Stone Monkey blog makes a brief comment on the Fallout 3 reviewery:<blockquote>And most curious is the uncharacteristically gushing GameRevolution review, which doesn’t really critique the game at all, and even more oddly, makes no comparison or even passing reference to previous Fallout games. In fact if you didn’t already know better, the review would make you think that this was a new franchise. I ask you, if a new Super Mario Brothers game was reviewed, wouldn’t you expect a few comparisons to the previous legendary games in the series? Oh, wait, maybe if a third party bought the rights to the Mario franchise and turned it into a first person shooter, then it’d be best not to bring them up.</blockquote>It then goes on to call VDweller "legendary" and recommend his impressions thread, so I sense an agenda there.
IGN has a Head-to-Head feature for people wondering which version of Fallout 3 is the best, looking at aspects like graphics, controls and extra features. The PC version wins most categories, and they don't even mention modding. Plus it's the cheapest. The PS3 version gets picked on for having more bugs, but it's "still a great buy".
There's an opinion piece up on Neoseeker called "11 ways Fallout 2 was better than Fallout 3". From the intro:<blockquote>Don't get me wrong. Fallout 3 isn't good -- it's great. One of the best games of the year, easily...but even still: could it have been better? Are mods going to bring Fallout 3 to incredibly new heights, like mods made a gem out of the rough diamond of Bethesda's Oblivion?
Fallout 2 is probably my favorite RPG of all time. So, understandably (I hope), any game I'm going to compare to Fallout 2 is going to come up short. Well Fallout 3 is the sequel to Fallout 2, right? Well I'm going to compare them. And guess what -- Fallout 3 is going to come up short.</blockquote>There are a few factual errors and the arguments are not the strongest ones possible, but it might be worth a quick look to some of you insane haters. If nothing else, it's fun to note that the byline which graced the article for the first few hours - "Bethesda -- did they rape the soul of the original games?" - has now been changed to the more tasteful "Was Bethesda able to live up to my impossibly high standards?"
IGN has a Head-to-Head feature for people wondering which version of Fallout 3 is the best, looking at aspects like graphics, controls and extra features. The PC version wins most categories, and they don't even mention modding. Plus it's the cheapest. The PS3 version gets picked on for having more bugs, but it's "still a great buy".
There's an opinion piece up on Neoseeker called "11 ways Fallout 2 was better than Fallout 3". From the intro:<blockquote>Don't get me wrong. Fallout 3 isn't good -- it's great. One of the best games of the year, easily...but even still: could it have been better? Are mods going to bring Fallout 3 to incredibly new heights, like mods made a gem out of the rough diamond of Bethesda's Oblivion?
Fallout 2 is probably my favorite RPG of all time. So, understandably (I hope), any game I'm going to compare to Fallout 2 is going to come up short. Well Fallout 3 is the sequel to Fallout 2, right? Well I'm going to compare them. And guess what -- Fallout 3 is going to come up short.</blockquote>There are a few factual errors and the arguments are not the strongest ones possible, but it might be worth a quick look to some of you insane haters. If nothing else, it's fun to note that the byline which graced the article for the first few hours - "Bethesda -- did they rape the soul of the original games?" - has now been changed to the more tasteful "Was Bethesda able to live up to my impossibly high standards?"
