Tidbits on Fallout 3 reviews

Brother None

This ghoul has seen it all
Orderite
Some interesting peripheral matters on Fallout 3 reviews. First, Pete Hines talking to Edge Online about being nervous about reviews.<blockquote>"We're never really sure how these [reviews] will turn out," Bethesda PR boss Pete Hines told Edge in an e-mail. "So in general, we're always nervous/anxious.

"Obviously, we had some early indications from folks that played the game first for print magazines here and in Europe. The 10 out of 10 from Official Xbox Magazine here in the U.S. gave us an indication that at least somebody really liked it.</blockquote>Of more interest, Neocrisis noticed the PS3 review from IGN has been edited to remove harsh judgements on the PS3 version of the game (thanks Kotaku).<blockquote>Before: "Fallout 3 is such an engaging and fantastic experience that it's easy to overlook its few minor flaws, but they do exist and should be mentioned. With any game of this size and scope, you can likely expect a few bugs to slip through the testing process and that is the case here. I had the game crash a couple times. I, and other editors at IGN, have also experienced an annoying number of bugs on the PS3 version that have prevented the game from progressing or have broken the world. In all of these cases, reloading the game has been enough to fix the errors and nothing was frustrating or detrimental enough to give me thought of not recommending the game. However, there is one major issue with the PS3 version that can't be fixed with a reset. Every time anybody on your friends list signs on or sends you a message (or any time you receive any network notification), the game freezes and the screen blurs for a few seconds. If you have a lot of friends signing on and off all day, this will completely ruin the game. The only way to circumvent this is to either play offline or turn off notifications entirely."

After: "Fallout 3 is such an engaging and fantastic experience that it's easy to overlook its few minor flaws, but they do exist and should be mentioned. With any game of this size and scope, you can likely expect a few bugs to slip through the testing process and that is the case here. I had the game crash a couple times, amongst other small bugs. In all of these cases, reloading the game has been enough to fix the errors and nothing was frustrating or detrimental enough to make me not recommend the game." </blockquote>
 
Either that was somehow IGN's own fault and Bethesda tech support helped them through (in which case it's reasonable to remove the complaints) or something is iffy.
 
I know this is pretty pessimistic, but considering that there have been bug videos out since yesterday, at least, I'm more inclined to believe it's the latter.
 
Pope Viper said:
Why would Pete be nervous, they've got their bank account to help their reviews.

:roll:

and Wonder Woman. don't forget Wonder Woman.


anyway, i wonder if it was a pressure situation?

IGN: wow, lotsa bugs here, lol!

Bethesda: you are not invited to our secrete partees.

IGN: OMGWTF!?!? sorry, lol! fixed!
 
I bet there was some kind of pressure applied, and if so, that's despicable.

Or perhaps someone at IGN took another look and got concerned about the prospect of censure.
 
Don't discount the possibility that this is simply a solvable bug.

Let me try to explain: I've reviewed games that ran badly before for GameBanshee. In one case (Tilted Mill's Hinterland), some reading on the forum quickly made me discover I needed to update all my drivers (something one needs to do anyway). Can I then burn the game for not running due to something I did wrong? No.

Of course I tend to do all this research before publishing, but it can happen that you publish and only then find out the bug you whined about is actually your mistake, or eminently avoidable. If so, journalistic standards demand that you make an addendum to address the problem, you never ninja edit it like IGN did (that's just wrong), but it's not dodge to remove notice in principle.

Not saying that's what happened, but it's possible.
 
That's a good point.

Was the version that IGN reviewed a console or PC version? If it's the former, it seems like it would be far less likely that that's the case. Though now there's that "downloadable" stuff from consoles... I don't know how much of a difference it makes; I'm very, very out of the loop as far as consoles go. I can take only so many twitch shooters, sports games and free-roaming GTA clones.
 
Pope Viper said:
Why would Pete be nervous, they've got their bank account to help their reviews.

:roll:

Oh give me a fucking break. Yes, in fact every one of those 31 reviews averaging out to 93% on metacritic.com has been purchased by Bethesda. Give the conspiracy nonsense a break guys, it makes you look stupid.
 
