RPGWatch Feature - Fallout 3 Review: Corwin's View

[Dhruin]

Now it's Corwin's turn to examine Fallout 3 in our second review of Bethesda's entry to this revered series. From the intro:
What’s in a name? If we listen to the hype, or the controversy surrounding the title of this game, we’d have to assume a name means a great deal. Let’s deal with this issue immediately so we can address the far more important aspects of this game.

No-one argues that the game contains many of the same elements we find in the earlier iterations: Pip Boy; Super Mutants; Vaults; BoS; etc, but many are complaining that the differences are too great. Rubbish!
Read it all here (http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/article?articleid=111&ref=0&id=154).
More information. (http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/newsbit?newsbit=11239)

[txa1265]

Very nice review Corwin ... I find it interesting that with you, me and Dhruin a core theme is 'vased on what I've said you might think I hate this game, but ...'

:D

[GothicGothicness]

It sounds like Corwin acctually likes the combat system, but almost everyone I heard who played the game complained how they hated it, and how tired they get of VATS after a couple of 100ndred of kills.

[Kostaz]

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
I'll try.
Great review a bit too positive for my taste but I guess you know better.

[Dez]

A good review and I hear what corwin says about the poor quality of manual. Good riddance, a quality manual used to be part of the experience. They weren't only usefull, but very artistic and fun to read through. Usually they contained lots of back lore and detailish descriptions of the weaponry, tactics etc. Nowdays if you desire the same stuff you'll have to get the official strategy book or whatever they call it. Luckily gamefaqs does it for free. :)

As for the review itself. It was pretty accurate, just like Txa's main review, so no complaints there. f3 has so much potential but at the end its just a fun (and damn addictive) game while it could have been so much more. With quality dialog and mainquest this could have been an instant classic. Hopefully they'll hire decent writers for their next game because gameplay elements they got 'right' and I wouldn't change much. I enjoyed the combat, hacking, exploring etc. Sadly the roleplaying stuff isn't simply same caliber.

[pnutz]

In the preamble, you left Ultima 9 out of the canon consideration--the buggy 3D third person one with the terrible ending. I'm just sayin'.

[magerette]

I'm heartily with you on game manuals, Corwin. My personal pet peeve is those which use a dark grey font on light grey paper with tiny print--impossible to read and I seldom even bother unless I have something major I want to check on.

I found both this review and txa1265's to be very informative and also to give a good feel for the game to someone like me who hasn't played it.. I kind of lost interest in the Bethesda template after Morrowind, and I remember the original FOs fondly but without deep commitment. Dhruin's comments also summed up some of what I think my own reactions would be. So now I don't have to feel guilty or that I've really missed anything by skipping this game. :)

[Relayer]

The funny thing about the writing in Bethesda's games is that it wouldn't seem so bad if they got competent voice actors. Or more to the point, an actual director. So the lines are usually simple, yes. But delivery goes a long way.

Moira's lines for instance aren't terrible but the way in which they are delivered - not sure if this is Bethesda's idea of humor or just incompetence. Just like many other characters in Fallout 3 (& Oblivion), the actors sound as if they're reading for a 2nd grade classroom. There is no range of feeling or emotion, no depth, no actual "character", just lines being read as if from a teacher reading a story book to a class full of 7 year olds.

[Relayer]

By the way, the RPGWatch score is making more sense now in light of this 2nd review: 8/10. :)

[Brother None]

Considering you cared so little for the "true sequel" angle, it might have been more advisable to just let the issue lie, rather than half-heartedly deal with it in the intro and then do a belly stab at the fans in the extro. Good review otherwise.

It sounds like Corwin acctually likes the combat system, but almost everyone I heard who played the game complained how they hated it, and how tired they get of VATS after a couple of 100ndred of kills.

The combat system isn't horrible in my opinion. The FPS action isn't FPS-quality, nor is it FPSRPG quality. The RTwP system isn't inspired but I've seen worse. The gory scenes do indeed get boring after a while.

