PC Action Germany reviews Fallout 3

[Sicblades]

The conspiracy theories must be false! Bethesda has made such a great game that they do not need to bribe anyone.

 

[Tyler]

I don't even want to know how much playing dressup, having your robo-barber cut the PC's hair, and how much pretending to be a vampire is going to make up that time.

you cannot become one of the "vampires".

you're all just trying too hard to make the game horrible. just shut up until you play it and then criticize.

 

[beverageleverage]

Whether or not there is any bribing taking place, I don't think it is even necessary because it is in *most* magazine/websites interest to give high ratings to highly anticipated games as long as they aren't seriously terrible, and even then it is up to their discretion. If later on it is widely agreed that a game is pretty garbage then they can lightly ridicule it months or years later, hence the C.Y.A. type of things things like the 10/11 score, if a game comes along that actually deserves a perfect score then they don't have to put it next to the utter mediocrity that got a 10. Most of these reviewers put the success of the game/industry over any real criticism of it, especially console specific ones that focus solely on playstation or xbox.

 

[gc051360]

I don't even want to know how much playing dressup, having your robo-barber cut the PC's hair, and how much pretending to be a vampire is going to make up that time.

you cannot become one of the "vampires".

you're all just trying too hard to make the game horrible. just shut up until you play it and then criticize.

Why would I spend $60 against my judgment? Why should I distrust myself?

 

[Brother None]

you're all just trying too hard to make the game horrible. just shut up until you play it and then criticize.

Play it?

 

[DJS4000]

Whoa hey, handbrake. News flash: no it isn't. You can't judge a 100-hour game in 16 hours. You can't even begin to judge a 100-hour game in 16 hours.

whoa, i did not mean do offend anyone with that statement. it's just my opinion that, given their experience, they should be able to present a decent review within that timeframe.

I do this for a living as well, and guess what? It doesn't work that way. Some of the first hands-on previews were based on 5 hours playthrough time, and we're supposed to accept 3 of those chained together make for adequate review time?

the thing is, were they to play the game for 100 hours, that would mean around 10 to 12 days of non-stop playing. i do not see how this could fit into their schedule.

If you don't believe me, go to the Escapist, search for their the Witcher review, based on 10 hours gaming time. Look at the responses. Look how badly he misanalysed the game. It's not about what opinion comes out of it, it's about proper journalistic standards, and you can't review a game that big with such limited time. The Codex' VDweller played Oblivion for a month (no idea how many hours he logged, tho') before reviewing it, and surprise surprise his is nearly the only review (other than GameBanshee's) that covers all the points, good and bad.

i certainly do believe you, but like i said, they have to compromise. they, as a magazine, cannot just take 2 reviewers away for around 10 days. that's a guesstimated 40% of the production time for one months' issue. just for one game?
ok, the experience would be different, so would probably the rating.


another thing, and don't get me wrong on this one, is this: they rate the game "as is", not its' quality as a sequel (insert sentence with 'verisimilitude'). while not satisfactory for most of us (me included), the game remains. and although the fallout franchise might have (or certainly has) been raped, that doesn't mean the game cannot still be fun. remember: i can't be worse than FOOS.

i think.

 

[Brother None]

the thing is, were they to play the game for 100 hours, that would mean around 10 to 12 days of non-stop playing. i do not see how this could fit into their schedule.

Doesn't matter. Look, playing games isn't that tough. The rough part of the job is more in the bad games and the writing then the playing.

You can not, can not review game without having played at least 50% of it (if it has a predicted length, if not you'll just have to wing for when you get the taste for it), and for some games, in particular the narrative-heavy ones even longer is required.

Would you accept people reviewing books having read only the first few chapters? Films after the first half hour? Quality shouldn't suffer under time pressure like this: we have thousands of incompetent would-be reviewers out there, if they can be paid to invest proper time that's a sign that we have too many different, useless websites and magazines.

and don't get me wrong on this one, is this: they rate the game "as is", not its' quality as a sequel (insert sentence with 'verisimilitude').

Verisimilitude does not work in that context.

And they're not rating it as is. They're rating it - explicitely - as it compares to Oblivion.

i can't be worse than FOOS.

Yes you can man you just gotta believe you just gotta believe

 

[DJS4000]

Doesn't matter. Look, playing games isn't that tough. The rough part of the job is more in the bad games and the writing then the playing.

