Editorial GameBanshee's 2008 Awards

[DarkUnderlord]

Tags: Fallout 3

Here are the winners of <a href="http://www.gamebanshee.com/editorials/goty2008page1.php">GameBanshee's 2008 Awards</a>. Guess who won. No really, guess:
<br>
<blockquote>Best Story/Writing Winner Fable II (Winner)
<br>
<br>
Best Graphics Winner Fallout 3 (Winner)
<br>
<br>
Best Sound/Music Winner King's Bounty: The Legend (Winner)
<br>
<br>
Most Anticipated of 2009 Diablo III
<br>
<br>
Independent RPG of the Year Winner Mount & Blade (Winner)
<br>
<br>
RPG Hybrid of the Year Winner King's Bounty: The Legend (Winner)
<br>
<br>
<b>RPG of the Year Winner Fallout 3 (Winner) </b>
<br>
<br>
RPG of the Year Fable II (Runner-up)
<br>
<blockquote>Despite the fact that the original Fable didn't live up to the many claims made by Lionhead's Peter Molyneux, its sequel actually does in many ways. The game may be a bit shallow when it comes to traditional RPG elements, but it does offer a large, open world with plenty to do and see without ever having to pursue the primary (and well-written) storyline. Becoming a real estate tycoon, mastering the local shooting range, sacrificing an entire town to the dark gods, or pursuing your dream of being a cross-dressing bigamist are just a few of the many options available to your hero at any given time. The clever use of your dog as a treasure-seeking sidekick is a nice touch, too. If the game had actually included a decent co-op component like it was supposed to, Fable II might have stood a better chance at taking our top award.</blockquote></blockquote>
<br>
You'll have to read the article to find out why.
<br>
<br>
Thanks <b>Brother None</b>!

 

[pkt-zer0]

Best sound/music, King's Bounty: The Legend? I mean, I like the game, but its soundtrack is fairly generic. Not that it's a bad thing, given that its aesthetics go for the "generic fantasy with the wacky twist" style as well, but it's not exactly outstanding.

I never thought of Mount & Blade as an RPG, but it's a nice game, I guess.

 

[Ion Flux]

You'll have to read the article to find out why.

The suspense is killing me.

 

[Jim Cojones]

You'll have to read the article to find out why.

I've read. I know why. Because, unfortunately, there wasn't anything better .

Best Graphics Winner Fallout 3 (Winner)

I guess animations doesn't affect graphics. And even than you can't seriously claim that Fo3 has got good graphics.

 

[Volourn]

You can't seriously expect to be taken seriously, right?

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

I'd just given no awards. Screw giving Fallout 3 another award for Bethesda to put on their site; just don't give any out and tell it like it is. 2008 was a shitty year for games and a super shitty year for RPGs.

 

[Brother None]

I guess animations doesn't affect graphics. And even than you can't seriously claim that Fo3 has got good graphics.

I usually don't define graphics by fidelity but by design, and indeed Fallout 3 falls short there. But by most industry standards, it's the best of the games that applied for consideration by GB. It's not better than, say, Far Cry 2 or GTA IV or Mirror's Edge, and indeed by today's standards it's a bit dated, but it still looks better than the rest of this lot.

I'd just given no awards.

Why? If the year was a stinking shitpile, like this year was, there's still one that's best of the shitpile. The best game that GB covered was King's Bounty, by some margin, but the best one that fits under the RPG category? Fallout 3. Can't be helped.

 

[hiver]

No Award Given (Runner-up)

the story and writing department,

Well if you wanted No award given" they at least didnt give this one.

Question for the GB please,

Best of all, Fallout 3 improved upon some of our biggest issues with Oblivion, like the auto-leveling mechanics

Lets just forget for a moment how inappropriate this sentence is on the whole but auto-leveling mechanics? Really? I did get to level 13 before deinstalling it but that was enough time to see whole gameworld repopulated with Deathclaws and other menagerie of high level creatures, robots and so on. In the same places/areas where there were none at the beginning of the game and that includes vault 101 surrounding area.
All those talks of specific areas being locked down depending on my level and having specific ranges of enemy levels are pure bullshit from what i could observe.

Same mutants and raiders that sported poor equipment before were all armed with chinese rifles and bazookas and shit.

