PC Action Germany reviews Fallout 3

[CxBxW]

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.

Congratulations, Fade. You've picked out the one flaw which negates my whole arguement. You win a shiny star.

Basically, (and Seymour The Spore Plant, this relates to your post also,) there is a difference between saying:

Fallout 3 should not be compared to Fallout 1/2

and asking:

why should it be paramount to a Fallout 3 review to compare it to the originals over Oblivion, when Oblivion is the game the readership of said review will be most familiar with.

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.

Since Bestheda paid off everyone and their mother to give their game positive, 90+ reviews, obviously.

 

[CxBxW]

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)?

Pissed off about what? Bioshock 2 being compared to Minesweeper? No, not if it was more like Minesweeper.

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

I have NO idea. You're the one that came up with the ridiculous 'Minesweeper' analogy.

EDIT: Sorry for the double post.

 

[sonicblastoise]

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)?

Pissed off about what? Bioshock 2 being compared to Minesweeper? No, not if it was more like Minesweeper.

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

I have NO idea. You're the one that came up with the ridiculous 'Minesweeper' analogy.

EDIT: Sorry for the double post.

maybe pissed that their beloved bioshock franchise has forsaken its original design and begun pandering to minesweeper fans, of whom very few care much for the first bioshock????

unless of course it was named "BioSweep" or "Mineshock: a Bioshock themed Minesweeper game" in which case it would be seen as a spin-off, not a sequel, which brings us back to the original argument.

 

[Fade]

Congratulations, Fade. You've picked out the one flaw which negates my whole arguement. You win a shiny star.

Basically, (and Seymour The Spore Plant, this relates to your post also,) there is a difference between saying:

Fallout 3 should not be compared to Fallout 1/2

and asking:

why should it be paramount to a Fallout 3 review to compare it to the originals over Oblivion, when Oblivion is the game the readership of said review will be most familiar with.

I simply wanted to know why your two posts had opposite positions on the issue.

It's not paramount for a review to compare it to the originals over Oblivion, but it should at the very least mention the differences between the originals and newest game. Do you see that in most of the previews/reviews? I don't unless you start counting the attacks on NMA and the rest of the fans that want something close to the originals.

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.

Since Bestheda paid off everyone and their mother to give their game positive, 90+ reviews, obviously.

Which makes it alright?


Editted out possible backseat moderation.

 

[sonicblastoise]

i think the gaming journalism industry needs to get some good, old-fashioned muckraking action going.

time for an EXPOSe. where's john stossel when you need him???

 

[Per]

It is going to be insanely fun, and that's that.

the FPS action was very well done.

we all pretty much think this is a contender for Game of the Year.

Fallout 3 is my type of game.

you guys just CAN'T accept that this is a good game!

Yet another review to prove that Fallout 3 is a great game.

The game world is absolutely stuffed.

The main quest is 20-30 hours, with 100+hours of sidequests

just shut up until you play it

It is a Fallout sequel in name only.

Ho ho. First we are told by Tyshalle or one of those people that everyone who's using the FINO3 acronym or otherwise complaining about infidelity is a slavering retard and Fo3 is a true sequel by definition because of the name, setting, legal rights and so on. Then we are told that all of our criticism is invalid because Fo3 isn't a proper sequel. Can't you discuss this among yourselves first before you tell us why we're dumb?

Also, less quote pyramids.

 

[Bodybag]

Hey, late to the argument here...

...but Fallout 1&2 are as different from Fallout 3 as Minesweeper is from Bioshock?

Shit jus' got REAL

 

[Seymour the spore plant]

Basically, (and Seymour The Spore Plant, this relates to your post also,) there is a difference between saying: *snip*

I'm not big on arguing semantics, but the whole "apples and oranges" stuff is usually reserved for analogies perceived as invalid. Add to that the seemingly rethorical question of "Why should Fallout 3 be compared with the first two games when it is nothing like them?" and we have a statement that sure as hell appears to say that.

But if you don't mean it like that, then uh, what's the point again? That they're (rightfully) comparing it to Oblivion simply because of their target audience? If both games were not amazingly similar, the comparison would not stand, or be made at all in the first place, so I don't think it's just that. Also, almost every one of these reviews have the whole "fans of the originals will be pleased/displeased to know that..." mumbo-jumbo, so one might argue they're not even that targeted anyway, especially when slobbering all over its purported faithfulness to them like this particular one does.

 

[K.C. Cool]

I think the conflict here is about what is achievable verses what is morally right and wrong.

Bethesda knows they can make more money by manipulating and selling their product to a target audience they have already established with previous products, it's less work. They can legally spend money to buy IPs and do what they want with them, but should there be some form of ethics when dealing with this stuff?

Bethesda can change an already established IP and market it in comparison to their previous work to target the masses in an attempt to make the most money.

Yes, they can do this and they have the right to. But is it wrong that they're shafting canon (that made the game unique), fans (that kept the franchise alive), and established design (which continues to keep the game reputable and fun to begin with) for their own pursuit of money and wants?

It's not an argument whether they fucked up Fallout or whether they should include the "3" or not, it's about Bethesda's leaders being greedy and contextually insensitive pieces of brahmin shit and what they’ve could have done to make Fallout 3 a great experience for everyone.

 

[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.

What?

WHAT?

How in hell does it make perfect sense for a reviewer to make that comparison? For Bethesda, it might make perfect sense.

But since when has it been the job of "gaming journalists" to sell the wares of gaming developers to the gaming public?

Of course these publications aren't tailored to the NMA faithful. but I'd go one further and say they aren't tailored to anyone with an I.Q. over 50.

Jesus H. Christ in a Vertibird... They're supposed to be JOURNALISTS, goddamnit! Not hucksters.

