be it the underwhelming influence of stats on most aspects of the game, or their entirely broken nature, few (if any) "gaming journalists" have mentioned this flaw despite the fact that it is often considered one of the largest problems regarding Fallout 3's gameplay.

I read countless reviews revealing the redundant skills in Fallout 1/2 (First Aid, Doctor) or the useless (Gambling, Outdoorsman), yet very few reviewers have managed to thoroughly dissect Fallout 3's innards, they would have found far more faults if they had.

 

[thefalloutfan]

Well reader reviews Fallout 1 got a 9.8 on IGN and a 9.2 on gamespot. Critic review it got over 8.5 from both sites, I think that's pretty good, especially the reader review from IGN, no?

I'm only saying that good review scores doesn't mean the reviewer is bought. Hell as I said I'd give fallout 1 a straight 10, and that's only cause I simply love it.

 

[Herbert West]

Reviews totally kicked the bucket for me when Mount and Blade got like 6.0 from a gamesomething site, or even IGN, mostly becouse it did not look that great. Honestly, the installer is friggin 150MB, and it does look great!

Of course, reader rewievs were about 9.3

 

[Munin]

I thought that an RPG is all about options, having choices and also the ablitily to play different roles in the game (good guy, grey guy and bad guy).

When comparing FO1 & FO2 with FO3. The thing that I noticed was that many many options were gone from the previous games (groin shots, eye shots, playing a dumb character (that is enjoyable), up to 5 party members with a lot of modification options and special features, driving a car, continued gameplay after you finish the game, sex has an effect on stats, drugs + effects (that re nice), sell a partymember as a slave (even if it is your wife), marriage (gay or straight), ... (Because I think I forgot to mention a lot of options that re not in FO3, I ll leave the 3 dots) )

And the other thing I noticed was that ACTION, the first person shooter aspect is a lot on the forefront of the game. While I see FO1 & FO2 as RPGs (with capital letters), I see FO3 as an ACTION rpg (rpg with small letters).

 

[Lichbane]

Not to mention the point that it is bad sequel to Fallout 2, they named the game fallout 3 and the developers kept saying that its a sequel.
So why are most of the reviews simply ignoring that ?

I don't think the whole "is it really a sequel" issue really registers on a reviewers radar. Look at Farcry 2. There is no way on this earth it could even vaguely be regarded as a sequel. Different setting. different characters. Different gameplay (in that it's a sandbox rather than a game-on-rails). Even a different engine. Some would argue the same applies to Fallout 3, though at least Bethesda made an effort to make it a sequel. And yet the Farcry/Farcry 2 lack of any sequelity (yeh I know it's not a real word I know ) bearly rates a sidebar.

 

[Roflcore]

By your logic, EVERY review that gets a good score is simply a paid advertisement? That is one sad cynical view of the world.

Nope, but games full of bugs, criminaly short and pisseasy, including bad consoleports, getting 10/10 simple can't be. Completly ignoring those facts is a good sign that money "improved" the score.
Look at Supreme Commander. Reviews are high but most of them mention the problems of the game. Thats a review, not an ad.

 

[Trithne]

Reader Reviews don't really apply to this argument, as they're not being paid to review, aren't supposedly journalists, and you expect them to be biased.

Professional reviews are supposed to be much more objective, and not ignore glaring bugs and omissions and to review a game based on its peers and predecessors. And a game that gets a "perfect" score had best damn well be the Second Coming of games, or it doesn't deserve it.

This is a neat example of what the review world is like today.

 

[Rad Blaggard]

By your logic, EVERY review that gets a good score is simply a paid advertisement? That is one sad cynical view of the world.

Nope, but games full of bugs, criminaly short and pisseasy, including bad consoleports, getting 10/10 simple can't be. Completly ignoring those facts is a good sign that money "improved" the score.
Look at Supreme Commander. Reviews are high but most of them mention the problems of the game. Thats a review, not an ad.

Its obvious that joining an FPS and a RPG went over big in the gaming community as a WHOLE. I'm glad Fallout was used to do this. I would never buy an FPS that was not multiplay and I would probably ONLY buy an RPG if it were a Fallout game. Ive been recommending Fallout 3 to everyone I know and Im very happy with it... obvious warts and all.

 

[Roflcore]

Reader Reviews don't really apply to this argument, as they're not being paid to review, aren't supposedly journalists, and you expect them to be biased.

I expect fanboism. And I saw a lot of it. For either side, but guess what: doesn't make it right.

 

[Eyenixon]

Not to mention that the vast majority of gamers face the same problems when it comes to recognizing flaws in a game.
That's not a problem for them though, however, one should expect a reviewer, an individual who is supposedly learned enough in his respective field to provide in-depth and thorough analysis, to provide something beyond pure ignorance and inexplicable praise or dislike.