It's funny that consoles has reached the level of complexity where troubleshooting and reconfiguration is required, just like the PC. From PS3's bluetooth headsets and Warhawk, to visual quality options in XBox's Bioshock... to what is likely "troubleshooting" of Fallout3... to "hard drive installations"...

The PS2 was the last true "pop-in and play" console.
 
That's part of the reason that the last console I bought was a PS2. That said, the Wii actually offers something that PCs don't, though Wiimotes can be made to work with the PC, so it's the only current gen console that has anything to set it apart besides a handful of exclusive titles (the number is continually dropping which is for the better IMO).
 
shihonage said:
It's funny that consoles has reached the level of complexity where troubleshooting and reconfiguration is required, just like the PC. From PS3's bluetooth headsets and Warhawk, to visual quality options in XBox's Bioshock... to what is likely "troubleshooting" of Fallout3... to "hard drive installations"...

The PS2 was the last true "pop-in and play" console.

It's reached the point where consoles are basically PC's with less functionality.

"Computers are hard! Just gimmie a game box..."

Edit: Have to agree with garlic. I own a wii simply because I'm a long time Nintendo fan, and their console is only one that offers a unique gaming experience.
 
Pope Viper said:
Um, did you notice the rolling eyes, oh perceptive one?

I've been rolling around here for a while and this "Bethesda paid for their positive reviews" meme has taken hold of a lot of people. I had no reason to believe you were being sarcastic, especially considering your tendency to err on the side of Bethesda = Monolithic Evil.
 
Air Rifle said:
I've been rolling around here for a while and this "Bethesda paid for their positive reviews" meme has taken hold of a lot of people. I had no reason to believe you were being sarcastic, especially considering your tendency to err on the side of Bethesda = Monolithic Evil.

most people here are just bitter enough to half-heartedly accuse them of anything this side of donkey rape if for nothing else than an active form of frustration-release. doesn't mean anybody's really serious. at least not everybody. i'm one of them...and hell, i just wish Todd Howard had left a window of time open just enough to stop raping donkeys and paying off gaming journalists to make a good game.

(see how it works? i bet you didn't even see it coming!)
 
Stegelson said:
It's reached the point where consoles are basically PC's with less functionality.

"Computers are hard! Just gimmie a game box..."

The reason a lot of people play games on consoles isn't because they're too stupid to play it on a PC (because that's soooo difficult), it's because it's more viable economically. I don't have the money to upgrade my PC every two or three years to play the newest games.
 
Air Rifle said:
Stegelson said:
It's reached the point where consoles are basically PC's with less functionality.

"Computers are hard! Just gimmie a game box..."

The reason a lot of people play games on consoles isn't because they're too stupid to play it on a PC (because that's soooo difficult), it's because it's more viable economically. I don't have the money to upgrade my PC every two or three years to play the newest games.

Agreed, not to mention most developers of RPGs no longer release demos for me to gauge whether my system will competently run anything new.

That said, I would much rather play games on my PC if not only for their modding abilities.
 
Air Rifle said:
Pope Viper said:
Um, did you notice the rolling eyes, oh perceptive one?

I've been rolling around here for a while and this "Bethesda paid for their positive reviews" meme has taken hold of a lot of people. I had no reason to believe you were being sarcastic, especially considering your tendency to err on the side of Bethesda = Monolithic Evil.

It's not so unbelievable as you think. It's been said by insiders (gaming journalists) that this happens more then we think and mostly by big name companies because they have the leverage to do so. I am not saying it's the case here but i wouldn't be surprised. From what we know from the past, Oblivion was hailed as the second comming of RPG's with big scores and no flaws. Read a few Fallout reviews and you'll see that now Oblivion wasn't perfect and that it had flaws. Censorship and control of the game media is alive and well.
 
Eh? No, JR Jansen, as "insiders" know, "bribery" or "paying for positive reviews" doesn't happen. I mean, it might, but why woulod they? The pressure is there, but it's not through bribery.

And I thought most people here realised that, and the "paid for positive reviews" is just short-hand for more nuanced views. Perhaps I'm mistaken.
 
Back
Top