 

[Übernoob]

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.

When F3 was originally announced NMA accused Bethesda of making "Oblivion with guns". To which Bethesda replied with lot of promises about making it a real Fallout sequel and that only thing that F3 and Oblivion will share is engine.
Now that everybody is comparing F3 with Oblivion, you can see that NMA dwellers are angry because that means that Bethesda failed in making a true Fallout sequel, but not of the reviewers tries to mention that.

And if you are true Oblivion fan then imagine if they made "Oblivion 2" with "Unreal 4" engine, and upon release everybody compared it with "Unreal 4" and nobody compared it with Oblivion, because Oblivion is such an old game and this "Oblivion 2" has nothing similar with Oblivion even though it is a Oblivion sequel.

 

[JESUS]

You are asking too much of the kids Uber. They don't have the maturity to care about other people tastes, we are in the age of me me me, if they made diablo 3 a FPS, even if i didn't like the first two games, i would certainly not piss the fans off by saying shit like it is Diablo 3 because Blizzard made it so shut up and deal with it.

They care that they have there next fix of the company they are fanboys off, it's pathetic that we have come to fanboys of corporations now.

And just in case you are not a kid anymore and still uses these "arguments", you are in a worst place then, because at least the kids will grow up and maybe eventually realise their mistake.

 

[squinty]

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.

 

[CxBxW]

It's not paramount for a review to compare it to the originals over Oblivion, but it should at the very least mention the differences between the originals and newest game.

Yes. It definitley should mention the differences between the originals, and the newest game. That wasn't my point. My point was that I do not see referring to them more than Oblivion to be important to a game that shares more similarities with Oblivion.

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.

Since Bestheda paid off everyone and their mother to give their game positive, 90+ reviews, obviously.

Which makes it alright?

No, it doesn't make it alright. I never claimed it did. I merely claimed it was an actuality.

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)?

Pissed off about what? Bioshock 2 being compared to Minesweeper? No, not if it was more like Minesweeper.

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

I have NO idea. You're the one that came up with the ridiculous 'Minesweeper' analogy.

EDIT: Sorry for the double post.

maybe pissed that their beloved bioshock franchise has forsaken its original design and begun pandering to minesweeper fans, of whom very few care much for the first bioshock????

unless of course it was named "BioSweep" or "Mineshock: a Bioshock themed Minesweeper game" in which case it would be seen as a spin-off, not a sequel, which brings us back to the original argument.

No it doesn't. It doesn't do that at all. Your entire post has nothing to do with my original arguement. Please refer to my original post in this thread and revisit what my original arguement was.

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?

Then we are told that all of our criticism is invalid because Fo3 isn't a proper sequel.

Again, something you've made up. Kindly point me to the part of my post in which I stated that all people's criticisms are invalid.

-

I'm not saying you do not have the right to complain. Sure, I said you should probably stop complaining (due to my opinion on the matter), but you sure as hell still have the right.
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. That is my opinion. You may think i'm wrong, and that's fine, and infact healthy for the forum. But please don't attempt to put words into my mouth in an attempt to aid your own rebuttle(s). The words in bold are what I think. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Sicblades]

Well, because they don't care about the quality of anything, as long as they have "the next big thing" by X company. It's as if critical thinking has gone out the window, and like he mentions, it doesn't really only partake to kids; there are plenty of adults who are like that.

 

[beverageleverage]

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. That is my opinion. You may think i'm wrong, and that's fine, and infact healthy for the forum. But please don't attempt to put words into my mouth in an attempt to aid your own rebuttle(s). The words in bold are what I think. Nothing more, nothing less.

You are correct that f3 is more like oblivion, I dont think anyone is arguing that or putting words in your mouth. I think you are confusing putting words in your mouth, with explaining why it would be wrong for a review to make comparisons between f3 and oblivion in favor of f1/2. The reason it would be wrong to do that is because the Fallout franchise and the TES franchise are not at all similar, and since f3 is being marketed and named and hyped and everything else as a sequel its relation to the previous 2 games in the series takes priority. It shouldn't be ignored that f3 and oblivion are more similar, but it does not make more sense for reviewers to compare it to oblivion first and the actual series it is a part of second.

 

[Pope Viper]

People - These quote pyramids are hurting my eyes, stop it.

 

[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. That is my opinion. You may think i'm wrong, and that's fine, and infact healthy for the forum. But please don't attempt to put words into my mouth in an attempt to aid your own rebuttle(s). The words in bold are what I think. Nothing more, nothing less.

You are correct that f3 is more like oblivion, I dont think anyone is arguing that or putting words in your mouth. I think you are confusing putting words in your mouth, with explaining why it would be wrong for a review to make comparisons between f3 and oblivion in favor of f1/2. The reason it would be wrong to do that is because the Fallout franchise and the TES franchise are not at all similar, and since f3 is being marketed and named and hyped and everything else as a sequel its relation to the previous 2 games in the series takes priority. It shouldn't be ignored that f3 and oblivion are more similar, but it does not make more sense for reviewers to compare it to oblivion first and the actual series it is a part of second.

Fair points here, but I would respond in exactly the same fashion as I did the previous posts.

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.

People - These quote pyramids are hurting my eyes, stop it.

Sorry about that. I'm not sure how to pinpoint exactly which post i'm replying to without using one..?

 

[CxBxW]

Also,

the Fallout franchise and the TES franchise are not at all similar,

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

 

[sonicblastoise]

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.

furthermore, your previous posts citing those numerous discussions about "oblivion with guns" and how those corroborate the evidence FOR the similarity between the fallout FRANCHISE and the TES FRANCHISE is a faulty argument. i would go into it, but i'm at work.

semantics, anyone?