kikomiko said:
I don't think bad animations and "out of date" graphics are enough to lower a game's score to a 7 or 8. First of all, I have read several reviews/previews that have greatly complimented the graphics and the art style, and going by what I've seen, I would have to agree with them. But, that's beside the point. Fallout 3 has a great story, an immense world, a good combat system, moral dilemmas, interesting characters, and infinite replayabilty, so I think that's enough for a game to get a 9-10 score. BTW, when Fallout 1 and 2 came out, I don't believe they were the most visually advanced games of their times.
OK, you're just a really happy person aren't you? lol... Actually, I have been very middle ground when it comes to this game. I am both looking forward to it and disappointed at the same time. The comment above about the crappy animations, etc. (even though I agree with that part) was really just a humorous look on someone thinking it's a poor game but automatically giving in a 9 or 10.
As for your outlook versus mine, I am still somewhat optimistic, but you're
really optimistic. Of course, that's fine as long as you enjoy it, but still... I would be more forgiving if let's say there are just a few stupid perks, or maybe some enemies look bad, or some of the story is a mess, but animations and stuff like that is what you have to look at THE WHOLE GAME. It's not something you can pretend is not there, cause you're constantly seeing it. You shouldn't have to transport your animation expectations 10 years just so you can enjoy the other stuff. I mean, they don't even look as good as the original Killzone on PS2 or Black. (which are still great) There have been whole games (ESPECIALLY FPS games) I didn't play because of animations, cause it's about immersion. When I run, I don't glide, and when I swing a machete, I don't look like Mr. Roboto.
Just like in the old 2D days, a version of Street Fighter might look like real life, but if everyone has 3 frames of animation per move, it takes away from the hard work put into the actual art.
So...in that regard, I wholly agree with you that the styling and artwork, etc. is very well done, but again, poor animations take away from that. (including the dialogs) If that doesn't bother you, well, then that's your positive. As for everything else; there just seems to be a handful of stuff thrown about that is constantly taking away from the good, and I also agree there IS a lot of good. I don't think it's all major, which is why I'd still give it a 7.5 or 8, (which is certainly not a bad score) but I think it's enough to drop that 9. If the A.I. is weird, that will also hurt it.
Anyway...I do have to play it myself, but I base games solely on replayability and freedom these days. (I don't like linear anymore, except in rare cases) Everyone gave GTA IV a 10, and it wasn't to me, cause after my initial couple weeks of "OMG!!! Cool!!!" I realized that half the stuff that has been there since GTA III was missing, (excluding bugs) cutting the replayability by a ton. So yeah, it's a great game but it's full of lazy stuff right next to the beauty. (part of why it IS good and replayable as it is, is
because of the animations/effects/physics BTW and hardly anything else) So...Fallout 3 may well be a great game, but it's about achieving past that initial shock of "wow."
A few 9's and 10's on my list are Manhunt 1, Bully, Killzone, Silent Hill 2, Way of the Samurai and probably a couple others, cause I could constantly go back a year later and enjoy them. GTA IV is like an 7 or 8, and that's not because of after story content, it's because the graphics along with shooting stuff and blowing up stuff is still fun (to a point) and that's not good for your whole game to end up relying on that. (unless there is a POINT to it) Fallout 3 is already going to struggle with that department, so unless the core game is absolutely amazing...it's a 7 or 8 in my book. (note: I do hold sandbox games to a different/higher standard than most I.e. the hard stance on replay value)
As for FO1 and 2, yeah, they looked fairly simple, but it was done in a completely different way. It's held to a different set of standards. Because of that style, I can even go back and play it today and still enjoy it. (it was great for an old school RPG) It wasn't an FPS or anything. If it was, I probably would have never touched it again. Tactics was about as smooth as you could get for that style and I think it still looks pretty good. In other words, if FO3 was done in the old perspective, it'd be among the top games ever made with that view; (like Champions of Norrath, LOTR: B4ME2 or Warhammer: Dawn of War) but in this perspective, it's open to more criticism because of other games it's trying to compete with such as something like Far Cry 2.
Ugh, anyway, sorry for the long post. Hope I made sense.