It felt pretty much the same shit as Oblivion to me in this regard.

 

[Brother None]

Well if you wanted No award given" they at least didnt give this one.

Yes. For lack of a remotely serious candidate. Most plots of 2008 were either horribly bad or laughably bad, or a mix of the two

Lets just forget for a moment how inappropriate this sentence is on the whole but auto-leveling mechanics? Really? I did get to level 13 before deinstalling it but that was enough time to see whole gameworld repopulated with Deathclaws and other menagerie of high level creatures, robots and so on. In the same places/areas where there were none at the beginning of the game and that includes vault 101 surrounding area.

Answer from GB: I don't know how you got that to happen, but...er...that doesn't happen. Fallout 3's level scaling does not work that way. I've played it twice, once from level 1 to 16 and once from level 1 to 20, and looked at its mechanics/layout closely enough for NMA's writing to know it doesn't actually have the mechanic you describe of equipping creatures with higher-level items. It does have its flaws (you'll find people have wildly different experiences with the game's difficulty, often due to its level scaling system) but the mechanic wasn't broken, like it was in Oblivion.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

Why? If the year was a stinking shitpile, like this year was, there's still one that's best of the shitpile. The best game that GB covered was King's Bounty, by some margin, but the best one that fits under the RPG category? Fallout 3. Can't be helped.

I just wouldn't give Bethesda any gratification. Like I said, it's just another RPG/Game of the Year to throw on their pile for the mess they released, and I doubt they'll slap your conditions and reservations about the year's overall quality next to it. It'll just help increase their tally. I would have either given no award at all, as to not reward poorly made games, or I'd have given it to something that didn't suck, no matter the genre as a really contrived piece of defiance.

Course, you've actually got a legitimate job with expectations, GameBanshee has certain precedents in place, and I'm a random internet person with some seriously off-beat judgment...so take what I would do with a grain of salt. I'm not saying what you fellows should have done, just what I would have done. Not saying mine is "better" in this case. I'm sure readers would be as upset with a "nothing" for RPG of the Year 2008 as most people were with Time and the "You" as Person of the Year.

Yes. For lack of a remotely serious candidate. Most plots of 2008 were either horribly bad or laughably bad, or a mix of the two

Was Avernum 5's plot that bad? I honestly don't know; I know he can be very formulaic within his series, but I'm sure he probably outdid Fable.

 

[hiver]

you describe of equipping creatures with higher-level items.

At first super mutants have hunting rifles, then when i level up they have chinese automatic rifles.

Once i reached higher levels there was no weaker enemies to be found anywhere anymore.

I dont know whether its broken or not but its sure as sucky as Oblivions in the end.

:shrugs:

 

[Brother None]

At first super mutants have hunting rifles, then when i level up they have chinese automatic rifles.

Super mutants always have hunting rifles. Super mutant brutes have chinese automatic rifles. Super mutant masters have super sledges or mini guns. What is supposed to happen is that areas have a set group of creatures they can offer (the Mall has Brutes or Masters), which is locked in when you first enter it. Enclave soldiers will mess it up in the end (and they do bring along deathclaws, so those might be the ones you encounter), but mutants outside of DC in anything other than set locations? That shouldn't happen.

I just wouldn't give Bethesda any gratification.

I have no fondness for Bethesda either, but I'm not going to adopt any of my normal editorial schedules to that fact. We're not writing for Bethesda, y'know, either in the negative or positive sense, I really don't give a shit how they feel about it.

I'd have given it to something that didn't suck, no matter the genre as a really contrived piece of defiance.

I actually did argue with Buck that we should shove KB:TL into RPGotY and fuck the police, but he was right in the end: calling King's Bounty an RPG just doesn't make sense. And yeah I know, the same could be said of Fallout 3, but not to the same extent.

Was Avernum 5's plot that bad?

Avernum 5's plot was too middling and uninspired. I mean, it was ok, but not better than the avergage placeholder plot for fantasy. I criticized it quite a bit in my review.

It would've probably got runner-up if I really had to give it to something, tho'

 

[made]

...pleasantly surprised with Bethesda...
...the team did get things right...
...side quests are well done...
...setting is an interesting backdrop for the series...
...Fallout 3 is a much better game than many...