You can not, can not review game without having played at least 50% of it (if it has a predicted length, if not you'll just have to wing for when you get the taste for it), and for some games, in particular the narrative-heavy ones even longer is required.

yes, certainly, and i do not think it has been easy for them, too, but keep in mind, we are talking about a six page review here. that's less than 5% of the entire magazine. there HAS to be compromise, IMHO. especially given the rather strange circumstances of the testing environment.

Would you accept people reviewing books having read only the first few chapters? Films after the first half hour? Quality shouldn't suffer under time pressure like this: we have thousands of incompetent would-be reviewers out there, if they can be paid to invest proper time that's a sign that we have too many different, useless websites and magazines.

i see what you are trying to say, but i do not think it works the same with movies and books, since both are highly linear, passive experiences with zero interactivity. the length of a movie is fixed. the length of a book is only determined by your reading and comprehensive skills.

video games are entirely different, are they not? i can finish fallout 1 in less than 20 minutes, if i were so inclined, but i might also play it for days, if not weeks.

And they're not rating it as is. They're rating it - explicitely - as it compares to Oblivion.

well, it is the same genre, after all.

Yes you can man you just gotta believe you just gotta believe

damn. the t backstabbed me.

 

[JESUS]

Whether or not there is any bribing taking place, I don't think it is even necessary because it is in *most* magazine/websites interest to give high ratings to highly anticipated games as long as they aren't seriously terrible, and even then it is up to their discretion. If later on it is widely agreed that a game is pretty garbage then they can lightly ridicule it months or years later, hence the C.Y.A. type of things things like the 10/11 score, if a game comes along that actually deserves a perfect score then they don't have to put it next to the utter mediocrity that got a 10. Most of these reviewers put the success of the game/industry over any real criticism of it, especially console specific ones that focus solely on playstation or xbox.

That's why it's a lot easier, and smart, to trust a bad review (Canard) over a very good one, because the bad one has nothing to gain or lose from the companies in advertising.
It's really bad when they don't get their priorities straight, that's the priority of informing us about the game we are deciding to buy, instead they worry about their jobs (who doesn't?), and about the health of the game industry, just pathetic.

 

[Sicblades]

Like you said, a lot of people worry about their jobs; can't really blame them for that. But I fear that a lot of those people reviewing just don't have the skills to succeed at other things, which is why they have to suck up to the companies they work for. (A lot does not equal all, there are a lot of competent reviewers too)

 

[sonicblastoise]

i just wanna say that you all are overlooking the fact that once you reach the end of this game, IT ENDS

unlike the truly unlimited freedom you get from beating the game like in FO2. so technically, that number of playing hours is probably artificially boosted by the fact that you have to restart the game everytime you happened to "miss" those "other sidequests." and i assume if you do them all on your first playthrough, the final encounter would be phenomenally simple.

 

[marko2te]

Doesn't matter. Look, playing games isn't that tough. The rough part of the job is more in the bad games and the writing then the playing.

You can not, can not review game without having played at least 50% of it (if it has a predicted length, if not you'll just have to wing for when you get the taste for it), and for some games, in particular the narrative-heavy ones even longer is required.

yes, certainly, and i do not think it has been easy for them, too, but keep in mind, we are talking about a six page review here. that's less than 5% of the entire magazine. there HAS to be compromise, IMHO. especially given the rather strange circumstances of the testing environment.

Compromises are the problem, you cant play a game for few hours because of a tight schedule and then give poorly written review. If a critic cant properly try a game then he should not write a review.

Would you accept people reviewing books having read only the first few chapters? Films after the first half hour? Quality shouldn't suffer under time pressure like this: we have thousands of incompetent would-be reviewers out there, if they can be paid to invest proper time that's a sign that we have too many different, useless websites and magazines.

i see what you are trying to say, but i do not think it works the same with movies and books, since both are highly linear, passive experiences with zero interactivity. the length of a movie is fixed. the length of a book is only determined by your reading and comprehensive skills..

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.

video games are entirely different, are they not? i can finish fallout 1 in less than 20 minutes, if i were so inclined, but i might also play it for days, if not weeks.

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.

And they're not rating it as is. They're rating it - explicitely - as it compares to Oblivion.

well, it is the same genre, after all..

You are missing the point, they are not comparing it to Oblivion because its the same genre they compare it EXPLICITLY with Oblivion but they should compare it to other RPG-s old Fallouts first.

The fact is that this is Oblivion with guns made for Oblivion fans who are only interested in how is this game different from Oblivion.

 

[CxBxW]

Why should Fallout 3 be compared with the first two games when it is nothing like them? It's very obviously a sequel in name only, and you can't compare apples and oranges.

