Fallout 3 reviews round-up #20

Per

Per

Vault Consort
Staff member
Admin
Gamer 2.0, 9.6.<blockquote>While you look for your father you will encounter one of the most fully realized worlds ever seen in a video game, something Bethesda touted heavily prior to release and certainly delivered. Grand Theft Auto IV had a great representation of New York City and Midnight Club: Los Angeles gave LA its due, but Fallout 3 gives D.C. much more. Vault 101 doesn’t initially set you up too well for what to expect in the Wasteland. But once you emerge from the vault, you will have no choice but to sit there and stare in awe at the barrenness of what is laid out in front of you.</blockquote>Gry-Online, 91%.<blockquote>So looks true Fallout of our time. The classical realized license „along contemporary” not only in the sense oprawy, but above all with regard to the structure. Many was the Sceptics of idea „Obliviona with giwerami”, chick, I was among them. Led team through Todda Howarda carried out however lesson from the faults of last production, but at the same time ideal introduced into a composition in this all elements stricte falloutowe. This one from niewielu this year's games, which really until they ask about the repeated once or twice completion. Offers *swobodę działania* in this conservative, classical understanding - from the point of view „ending of 2008” is simply oldschoolowa. Does not have already market for the games such how preceding Fallouty. Let us create market for Fallouta 3.</blockquote>geek.com.<blockquote>Fallout 3 is unique and brilliant from the start. Rather than the typical flashy epic intro, Fallout presents a somber, haunting foray into the experience. It’s still graphically impressive, but it’s more subtle in its manipulation rather than the deluge of sensory input that usually accompanies the opening cinematics of games. This beginning is fitting, for it marks the first thing you’ll notice that is wonderfully unique about this game that dares to do things differently.

It plays a lot like the typical Bioware or Bethesda RPG as you would expect, and doesn’t attempt to reinvent the wheel.</blockquote>WonderwallWeb, 9.9 (be sure to check out the scoreboard).<blockquote>As you are no doubt aware this game is developed by Bethesda Softworks, the same people that gave us Oblivion, and there are plenty of similarities to that game. The way you interact, move about and the feel of the game is identical, which is no bad thing, and while Oblivion was a great game, this betters it. The post apocalyptic feel and the story that drives the main adventure really makes you want to explore. The people you talk to throughout the game all have some great personalities and top HD graphics to help them along with their amazingly accurate lip-syncing</blockquote>Horror-Movies, 9/10.<blockquote>As far as the gameplay goes it is quite different from the first 2 Fallout games. I have been playing in First Person as if it is a shooter. You can however play it in Third person which is quite similar to the original games other then visually being far superior.

I think that Fallout 3 is far superior to Bioshock in every aspect and easily the best game that I have played so far this year. I am not sure how far into the game I am but I have been playing for a whole day and still have tons of missions to complete and the world is hardly even explored yet. Fans of the original games will love this game and I think fans of great apocalyptic tales will be hooked on this game! A must buy !</blockquote>Free Swim blog.<blockquote>I waited for the raider to walk past me, then jumped out -- but kicked over a bottle, and that raider whipped around, along with a second raider I hadn't even noticed. This second raider was a woman, and she was right behind me. Using VATS I targeted her head once (since she had a tire iron as a weapon) and then targeted the chest of the original raider three times.

Go buy Fallout 3 now, and get started -- the game combines sneaking, an open environment that is visually spectacular, character customization and creation that is incredibly detailed, problem-solving, and very hardcore action. If you're a fan of the earlier games you will not be disappointed -- if you've never played any other Fallout game, this is the one to get. You do not need to have played the other games.</blockquote>ABC Television video review (thanks Lichbane), 8.5/10 and 9.5/10.<blockquote>Reviewer #1: This is Oblivion with pew-pew lasers and giant cockroaches and I'm loving it.

Reviewer #2: Yes, there's nothing like an old-school RPG with old-school dialogue trees and gear collection to while away the hours.</blockquote>
 
Per. Dude.

Dude.


Anyways, more of the same it seems. The bit from the Free Swim blog reminded me - it was nice that people would now react when you run into things (remarks such as "Hey! Watch it!"), or when you eyeball something that isn't yours. Then again, it got pretty annoying that every time you'd just happen to glace over a cash register or locker for a split second, someone would say "Hey, mess with that we'll have a problem!" or similar.
 
After 45 hours and half of the main quest in the game, I honestly say I love it. And I want Bethesda's new game to be Fallout 4, not TES V. It is not perfect, but its definitely the best game I played this year (and will play) and its definitely worth the Fallout name.

