Fallout 3 review

[nmr8]

I loved Fallout and Fallout 2. I just finished playing Fallout 3, and I don't love it. The "wow" is there, the environment is breathtaking and it is beautiful, but the game is soulless.

The talking heads of the earlier games had real character development and were strong performances. The talking heads of 3 are just going through the motions. The original dialogue was smart and thought provoking, the dialogue of 3 is shallow and confining - it railroads the PC into boring choices.

The fighting of 3 is nowhere near the challenge of the earlier games. Guns are everywhere, healing is trivial, within the first 10 minutes the PC is able to headshot with VATS.

There are myriad small bugs. I got perma-stuck in a hole in some rocks the very first time I explored out from the Vault 101 entrance. Frame rates were wildly inconsistent. NPCs frequently popped into and out of the ground, and as they moved around they sometimes bounced vehicles out of the way.

There wasn't any economic side of the game. Sure you could buy and sell things but you couldn't accomplish anything worthwhile with the money. Same goes with the stat system - perks were just not exciting, skills didn't seem to really make much difference.

They got the look of the game right, the environments are unbelievable. This is why, I think, so many reviews are positive. Fallout 3 breaks new ground with the scale of it's environmental depth. But everything else about it sucks. I only hope that the financial success of Fallout 3 will pave the way for a Fallout 4 which will have talented writing and a better, deeper game experience with a tighter integration of the amazing environment with actual fun.

 

[Verum]

The fighting of 3 is nowhere near the challenge of the earlier games. Guns are everywhere, healing is trivial, within the first 10 minutes the PC is able to headshot with VATS.

I thought the fighting in the first two were trivial. Admittedly, getting through the temple of trials is a pain in the ass, and Klamath too to some extent, but that's only because you don't start out with a gun. Once you're able to use burst you can kill all but end-game enemies in one shot, and it's not like ammo is hard to find.

There wasn't any economic side of the game. Sure you could buy and sell things but you couldn't accomplish anything worthwhile with the money. Same goes with the stat system - perks were just not exciting, skills didn't seem to really make much difference.

I'm quite satisfied with the economy. It is much more difficult to get money in this game than the first one. Just when you think you have enough to last you forever, you have to repair one of your important items or buy yourself some more of that ammo that seems to disappear into a black hole.

Perks weren't very exciting, and stats weren't either. I mean they DO have an effect, but not near the effect of stats in Fallout 1 or 2. This is, of course, not counting Steal, which has always been broken.

I only hope that the financial success of Fallout 3 will pave the way for a Fallout 4 which will have talented writing and a better, deeper game experience with a tighter integration of the amazing environment with actual fun.

I completely agree. I'm really looking forward to what comes next due to the huge success of this title. My theory is that if they cut out the costs on speaking characters and focused more on gameplay we'd have a more enjoyable experience.

Just to set things straight, the actual dialogue in the game is:

"But then you've got all kinds of shit. Slavers, raiders, super mutants... They all want a slice of the pie too, and they all want to take it by force."

[intelligence] So you fight the good fight with your voice on Galaxy News Radio.

Obviously using deductive reasoning you've discovered why three dog doesn't take arms up against the oppressors, but rather hides out in his dilapidated building. Just thought the facts should be straight.[/quote]

 

[jero cvmi]

@ Verum:

The bethesda devs had claimed that they wanted to avoid the "goofiness" of fallout 2, and go for the seriousness of fallout 1.

my opinion, even though i havent played the game yet, is that they failed. apparently, the game is full of silly shit like killing mutants with teddybears, AND it's not half as tasteful as the equivalents in fallout 2. then again thats just my opinion. some people like interior decoration and magical hats that increase intelligence, others go for monty python references and lesbian shotgun weddings. both cases fall under comedy, but undeniably they apply to different senses of humor.

Anyway these are mere details. there are other problems with fallout 3:
first of all, from the review:

Fallout's S.P.E.C.I.A.L. (Strength, Perception, Endurance, Charisma, Intelligence, Agility, Luck) was tweaked to allow any character to survive and beat the game. The consequences of this choice are that stats are less important, all characters' combat worthiness is about the same, and returns on stat investments are greatly decreased. Some examples:

Fallout 1 & 2:

hit points = 15 + (2 x EN) + ST
action points = AG/2 + 5
carry weight = 25 + (25 x STR)
skill points = 5 + (INT x 2)


Fallout 3:
hit points = 100 + (END x 20)
action points = 65 + (AG x 2)
carry weight = 150 + (STR*10)
skill points = 10 + INT

So, let's compare average values (5) with high (8).

