RPGWatch Forums
Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 Last »

RPGWatch Forums (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/index.php)
-   News Comments (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=10)
-   -   Fallout 3 - Review Roundup #2 (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5732)

Dhruin October 29th, 2008 09:02

Fallout 3 - Review Roundup #2
 
Round Two.

Here's a snip from Tom Chick's review at CrispyGamer:
Quote:

The combat might be a sore point for some players, but I loved it. Bethesda's objective seems to be letting you play it as a turn-based slow-motion decapitation sim, or as a slightly clunky shooter. Take your pick or just alternate as the mood strikes you. For folks who prefer to play it as a shooter, Fallout 3 offers weightless ammo, and plenty of it. Those of us who mostly use the nifty turn-based "V.A.T.S." system will never want for a bullet. V.A.T.S. lets you target body parts, shoot the weapon out of someone's hand, or cripple him so he can't chase you. At least, that seems to be the idea: In practice, there never seemed to be a reason to do anything other than simply close the distance and queue up a series of sure-fire headshots. Hand-to-hand combat (use the biggest blade you can find!) and explosives are overkill, as they should be. But well into my second playthrough, the ridiculously gory deaths still haven't gotten old.
More information.

Bundyo October 29th, 2008 09:02

Second playthrough? I heard it was short but… :)

I read somewhere that the mouse was laggy, NPCs got easily stuck in other NPCs or objects and that facial expressions are only a little better from Oblivion, but why the reviews don't mention that? :[

October 29th, 2008 09:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bundyo (Post 101144)
Second playthrough? I heard it was short but… :)
…[

The Escapist says around 100 hours.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bundyo (Post 101144)

I read somewhere that the mouse was laggy, NPCs got easily stuck in other NPCs or objects and that facial expressions are only a little better from Oblivion, but why the reviews don't mention that? :[

Gameplayer mentions NPC's getting stuck.
Crispygamer criticizes the animation.

JDR13 October 29th, 2008 09:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by lghartveit (Post 101150)
The Escapist says around 100 hours.

If it's a 100 hour game and this guy is already playing it again, then Bethesda must have done something right. ;)

I'm not familiar with this "Escapist" website so I don't know the level of credibility there, but that guy seems to think FO3 is incredible.

October 29th, 2008 09:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDR13 (Post 101151)
If it's a 100 hour game and this guy is already playing it again, then Bethesda must have done something right. ;)

I suppose like in other games, the playing time depends on how much time you spend on exploration, side quests and so on.

GhanBuriGhan October 29th, 2008 10:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by lghartveit (Post 101153)
I suppose like in other games, the playing time depends on how much time you spend on exploration, side quests and so on.

Consensus seems to be around 20 hours if you just concentrate on the main quest, and 80+ hours if you explore and do sidequests, etc.
Animation problems and AI hiccups are mentioned by several reviews, actually. Especially the 3rd person perspective got criticized several times, becasue the PC animations are not something you want to watch for longer than necessary…

A real positive coming out of the reviews so far though is that the mood of the world seems to be right on. That is very important to me.

JDR13 October 29th, 2008 10:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by GhanBuriGhan (Post 101154)
Animation problems and AI hiccups are mentioned by several reviews, actually. Especially the 3rd person perspective got criticized several times, becasue the PC animations are not something you want to watch for longer than necessary.

I don't think the devs intended FO3 to be played in 3rd person, they included it as more of an extra than anything. Similar to the way a 1st person mode was included (badly) in Gothic 3.

GhanBuriGhan October 29th, 2008 10:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDR13 (Post 101156)
I don't think the devs intended FO3 to be played in 3rd person, they included it as more of an extra than anything. Similar to the way a 1st person mode was included (badly) in Gothic 3.

Thats right, they said as much in various interviews. It's a bit of a dissapointment nonetheless, as it would have been a nice nod towards the Fallout traditionalists, if they had offered a fully playable 3rd person / pseudo-isometric perspective. Would have been a lot of work, but there are examples of games that pulled it off nicely enough.

Thaurin October 29th, 2008 10:39

I guess you need to be able to see your character in an RPG, since he'll acquire new gear and stuff and his look will change. So the existence of 3rd-person, even if gameplay in it is below expectations, is desirable. (Or place a lot of mirrors in the world! ;))

GothicGothicness October 29th, 2008 10:39

This quote sounds pretty good:
Quote:

Russ Pitts is now wondering if he'll ever play another game, or if he should insert Fallout 3 into his Xbox and tape the door closed.

The escapist review sounded like an honest man! I am acctually getting excited about fallout 3 now….. DAMNED bethesda, I am sure I will get dissapointed again!

O, thanks to the crispy gamers review I am not excited anymore!

nessosin October 29th, 2008 13:59

OMG

How can you be hyped by those reviews? For the last few years almost all big titles got pretty much perfect reviews. Heck I clearly remember reviews of Oblivion claiming its the best cRPG and I think we all know its a dirty dirty dirty lie.