Some dialogues and apparel giving stat bonuses quite suck, though.Animations do too.

As far as lore goes, there will probably be a lot of problems, but since I am no Fallout wikipedia, I have not noticed any.
 
This applies for the majority of reviews really, but how difficult is it to pick up simple flaws in the mechanics and fundamentals of a game?

There are some obvious problems that should at least add up to more than one or no negatives on their rating scale.
 
Leon said:
Then again, it got pretty annoying that every time you'd just happen to glace over a cash register or locker for a split second, someone would say "Hey, mess with that we'll have a problem!" or similar.
Click to expand...
The weirdness doesn't stop there, though. You'll get such comments from people, but then they'll greet you in a friendly tone, even after you've emptied a whole magazine into the wall behind him, tracing his outline with millimeter accuracy. As long as you don't actually hit them, they won't even bat an eyelid.

Immersion - what Bethesda does best.
 
I can't but remember the respect and satisfaction I felt in STALKER when I found that other stalkers simply refused to talk to you until you holster your weapon. Seems extremely logical. I don't remember what happened if you shot at their general direction. I remember shooting till I got tired my "daddy" in the back and face in the vault to absolutely no effect, but a mildly annoying remark. The game has so many shortcomings in the so-very-much-overhyped area of immersion, that it could fill a book.
And it still feels like I am playing morrowind with guns! ( I never got the nerve for oblivion)
 
i wonder what ALL of those "reviewers" were smoking when writing their praises... thats
because fallout 3 blows - and badly. forced-upon "quests" to find your stupid father,
forced-upon dialoge which is, compared to the previous titles extremely boring and
stupid and lets not forget the ending which stops the game so you cant (and even oblivion
was better in that aspect) continue the game for all those annoying side-missions
(which where laid out on the map so stupidly i never even got ONE while playing the
first time around).

its safe to say this "game" is such a failure, i even had more fun with oblivion
and its mediocre fantasy setting. but this one, my my my. they only made pretty
graphics and forgot to put a story and a game in there. and even if they had,
it would be just dumb ass oblivion engine - with guns.
my advice: dont waste your time and nerves with this abomination...

score rating: 1/10 (1 point for pwetty graphics, thats it)

now THATS a honest review i would like to see!
----------------------------------------------

edit: spellcheck
 
Roflcore said:
I will pay real money for the first review that gives the game a good low score.
Click to expand...

What, like a legitimately bad review where the reviewer gives it a terrible score because they think it is bad? It isn't bad, at worst it is above average.

What would your criteria be for a bad score? below 6? I love the game, and would give it an 8 or so. Probably an 8.6. Am I marginally disappointed? Maybe a little, but only because I was hoping for a little more of the Fallout style dialogue options.

It would have been nice to have an almost entirely non-combat path for the game. As it is, you really MUST be able to fight, which was not necessary in FO1 and 2.

Phil
 
7 is likely the lowest this game should hit.

It doesn't deserve any 10s either, tho'. So if there's a bunch of loonies out there giving it 9s and 10s it doesn't deserve, it's not that odd that people are wishing for some counter-loonies to stand up with some out there 5s or 6s, even though it's a clearcut 7s-8s game.
 
Well, I would say it could brush the 9 level, if that is what people are looking for. Admittedly, I thought people were being a bit too vicious on these boards concerning the perceived awfulness of the game. I can see some people disliking it, but the game is an 8 at worst.

That said, there is some really strange reviews coming out for it. It isn't a 9.5+ game. No game is. I really, REALLY like Daggerfall, Morrowind (especially), and Oblivion, so I may be the target audience. I don't think they were as good as Fallout for its time, but they were all top shelf games. argueing this is not is foolish and biased.

Perhaps the height of the top shelf has just gone down a little.
 
perhaps we should judge a game based on the actual elements of it instead of applying arbitrary rating numbers to it, none of which are less than 5 if the game can be completed without a major error causing it to crash, and all of which are over 7 if the game is better than the tripe we've seen hit the shelves this year.

Perhaps if the game is sold as an RPG, we should grade it on the amount and quality of it's RPG elements and actually mention them in a review. like so:

Lets see.. It has stats, but they aren't really useful or applicable in most cases because 90% of the game entails using only one skill and the occasional perception stat check to see if something should magically pop up on your compass so you can shoot it.

It has quests, but they're often borrowed from other titles or books or movies, and not many of them are well executed.

It has choices, but there are no meaningful consequences beyond getting what amounts to an evil object instead of a holy object as the quest reward depending on who gave you the quest and if you did or didn't do it.