So if you're looking for a combat system that carries the game, don't look here. I don't think it's bad enough to ruin the game either, tho'. It's decent, nothing more, nothing less.

[Korplem]

By the way, the RPGWatch score is making more sense now in light of this 2nd review: 8/10. :)

Every review has a link to the scoring system (http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/info?infoid=2) on RPGWatch.

Multiple reviews of the same game shouldn't be considered as cumulative. 4/5 and 4/5 does not equal 8/10. It's simply, 4/5 and 4/5.

[Relayer]

Multiple reviews of the same game shouldn't be considered as cumulative. 4/5 and 4/5 does not equal 8/10. It's simply, 4/5 and 4/5.

Korplem, 'twas a joke.

[Squeek]

I came away from this feeling I had a handle on the game. After so many attempts by so many writers to put their fingers right on it, to define and present the perfect case for judging Fallout 3, somehow (yeah, somehow) I still didn't have that sense.

Up until now, the picture I had in my mind of Fallout 3 was still too sketchy and a little too sterile. There were dissatisfied blanks in it demanding to be filled. Now I have the colors I need to fill them in.

IMO, Corwin used himself very well as an example of someone playing the game for the first time. That provided me with the reference point I needed and a perspective I can use. I finally feel I'm ready to make my purchase decision.

[Relayer]

The combat system isn't horrible in my opinion. The FPS action isn't FPS-quality, nor is it FPSRPG quality. The RTwP system isn't inspired but I've seen worse. The gory scenes do indeed get boring after a while.


I take back what I said, indeed the combat system isn't really terrible just lackluster.

I think Bethesda used their basic "please EVERYONE" philosophy and so gave us half-assed versions of FPS & RTwP. The funny thing is they could have used their Vats system and gone full TB and it would have been better.

Would have helped to make the "slo-mo" only for crit shots or for 1 out of 5 combat instances. Sure heads exploding into bloody chunks looks cool the first few times but after that, who cares. It's just pointless.

[DBS]

Although in todays gaming land , Fallout 3 is superb compared to most of what we get. A lot of gaming for the money and interesting setting. Voice acting by AAA actors help it as did Oblivion have some good actors. yes...could of been better but still I am very happy with this game.

[rune_74]

Good review, and pretty acurrate:) Corwin you didn't let me down.

Get over it, classic.

[Corwin]

In the preamble, you left Ultima 9 out of the canon consideration--the buggy 3D third person one with the terrible ending. I'm just sayin'.

That was deliberate on my part; I don't really consider U9 as part of the canon, but I don't think we can put U9 and FO3 in the same basket.

[Corwin]

From BN: "Considering you cared so little for the "true sequel" angle, it might have been more advisable to just let the issue lie, rather than half-heartedly deal with it in the intro and then do a belly stab at the fans in the extro. Good review otherwise."

For me, these were 2 different, though related issues. The most common reasons given for FO3 not being a 'true sequel' were the number of changes in both gameplay and location. My point is that these didn't seem to matter with Ultimas 5,7,8 which were totally different, especially 8 which I didn't personally care too much for. The question surely is what constitutes a sequel. If U8 is considered a sequel to U5, then why the uproar when discussing F3 to F2?

My second issue at the close was aimed at those who disagree with me certainly, but the point was that if we agree to disagree on whether the game is a true sequel, can't we still agree that it's a fun game, so let's enjoy it for what it is, rather than complain about what it isn't.

[Relayer]

My point is that these didn't seem to matter with Ultimas 5,7,8 which were totally different, especially 8 which I didn't personally care too much for. The question surely is what constitutes a sequel. If U8 is considered a sequel to U5, then why the uproar when discussing F3 to F2?

By that token, you should have included U9 :)

I haven't played many of the Ultimas (just the first 3, ages ago) but there must be a substantial enough thread that links them together and makes them feel as a complete series. Did the later ones all have the same developers?

