Fallout 3 reviews round-up #40

Per

Vault Consort
Staff member
Admin
Total PC Gaming, 10.<blockquote>We've all given people vital to our quests and story development playful shots to the head only for nothing to happen, but when we tried it on our hovering house robot, we received a flamethrower to the face. Our loyal servant had become an angry adversary. Our unguided choice and freedom to do as we wished had been our undoing.

Fallout 3 cracks the problem of integrating FPS-style combat into a role-playing game’s structure more so than any other action RPG. Its sheer depth and detailed brilliance is deserving of high praise indeed, and perhaps worthy of something that has never been awarded before, whatever that could be…</blockquote>TrustedReviews, 9/10.<blockquote>In fact, while the cliched description of Fallout 3 as 'Oblivion with guns' is inaccurate, this is every bit as much an RPG as The Elder Scrolls IV, and maybe even more so.

Fallout 3 isn't an instant hit; it's a grower. If it were an album it wouldn't be the one you played constantly for a week but then forgot, but rather the one that you're not sure about for the first few plays, but still come back to ten years later.

While it's not as immediately brilliant as Oblivion or Bioshock, it counters this with a strong atmosphere, an epic tale and deeper game mechanics than either.</blockquote>GameShout, 9.8/10.<blockquote>I have to admit, when I first heard that Bethesda, the people behind the Elder Scrolls series, were going to be giving Fallout the Oblivion treatment, I was really worried. I feared a game of Fallout where you level up only by using the skills and where you’d have to repeatedly arm and disarm your own landmine for a few hours to boost up your trap skill. Thankfully, Bethesda didn’t let Fallout fans down, and the core game ended up staying very true to its roots.

Fallout 3 is a first-person shooter / RPG hybrid.</blockquote>No Hype Reviews and second opinion.<blockquote>If you have no investment in the series or Bethesda you can live a long and healthy life without trying this title. You will be missing out on one of the strongest pieces of art in the medium.

Occasionally while car hopping you will fall through a car, and have the car then fall on you, and you die, which is upsetting.</blockquote>www.thecampuspress.com/media/storage/paper1098/news/2008/11/09/Entertainment/Fallout.3.Rocks.The.Socks-3532976.shtml]The Campus Press.[/url]<blockquote>This game is totally worth full price. Not only is the game rather long (if you play the side missions a lot), but the game can be played two or three times without becoming repetitive and the choice between being good and being evil adds to that.</blockquote>Operation: Operator-C blog, A.<blockquote>I’m here to say that anybody interested in a new Fallout game, or any decent action-RPG with a unique, interesting theme should stop worrying, stop wondering, and grab a copy of Fallout 3 as soon as possible. That is, unless you’re a close minded fan boy, spouting disappointed drivel across the internet that would make even a sadistic post-apocalyptic raider blush.

Sometimes, however, it fills like there’s too much content compacted into the game, but I couldn’t possibly fault the game for that.</blockquote>NZGamer, 8.8.<blockquote>Fallout 3 is a very difficult game to put down and the strange thing is, the game isn’t even all that brilliant in terms of gameplay alone. It’s basically just a typical mash-up of RPG elements and plenty of first-person shooting thrown in. Yet it’s the overall presentation, level of detail and good old fashioned story-telling in Fallout 3 that cause it to be extremely addictive.</blockquote>gram.pl, 4.5.<blockquote>On the new Falloucie to write possible really long and a great deal, is this since without the doubts plays very developed. Difficult also to avoid automatically overlaping itself comparisons to preceding games from the series, though from a second side the entire cutting off from a praiseworthy past also ought not to take place. What sort therefore is new Fallout? Is other, this certain. The drastic change of perspective, from what sort we observe events in the game, had to pull for itself quite a lot the changes. These however they appear to be in the famous majority considered and good fitted in the new face postnuklearnej of saga. Is not this however for sure only postnuklearny of fashions to Obliviona, how they affirm some. This solid, though the not devoid of mistakes plays, which might really nicely pull and several times systematically kick in bum. About only will how many be overcome anticipations. Fallout 3 is other. But is really good.</blockquote>
 
this is every bit as much an RPG as The Elder Scrolls IV
That's not sayin much...

the core game ended up staying very true to its roots.

Fallout 3 is a first-person shooter / RPG hybrid.

Oh, well then. Of course so was Fallout.

too much content compacted into the game, but I couldn’t possibly fault the game for that.
You could if the setting was a post-apoc wasteland...

Is not this however for sure only postnuklearny of fashions to Obliviona, how they affirm some

I agree wholeheartedly.

unless you’re a close minded fan boy, spouting disappointed drivel across the internet that would make even a sadistic post-apocalyptic raider blush.

Well that certainly stung. It seems the only way to gain internet respect is through loving adoration and hopeful optimism.
 
TheRatKing said:
You could if the setting was a post-apoc wasteland...
This is just begging to be modded (if Bethesda ever releases the editor toolset) because it's probably the greatest inconsistency in their Fallout 3 world. If everything is still burned to a crisp, how come there is such a high density of people and critters, wouldn't the excess population starve to death - and don't tell me that the critters know how to use a can opener.

At least in Fallout you saw a little bit of agriculture, and that was with the settlements being way spread out. Does anyone know if there is any agriculture in Fallout 3? What about wild plant life?
 
iridium_ionizer said:
TheRatKing said:
You could if the setting was a post-apoc wasteland...
This is just begging to be modded (if Bethesda ever releases the editor toolset) because it's probably the greatest inconsistency in their Fallout 3 world. If everything is still burned to a crisp, how come there is such a high density of people and critters, wouldn't the excess population starve to death - and don't tell me that the critters know how to use a can opener.

At least in Fallout you saw a little bit of agriculture, and that was with the settlements being way spread out. Does anyone know if there is any agriculture in Fallout 3? What about wild plant life?

In F2 you had more "bad guys" around New Reno than population of whole world. From what would they rob people.


And then if you chose not to fight back you would die. Woah choices and consequences!

In Fallout 1/2 you encounter bad guys. Robbers or smth. You have 4 choices! Stand and fight and win, stand and fight and die, run and die, run and stay alive. Ye, F3 is a crap ;/
 
catmeat said:
In F2 you had more "bad guys" around New Reno than population of whole world. From what would they rob {It's "people". You can write legibly. Don't bother crying about it.}?

Just because Fallout 2 was full of inconsistencies that do not excuse Fallout 3 for having them too, you should exercise some criticism about a game so flawed.
Fallout 2 had talking deathclaws and ghosts, it was far from perfect, but it was more true to the original than the one Bethesda did.
 
Back
Top