French website Gamekult plays Fallout 3

[Seboss]

Another interesting bit.

Interactions with the local populace are very limited and are ripped right from the dialog system of Oblivion. Despite their total lack of expression and the robotic feel of their animation, the voice overs of the inhabitants of the local town are more convincing than the latest Elder Scrolls, a nice touch for player immersion. On the other hand, we'll note the near total disappearance of the unique art déco design that could be found in the previous Fallouts, to the profit of Mad Max like or Waterworld like design.

EDIT: moar

But what the crowd really wants to know is "Does Fallout 3 really stand up to the legacy and the unique feel of the series or if the changes brought by Bethesda are too drastic?"
While it's obvioulsy too soon to make a final judgment on this matter, we have to admit that this first hour of gameplay at E3 felt more like a relatively ingenious Fallout mod for Oblivion that a real third installment in the series created by Black Isle. Whether it is on looks, gameplay or ergonomy, we have great difficulties finding the relationship between this game and the first two episodes of the post-apocalyptic saga.

 

[MrBumble]

Edit: Didn´t they get rid of the loading screens before entering buildings for GTA4? I haven´t played it, but thought I read that they managed to fix this.

Indeed they have, unless you have to take an elevator to your place for instance : there is a two or three seconds loading time.

 

[Claw]

Yes, but it implies all other coverage is dishonest.

Most of it is. Nearly every preview I've read (more than is healthy) claims that the author is a huge Fallout fan and that Bethout is totally a worthy sequel, nailing the atmosphere, with cool turnbased combat (aka VATS) and using the same famous SPECIAL attribute system.

Oblivion has its flaws, but it is not an inherently terrible game.

You are wrong. The problem is, most gamers are also terrible. It's a match made in hevan.

It's less honest to ignore any obvious faults that show up in a short play-through, but previewers tend to just do that for every game, sadly.

So they're dishonest in general. Which brings us back to "all other coverage is dishonest" which is mostly true.

Not having followed Oblivion at all, either before or after release, a few months after, what were the gaming sites commenting on then?

The way I remember it, they generally stayed uniformly positive up to the point when the first Bethout previews appeared, which generally come with a long list of Oblivion flaws that are mentioned only to assure that Bethesda will fix them all in Bethout.

Sure the guy isn't very optimistic but the preview does seem objective.

As far as Bethout is concerned, that is the same thing as negative to me. Or vice versa.

 

[Vasara]

The point is, negativity does not imply honesty and positivity does not imply dishonesty. Obviously dishonesty and ignorance of the series' history is ever present in previews, but you can be dishonest in hating the game too.

I'm not quite sure what to make of everyone attacking the player. Maybe they threw them into especially risky territory, with a char unusually awesome at all firearms, of course. A lot of factors could contribute to everyone attacking the player, such as charisma, karma, "hacks" for demo purposes to make it more exciting etc. Not a whole lot in terms of meaningful roleplaying you can show in an hour (they weren't even allowed to do any quests so as not to spoil anything if I recall correctly), so might as well show them the action and violence. It's funny, apparently.

 

[Brother None]

The point is, negativity does not imply honesty and positivity does not imply dishonesty. Obviously dishonesty and ignorance of the series' history is ever present in previews, but you can be dishonest in hating the game too.

Exactly. I've seen a lot of stupid, negative commentary as well as stupid, positive commentary. Like or dislike does not make on stupid or honest by default.

I'm not quite sure what to make of everyone attacking the player. Maybe they threw them into especially risky territory, with a char unusually awesome at all firearms, of course.

Not really. You're given a pre-fabbed PC, but otherwise it's become clear from other previews that other than a section of the city that's walled off for plot reasons, you're free to go anywhere. So while no doubt a few things differ and might have been changed, Bethesda did not fab a combat-only area or wall off quests for this demo.

His experience, wandering around in the gameworld in the same way that you and I shall, is that there's a lot of unprovoked combat.

 

[K.C. Cool]

Is it just me or do I see more foreign previewers being more critical about the connection to previous FO games than American previewers asslicking Bethesda?

That's a tad strange for me to accept.

