Fallout 3 reviews round-up #4

Brother None

This ghoul has seen it all
Orderite
This is what happens when you lift an embargo. GamingTrend 9.5/10.<blockquote>First person shooters are routinely the strength of the PC platform. There is no substitution for the mouse and keyboard interface, but as controllers have gotten more accurate, this advantage gap has certainly lessened. Fallout 3, at its base, looks like a first person shooter, but it really isn’t as simple as that. The turn based nature of the Fallout series meant that Bethesda Softworks had to build some sort of turn based system or they could lose the entirety of the old school Fallout fans. To that end, they have integrated something called the Vault Assisted Targeting System, or V.A.T.S. for short. The V.A.T.S. system is essentially the body part targeting system present in the previous titles, with a few differences. No longer can you target the groin or eyes, so you won’t be able to complete the entire game using eye shots and the BB gun. There are often specialized areas such as the combat inhibitor on robots, or the antennae on giant ants, but the face is your primary target for the vast majority of the game. When you start creating your own ambushes using landmines, you might switch that up to tear off the legs of your incoming enemies. I can certainly say that the V.A.T.S. system is not a get out jail free card, and once you start engaging multiple enemies you’ll find out why. You can split your attacks between multiple opponents, or different body parts, but once those action points are used, you’ll have to wait until they regenerate over time. You can use items to instantly regenerate your AP, but many of them have negative effects including radiation, or worse yet, addiction. </blockquote>GameDaily 8/10.<blockquote>Fallout 3 wasn't created as a firstperson shooter so V.A.T.S. is a balanced way to solve the game's lack of shooting accuracy. Most of the time, it's a great tool for eliminating threats but shooter fans may find the lack of accuracy frustrating at times -- especially when your character misses near point blank shots. V.A.T.S. also has an issue with your player is near corners or if there's an obstruction between you and the target -- when it indicates that you're likely to hit it, your character pops up and wastes ammo by shooting a rock, wall or other item. The other problem with V.A.T.S. is that weapon damage is listed as number values during combat; your target's health is represented by a list of red numberless lines. Unfortunately, with a limited amount of creatures in the Wasteland, the only real challenges are found when Super Mutants sport better weapons or several mole rats attack at once. </blockquote>Planet Xbox 360 9.8/10.<blockquote>Creating “Oblivion with guns” was no easy task. The developers answer to all the problems created was the innovate V.A.T.S. (Vaultek Assisted Targeting System, a way to have turn-based battles without the boredom. Basically Fallout 3 can be played through the entire game using only the first-person shooter style of gameplay, or by using V.A.T.S. players can really experience the game for everything it is. By clicking the RB button the game will freeze, zooming the camera in on your nearest enemy. Next you must choose what specific part of the body to target, each region being represented with a percentage of successful attack. The amount of times you can use V.A.T.S. is not unlimited and must be recharged before use in battle again. </blockquote>VideoGamer 9/10.<blockquote>These instances of Bethesda dropping the ball are certainly irritating, but the truth is that they will only really hurt hardcore Fallout fans. The use of the word "only" in that last sentence will probably put a few noses out of joint, but it's true: most people who play this won't care a bit - because they never played the original games in the first place. That will be of scant consolation to those of you unhappy with the direction Bethesda has taken, but perhaps you'll take comfort in the fact that the original classics are surely bound to receive new attention in the months following Fallout 3's release. Personally, I'm having a ball with this game. I've been playing it pretty much non-stop since our review copy arrived at the office, but I'm sure as hell not going to stop any time soon. There are elements here that are significantly altered from the first games - some pleasant, some not - but I ultimately find the game to be a good thing: it's a different experience, yet one with many familiar ingredients.</blockquote>Team Xbox 9.4/10.<blockquote>You’ll happen across pockets of humanity, mostly banded together against the numerous dangers in what’s become a true survival-of-the-fittest situation. Even if you find somewhat solid structures on their own, there’s a good chance you’ll have to fight with giant mutant bugs, “Super Mutant” humans and Wasteland raider squads before you can pillage for any goods left behind. Thankfully, items can be found nearly anything with a lid or a door, such as a mailbox, garbage can or dumpster. You’d better have a good supply for weapons and ammo, though, because the Wasteland is a survivalist’s nightmare. Red blips on your compass indicate when you’re close to a threat (or two or three or four…), and it’ll come in handy, especially if you can sneak up and get a critical first hit (or first critical hit) to tip the advantage to your side.</blockquote>Shacknews.<blockquote>Now, if I was looking for a reason to dock percentage points from a great game, I could pick out some flaws in Fallout 3. The stiff character animations that often lead to embarrassing mid-hallway collisions. The repetitious dungeons, in the form of the ghoul-infested metro tunnels.

