Are Fallout Fan Boys Blinded By Nostalgia?

NotAcasul said:
oof they have diff opinion
Click to expand...
Oh look, another one of those 'it's their opinion' argument. Except, do you know that even an opinion can be....... really fucking retarded??!!!1111!!!!

Yeah, even I can't believe it. Now I have to properly research the topic I'm gonna discuss and have arguments, and not just come up to it in my head.
 
NotAcasul said:
oof they have diff opinion
Click to expand...

Yeah I have to reply to this as well.

EVERYTHING ultimately is an opinion.

But obviously not EVERYTHING is correct.

We judge stuff on various factors, which can confirm or disprove opinions.

Journalists just say everything is good, because it makes them money.
 
Walpknut said:
"Are Fallout Fanboys blinded by nostalgia?", maybe you should wear a fedora, I hear in FO3 and FO4 they give you extra perception they'll help you become more self aware.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif

BURN

CT Phipps said:
Indeed, I love Fallout 3 and was grossly disappointed by Fallout 4 but still think of F4 as better than most games.

Fallout 1 is my least favorite Fallout of them.

Which....wow. Puts me in the same minority as the people who like Crystal Pepsi.
Click to expand...
As a would-be game designer, it IS the weakest game out of the bunch. But it also easily is the most measured, thoughtfully made, and atmospheric game of the series. Funnily enough, it is the closest to Fallout 3 in that aspect. Fallout 2 was quite literally an upgrade in every aspect, except those few key aspects.

You're still a heathen, btw. But you get the Nine-Tails instead of the stretching table.

Anyway, @The King of The Worms, you know this site is 20 years old, right? We've complained ALL over the games, evern the classics and NV that we so banner for. You very well could dig around and find all sorts of criticism. In the most recent ones you'll probably see everyone present, somewhere.
 
Sorry, @R.Graves, I admit I was taking that moment to brag and that was beneath me.

My apologies.

ThatZenoGuy said:
Wut.

5/10 is a perfectly 'average' game, think of, I dunno...Modern Warfare or something?

6 out of 10 is better, 7 is certainly above average.

8 out of ten is a good game, nine of 10 amazing.

10 out of 10, FLAWLESS, no issues for its genre/sort of game.
Click to expand...

That's how you do but for me, 6/10 is a barely incrimental improvement over 5/10. It's the C+ of the grading system.

8/10 is B+

9/10 and 10/10 are the A+

Risewild said:
The perfect game that will never be made.
Click to expand...

That's silly. 10/10 isn't some sort of Platonic Ideal. They give 10s in the Olympics all the time. It's representative of the best you think can be done with the material. For me, it represents a game which I think of as great rather than subpar or just sort of good. If I'm willing to put more than 40 hours in game, that for me is proof it's awesome.

8s are "good" games.

6s are "okay."

I see no reason the 10 has to be a kind of magical religious number. For me, it's a sign a game is awesome and people should play it.

Also, game journalism? No one has ever given me a free game and I judge games based on what I like and don't like.

My top ten games are:

1. Skyrim
2. The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt
3. Fallout: New Vegas
4. Deus Ex: Human Revolution
5. Fallout 3
6. Dragon Age: Origin
7. Fallout 2
8. The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings
9. Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines *
10. Fallout

* The only game I'm going to put on this list which isn't a 10 out of 10 but I replay constantly.

I mean I'd love to put Life is Strange or The Wolf Among Us on this list but the fake choices lower it too much.
 
Last edited:
Phipps you are happy doing what you enjoy. It is only natural to brag. Just try not to be a douche about it. :P
 
I honestly cannot think of a perfect game...My favourite, best programmed games, even then, could be improved.

;(
 
I mean my anwser to question really just lays in order I played the fallouts. I played fo3 fnv then little of fo4. Then more of fo1 and have't yet played fo2. So yeah I would be more blinded by nostigla by playing fo3 as I have only jsut got into fo1. But i have to say I do enjoy the game and althought I dont play massive amouts of it its still more fun for me than playing fo4 right now. Just purely cuz that games is fucked. I doubt I would like fo3 so much if I played fo1. Didn't really agreewith the idea that bethsda broke fallout intill I played fallout 4 and fallout one. Just based on the fact fallout one was better than I thought by replaying it I realized. And fallout 4 was alot crapier. I did spend alot of time on falllout 4 but thats because I did like settlements and the fancy grahpics and stuff like that. But its cheap its water down and it isn't really fallout. Fallout 1 made me realise that. However I already knew that fallout 4 was far worse than fo3.

