CanardPC's almost-review

[Texas Renegade]

Hmm, interesting and apparently brutally honest preview. Then again, his dissappointment may have gotten the best of him.

That it isn't FO is no surprise or news. I still think it will be fun to play though.

His comment on random encounters was odd. He says all he encountered was some caravans and such, but then mentions running into enemies often....Guess he was wanting the wierd random encounters in FO2. Anyway, still looking forward to it. However, I am glad to read a preview that doesn't sound like it was written by the 13 year old I wasted on Resistance last night.

 

[Brother None]

His comment on random encounters was odd.

He meant random encounters during quick-travel, I think.

The preview is quite depressing. More so than it should be I feel. Almost as if he has a pre-meditated plan to deride the game.

Hah, funny, you mean like all those other reviews pre-meditating to praise the game? Hah! Good fun!

He had his reasons to be pissed at Bethesda, and as a Fallout fan had extra reasons to be disappointed at the game. That combines for a one-sided piece (though he does mention some things he liked, which you ignore in your comments), sure, but it's not a review after all, it's a warm-up piece.

contrary to popular belief, negativity does not equal honesty.

But here's the thing: this pre-review actually matches what I've seen watching live feeds. A lot of the other coverage I've seen has not.

It's fairly simple logic: if what someone says matches what I've seen I'll be more apt to believe him then when it doesn't.

 

[Jarf]

Mother of god!

Did I just read an HONEST review?

I'm feeling dizzy...

I'm not saying that it's impossible to like the game, for all I know it could be good. I haven't played it. But NO game is perfect, if the 90%+ reviews actually noted what stopped them from making it 100% then maybe they would be more believable.

 

[Bernard Bumner]

So, the screenshots looked bad, but that was because they were static?

The videos looked bad, but that was because it wasn't actual gameplay?

The actual gameplay looked bad, but that was because it was being played by console junkies who just wanted combat and didn't care about the dialogue or plot?

Now, a review is bad, but that is clearly because the reviewer is being too negative?

How much bad, upon bad, upon bad, do you need to see, hear, and read, before you can accept that some people think this just isn't a very good game? Nothing to do with sequels, or fanboys, or any of those other red herrings thrown out by Bethesda's PR department and their apologists.

 

[squinty]

His comment on random encounters was odd.

He meant random encounters during quick-travel, I think.

The preview is quite depressing. More so than it should be I feel. Almost as if he has a pre-meditated plan to deride the game.

Hah, funny, you mean like all those other reviews pre-meditating to praise the game? Hah! Good fun!

He had his reasons to be pissed at Bethesda, and as a Fallout fan had extra reasons to be disappointed at the game. That combines for a one-sided piece (though he does mention some things he liked, which you ignore in your comments), sure, but it's not a review after all, it's a warm-up piece.

Well yes, I agree. Im sure there will be many reviews that will be written in such a way that see no fault with the game in the slightest if the reviewer has already decided its his game of the year (OXM guilty of this I am sure). I hope when the real reviews come out that there are a couple of well balanced ones amongst them. Possibly someone who loved the previous games but also loves FPS games. So far, it seems that every article concerning the game is written from either side of the fence. Are there no impartial journalists left anymore who just report facts?

 

[taag]

His (p)review is the total opposite of everything written by other magazines which is ludicrous. It's like everybody's saying Jacko's white while he's saying black. Why am I a part of this sick marketing game?

Can't wait for the REAL review. Should come in two weeks.

I wonder how will his opinion change by then

 

[Billionfold]

I get the feeling that the previewer is a huge fanboy of FO1/2, and had nothing but resentment going into it to begin with.

I'm still excited for Fallout 3. Why? Because playing FO1 and 2 over and over again gets really old, and it's time for a continuation of the series. Who knows, BethSoft might blow us away with this game. I think some of you need to drop the attitude and quit standing there with your noses up, and give this game a chance.

 

[SuAside]

CanardPC is the old crew from the french Joystick. Joystick was/is one of the bigger french speaking mags around, but the old staff got ejected for some reason and lost most of its soul.

the original Joystick crew were huge fans of Fallout (1 & 2) and later of Troika (albeit with the necessary seriousness in reviews, no fanboyishly forgetting to mention bugs). i believe someone of the old Joystick crew / present CanardPC crew even posted here once in a while.

anyhow, i never expected that CanardPC would be supportive of Beth's FO3, but this is even better than i had hoped. big thumbs up to CanardPC. i'm quite glad i recently subscribed to CanardPC.

