PC Action Germany reviews Fallout 3

[CxBxW]

I believe that it makes more sense to compare Fallout 3 to Oblivion, because it shares more similarities with that game than it does the first two Fallout games.

well, you're wrong. and we've tried to explain to you why you're wrong, and you don't listen. so there.

I do listen. I listen and I reply. If your arguement has boiled down to 'well you're wrong', it's hardly my problem.

 

[beverageleverage]

I do not believe it 'would be wrong' for any mainstream publication to compare Fallout 3 to 1 & 2 in favour of Oblivion, due to the target audience of said publication being far more familiar with TES.

You are saying then in general your point stands, or that in general it does not? Should most magazines compare it to oblivion or fallout1/2? Pick one, and assume that if you are generally incorrect that your point would be argued.

A thousand circa- 2004 'Morrowing with guns' and post- 2004 'Oblivion with guns' posts would dispute that claim.

That is because, as you apparently agree, bethesda is not making fallout 3 more like a fallout game, but more like a TES game. I hope you are just trying to argue for the sake of it and didn't actually misunderstand my point, that the Fallout franchise (1 and 2) and the TES franchise (all of them) are not at all similar.

 

[CxBxW]

I do not believe it 'would be wrong' for any mainstream publication to compare Fallout 3 to 1 & 2 in favour of Oblivion, due to the target audience of said publication being far more familiar with TES.

You are saying then in general your point stands, or that in general it does not? Should most magazines compare it to oblivion or fallout1/2?

I have not contradicted myself at all. I am not arguing that magazines should compare F3 to EITHER F1/2 or Oblivion, I am suggesting that I do not see a problem with them comparing it to Oblivion first and foremost, due to the similarities. I do not need to 'pick one', because standing by either one or the other wasn't my intention in the first place.

Pick one, and assume that if you are generally incorrect that your point would be argued.

This, I genuinley do not understand. Are you saying I should accept that I am wrong because my post recieved questionable feedback? Newsflash: that doesn't mean i'm wrong. It doesn't mean i'm correct either. It just means there are conflicting reviews. The topic in hand is a matter of personal opinion anyway. Nobody is correct. The way you read a review is subjective.

 

[sonicblastoise]

alright so here's why you're wrong to believe that it is more appropriate for fallout 3 to be compared to oblivion than to the originals.

Why in the hell is Fallout 3 endlessly compared to how it measures up to Oblivion? Shouldn't the measure of Fallout 3 be gauged against the games it's a sequel to?

this is the original argument.

Well, I think it should be compared to both. Comparisons to Oblivion make sense since Fallout 3 is based around the Oblivion engine and style, (like the goofy animations) and also because it's the last big game that Bethesda has done... It should be compared to the original Fallouts too though since that is the franchise they are emulating...

But, I suppose the sad truth of it is; if you start making comparisons to FO1 or FO2, then a whole lot of people won't even know or care of what the reviewer is even talking about...

Gamer: "There was a Fallout 1 and 2? Must have been for the Atari or something."

this is your argument (omissions made), albeit condensed and more articulate.

the final question is then, which is the RIGHT thing to do?

1. follow the dictates of logic, let the primary comparison be WITHIN the FRANCHISE (FALLOUT 3 vs FALLOUT 1/2) and the secondary comparison be without (FALLOUT 3 vs TES/Oblivion)?

OR

2. pander to the masses, sell your magazine only to your audience, disregard journalistic ethics, and only tell one side of the story?

you answered yes to #2

and i say you're wrong.

 

[marko2te]

I do not believe it 'would be wrong' for any mainstream publication to compare Fallout 3 to 1 & 2 in favour of Oblivion, due to the target audience of said publication being far more familiar with TES. Again, one of the main objectives of a positive review is to sell the game to consumers. Regardless of whether or not this is a good thing, that IS one of the objectives, and in comparing it to TES, they are a step further to hitting that objective than if they compared it to Fallout 1/2..

The purpose of review is to show all the pros and cons of the game, to compare it to other games in that series and similar games in that ganre. Selling the game is not job of a review but companies that distribute the game via commercials and sharing informations about the game. The critic must be neutral and objective and with his review show the consumer if the game is to his liking.

