Fallout 3 reviews round-up #54

[Per]

T3, 5/5.<blockquote>Shedding the stigma of its predecessors' geeky turn-based roleplay, Fallout 3 is instead a curious hybrid of both action and strategy. And rather than seeming like a weak compromise between the hardcore fans and the newcomers, this feels like a fresh and unique experience altogether. It is, in a word, spectacular.

Fallout 3 is, fundamentally, a first person shooter.</blockquote>Game Boyz.<blockquote>For a triple A title the animation was a step back. Some of the characters actions and movements were jerky, especially when fighting.Some characters can become predictable and thus easier to defeat over time. The reason i don’t spend too much time on this is because Bethesda spent more time on developing game play then graphics. What I mean by this there are lots of games out there that focus on eye candy and allocate a good chunk of resources to this process. The end result is that playing time is shortened drastically to the point where you can complete the game in an afternoon. I’d rather have extended playing time versus eye candy.</blockquote>Philoking blog.<blockquote>The combat system takes some getting used to, you can tell it’s an RPG with first-person combat as an afterthought. The movement isn’t fluid and aiming projectile weapons is pretty flaky. Luckily the depth and scale of the game is big enough to make you forgive the cludgy combat system.</blockquote>3 News, 5/5.<blockquote>Fallout 3 is a completely different kettle of fish to the others. From what I’ve seen (and there’s HEAPS to see, believe me) it is far superior. Big thumbs up to Bethesda Studios.</blockquote>2404, 7.0/10.<blockquote>In 1997 you just didn’t do first-person RPGs. It was isometric or nothing.

Fallout 3 is just mediocre. It’s bogged down by too many problems, engine issues, and poor writing to really wrestle its way into classic status.</blockquote>TeknoDwarf's blog, 9.5/10.<blockquote>All in all, Fallout 3 is an amazing game and I encourage everyone to check it out. Even people who aren’t necessarily fans of this style of RPG (such as myself) will find themselves loving the game. You’ll constantly find something new each time you play the game. Finally, with multiple scenarios at your disposal, this isn’t a game that will be leaving your disc tray anytime soon.</blockquote>Clichè Gamer blog, Straight Flush.<blockquote>Regardless of its drawbacks, I can only think one thing about this game. It is Bioshock and Oblivion fused into one, amazing, beautiful, enormous game. Its depth of story feels epic from start to end, and even though I plan to visit the world again at least two more times, I walked away at the end feeling great about the experience the I had.</blockquote>MediaInside, 98.<blockquote>Van Fallout 3 expected I in the first place nothing. On gamble I bought the game and as gamer which never RPG play game I super has been incinerated. Fallout 3 stand convex of the action, contain a nice and stretching tale and offer you an open, large and provocative world which we not yet earlier come in a game against its. Fallout 3 are certainly for me the game of 2008. This shit must experience you. To buy that trade!</blockquote>

 

[Public]

7.0/10.

In 1997 you just didn’t do first-person RPGs. It was isometric or nothing.

What?

Fallout 3 is just mediocre. It’s bogged down by too many problems, engine issues, and poor writing to really wrestle its way into classic status.

Bu that's a good one. Wow, somebody noticed!

 

[iridium_ionizer]

Fallout 3 is a completely different kettle of fish to the others. From what I’ve seen (and there’s HEAPS to see, believe me) it is far superior. Big thumbs up to Bethesda Studios.

The others they are referring to are Fallout 1 and 2. Different kettle, yes. Superior, no.

 

[shihonage]

In 1995 Bethesda released a 3D game in a post-apocalyptic, landscape littered with ruin. It featured fully polygonal enemies and structures, 3D mouselook, realtime lightsourcing, driveable and flyable vehicles. It also had the occasional animated NPC talking head.

Next year, the sequel was released, which supported higher resolutions and multiplayer. It also eliminated a good portion of transitioning loading screens.

In 2008... we get the third installment of the series, but in many ways it is a step back. The atmosphere is not there, the combat feels wonky, the driveable vehicles are gone, the multiplayer is gone, and the loading screens are back.

It does throw more numbers at you than a Terminator HUD, though, and to give Bethesda credit, they really captured the non-human cyborg feel of the animations.

It is truly an interesting take on the Terminator universe, where humanity has been completely eradicated, and from the ashes, a cyborg civilization is struggling to arise.

