Alphadrop
A right proper chap.
frosty_theaussie said:
It's something to do when we're bored.
Fallout 3 reviews round-up #64
- Thread starter Per
- Start date
It's something to do when we're bored.
Iozeph said:AskWazzup said:Reviewers should stop masturbating while writing reviews, it's just not professional
Why? They have to get paid for doing something right? Then again, even getting that right is probably giving them more credit than they deserve.
Pope Viper said:
As I said they would.
Though Fallout 3 did not follow the usual cycle in review scores dropping. It's actually been more steady than most titles, starting at a 9.3 average and ending at 9.2. The average AAA goes more like startin at 9.5 and ending at 8.8 (Dead Space)
Brother None said:
One has to consider I guess the immense effort of the marketing spend for Fallout 3 I have even spoted a few TV comercials here in Germany for Fallout 3 and I do not even watch that much TV, never spoted one for dead space or similar games and (at least in my eyes) the year was pretty weak when it comes to games particularly RPGs, can anyone name a REAL major great RPG release in the rescent time or even for the whole year ? Explains some of it I think.
M
moyogo
Guest
So the master masturbated compulsively?
Anyway else see the master in Crni Vuk's photo?
The average reviews rating is coming down, i don't know if 93-92 is significant enough to note... An interesting study would be to look at ad campaigns, size, type, etc. and see how well those boost initial scores. Although maybe you could predict it through advertisements on reviewers sites. I remember catching some L4D ads last week and remembering how it looked fun but I experienced the game enough for my taste just seeing videos... I bet that game follows the same dipping review trend. Okay, end ramble.
Anyway else see the master in Crni Vuk's photo?
The average reviews rating is coming down, i don't know if 93-92 is significant enough to note... An interesting study would be to look at ad campaigns, size, type, etc. and see how well those boost initial scores. Although maybe you could predict it through advertisements on reviewers sites. I remember catching some L4D ads last week and remembering how it looked fun but I experienced the game enough for my taste just seeing videos... I bet that game follows the same dipping review trend. Okay, end ramble.
aenemic
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
I don't get why you're even bothering with these "reviews". most are from blogs or independant zines. sure, they might prove what the general masses might think of the game. but to pick them apart and analyze them... you're just fooling yourselves.
Though Fallout 3 feels in its core (in my eyes) closer to Oblivion then Fallout 1/2.Jenx said:
Not convinced yet? Here see Obliv ... I mean Fallout 3s Radiant AI in action
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKqHcT16Xio[/youtube]
aenemic
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
what does that prove really? not to defend that stupid behaviour, but still... you can shoot your guns like crazy in Fallout 1+2 and as long as you don't hit anyone, no one will care. unless you're of course in an area where guns should be put away, and those are in Fallout 3 as well.
aenemic
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
yeah, that part I'm not even gonna touch.
cratchety ol joe
Mildly Dipped
Per said:
This whole thing...
and really
aenemic
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Roflcore said:
prove me wrong and I'm willing to admit I'm wrong.
whirlingdervish
Brahmin Cavalry Commander
technically you could go around in Klamath shooting the doors off of people's houses and rooms and they wouldn't react to it.
You could not go around firing crazily without a target tho.
So your statement is false, but if rephrased it could be applicable.
I'm also unsure if you were talking about all of those shots being legitimately aimed but missing their targets. If this is the case, then yes you are incorrect.
If you attempt a shot and it misses, the enemy will be hostile much the same as if you'd hit them. It might not happen when you use sneak, but I'm at work and can't test it..
You could not go around firing crazily without a target tho.
So your statement is false, but if rephrased it could be applicable.
I'm also unsure if you were talking about all of those shots being legitimately aimed but missing their targets. If this is the case, then yes you are incorrect.
If you attempt a shot and it misses, the enemy will be hostile much the same as if you'd hit them. It might not happen when you use sneak, but I'm at work and can't test it..
^ That.
Basicall, in FO1/2 you have to target something to shoot at it. And I'm not so sure about doors, didn't try it. Other than that, I'm pretty sure whirlingdervish is correct.
BTW are there really locations in FO3 that force you to holster the weapon? I have not run across anybody to open fire or refuse to talk because I had the weapon out, which I rarely hide anyway.
Basicall, in FO1/2 you have to target something to shoot at it. And I'm not so sure about doors, didn't try it. Other than that, I'm pretty sure whirlingdervish is correct.
BTW are there really locations in FO3 that force you to holster the weapon? I have not run across anybody to open fire or refuse to talk because I had the weapon out, which I rarely hide anyway.