I think it's different with Fallout - first, you're not dealing with a series that's 9 games deep. It's only the 3rd in the series and it wouldn't have been too difficult to match the qualities of the first 2 games.

You take the main things that mattered in the originals: setting, depth of characters, dark humor, good writing and update it. The only thing Bethesda got right was the setting and even then they screwed up a bit. The world looks less habitable than it did in Fallout 2, 200 years EARLIER. You'd think a modern civilization would rebuild in 200 years.

But that's easy to overlook I guess. They screwed up BIG TIME with the writing. It's really inconsistent, going from embarrassingly poor to decent to occasionally being good. In the first 2 games the writing was good throughout.

The characters in Fallout 3 are nowhere near as interesting or deep as they were in the earlier games.

Anyway I could go on but my point is that mentioning the earlier games SHOULD be important in any review of Fallout 3, they should be compared. The earlier games are considered classics after all.

Of course the sad thing is that I'm sure a huge part of the Fallout 3 fan base or rather those who purchased it are doing it based on Oblivion's success. I think Bethesda implemented more choices and dialogue checks only because they were expected to somewhat live up to Fallout's reputation in the industry but I think the next Elder Scrolls game will probably be even more dumbed down than Oblivion.

[Corwin]

Using that analogy, try comparing U4 to ANY of the first 3 Ultimas!! :) There really is NO comparison. Don't get me wrong, there's heaps Beth$oft could have done better in keeping the game 'true' to the first 2, but since LB didn't with his creation, why should they be held to a different/higher standard than one of the most famous/influential series in gaming?

[txa1265]

Bethesda has established a core competence - and core business success - of making massive open sandbox games that are action heacy and RPG-lite. Those strengths are ll at odds with Fallout as a franchise. So why should we expect them to start with a Fallout core and build in more modern elements rather than start with their most successful (commercially and review-wise) and wrap a Fallout-ish blanket around it?

[Squeek]

Bethesda has established a core competence - and core business success - of making massive open sandbox games that are action heacy and RPG-lite. Those strengths are ll at odds with Fallout as a franchise. So why should we expect them to start with a Fallout core and build in more modern elements rather than start with their most successful (commercially and review-wise) and wrap a Fallout-ish blanket around it?I see that same point a little differently. They have experience programming on top of an outstanding game engine, one that's a ton of fun but not so hot for hosting RPGs.

IMO, Bethesda made a third Fallout game because they could, because it was convenient and because it was bound to be a great commercial success. Love it or hate it (or somehow remain neutral with it), but understand that your vote counts for one.

Bethesda showed no special concern for a great franchise's hardcore fans; they counted their opinions the same as everyone elses. That may have been a smart business decision, but I don't see it as anything to be particularly proud of in any other sense.

Now that they've raked in the big bucks, maybe they can turn around and throw those fans a bone. How about cranking out a little something for the NMA crowd, Pete?

[Relayer]

That's my point really, Bethesda could have released Fallout 3 under a different name completely unrelated to the original Fallout games and it would have been fine.

They could have even released it as a Fallout side game like Tactics and it would have been forgivable.

But they released a direct sequel that felt a hell of a lot more like Oblivion than any of the Fallout games. Eerily so, in fact. Oblivion with Guns is a very fitting description of the game.

No matter of course, Fallout's fan base is probably a 10th of Oblivion's. I really hope they leave it at 3 and move on to the next ES game. I'm still a fan of the Elder Scrolls world and if they care about RPGs at all, the next one will be "right".

[Gorath]

It's already clear that more Fallout games will come.

[Brother None]

Now that they've raked in the big bucks, maybe they can turn around and throw those fans a bone. How about cranking out a little something for the NMA crowd, Pete?