So God bless you, cause you gonna need that, if you still believe mainstream. media…

wolfing October 29th, 2008 14:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by nessosin (Post 101177)
OMG

How can you be hyped by those reviews? For the last few years almost all big titles got pretty much perfect reviews. Heck I clearly remember reviews of Oblivion claiming its the best cRPG and I think we all know its a dirty dirty dirty lie.

So God bless you, cause you gonna need that, if you still believe mainstream. media…

I'm not a reviewer, but I played Oblivion and would give it a 95% score. I played it twice indeed, and only used a mod to reduce the font size. That just tells you how impossible it is to assign a 'correct' score, as it all depends on the player. Best thing for you would be to put a black tape on the review score and just read the text of the review, trying to identify what 'problems' in the review are actually things you'd like, and what good points are actually things you don't like. I've played plenty of 70-80 score games that I would give 90+ and viceversa (most recent example, PC-Gamer's Spore review, I would give that game, maybe, a 55, yet it got like 95 or something)

rune_74 October 29th, 2008 14:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfing (Post 101185)
I'm not a reviewer, but I played Oblivion and would give it a 95% score. I played it twice indeed, and only used a mod to reduce the font size. That just tells you how impossible it is to assign a 'correct' score, as it all depends on the player. Best thing for you would be to put a black tape on the review score and just read the text of the review, trying to identify what 'problems' in the review are actually things you'd like, and what good points are actually things you don't like. I've played plenty of 70-80 score games that I would give 90+ and viceversa (most recent example, PC-Gamer's Spore review, I would give that game, maybe, a 55, yet it got like 95 or something)

Well said and I agree.

Its funny some of you are already questioning the graphical aspects in genre where graphics are usaully not the main draw of the games we all say we like.

nessosin October 29th, 2008 14:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfing (Post 101185)
I'm not a reviewer, but I played Oblivion and would give it a 95% score. I played it twice indeed, and only used a mod to reduce the font size. That just tells you how impossible it is to assign a 'correct' score, as it all depends on the player. Best thing for you would be to put a black tape on the review score and just read the text of the review, trying to identify what 'problems' in the review are actually things you'd like, and what good points are actually things you don't like. I've played plenty of 70-80 score games that I would give 90+ and viceversa (most recent example, PC-Gamer's Spore review, I would give that game, maybe, a 55, yet it got like 95 or something)

Ok. Then explain me the term "best cRPG"?

Alrik Fassbauer October 29th, 2008 15:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by nessosin (Post 101192)
Ok. Then explain me the term "best cRPG"?

IMHO this partly depends on your own style of playing.

I would liker to give Startrail the 95 % instead, but that's just me.

Rendelius October 29th, 2008 15:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by nessosin (Post 101192)
Ok. Then explain me the term "best cRPG"?

It's as impossible to explain as the term "best lover".

For me, as a addict to sadbox RPGs, Oblivion was incredibly addicting. For those more tempted by traditional styles, it has been a big letdown.

Alrik Fassbauer October 29th, 2008 15:06

That's in principle what I wanted to say.

The own playing style influences imho quite a lot the preferrence of something - of an "perfect cRPG" in the end.

(Hope that was not gibberish … My language centre in my mind is kindof slow right now.)

nessosin October 29th, 2008 15:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rendelius (Post 101202)
It's as impossible to explain as the term "best lover".

For me, as a addict to sadbox RPGs, Oblivion was incredibly addicting. For those more tempted by traditional styles, it has been a big letdown.

I had more fun with Morrowind. Oblivion incredibly addicting? Oh come on the same dungeons on and on… No consequences of your deeds, level scaling, same landscapes, NPC faces were a joke. Interface was clunky, quests very rarely consisted of something more than combat. OB had so many flaws that it is stuning that every review was praising it without measure. Even as a singleplayer MMORPG it was flawed.

woges October 29th, 2008 15:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rendelius (Post 101202)
It's as impossible to explain as the term "best lover".

For me, as a addict to sadbox RPGs, Oblivion was incredibly addicting. For those more tempted by traditional styles, it has been a big letdown.

Hah, "sadbox" was that on purpose?

October 29th, 2008 15:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by nessosin (Post 101177)
OMG

How can you be hyped by those reviews? For the last few years almost all big titles got pretty much perfect reviews. Heck I clearly remember reviews of Oblivion claiming its the best cRPG and I think we all know its a dirty dirty dirty lie.

So God bless you, cause you gonna need that, if you still believe mainstream. media…

Here are scores from Metacritic for some recent and highly anticipated games (min, max in paranthesis):

Bioshock - 96 (80-100)
Gothic 3 - 63 (20-85)
Neverwinter Nights 2 - 82 (60-100)
S.T.A.L.K.E.R - 82 (58-93)

I wouldn't say that this is mostly "pretty much perfect" reviews.

As for "the best cRPG ever", I agree with those saying the term is meaningless. Apart from that it is a matter of opinion. At the very least, the game won several game of the year polls, and if you look through forums, you will find a lot of people who agree with the claim.

If I have to make a choice, I (and a lot of others) think Planescape Torment is the best computer game ever. That doesn't mean it IS the best computer game ever.

And, btw, I read everything with a somewhat sceptical eye. Including forums and usenet posts.


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 07:39.
Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 Last »

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch