Fallout 3 reviews round-up #71

I swear, some of these reviews seem like they're a joke or something. Like they're trying to lambast the actual reviews that praise this game.
 
I'm with Brother None on this whole Bizzaro world thing. I get that opinions differ, and I get that people look for different things. But there's some things that Fallout 3 is getting praised for that aren't even open for debate. And really, we're getting to the point where we're getting blog entries, free of agenda - so do people actually believe the "lies" they're spouting? Is this inculcation of a falsehood at the hands of PR? It's scary.
 
Section8 said:
- so do people actually believe the "lies" they're spouting? Is this inculcation of a falsehood at the hands of PR? It's scary.
FO3 is the Emperor's new clothes of gaming, no one wants to be branded an NMA lackey.
 
Brother None said:
Where are all these sites reviewing Fallout 3 coming from?

Perhaps Per is making them up as he goes, in order not to run out of reviews before the 100th roundup? :P
 
*tinker tinker*

Game Parrot, 9.34/10.<blockquote>When the game some call Fallout 3 was announced by software developers and impala drovers Bethesda Softworks, some irascible old gamers loudly feared the end product might not turn out the sort of game they enjoy. Now, fourteen years later, I can say with absolute certainty that they were wrong and slightly foolish to take this view! Because I like that sort of game just fine, and in the end is not this what matters.</blockquote>
 
Section8 said:
I'm with Brother None on this whole Bizzaro world thing. I get that opinions differ, and I get that people look for different things. But there's some things that Fallout 3 is getting praised for that aren't even open for debate. And really, we're getting to the point where we're getting blog entries, free of agenda - so do people actually believe the "lies" they're spouting? Is this inculcation of a falsehood at the hands of PR? It's scary.

I think it's a great game, personally. Be careful of letting your opinion become too strong and closing your mind (like calling their points "lies"), perhaps it is this that prevents you from understanding why others enjoy it. I personally don't enjoy turn-based combat but I can understand that others do and don't call them liars for praising it. Remember it's only your opinion.
 
Some guys enjoy sucking dicks, does that mean every guy should enjoy it (or at least try it)?
 
It isn't a question of whether someone likes F3 (thinks it's great).

The question is:
Is the story a 10/10 - can't be better
Is dialogue a 10/10 - can't be better
Is it more innovative than any other game released in 2008
 
Public said:
Some guys enjoy sucking dicks, does that mean every guy should enjoy it (or at least try it)?

My point was you can't call someone else's opinion a lie, regardless of what it is.
 
jamesmcm said:
Public said:
Some guys enjoy sucking dicks, does that mean every guy should enjoy it (or at least try it)?

My point was you can't call someone else's opinion a lie, regardless of what it is.

Logically thinking, opinion cannot be a lie (a lie, truth, opinion are 3 different things), but your opinion can be based on a lie and it can be proven to be wrong. Then, when your opinion is wrong, for example "This apple pie is made of meat IMO", someone proves that this apple pie doesn't have any meat in it, but you're opinion is still the same- "I still think it's made of meat", your opinion changes into a believe system.

You have believed that all apple pies on the world are made of meat, and even when you make one by yourself, without using any meat with it, you're opinion/belief is still the same, that this apple pie is made of meat, not apples...
 
You have believed that all apple pies on the world are made of meat, and even when you make one by yourself, without using any meat with it, you're opinion/belief is still the same, that this apple pie is made of meat, not apples...

Yeah, but the basis of the reviews is subjective so you can't treat it as fact. For example, you can't prove the story is poor or the ending feels rushed, those are personal, subjective opinions not facts.

My point is it's a logical fallacy to call reviewers liars since you disagree with them.
 
Per said:
*tinker tinker*

Game Parrot, 9.34/10.<blockquote>When the game some call Fallout 3 was announced by software developers and impala drovers Bethesda Softworks, some irascible old gamers loudly feared the end product might not turn out the sort of game they enjoy. Now, fourteen years later, I can say with absolute certainty that they were wrong and slightly foolish to take this view! Because I like that sort of game just fine, and in the end is not this what matters.</blockquote>

This is probably the funniest thing I've read all day.
 
BloodyPuppy said:
Per said:
*tinker tinker*

Game Parrot, 9.34/10.<blockquote>When the game some call Fallout 3 was announced by software developers and impala drovers Bethesda Softworks, some irascible old gamers loudly feared the end product might not turn out the sort of game they enjoy. Now, fourteen years later, I can say with absolute certainty that they were wrong and slightly foolish to take this view! Because I like that sort of game just fine, and in the end is not this what matters.</blockquote>

This is probably the funniest thing I've read all day.

Well it's his opinion so that's all that matters in his review. He doesn't have to justify it to anyone. I happen to agree with him.
 