Fallout 1 & 2 (5 vs 8):

HP - 30 vs 39
AP - 7 vs 9 (the difference is, basically, an extra attack per turn, which is huge)
Weight: 150 vs 225 (50% more death dealing hardware and ammo)
SP: 15 vs 21 (40% increase)

Fallout 3 (5 vs 8):

HP - 200 vs 260
AP - 75 vs 81 (practically no difference; you need to put 3 extra stat points into Agility to get an extra shot with a pistol)
Weight - 200 vs 230 (15% more death dealing hardware; ammo, including missiles and nukes, is weightless)
SP - 15 vs 18 (20% increase)

this is the most interesting part. Add the fact that there are no traits, no negative drug effects, no critical misses, ammo is weightless etc. etc. and there you have it: Bethesda inherited SPECIAL, a succesful gaming mechanic from fallout, and instead of treating it like a holy relic, like any reasonable person who has played fallout would have, they took the artistic license to redesign it. Did they really think they could beat Black Isle in game design? and even if they could, if something works why fix it?

-intermission-

the temple of trials was annoying, but it served a purpose. it helped the player learn how to design a character, and badly designed characters would die easily at the temple, so you didnt have to play half way through the game to see just how good your character is. now, can you build a character in fallout 3 that won't make it out of the vault?

-back on topic-

the mechanics can be fixed by mods, in fact there are already mods that fix a lot of these. The question is, is it worth the trouble?
I dont know about you, but from reading some of the main story, i'm not really intrigued to play Vault Dweller and The Knights Of The Round Table with Optimus Prime vs. Orcs and Empire Troops of Hal. no. Not even with a 100% solid SPECIAL syestem.

Because you know what? i play RPGs mainly for the writing. For me, the gameplay math is just there to make it more fun while experiencing the story. And the writing in fallout, from the "idiot" dialogs to the holodisks in The Glow, was fucking brilliant. Not that i expected from fallout 3 to surpass it; however Bethesda could at least not have taken so much artistic license on some things, such as the Brotherhood of Steel for example. Because artistic license requires talent, and i havent seen much writing talent in the story, or the dialog, that i've read from fallout 3.

 

[Sytxferryman]

@ Verum: ... Add the fact that there are no traits, no negative drug effects, ...

To be fair... you can still get addicted to some of the things and that poses a negative effects, but other than that taking them in general does not.

Not as many things as you could in Fallout though. I tried to get addicted to other things, and to get drunk... nothing. I drank a TON of liquor and no dizzy screen just a negative effect from the first beer that staid the same till the 70'th one. Same with Nuka-cola, no addiction. [spoiler:24bbb9f05e]I killed the bubble head in Girdershade and drank every last one of her Nuka-cola's and ... nothing but radiation poisoning[/spoiler:24bbb9f05e] Only thing I haven't tried yet is the glowing cola's, but I think that is b/c this games doesn't have that nifty thing like postal does where you can piss on things and after EVERYONE in the game talking about your pee glowing for a week I wanna see it damnit!

And I really REALLY think the in-house medical lab/hospital is WAY to convent. I remember having to trek all the F* over F2 looking for that damn jet cure or F1 radiation problems. Now *poof* no addiction, *poof* no broken limbs, *poof* no rad's, *poof* dead robot butler. When I set up my pad I avoid those two items now, and kill the butler (he gets on my last nerve).

 

[nmr8]

I thought the fighting in the first two were trivial. Admittedly, getting through the temple of trials is a pain in the ass, and Klamath too to some extent, but that's only because you don't start out with a gun. Once you're able to use burst you can kill all but end-game enemies in one shot, and it's not like ammo is hard to find.

In retrospect I have to agree the original Fallout fighting was pretty easy, but 3 was even more so, I found it downright trivial. Just headshot headshot headshot, over and over. I wish it were more fun. The combat in Thief was pretty fun, albeit that was a very different kind of game.

I'm quite satisfied with the economy. It is much more difficult to get money in this game than the first one. Just when you think you have enough to last you forever, you have to repair one of your important items or buy yourself some more of that ammo that seems to disappear into a black hole.