They stopped throwing their own fans bones after Oblivion. I believe the only "fan" sites they still wish to deal with are the GameSpy Planet sites, which might have something to do with the infamous leveragability of Planet sites (DaC, anyone?)

For me, these were 2 different, though related issues. The most common reasons given for FO3 not being a 'true sequel' were the number of changes in both gameplay and location. My point is that these didn't seem to matter with Ultimas 5,7,8 which were totally different, especially 8 which I didn't personally care too much for. The question surely is what constitutes a sequel. If U8 is considered a sequel to U5, then why the uproar when discussing F3 to F2?

I'm sorry, but what exactly is your argument? How are you supposed to judge something as a sequel if not by changes in the gameplay and setting?
And consider Fallout's setting was pretty secondary to the game in development, it being intended as a pen and paper emulating RPG from the start. It's not "some" gameplay changes that're the problem, it's the fact that it essentially switched genre, from p&p emulating RPG to FPSRPG. The two genres are both subsets of RPGs but that's 'bout it, otherwise they're completely separate.

If your argument is that the changes in Fallout 2 to 3 weren't big enough to disqualify it as a "true sequel" (hate that term), then fine. But like this, your argument seems to be "you can't judge whether or not something fits as a sequel, at all". That's nonsense.

My second issue at the close was aimed at those who disagree with me certainly, but the point was that if we agree to disagree on whether the game is a true sequel, can't we still agree that it's a fun game, so let's enjoy it for what it is, rather than complain about what it isn't.

I'm sorry, but why? No one will be harmed by people complaining about something. Then add the fact that this isn't just about Fallout but about the "fall" of RPGs in general and it becomes a good focal point of debate.

[txa1265]

They stopped throwing their own fans bones after Oblivion. I believe the only "fan" sites they still wish to deal with are the GameSpy Planet sites, which might have something to do with the infamous leveragability of Planet sites (DaC, anyone?)

I completely agree - in my various 'view from the vault' articles posted at a couple of sites, I pointed out the hypocrisy of what they said versus what they actually did, and earned no sympathy - actually got massively skewered on console-centric sites.

They *said* they'd make PC fans happy, did a same-day release, and now are done. While it is clear that hardcore RPG fans saw the massive problems with Oblivion from day one, it seemed to have taken the media until the FO3 previews to start skewering it, and console fans still think it is great - and point to the inflated scores as proof.

Bethesda has a big pile of money and over-inflated scores to back up their point that this was the *best* Fallout game. And that is how they will proceed.

[Gorath]

Correct, but isn't this the way it always goes? True mass market is not interested in fans. At some point hugely successful franchises grow beyond listening to minor groups. This seems like an (almost) inevitable step to me. Then it's only about market segmentation, positioning and marketing.

[txa1265]

Correct, but isn't this the way it always goes? True mass market is not interested in fans. At some point hugely successful franchises grow beyond listening to minor groups. This seems like an (almost) inevitable step to me. Then it's only about market segmentation, positioning and marketing.

True - but I think it is even worse. We focus here on the sorry state of the PC RPG industry. But look at the 'best' of 2008: GTA 4, Far Cry 2, Fallout 3. Each is hugely flawed, utterly generic in many ways, and represents a triumph of style over substance. Worse yet, many call 2008 one of the best years in recent memory *because* of these games. So it is not just us as PC RPG'ers getting marginalized, but fans of interesting and innovative games with decent writing and characters.

[Squeek]

It's an odd situation all around, if you ask me. Here we are in the middle of a recession, and an industry leader with their pockets full can't be persuaded to make a game committed fans are screaming to buy.

Fans need a champion working at Bethesda, someone to evangelize their wants and needs who can maneuver a Bethesda project from conception through to completion. That would employ some more people, make some more money for Bethesda and cater directly to a significant group of outspoken customers whose opinions matter and could even improve Bethesda's image.

Maybe we need to initiate peace talks..."somehow."

[Relayer]

At least Bioware tweaks their games for PC releases.