 

[TheRatKing]

Shedding the stigma of its predecessors' geeky turn-based roleplay, Fallout 3 is instead a curious hybrid of both action and strategy.

Oh my god I just spewed soup all over my computer, this is pure comedy gold.

 

[Drakehash]

How many "reviews" (if you can call all this crap reviews) can have a game????

I mean this is just insane...

 

[iridium_ionizer]

This shit must experience you. To buy that trade!

Finally someone expressing the truth about Fallout 3.

Calling these "crap reviews" is an understatement.

 

[Pajari]

Yo. I wrote the 2404.org one. What do y'all think of it?

 

[Per]

Yo. I wrote the 2404.org one. What do y'all think of it?

That "The interface, the combat, and the engine itself were not quite up to the task of doing all the things the developers wanted it to do. The perspective wasn’t so much a conscious decision from among a slate of equally feasible options, as it was the only way to go" is horribly wrong. Other than that, the hateful agenda of the NMA hive mind is evident throughout.

 

[Szeder]

Per, someday you'll gonna kill us with these bastard "reviews". It is such a disgrace I cannot even bear to look....

 

[shihonage]

The original Fallouts were great games, classics, in spite of the technical limitations of the day.

Every "day" has technical limitations. This is an entirely pointless thing to say. Technical limitations existed in 1970, they existed in 1997, and they will exist in 2027.

The interface, the combat, and the engine itself were not quite up to the task of doing all the things the developers wanted it to do.

Where's the source for that ? As far as I got from the interviews with the developers, it does exactly what they wanted it to do.

The perspective wasn’t so much a conscious decision from among a slate of equally feasible options, as it was the only way to go.

Daggerfall and Descent To Undermountain would like to have a word with you.

 

[Pajari]

I am proud to spirit forward the banner of the revolutionary hivemind glittering gem vanguard. Onward to ever higher levels of hate production, comrades.

Every "day" has technical limitations. This is an entirely pointless thing to say. Technical limitations existed in 1970, they existed in 1997, and they will exist in 2027.

Yeah, and some games manage to transcend those challenges and others fall by the wayside. It's an important point to make. Fallout would have been a better game if the developers had had access to better technology, end of story.

And I think we will eventually reach a time when graphics and sound and whatnot become competent enough that innovation in those areas will no longer be seen as nessecary. Sort of like what happened to film 20 or 30 years after its invention. Things have grown more sophisticated, sure, but nobody looks at Touch of Evil and says "if only they had access to the same cameras we do..."

Where's the source for that ? As far as I got from the interviews with the developers, it does exactly what they wanted it to do.

I'd like to see those interviews, I can't imagine how they were satisfied with Fallout's interface. I'm not, certainly.

And the point about fps rpg's is well taken. I was thinking of how difficult it was to do fps stuff back in the day and how rare it was relative to isometric. The 'only way to go' was rhteorical excess.

 

[shihonage]

Every "day" has technical limitations. This is an entirely pointless thing to say. Technical limitations existed in 1970, they existed in 1997, and they will exist in 2027.

Yeah, and some games manage to transcend those challenges and others fall by the wayside. It's an important point to make. Fallout would have been a better game if the developers had had access to better technology, end of story.

"End of story", not.

Today's developers have access to better visual technology, yet the sum total of the depth of Fallout's gameplay mechanics trumps most of what passes for a retail RPG today. If that's not an example of transcendence, then nothing is.

I'd like to see those interviews, I can't imagine how they were satisfied with Fallout's interface. I'm not, certainly.

You shifted your argument from "these parts of the game were not up to the task of doing what developers wanted them to do in 1997" to "I am not satisfied with Fallout UI in 2008".

In 1997, Fallout did everything it set out to do quite well. There's room for improvement in every game, but throwing out such broad statements makes as much sense as going on about "technical limitations of the day".

And the point about fps rpg's is well taken. I was thinking of how difficult it was to do fps stuff back in the day and how rare it was relative to isometric. The 'only way to go' was rhteorical excess.

The point is that Bethesda used first person because they ALWAYS used first-person. There was no "technical limitations".

Daggerfall was a first person RPG by Bethesda made during the Fallout era. They have been making this choice as a design choice, not on merits of some fictional "technological breakthroughs that would only become possible later".

 

[Lichbane]

Yo. I wrote the 2404.org one. What do y'all think of it?

