Fallout 3 reviews round-up #4

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?

Reviewers are biased on all games. Anyone who trusts sites like GameSpot or IGN for video gaming reviews is just naive or has indiscriminate tastes and likes most games anyway.

It getting average score might mean it's a run-of-the-mill AAA video release, and that's ok-but-not-great. Dunno, can't tell until I've played it, mainstream reviews have missed the mark by yards before.
 
Average is mid-90's?

Why don't these reviewers just scrap the 100 point system if they aren't going to bother using it.

Average would be 50% if they actually utilized their own systems.

It's funny how every game there is 89% or above. If that's how they're going to rate things, why not just have a 10 point scale and be done with it?
 
Beelzebud said:
Average is mid-90's?

No, average for AAA titles is 90-95. As in, the big mainstream blockbuster type games.

AAA titles:
80-85 crap
86-90 decent
91-95 decent/good
96-100 great
 
Pope Viper said:
Got to hold onto those advertising dollars, don't they?

:roll:

Exactly why we don't use advertising from developers and publishers. :)

As Brother None pointed out, I'll be glad to answer any questions you guys have about the game. You guys were objective and level-headed for the most part last time I dropped in, so I figured I'd extend the same courtesy. (Admittedly my responses will be a bit late, I'm pretty beat up after an emergency tonsillectomy on Friday, so please be patient)
 
That's encouraging to hear.

As far as questions:

1) Does the dialogue/animations look to be as horrible as they appear?

2) The perks seem to be pretty useless overall. Is this the case?

3) The level matching from Oblivion still appears to be an issue. Is this evident?

Thanks for the input, and hope you feel better.
 
GamingTrend said:
Exactly why we don't use advertising from developers and publishers. :)

As Brother None pointed out, I'll be glad to answer any questions you guys have about the game. You guys were objective and level-headed for the most part last time I dropped in, so I figured I'd extend the same courtesy.
you also seem to have called VATS sort of turnbased... makes you less than reliable in my book.

GamingTrend said:
(Admittedly my responses will be a bit late, I'm pretty beat up after an emergency tonsillectomy on Friday, so please be patient)
best of luck with your recovery.
 
Pope Viper said:
That's encouraging to hear.

As far as questions:

1) Does the dialogue/animations look to be as horrible as they appear?
The early stuff was a little juvenile on the swearing. It is a bit more balanced. It isn't perfect, but it's better. The animation is hit and miss. Third person perspective is wonky, as I said in my review. It's better than Oblivion, but still a little 'glidey'

2) The perks seem to be pretty useless overall. Is this the case?
I'll quote my review chunk:
While the traits and perks have been essentially combined for Fallout 3, I didn’t find myself missing them. What old school Fallout fans may notice however is that all of the perks are fairly positive in nature. While traits in Fallout and Fallout 2 may have brought negative effects with their positive bonuses, you won’t find that in Fallout 3. The perks grant bonuses such as the Thief skill which grants +5% to Sneak and Lockpick Skill. Later perks are more exotic, such as the Mysterious Stranger perk which grants a random chance of an unnamed NPC coming into your combat area and working with you for the duration of the battle. The four perks attainable at Level 20 are fairly overpowering, granting a full view of the entire map, instantly regenerating V.A.T.S. Action Points after a kill, enhanced ninja-like melee combat skills, or the ability to regenerate health while in direct sunlight. Since there is no “re-spec” available, you’ll find yourself agonizing over which perk to select – you only get 20.
They aren't useless, but the negatives that we are used to from F1 and 2 are gone.


3) The level matching from Oblivion still appears to be an issue. Is this evident?
Not sure where you got this info. It isn't like that at all. I got my teeth kicked in when I went to a Super Mutant camp too early. I came back later and ripped em apart.

Thanks for the input, and hope you feel better.
Thanks. This is WAY harder than I thought it was going to be.

you also seem to have called VATS sort of turnbased... makes you less than reliable in my book.
Sorry you feel that way. It is semi-turn based, as I said in my review. You pause combat, select your targets, and then they play out. The enemy can and will fire back during that sequence, making it not quite turn based, and not quite real time. Thus, semi-turn based.
 
you also seem to have called VATS sort of turnbased... makes you less than reliable in my book.

Also this:

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.

Interesting how you avoided criticizing the simplification by making it sound like it was necessary for balance.
 
Many have expressed concern with the open world of Fallout 3. The game is a completely open sandbox title, but unlike Oblivion, it is content-rich. You can’t take 10 steps without discovering something, and that trend continues throughout the game.

I've seen this crop up in some reviews. Would you consider this a positive...you know in the context of the game world being a wasteland?
 
GamingTrend said:
It is semi-turn based, as I said in my review. You pause combat, select your targets, and then they play out. The enemy can and will fire back during that sequence, making it not quite turn based, and not quite real time. Thus, semi-turn based.

No, that's not (semi-)turn-based. It's real time with pause. (Semi-)Turn-based requires turns.
 
That's why he said *semi*-turn based... also "not quite turn based"

so, yes, it seems he said it is *not* really turn-based
 
You don't think the words "turn based" in the term "semi turn based" should be expected to hold some meaning?
 
But isn't this whole turn/not turned based thing a long dead horse? Nothing has changed and other than people using terminology that doesn't always line up with each persons perspective it is the same as it has been since the early previews. why Jump all over it again?
 
Per said:
You don't think the words "turn based" in the term "semi turn based" should be expected to hold some meaning?
I may be arguing semantics (however, I could argue you are also) , but that is the whole point of language. Add an adjective (or another adjective) to a noun, and it can have a new (but related meaning). The word does hold meaning on it's own, and that meaning can be debated once you add qualifiers to that word.

The thing is, we both kinda knew what he meant by "semi turn-based" because we know the general gist of what VATS is like.
 
Rev. Layle said:
The thing is, we both kinda knew what he meant by "semi turn-based" because we know the general gist of what VATS is like.

Yes, I know what VATS is, and I know it's not turn-based. My point is very simple. If you start calling dogs "floobahs", then it may be confusing, but at least people won't readily mix it up with something else. If you start calling dogs "cats", then there's a clear risk that people will think you're talking about cats. Calling them "semi-cats" doesn't really help with this. People still have a set of connotations associated with the word "cat" that conflict with your meaning. In such a case there is every reason to "argue semantics" because the potential for misleadination is obvious. For instance, someone might claim that "all you cat lovers got what you wanted after all DIDN'T YOU".
 
Back
Top