RPGWatch Feature - Fallout 3 Review: txa1265's View

The one aspect that - to me - mostly set apart Fallout 3 from Oblivion, was the far superior RPG system.

Even if it was a simplified inferior version of the SPECIAL system, it's still infinitely more rewarding as a development system than the Elderscrolls skill system.

For ES:V, I hope they wise up and use something like that, or even better an evolved version of what we experienced in Fallout. But I don't think they will, unfortunately, because the horrid "you now have 47 in blade" system is probably impossible to separate from ES unless you want to anger the loyal fans.

But here's hoping.
 
Relayer said:
Of course you're right that Oblivion is their weakest title. I'm just not sure I'll be looking forward to ES V.
Click to expand...


I'll be looking forward to ES V, because I honestly think Bethesda is beginning to learn from their mistakes. For example, the public outcry over the level scaling in Oblivion was the reason they didn't implement it that way in Fallout 3. I believe the next Elder Scrolls game will feature a better UI, as well as very little in the way of enemy\loot level scaling.

I also share the opinion that Morrowind was a great crpg. It took me close to 100 hours before I finally grew tired of exploring that map, and I never even got around to entering the Tribunal or Bloodmoon areas. I will definitely be playing it again with the intent of finishing, when I have more free time to invest.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,299
Location
Florida, US
The problem I have with the score of txa's review of Oblivion is that in the review, he does mention a lot of problems with the game; he does so, too, in the final summation of the game.

I can't seem to understand why anyone would want to give a game that has as many problems as F3 apparently has, a 4/5 rating, when a 3.5/5 or even a 3/5 rating would have been closer to the actual game experience or opinion of the game - according to the review.

As for Bethsoft's design decisions in making Fallout 3, I have said it before, and I gladly say it again. I don't care if the game is played in full 3D or in 1st person perspective. To me, this isn't Fallout. Or if Fallout has Turnbased Combat or Realtime combat.

I care if Fallout 3 is a true sequel to the original games, and it seems that it is not.
The writing in the game is below the standard in the orginal games, it seems. The combat system, both VATS and real-time combat, is not that great, it seems. The exploration and the setting seem to be the only thing, according to some reviews, that Bethesda has done properly i.e. similar to what it is in the original two games.

And it may well be that the game, Fallot 3, is a agood game; the question should be: it is a good Fallout game...?
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,147
Location
Denmark, Europe
JDR13 said:
I would highly recommend actually playing the game before complaining about a score.
Click to expand...

See, this is the point I think everyone keeps missing.

He and others are not complaining so much about the score and how it relates to their personal experiences with the game, BUT about the relationship between final score and review sentiment.

For a game with all the flaws and negative things pointed out in the review, that it got a 4/5 just doesn't make any sense. To me 4/5 is a game that pretty much did a lot right and just had a few MINOR failings.

Not one that had a list of negative points just as long (if not longer!) than the positive.

I don't think anyone is actually disputing the review itself. I'm not, I totally agreed with it. But the final score was a shocker, heh.
 
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Messages
775
Location
NYC
Relayer said:
See, this is the point I think everyone keeps missing.

He and others are not complaining so much about the score and how it relates to their personal experiences with the game, BUT about the relationship between final score and review sentiment.
Click to expand...


I have no problem with people having an opinion about the review\score, as long as they've actually played the game. What I have a problem with is people complaining about something that they're not personally familiar with. How do you pretend to have an issue with a review for a game that you haven't even played?!?
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,299
Location
Florida, US
As I said, I struggled with the scoring ... but then the whole thing is that I laid out pretty well everything pro and con, and simply gave it a 'buy' recommendation. I only assigned a number because it was necessary, and still struggled with 3 and 4.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,951
Relayer said:
See, this is the point I think everyone keeps missing.

He and others are not complaining so much about the score and how it relates to their personal experiences with the game, BUT about the relationship between final score and review sentiment.

For a game with all the flaws and negative things pointed out in the review, that it got a 4/5 just doesn't make any sense. To me 4/5 is a game that pretty much did a lot right and just had a few MINOR failings.

Not one that had a list of negative points just as long (if not longer!) than the positive.

I don't think anyone is actually disputing the review itself. I'm not, I totally agreed with it. But the final score was a shocker, heh.
Click to expand...


Thats just it though, even with its flaws its a very fun game. Sad thing is some wish to cling to the misconception that its horrible.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2007
Messages
5,749
The other point is, it's no good asking for 3.5 out of 5. WE DON'T HAVE THAT SCORE AVAILABLE. Now, what we do is ask ourselves is it a 3, or a 4. If most is better than 3, then we have to use 4. I'd agree that 3.5 is probably a more accurate 'score', but you can't use what you don't have!!
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
12,823
Location
Australia
Personally, I think scores are useful only as guidelines - and not the rigid kind.

I haven't read the review, but to me 4/5 certainly means significant flaws. If the flaws were minor, then 5/5 would make a lot more sense - don't you think so?

No game is perfect, afterall.

In my personal opinion, 4/5 is a very fair score to give Fallout 3 - but that's all subjective.
 
I think that the Watch should move to a 300-word core review and a set of 25 criteria ranked on a tightly ruled 0-100 scale, and that the results should be fitted with a Poisson distribution to determine the ultimate score on a 0-100 basis ... with two decimal points.

:D
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,951
JDR13 said:
What I have a problem with is people complaining about something that they're not personally familiar with. How do you pretend to have an issue with a review for a game that you haven't even played?!?
Click to expand...

That's just it, I played the game, I agreed with most of the review and that's why I would give it no more than a 3/5.

Really, these quotes from the review say it all:

"My criticism falls into three areas: quests, dialogue, and characters. Certainly there is overlap, but each of these stands out on its' own as an area of significant lost opportunity."

