Review RPGWatch give Fallout 3 a second look

[DarkUnderlord]

Tags: Fallout 3

RPGWatch have posted a second look at Fallout 3. <a href="http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/article?articleid=111&ref=0&id=154">This time from Corwin</a>. Here are some snips:
<br>
<blockquote>Something else they have never done well is creating living and breathing unique NPC’s. They are improving, but still have a long way to go.
<br>
[...]
<br>
One of the Hallmarks of the original games was the dialogue which was usually clever, witty, sharp and full of often dark, wry humour. Unfortunately, as someone who has played almost all of Bethesda’s games going back to Arena, this too is something they don’t do well.
<br>
[...]
<br>
By now, you’re probably thinking I hated the game, but you’d be very wrong. I thoroughly enjoyed it for what it was.
<br>
[...]
<br>
The side quests are many and varied, though a large number at their core are of the fed-ex variety.
<br>
[...]
<br>
Sure it has its failings, but overall I had a blast (literally) playing the game. I’m not a big fan of heavy action games, I prefer the tactical opportunities of TB, but I found plenty of chances to use tactics here and the mix of VATS and RT worked for me. If for you it’s not a ‘true’ Fallout game, then my advice is to "get over it" and enjoy it for what it is; a fun, action RPG that has been well designed and implemented within the limitations I have already detailed.</blockquote>
<br>
There's a list of pros and cons along with a second verdict from Dhruin at the bottom. Final score is 4/5.

 

[BloodyPuppy]

Everyone says that they enjoyed it for what it was.

You know what it was? It was bad. And it should be judged as such. Jesus, if I'm asked to rate the smell of shit I don't say, "Well I'd usually say it smells awful, but considering that it's shit it's pretty nice!".

 

[Gragt]

That's also a problem for me, but hadly limited to Fallout 3: most people seem to rate the game only by how much they like it, not how good it is.

 

[Black]

That's also a problem for me, but hadly limited to Fallout 3: most people seem to rate the game only by how much they like it, not how good it is.

Ye.
http://www.rtsoft.com/dink/
See this piece of shit right there?
They said it was an RPG, but it was piece of crap. It was bad at everything. RPG elements, adventure elements, hack 'n slash elements etc.
And for some reason, I still liked it. Don't know why, but I did.
Would I say that it's a good game because I liked it? No, for fuck's sake, it's terrible piece of shit that I liked.

But maybe being objective is too much to ask.

 

[BloodyPuppy]

Hell, I actually like KOTOR, but as a game it's decent at best. Lots of problems.

 

[Gragt]

I have the same too with some books, movies or games that are clearly less than stellar but somehow resonnate with me on a level. But that's very personnal and while it's possible that other people may feel the same about it, not everyone will.

Or here is an exemple: I like The Witcher more than Mask of the Betrayer but MotB is the better game because of the way it handles stats, choices and provides a different experience for different characters.

 

[Relayer71]

I don't see how rating the game 3/5 would have killed them.

Obviously a 3/5 is still a "passing" grade but it seems to take into account more the game's failings not to mention the areas in which it is mediocre.


I admit that I enjoyed the game a bit, unlike say Oblivion which I didn't enjoy AT ALL.

But after all is said and done, all the game really does well is what we already know Bethesda does well: create large sandboxes or hiking simulators in which we can roam around and explore.

They went a step above Oblivion in that you actually WANT to explore due to the many varied locations. It helps that they created a somewhat convincing world. I say "somewhat" because as cool as the ruins of this devastated world look, there is just too much of it and it feels cramped.

Not to mention having to suspend belief even a bit more than usual (computers that still work, edible food all over the place, not to mention the fact that 200 years after the last game people still live as if the bomb just went off a couple of years ago).

Still, the visuals work.

Where was I? Oh yes, so aside from the usual Bethesda sandbox qualities and the fact that quests and dialogue checks have improved substantially from Morrowind & Oblivion, they still dropped the ball big time with laughable dialogue & sometimes horrendous voice acting, a half assed combat system or rather, set of combat systems (FPS sucks, Vats isn't terrible but makes things too easy and those damn slo-mo animations are excessive), a dull and short main quest, and all the other little things.

