CanardPC's almost-review

[Leon]

It's obvious that the majority of posters here resent the fact that Bethesda made Fallout 3

It's not the fact that Bethesda made it that makes many here upset, it's how and what they made.

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

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

Positivity and negativity in and of themselves are not looked down upon unless they are blind. With no supporting claims, they're worthless and treated as such.

Much of the press harps and bleats that Game X is the second coming and the greatest experience ever to be gifted unto man, awesome just because it is. Fallout 3 has gotten this treatment from many sources. It's fluff, it's worthless. This article would be as well if the author hadn't given supporting claims and reasoning beyond "it sucks because it does".

And try not to forget that this isn't an actual review. It's an editorial.

 

[Mad Mantis]

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.

To be fair, you could have expected it. They always avoided answering questions about this.

 

[Billionfold]

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.

Either way, there are three groups of people anticipating Fallout 3.

Those who think it will be good,
Those who think it will be bad,
And those who reserve their opinion until they've played it themselves.

I fall under the third group, and you sir, apparently fall under the second.

 

[Brother None]

So, uh, you're here to tell us about the opinion you don't have?

...

...

Good on you.

 

[Gentlemen]

They have this Polish (Click!, I think) review that gave it an 8.5. It was pretty neutral to me. Not positively biased like the OXM review but not negatively biased (I kinda got this feeling this CanardPC wrote this with the intent to tear it apart straight-away) like this one.

 

[Ixyroth]

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.

I trust my eyes and gut (intuition) above all else. When someone else reinforces my own feelings, that tends to make me believe them. At least we have similar views on the matter, and that's all that counts in the end.

What about a demo? That would go further than any review as to helping one decide whether they like the game or not.

 

[Pope Viper]

Demo won't happen.

You'll have to buy it to see how it is.

 

[Sicblades]

Way to have selective reading; unless you didn't feel like highlighting the part where I said that I'm drawing my own conclusion after I played the game.

Getting closer to believing that it's going to suck has nothing to do with me somehow managing to hold out hope that it will still be good. But I guess selective reading makes people miss the point.

 

[Brother None]

They have this Polish (Click!, I think) review that gave it an 8.5.

We'll chuck up Click! in a minute. I'm trying not to flood in the news.

 

[MrBumble]

Way to have selective reading; unless you didn't feel like highlighting the part where I said that I'm drawing my own conclusion after I played the game.

Getting closer to believing that it's going to suck has nothing to do with me somehow managing to hold out hope that it will still be good. But I guess selective reading makes people miss the point.

Yeah, I also dodged the part when he says that it's somewhat entertaining on its own but quite a shitty rpg...Also skipped the part when he says that "this feature will certainly be immensely enjoyed by mongoloïd teens, fans of "decomplexed violence" ( but still shitty. It sucks, it's ugly and it's unnecessary". Also skipped the part when he calls the game "pre-digested, clear of any controversial material, a basic entertainment"

I mean, are you serious ? Did you read his conclusion ? Isn't his opinion clear enough ?

 

[aenemic]

I havenät read all replies here yet, but this may have been mentioned before. but I reacted when someone said it's a shame the average gamer won't see this review.

well, even if they did, do you honestly think Chad, 17, owning an Xbox 360 would go "damn, I never thought it was that untrue to the originals. which I never played of course. but now I'm gonna have to play them, because they're obviously better. screw FO3."?

no, definitely not. this review is for people like us, who know and love the old games and are already aware of what a mess all this is.

I enjoyed the review and he makes a lot of good points. but somewhere it seems he forgot to mention how the game is on its own, not compared to the earlier games. we already know it's not gonna be a "true" sequel. but is the game entertaining at all? is it bug ridden? are the controls ok? and so on and so forth.

I think with a game like this, especially if you're a nostalgic Fallout fan, you'd almost have to write up to reviews. THAT'S something I'd see as a truly honest review.

 

[entropyjesus]

Face it, the game sucks. Anyone still holding out for hopes that it won't can just ask someone who's played it already who isn't in Bethesda's back pocket. I personally refuse to pirate any game, but I have played it and everyone's worst fears are true and then some. This article is pretty much right on the money in terms of the blandness of Fallout 3.

