PC Action Germany reviews Fallout 3

[CxBxW]

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:

Where did I say that it shouldn't mention the original games? I simply stated that it makes more sense to compare Fallout 3 to Oblivion because it shares more similarities with said title. It is a Fallout sequel in name only. You guys know this, yet you still moan when they compare it to a title around which the engine and physics are based.

I'm genuinley suprised that people are even complaining about this. How can you on one hand, complain that Fallout 3 is nothing like the previous titles, and on the other hand, actively complain that it isn't being compared to said titles? You can't have it both ways. What would you prefer? A review that wax's lyrical about how the game is NOTHING like the originals, which you KNOW 80-90% of the public reading the review won't have played anyway? Remember who these reviews are aimed at in the first place. Probably not you guys, if we're honest.

Don't complain when you aren't the niche.

 

[fedaykin]

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.

Hm? Bethesda claims it's a sequel not just in name only. That claim is contested. Because they claim it's a sequel, it must be compared to the first instalments.

 

[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.

Hm? Bethesda claims it's a sequel not just in name only. That claim is contested. Because they claim it's a sequel, it must be compared to the first instalments.

Translated: I choose to stand by Betheseda's claims when it supports my right to moan about the game.

 

[AskWazzup]

I don't see anything wrong when someone is comparing it to oblivion, it only makes sense comparin "oblivion with guns" to oblivion.

 

[Brother None]

I'm genuinley suprised that people are even complaining about this. How can you on one hand, complain that Fallout 3 is nothing like the previous titles, and on the other hand, actively complain that it isn't being compared to said titles? You can't have it both ways. What would you prefer?

It's called Fallout 3, so we expect reviewers to pick up on and mention how it diverges from the originals. It is being sold as Fallout 3, a sequel to Fallout 2, which automatically makes it the reviewer's job to talk about that. Not compare it to the game it happens to have most in common with, but compare it to the game it claims to be closest to by its choice of name.

Your logic reads that we concluded it is a review in name only and thus...we would want reviewers to ignore its claims to be a review rather than pound on this odd fact?

Seriously man, you're not making a whole lot of sense out here.

 

[CxBxW]

I'm genuinley suprised that people are even complaining about this. How can you on one hand, complain that Fallout 3 is nothing like the previous titles, and on the other hand, actively complain that it isn't being compared to said titles? You can't have it both ways. What would you prefer?

It's called Fallout 3, so we expect reviewers to pick up on and mention how it diverges from the originals. It is being sold as Fallout 3, a sequel to Fallout 2, which automatically makes it the reviewer's job to talk about that. Not compare it to the game it happens to have most in common with, but compare it to the game it claims to be closest to by its choice of name.

Your logic reads that we concluded it is a review in name only and thus...we would want reviewers to ignore its claims to be a review rather than pound on this odd fact?

Seriously man, you're not making a whole lot of sense out here.

You read into my logic incorrectly.

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.

 

[Brother None]

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

 

[CxBxW]

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

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.

 

[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.

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

see but he problem is

you won't be able to do "everything you wanted before that" because in order to do everything you need to have a different skillset which requires you to go back to the beginning, relevel, pick different perks, HOPE those perks give you different outcomes, then try it again.

 

[TychoXI]

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.

i do not agree with that... FO1 ended after completing the main quest(s). And in FO2 after finishin' it there was not really much to do, except reading some more pop-culture references and more self-references... when I replayed FO2 it wasn't mainly because I wanted to do more sidequests, it was because i wanted to see different outcomes of the quests that were already finished by the time I completed the game! or because I was like "oh I wanna play as a female now" or "oh I wanna play as a dumb" (it gave me great satisfaction like being referred to as the Dumb-One, some funny conversation with... er, that tribal who complained the "bugmen" were eatin' his brahmin and so much else!) or, you know, "oh I wanna be the evilest motha fokka of the wasteland" and the classic "ooo ooo i got this saved character with all attributes at 10"

AND if yo want to play the "other sidequests" just load a save game! DUH!

 

[fedaykin]

Translated: I choose to stand by Betheseda's claims when it supports my right to moan about the game.

Being a sequel, even if in name only, does not make a game exempt from having to be compared to, and be similar to, the previous instalments.

I can understand your 'magazine's target audience' excuse, but let's face it - it's just an excuse.

 

[CxBxW]

Translated: I choose to stand by Betheseda's claims when it supports my right to moan about the game.

Being a sequel, even if in name only, does not make a game exempt from having to be compared to, and be similar to, the previous instalments.