So I had a bit of fun with it and was surprised every now and again with something that impressed me. But overall, it was not the near perfect games all the review scores make it out to be.

Funny thing is, just like RPG Watch, many reviewers list a ton of negative points but then at the end say that basically, "even with all the flaws the game was fun".

So was Arcanum but I didn't see that game getting 4/5s, 95s, 9/10 scores from most review sites.

Fallout 3 is a 3/5, 75, 7/10, at most. Which is still a big step up from Oblivion which I would have scored a 1/5.

 

[poocolator]

The other day my dog shat on the carpet >.< The shit was vile, stunk, and made me cry a little when I came home from work and discovered it, sitting smugly in all its glory. BUT-- I enjoyed it for what it was: It was an exceptional piece of shit, unlike many I had seen before.

 

[Shannow]

That's also a problem for me, but hadly limited to Fallout 3: most people seem to rate the game only by how much they like it, not how good it is.

What is "good" differs for most people as much as what they "like". While I, too, would prefer more objective scores I also see where "likes" can be a valid way of judging games. If the reviewer says why he liked it and you as a consumer find a reviewer who shares your likes it can be a very effective system. But I say this as someone who doesn't give a flying fuck about reviews^^

 

[Hory]

Everyone says that they enjoyed it for what it was.

You know what it was? It was bad. And it should be judged as such. Jesus, if I'm asked to rate the smell of shit I don't say, "Well I'd usually say it smells awful, but considering that it's shit it's pretty nice!".

Thanks. Sometimes it feels like everyone's been assimilated and I'm the last one who disagrees.

 

[Davaris]

That's also a problem for me, but hadly limited to Fallout 3: most people seem to rate the game only by how much they like it, not how good it is.

Lots of people like women's magazines with their news on celeb relationships, dieting advice, and info on how to have the biggest orgasms, but most are honest enough to admit they are garbage.

 

[Gragt]

What is "good" differs for most people as much as what they "like".

Total objectivity is of course an illusion but partial objectivity, with a rationnal explaination of the choices made, is better than subjectivity because it places the review on a scale that possibly everyone can understand the same way. If you ask me, "like" and "dislike" have no place in critical discourse. I do not rely on reviews most of the time simply because there aren't many good critics.

 

[trais]

NPCs are lifeless, dialogues suck, quests are fed-ex shit... HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, <s>I SUCK COCKS</s> THIS GAME IS AWESOME!!!1

 

[Gragt]

You should post this as a new Codex review, if anything it'll keep people on other sites busy flinging poo at us.

 

[franc kaos]

The reviewer said:

In fact, every accusation levelled at FO3 for being too different from the earlier game could be used against the Ultima series, but no-one has done so.

Actually not true, when Ultima8 was released there was such an uproar about the jumping puzzle they released a patch to fix it, and U9 was an unmitigated disaster, the lead designer was sacked (or left) three quarters of the way thru and RG tried to fix what game there was before shoving it out the door a buggy mess that barely ran on anything.

Personally, I thought good Ultima finished at 7. I played 8 (and tried to play 9 before quitting in disgust after destroying two pillars - dungeons weren't too bad but the outside world was a horrendous slide show with regular crashing - and I can't remember the storyline but I think it was bad).

Fallout3 was a good bethesda game but I must admit, I've played thru' it once and haven't gone back to it (keeping it on the hard disk for when the decent mods completely change it).

 

[hakuroshi]

Exploration aspect is decent (still too many filler dungeons) and a couple of side-quests are somewhat intriguing. There are some nice athmospheric moments too. Everithing else is bad. F3 may be one of better Bethesdas games but it is still a bad game. One may enjoy it in a way, it's not a crime after all, but well... you know... nothing to brag about.

 

[St. Toxic]

One may enjoy it in a way, it's not a crime after all

It would be, if there was any justice in the world.

 

[Twinfalls]

Jesus, if I'm asked to rate the smell of shit I don't say, "Well I'd usually say it smells awful, but considering that it's shit it's pretty nice!".

The other day my dog shat on the carpet >.< The shit was vile, stunk, and made me cry a little when I came home from work and discovered it, sitting smugly in all its glory. BUT-- I enjoyed it for what it was: It was an exceptional piece of shit, unlike many I had seen before.

Thankyou for adding such variety to the thread.

Fallout 3 is a bigger and better game than KOTOR. Far more enjoyable combat. Better C&C as well, and a fuckton more freedom. Both are good games though. Neither are great.

 

[Wyrmlord]

See, this "good not great" is a pointless qualification.

I prefer people to take a clear stand on what they feel about the game.

The game is either fun. Or it is not.

 

[Twinfalls]

Yep, a game is either fun-tastic! or it is not. It drinks Funta, or nothing at all. Phine Phamily Phun or get OUT!

 

[SpaceKungFuMan]

I literally don't understand how people can "like it for what it is." FO3 has the worst dialog I have ever seen. It is so badly written that anything else the game does well is irrelevant. The dialog renders the game as unplayable as daggerfall was with its show stopping main quest bug. There is no way that anyone here can honestly say the dialog is even passable. I've read better dialog in games with shitty English translations. “I’m looking for my father. Middle-aged guy. Have you seen him?” is so bad I can't even bring myself to click on it.

 

[Shannow]

There is as much "ok" dialogue as there is crappy or even utterly retarded dialogue in it... Now imagine someone who ignores dialogue, doesn't care much about main quests and just runs around exploring and killing stuff. Sounds as boring to me as it sounds stupid to you but it doesn't change the fact that that person is enjoying himself, simply because he has different tastes/priorities.

 

[Longshanks]

Jesus, if I'm asked to rate the smell of shit I don't say, "Well I'd usually say it smells awful, but considering that it's shit it's pretty nice!".

The other day my dog shat on the carpet >.< The shit was vile, stunk, and made me cry a little when I came home from work and discovered it, sitting smugly in all its glory. BUT-- I enjoyed it for what it was: It was an exceptional piece of shit, unlike many I had seen before.

Thankyou for adding such variety to the thread.

Fallout 3 is a bigger and better game than KOTOR. Far more enjoyable combat. Better C&C as well, and a fuckton more freedom. Both are good games though. Neither are great.

To continue on a theme - a big shit is still ... ah, you get the picture. FO3's size is one of the major reasons for its failure, not a positive. Personally, I'd rate it below KOTOR, simply because KOTOR aims at being a story-driven RPG and does a good enough job of it (lack of freedom being something of an unfair criticism in this context). Fallout 3 is a decent sandbox action RPG, as the world mostly looks suitably post-apocalyptic, affords the player a good degree of freedom to explore and includes some nice quests. But, the terrible plot and dialogue (of which there is too much for the effort applied), dull dungeons, clearly fake and/or extremely weak consequences and especially the unsatisfying, too plentiful combat (the game's major focus alongside exploration) mean it is no better than that.

 

[hiver]

“I’m looking for my father. Middle-aged guy. Have you seen him?”

Thats one of the better dialogue lines in the game.

better game than KOTOR. Far more enjoyable combat

What? Are you raving mad ? Planescape combat is a masterpiece compared to this mindnumbing repetitive bore and enemies without any Ai worth calling it that.

Better C&C as well

What C&C ?
None of it makes any sense. Apart from maybe few sidequests (like one or two) that are ridiculous in on themselves anyway.

Freedom? What for? To run around and shoot neverending respawns?

If this was really just some PA actionRPG wannabe game it would still be crap but considering it tried to be Fallout 3 its absolutely horrible in all aspects that make a real Fallout game.

 

[Twinfalls]

eh, perhaps it's been too long since I played KOTOR. I recall horrible clusterfuck combat, 'planets' that consisted of a corridor in which you must fetch parts of some holy star-sword (sorry, map) and mind-bogglingly irritating companions. Albeit there were some very cool Star Wars setting fixtures. I still enjoyed that game, but found myself enjoying FO3 more. Anyway, speaking of clusterfucks, I've had my fill of the one that ensues when one dares to praise That which Shall Not be Praised.