Really?? I bought a few things over the course of the game - railway gun schematics, house toys, some .308 ammo. *None of which* did I use in any way to achieve game goals. They were amusing purely on the basis of checking out the graphical content.

Why did all of the schematic weapons suck relative to found ones? Shouldn't it be the other way around? And what's up with poison and fire being a DOT? It becomes absolutely irrelevant when the mob is dead from headshots two seconds later.

Also the music sucked.

 

[coyo7e]

Just as a response to the bit in the review about the Replicated Man quest: Everyone involved in the quest is from the Commonwealth, which is some kind of advanced technological society. In addition, all of those members of the robot liberation front? [spoiler:effc5b21ce]They are ALL androids themselves, as well as the doctor who is looking for the escaped droid, and the doctor's bodyguard. The only humans in the quest are the random people owning holotapes, and Piinkerton.[/spoiler:effc5b21ce]

 

[Sander]

Sorry VDweller.

I had been reading off and on some of the reviews on this site and they made me irate. After seeing yours I decided it was time I established some of my points, though I tended to attack you as a reviewer more often than not. I don't mean any ill will towards you as I don't know you as a person.

I'm not trying to change your mind so much as offer an alternative to the readers who read your review. It seems that with Bethesda it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation in regards to Fallout. Some people are asking for the game to evolve the Fallout franchise, and others are threatening that if it doesn't stay the same they'll hold a personal vendetta against Bethesda.

The reason most of my arguments are based on Fallout 2 is because I preferred Fallout 2 over 1. According to one commenter you feel the opposite, and based on that I can understand where you're disappointed in Fallout 3. I'm personally glad that they took after 2, as it's my favorite game of the series, but if someone liked Fallout Tactics more than any of the others and somehow hoped that Fallout 3 was going to be like Tactics, it's understandable they'd be upset.

You know what the really, *really* funny thing here is?
Bethesda attempted to make the game as much like Fallout and less like Fallout 2.

But besides that, Fallout 2 is largely lauded for its gameplay, but lambasted for its bugs and setting inconsistencies around here. We're not hypocritical for bashing Fallout 3's setting inconsistencies, because we do the exact same thing with Fallout 2.
The thing is, we've done that for 10 years, it gets repetitive rather quickly.

Basically, people are holding up Fallout as the standard, not Fallout 2, excepting the scope of the second game.

As far as towns are considered, this is where I feel Bethesda tried to "Evolve" the series. I suppose they could've copy and pasted Arefu ten times and called it Junktown, but I'm glad they went with Tenpenny Tower instead.

That's a nice strawman and a false dichotomy right there. No one is clamoring for copy-pasted shacks, but the cities and towns are largely absent from this game. Rivet City and Megaton can be rightfully called towns, but not much else can.

In Fallout and Fallout 2 they served as hotspots of activity and life, with vast, empty wasteland surrounding these towns.

In Fallout 3, there is no vast empty wasteland, everything is within half an hour walking distance (admittedly an abstraction), and the wasteland surrounding the total of three or four towns is filled to the brim with activity. This is a major departure in tone from the previous games.

Also, your elitist attitude of "I'm a real fan" is pretty hilarious when you consider that you're on the oldest and biggest Fallout fansite on the website, and the people running it don't take any profit off of it. What, we're nor real fans because we don't think Fallout 3 takes after Fallout, even though we can objectively prove that it doesn't?
I also don't get why you think that throwing around the claim of piracy and 'you never played the original games', both of which are completely unfounded (and the second is easily disproved if you look at VDwellers track record) is a good idea.

 

[Eyenixon]

I believe it would be helpful to add, Sander, that Fallout 1 and 2 are focused upon the towns themselves, the largest majority of quests take place within them, nearby them, and deal with their inhabitants.
The bulk of Fallout 3's content is given to exploratory activities and the environment of the wasteland itself, which you mentioned in your post.
I do believe that if Bethesda had retained the original vision of Fallout's design they would have had far more elaborate settlements with fleshed out inhabitants, however, Bethesda resorted to past experience and merely staid their belief in free roaming games with little to no regard towards the preservation of Fallout's atmosphere in conjunction with its themes of society's vice and virtue in the rebuilding of a broken world - humorous dark irony saturating the whole to provide contrast for the world that is to what it once was.

