A genuine, worthy sequel

[Patton89]

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.

No one that is sane is claiming that the New York times have been bought, no one could really manage that, at least the game developers. What i am saying is POSSIBLE that some of the reviewers have been influenced by game developers. Reality is, corruption does exist in gaming too, it is a fact that can't be ignored. corruption exists in school systems so what makes gaming immune ? The game was mediocre to ok. so that around 7. I really didn't like tha game that much, as a sequel its awfull,and scores 4 meaning it fails and has to redo. As a game its ok to mediocre , depending on the part that i am playing.
Megaton was good, though it could have been better, but LL or oasis were horrible.

New York times isnt a gaming magazine anyways., so its opinion from my point of view really doesn't matter that much. Plus its across the freaking atlantic ocean.

 

[Rad Blaggard]

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.

Of course you have proof of this "bribing", no one here would ever say such things without evidence.

Personally I don't take ANYTHING the New York Times says seriously, that "paper" has zero creditability. lol

In any event YOU sure are entertaining as well!

 

[cratchety ol joe]

upon having a discussion with a friend of mine I feel I can add some extra point of view here,

I stated;
<blockquote>
"Fallout 3 really isn't a sequel, its completely freeking different"

to which he replied;

"yes it is the sequal, its the same content the same game world the same theme, its the sequel"

my return argument was...

"So KOTOR is a good sequel to X-Wing? same universe, same story and content..?"

he replied quite confidently;

"Yes."
</blockquote>

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?
X-Wing a Foooking great Space-flight fighty game, lazors and such and whiiiiizz etc (i loved X-Wing and its following bits)

KOTOR; some rather offsquew action-rpg-shooter-puzzle game

How do people start to consider that such abstracts are in fact 'sequels' to each other. I was a little taken back by this opinion as previously the person to whom I was talking had for the most part had sensible views on things, so to hear that this is how HE considers sequels, what the hell?

My opinion: FO3 face-rapes the FO setting, yes I think that the game is a playable enjoyable experience, however IT IS NOT a sequel to FO2. no no no.

 

[Roflcore]

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

´
Why are you curious? Karma is a joke and it doesn't matter if you are good or bad, the game doesn't change, so whats that got to do with this topic?

 

[Munin]

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.

I wonder if the reviewers themselves actually completed the game and if not, if they then only saw the beginning in the Vault and Megathon (not seeing the big picture of the game). It seems very reasonable that they d give the game high scores based upon only the Vault and Megathon. It s only when you play the game longer then that that you start noticing the minor aspects of the game.

 

[Munin]

To buy a genuinly good car in the US, buy a Japanese car.

To buy a genuinly good RPG in the US, buy a Japanese RPG?

this is something I found on a topic on the Bethesda Fallout 3 forum:
http://www.1up.com/do/previewPage?pager.offset=1&cId=3171361&p=4

The tremendous success of Fallout 3 seems to have made a particularly profound impact on Naora. "When we make a game that sells two million copies, that's always seemed like a tremendous success for us," he says. "But now we hear about Fallout 3 selling four million in just a few weeks, and it really surprises us. This is a game that doesn't even look like what we in Japan consider an 'RPG,' yet it's incredibly popular."

"Until about a year ago, we'd never even heard the term 'J-RPG' to distinguish our RPGs from Western games," he admits. Now he seems determined to sort out the defining differences between the two schools of RPG design. Does it mean stronger female characters? A first-person perspective? More realism?

Beth forum: http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=916809

 

[Sander]

No one is saying that people bribed either magazines or newspapers directly, or at least no one sane should be saying that.

But this is just how the gaming industry works. These magazines thrive off of exclusives, gaming ad revenue and good contacts with the gaming companies. Giving bad reviews means no more exclusives, fewer ads and bad contacts. Hence they have a lot of incentive to give good reviews, and basically no incentive to give bad reviews.

 

[Patton89]

No one is saying that people bribed either magazines or newspapers directly, or at least no one sane should be saying that.

But this is just how the gaming industry works. These magazines thrive off of exclusives, gaming ad revenue and good contacts with the gaming companies. Giving bad reviews means no more exclusives, fewer ads and bad contacts. Hence they have a lot of incentive to give good reviews, and basically no incentive to give bad reviews.

Yeap. And that also means that best reviews can be found in small, relatively independent magazines or sites. If it were any other business, this practice would be counted as partial corruption. The system is very flawed ATM, and will need serious overhaul in the future.
Now as it is, i don't buy any big gaming magazines. No point really.
Its been 2 years since i last bought one. Good thing public libraries exist.

 

[Commiered]

Reviewers often tend to get into a herd mentality, when they see one bunch giving great reviews, they continue to follow the script.

There really doesn't have to be 'bribing' per se, but these reviewers can get some or all of the following: meet the developers giving demos, they get a free play, joke around with the 'boys' etc, get a free review copy etc. They then feel the need to 'thank' these people by not being too critical.

'Fanboyism' is also in evidence often, as many a reviewer is already a fan of the company, its games etc. and tends to overlook flaws.

The sheer amound of advertising has a huge impact. Countless previews, snippets about how this works or that, what cool weapons will be in it etc. all add to create a frenzy as well among reviewers too.

Maybe also they tend to only play it in a cursory manner, just skim it for a day or two and then write about how 'they spend many hours on the game'.

Finally I think the biggest flaw is the ratings system they give games. Because of a standard of rating most big name games at 8 or higher it gives very little room for the reviewer. I've seen reviews on Worthplaying for example where the reviewer complained about a game, citing its short length, bugs, graphic glitches, poor multiplayer etc. and still gave it 8.5 or so. Often the review implies something different that the score.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

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.