It's the least Bethesda could have done but they couldn't even be bothered to improve the UI to better fit mouse/keyboard control.

Little things like that show that they really don't give a damn about PC gamers anymore. They know the big bucks are with the more forgiving action RPG loving console gamers.

Not saying anything negative about console gamers, I love JRPGs like the Final Fantasy series myself and I KNOW there isn't much C & C or depth in those but I already know what to expect from them and they do what they do (story telling, character focus) well. Not all of them of course.

[Dhruin]

It's an odd situation all around, if you ask me. Here we are in the middle of a recession, and an industry leader with their pockets full can't be persuaded to make a game committed fans are screaming to buy.

It's not really odd. Disappointing, perhaps, but not odd. Whatever the resources you use to make the fan game could be used to do what they are doing, with exponential profit returns. This is the way nearly every business operates.

My own company retrenched 10 workers recently. We've been performing well over last year (despite the economy) - and last year was a record year. What we weren't doing was making the bottom line growth they wanted, so people went.

Me - I think we made record money last year and this year we're doing a bit better, so that's pretty good. But I'm a frontline manager, not a corporate leader. The big boss wants his 20% year-on-year profit growth come hell or high water. I don't know anything about Zenimax but I'd be surprised if they really cared about anything but the bottom line when it all comes down to it.

[Relayer]

It's an odd situation all around, if you ask me. Here we are in the middle of a recession, and an industry leader with their pockets full can't be persuaded to make a game committed fans are screaming to buy.

Squeek, the problem is Bethesda's hype machine. They promised so much with Oblivion yet delivered so little. And of course we ate it all up.

(this review hits the nails on the heads: http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=129)

So we're at just as much fault for contributing to Bethesda's future vision by buying Oblivion and Fallout 3 as their newfound fanboys.

I don't regret getting Fallout 3 though, it wasn't terrible by any means but it was just "ok" and I expected so much more. I'm probably done with Bethesda though, they're making games now for the ADD/teen-who-wants-to-just-blow-sh*t-up crowd. Daggerfall and Morrowind had so much promise.

[Ausir]

For me, the gameplay changes in Fallout 3 are more comparable to the differences between the main Ultima series and Ultima underworld, which wasn't considered a numbered Ultima game.

[Brother None]

I it seemed to have taken the media until the FO3 previews to start skewering it

Heh yeah. If I were a betting man, I'd wager suddenly come TES V, the gaming media starts complaining openly about Fallout 3's lackluster story and writing

GTA 4, Far Cry 2, Fallout 3. Each is hugely flawed, utterly generic in many ways, and represents a triumph of style over substance.

I actually liked GTA 4, despite the fact that it will barely run on my PC, buggy piece of $F$#. It was overhyped, sure, but you can't really call it badly written or - despite some flaws - badly made.

Fans need a champion working at Bethesda, someone to evangelize their wants and needs who can maneuver a Bethesda project from conception through to completion. That would employ some more people, make some more money for Bethesda and cater directly to a significant group of outspoken customers whose opinions matter and could even improve Bethesda's image.

That's what they hired Matt Grandstaff for. And to some extent, that's what he's been doing. But in the end it's the big chiefs that matter, and they don't even see Oblivion fansites or Fallout 3 modding sites worth investing any time into, let alone sites like NMA.

[Corwin]

BN, I'm confused as to why you don't 'get' my argument. To me, the differences between U5 and U8 are far greater than those between F2 and F3. If U8 is considered a sequel, then so should F3; both fall under the heading of rpg's, but both are VERY different in substance and style.

[rune_74]

NMA[/B].


Do you honestly believe any company would support a site like NMA? Honestly thats opening yourself up waaaay to much. It is like supporting a extremist group. As a company bethesda does not need to support those other sites due to them alreday generating the sales they need to make a profit. Sites are supported by companies to encourage sales (not good will) if you already have the sales time and money spent on sites is really a waste in a business sense.