 

[betamonkey]

I never stated they should not compare it to the originals. I merely stated that I believe it makes more sense to compare it to Oblivion.

Why? Your logic is backasswards. The game is closer to Oblivion in execution hence it should be compared to Oblivion. That's circular logic that doesn't actually fit in with the expectation patterns people should feel free to have.

A logically structured comparison would do the comparison to Fallout 1/2 first, explore it, then talk about what is held over from Bethesda's last project. Both are relevant, but it only makes pretensions to be a sequel to one

You know what people are going to compare FOOL to, if it ever sees the light of day? I'll give you a hint, it's not going to be Fallout 1/2.

You compare things that people are familiar with, otherwise people do not understand your comparison.

You claim to be in the 'game media' but it sometimes doesn't sound like it. The 'game media' is aimed at people who aren't like you. They aren't waiting for 10 year old games to be remade. Many of the people in the market for this game have not played Fallout 1/2 for better or worse. Whatever, that's just life. But many of them have played Oblivion. You give people a valid frame of reference they can identify with and then you build on top of that, which in this case should be referencing the originals.

 

[JESUS]

Jesus, could you be anymore condescending to the 'kids''? Why so cynical? Whats the problem with liking the games produced by one company? We all have favourite things so lets not make out that those who like Bethesdas products are all pandering fan boys.

The fanboys defend BS ignoring all the flaws we can see in the previews and reviews, that's the aggravating part, defending a corporations or company is already a mistake from the get go.
Why not like a developer, the person, that guy who did that quest, the company as a whole don't care about you, they care about the profit.
I'm not generalizing either, not all kids do this, just the fanboys; and i know kids do stupid things because i did them too when i was one.

 

[beverageleverage]

I do not need to 'pick one', because standing by either one or the other wasn't my intention in the first place.

Your point was that it makes *more* sense to compare f3 to oblivion. Fallout 3 needs to be compared to the series it is a part of first, not oblivion or anything else no matter how similar it might be. You have to pick one or the other, especially since it was your own statement in the first place.

This, I genuinley do not understand. Are you saying I should accept that I am wrong because my post recieved questionable feedback? Newsflash: that doesn't mean i'm wrong. It doesn't mean i'm correct either. It just means there are conflicting reviews. The topic in hand is a matter of personal opinion anyway. Nobody is correct. The way you read a review is subjective.

You have been backtracking and saying people are putting words in your mouth, when all they are doing is explaining why it was making less sense to do as your post said rather than more sense. Your statement was wrong, I am not sure how else to put it. Fallout 3 and oblivion are definitely more alike but it does not make sense to put that similarity before the fact that it is a sequel to fallout 1/2.

 

[CxBxW]

Your arguements all have something in common: they all come from the mindset of a Fallout1/2 faithful. Obviously, this is to be expected, taking the forum into account.

However, my point is that NMA faithful are not the predominant readers of these (mainstream) reviews. Therefore, your claims that Fallout 3 MUST be compared with 1 and 2 are false. It makes more sense to be compared with the readers direct frame of referance: TES.

Case, point and question: Was Twilight Princess compared more to Ocarina of Time, or Zelda 2, upon review?

 

[Ausir]

Case, point and question: Was Twilight Princess compared more to Ocarina of Time, or Zelda 2, upon review?

Ocarina of Time is a previous iteration of the same series, not to a different series altogether.

 

[beverageleverage]

Your arguements all have something in common: they all come from the mindset of a Fallout1/2 faithful. Obviously, this is to be expected, taking the forum into account.

How does this have any bearing on this discussion? You are correct because my point is in line with some other people here, and is therefore marginalized?

However, my point is that NMA faithful are not the predominant readers of these (mainstream) reviews. Therefore, your claims that Fallout 3 MUST be compared with 1 and 2 are false. It makes more sense to be compared with the readers direct frame of referance: TES.

First you say that the majority here being against your argument means nothing, and then say that the majority elsewhere makes you correct? Neither matters in any case. No matter the context, this includes reviews whose only purpose is to sell games to the lowest common denominator, your statement is incorrect. Sure it may happen, but it makes less sense for Fallout 3 to be compared to oblivion over fallout 1/2, this has been retyped too many times now.

