Fallout 3 The Pitt Reviews

Brother None

This ghoul has seen it all
Orderite
Just a few more reviews. GameBanshee 7.6 (they also offer a walkthrough and info).<blockquote>But still, while The Pitt has some stuff that makes it fun to play, it suffers greatly from a “been there done that” kind of mentality. I mean, the main Fallout 3 campaign didn’t have all that many quests, but three of them involved slaves and slavers, so did we really need more? Why not give some quests to the super-mutants, who are largely just presented as dumb brutes? Wouldn’t it be better to learn something more about them? The DLC also features raiders (which I’ve seen more than enough of), trogs (which are only cosmetically different than feral ghouls), an arena challenge (which I wouldn’t mind never seeing again in an RPG), and combat that was no challenge at all for my level 20 character, even when he had his equipment stripped away. How about a DLC where I actually have to remember to reload my weapon after each fight, and take some meds to ensure that I survive? No such luck here. </blockquote>IGN, 7.5.<blockquote>And in that way, The Pitt feels more like a natural extension of the game than Operation Anchorage ever could. There's a new region, characters to meet and things to do, and it all feels organic and fitting in terms of visual style, presentation, and gameplay. Unfortunately, I ran into more bugs while playing The Pitt than I did in the entirety of my first play through of the main game (which was a relatively smooth experience). On Xbox 360, it crashed on me a couple of times. Numerous times characters got caught in audio glitches and kept repeating the same dialogue to me over and over. When I tried to reload a save and play through the end again making different choices, things slowly unraveled until the game became unplayable and my character was continuously attacking without me pushing any buttons. On PC, I had important NPCs disappearing into rocks, weapon models disappearing, and characters I was supposed to talk to deciding they would rather just attack. </blockquote>WorthPlaying, 5.8.<blockquote>However, the worst part was at the end of The Pitt. In my first playthrough, I chose to support the slaves in their revolt and ran through to the point where I make contact with the underground to deliver "The Cure." After I stole from their boss, a gang of raiders came after me with everything it had, but I kept running ahead in order to fulfill my mission as quickly as possible. What I didn't expect this to do was for it to break the logic of the game.

I made it back to where I was supposed to go and spoke with my contact when a horde of raiders — some of whom were important enough to have their own names — burst into the room and completely focused on killing me, never mind that the slaves were revolting and one of the slave leaders happened to be in the same room. After running away once again, I finished the rest of the plan and everything should have been at peace ... or so I thought. Those same raiders came after me again where I had left them outside and still tried to take a few more lucky shots. After speaking to Wehrner, which officially completed the mission, the raiders continued their chase while Wehrner calmly walked into the group and then past them as if he were invisible. I finally decided to solve the problem with my combat shotgun, but it was ridiculous.</blockquote>Videogamer.com, 9.<blockquote>Of more concern is that The Pitt is too easy. If you're anywhere near the level cap you won't find any challenge it presents too difficult. I only died once, and that was because I fell off a Scrapyard pipe positioned hundreds of feet in the air. Sure, the Troggs are scary, and will make you jump out of your chair once or twice, but you never really feel as if you're genuinely under threat of death.</blockquote>
 
What is with some of these people? It's too easy, and the threat of death barely exists, but I'll give it a 9!
 
Beelzebud said:
What is with some of these people? It's too easy, and the threat of death barely exists, but I'll give it a 9!

I was thinking about the same thing. It gives me a huge quastion mark above my head.
 
How do you review something that does not work?
And how can you give a postive review to something that does not work?
 
On PC, I had important NPCs disappearing into rocks, weapon models disappearing, and characters I was supposed to talk to deciding they would rather just attack.

Once again, gotta say: they just noticed this. These problems did not at all exist in the all-perfect 10/10 original.

Did Beth stop paying the reviewers, or what? :roll:
 
the thing is just that with so many errors they now mention they still can give it such reviews. I mean 5.8; 7 etc. Yeah, not that a 5.8 is a awesome score, but still for a "buggy" or even broken game ...

I mean if you would have a car that is sometimes driving and sometimes not, would you give it a 5.8 fro 10? Just as a simple example.
 
Public said:
Beelzebud said:
What is with some of these people? It's too easy, and the threat of death barely exists, but I'll give it a 9!

I was thinking about the same thing. It gives me a huge quastion mark above my head.

So if they're not bribed or mentally challenged, what exactly is the reason that some give such a high rating.
It's not challenging or incredible well designed.

Some sort of hypnotic message that isn't in the customer version?
 
Public said:
Beelzebud said:
What is with some of these people? It's too easy, and the threat of death barely exists, but I'll give it a 9!

I was thinking about the same thing. It gives me a huge quastion mark above my head.

I have returned with the 10 [Hand of the Reviewer]s that you requested. I would like my reward in the form of light armor, please.
 
I personally don't understand scoring systems used nowadays. On a scale of 1 - 10, a '5' should be average but the has been soooooo much score inflating by company buyouts of reviewers, as well as bad writers that the score for an 'average' game is 7.5... wtf? Scores are so messed up that they will need to start giving out '11's...