But despite its flaws, the game more often surprised me with its polish. Every time I tried to creatively "break" Fallout 3, it defied me. When I jumped into a slave pen from above, trapping myself inside, a guard was triggered that opened the door from the outside before attacking me. When a quest took me deep into a dungeon, and then left me wandering all the way back out after completing it, the game interjected with a scripted sequence that whisked me off to another location--one of, if not the only time this happens in the game.</blockquote>Cheat Code Central 4/5.<blockquote>Outside of the fully realized, detailed world, the game's presentation suffers from an outdated engine: Gamebryo. The resolution is crisp and the landscapes are impressive; however, the unrealistic ragdoll physics during the V.A.T.S. animations, flat and generic textures, repetitive environments, and poor, emotionless facial expressions combine to make the visual experience decidedly less than stellar. The background music, radio function, and sound effects are all nicely captured, but the star-studded voice acting is fairly grating; the silly comments made during fights and the consistently inane conversations detract from the overall sense of accomplishment.</blockquote>GamePlasma 9.8/10.<blockquote>The only way to describe Fallout 3’s graphics is “jaw-dropping.” There are moments where you will find yourself completely infatuated with the terrain, detailed buildings and creatures. Seeing the Potomac Bridge in ruins or walking through Georgetown was a treat and was created in, what appears to be, painstaking detail. Every graphical element in Fallout 3 helps create the feeling that you are actually in a post-apocalyptic Washington D.C. and you must be weary of what lurks in the dark corners of the wastelands.</blockquote>Kikizo 9/10.<blockquote>Whilst Fallout 3 does suffer the same failings as Oblivion, and one can't help but think these could have been improved upon, it's easily forgiven when Oblivion was such a outstanding game to begin with. It brings with it the same awesome scope; the 30 hour or so main quest really is nothing compared to what the side quests and exploration have to offer. Every player who creates a character will find their own playing style and perks to carve a niche into the Super Mutant Behemoth's forehead. It is a game which successfully replaces fantasy for science fiction, managing to create a dissonant yet familiar and completely immersive world. </blockquote>GamingExcellence 9.5.<blockquote>One of the most talked about features in Fallout 3 is V.A.T.S. - the Vault-Tec Assisted Targeting System, and it's slick. During combat, V.A.T.S .allows you to freeze frame the action, and enter a targeting mode to queue up attacks on your foes. Given a certain number of action points, you’re provided hit percentages on different parts of their body, and once activated the game enters a slow-motion cinematic perspective that shows the debilitating hits in gruesome detail. If you enjoy gore and lots of it - this is where you’ll really have some fun. Once consumed, the action points will slowly replenish themselves. As such, V.A.T.S. really needs to be used sparingly to be most effective. Outside of V.A.T.S., the real-time combat system is solid, albeit less predictable in terms of damage delivered. Third-person combat is a bit of a mess, and the game does offer a few cheap tactics (like the ability to run backwards at full speed), but all in all the combat system works. Besides, you’ll never get tired of watching Super Mutants explode into a bloody pile of guts.</blockquote>GameFocus 9.8/10.<blockquote>Some gamers might say Fallout 3 is The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion with big booming guns and they will not exactly be wrong. The game feels like Oblivion in many ways, but it is so much more then just switching off swords for shotguns. It actually has some interesting gameplay additions which take it above and beyond the last Elder Scrolls game. </blockquote>
 
I think these articles show a pretty accurate general view of the gaming journalism today, which is gone and replaced with game ads, otherwise called reviews. :drunk:
 
Outside of the fully realized, detailed world, the game's presentation suffers from an outdated engine: Gamebryo. The resolution is crisp and the landscapes are impressive; however, the unrealistic ragdoll physics during the V.A.T.S. animations, flat and generic textures, repetitive environments, and poor, emotionless facial expressions combine to make the visual experience decidedly less than stellar. The background music, radio function, and sound effects are all nicely captured, but the star-studded voice acting is fairly grating; the silly comments made during fights and the consistently inane conversations detract from the overall sense of accomplishment.

Yet it got a 4/5.

Amazing.
 
I should really note one thing that'll probably shock those amongst you that don't follow the gaming industry as much as I do (for my work): the reviews for Fallout 3 aren't that high. They're high, but they're not exceptional. About as good as Fable II's reception, and Fable II has already moved into the second tier (second tier is when lower reviews start coming in). BioShock's PS3 port beat both these games according to MetaCritic, with 8 perfect scores vs Fallout 3's 4.

Good reception no doubt about it, but it's already averaging lower than Oblivion on MetaCritic and the second tier is far from hitting.