[Ausir]

It's not only NMA. They have generally been unsupportive of fansites, including my Fallout wiki, The Vault (http://fallout.wikia.com).

[Kostaz]

OT:What's wrong with NMA?

[DArtagnan]

OT:What's wrong with NMA?

That's for you to decide :)

Categorizing people based on the sites they frequent will never be entirely fair, though there's generally always a reason for reputations like that.

[Anon E. Mouse]

OT:What's wrong with NMA?I would guess cooties. Every time someone with strong opinions that are outside the mainstream speaks up, cooties come out of the woodwork. And are well deserved, of course.

Site wars are a little like a house on fire. Fools rush in. They are best ignored (and pitied).

[Relayer]

Nothing wrong with sites that express their opinions freely and allow their community members to do so, within reason of course.

But look at Bethesda which has been known to delete many posts on their game forums, some that just questioned some of their design decisions. Not like the posts were profanity & hostility-filled either.

You should be allowed to take criticism and not take things personally.

[Brother None]

BN, I'm confused as to why you don't 'get' my argument. To me, the differences between U5 and U8 are far greater than those between F2 and F3. If U8 is considered a sequel, then so should F3; both fall under the heading of rpg's, but both are VERY different in substance and style.

That's not a valid argument. The circumstances surrounding Ultima were different, whether it be through the game series running longer or because the original designer was with the series the whole time. You have to consider a general status for something to be a sequel in general and then judge it against individual cases like, like Metroid, GTA or Fallout.

Do you honestly believe any company would support a site like NMA?

Interplay did. Heck, Interplay still does. We've had courteous relations with every developer we've ever tracked games from, whether it was SSE with the Fall or Microforte with Tactics. The only real exceptions, so far, have been Interplay while working on F:BoS/cancelling Van Buren and Bethesda while working on Fallout 3.

But I wasn't talking about NMA. Like I said, and Ausir said, they are unsupportive of fansites in general, except Planet sites. I didn't attach any judgement to that and I know why they do it (mostly because of their near-paranoid need to be in full control of all info regarding their games), but it is what it is, and NMA being mean is not at fault.

[Superguest]

Let’s consider my favourite series - Ultima.
Yeah, let's.

Ultima 5 had TB combat, while U7 was Real Time.
... and virtually everyone will add the caveat that the combat sucks when praising U7. You can't tell anyone a good thing about U7 without warning them of the combat lest everything you say will be discredited once they experience the combat.
I believe it's actually a major reason why U7 isn't the undisputed champion of the series.

Who would have expected jumping puzzles for example, after playing U4-7?
Noone. I don't know anyone who liked them either, so they actually patched in a "jump to" feature because the jumping puzzles pissed off players so badly.

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.
That is simply a lie. You're a liar. You treat truth like toilet paper and claim your shit doesn't stink.


So yeah, many changes to Ultima were big, big fail. Realtime combat, jumping puzzles, removal of party gameplay, new setting disaccociated from the older games. That's why the Guardian trilogy is considered a slope downwards.

[rune_74]

Wow superguest, that was a bit harsh, thank god for the internet and no consecences.

[DArtagnan]

I think people are forgetting just how much criticism Origin got for Ultima 8, even back in the day.

I very clearly remember heated usenet discussions about how big a step down U8 was from U7, and how it was an example of selling out. Since I never played Ultima pre-U8, I was actually a fan of it and I also liked Ultima 9. But having later played around with U7 - I can definitely see certain changes for the worse.

I'm not sure I see how it's really any different from what's happening with FO3. You can argue about whether it's a good game or not, but to ignore the changes made to appeal to the mass market would take an impressive level of blindness.

[Dhruin]

Superguest, you're welcome to disagree to your hearts content but quit the personal attacks.