They defintly could of improved fallout 3 but I thought they would do that with fallout 4. Just like NV improved on fallout 3. But no they whent backwards
 
TorontRayne said:
Phipps you are happy doing what you enjoy. It is only natural to brag. Just try not to be a douche about it. :P
Click to expand...

But that's the best part!

Another reason I love Fallout 3 is it is one of the few games which makes the apocalypse look msierable. It's a blasted radioactive hellhole with raiders and monsters everywhere. People are miserable and it feels like the world has genuinely SUFFERED because of the war. I don't always get that feeling from Fallout where too often the tragedy feels like it was played for laughs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For all the shit in Fallout 3, I actually kinda enjoyed it.

Its a guilty pleasure, a retarded game to fuck around in, where nothing you do matters, so go wild.
 
CT Phipps said:
That's silly. 10/10 isn't some sort of Platonic Ideal.
Click to expand...
It is for me, I consider your rating silly too but I never said anything because I didn't want to be rude. Opinions and all of that :bow:.
10 is the platonic ideal because no game will ever be perfect, never!
Also no game ever made me feel like it was perfect or that I wouldn't change anything about it, I have been playing games for 30 years and no game from the thousands of games I played through history was perfect. If this was the case, modding wouldn't have become such a popular practice.
CT Phipps said:
They give 10s in the Olympics all the time. It's representative of the best you think can be done with the material.
Click to expand...
No, 10 in the Olympics means it was perfectly executed in terms of technique, not the best it can be. The Olympic judges have a very strict set of parameters they have to analyze and follow to the letter, they don't give 10 just because they thought it was the best of them all but because they thought it was flawless. And even then there are several judges to prevent the case of one judge didn't detect a imperfect movement/technique/etc and gave it 10 and it means it was perfect, that is why many times all the scores are 10 or only one is 10. Judges are human and fallible, so they have several judges to make sure the scores are fair and not because someone just failed to see something.
CT Phipps said:
8/10 is B+

9/10 and 10/10 are the A+
Click to expand...
Your rating seems broken, are you saying both 9/10 and 10/10 are the same value to you? Are you saying that between B+ and A+ is nothing? Where is A? Grades don't go B+ then A+, there is a A in between :confused:.
 
A numerical score works for like a multiple coice test and the like. Applying it to videogames, movies and the like is really non sensical.
 
CT Phipps said:
9 and 10 are basically indistinguishable.

A and A+
Click to expand...
:confused:. So essentially, you are grading them like a tertiary academician? Odd...
Though in terms of academic grades before tertiary education, people have more regard to the one with the plus so along those lines, not distinguishing between the two could mislead your audience with the wrong impression even if you don't mean to review games seriously.

I agree with Walpknut, numerical scores are pointless since as Kohno pointed out, no one gets how to implement them properly and people end up complaining about them if the score for any game is lower that what they perceive to be average (i.e 6/10 or 5/10 at times). Only a select few games are scored properly and even then, there are holes in those assessment. I prefer a simple "recommend" or "not recommended" assessment for most things, it's a simpler scale and a good one will provide points for and against them.
 
Well, when I post a review, I'm HOPING that they will read the rest of it. The numerical score at the end is just sharing my overall enjoyment factor whereas the rest of the review is talking about the specifics of what I disliked and didn't.

:)

I love Deadly Premonition and think it's a work of genius but gave it a 6/10 because the gameplay is mindnumbingly awful.
 
CT Phipps said:
Well, when I post a review, I'm HOPING that they will read the rest of it. The numerical score at the end is just sharing my overall enjoyment factor whereas the rest of the review is talking about the specifics of what I disliked and didn't.
Click to expand...
You're doing it backwards the numerical scrore is supposed to be the "objective" part of the review. Otherwise howard the duck would be a 10/10 for me. Fun/10 =/= 10/10
 
R.Graves said:
You're doing it backwards the numerical scrore is supposed to be the "objective" part of the review. Otherwise howard the duck would be a 10/10 for me. Fun/10 =/= 10/10
Click to expand...

Ironically, I created THE UNITED FEDERATION OF CHARLES because I felt mainstream reviews were too mechanical and didn't have nearly enough focus on "fun" versus arbitrary mechanics and categories.

I felt like people were getting too focused on bullshit that removes the point of a review.

Which is, "Is it good or not?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top