This should not be so hard to understand. If you review the game you should actually mention things that you noticed about it that were good and bad, and perhaps base arguments about these elements on the genre that the game is attempting to portray.

Instead of a breakdown of how the game that they are reviewing actually is and how it stacks up to a real RPG, all we get are statements like "Go buy the game now" and "Fallout 3 is unique and brilliant from the start" without much of anything to back them up.
 
PhillyT said:
It isn't a 9.5+ game. No game is.
Click to expand...

I completely agree, and -- in addition -- I include Fallout and Fallout 2 my concurrence. I think we can be too quick to forget all of the problems the original series had when we look at it in hindsight through our rose-tinted glasses.

I think F3 improved a few of the series' less-interesting features. For example, addictive drugs. I never used jet, psycho, buffout, or mentats in the original games, because I never felt I had to use them (maybe mentats once or twice in F2 for a stat-check). In F3, I feel like I have to use drugs just to have a chance at survival sometimes.

Also, explosives (in my opinion) have been implemented much better in F3 than in the original games. I never used them in the originals, but I use them all of the time now.

Sneaking in F3 is better than in the original games, too; as is how the game deals with radiation.

This is all just my opinion, with which anyone is free to disagree but I would like to see people not just criticize the areas where the original Fallout was better (dialogue, probably; the endings, probably) but also recognize the original games' shortcomings and how Bethesda, in many ways, has improved the franchise.
 
whirlingdervish said:
It has quests, but they're often borrowed from other titles or books or movies, and not many of them are well executed.
Click to expand...

Well, thats about 90% of the quests in Fallout 1 and 2 also. They are all pulled from somewhere.

Your other points standthough. There needs to be more interaction like in Reno when people would yell your boxing name at you as you sprinted past.
 
I have to agree with PhillyT. The game is not a bad game. It's at worst it is above average and at best it's quite good.

The main criticism as I see it (at least from this site's point of view) is that game does not live up to the expectations of the NMA hardcore. But given the history of criticism, I doubt ANYTHING would.
 
Lichbane said:
The main criticism as I see it (at least from this site's point of view) is that game does not live up to the expectations of the NMA hardcore. But given the history of criticism, I doubt ANYTHING would.
Click to expand...

Not even an isometric, turn-based RPG with choice and consequence?
 
Brother None said:
7 is likely the lowest this game should hit.

It doesn't deserve any 10s either, tho'. So if there's a bunch of loonies out there giving it 9s and 10s it doesn't deserve, it's not that odd that people are wishing for some counter-loonies to stand up with some out there 5s or 6s, even though it's a clearcut 7s-8s game.
Click to expand...
Really? I think that there is plenty of justification for giving it a 5 or 6, I'd say that 5 is probably the lowest it deserves and 7 the highest, but the game is, at best, above average. There are enough problems and it's worse at everything it does other than exploration than competing games in respective areas (FPS, RPG, ARPG). The guy who gave it an 8 or a 9 based on it being an exploration game has been the only high scoring review that actually justified why it gave the game the score it did and mentioned many of the flaws. It's exploration gameplay is probably an 8 or a 9, certainly not a 10 because of how it blocks off areas and the tutorial but wandering is really what Beth games are about. In the three other areas I think it ends up being between a 4 and a 7 for each, averaging out to the 5-7 score I mentioned earlier.
 
Per said:
Lichbane said:
The main criticism as I see it (at least from this site's point of view) is that game does not live up to the expectations of the NMA hardcore. But given the history of criticism, I doubt ANYTHING would.
Click to expand...

Not even an isometric, turn-based RPG with choice and consequence?
Click to expand...
The '90s are gone. It's time to move on ... really. :wink:
 
Lichbane said:
The main criticism as I see it (at least from this site's point of view) is that game does not live up to the expectations of the NMA hardcore.
Click to expand...
No, the main criticism is that it fails to live up to the goals and core of Fallout as laid out by it's creators. As a stand alone game, many of the criticisms are the same that were for Oblivion (they really didn't fix much, if anything) plus VATS.

Lichbane said:
But given the history of criticism, I doubt ANYTHING would.
Click to expand...
:whatever: Which is why no one is looking forward to games that are going to be similar in gameplay to Fallout like AoD. :roll: Also note that NMA's preview from awhile back had a very positive reaction to the game, more so as a standalone than as a sequel but a positive reaction nonetheless.

Lichbane said:
The '90s are gone. It's time to move on ... really. :wink:
Click to expand...
What does any of those three things have to do with the '90's?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top