Fallout 3 reviews round-up #42

Per

Vault Consort
Staff member
Admin
Gaminator, 7 (thanks to KKND).<blockquote>The 7/10 is the note for a game which is not called Fallout. If you do not know previous titles, or you do not like them as much, then you probably won't bother that some symbols from the series were simply dessecrated. And that's ok, because it has flaws, it is solid CRPG-shooter in the atmosphere of world destroyed by a (too) big war. However, if Fallouts are big part of your memories, then, well...it's hard to give it more than 3/10. It's true that they succeeded in changing the perspective to first-person, the atmosphere was preserved to some degree, but...it lacks the most important thing - playing with the player. There aren't any good side-quests, main-plot is only for about 10 hours of play, the icons of the series - like Brotherhood or their power armors - were degraded to complete mediocrity. And, what is the worst - we were treated like people, whose IQ level isn't something they can be proud of. And we cannot forgive that.</blockquote>The New York Times.<blockquote>It takes a lot of gumption to blow up the entire Washington area; render the wreckage in detailed yet almost painterly strokes; populate the wasteland with all manner of alternately deranged, endearing and frightening characters; weave a score of intersecting story lines; sprinkle on a thick layer of high-powered weaponry; and simply set the player loose. Yet that is what Bethesda Softworks accomplishes with Fallout 3, one of the most ambitious single-player role-playing games in recent years.</blockquote>The Adventuress blog.<blockquote>The entire skills and stat system is very similar to the one in Oblivion, so you may have an advantage to this game if you’re an Oblivion fan.</blockquote>The Gamers Cafe.<blockquote>Fallout 3 is still kick ass game to play. Sure it has it very minor imperfections, but they hardly scratch the surface of almost bombed out world that is very exciting to explore and ravage. Oblivion without the trees and perfect braining of enemies heads. What more could you want?</blockquote>Jolt, 9.6.<blockquote>And what a rich experience Fallout 3 is, anyway. Everyone’s journey can and will be different, but nobody’s should be disappointing. The game combines the strengths of two fine RPG series, which for Fallout 3 means compelling narrative in a post-apocalyptic setting and immersive gameplay in a huge, open-ended world. All of this just leaves one question to answer: is Fallout 3 a contender for Game of the Year? And the answer: undeniably, yes.</blockquote>D+Pad, 5/5.<blockquote>The real genius of Fallout 3 is that the focus is never lost; no matter how far from the main story thread you stray – and it’s possible to ignore it for countless hours – Bethesda have ensured that a sense of cohesion is maintained.

Though it doesn’t do anything particularly revolutionary, the level of artistry is so far beyond anything we’ve played recently that it almost doesn’t need to; standing uniquely in the busy Christmas schedule and indeed within 2008 as a whole, Fallout 3 is an experience to savour, a game about which every player will have their own story to tell.</blockquote>Bright Hub, second review, 5/5.<blockquote>The basic premise of the story is tried and true Fallout: Independence and the outside world are thrust upon you for one reason or another and you are left to sort out what you ultimately do. The big difference is that this time it is for personal reasons rather than some "for the greater good" motive. This gives your character a much more open venue to take care of things as you wish.</blockquote>Made of Awesome blog, 9/10.<blockquote>One of the game’s best moments for me was a character with a long laundry list of weird or even stupid requests. She went from, “dear god can I shoot her” to “why can’t I make my character marry her?” Some of the characters are that entertaining.</blockquote>RPGCodex.<blockquote>You, the proverbial role player, will enjoy the varied way you can respond to NPCs and the how you can shape the world through your actions. You might even find a hard to make choice here and there about whether to go with your guts or to go with what you know is right. Above all, it’s about discovery, and discovery is what Bethesda does best.

Ironically, discovery is also a cause of hurt in the world of Fallout 3. The game is perfectly fine with the player choosing the wild dialog options, but as soon as things get back to the real world, it doesn’t want you to go off track. Once a script ends, it ends, and the game doesn’t want you running it anymore. This is perhaps the biggest difference between Fallout 3 and its predecessors. The original Fallout begged you to break it. It begged you to get caught at level 2 by the Super Mutants, and attempt to kill Killian with Tycho at your side. Fallout 3 gives you choice, but outside of those choices it can get fuzzy. You attack someone through insulting dialog instead of starting the fight by running up and clobbering them with your baseball bat. There are many things to discover around the volcano, just don’t jump in it, or go to that area labeled “Caution: Native Cannibals”.</blockquote>
 
The Gamers Cafe.