 

[Sicblades]

I get the feeling that the previewer is a huge fanboy of FO1/2, and had nothing but resentment going into it to begin with.

I'm still excited for Fallout 3. Why? Because playing FO1 and 2 over and over again gets really old, and it's time for a continuation of the series. Who knows, BethSoft might blow us away with this game. I think some of you need to drop the attitude and quit standing there with your noses up, and give this game a chance.

Where do you people come from? Have you not seen ANYTHING?

 

[God is Dog backwards]

Oh my... an honest preview? Too bad this is going to be looked over from the "owsum roxxorz" crowd.

I'm afraid this 'negative means it's honest!' attitude doesn't work for me. Especially considering none of you have played FO3 yourselves. I felt that this guy kind of set out to hate it from the outset, with his rant about the conditions under which he experienced the game.

I don't feel I can trust this preview/review, just as I don't feel I can trust the ones that slobber over the game. I'll have to play it for myself.

 

[Sicblades]

I never said I wouldn't play it, because I will. I just want a review that matches everything that I've seen and read. Like Wooz said, free game with lunchbox.

 

[Brother None]

I'm afraid this 'negative means it's honest!' attitude doesn't work for me. Especially considering none of you have played FO3 yourselves.

I repeat; here's the thing: this pre-review actually matches what I've seen watching live feeds. A lot of the other coverage I've seen has not.

It's fairly simple logic: if what someone says matches what I've seen I'll be more apt to believe him then when it doesn't.

Reducing this to "negative is honest" is ridiculous. This is the first guy who even talks about the dishonest circumstances Bethesda puts reviewers on. You think he's lying about that? If you want to put on a blinders and be an apologist please do, but don't pretend like that's a better attitude than taking what you see at face value.

His (p)review is the total opposite of everything written by other magazines which is ludicrous.

Total opposite? Not really. This is only the third review-experience-based piece (though he refuses to tag it a review) and while it contradicts PC Jeux it's not that far removed from the Swedish magazine that was not very positive either.

 

[thefalloutfan]

I'm afraid this 'negative means it's honest!' attitude doesn't work for me. Especially considering none of you have played FO3 yourselves. I felt that this guy kind of set out to hate it from the outset, with his rant about the conditions under which he experienced the game.

I don't feel I can trust this preview/review, just as I don't feel I can trust the ones that slobber over the game. I'll have to play it for myself.

Same here. I don't trust very positive/negative previews. I'll decide when I'll play the game someday.

 

[Seboss]

I especially like this part about VATS:

VATS slow motion may be the worst crime against video gaming since the invention of the auto-aim and checkpoint based save system.
I don't know what the people of Bethesda had in mind... Maybe they feared that the game would be too short and imposed a twenty seconds on us at each targeted shot to extend the gameplay length, maybe they really desire that we notice their face modeling with independent eye globes, maybe they simply suffer from blaring bad taste, from a love for Brotherhood of Steel they want to share at any price?

Either way, this "feature" that retarded teenagers and moronic fans of "self-confident but still crappy" violence will love (and even then, not beyond the 10 first minutes), guarantees that you will avoid using the targeted shot system at any price. It sucks, it's ugly, it's not funny, it's long et absolutely useless.
Worst of all, there's no way to skip it or deactivate it in the options. You will be then forced to endure these scenes not even worthy of Soldier of Fortune 3.

 

[Billionfold]

Oh my... an honest preview? Too bad this is going to be looked over from the "owsum roxxorz" crowd.

I'm afraid this 'negative means it's honest!' attitude doesn't work for me. Especially considering none of you have played FO3 yourselves. I felt that this guy kind of set out to hate it from the outset, with his rant about the conditions under which he experienced the game.

I don't feel I can trust this preview/review, just as I don't feel I can trust the ones that slobber over the game. I'll have to play it for myself.

It's obvious that the majority of posters here resent the fact that Bethesda made Fallout 3, so it's only natural for such resentment to take form whenever someone says something good about the game, or when somebody says something bad.

For example,

Positive comments on FO3 = Lies, scandal, and fraud from this community.