 

[Fade]

However, my point is that NMA faithful are not the predominant readers of these (mainstream) reviews. Therefore, your claims that Fallout 3 MUST be compared with 1 and 2 are false. It makes more sense to be compared with the readers direct frame of referance: TES.

If you only want to make money. If you want to be part of the hype machine for gaming companies. Then it makes sense to write the reviews/previews we have been seeing, but a journalist is suppose to have some ethics.

A completely negative review should score a 1 or 2.... they don't.

A completely positive review should score 8 or 9 with a 'perfect' game at 10.

Looking at the screenshots and game trailers I don't see this wonderful game they are raving about in the reviews. Oh and before anyone talks about how I'm just mad about it being a clone of Fallout 2.... I'd be happy if Fallout 3 was improvement on Bloodlines or Deus Ex.

 

[sonicblastoise]

However, my point is that NMA faithful are not the predominant readers of these (mainstream) reviews... It makes more sense to be compared with the readers direct frame of referance: TES.

what all of us are trying to say is that it DOESN'T make MORE sense to do so. not on the basis of fanboyism, or dedication, or subjectivity, but pure logic. the rationale that "it makes more sense to compare FO3 to Oblivion because the people playing it will have played Oblivion than FO" is a matter of EXCEPTION, EXPEDIENCE, and perhaps LAZINESS. not a rule, nor an acceptable journalistic practice.

LOGIC DICTATES that FO3 be PRIMARILY COMPARED to its nearest NAMED PREDECESSORS. does that make sense?

it's not about the readership, though that's important. it's not about the developer, but that's important too. it's about objectivity.

and before you go off saying more about how gaming magazines and reviews are all about subjectivity and logic has no place, objectivity is subjective blah blah blah

ask yourself, "should it be that way?"

we're just trying to keep the gaming industry accountable. that's what the people do. at least, what they should do.

 

[Iozeph]

More people that read a Fallout 3 review in a popular games magazine will have played Oblivion than will have played Fallout 1/2. Taking into account the audience, it makes perfect sense to compare it to Oblivion more than to the previous games in the franchise. They will relate to the review more, and Fallout 3 will sell more copies. That is, after all, the point.

Again, these publications are certainly not tailored to NMA faithful. You know more than I that for those particular reviews you should look toward an indie publication/website.

How in hell does it make perfect sense for a reviewer to make that comparison?

Because it is the reviewer that is writing the piece. Therefore it makes sense for them to be making the comparisons in their review. What part of what I said do you not understand?

Oh, shut up, you facetious, flamebaiting, troll.

You know exactly the point you were making in the post I originally quoted.

The point of the original paragraph(whether you intended it or not- or refuse to admit it) you posted was essentially, that it is somehow the job of the game reviewer to sell the games they are supposed to be objectively reviewing. Which it most certainly is not.

Following it up with that deliberately obtuse reply, which took part of my own reply out of its context, doesn't magically validate any argument you were trying to make on the point. All it did was show you dropping in doses of idiocy, and then removing your points from their original idiotic contexts in your follow up answers- pretending they were never so idiotic in the first place.

Making these, and other, stupid points and then saying the answers you get are wrong by refuting them with statements like, "Because this is the way things really are" or "in actuality..." is playing devil's advocate without coming right out and saying so. It's a poorly played bait and switch, and essentially one of the worst kinds of mental masturbation.

You have the nerve to post this drek up here and then tell people, looking for honest debate, that they're wrong for not knowing that you had no intention of doing anything other than tossing yourself off in a forum?

I'll say it again, you're a troll. Go back to whatever dark, oozing, primordial cesspool you slithered out of and and play with yourself there until your eyes cross, or you go blind. Either one- I don't care.

Troll.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

If you only want to make money. If you want to be part of the hype machine for gaming companies. Then it makes sense to write the reviews/previews we have been seeing, but a journalist is suppose to have some ethics.

A completely negative review should score a 1 or 2.... they don't.

A completely positive review should score 8 or 9 with a 'perfect' game at 10.