Actually they marketed it as both and have firmly stood by it as a sequel. They said from the start that they were setting out to make a sequel and made such a big deal out of it exactly because they knew that "journalists" were going to talk about how great the first two games were and how great Fallout 3 was going to be. That is until it was released, at that point journalists started talking about how bad Fallout 1&2 were and how Fallout 3 is so much better.

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.

And it was Morrowind with guns before Oblivion was released. Whether or not you like the idea or even execution of a post-apoc TES game, it's not a Fallout game.

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.

Which they weren't.

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

Just shows how well you know Bethesda, they have minimal post release support, hence the 14 fan-made patches for Oblivion (and they're still working on them).

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.

I find the idea that one must bribe an entire publication in order to get what they want in a single article to be so ludicrous as to be deeply entertaining. We know that the prerelease reviewers were treated to a highclass hotel room where they got to review the game for 16 hours with help from a Bethesda dev. It's not bribing in the sense of giving money, but it's a gift, a leg up on their competitors, and extremely influencing. I have no clue whether or not the New York Times' reviewer was bribed or is involved in the normal BS for exclusives and shit, but I also have no clue if they are any fucking good. They are a game reviewer for the New York Times after all, and most non-gaming publications have neither high standards, experience, or even care much about what's written as long as it's structurally and grammatically correct. Some publications even seem to prefer that their reviews are retarded (MTV for example).

Finally I think the biggest flaw is the ratings system they give games. Because of a standard of rating most big name games at 8 or higher it gives very little room for the reviewer. I've seen reviews on Worthplaying for example where the reviewer complained about a game, citing its short length, bugs, graphic glitches, poor multiplayer etc. and still gave it 8.5 or so. Often the review implies something different that the score.

Indeed. Scoring is a hard thing to use right and probably shouldn't be used by the current gaming journalists since they use it wrong. There is a reason that the 1 to 10 scale has a 1 and a 10, if you're not using more of the spectrum than 8 to 10 then you should use a 1 to 4 spectrum and say that a 1 isn't worth playing, a 2 is worth playing, a 3 is a should buy, and a 4 is a must buy.

 

[Naissus]

I sure hope Bethesda stays away from the West Coast. They can stay on the East side and screw it all up. Let us have our classics and there locals unmolested.

 

[Rad Blaggard]

I sure hope Bethesda stays away from the West Coast. They can stay on the East side and screw it all up. Let us have our classics and there locals unmolested.

Those could be Harolds' sentiments as well me thinks.

 

[Corvin]

See the thing is, UncannyGarlic (and I dig the handle by the way...my grandpa has a garlic and wine festival every October)... as bad as the totally rabid Bethesda types are... and the reviewers who only played a couple hours are (and yes...I agree the beginning is the only decent part of the main quest)... I find folks who've been convinced of the utter horribleness of this game from over a year before it was released just as bad.

I'm not blind to the flaws of it but I've enjoyed it a fair bit. Compared to most of the other things on the market this year it has been more entertaining. I expected pretty much what I got with Fallout 3. You all seem to consider it deeply worse than Brotherhood of Steel or expect it to be a more pure shooter ala Far Cry 2 (You knew it wasn't going to be Ubisoftish... deep down. Don't tell me you didn't.) I consider it a step... and given the amount of profit and amount of people introduced to the Fallout concept I hope it can be taken farther into what Fallout is capable of being in modern times. As cool as the setting and the dialogue and what you could get away with in Fallout 1 and 2 were... I never actually found the 'system' all that impressive (even compared to what was out at the time.) You've deified it... and gotten stuck on a type of design that doesn't really happen any more but might get reached towards.

It feels like the Fallout 3 team could've gone much farther in world development. I didn't really enjoy Oblivion till my little sister tossed it with the expansions and some modded content at me. I'm hopeful that similar will occur here. I'd like to encourage people to contribute to that rather than bashing Bethesda continuously.

 

[Munin]

It feels like the Fallout 3 team could've gone much farther in world development. I didn't really enjoy Oblivion till my little sister tossed it with the expansions and some modded content at me. I'm hopeful that similar will occur here. I'd like to encourage people to contribute to that rather than bashing Bethesda continuously.

I really think Bethesda provoked it somehow, they deserve some bashing to say the least.

Putting the combat aspect before the RPG aspect really really provokes a lot of people. I m not referring to the thing that combat is better, I m referring to the thing that the dialogue lines suck and other RPG related things that suck in this game (fe SPECIAL).

 

[M-26-7]

See the thing is, UncannyGarlic (and I dig the handle by the way...my grandpa has a garlic and wine festival every October)... as bad as the totally rabid Bethesda types are... and the reviewers who only played a couple hours are (and yes...I agree the beginning is the only decent part of the main quest)... I find folks who've been convinced of the utter horribleness of this game from over a year before it was released just as bad.
<snip>

Corvin, you seem like a pretty decent guy. But what you keep doing is jumping from thread to thread and saying pretty much the same thing. It seems like you've read one complete thread here in your life and generalize and make assumptions based on it. No one here has EVER said the game is as bad as BOS. I don't think anyone expected Ubisoft style shooting (which is hardly the best FPS company in my opinion). And finally I don't think most people here find this game horrible. At least as far as over all quality of the game. A Fallout game, yeah it's pretty bad, but for today's typical crop of games it's pretty good. Of course I can't speak for anyone else, but even the most hardcore of fans such as Brother None said they would give the game about a 7 or an 8 if it were a new IP. Please don't take this as an ad hominem.

 

[Corvin]

I totally see where you're coming from and don't consider it ad hominem. It is probably pointless for me to try too hard here given the general tone about Fallout 3. I just consider this a small step in the right direction rather than a huge leap backwards. As for the shooter thing... Far Cry 2 and Crysis just seem to get cited a lot here.