Yeah, but the basis of the reviews is subjective so you can't treat it as fact. For example, you can't prove the story is poor or the ending feels rushed, those are personal, subjective opinions not facts.

My point is it's a logical fallacy to call reviewers liars since you disagree with them.

Yes, you're right. We should not bother about those "reviews", because they are just someone's personal opinions.

But the confusing part is, those personal reviews sound like those ones made by so called "professional reviewers" these days. Or maybe those "professional reviews" sound like personal opinions?
 
jamesmcm said:
Well it's his opinion so that's all that matters in his review. He doesn't have to justify it to anyone. I happen to agree with him.
Well and you will not see anyone seriously picking either you or anyone for that matter only cause they like and enjoy the game. And if someone is doing it; you can always feel free to report those people to a mod and they will receive a punishment.

(I find that quote from above about the review anyway a bit much out of context, particularly since in a rewiev you have different rules then like if you would only state your opinion)

But, what happens constanstly is that you see most of the time only "one side" of the fence. People concentrating on everything that is positive or only explain the game like verything would positive. Nothing about outdated animations or the AI for example. And thats just one thing.

It allso happens most of the time that the Fallout community is treated like it would be one single united mass of complaining oppinion or view. Which is quite the contrary. Its more a "everything inbetween" from the people who love the game to those that hate it. And than there is always the roots of Fallout which can be as well discussed by either side you look on it.

Yes here on NMA you can see a lot of dispute over Fallotu 3. But no one can really say "they" all hate it. And most dont just agitate for the sake of it. Many have valid points. A journalist should not fall in the fallacy that there is a "united" mass and go against it without ever at least asking "those" he talks about and give some a possibilty to counter. Thats not really considered "nice" by professionals. Only in the gaming buisness ...
 
Public said:
Yes, you're right. We should not bother about those "reviews", because they are just someone's personal opinions.

But the confusing part is, those personal reviews sound like those ones made by so called "professional reviewers" these days. Or maybe those "professional reviews" sound like personal opinions?

Please explain the difference between a professional review and a personal review. Every review is open to bias and subjective opinions. Different people like different games, why can't you accept that?

First, you call the reviewers liars and now assault their professionalism just because you disagree with their opinion of the game. Different people have different opinions - they aren't better or worse than eachother.

You seem to believe that you are absolutely right and the only reason these reviews haven't "seen the light" that Fallout 3 is bad is because they are uninformed (or misinformed). Why can't you just accept different people like different things? You're worse than a Jehovah's witness...
 
Please explain the difference between a professional review and a personal review

Expert review usually refers to a review written by someone who has tested several peer products or services to identify which offers the best value for money or the best set of features.

So basically, this review shows you the bad and good parts of the product, trying to be more critical about it, so people (the customers) will know what they are buying and if they are going to like it.

From most of the "expert reviews" about Fallout 3 I've see, were on the lines of "awesome, great, you gotta buy it!"- that is not being critical, that is telling/forcing the customer to buy it.

Which would be more like:
Bought Review is the system where the creator (usually a company) of a new product pays a reviewer to review his new product. Primarily used in the car, movie and game industry this system creates a kind of undercover advertising. Bought reviews obviously are often biased, although exceptions occur.

And a "personal review"

Consumer review refers to a review written by the owner of a product or the user of a service who has sufficient experience to comment on reliability and whether or not the product or service delivers on its promises.

So, this is about "Do you like it, or not" opinion.


Now, when Fallout 3 is released, people are finding many flaws, glitches, bad design approaches, etc. Unfortunately, most of the people are ignoring them all, for example (which I have seen many times):

"Yeah, it might have a bad story line, some really bad side quests, graphical problems, bad animations, ridiculous ideas, a horrible dialogue and not interesting characters. But still it's a great game! And fun! 10/10"

If it was a seperate game, called Capital Wasteland or something else, I would look at it from a different angle. But it's a sequel to fallout series, which wasn't a game for dummies mainly focused on violence and cartoony Vault Boy, it was a cRPG that mainly focused on well "written" dialogue, an interesting nonliner story, interesting characters and intelligent side quests (and many many more).
FO3 is manly focused on the violence and gore, and it's not my opinion! The designers of Fallout 3 said that, because in their opinion Fallout was allways about violence and gore (not the dialogue, interesting story line, etc). And this opinion, their opinion is wrong.
 
Care to cite them saying it's all about gore?

I think most of the reviews are professional and do show good and bad sides. And they come to the right conclusion, that Fallout 3 is still a great game despite some flaws. I am very glad I bought it - don't think these reviews are deceiving people just because you didn't like the game.
 
I dont think that "game journailsm" and "professionalism" are words that can be used many times in the same context though. Sadly. Well not with Fallout 3 or AAA promjects in general.
 
Back
Top