Once again, words are put into my mouth; not once did I state that it shouldn't be compared to Fallout 1/2.

I can understand your 'magazine's target audience' excuse, but let's face it - it's just an excuse.

It's very obviously not an excuse though, is it? It's very obviously the truth. The magazine is aimed at people that have played Oblivion. Therefore, they'll mention Oblivion a lot as the direct comparison, as opposed to the originals. It's hardly rocket science.

 

[InZaneFlea]

I've decided this.

To me, FO3 is what STALKER should've been.

Open World, Post Apocalyptic. That's all I care about, so I'm happy.

 

[Fade]

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.

Hm? Bethesda claims it's a sequel not just in name only. That claim is contested. Because they claim it's a sequel, it must be compared to the first instalments.

Translated: I choose to stand by Betheseda's claims when it supports my right to moan about the game.

I really don't understand your logic. If we are fans of the orginals then we shouldn't complain about something being a sequel in name only?

I get that a niche game that is taken mainstream is going to be very different, but the fans have a right to complain. It's probably the only right we really have. Well, that and the right to take our money elsewhere.

So are you seriously saying that we should sit in silence and simply ignore the facts?

I've decided this.

To me, FO3 is what STALKER should've been.

Open World, Post Apocalyptic. That's all I care about, so I'm happy.

It doesn't bother you at all that so many things are different from Fallout 1&2?

Aren't you worried about what companies might do to games you really enjoyed? For example if they turned Stalker into Mario Cart or Pong.

 

[Seymour the spore plant]

They will relate to the review more, and Fallout 3 will sell more copies. That is, after all, the point.

Since when is the point of reviews selling more copies of any given game? I get that it's roughly what goes on in the industry nowadays, but that does not make it any less shoddy journalism.

not once did I state that it shouldn't be compared to Fallout 1/2.

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'm having a hard time reading this in any other way.

 

[rcorporon]

So, if Bioshock 2 is more like "Minesweeper" the reviewers should not mention how it's different from Bioshock, and just talk about how it stacks up to Minesweeper?

I'm so confused...

 

[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.

Hm? Bethesda claims it's a sequel not just in name only. That claim is contested. Because they claim it's a sequel, it must be compared to the first instalments.

Translated: I choose to stand by Betheseda's claims when it supports my right to moan about the game.

I really don't understand your logic. If we are fans of the orginals then we shouldn't complain about something being a sequel in name only?

I get that a niche game that is taken mainstream is going to be very different, but the fans have a right to complain. It's probably the only right we really have. Well, that and the right to take our money elsewhere.

So are you seriously saying that we should sit in silence and simply ignore the facts?

No, i'm not saying that. Complain as much as you want.

 

[Fade]

I really don't understand your logic. If we are fans of the orginals then we shouldn't complain about something being a sequel in name only?

I get that a niche game that is taken mainstream is going to be very different, but the fans have a right to complain. It's probably the only right we really have. Well, that and the right to take our money elsewhere.

So are you seriously saying that we should sit in silence and simply ignore the facts?

No, i'm not saying that. Complain as much as you want.

That's strange because of this:

Where did I say that it shouldn't mention the original games? I simply stated that it makes more sense to compare Fallout 3 to Oblivion because it shares more similarities with said title. It is a Fallout sequel in name only. You guys know this, yet you still moan when they compare it to a title around which the engine and physics are based.

I'm genuinley suprised that people are even complaining about this. How can you on one hand, complain that Fallout 3 is nothing like the previous titles, and on the other hand, actively complain that it isn't being compared to said titles? You can't have it both ways. What would you prefer? A review that wax's lyrical about how the game is NOTHING like the originals, which you KNOW 80-90% of the public reading the review won't have played anyway? Remember who these reviews are aimed at in the first place. Probably not you guys, if we're honest.

Don't complain when you aren't the niche.

 

[CxBxW]

So, if Bioshock 2 is more like "Minesweeper" the reviewers should not mention how it's different from Bioshock, and just talk about how it stacks up to Minesweeper?

I'm so confused...

If Bioshock 2 is targeted more towards Minesweeper fans than it is Bioshock fans, then yes.

 

[rcorporon]

If Bioshock 2 is targeted more towards Minesweeper fans than it is Bioshock fans, then yes.

And you don't think that the fans of Bioshock would be (and fully justified) totally pissed off (much in the same way the folks here at NMA are)?

Also, would it have any business being called 'Bioshock 2?'