Negative comments on FO3 = Honesty, justice, and righteousness.

I remain without an opinion until I've played the game myself, though I certainly look toward FO3 with more optimism than most of you.

 

[squinty]

Oh my... an honest preview? Too bad this is going to be looked over from the "owsum roxxorz" crowd.

I'm afraid this 'negative means it's honest!' attitude doesn't work for me. Especially considering none of you have played FO3 yourselves. I felt that this guy kind of set out to hate it from the outset, with his rant about the conditions under which he experienced the game.

I don't feel I can trust this preview/review, just as I don't feel I can trust the ones that slobber over the game. I'll have to play it for myself.

Agree. As I posted earlier, this preview is as worthless as the OXM review for getting a worthwhile description of the game. Negative slobber or positive slobber - either way its a gooey mess to avoid if you want a balanced view. Just because an article is well written in terms of language, it does not make it a good piece of journalism.

 

[Pope Viper]

Worse than anything, there's no way to skip it or deactivate it in the options. You will be then forced to endure these scenes not even worthy of Soldier of Fortune 3.

If this is true, then this is a really, really bad decision.

 

[scypior]

Same here. I don't trust very positive/negative previews. I'll decide when I'll play the game someday.

Ultimately, yes. But you cannot dismiss all (p)reviews all of a sudden*. There are meant to give you some hint about game, and we are here comparing what we saw/heard/read with what other people who had chance to play say.

*I know we can, but since we are here and read that stuff it means something...

 

[Sicblades]

I'm afraid this 'negative means it's honest!' attitude doesn't work for me. Especially considering none of you have played FO3 yourselves. I felt that this guy kind of set out to hate it from the outset, with his rant about the conditions under which he experienced the game.

I don't feel I can trust this preview/review, just as I don't feel I can trust the ones that slobber over the game. I'll have to play it for myself.

It's obvious that the majority of posters here resent the fact that Bethesda made Fallout 3, so it's only natural for such resentment to take form whenever someone says something good about the game, or when somebody says something bad.

For example,

Positive comments on FO3 = Lies, scandal, and fraud from this community.

Negative comments on FO3 = Honesty, justice, and righteousness.

I remain without an opinion until I've played the game myself, though I certainly look toward FO3 with more optimism than most of you.

Well, I like the landscape... Hardly a reason to go buy the game, in my own opinion. And since it's my money; my opinion > yours. That being said, I'll mention again that I will play this game myself to draw my own conclusion about the game(Just like you).

At the same time I cannot blindly deny the crap that is being fed to me and that you are assuming that I automatically deem crap. I am capable of thought, and with that thought I am coming closer and closer to the conclusion that this is going to be crap for all the reasons that have been discussed far too many times. BN states above that what this piece writes is closer to what is being seen and written about other than "official" spoon fed propaganda from bethesda. Why is that so hard to understand? I happen to agree with the writer of the article and thus stand by my stance on the game.

 

[God is Dog backwards]

I'm afraid this 'negative means it's honest!' attitude doesn't work for me. Especially considering none of you have played FO3 yourselves.

I repeat; here's the thing: this pre-review actually matches what I've seen watching live feeds. A lot of the other coverage I've seen has not.

It's fairly simple logic: if what someone says matches what I've seen I'll be more apt to believe him then when it doesn't.

Reducing this to "negative is honest" is ridiculous. This is the first guy who even talks about the dishonest circumstances Bethesda puts reviewers on. You think he's lying about that? If you want to put on a blinders and be an apologist please do, but don't pretend like that's a better attitude than taking what you see at face value.

Don't get me wrong - I'm sure there are some valid points in there that deserve to be explored. The way Bethsoft deals with journalists - that's news to me. But then, maybe that's standard for the industry? I don't know. I'm sure we all know how swamped gaming journalism is with biases and publishers' interests.

And his other points - cause for concern, certainly. Ludicrously short main quest, lifeless NPCs, broken karma system - bar the main quest, these are all points of concern I've raised more than once in the past (check my post history) and definitely I'd like some clarification on them. But the excessively negative tone here raises a red flag on the article's bias and trustworthiness, just as the 10/10 review from the Official Xbox Magazine does also. Neither, I feel, will give me a broad feel for the game as I'd hope for from a review or preview, and neither are a source I'd trust.