 

[fedaykin]

just shut up until you play it and then criticize.

Hahaha. Yeah, and after someone plays it and still dislikes it you'll go: "but but but you need to play it several times to 'get it' lol."

 

[kikomiko]

i just wanna say that you all are overlooking the fact that once you reach the end of this game, IT ENDS

unlike the truly unlimited freedom you get from beating the game like in FO2. so technically, that number of playing hours is probably artificially boosted by the fact that you have to restart the game everytime you happened to "miss" those "other sidequests." and i assume if you do them all on your first playthrough, the final encounter would be phenomenally simple.

no matter, I'll just make a save right before the final encounter and do everything I want to accomplish after that.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

yes, certainly, and i do not think it has been easy for them, too, but keep in mind, we are talking about a six page review here. that's less than 5% of the entire magazine. there HAS to be compromise, IMHO. especially given the rather strange circumstances of the testing environment.

So because of the page limit they shouldn't play whole game, they should just play 15% of it and call that good enough to review and rate the entire game? How the hell does that make sense? It'd be like a movie critic saying "I only have a quarter of a newspaper page to write a review so I'll just watch the first ten minutes and call it good."

Why should Fallout 3 be compared with the first two games when it is nothing like them? It's very obviously a sequel in name only, and you can't compare apples and oranges.

This is sarcasm, right?

 

[alec]

Why should Fallout 3 be compared with the first two games when it is nothing like them? It's very obviously a sequel in name only, and you can't compare apples and oranges.

I am not reading this, I am not reading this, I am not reading this...

And what exactly is 'a sequel in name only'? If they call it Fallout 3, it's supposed to be a sequel to Fallout 2 which was a sequel to Fallout. No? It's like Scream --> Scream 2 --> Scream 3. You don't all of a sudden make a claymation about singing frogs that go to Mars to mate with one-eyed marshmellow bears and call it Scream 4, do you? 'But hey, don't blame us, it's a sequel in name only! You should really compare it to The Wizard of Oz, we thought that would be clear to all of our reviewers.'

You know what? Let's compare Fallout 3 to Pong. Final verdict: Pong rocks and Fallout 3 sucks. Discussion closed.

 

[CxBxW]

Why should Fallout 3 be compared with the first two games when it is nothing like them? It's very obviously a sequel in name only, and you can't compare apples and oranges.

I am not reading this, I am not reading this, I am not reading this...

And what exactly is 'a sequel in name only'? If they call it Fallout 3, it's supposed to be a sequel to Fallout 2 which was a sequel to Fallout. No? It's like Scream --> Scream 2 --> Scream 3. You don't all of a sudden make a claymation about singing frogs that go to Mars to mate with one-eyed marshmellow bears and call it Scream 4, do you? 'But hey, don't blame us, it's a sequel in name only! You should really compare it to The Wizard of Oz, we thought that would be clear to all of our reviewers.'

You know what? Let's compare Fallout 3 to Pong. Final verdict: Pong rocks and Fallout 3 sucks. Discussion closed.

Question: Does Fallout 3 have more in common with Oblivion, or with Fallout 1/2. The answer is the former, and therefore, it makes more sense to compare it to the former.

 

[Brother None]

Question: Does Fallout 3 have more in common with Oblivion, or with Fallout 1/2. The answer is the former, and therefore, it makes more sense to compare it to the former.

Why? It is sold as Fallout 3, not Oblivion 2.

If someone brings out a new Toyota model only its basically a new Audi, should people just ignore that it's called Toyota and compare it to Audi?

Better example: someone makes Star Wars VII (I love comparing Fallout to Star Wars, it's so apt) only now it's pretty much completely inspired by Princess Bride only keeping vagaries of the original setting. According to your logic, reviewers should never ever mention Star Wars in their reviews and instead compare the film purely with Princess Bride.

I have a good reply for this logic:

 

[Fade]

I don't even want to know how much playing dressup, having your robo-barber cut the PC's hair, and how much pretending to be a vampire is going to make up that time.

you cannot become one of the "vampires".

you're all just trying too hard to make the game horrible. just shut up until you play it and then criticize.

You aren't trying too hard to say it's good?

Why should we have to buy a game that doesn't look good? Honestly if I cann't judge a game based on a company's past ones... cann't judge it on the previews/screenshots/storyline released.... what on earth do I judge it based on?!?

Both sides need to relax, take a step back and decide for themselves if the game is worth it. For myself, I don't see a sequel to Fallout 1 or 2 so I'm not buying Fallout 3.