Disgusting.

 

[Brother None]

...Bethesda...

Disgusting.

 

[MetalCraze]

No BN. F3 is a shit game. It is terrible as a shooter and RPG is primitive, as always for Beth.

 

[MasPingon]

Decline of GB

 

[The Ticktockman]

lolskyway

 

[Hory]

I'd just given no awards.

Why? If the year was a stinking shitpile, like this year was, there's still one that's best of the shitpile. The best game that GB covered was King's Bounty, by some margin, but the best one that fits under the RPG category? Fallout 3. Can't be helped.

It can be helped. Doesn't upholding your standards mean anything anymore? If it's still shit, do we have to smear it all over us and pretend to like it? Does GB feel that it has a duty to engage in reciprocal masturbation with the video game industry? GB has a notable voice within the RPG community, so why don't you use this opportunity for something productive, such as announcing that there will be no awards for that year, as there aren't any contesters worth awarding? If you don't like the way things are, criticise rather than praise them. Looking at the way FO3 is unanimously lauded across the media, an investor might get the wrong impression regarding the desires of the market and the existence (or lack of) niches. If lovers of CRPGs aren't vocal, who the fuck will be?

 

[Brother None]

Doesn't upholding your standards mean anything anymore? If it's still shit, do we have to smear it all over us and pretend to like it?

But I do like, epic failure of a Fallout game though it be. So does Westlake. So does buck. So that's the entire staff. I don't think any of us loved it, and it wouldn't have warranted a mention in any category last year, but it's not a festering shitpile either. This year was, but Fallout 3? Good game.

GB has a notable voice within the RPG community, so why don't you use this opportunity for something productive, such as announcing that there will be no awards for that year, as there aren't any contesters worth awarding?

What would be the point? Other than impressing people who hate Bethesda, what exactly would it accomplish?

If you don't like the way things are, criticise rather than praise them.

That's what we did, innit? GB's GotY is explicitly stated to be King's Bounty. Coming from an RPG site, that's saying something about the quality of RPGs released that year. I can't imagine a hybrid winning a theoretical "overall" in any other year.

 

[Hory]

But I do like, epic failure of a Fallout game though it be. So does Westlake. So does buck. So that's the entire staff. I don't think any of us loved it, and it wouldn't have warranted a mention in any category last year, but it's not a festering shitpile either. This year was, but Fallout 3? Good game.

You said earlier that it's the best of the shitpile, so I assumed you consider it to be part of it and shit as well.

What would be the point? Other than impressing people who hate Bethesda, what exactly would it accomplish?

No point other than making the truth known and attracting attention to the sorry state that the industry is in.

That's what we did, innit? GB's GotY is explicitly stated to be King's Bounty. Coming from an RPG site, that's saying something about the quality of RPGs released that year. I can't imagine a hybrid winning a theoretical "overall" in any other year.

Where is that explicitly stated? I've looked over the list twice and I can't see a "GotY" category.

 

[MetalCraze]

BN you do know that not giving Best RPG of the Year to any game would speak more about the game industry than "oh this game is meh, but it is the best this year because it is less shitty than the opposition anyway"

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

I have no fondness for Bethesda either, but I'm not going to adopt any of my normal editorial schedules to that fact. We're not writing for Bethesda, y'know, either in the negative or positive sense, I really don't give a shit how they feel about it.

Fair enough. But do they really deserve another Game of the Year award, especially from one of the few sites with a backbone and dignity left?

I actually did argue with Buck that we should shove KB:TL into RPGotY and fuck the police, but he was right in the end: calling King's Bounty an RPG just doesn't make sense. And yeah I know, the same could be said of Fallout 3, but not to the same extent.

I suppose. I mean that begs the whole "What is an RPG?" question/debate/clusterfuck. One could make a point that GTA is almost as much an RPG as Fallout 3.

Avernum 5's plot was too middling and uninspired. I mean, it was ok, but not better than the avergage placeholder plot for fantasy. I criticized it quite a bit in my review.