Verum, I would not accuse anyone if hypocrisy if you cannot realize that Fallout's evolution is an impossible course of events under the hands of Bethesda. They have proven that they cannot extend beyond their own tired formula.
Since Arena, their games have presented the same themes, gameplay, design, and most reprehensibly, their inability to correct flaws that have existed since the early nineties.

Before Fallout can evolve, Bethesda must do so themselves, otherwise, Fallout will merely change, only as a morphism to a formula just as ancient, as has been mentioned in a previous thread in the Fallout 3 General Discussion forum, I believe that by Sander as well.

 

[paxter]

my opinion, even though i havent played the game yet

lol... find that funny....


i think too many people are getting too worked up, on something lets face it u dont have the power to change. Its done... fallout 3 is out u may like it or you dont. Black isle is dead... they(interplay) sold off their IP to a bidder which i seriously think was a bargain for bethesda.

I do need to stress a few things, the silly-ness is very welcoming for me, it seriously does not need to be dead serious all the time. And mind u the flying teddy bears, well its a trash launcher, i find it kinda fun to use... throw a toaster, mini nuke, gnomes... great when u run out of ammo which happens alot even when u use vats all the time.

I agree, the 200years bit was a bit too much, It kinda made the game very unrealistic. I prefer if the dev. Did not set a time, or at least around the same time as fallout 1 considering its not related(story wise) to the prev 2 franchise. It prob will reduce the QQiers/haters who are thinking all too logical...(its a game u know...)

I have a small theory why the mobs are all over the place and the hovels are well shit holes in a hole.... unlike the older fallouts where u were traveling like from san fran to L.A this game is only in Washington DC. area, your pretty much more sand boxed then the perv 2.

I think, its just me but i do think its logical that the mobs are everywhere... The city is destroyed, there isnt a real town and no real inforcement... BoS is tied up with their fight with the mutants... that makes a whole city a playground for crooks, and murderers to wonder and terrorize what remains of the civilian pop. It is logical in that sense that what is left of the civilian pop will cower in small communities. If you were in a city like say LA with no government or law inforcement for say 10years... try walking 6 blocks...

I think if you wana "try" to enjoy this game. Put "whatever u exp in fallout 1,2 where it belongs in fallout 1,2" this is a diff game. bethesda DID say this is a diff game... I love fallout 1,2 this isnt the same game as the prev 2 bethesda said it isnt so!... once u get pass that u realize this game has its pro and cons... But it is still enjoyable...

Also 10 years ago the ruling for computer games are not as strict as it is today... Fallout 3 nearly did not made it on the shelves in australia, due to its drug inf. Etc yes you may argue this game is for mature players... but there is no way to enforce that kind of ruling. The tone down drug usage, killing children etc, is more an legal issue than the developers "changing things". When i mean a BIG "WHEN" interplay ever start on their mmo they will have more constraints than F3 has now... and the same ppl will qq about that as well....

On the look, i prefer this first person view than the old isometric view... I guess that is more of a personal prefrence but the FP view does bring out the world better, compared to the old iso metric view... Even in the updated Black isle Van Buren one it kinda look pretty obvious, that black isle was dying it really looked like they took the old buildings and trace map them in 3d.

To date my fav moment in F3 is at minefield when i was genuine suspense ride finding the damn sniper... The First person view really does put you into fallout world, better than the prev 2. The modding tools are coming soon. I do see the community making changes to adept what they think is missing and making it better.

BTW where else will u genuinely panic when u see a death claw comes charging at you, leap and bitch slap you in full hd detail... That is something no isometric view will ever be able to replicate...

 

[paxter]

i so know i am going to get flamed... anyway that is my opinion... Sorry if the english is a bit bad. English isnt my first language

 

[Pope Viper]

No you're going to get reprimanded for double posting.

Don't do it.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

I think if you wana "try" to enjoy this game. Put "whatever u exp in fallout 1,2 where it belongs in fallout 1,2" this is a diff game. bethesda DID say this is a diff game... I love fallout 1,2 this isnt the same game as the prev 2 bethesda said it isnt so!... once u get pass that u realize this game has its pro and cons... But it is still enjoyable...