I think it's been written to appeal to the hardcore, old-school Fallout fanboi. I mean there has to be ONE review out there that makes the haters feel their opinion is justified. Lets face it, all the others that think the game is good to great MUST be wrong!

But that's just my opinion.

 

[LuckyOasis]

The point is that Bethesda used first person because they ALWAYS used first-person. There was no "technical limitations".

I think it would be more accurate to say they used first person because they didn't think a 3rd-person, isometric, turn-based RPG would sell many more copies than there are Bethesda haters here at NMA.

I think they were right. Why are people so upset about the 1st person perspective? I've wanted to play Fallout from a 1st person perspective since I first played it back in 1998. I honestly hope we have something like a holo-deck in twenty years, and that whomever owns the franchise makes Fallout 7 available for holo-deck owners.

Will you guys complain about the perspective and lack of a turn-based combat system when the series makes the move to a holo-deck? I realize that's completely speculative, but I can't believe anybody here would truly, deep-down be able to answer that question with a "yes."

 

[Seymour the spore plant]

Why are people so upset about the 1st person perspective? I've wanted to play Fallout from a 1st person perspective since I first played it back in 1998. I honestly hope we have something like a holo-deck in twenty years, and that whomever owns the franchise makes Fallout 7 available for holo-deck owners.

First off this argument of yours has nothing to do with money or sales, it is just a rehash of ye olde "technological constraints", so I don't see why bring up target audience here. Or do you believe it is both the most popular and the sole direction the evolution of gaming can turn to?

Also, in this merry Jetsons future will every game be in first-person? Because I really wish I could use my holo-deck to play stuff like strategy or sim games, most of which don't sit right with FP despite what Beth's own Ashley Cheng might think. It is a matter of gameplay and the better suited perspective for it, not what is arbitrarily considered more "realistic" or "evolved".

That said, the inevitable banging of holo-chicks would probably have to be in first-person. You know, for the immersion.

 

[Pajari]

Yo. I wrote the 2404.org one. What do y'all think of it?

I think it's been written to appeal to the hardcore, old-school Fallout fanboi. I mean there has to be ONE review out there that makes the haters feel their opinion is justified. Lets face it, all the others that think the game is good to great MUST be wrong!

But that's just my opinion.

Well that's who I am lol.

 

[scypior]

I don't want fallout in virtual reality almost as much as I don't want fallout in the "real" reality. It'd be probably so horrible experience you wouldn't stand it. That's why people invented books/movices/games. To create fiction, and not to simulate the reality.

 

[Per]

I think it's been written to appeal to the hardcore, old-school Fallout fanboi. I mean there has to be ONE review out there that makes the haters feel their opinion is justified.

Yeah, look at the score: 3 away from the full 10! Egads! We just need the hate and bitterness oozing off that.

Apparently Edge magazine gave Mirror's Edge a 5; almost twice as much fanboiish hate and loathing! Maybe it's something about the name.

 

[shihonage]

The point is that Bethesda used first person because they ALWAYS used first-person. There was no "technical limitations".

I think it would be more accurate to say they used first person because they didn't think a 3rd-person, isometric, turn-based RPG would sell many more copies than there are Bethesda haters here at NMA.

I am not sure NMA even existed as a prominent player when Daggerfall came out.

I think they were right. Why are people so upset about the 1st person perspective? I've wanted to play Fallout from a 1st person perspective since I first played it back in 1998. I honestly hope we have something like a holo-deck in twenty years, and that whomever owns the franchise makes Fallout 7 available for holo-deck owners.

Will you guys complain about the perspective and lack of a turn-based combat system when the series makes the move to a holo-deck? I realize that's completely speculative, but I can't believe anybody here would truly, deep-down be able to answer that question with a "yes."

Er. Um. I wasn't complaining about first-person, I was debunking the factually incorrect, yet often flaunted, myth about the "technological limitations" and "Fallout founders' real intentions".

As for holodeck... imagine that you're entering Picard's holodeck, and are greeted by a completely realistic, touchable, weighty Klingon bartender. You say "Hey, can I have a drink ?", and he responds with "Keyword not recognized. The Q is messing with the replicators again. Terrible creatures."

That's when it hits you over the head like a rabid Neelix.

All this time wasted on a pointless race to superior sensory feedback, always peeling the calendar pages away to the "magical tomorrow" without realizing what could be had, but isn't being made, today.

What REALLY matters in a game... is GAMEPLAY.