 

[Trithne]

Its obvious that joining an FPS and a RPG went over big in the gaming community as a WHOLE. I'm glad Fallout was used to do this. I would never buy an FPS that was not multiplay and I would probably ONLY buy an RPG if it were a Fallout game. Ive been recommending Fallout 3 to everyone I know and Im very happy with it... obvious warts and all.

But... Fallout 3 wasn't used to do it. Ultima Underworld was. And Deus Ex. And System Shock. And they all did it FAR better than Fallout 3. Even SS2, which while railroaded, at least had stats that mattered.

 

[Eyenixon]

Its obvious that joining an FPS and a RPG went over big in the gaming community as a WHOLE. I'm glad Fallout was used to do this. I would never buy an FPS that was not multiplay and I would probably ONLY buy an RPG if it were a Fallout game. Ive been recommending Fallout 3 to everyone I know and Im very happy with it... obvious warts and all.

But... Fallout 3 wasn't used to do it. Ultima Underworld was. And Deus Ex. And System Shock. And they all did it FAR better than Fallout 3. Even SS2, which while railroaded, at least had stats that mattered.

Wrong, you FOOL!
It had already been done in 1979. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akalabeth

EDIT: AAAUGH, the nostalgia! That box cover is driving me nuts now.

 

[Trithne]

Dear god. I hadn't even been conceived in 1979, you realise? Still, always good to reinforce the point.

 

[Patton89]

Not to mention the point that it is bad sequel to Fallout 2, they named the game fallout 3 and the developers kept saying that its a sequel.
So why are most of the reviews simply ignoring that ?

I don't think the whole "is it really a sequel" issue really registers on a reviewers radar. Look at Farcry 2. There is no way on this earth it could even vaguely be regarded as a sequel. Different setting. different characters. Different gameplay (in that it's a sandbox rather than a game-on-rails). Even a different engine. Some would argue the same applies to Fallout 3, though at least Bethesda made an effort to make it a sequel. And yet the Farcry/Farcry 2 lack of any sequelity (yeh I know it's not a real word I know ) bearly rates a sidebar.

Really, the game has buchered SPECIAL, perks and vaults. The Far Cry 2 was different thing entirely compared to far cry , but it has nothing to do with the fallout 3 being a bad sequel to Fallout 2. BECAUSE far cry 2 DIDN'T try to be a sequel to far cry, but seems that fallout 3 tries to be fallout, but ends up being awful.
It has the same factions, BoS and the Enclave. It seems to be trying to be a sequel , but the reviewers seem to ignorant to notice, or just don't care if the game that they review is crap, as long its big release, theyll give it 10 or 100%. sigh

 

[Rad Blaggard]

Really, the game has buchered SPECIAL, perks and vaults. The Far Cry 2 was different thing entirely compared to far cry , but it has nothing to do with the fallout 3 being a bad sequel to Fallout 2. BECAUSE far cry 2 DIDN'T try to be a sequel to far cry, but seems that fallout 3 tries to be fallout, but ends up being awful.
It has the same factions, BoS and the Enclave. It seems to be trying to be a sequel , but the reviewers seem to ignorant to notice, or just don't care if the game that they review is crap, as long its big release, theyll give it 10 or 100%. sigh

Maybe its not being reviewed as to how good a sequel it is, but instead how good a GAME it is? As big a blow to the ego that might be, demographic data might have told Beth that 95% of gamers today don't even know what Fallout was. Marketing as a "sequel" when most people never heard of the original don't get you much brand recognition does it? That's how I see it.

Beth probably quietly preferred to have it marketed as "Oblivion with guns" as opposed to something no one has heard of.

 

[Patton89]

Maybe its not being reviewed as to how good a sequel it is, but instead how good a GAME it is? As big a blow to the ego that might be, demographic data might have told Beth that 95% of gamers today don't even know what Fallout was. Marketing as a "sequel" when most people never heard of the original don't get you much brand recognition does it? That's how I see it.

Beth probably quietly preferred to have it marketed as "Oblivion with guns" as opposed to something no one has heard of.

Well even if thats the way you want it, the game still doesn't deserve all those 10 and 100%.
Lets see..the game i got was bugged, i got constant crashes and bugs, for example, Npcs falling through the game world got annoying.Combat wasn't that good, the VATS made it easy, and it IS supposed to be used.No real tactics needed, just aim for the head and see the same old animation. Animation was poor, made 3rd person view unusable and same voice actors became real downer around the end of the game. Dialogue was bad, and short. No real consequences from my actions, i play good or bad guy, it has no real difference. I can always change my bad karma to good with few bottles of water. Oh yeah it deserves 100%, nothing wrong with the quality of the game. please, every game has its problems. Its an ok game, but sure as hell it is not a amazing game. And it still is supposed to be a sequel.