 

[CrazyGorila]

But what the crowd really wants to know is "Does Fallout 3 really stand up to the legacy and the unique feel of the series or if the changes brought by Bethesda are too drastic?"
While it's obvioulsy too soon to make a final judgment on this matter, we have to admit that this first hour of gameplay at E3 felt more like a relatively ingenious Fallout mod for Oblivion that a real third installment in the series created by Black Isle. Whether it is on looks, gameplay or ergonomy, we have great difficulties finding the relationship between this game and the first two episodes of the post-apocalyptic saga.

yeah, but Todd already anwsered that one.
With the whole "...well this game is meant for players who haven't played the previous Fallout games" bit.

 

[Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude]

Yes, but it implies all other coverage is dishonest.

When 19/20 previews consist entirely of "OMFG BLOODY MESS!!! EXPLODING LIMBS!!! FATMAN!!! TEDDYBEAR DECAPITATION!!!! HATS HATS HATS!!!!!!!111" and gloss over or completely ignore all of the obvious faults; you could definitely call them dishonest... or shitty and uninformative at the least. All of the review publications need to be held to high standards, although the overwhelming majority of them are merely gears in the soul-sucking hype machine; and never have anything negative to say about games anymore.

 

[sarfa]

On the issue of early previews using non final builds of the game, I think it's perfectly ok to not be mentioning the obvious flaws. I imagine if a previewer comes across an obvious flaw, s/he will epxect the developer to fix it by the time the release comes, and if they don't, it will probably (and hopefully) be mentioned in the review.

So far a lot of the previews for Fallout 3 that I've read have said that development is "essentially over" with just a bit of tweaking left to do- which leads me to believe that the previewers are under the impression that obvious gameplay faults (FPS bits being sluggish, VATS being to effective, etc) will be fixed come release time- and whats the point of mentioning a flaw if you're not sure it'll be in the final version? Whether that'll actually happen is a different story entirely ofcourse.

 

[Anani Masu]

Dan Stapleton, who did that 5 hour hands on for PCG and included info on non violent quest resolutions, posted this on Qt3.

Gross exaggeration of the load times there, too - I don't think I ever saw any longer than 10-15 seconds. Most were less than 5 seconds. Though it was kind of annoying that you have to load to enter a building.

 

[Brother None]

So far a lot of the previews for Fallout 3 that I've read have said that development is "essentially over" with just a bit of tweaking left to do- which leads me to believe that the previewers are under the impression that obvious gameplay faults (FPS bits being sluggish, VATS being to effective, etc) will be fixed come release time- and whats the point of mentioning a flaw if you're not sure it'll be in the final version?

Because you're not sure it won't be.

Your job is to be informative, not to pre-select info you consider appropriate to mention: if you see some glaring flaw, mention it. If in your professional opinion it looks like flaw they should fix (like, say, minor collision detection problems) then mention it. If it looks like something they can't fix, like inherent problems with the concept of VATS, then mention that too.

Fact first, opinion second. That's a journalist's job. Not ignoring faults.

 

[Vrede]

Your job is to be informative, not to pre-select info you consider appropriate to mention: if you see some glaring flaw, mention it. If in your professional opinion it looks like flaw they should fix (like, say, minor collision detection problems) then mention it. If it looks like something they can't fix, like inherent problems with the concept of VATS, then mention that too.

Fact first, opinion second. That's a journalist's job. Not ignoring faults.

Its hard to be objective and informative when you're more interested in bashing the "fanbois" rather than be on-track with your subject.
I just browsed through a 94 pages long thread at this "journalists" forum and the general impression is that they're more about discussing "NMA-ers" than be objective and informative about anything. Not to mention the insults that get thrown without any restraint because apparently the moderator (sic) is a qualified spammer/wanker.
This is not a singular occurence as I already had the displeasure of reading some retarded angry blogger turned "journalist" opinions not too long ago.
Funny stuff is that while these guys are actually interested in selling their opinions, NMA is not about selling anything. We don't even hope to influence the ones that could actually be interested in selling to us, much less the general public. These guys better have some normal day-jobs lined up in case the economy kicks the bucket.

 

[Imperial Guard]

They are a bunch of jokers. Men of no account. Ignore them