CanardPC's almost-review
- Thread starter MrBumble
- Start date
As far as I see, even those people who think that F3 will suck would have liked to see a review in which the journalist does not only highlight the negative features of the game, but also the few positive ones.
I think the sourness of the review is due to the games' sequel nature. Understand that if the "3" is behind Fallout, the reviewer cannot praise the content -even if it is great otherwise- without comparing it to the originals......
In other words : If a game has great graphics, a humongous map, great number of quests it usually receives high-ratings. The french reviewer comes down so hard on this game because as a sequel of Fallout, these features are secondary or tertiary. No matter how well they managed to realize some aspects of the game, it cannot receive positive review because it bears the name of Fallout, but not the content.
Though it is not the most appropriate example but If a Porsche would try to sell as a Ferrari no matter how great it is, reviewers would try to find the things that makes it a Ferrari, because it bears that name. It will receive positive reception from people who love sport cars in general, but it will be frowned upon by people who go for the Ferrari experience. So all in all, negativity is the only way to go when it comes to Fallout 3 in my opinion...
I think the sourness of the review is due to the games' sequel nature. Understand that if the "3" is behind Fallout, the reviewer cannot praise the content -even if it is great otherwise- without comparing it to the originals......
In other words : If a game has great graphics, a humongous map, great number of quests it usually receives high-ratings. The french reviewer comes down so hard on this game because as a sequel of Fallout, these features are secondary or tertiary. No matter how well they managed to realize some aspects of the game, it cannot receive positive review because it bears the name of Fallout, but not the content.
Though it is not the most appropriate example but If a Porsche would try to sell as a Ferrari no matter how great it is, reviewers would try to find the things that makes it a Ferrari, because it bears that name. It will receive positive reception from people who love sport cars in general, but it will be frowned upon by people who go for the Ferrari experience. So all in all, negativity is the only way to go when it comes to Fallout 3 in my opinion...
Seymour the spore plant
Still Mildly Glowing
cratchety ol joe said:
Where does the teaser being released fall in there? Because that was about the only time when I thought they might actually pull it off. Damn, the few weeks after that were a bitch.
Texas Renegade said:
But that's something of a Pollyanna approach, isn't it? Maximizing one's personal enjoyment of something in spite of reality?
The only way in which the sequel/spin-off debate boils down to semantics is that ultimately it's Beth's call, one they've already made and screwed up canon in the proccess. This unfortunately is Fallout 3, it is the direction the series will move towards and we'll never again see another one in the molds of the originals. I particularly don't care for being able to enjoy this game when it necessarily means supporting this shift and the inevitable coming of Fallouts 4, 5 and 6.
Texas Renegade
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
Texas Renegade said:
But that's something of a Pollyanna approach, isn't it? Maximizing one's personal enjoyment of something in spite of reality?
The only way in which the sequel/spin-off debate boils down to semantics is that ultimately it's Beth's call, one they've already made and screwed up canon in the proccess. This unfortunately is Fallout 3, it is the direction the series will move towards and we'll never again see another one in the molds of the originals. I particularly don't care for being able to enjoy this game when it necessarily means supporting this shift and the inevitable coming of Fallouts 4, 5 and 6.[/quote]
While I do agree with the idea of the end of your post, I disagree with allowing a bad naming decision to prevent me from enjoying a game.
Fallout 3 may fail miserably as a a game compared to FO 1 and 2, but may succeed quite well as an ARPG on the current market on its own rights.
Considering it is about the only RPG type of game that gets my blood boiling that is out or coming out any time soon on the PS3, I feel perfectly fine with looking at and enjoying the game on its own merrits rather then making myself dislike the game because it isn't what its predecessors were.
Funny that you mention it being a "Polyanna" approach. I saw that movie for the first time with my wife (she always loved the movie as a kid) on TCM about 2 weeks ago. She even told me that my propensity for finding the fun and joy in something is very similar to the girl in the movie.
Hey, guilty as charged. Though I would argue the "in spite of reality part" Happiness is a personal choice based entirely off the reality we chose to make for ourselves. My enjoyment of FO3 won't be because I am ignoring reality, but because I am enjoying the game for what it is rather then what it is not.
Seymour the spore plant
Still Mildly Glowing
Texas Renegade said:
If you agree that Bethesda gets the final say in it being a sequel then you judge it as a stand-alone title despite that, you are kinda not judging the game by what it is.
