Fallout 3 reviews round-up #5

Brother None

This ghoul has seen it all
Orderite
Trying to keep these going in an orderly manner. IncGamers 8.3.<blockquote>VATS has two problems. The first is that its stats-based nature makes it quite possible to miss with a point-blank shotgun blast, which looks faintly ridiculous. The second is that your Action Points quickly run out after a few shots. You are therefore forced to use the real-time shooting while they recharge, which is twitchy, inaccurate, and subject to the same stats-crunching as the VATS percentages. Missing when you see the aiming reticule directly over an enemy’s head is even more annoying than a nailed-on 95% VATS flub. Unfortunately, as soon as Bethesda decided that real-time shooting was in, it chose to go up against the likes of Call of Duty and Halo, and Fallout 3’s attempt at FPS combat is markedly inferior.</blockquote>The Escapist.<blockquote>Bottom Line:After the apocalypse, only the strong will survive. Fallout 3 gives us a glimpse of whether we'd really want to. It is, by turns, hilarious, enthralling, and downright terrifying. And it's easily one of the best games I've played all year.

Recommendation: If you like role-playing games, the post-apocalyptic genre or both, then this game is a must-own. For those unfamiliar with either, I can't recommend it. It's far more user-friendly than the originals, but still not for casual players.</blockquote>WorthPlaying 9.5.<blockquote>The audio aspect of Fallout 3 is a bit mixed. The actual sound work is fine and lends some rather impressive atmosphere to a few areas. As for the voice acting, some of the actors are fine, but others are heartless and awful. Thankfully, the important voices tend to be quite good, with noted actor Liam Neeson headlining the bunch as your character's father. The use of music is really quite interesting, with many of the '50s-style throwback tunes emanating from portable radios or other music sources. You can even use your Pipboy 3000 as a radio to listen to the various ham radio stations being broadcast around the wasteland.</blockquote>CVG Xbox World 360 9.3/10.<blockquote> To arms then. For starters, Fallout 3's Capital Wasteland is a considerably smaller, albeit denser, environment than Cyrodiil. As for the main quest itself, we're talking proper short - in head-down slogging mode we caned it within a paltry nine hours. It gets worse - unlike Oblivion, once finished the game ENDS FOR GOOD - a real step backwards in our humble opinion. Worse still, it's not until the closing stages that you're really gripped by the seismic events overtaking DC. We know perfectly well that that's not the way you're meant to play the game, but we'd be lying if we said we weren't ever so slightly disappointed. Worse still, we're totally mystified as to the complete lack of any guild-style quests in the game - especially when the various factions (Brotherhood of Steel, Enclave, Raiders, Slavers) surely offered every bit as much questing potential as Cyrodiil's Thieves, Mages and Fighters' guilds. </blockquote>Joystiq (thanks Jabu).<blockquote>Considering my satisfaction with the new combat and beautifully detailed wasteland, imagine my surprise to find that (despite a completely ingenious opening half-hour) the first few hours of the post-apocalyptic adventure left me just the slightest bit cold.

It's not a result, as you may suspect, of trying to stretch the Fallout skin over the Oblivion skeleton. By lifting some of Fallout's core systems and aesthetic cues, this current-gen entry does an admirable job of capturing the spirit of the series. Honestly, if you're still wishing for an isometric, third-person view by the end, you're just being contrary.

No, the problems didn't come in the merging of setting and engine, they're the problems that Oblivion already had and the baggage that Fallout 3 is still saddled with. </blockquote>
 
Recommendation: If you like role-playing games, the post-apocalyptic genre or both, then this game is a must-own. For those unfamiliar with either, I can't recommend it. It's far more user-friendly than the originals, but still not for casual players.

Story that only lasts 20 hours or so... I'd call that casual. Seriously, it must suck to not be able to write honestly as a journalist because you need to stay friendly to studios.
 
Yeah when you shoot sometimes the bullets go where ever the fuck they want to from 5 feet way. And other times I was nailing head shots on a pack of rompusing Mole Rats with a 23% chance with crits on my shity Hunting rifle at 50 yards.
 
Russ Pitts said:
The fact is, as much as I loved the original games, I would never want Fallout 3 to be just like them, to be just "more Fallout." The original games still exist. I can still play them. But Fallout 3 is so much more than the originals, so much different, and that is entirely as it should be.

I bet he only did that to annoy the hell out of us...good job man, you're not making any sense...
 
Noticed that as well. Every other review has one of those, "But if you still expect x, then you're just being an obnoxious douche", type statements. Or... "Forget whatever the losers over at x, y , and z, have told you, don't buy what they're selling. Fallout 3 really does capture the spirit of the originals."

Perhaps they're hoping that if they keep saying it enough times, it will eventually come true. Oh well, who am I to disabuse them of their notions? So many 9+ rated reviews couldn't possibly be wrong...
 
None of these will matter until Yahtzee's review. He is the Walter Cronkite of games journalism of the year.
 
Nodder said:
None of these will matter until Yahtzee's review. He is the Walter Cronkite of games journalism of the year.

Yes, and don´t forget there is still the CanardPC review.
 
Nodder said:
None of these will matter until Yahtzee's review. He is the Walter Cronkite of games journalism of the year.

Only Yahtzee doesn't review games, he just hammers on the negatives for laughs.