It would've probably got runner-up if I really had to give it to something, tho'

Fair enough. I haven't played either Avernum 5, or Fable 2. I guess I just assumed that the recycled "Exile" plot would be better than anything a sequel to a game where farting, pelvic thrusting, "sexy-hero-posing", and doing the YMCA as the way of talking was the norm. Bias on my part, I suppose. Plus wouldn't Fable fall into the same "is it really an RPG?" question as King's Bounty?

I don't think any of us loved it, and it wouldn't have warranted a mention in any category last year, but it's not a festering shitpile either. This year was, but Fallout 3? Good game.

Now here's the thing that confuses me....how is Fallout 3 anything better than mediocre? Just like I argued in my review, what's the point of a few quests that are mechanically brilliant and some good skill checks, when they're buried in a bunch of terrible ones, convoluted in a FUBAR character system, drenched in some of the worst dungeons outside of jRPGs, and filled with sub-par combat that makes even a mediocre FPS look amazing. Add in terrible writing, dodgy atmosphere, poor aesthetics when compared to another (post) apocalyptic title on the same platform, bad voice acting, and I have to ask; where's the good? If the majority of the time spent is in crappy dungeons with bad FPS combat, why play Fallout 3 instead of one of the many good shooters out there? Why screw around just to get some good quests and skill checks? That's bordering on jRPG design where you go through tedious combat for some cutscenes and story. I'm sorry, when I play my games, I like them to be "good" all the time (I can handle a few bumps or inconveniences in good games [like Arcanum's bugs, Bloodline's invisible walls/poor endgame, and such], but not something as fundamentally flawed as Fallout 3).

Maybe this is because I play a lot of different types of games, or that I like shooters...but still...games like Vampire: Bloodlines and Mass Effect managed to make combat mildly enjoyable, and not smother you in it like Fallout 3 did, and those were "RPGs". Fallout 3 is a terrible Fallout, a mediocre RPG, and a bad game.

 

[Brother None]

BN you do know that not giving Best RPG of the Year to any game would speak more about the game industry than "oh this game is meh, but it is the best this year because it is less shitty than the opposition anyway"

No, it wouldn't. It would be a good way for me to show off how much integrity I have to polish my own ego, but that's not what the GotY awards are for. Its actual practical effect would be nihil.

Maybe if that quoted sentence would apply I would agree, but it doesn't. Fallout 3 isn't just less shitty, it's good. It's not good enough to have won in most year, but that doesn't mean it's bad.

You said earlier that it's the best of the shitpile, so I assumed you consider it to be part of it and shit as well.

No. The mean quaity of games we covered this year was low. Fallout 3 was good, tho'

Where is that explicitly stated? I've looked over the list twice and I can't see a "GotY" category.

See? There's no point in making a stand if people don't have the attention span to look at anything but ending scores of reviews and the names of winners in GotY awards. People like you is why there is no point, because the King's Bounty Hybrid RPG win states:
Make no mistake, King's Bounty: The Legend is easily the best game listed in these awards.

Fair enough. But do they really deserve another Game of the Year award, especially from one of the few sites with a backbone and dignity left?

Whether they deserve it or not is irrelevant, it was the best RPG.

I suppose. I mean that begs the whole "What is an RPG?" question/debate/clusterfuck. One could make a point that GTA is almost as much an RPG as Fallout 3.

GTA: SA is easily as much of an RPG as Mount & Blade is, yet M&B applies for hybrid RPG at GB while GTA:SA never would. It doesn't make sense, and it never will.

Fair enough. I haven't played either Avernum 5, or Fable 2. I guess I just assumed that the recycled "Exile" plot would be better than anything a sequel to a game where farting, pelvic thrusting, "sexy-hero-posing", and doing the YMCA as the way of talking was the norm. Bias on my part, I suppose. Plus wouldn't Fable fall into the same "is it really an RPG?" question as King's Bounty?

I wouldn't know either. The Fable 2 bits and placement are all Buck's work, I have played neither Fable 1 nor Fable 2.

how is Fallout 3 anything better than mediocre?

Why that is so is argued in both NMA and GB's review in ways I essentially agree with, and I make much the same point in my editorial on the game on NMA.

It's got major flaws, and calling it a great game would be ridiculous. Its flaws are big enough that I can't blame someone if he's turned away from the game and hates it; if the subpar dialogue or horrible plot bother you too much to enjoy the game overall, I can't say I blame you.