Fallout 3 is still kick ass game to play. Sure it has it very minor imperfections, but they hardly scratch the surface of almost bombed out world that is very exciting to explore and ravage. Oblivion without the trees and perfect braining of enemies heads. What more could you want?

Uhm... A lot more? How bout something with less Oblivion and more... Fallout perhaps?

...idiocy
 
Here is more appropriate (I hope) translation of Gaminator review summary:

The 7/10 is the note for a game which is not called Fallout. If you do not know previous titles, or you do not like them as much, then you probably won't bother that some symbols from the series were simply dessecrated. And that's ok, because it has flaws, it is solid CRPG-shooter in the atmosphere of world destroyed by a (too) big war. However, if Fallouts are big part of your memories, then, well...it's hard to give it more than 3/10. It's true that they succeeded in changing the perspective to first-person, the atmosphere was preserved to some degree, but...it lacks the most important thing - playing with the player. There aren't any good side-quests, main-plot is only for about 10 hours of play, the icons of the series - like Brotherhood or their power armors - were degraded to complete mediocrity. And, what is the worst - we were treated like people, whose IQ level isn't something they can be proud of. And we cannot forgive that.
 
Man, I wish I could read a crappy (As in low score) review in either English or Spanish... only two languages I speak!

Thanks for the translation, mate. :)
 
Per said:
I had expected something a little less gabby from the Codex.

Yeah, this thing was truly pathetic, it baffles me that they would actually put it in their front page. There's still that review from Vince coming up sometime soon though, I expect it to be worlds better than this atrocity. I mean, come on;

Chefe said:
Fallout and Fallout 2 were released ten years after their Wasteland predecessor captured the hearts of several geeky teenagers. I can imagine the horror that filled the minds of those young men when it turned out the successor to their beloved game would be so radically different.

Except it wasn't called Wasteland 2. Maybe there's a reason for that, eh?

Chefe said:
They decided to re-envision the franchise for a third time and take it in a bold new direction

Very bold, I might add. After all, it's only 3 years older than that of the original Fallout.
 
Can we please stop with the reviews? It's getting annoying. Not the scores but the posting of them. If NMA has nothing else to post then just don't. Posting of the reviews is fine but on the front page it's just littered....
 
Many of these reviews have me longing for a large tub of chlorine to fall into the gene pool.....

How far down do standards get pushed ,before there no point to them ..........

How far dumbed down will games go .....
 
Plissken said:
Can we please stop with the reviews? It's getting annoying. Not the scores but the posting of them. If NMA has nothing else to post then just don't. Posting of the reviews is fine but on the front page it's just littered....

While you may be tired of them, others are not.
 
I'm kind of dissapointed with the codex review....... They slapped oblivion around in their review (which was the right thing to do) and i actually enjoyed oblivion more than this. I could only bare F3 for 6 hours before uninstalling it.

We need a good harsh review, so that people like me who have a strict, egotistical view on what is a good rpg, could feel better about themselfs for not liking this average game, which seems to be received as the second coming.
 
You're not going to find any from main stream sites, they're all part of the BS blowjobs.

There are going to be some pieces coming from independent sites that we'll be posting on here.
 
The Codex Oblivion review was done by VDweller, who will be doing the NMA review.

For some reason, the Codex asked Chefe to do their review. It's kind of a "go figure", like if they asked Volourn to do a review of a BioWare game, but whatevz. It certainly doesn't feel the angry grudge need some people expect of them, I guess
 
TheFlyingBuddha said:
Hah, perhaps it's time for a poll on that point.

I actually had that idea too. It'll buy me a lot of time to get to #100 and earn that medal.

There's still a handful of big and semi-big names on the list of sites that haven't spat out a review yet (notably CanardPC's real review which should be interesting). The flow definitely seems to have let up a bit now, though.
 
Yeah I think we're all eagerly waiting for CPC review. Way too much crap being said in about every reviews.
 
kikomiko said:
I don't think we need a review from Canard.
Yeah, because we really did need the massively predictable 10/10 "reviews" almost completely devoid of information.
 
kikomiko said:
I don't think we need a review from Canard. Face it, we already know they hate it.
Who gives a fuck if they hate it? What was nice about their preview was that it listed many problems with the game. Hell, I wouldn't mind a positive review that pointed out every place where the game truly excelled but so far, most reviews have been inaccurate (some extremely so) and vague with their compliments to the point of being useless.

As for the codex, I was extremely disappointed. It was very amateurish, with bad transitions, a lack of detail, overlooking areas completely, odd wording, and an ending which didn't fit the review at all. It bored and irritated me to the point of not wanting to continue reading a quarter of the way through.
 
Back
Top