@Gizmojunk that’s honestly probably the best way I’ve ever seen it put.
You just never stop associating legit criticism with 'hate', don't you?And when I said you were biased, I meant because you hate the game so much, its hard to see anything positive about it.
@mannawyadden well, I’m sorry if I upset you. I didn’t mean to sound cold and detatched.
You just never stop associating legit criticism with 'hate', don't you?
There isn't anything positive about them—and it is because they are marketed as direct sequels, and they contradict and discard core tenets of the series. This means that even the very impressive aspects [major strong points were they in any other game...besides a Fallout sequel] are tainted, and don't make up for anything; because their value falls far short of the overall offense.
Sure, but let me turn your statement around. When you associate criticisms with hate, it prevents you from accepting the simplest facts, which completely blinds you from an otherwise well-made inputs. Have you actually consider carefully reading people's criticism of the games being criticized, instead of throwing word 'hate' around like it's candy?When you hate something it prevents you from giving an unbiased assessment of the situation and can distort facts, which tarnishes an otherwise well constructed argument. Saying that Fallout 3 retcons the mentality of the western Brotherhood of Steel is an example of this. Of course, everyone is biased one way or another. I'm biased by my enjoyment of the game since it was the first open world RPG I played.
I don't see Gizmo saying anything about the game being a shocking 0/10, don't put words into people's mouth.If I'm understanding this correctly, the overall offense and failure of the game as a direct sequel is so bad that it cancels out anything positive that might be said about them, resulting in a 0/10?
Exactly, which is why calling it 'Fallout 3' in the first place is outright retarded. Especially because the real Fallout 3 came out 2 years later, and for some reason it's called Fallout: New Vegas.And if a game is titled Fallout 3, it should have been an appropriate sequel to Fallout 2, but it wasn't. Like how Fallout Tactics was not marketed as Fallout 3, or how Fallout 76 was not called Fallout 5.
Glad you can understand, which is why Fallout 4 isn't even a Fallout game anymore.It's interesting that New Vegas was not titled as a numbered entry in the series, despite being more deserving of it. That sends the message that "New Vegas isn't what we want Fallout to be. Fallout 4 is."
I can't echo this enough. I swear to god every time I criticize anything about Fallout 3 or The Witcher 3 (and a few other games), people assume I hated them outright. I don't know what it is, but when I criticize movies or music, others who also get involved with those mediums more seem to understand that I just criticized it. With games, anyone invested in the medium immediately assumes I hate it or I simply didn't understand something (cough cough Bioshock Infinite) and that's why I had something to say about it not being worthy of a 9+/10.Don't say people who criticized mediocre-to-bad products for having standards 'hates' them.
It's precisely this. They came from a place where the old teachings of BoS are still used as gospel, so it's nonsensical to have them suddenly change in Fallout 3. If the BoS in Fallout 3 was born in the East Coast, then whatever, but it wasn't. It was started by people that came from the West."The Brotherhood of Steel that appears in Fallout 3 came from the West Coast, so they should've been a tech-hoarder and zealots like they were in the Lost Hills who couldn't care less for an average wastelander, but Fallout 3 changed them completely just to have literal knights in shining armor."
Except they did. The BoS members that have this mentality came from the West expedition. Meaning they came from a place where BoS still teaches their ways of hogging all technology and not care about wastelanders.
Because video game rating systems like X/10 as penned by 'game journalism' are no longer valid. It's why on Steam, it's either Recommended or Not Recommended, and even then based on what game is being reviewed, the reviewers might pointed out the game might be worth it under certain condition (like if you REALLY love the genre of the game, or if the bugs and issues it has is fixed, or if the game is on discount, etc etc).As for a shocking 0/10 and me putting words in people's mouths, I interpreted "there's nothing positive about the game at all because anything that would've been positive is negated" in a literal mathematical sense to mean that 0% of the game is good, thus the fraction 0/10. I thought that's how video game rating systems work. I personally would rate a game a 0 if I had nothing good to say about it, there's nothing wrong with being a harsh critic.
There is a difference between hate, and despise. Despise imples hate, but also canotes contempt. A person can hate a thing, while still respecting it; a doctor can recommend another doctor as the best, even though they hate them; but not if they despise them.When you hate something it prevents you from giving an unbiased assessment of the situation and can distort facts, which tarnishes an otherwise well constructed argument.
Oblivion was my first open world game (AFAIK). I was surprised to find out that I prefer Bethesda's games for the most part, in the reverse order of their release. FO3 more than Skyrim, Oblivion more than FO3, Morrowind more than Oblivion; possibly Daggerfall more than Morrowind. I seemed to like Redguard, though off hand, I don't know its position in the release order.I'm biased by my enjoyment of the game since it was the first open world RPG I played.
If I'm understanding this correctly, the overall offense and failure of the game as a direct sequel is so bad that it cancels out anything positive that might be said about them, resulting in a 0/10?