Its reasons like this that you shouldn't create a 'grading' system on something that is as amoebic as videogames. I mean Katamari was an AMAZING game when it came out, graphically it was terrible, the controls were clunky but well done overall, and the story was so flat it might as well have not been there. However it was stylish, and most importantly FUN(something most reviewers choose to ignore). So how can you compare Katamari to say... Portal? The games have totally different ideas, direction, and style.

Its like scoring paintings, sure you know when something is good and when something is bad, but can you compare Mona Lisa to The Thinker using a number?
 
Eternal: Actually the current scale of game rankings are a bit misleading to the casual observer:

5: and below: Either the title is really bad or the reviewer has personal bias against the game/genre/developer or publisher

6: probably a medicore title but if you are a fan of the genre you will probably enjoy it for a weekend or so

7: average game. no exceptional flaws or strenghts

8: probably a decent-good game (as most bought off reviews start with 8.5...)

9: Either one of the few per year titles or another pre-paid review

Perfect 10: Pike off. a massive pre paid review. No game in my gaming history is worth a 10. I can say that Portal was probably the closest title to the perfect score (no flaws in any part of the game) but it was too short and 1 shot campaign.
Every other title that I worship had his/her own truckload of issues. these didn't stop them from scoring 9.5 and up but they weren't perfect.
 
Incorrect, cronicler. The game rating scale isn't the same for every type of game:

Independent or European game: the full 1-10 scale is used with the standard implications.

Small-to-mid-studio game or smaller title: the scale as you describe it is used

AAA game: 7-10 scale is used. 10 is good, 8-9 is average, if you get anywhere near 7 you're in horrible territory.
 
cronicler said:
No game in my gaming history is worth a 10.

If people were using a grading system with two grades, would you be saying that no game is worth a 2?
 
That's why we dont do a number score on our website for movies, games, restaurants, beers or anything else. If you want to know what I think, then read the text, but numbers are incredibly subjective and suceptible to creep (as you guy's say, most people consider a 7 to be a fail which makes no sense). I dont care if we never get picked up by metacritic so long as we keep cultivating an audience who knows how to read.

btw anyone remember the old day's when most magazines rated games on audio, graphics, gameplay etc? You would see these scores like 9.6 on graphics, 7.8 on audio, 8.4 on gameplay and of course I was a kid back then so I would think "the experts have spoken! This is a scientific breakdown of the game!".
 
I am not sure about EU and Indie games Bn.
In the last 2 or 3 years I haven't really noticed any Indie or Eu game in the BIG and MANLY.... Sorry big and mainstream places like Gamespot etc.

Between the Pop-ups, massive ads and flashing buttons to direct you to "BIG" games, I can't really get any decent info from review sites. I just grab the hopepage and some screenshots of the game then dive trough game demo/forums etc to form my own opinion.

Edit:
Per: Actually I believe that nothing can be perfect. As being perfect means staying perfect and staying same means stagnating. The important thing is not being perfect but coming as close to it as possible within the current limitations I believe.

And yes even if the Portal Campaign had 20 more levels, I would probably moan that it was still too short :D. That game was that good (judging the game based on my personal likes and opinions)
 
cronicler said:
In the last 2 or 3 years I haven't really noticed any Indie or Eu game in the BIG and MANLY.... Sorry big and mainstream places like Gamespot etc.

Drakensang review on GameSpot - 7.0, too many numbers
The Path on IGN - 7.7, too thinky
Pathologic on Eurogamer - 6.0, brilliant game but not AAA enough

Oh yes, they do review European and indie games, they just don't do it fairly.

Also, if you want sites that offer useful, honest and intelligent opinions, here's a good litmus test; see if I ever wrote for them. If I did, it's a good site. GameBanshee, RPGWatch, GamerNode
 
Oh, oh oh my..... :P:D:P
I just had a laughter burst here on the "Pathologic on Eurogamer - 6.0, brilliant game but not AAA enough"

What happened to the truth and objectiveness in journalism?

Lugaru: Here in Turkey, we have a small cadre of decent game reviewers. These guys had to quit their jobs at Level Tr and start a new magazine when their parent company was taken over by a big media corporation to get away from writing parrot press articles :)
Those guys still use the graphics/sound/gameplay/leght table but they always put the disclaimer about tastes vary from person to person. They even do double editor reviews with alternate scores when they can't agree what the game deserves.

Anyway I'm stopping my advertisement :D here.

Edit: http://www.oyungezer.com.tr/ (If you ever learn how to read Turkish)
 
I only know a few words in Turkish, and most of them are either really good or really bad. My first girlfriend was from there, she was an exchange student visiting Mexico.
 
Ahh :D The Turkish 101 for foreigners:
Lesson one: Greeting people
Lesson two: Being polite to people
Lesson three: Insulting people up the their seventh generation ancestors using every poetic image available in human mind

Note to self: No more off topic posts. don't tempt a slaphammer.
 
Back
Top