I'd just hold on for reviews from sites you personally feel you can rely on. I'll be interested in seeing the opinions from RPGWatch, RPGCodex, GameBanshee and this site.
 
Yahtzee is a comedic gadfly, but that's what allows him to have an independent, everyman voice. It's like how people trust in Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert because they can say what they can really feel and get away with it because it's all satire.
 
This is pretty much Oblivion all over again.

A guy in gamefaqs said he killed a supermutant at level TWO with a SINGLE vats shot of a 10mm pistol.

No level scaling, eh? Bethesda gets caught lying on release day AGAIN, just like with Oblivion.

When will people learn...
 
Sites like the Watch or GameBanshee also say what they really feel, but they also give fair time to both the pros and the cons of a game, unlike Yahtzee.
 
That's true. He has an unabashedly negative view of any game (save Portal). However, it's part of the persona, and he does acknowledge positives, at least occasionally. It's like how even though Colbert the character is all about right-wing satire, but even amidst the satire pro-leftist points slip through.
 
Nodder said:
That's true. He has an unabashedly negative view of any game (save Portal). However, it's part of the persona, and he does acknowledge positives, at least occasionally. It's like how even though Colbert the character is all about right-wing satire, but even amidst the satire pro-leftist points slip through.

Well, it's one thing to say "I'm looking forward to Yahtzee's review" for the laughs or whatever, it's another to actually say/imply his reviews are more legitimate (Kronkite?). Zero Punctuation is comedy first, balanced criticism third. Making fun of games is his shtick.
 
Nodder said:
That's true. He has an unabashedly negative view of any game (save Portal).

"Psychonauts".. his review of that game is very positive and still funny. Not nearly as funny as the game itself though. But of course, it's hard to be negative about this game.
Generally, if he likes the game, he says so, even if he bashes it around a lot. I wouldn't trust his views on RPG games though, as he doesn't seem to like them.
 
TheGM said:
Yeah when you shoot sometimes the bullets go where ever the fuck they want to from 5 feet way. And other times I was nailing head shots on a pack of rompusing Mole Rats with a 23% chance with crits on my shity Hunting rifle at 50 yards.

Missing from 5 feet away...sounds like the old Fallouts to me. Hitting too many mole rats despite a 23% chance? So you're questioning the random generator algorithm they employed? Don't take this the wrong way, but...no it's too easy.


BTW sicblades, a story that lasts for 20 hours, plus a bunch of side quests and a gigantic world that can take over a 100 hours to explore is decidedly not casual (regardless of what you think of the quality of those hours spent). I assure you my grandmother is not going to be picking this game up.

No offense Karak, but no one cares about annoying someone who is annoyed at everything. I hope what I just said doesn't annoy you...

I like your reasoning Iozeph. Apparently the more people who agree that something is good after independently coming to that conclusion, the more likely it is that *they're all wrong* and you're right!
 
Missing from 5 feet away...sounds like the old Fallouts to me. Hitting too many mole rats despite a 23% chance? So you're questioning the random generator algorithm they employed? Don't take this the wrong way, but...no it's too easy.

The point is, what works for an isometric P&P-style RPG doesn't automatically work for a FPS/RPG hybrid. Funny that. Just like how orange juice works better with vodka than with milk. But Bethesda in their infinite wisdom made a screwdriver milkshake, that way everyone is a fan! Sad thing is, they supposedly learned from their mistake in Morrowind of having to-hit chances for melee attacks, and then flip-flopped after Oblivion to include a shabby facsimile of Fallout's aimed shots to induce nostalgia.
 
It gets worse - unlike Oblivion, once finished the game ENDS FOR GOOD - a real step backwards in our humble opinion. Worse still, it's not until the closing stages that you're really gripped by the seismic events overtaking DC. We know perfectly well that that's not the way you're meant to play the game, but we'd be lying if we said we weren't ever so slightly disappointed. Worse still, we're totally mystified as to the complete lack of any guild-style quests in the game - especially when the various factions (Brotherhood of Steel, Enclave, Raiders, Slavers) surely offered every bit as much questing potential as Cyrodiil's Thieves, Mages and Fighters' guilds.

Translation - We expected Tes 5.
 
So would you have preferred a Mass Effect style combat system? A Deus Ex style system? I think those would work in this *kind* of game.

But in a Fallout game? I'm glad they put so much time and effort into a system that reminds me of the original games. No it's not perfect, but that's why the game didn't get a 10 now isn't it.
 
It's received a lot of perfect scores and it's system is nothing like that employed by previous installments but it has some of the superficial stuff. You're right, the system isn't perfect, far from it in fact but notice that despite it's flaws the game's still receiving nothing worse than an 8?
 
sonicmerlin said:
So would you have preferred a Mass Effect style combat system? A Deus Ex style system? I think those would work in this *kind* of game.
I'm pretty sure he would've preferred a turn-based combat system.

sonicmerlin said:
Missing from 5 feet away...sounds like the old Fallouts to me.
The old Fallouts didn't make you manually aim before swaying the bullet out of its path anyway.
sonicmerlin said:
Hitting too many mole rats despite a 23% chance? So you're questioning the random generator algorithm they employed? Don't take this the wrong way, but...no it's too easy.
It's easy to be fooled by randomness.
 
Back
Top