By the way, Mr Burke of GamingTrend (first review) will probably be reading this thread, so if you have any questions feel free to ask them. The GT people are good people, in my opinion.
 
Also note: I'm going to keep splitting all these childish personal attacks against journalists.

Criticize their professionalism. Argue specific points where the review is not making sense. Talk about the quality of journalism in the gaming media in general.

But I will keep removing "lol they are all whores" and "I'm surprised they can talk with Bethesda's cock in their mouths" type comments.
 
I don't read the reviews anymore, and haven't for a while. I have the game now and I'll make my own opinions.

And in general it seems that most of the complaints are true BUT it hasn't kept me from enjoying the game...
 
ArmorB said:
I don't read the reviews anymore, and haven't for a while. I have the game now and I'll make my own opinions.

Reviews generally should serve the purpose of helping you decide on a potential difference. Nobody wants a cat in a bag. But nowadays (did you read the Eurogamer one?!) they tend to offer little trustworthy guidance.

I'm guessing the game's not a complete piece of turd, those millions must have gone somewhere, but far from as perfect as the reviews make it out to be.
 
I just want to know if the game is broken and unplayable.

Hence how I bring up Driver 2. that game was broken and unplayable. Nothing like taking 15 tries on mission and get near the ned only to have the damn street disapear and you drown. reapt that 23489 times in the game and you have Driver 2.

Reviewers said RoadKill sucked....I thought it was a enjoyble game and have beat it around 22 times.
 
I'd be intersted in knowing how it stands up to other games that have come out this year. Ignoring the namesake and the 'travesty' of what Beth did to the series. But as it's own independant game how does it compair/review to other games released this year? Are the reviews just as 'crooked/jaded" for other games? And do their scores seem to be on a similar scale or or ar more popular/better games scoring equally or lower?
 
Well you used Fable II, Bioshock PS3 port (which I don't have any idea when it came out) and Oblivion. I was looking for a wider/current group.

I don't follow most of the gaming stuff but I figure there must have been 5-10 biggish titles that came out this year, but to be honest I have no idea.

EDIT: because it goes back to the whole "best piece of poop in the pile", type of thing. I wonder if there was nothing all that much better than FO3 then it more or less had to get high marks for not sucking as much as other stuff this year.
 
ArmorB said:
Well you used Fable II, Bioshock PS3 port (which I don't have any idea when it came out) and Oblivion. I was looking for a wider/current group.

Fable II and BioShock PS3 are both one week old.

Major recent released, metacritic list (note: metacritic is highly unreliable and biased, but (and maybe because it's so biased) used as the main measurement of critical success by the media itself):
BioShock PS3 95
Fable II 90
LittleBigPlanet 95
FarCry 2 88
Fallout 3 93
Dead Space 89
Saints Row 2 89
Grand Theft Auto IV 98

GTA IV is a bit older (earlier this year), the rest are all from this month, so a good comparison framework. Fallout 3 is dead in the middle of successfull mainstream games in critical reception, with GTA IV still easily the main GotY candidate.
 
When it comes to just RPG releases, we're looking at what? Witcher EE, Fable II... I really can't think of any others.
 
Oh, the Witcher: Enhanced Edition runs in at 85, but being a European release it's not comparable on MetaCritic with NA releases (one of the way MetaCritic is biased is in focusing on NA media, thus automatically rating Europe-specific games like TW lower)

I don't know why you would compare Fallout 3 to Fable II and not to BioShock or FarCry 2. Honestly, it's not like we're comparing a hardcore RPG to hardcore FPSs here, these are all genre-blurring games and there's no reason not to compare NA AAA releases like these directly.
 
I'm inclined to agree that comparing it to hybrids makes sense, I was just fuzzy on this years Major RPG releases. Not so sure about Bioshock though. I mean, its a port that was released this year, the game itself was out last.
 
Okay now with those numbers in mind, as a stand alone game how does the game truely compare in the eyes of the player?

So if all of these reviewers are blowing smoke up our asses over FO3, is FO3 just as good as these games on average? And if it is, then does it mean that the reviewers are just as biased on all games and not just FO3?
 
Having played it and all the games Brother None mentioned sans saints row 2, I find Fallout 3 doesn't even begin to stack up with them. Not as a Fallout, but just as a game. It really just lacks the quality that AAA titles should have.
 
ArmorB said:
Okay now with those numbers in mind, as a stand alone game how does the game truely compare in the eyes of the player?

So if all of these reviewers are blowing smoke up our asses over FO3, is FO3 just as good as these games on average? And if it is, then does it mean that the reviewers are just as biased on all games and not just FO3?

I wouldn't necessarily label it a bias, as much as an inclination to award triple A titles higher scores than they realistically deserve, a shortsightedness more than a partiality.
 
Back
Top