And if a game is titled Fallout 3, it should have been an appropriate sequel to Fallout 2, but it wasn't. Like how Fallout Tactics was not marketed as Fallout 3, or how Fallout 76 was not called Fallout 5.
So you're saying they made Fallout: Elder Scrolls and mislabeled it as Fallout 3 which is a bastardization of what the series should be.
It's interesting that New Vegas was not titled as a numbered entry in the series, despite being more deserving of it.
Yes... but only in the case of a Bethesdian royal "We", or the case where "We" means the bulk of their mass consumer audience... many [most?] of which had probably never heard of Fallout; Bethesda had DEVELOPERS on the game that had never heard of Fallout, and a few of those that knew of it, hadn't played it. This was admitted on the Bethsoft forum, years back.That sends the message that "New Vegas isn't what we want Fallout to be. Fallout 4 is."
I wouldn't have before... but within context, I am not counting the art design, and landscaping.I don't see Gizmo saying anything about the game being a shocking 0/10, don't put words into people's mouth.
That was the intended gist. [*of positives for the series fan.]I interpreted "there's nothing positive about the game at all because anything that would've been positive is negated"...
Ratings systems using numeric values are inherently flawed. People often think that they can quantify a game's quality with numbers but in reality, all it does is place a mandatory number next to a game as its score. Most games these days are expected to get 6s or 7s so if you felt a game was bad but give it a 5 or lower, the outside reader would assume the game is terrible and will turn against you the minute they play the game & realize it is better than that. Alternatively, some readers will perceive a low (or relatively low) score for a hyped game as an attack against them.I thought that's how video game rating systems work
There should never have been Super Mutatnts in other places. 3, 4 and 76 should have created a new species of ogre mutants rather than ape Super Mutants and retcon stuff to fit them in.
Ratings systems using numeric values are inherently flawed. People often think that they can quantify a game's quality with numbers but in reality, all it does is place a mandatory number next to a game as its score. Most games these days are expected to get 6s or 7s so if you felt a game was bad but give it a 5 or lower, the outside reader would assume the game is terrible and will turn against you the minute they play the game & realize it is better than that. Alternatively, some readers will perceive a low (or relatively low) score for a hyped game as an attack against them.
Hence, the stamp of recommended and not recommended fits much better. Though I personally prefer having a written explanation or verbal elaboration from the reviewer on why they recommended or did not recommend the game so that I can gauge why they came to such an opinion. Stuff that Totalbiscuit did and what Yahtzee does.
Sadly I do not think it is out of laziness at all. I do think it is a wholly calculated usage of the assets to market the concept to the majority of their [known & well understood] TES audience—most of which might never have even heard of the Fallout series.
I believe that it is quite purposely TES re-skinned with the Fallout figurehead assets in full view for the primary reason of "Me-To!"
And those that had even slight recall of the game making the rounds back then, would certainly remember the icons... even if they remember nothing other about them.
It's Fallout!(meaning it's Power Armor and big ugly mutants—and some plant dude named Harold).
Fallout
Their market all think Fallout means this:
WaitwaitWAIT. Todd was here?! WTFCan you remember the interviews with Todd, where he was cautiously avoiding it to compare Fallout 3 with Oblivion, making sure gamers would not see it as just a copy of the Elder Scrolls formula thrown onto Fallout, when people started to ask if Fallout 3 was Oblivion with guns? Just to later use that phrase to describe the game, when he realized how people actually just expected that from Bethesda to deliver? I remember him and I think Hines posting here on the forum for some time. They have actually got a pretty neutral welcome by our administrators and the community as a whole. But I think their intention was just to see, how much marketing value there was in using the old Fallout community.
Agree with a lot of what you're saying here but I'd also like to mention that the power of a critic also lies in their repertoire that the viewer has come to know. If someone who hates horror games plays the new Resident Evil and gave it a 3/10 what does that actually say? What about a casual game reviewer that prefers games that don't test him (like Minecraft or Sims, more relaxed games) and says games like FPSs and Dark Souls are bad?Ratings systems using numeric values are inherently flawed.
Who knew back then that they would be right ...
No, wasn’t the average mutant like super dumb. Marcus even said in 2 that “We only should’ve taken the best”I’m just gonna say that I agree. But then again, what did we expect? Beth wanted “scary mutant enemies” without having to work. Problem is, they took them from being intelligent to actually retarded. And that’s the real crime imo.
In F1, dumb Mutants were caused by a bad reaction to FEV. They were a rarity. The average mutant, aside from being sterile, was better than a human in EVERY WAY, including mentally. That’s why they were FUCKING SCARY. Beth threw that out the window and made them Hulks with guns. I’m just quaking in my boots. Oh no.
Fucking Bethesda, man.
Nope, the only stupid mutants in the first two games are Harry and those second generation mutants that were in Mariposa after the Enclave caused parts of the bunker to collapse. I think it was Lieutenant in Fallout 1 (I may be wrong though) who said that only some stupid mutants come through.No, wasn’t the average mutant like super dumb. Marcus even said in 2 that “We only should’ve taken the best”