They billed it as a sequel and defended it as a sequel and they did not want their game to be labeled as a spinoff and have said as much repeatedly, thus, comparisons to previous games in the franchise are natural and required. Comparisons to previous games yield very poor results for Fallout 3 as a Fallout game.

Also 10 years ago the ruling for computer games are not as strict as it is today... Fallout 3 nearly did not made it on the shelves in australia, due to its drug inf. Etc yes you may argue this game is for mature players... but there is no way to enforce that kind of ruling. The tone down drug usage, killing children etc, is more an legal issue than the developers "changing things". When i mean a BIG "WHEN" interplay ever start on their mmo they will have more constraints than F3 has now... and the same {It's "people". You can write legibly. Don't bother crying about it.} will qq about that as well....

Wrong. Fallout had no killable children in Britain and Germany and I'm sure the gore was all but removed in Germany. Fallout 3 had a single drug with a real-world name, likely for the entire purpose of creating a controversy in countries like Australia, but having mortal children would likely not have resulted in an AO rating with ESRB and would likely have to be changed in Britain and Germany (and possibly Australia) as the first two were.

 

[jero cvmi]

my opinion, even though i havent played the game yet

lol... find that funny....

yes, sometimes reading the fine manual saves you money.

if i want to ride a bike, i dont have to buy a tricycle in order to say
that i dont like tricycles .

the silly-ness is very welcoming for me

yes thats what i said. different people find different things funny.

I think if you wana "try" to enjoy this game.

oh i havent completely rejected it yet. i'm just waiting for the nma-approved mod collection. most of my gameplay issues (SPECIAL, etc.) have already been resolved by modders.
by then, i may even have a descent PC, and i might look into modding it, if all my issues havent been resolved yet. too bad there's little to be done about the childish storyline.

until then, i have other RPGs to play. without nukular cars of doom. and optimus eh... liberty prime.

Also 10 years ago the ruling for computer games are not as strict as it is today...

yes, thats one of the reasons why modders have to do all the work to get a descent mature game.

On the look, i prefer this first person view than the old isometric view...

ok. but if you could at least see your crosshair from 3rd person, i feel that it would be so much better for the rest of us who dont.

BTW where else will u genuinely panic when u see a death claw comes charging at you, leap and bitch slap you in full hd detail... That is something no isometric view will ever be able to replicate...

i dont know, i kind of panicked when i first encountered the deathclaw in fallout 1. it must have been all those people in the hub telling me how dreadful it is. damn words, they can freak out people. no wonder why bethesda cut down on them.

and my first language isnt english either, so no problem. however i try to read before i lol.

 

[Davis962]

I'd just like to give the reviewer a big thumbs up, he deserves it. You expose that 3 headed abomination for what it is, use the power of the internet to spread the gospel truth to the masses! Sure no one will isten to you, and even now your being ridiculed (spelled that wrong) by the mindless consumers who gobbled up this black souless garbage, but it makes my heart smile to know that all of us that cherish the first two fallouts as the masterpieces that they were have a champion out there kicking patootie on the net. Bravo.

 

[wanderer_]

Good rewiev.
I agree like someone have said before if they did not had "called it" fallout 3 it would make more sense.
I was kinda disappointed(not a biggie but yes i liked the car in fao2 ) that you couldn't drive one of those nice looking motorcycles ore a vehicle of some kind(vertibird!!)..Saw plenty in fine condition lying around
(not to mention all those motorcycle parts used in creation of weapons))
I think they got to artsy and to much 50s in fallout 3(bioshock anyone?)
In a sense that didn't fit the fallout universe(imo).
From what i've seen in fao 1 +2 this is way tomuch.
The enclave mainbase in fallout 3 was big disappointment
It felt to easy.I did infact enjoy the excitement of getting the tanker in fao2 to start working and to see the platform.But in fallout 3 it was like where was the barracks,where was the people in ravenrock?It felt more like an outpost then a stronghold 4 the enclave .
Since fallout 3 was based on the cutyruins of Washingthon i expected it to be more intens and more feeling you where in a actual city but the metroes and heavily instanced city kinda ruins that for me.
And the cities/tradehubs where non existent just shacks ore a tanker like river city who are a bad clone of the tanker in fallout 2.
Pff the tanker in fao2 can at least move

 

[emutant]

sry but the rewiev sounds like it had been written by somebody who wants to kill bethesda for making fallout 3 xD
i played only FO1 and FO3 ( tactics also ... but u know)
i like fallout 3 because it is so odd ... i love it when a behemoth gets killed by a teddy


the only think i hate about it is that i does not support mods for ps3 and there is no console ,so u can let deathclaws destroy megaton ^^


oh and i forgot the dlcs but who cares

the game is at the beginning ( when played on hard) hard but in the end u have almost unlimited ammo and stimpacks but u never have enough money XD i have almost all weapon but only 200 caps

sry for spelling mistakes or grammar mistakes XD ....