Looking at the screenshots and game trailers I don't see this wonderful game they are raving about in the reviews. Oh and before anyone talks about how I'm just mad about it being a clone of Fallout 2.... I'd be happy if Fallout 3 was improvement on Bloodlines or Deus Ex.

I found it interesting to read staff of a gaming magazine's justification and rationale for scoring games as it highlighted exactly one of the two things I that I think is wrong with ratings. They said that a 10 isn't a perfect game and that a game that scored a 10 just a few years ago wouldn't score a 10 today because of technological developments and a lack of innovation. While I think it's fair to say that some games age better than others and that most loose a point or two after a while, they don't all. They also talked about how games should be judged on their own and that comparing them to others shouldn't be a major consideration.

I honestly think that Fallout 3 should be judged on how good of a sequel it is and how good of a stand alone game it is, I think that they are both completely valid criteria because the former only matters to some people and the latter matters to both. That said, I don't see how it's getting rated as high as it is, I guess Oblivion fans will love it and that Morrowind fans will like it but regardless, is it really 3-5 points better than what an average game is or an average game of it's type should be?

 

[Brother None]

Don't backseat moderate and cool it with the personal attacks, Iozeph, you do this way too much. Strike one. Drop it.

 

[sonicblastoise]

at the very least i think this game deserves fair treatment from both sides. i almost want to say that this game deserves a little more than a 2 page "try it/buy it/fry it" (to quote crispygamer) review.

but consumers don't have time for that crap, huh?

 

[Lingwei]

I actually agree with CxBxW although for a different reason. The reason that Fallout 360 should be compared with Oblivion and not Fallout 1/2 is because most of the reviewers wouldn't have even played the originals so how could they compare Fallout 360 to them?

 

[Bernard Bumner]

I actually agree with CxBxW although for a different reason. The reason that Fallout 360 should be compared with Oblivion and not Fallout 1/2 is because most of the reviewers wouldn't have even played the originals so how could they compare Fallout 360 to them?

Which would be acceptable, if they were completely honest about the fact that they have no idea about Fallout, but they generally aren't. The majority are spinning the line about capturing the spirit, and even some of those who profess to have never played the originals write about Fallout 3's similarity based on what they've been told by a friend or what they've read...

As much as any reviewer may play up the Oblivion comparison, they have also been generally careful to toe the Bethesda line (or have accepted it uncritically). It isn't really good enough.

 

[DJS4000]

sorry for the late reply.

Its a matter of content not "interactivity", the critic has to see majority of the content before he gives a review. It is the same thing with a movie or books, for example there are "choose your own adventure" books should critic take only one of dozen paths in story and then give a review.

it is indeed a matter of content. can you play a game, see less than 100% of its' content and still be able to make a decent review?

yes.

can you do the same with books or movies?

no.

or are you implying that any and every review out there is based on 100% play-throughs? that the reviewers of fallout 1 and 2 played every little side quest and explored 100% of the game world? that that the reviewers of crysis killed every enemy and explored every square cm of the map? that in a sports game review, the reviewer player every mode of the game, with every team against every other team in any possible combination and permutation?
the thing is that with games you can definitely base a review on your experience, even if it does not equal 100% of the content. especially if you are playing with a review in mind. you play, focus on the core aspects, like story, rpg elements, interface, etc., finish, make the review.
example: i've been playing Clear Sky for roughly 20 hours now. and i already know that

-it's buggy as hell
-it's hard as hell
-the AI is unbalanced as hell
-the story is decently made but usually revolves around tasks of the "i-can-help-you-but-like-to-send-you-on-suicide-mission-first"-kind.
-it looks great and has great atmosphere
-it good fun.

i could write a review now, without having finished it.

in short: reviewing games != reviewing books/movies

(i omitted the "choose your own" kind of books, since they are a niche and i can count on one hand how many i've seen of those, let alone read)

The job of a critic is to explore the game and make a score of what he saw, not to finish the game as fast as he can and i dont know of anyone who finished Fallout 1 in less than 20 min. Like watching an a action movie but fast forwarding to action scenes ignoring the rest of a movie, yeah the action scenes are great but what you didnt see is that the story sucks.

as i said, you can finish a game reasonably fast but STILL be able to witness and document the defining factors.

as for fallout in 20 minutes: youtube is your friend.