The first few minutes of playing it are somewhat interesting and it really does seem like there could be so much to do, but once you've seen a few places on the incredibly claustrophobic world map, you've seen them all and the fun quickly gives way to monotony. In my opinion (and this is coming from someone who didn't care for Oblivion), Fallout 3 was/is much less fun than Oblivion if you can imagine such a thing.

So please, take heed at what CanardPC is trying to tell you, because it's no exaggeration.

 

[MrBumble]

Could anyone explain to me HOW clothes giving you stat-boosts is a good design decision for instance roleplay-wise ? Instead of just shittin on the CanardPC guy because he is evil and biased ?

 

[Starwars]

Like BN said, I also feel that what this previewer mentions... It just matches what I caught off the live streams, and to a lesser degree the "official" material that Bethesda has released.

And again, for everyone saying that NMA is just negative and pessimistic, there have been plenty of news in the past which have been received positively by the community, even though the general feel of NMA have always been one of pessimism towards Bethesda (which is understandable I think given their record of developing TES). Fuck, I myself was fairly hopeful when the concept art started trickling out. And I actually believed Bethesda would move away from the first-person exploration type of games they've done with TES, but unfortunately not.

Up to the recent streams, I had some hope that it would be a decent game in its own right, even though I wouldn't enjoy it as a Fallout sequel per say. But the streams really smashed that hope, and yeah... What is being said in this preview matches well with what I saw in the live streams.

 

[Gentlemen]

Could anyone explain to me HOW clothes giving you stat-boosts is a good design decision for instance roleplay-wise ? Instead of just shittin on the CanardPC guy because he is evil and biased ?

Because it's hard to be a doctor when you have giant steel armor and a helmet on. Hell, I dunno. Seems like a bit of a logic fault almost.

 

[Texas Renegade]

I personally refuse to pirate any game, but I have played it and everyone's worst fears are true and then some.

So your saying we should take the advise of a non pirating pirate. Bully for you.

Meh, my only issue with the revi..ehem "editorial" is that for all his negativism about the game, he still doesn't really tell us anything. At least the fluff pieces have given some points about the game that they think are cool.

He seems to have decided to point out how it isn't like the originals, which isn't news at all. I am rather surprised that he didn't go into more detail about the conversation trees and such, that would have been some new info.

 

[MrBumble]

...Still willing to play it despite being a member of a site where a lot of negativity about FO3 without being goo-goo-gah over Bethesda PR machine. I guess that doesn't say a thing about my impressionability.

Negativity...Could you please explain how everything he says in his preview should be perceived as positive ? I mean the karma thing, the clothes thing, VATS being broken etc etc etc ? please DO because I sure would like to be able to appreciate Fallout 3 so enlighten me.

Could anyone explain to me HOW clothes giving you stat-boosts is a good design decision for instance roleplay-wise ? Instead of just shittin on the CanardPC guy because he is evil and biased ?

Because it's hard to be a doctor when you have giant steel armor and a helmet on. Hell, I dunno. Seems like a bit of a logic fault almost.

A logic fault ? How does wearing a surgeon overall makes you better at medicine is the REAL question and you know it so do play dumb...

 

[Pope Viper]

So we because we are getting the impression that this is a bad game, we are thicker in the skull? Just clarifying in case I'm missing something.

That just depends on how impressionable you are without having to have played/experienced something first hand.

How else are people supposed to get a feel for it? There isn't a demo, there's not going to be a demo, There aren't any (that I'm aware of), places that will rent PC games, so the only method of evaluating it is via reviews, gameplay videos.

Since BS has a long history of being hype builders and PR pimps, do you really expect someone to shell out 60 bucks to get a game to find out they don't like it?

Some people have money like that to waste (including myself), I just tend to me much more selective in what I blow my money on.

 

[Sicblades]

Could anyone explain to me HOW clothes giving you stat-boosts is a good design decision for instance roleplay-wise ? Instead of just shittin on the CanardPC guy because he is evil and biased ?

Well I guess it has to do with realism. Because you know when you wear nice shoes and a nice shirt you are able to impress girls at the bar... [sarcasm]

I guess it's a good way to get rid of choice and consequence for certain people who can't come to making decisions that may have consequences. Basically, people who haven't played that life game yet...

 

[MrBumble]

lol yeah...Sure...unfortunately it only works with charisma IRL. Wearing a doctor suit does not make you a doctor. Dressing up as a soldier does not boost your ability at firing guns. That's just lazy design for console kids.