[Corwin]

My sole point with the Ultima analogy, was that these games are still considered Ultimas, so despite the changes with FO3 I think it still deserves to be called a Fallout game. I was not discussing the merits of U8; I disliked it intensely, but I think I'd lose the argument if I tried to claim it's not really an 'Ultima'.

[txa1265]

My sole point with the Ultima analogy, was that these games are still considered Ultimas, so despite the changes with FO3 I think it still deserves to be called a Fallout game.

It is too bad that the point was lost - it is a discussion worth having. I did a lousy job of making it in my own, because me saying 'it doesn't matter' about Fallout 3 compared to the older games had as much to do with my not really thinking there is relevance in comparing FO3 to the others as anything else. In other words, I think that in the context of 'being a Fallout game' FO3 is pretty crappy ... but that isn't what FO3 is all about.

[Brother None]

My sole point with the Ultima analogy, was that these games are still considered Ultimas, so despite the changes with FO3 I think it still deserves to be called a Fallout game. I was not discussing the merits of U8; I disliked it intensely, but I think I'd lose the argument if I tried to claim it's not really an 'Ultima'.

And my sole point is that "Ultima 8 is considered an Ultima, so Fallout 3 should be considered a Fallout" is dubious logic at best, completely ignoring the individual circumstances considering the different titles and attempting to kill the debate by making some kind of "eh, let's just call them all sequels" argument. I'm sorry, but it's just not a useful point to make, not remotely.

[curious]

i
have to agree

[Corwin]

And I have to disagree, especially since it addresses the core beefs people have with it being called a Fallout; too many changes from the first two. However, as these are only our personal opinions, we will only argue round in circles and get nowhere, so let's simply agree to disagree.

[curious]

i prefer disagreeing to agree--its more honest!

[JDR13]

Wow! This is starting to get RIDICULOUS.

Fallout 3 is indeed Fallout 3, whether some people like it or not.

Some people just need to accept that fact, instead of going on about the differences ad nauseum.

[Corwin]

I think I said that in the review!! :)

[DArtagnan]

My sole point with the Ultima analogy, was that these games are still considered Ultimas, so despite the changes with FO3 I think it still deserves to be called a Fallout game. I was not discussing the merits of U8; I disliked it intensely, but I think I'd lose the argument if I tried to claim it's not really an 'Ultima'.

Ok, got it ;)

Sorry I missed that, as I haven't read the thread thoroughly.

Personally, I don't think the analogy really applies because Garriot and Co. (Origin) were developers on ALL Ultimas, and Ultima 8 and Ultima 9 weren't based on a purchased license. Even as Garriot succumbed to the pressures of EA and the mass market as time went on, he isn't quite as worthy of the critique I think is suitably placed on Bethesda.

Bethesda changed significantly when the original lead guy left - sometime before Morrowind - and Howard took over. Since then, it's been all about making a profound first impression on gamers, rather than construct a solid gameplay structure to act as underpinning for high quality gameplay throughout. That's partially why most reviewers salivate over it, because it DOES make a great first impression (like Morrowind and Oblivion did as well) - but it's unfortunate that most reviewers are too inexperienced to balance their opinion by giving the game a thorough analysis.

Howard is much more a "people" person and like Levine of former Irrational, he's much more about making games "cool" and accessible to the masses. I suspect it has to do with their history of being secluded nerds, who now have the opportunity to show the world just how cool games really are. Unfortunately, games were never "cool" - there was just some brilliant gameplay in some of them. Cool isn't what we need games to be - that's for the suits.

But anyway, Fallout 3 is unlike Ultima 8, because it's done by an entirely different group than the prequels with - in my opinion - entirely different motives.

But the pedantics about it being a Fallout by title are worthless and not useful for this discussion, in my opinion.

[mogwins]

Nice review Corwin. I thought I'd pitch in with my own take on Fallout 3 (http://improvementthroughpractice.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/review-fallout-3-xbox-360-updated/) and where it sits in regard to the first two.