 

[marko2te]

Maybe its not being reviewed as to how good a sequel it is, but instead how good a GAME it is? As big a blow to the ego that might be, demographic data might have told Beth that 95% of gamers today don't even know what Fallout was. Marketing as a "sequel" when most people never heard of the original don't get you much brand recognition does it? That's how I see it.

But then why call it Fallout 3, how many times did Bethesda said
that F3 is a true sequel, why all this easily avoided trouble if you dont plan to stick to your word.

Beth probably quietly preferred to have it marketed as "Oblivion with guns" as opposed to something no one has heard of.

Oblivion with guns was a insult by Fallout fans for the path that Bethesda made in making F3. At the beginning Bethesda and their fanboys constantly said that we are being paranoid and that F3 will not be "Oblivion with guns". Today that is a common comparison not only by bethesd their fans and almost all reviewers.

I don't think the whole "is it really a sequel" issue really registers on a reviewers radar. Look at Farcry 2. There is no way on this earth it could even vaguely be regarded as a sequel. Different setting. different characters. Different gameplay (in that it's a sandbox rather than a game-on-rails). Even a different engine. Some would argue the same applies to Fallout 3, though at least Bethesda made an effort to make it a sequel. And yet the Farcry/Farcry 2 lack of any sequelity (yeh I know it's not a real word I know ) bearly rates a sidebar.

Farcry 2 keeps the same core gameplay mechanics only changing the setting. Fallout 3 changes everything only leaving some cosmetic references to the original games.

Just keep saying that. One day someone else may believe that myth your pushing. I'm good mates with one of the reviewers from a high profile magazine, and not a red cent changed hands.

By your logic, EVERY review that gets a good score is simply a paid advertisement? That is one sad cynical view of the world.

Maybe Bethesda doesnt give cash but exclusive material for future news, nice rooms in hotels with all accounts paid in which you can try the game before other reviewers.

Oblivion was a crap but still it got great scores was even called one of the best rpgs in years. After some time when all the hype ended and F3 was about to be released then some critics started seeing flaws in the game but also assuring us that all of them will be fixed in F3.

 

[Rad Blaggard]

Maybe its not being reviewed as to how good a sequel it is, but instead how good a GAME it is? As big a blow to the ego that might be, demographic data might have told Beth that 95% of gamers today don't even know what Fallout was. Marketing as a "sequel" when most people never heard of the original don't get you much brand recognition does it? That's how I see it.

Beth probably quietly preferred to have it marketed as "Oblivion with guns" as opposed to something no one has heard of.

Well even if thats the way you want it, the game still doesn't deserve all those 10 and 100%.
Lets see..the game i got was bugged, i got constant crashes and bugs, for example, Npcs falling through the game world got annoying.Combat wasn't that good, the VATS made it easy, and it IS supposed to be used.No real tactics needed, just aim for the head and see the same old animation. Animation was poor, made 3rd person view unusable and same voice actors became real downer around the end of the game. Dialogue was bad, and short. No real consequences from my actions, i play good or bad guy, it has no real difference. I can always change my bad karma to good with few bottles of water. Oh yeah it deserves 100%, nothing wrong with the quality of the game. please, every game has its problems. Its an ok game, but sure as hell it is not a amazing game.

Every game does have problems and hopefully thats what patches are for.

I was going to go point for point down your list but Ill just say the items you listed that are OPINION I disagree with.

Note:
VATS is a wonderful system! I feel the way it was employed is bad! I'd rather see knockdowns used and MULTIPLE enemies at once. THEN VATS has a purpose. For instance: I'm facing 4 raiders not just one/two at a time. First thing I do is try for a lucky GROIN shot (what happened to groin?) and put the one with the rocket launcher on his back for the rest of the fight! It don't have to be turn based to put them out for the fight with a groin or head/eye shot, unconscious and prone to full automatic damage. Leaving the choice, do I try to to kill the prone real fast (and take more damage from the others) or hope he does stay out for the fight. Choices, reasons to think about how many APs you have and how best to use them.

So I see a future in VATS, but it MUST be combined with STRATEGY (thinking!) That and the NPCs just are not tough enuff to begin with.

 

[Corvin]

I find the idea that Bethesda bribed the New York Times to give Fallout a 10 to be so ludicrous as to be deeply entertaining.

The game is a 7 or 8... not the 1 it is so frequently made out to be here or the 10s you all complain about.

For my own part I'm curious how many of the folks with bad reactions played the game 'evil' versus good to begin with.