 

[Arnik]

I honestly just got sick of seeing all these people that hate Fallout 3 so here is my two cents.

Fallout 3 is NOT anything like the previous Fallout's. I haven't played them because quite frankly, I grew up with modern video games with lots of action (I'm thirteen) and those kind of "adventure" games don't appeal to me. So there's my one and only bias.

However, die hard Fallout fans should have seen this coming. Gaming isn't the same as it was in '00 era. It has evolved (for the better in most peoples eyes). Bethesda bought the franchise, and so they do not have to make another text and exploration game like Fallout 1, 2 etc. Bethesda created a game the current gaming population would love. Proof: Fallout 3 sold more copies in it's first week than all other Fallout games. Sure some of that had to do with hype, and Bethesda creating it, but the game itself is the main reason why that happened.

The gameplay is generally more captivating, interesting and exciting compared to the previous Fallouts. All those things that you guys are putting down such as:
-Abundance of computers
-Cars/vehicles
-"Crowded" environment
etc. etc.
enhance the game greatly. It makes it more interesting. I think all the computer logs and holotapes are captivatingly interesting. It develops all these mini stories. Who doesn't love nuclear apocalyptic stories? The cars, if made like the Ford Nucleon (Game car based off of that concept car), would in fact blow up. Look it up, the reactors wouldn't "wear down". I love the random encounters and the "crowded environment" as do all of my friends. It continuously gives us something to do in between destinations. Some of them are even interesting like the mysterious stranger visits, and useful like encountering a trade caravan.

Basically what I'm trying to say is this game is a great example of what single player games like RPGs are coming to. Fun, exciting games. The previous ones were dependent on the players interest in the story line FO3 is nothing like that. Hell I didn't start the "Take it back" quest until like 30 hours of gameplay, and you can complete the main story line in like 6 hours at level 10. (I was at lvl. 18)

Generally, the general public likes this game. It is the previous Fallout fans (like you guys) that are disappointed. BUT I agree with you, compared to those the story line took a beating. But the gameplay makes up for it.

And disagree if you want, hate Bethesda, hate me, but there won't be another old style game that does well, it is outdated.

Oh and btw, F03 wouldn't have been made anytime soon if it weren't for Bethesda, so be thankful, it did bring your sites popularity up quite a bit

haha have a good day, and TRY to have fun playing FO3

 

[Brother None]

Ugh, ok, so you don't have any factual knowledge of the franchise at all, and thus you are completely incapable of grasping our complaints vis-a-vis Fallout 3 as a Fallout game, you obviously have not bothered to read up on earlier arguments, and then you register to lecture us?

Hell, you're throwing up one of the worst defenses of Fallout 3 I've ever seen. Hell, I don't see any defense of Fallout 3 at all, beyond "you can avoid the story yay!" and "it's got action yay!"

There's not much to argue here. If you really are interested in our opinion, read up and try playing the originals. If you're not, why did you register to make this post?

 

[Arnik]

I did. I read like 3/4 of this thread, and plenty of reviews and videos on previous Fallout games (I even downloaded the tech demo for Van Buren which gave me a good sense of what Fallout 1, 2 and tactics are like)

And I do understand your side, it wasn't anything like the previous games and the story line took a shit. I agree.

But what ever I don't really want to argue just to put out my opinion and point.

 

[Lexx]

(I even downloaded the tech demo for Van Buren which gave me a good sense of what Fallout 1, 2 and tactics are like)

No.

This says all anyway:

I haven't played them [Fo1 and 2]

The gameplay [of Fallout 3] is generally more captivating, interesting and exciting compared to the previous Fallouts.

You never played the games, still you say what exactly Fallout 3 makes better in your opinion.

It's like I would say that the new doctor who is 200% better than the old ones even if I never saw the old ones. It is just stupid.