What is an RPG without quests, dialogue, characters? An action/adventure game perhaps?

"The trouble with each of those quests - and with much of Fallout 3 in general - is that the writing is paper-thin and doesn't hold up well to examination or replay. "

Again, "paper-thin" is not a good thing to have in an RPG.

"The problems with the main quest being uninteresting and making little sense have been pointed out in even the most frothingly positive '12 out of 10' reviews, so I will not rehash them here - suffice it to say that getting to the end of the main quest, or even seeing what comes next, will seldom provide any motivation."

Uninteresting main quest. Does that sound like 4/5 material?

I understand the lack of .5s make it difficult to really score the game fairly, and really, I agree with the review which was well written (both of them) but I just feel that to Bethesda, seeing their scores tallied up at metacritic or gamerankings (not to mention sales numbers!) just gives them more reason to stick to their "tried & true" RPG design methods. Which doesn't bode well for the more hardcore RPGers.

Remember Interplay's, "For Gamers, By Gamers" motto? Well Bethesda should print, "Games For Everyone!" or "My First RPG! Series" on their boxes. They have this lack of focus, they want to please FPS fans, action fans, RPG fans, and keep it all accessible (or not, with their needlessly simple-yet-cumbersome interfaces). It's all about "killing stuff" which is "cool".
 
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Messages
775
Location
NYC
Relayer said:
That's just it, I played the game, I agreed with most of the review and that's why I would give it no more than a 3/5.

Really, these quotes from the review say it all:

"My criticism falls into three areas: quests, dialogue, and characters. Certainly there is overlap, but each of these stands out on its' own as an area of significant lost opportunity."

What is an RPG without quests, dialogue, characters? An action/adventure game perhaps?

"The trouble with each of those quests - and with much of Fallout 3 in general - is that the writing is paper-thin and doesn't hold up well to examination or replay. "

Again, "paper-thin" is not a good thing to have in an RPG.

"The problems with the main quest being uninteresting and making little sense have been pointed out in even the most frothingly positive '12 out of 10' reviews, so I will not rehash them here - suffice it to say that getting to the end of the main quest, or even seeing what comes next, will seldom provide any motivation."

Uninteresting main quest. Does that sound like 4/5 material?

I understand the lack of .5s make it difficult to really score the game fairly, and really, I agree with the review which was well written (both of them) but I just feel that to Bethesda, seeing their scores tallied up at metacritic or gamerankings (not to mention sales numbers!) just gives them more reason to stick to their "tried & true" RPG design methods. Which doesn't bode well for the more hardcore RPGers.

Remember Interplay's, "For Gamers, By Gamers" motto? Well Bethesda should print, "Games For Everyone!" or "My First RPG! Series" on their boxes. They have this lack of focus, they want to please FPS fans, action fans, RPG fans, and keep it all accessible (or not, with their needlessly simple-yet-cumbersome interfaces). It's all about "killing stuff" which is "cool".
Click to expand...

What I'm wondering is why you fail to understand that interpreting scores is a subjective process.

You're projecting your own personal views about what's most important or vital in a CRPG unto the reviewer in question, and then you're attempting to "correct" his score based on your opinion.

Ultimately, a score will tend to reflect the overall experience of the reviewer - and any number of flaws can be overlooked or have a lesser impact than it would seem if you look at them separately.

This guy liked the game enough for the score to end up as 4/5 - and arguing against his personal opinion is silly.

Why don't you just say: "with those flaws, I'd have given it less" and be done with it.
 
DArtagnan said:
You're projecting your own personal views about what's most important or vital in a CRPG
Click to expand...

You're kidding right? What is an RPG without good dialogue, a well written story, believable characters (within the context of the world portrayed) and a very solid main quest? All the RPG "greats" have most of these.

Planescape: Torment is revered for it's writing and characters. Definitely not for it's combat (which was still decent, serviceable). The original Fallout games had these qualities as well. Baldur's Gate 2 while lacking choice & consequence and not being very open-ended still had more than competent writing, a nice range of character types and a solid main quest.

It's like you're saying action and fast pacing isn't necessary in an action game as long as it has a captivating story, brilliant dialogue and tons of background lore.

DArtagnan said:
This guy liked the game enough for the score to end up as 4/5 - and arguing against his personal opinion is silly.
Click to expand...

Why is it silly? I didn't know the point of having a forum and ability to comment on a review was to heap praise on the reviewer. In any case, I'm being polite about my arguments, and I said it was a good review. But you're just arguing against my personal opinion and that is just silly. See? I can do the same thing.

DArtagnan said:
Why don't you just say: "with those flaws, I'd have given it less" and be done with it.
Click to expand...

That's basically what I've said all along, lol. But then someone like yourself makes a post and wants to have the last word. Why does my opinion have to be your opinion?
 
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Messages
775
Location
NYC
pot kettle.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2007
Messages
5,749
Hey, I have this great idea!! Let's totally do away with the reviewer giving the game a score and at the end we put a poll for the reader to give a score, BASED SOLELY ON THE REVIEW, NOT THEIR OWN OPINION. :)
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
12,823
Location
Australia
I think one thing being missed is that the review points out many flaws specific to Fallout 3 as a RPG, but because of the design, Fallout 3 can be looked at many different ways.

To do a 'fair' analysis, I'd need 3 scores:
- As a Fallout game (max. 2/5 IMO)
- As a RPG (max 3/5)
- As a game in general (3.5/5 rounded to 4)
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,951
I don't want to speak for txa1265 but since I would have scored it the same had I written the review, my answer is that despite the flaws, I enjoyed other aspects of the game considerably - enough that the entire experience was well worth while.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
11,842
Location
Sydney, Australia
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom