|
by thePinkBurns, Level 22
Last updated at November 5, 2008, 12:50 am
|
Are people who review video games the most easily impressed people on earth? Having logged a fair few hours in the game world of Fallout 3, venturing from location to location, being generally impressed by Bethesda's offering, is it really a 9.0, or even a 10?
Combat Woes
The first thing that strikes me as being a full point off is the combat. It jams together a first person perspective with a stats system that served its purpose in a turn based combat engine. In real-time, it's frustrating and clunky. VATs itself is an interesting system, but for me, it's not enough.
They needed to go one way or the other in this respect. Combining stats with what is effectively a first-person shooter is a barmy decision as far as I'm concerned.
Down to 9.0 for me already.
Staying with combat for a moment: aiming for body parts. I have not yet found the purpose of this system. What on earth is it for? Crippling an opponent's head seems to have no noticeable effect. They still run 3 times as fast as my own character when I cripple their legs, and they go about shooting me just fine when I shoot their arms. Is this system set up entirely just to do more damage to an enemy? If so, then everything but head and chest may as well be removed, as the head is the only place that seems to do more damage at all.
If there's anything deeper than more damage to this system, then it has escaped my perception.
I remember in the original Fallouts that the system was not just about dealing immediate damage. It was about strategically stopping a stronger set of opponents from annihilating you. Up against 6 super mutants? Take out a couple of their eyes and hope that you can withstand the assaults of the rest. Or: shoot them in the crotch and hope they don't get up again!
8.8 now. Whether that system has any effect is irrelevant. It's not enough for me to notice an advantage.
If they leave a system in place, then it should serve a purpose other than a little extra damage.
Feeling A Bit Simple
While most of the game world feels like Fallout, the weapons themselves feel incredibly generic and look so too. 10mm Pistol? Okay, I'll give them that. Sniper Rifle? Yeah ok, that too. That's fine. Assault Rifle? Oh no you didn't! To take the varied and interesting weapons of Fallout and combining pretty much all the shotguns and rifles into just “Assault Rifle†is a bit disappointing, really.
That's not the main thing about this point though; it's that the weapons and armors in the game don't feel very Fallout. Most of the time I don't even notice what an opponent is wearing when they come at me, as honestly, it doesn't seem to matter anyway. I think the main problem is the incredible dumbing down of the games systems and weapons so that people don't have to think.
8.6
Good Game, Bad Critics
I could probably go on and nitpick it down to around an 8, but I don't want to. It doesn't leave me feeling the need to destroy it through tiny problems. I think I've highlighted the main issues for me that stop it from being the messiah that game reviewers have proclaimed it. It's a decent game, and Bethesda have retained a lot of the atmosphere and feel of the old games while updating it for the rapidly evolving taste of modern gamers. And modern games reviewers are incredibly forgiving, it seems.
Oh just one final thing I remembered that's quite a biggie for me. What's with the Raiders and their fascination for hanging bodies everywhere?
There was a farm in Fallout 2 where a group of … I can't remember what they were, but they wanted to scare people away. They put fake bodies (I think they were fake anyway) up on stakes outside their farm. That was really effective on me. The game was shouting “Woah there, these people are serious!†to me. When there were bodies in the original Fallouts you knew something was up. Something incredibly bad was going to happen to you, etc.
In Fallout 3 it just makes me think that there's probably some Raiders around.
Again, the game is alright, there's some very enjoyable parts of it, but the hype from Bethesda has made it another blockbuster with the reviewers.
I'll write a full review when I'm done with it, highlighting the good and the bad, but for now, I feel I had to express my disbelief at games reviewers and their incredibly forgiving views.

Ever play Deus Ex?
Also, I agree with you on most/all your points, but I give the game a 9+. Why? Because it's fun, despite its flaws.
It is fun. Being a fan of the originals I wanted to go in with as little bias as possible. I avoided most news articles about its development and especially NMA-Fallout. I don't believe in hating a game before I've played it.
I don't hate Fallout 3 either. 8.6 to me is a very respectable score, and I respect that you - a gamer - have given it a 9 for the fun you've gotten from it. As always, it's about what you get out of a game.
Game reviewers though, they get paid to give a score to something, and when I feel they've gone completely bananas...
Thanks for your comment!
instead of focusing on what this game does wrong, have you not noticed all the things the game does right? it's freaking epic.
lol. jk. ratings is subjective...just as long as you enjoy the game in the end
That might be stupid, cause basically I'm reviewing peoples opinions with my own opinions, which in turn people should not take to be the definitive opinion on a game, but hey. Can't say I'm not stupid
I fear that where reviewing is headed, there's just going to be no room on the scale anymore, and every good game, no matter how disappointing it is in some aspects, will be up at the very highest mark.
Where are they going to go when Fallout 4 is released and it's better than Fallout 3? Will they add 2 more points and have it go up to 120% awesomeness? heh.
To me Fallout 3 is very much the Morrowind to Oblivion transition. Taking a game from deep and thought-provoking to mainly shallow and over-hyped, yet overall still a good game, you just end up missing what was there previously. While Fallout 3, imo, has survived the transition from "niche" to "mainstream" much better than Oblivion, I still feel that an opportunity to really bring back the old-school gaming values has been missed.
Of course, sales > winning life-long fans, especially in this financial climate. Will people still talk about this game in 10 years time though? We'll see, but somehow I doubt it.
The first game dealt mainly with Super Mutants, products of man, but never really was the main opponent man itself.
I miss the intelligent Super Mutants from the first two. Maybe there's one hidden away in Fallout 3, but I've only found Uncle Leo so far, who even for a friendly Mutie he seems a bit on the feral, stupid side.
I'm not sure what to expect from L4D. It's not a game that i'm particularly excited over, but I'll definitely be refreshing kotaku for word on the pleb demo on the 11th.
one thing that i would like to see is the raiders being more centralized (even if it's around the mills) and fewer hanging corpses everywhere, for me it went from omg! to *sigh* these punks again...
Farragut is to the east of Super Duper Mart, over the river.
(lbp isn't included as I don't own a ps3, but that will do amazing things for videogames as well and I would be happy to see either get game of the year)
20 Total Entries


Your Comment is being posted. Please wait...