Fallout 3 reviews round-up #3

Per

Vault Consort
Staff member
Admin
Giant Bomb. 4/5<blockquote>You know, let's just break it down up top. Fallout 3 takes the base level action of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, changes the setting from knights-and-wizards fantasy to mutants-and-raiders post-apocalyptic Washington DC, sprinkles on a handful of systems and references that are designed to remind you of the previous Fallout games, and sends you on your way. It's successful at giving you meaningful moral choices that, in a lot of cases, reshape the game pretty dramatically. But at the same time, by trying to be a wide-open game that accounts for multiple play styles, you really notice it when you bump up against the technical and storytelling limitations of the game and its narrative structure.

You may have heard the talk from the developers about how the game has "hundreds" of endings. But the ending is comprised of brief static images and some bits of voiceover that detail what you did over the course of the adventure, and it sort of poorly stitches these moments together to form a stilted, jerky look at a few of the key things you did over the course of the game.</blockquote>Gamer.no (snippet translated by ericjones). 9/10<blockquote>This is not the first time Bethesda delivers a phenomenal RPG. What is truly admirable is how they have managed to capture the atmosphere and feeling of the original Fallout games. They have done the impossible by creating a sequel to some of the most recognized games in gaming history and still land on their feet. Yes, Fallout 2 may have been deeper and more strategically demanding, but Fallout 3 sucks you in and really holds you there. The sum of story, challenge, graphics and audio equals a fantastic atmosphere. This just has to be experienced. Be prepared for blood, tears, deceit, proud moments, defeats, bitter power struggles and innocent victims. Because war, war never changes.</blockquote>Finally, here's the PC Gamer Sweden review that we covered before, now online, but still in Swedish.

Thanks to Jabu.
 
Yes, Fallout 3 may have been deeper and more strategically demanding, but Fallout 3 sucks you in and really holds you there
Does it mean Van Buren as the first Fallout three? Kinda confusing...
 
Pope Viper said:
I knew their "hundreds endings" was total BS, and would be poorly implemented.

Everyone knew it was going to be slides, I just thought it was funny that someone had still not realized this and believed there'd be 200 individual endings.

TheRatKing said:
Yes, Fallout 3 may have been deeper and more strategically demanding, but Fallout 3 sucks you in and really holds you there
Does it mean Van Buren as the first Fallout three? Kinda confusing...

That should have been "2", error in the transcription.
 
Gamer.no said:
What is truly admirable is how they have managed to capture the atmosphere and feeling of the original Fallout games.

Who are they selling this bullshit to? We know it's not even close to it, and the public in general couldn't give less of a shit about faithfulness to games they never played. It's a less obvious lie than the ones being spread about the "awesome" graphics, but it boggles the mind because there's simply no point to it.

Pope Viper said:
I doubt we'll see anything below an 8-8.5

We'll probably not see a score that "low" at all. Gamespot also gave it a 9.0, I think the lowest so far was 8.8, so meh.
 
Yes, supposed to be "Fallout 2" in that snippet. Thanks for fixing that, Per.

Anyway, according to reviewers the game is close to perfect, but not perfect. This yields scores that's "max score - 1". So, In the case of those having a scale 1-5, it gets 4 (80%), in the case of 1-6, a 5 (83%) and 1-10, it gets the much coveted 9 (90%). Pretty ridiculous that the scoring scale has so much to say. But if it only deserves 80% on the 1-5 scale, how can you then justify 90% elsewhere? I believe score inflation is to blame, and far too many games get 8/10 nowadays (meaning that a game, which may be marginally better in the same reviewer's eyes will get the 9, no matter what).

edit: The Giant Bomb review is decent enough. At least they have the brains not to compare it to the prequels and rather treat it like "just another game"/Oblivion with guns.
 
It really trumps the notion of using a number to describe a game. Really, a game should be either good or bad, how do you 'measure' the quality in any sort of objective manner?

Oh, wait, you don't - that's why we're getting 8's and 9's.

I'm looking forward to getting some honest reviews - the type that stay away from numbers (Yahtzee).
 
Atomic Cowboy said:
It really trumps the notion of using a number to describe a game. Really, a game should be either good or bad, how do you 'measure' the quality in any sort of objective manner?

Oh, wait, you don't - that's why we're getting 8's and 9's.

I'm looking forward to getting some honest reviews - the type that stay away from numbers (Yahtzee).

Ok ok, here's my reviews of some of the more prominent games released recently. Fable II: NO STORY, BAD! NOOO! Resistance 2: BAD MONSTERS! SCARY! NOOO! MGS4: MOOOVIE...OOOOO!

Seriously though...

The kind of person who differentiates between 9.0 and 9.3 should fault himself for being so over-analytical. This is why EGM went to a letter grade system. As they themselves explained, the number system wasn't bad, but they got fed up with people bickering over a tenth of a point when it had no real meaning.
 
Sicblades said:
I should stop reading these I'm starting to get depressed.

Yeah, I would be too if a game got high scores. Why couldn't they rate it lower?! I curse them all for not giving it a 1/10!

This reminds me of when Super Mario Galaxy came out and garnered one of the highest average scores for any game ever. I personally wrote Nintendo scolding them for not dumbing down the graphics, screwing with the camera, and botching the controls so that the game could receive below average scores.

Nintendo has this bad habit of releasing games that get high reviews. It's why I hate them so much. Sponge Bob Squarepants, the Game FTW!
 
Stop trolling, and don't double post. There's an edit button for a reason.

Here's a hint: no one cares if a good game gets good reviews. This game does not seem as good to deserve such high ratings to most of us. Going 'OMG you hate high ratings' is nothing but trolling.
 
Sander said:
Stop trolling, and don't double post. There's an edit button for a reason.

Here's a hint: no one cares if a good game gets good reviews. This game does not seem as good to deserve such high ratings to most of us. Going 'OMG you hate high ratings' is nothing but trolling.

I'm sorry about the double post. I couldn't figure out how to quote within a post that I had already made. Didn't mean to clutter up the thread or anything.

I was poking fun at him for sounding like he was depressed *because it got high scores*. The reviewers were heaping praise on the game and he comments with "I feel depressed". The logical alternative would be if the game had so many flaws that every reviewer just trashed the game then he would feel good. So I was parodying that idea. It was all in good fun.

I don't care what anyone else here or elsewhere thinks of reviews or reviewers. I make my own judgments.
 
Back
Top