Do keep the delineation clear, though. Fallout 3 isn't great at anything, it comes close to being great at times (in quest design) but never reaches it. "Good" just means above mediocre and below great, it don't mean it to mean as much as you think it means.

Also, I can't believe you called Bloodlines' combat better than Fallout 3's. The RT-combat of both games is absolute shit, but at least Fallout 3 gives you a RTwP alternative to the shit. I love Bloodlines, but seriously, the combat? Ugh.

 

[Hory]

See? There's no point in making a stand if people don't have the attention span to look at anything but ending scores of reviews and the names of winners in GotY awards. People like you is why there is no point, because the King's Bounty Hybrid RPG win states:
Make no mistake, King's Bounty: The Legend is easily the best game listed in these awards.

Dude. There's no GB GotY award. What you loosely imply (NOT state explicitly) in the flavor text of an entirely different award (Best RPG Hybrid) is irrelevant. If GB had such an award, it would have listed it alongside the other awards, if not above all of them, since it's the most important one. Even if you had awarded it that, it wouldn't prove anything. The year wasn't that bad as to have no candidates for GotY, which isn't the same thing as "RPGotY".

Also, I can't believe you called Bloodlines' combat better than Fallout 3's. The RT-combat of both games is absolute shit, but at least Fallout 3 gives you a RTwP alternative to the shit. I love Bloodlines, but seriously, the combat? Ugh.

That RTwP alternative is even more shit. It ends up being just a sort of automatic, repetitive start of the combat action, with no realistic explination or manifestation and aggravated by the slow, bullet-time time waster. Bloodlines had various skills which actually changed the nature and flow of combat actions and as such IS better than FO3's blandness.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

Im bring the horse back to life just to beat it to death some more.

Whether they deserve it or not is irrelevant, it was the best RPG.

Debateable on a lot of levels, but for the purposes of this discussion, I'll drop it.

GTA: SA is easily as much of an RPG as Mount & Blade is, yet M&B applies for hybrid RPG at GB while GTA:SA never would. It doesn't make sense, and it never will.

Fair enough.

I wouldn't know either. The Fable 2 bits and placement are all Buck's work, I have played neither Fable 1 nor Fable 2.

Alrighty.

It's got major flaws, and calling it a great game would be ridiculous. Its flaws are big enough that I can't blame someone if he's turned away from the game and hates it;

I'm with you on this.

if the subpar dialogue or horrible plot bother you too much to enjoy the game overall, I can't say I blame you.

Those aren't real turn-offs to me, in that I can easily stomach them in the face of something good. Like Ninja Gaiden, Shinobi, and Devil May Cry. All have atrocious dialogue, and plots that are thinner than a POW in Vietnam, but I enjoy them immensely as they have other qualities that make them more than worth my time. My turn-off was that Fallout 3 didn't bring nearly enough to the table to outweigh the flaws.

"Good" just means above mediocre and below great, it don't mean it to mean as much as you think it means.

I'm not sure I follow. Good means net positive in a way, and I don't think I can understand anyone with some gaming experience in more than a few genres finding Fallout 3 anything but crap when it comes to most of the mechanics. Like I tried to argue with my "review", most of the time, I'm playing a shitty FPS with terrible shooting mechanics, primitive enemy design, and developed by people who don't understand the first thing about encounter design. The mechanics of a few quests and some limited visual aspects are really all Fallout 3 scores a net positive on.

Also, I can't believe you called Bloodlines' combat better than Fallout 3's. The RT-combat of both games is absolute shit, but at least Fallout 3 gives you a RTwP alternative to the shit. I love Bloodlines, but seriously, the combat? Ugh.

Well...it is. Sure, the core mechanics are pretty weak, but at least different disciplines, weapons, and play-styles actually feel very differentiated from one another. Enemies are somewhat unique in nature, and Troika attempted some interesting encounter designs. The encounters, while kind of mediocre in the face of proper FPS, show more creativity in structuring a a good combat than Bethesda's pitiful "dungeons". Add in the complete lack of challenge in Fallout 3, how easy it is to exploit VATS and the inventory (and how it's almost expected), and the overabundance of resources and Bloodlines seems even more superior. That's how shitty Fallout 3 really is.