Naming and conventions are a part of reality, an important one even. If someone calls himself a doctor, for an instance, that creates a legitimate expectation on your part of his expertise. People will obviously expect Fallout 3 to be faithful to the series, and Bethesda knew this well enough to have underplayed the differences and stressed that the setting, feel and lore was the same all the way through their marketing campaign. This particular (p)reviewer doesn't think they are, and he's right to call it out - other journalists have made the same judgement, even if they came to different conclusions.
Now, I get what you're saying, you prioritize having a good time with it instead of drawing comparisons, and it's perfectly fine that you approach things in this way. But it should hardly a rule of thumb, particularly for gaming journalists, since it's not up to them to select by which criteria to judge a game.
@diagram, sadly similar to how i feel, the dotted line = heartbroken.
And as I understand it, reviewers are supposed to judge games based on themselves (especially if sequel is 10 plus years old) and verse industry standards.
We all agree they shouldn't have called in FO3, but should GTA 3 been called GTA 3?
It shouldn't be personal that is unprofessional.
And as I understand it, reviewers are supposed to judge games based on themselves (especially if sequel is 10 plus years old) and verse industry standards.
We all agree they shouldn't have called in FO3, but should GTA 3 been called GTA 3?
It shouldn't be personal that is unprofessional.
Humpsalot said:
And what was promised. BioShock - by the more competent reviewers - was burned for not delivering on its promise to be a spiritual sequel of SS2 (this was partially just expectations and not literal promise) or its promise of deep moral gameplay (this was a promise the game fell short on).
Fallout 3, by being called Fallout 3, promises to be a Fallout sequel. At no point during development did Bethesda acknowledge that it is not so. Reviewers have no reason not to judge it as such - though expect the console magazines to judge it as a stand-alone since a lot of their staff probably never played Fallout 1/2. Fable 2 will get constant comparisons to Fable 1 in console mags, Fallout 3 will not to Fallout 1/2 - or at most to the setting, I feel fairly safe in predicting that.
Humpsalot said:
Why would you do that? GTA 3 retains all the core mechanics from GTA 1/2, only shifting the camera angle. It is still a free-roaming, mission-based game with fairly identical gameplay made superior by choosing a camera angle better suited to the actual gameplay (GTA 1/2's helicopter view was simply wrong for what the games intended to do, though it was still functional).
The biggest change from GTA 2 to GTA 3 was the shift in mission structure, with lives being removed and savegames being added. Essentially dumbing down the game, but not changing it enough that anyone would claim it's not a sequel.
beverageleverage
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Yes. The perspective move away from topdown but that's about it. Major gameplay elements were further developed (missions were more story driven, additional side quests, higher interactivity with the environment, more strategic and engaging driving/combat) rather than removed like fallout 3. If GTA had turned into Twisted Metal then there would be reason to compare it with what has become fallout 3.Humpsalot said:
when was the last time a released game surprised you by being MUCH better than the previews suggested? (i know some games that were a lot worse than their previews hinted).
heh, just sayin'. i rely solely on one german magazine which seems to be quite independent. and yet they manage to participate in the major gaming industry events without being blacklisted. they seem to be quite accurate in their reviews.
heh, just sayin'. i rely solely on one german magazine which seems to be quite independent. and yet they manage to participate in the major gaming industry events without being blacklisted. they seem to be quite accurate in their reviews.
The Witcher got much better reviews and popular reception than its pre-release previews would make you expect, it kind of caught people off-guard.
I wonder how many will judge it in relation to FOBOS (probably not many, since the game was a flop, but I've seen some posts in the Beth forum where the poster thought that BOS was Fallout 1).
Well, except the Polish previews (probably also Russian and from other countries where Sapkowski's books are popular).
I'm talking about the civilized world, Ausir.
Xavier said:
Ouch! It is very demeaning for a magazine to have to go into a store to buy a game. People giving sidelong looks, whispering "unfavourable preview" and giggling.
ShatteredJon
It Wandered In From the Wastes
DAMN! If only I would have posted a 10/10 mega uber awesome review, I wouldn't have had to fork out 30$ for this game. BS would have gave me a free copy. (friend bought a PC copy and hated it, so I bought it off him for half the price)
I think they have the same attitude towards fan sites as well.