RPGWatch Feature - Fallout 3 Review: txa1265's View

txa1265 said:

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)

Click to expand...

Well, coming to a site called RPGWatch for a review of an RPG I'd think it would have been scored as an um, RPG?

Funny thing is, take the average of your 3 scores above and it's 3/5.
Hah! Thanks!

If I were reviewing King's Bounty - a game much loved here - should I give it 2/5, since it is a lousy RPG?

It's pointless to separate elements like that except as an exercise.

no, but that math still doesn't add up. unless there is some hidding games tilt of a '5'. personally i think the game is worthy of the 4 it was given so it doesn't matter to me.

You guys shouldn't forget that it's often much easier to point out the flaws than to exactly describe how much fun a game is and what makes it fun.

Relayer said:

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.

Click to expand...

It's an RPG like so many others.

I've certainly played and enjoyed CRPGs greatly that didn't have those "greats" - like Daggerfall, Diablo, Storm of Zehir, and so on.

Besides, I don't think the review meant to say that every single piece of dialogue, every character, and all aspects of the story were all bad.

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.

Click to expand...

Yeah, SOME great CRPGs either have great stories or focus almost entirely on that aspect - but others don't.

You can't decide objectively what a good CRPG must have to get 4/5.

I personally tend to enjoy gameplay mechanics more than a good story, but that's because I'm a passionate fan of the medium. I started playing games when I was 5 on a ZX-81. So I started pretty much before I read any books or watched anything with a meaty story - and I always considered gaming the most satisfying kind of entertainment. Stories came second for me, gameplay came first.

I generally read a book or watch a movie for story, and I don't require good stories in my games to be able to enjoy them. That's fortunate for me, because I can only think of a handful of good stories in games, and Torment definitely didn't qualify - but that was more about presentation, and I'm sure the plot was great. I just didn't enjoy the verbose nature of the text and I didn't enjoy the pretentious nature of the script. Give me plausible and down-to-earth stuff instead.

That said, some games are carried by story or writing - like adventure games - and there are CRPGs that would have nothing without it.

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

Click to expand...

No, it's saying that there are other aspects that can compensate for the lack of quality writing. Hardly a surprise, except to you.

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.

Click to expand...

I don't care about politeness - as long as we're reasonably civil, I prefer the direct approach. That's the only way to get to the heart of the matter before we grow old and gray.

But I'm not arguing against your style or way of behaving, and you seem a decent fellow. I'm simply giving you MY opinion about what's reasonable and what's not.

I personally think it's INCREDIBLY unreasonable to think YOUR opinion is the objective truth. That's what you're doing when you're saying certain elements are required for a game to score 4/5. Just saying that as an opinion would be ok, but you're insisting that it should have been lower and basically telling us that the score is somehow "wrong". By doing that you're demonstrating your inability to recognize that other people don't share your opinion to the letter - which is why the game was scored differently.

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?

Click to expand...

My opinion isn't the opinion of the reviewer. I realise that and I'm fine with it. That's why I have no interest in changing that. You, however, seem to want to decide FOR the reviewer what score SHOULD have been given.

I will just reply here:

No, I haven't played the game, Fallout 3, since my videocard does not support it (much). However, my complaints about the review from txa (and other reviewers) is that the score given do not reflect the flaws that the reviewers (not just txa) mentions is in the game.

I'm sure the game is a lot of fun to play. Like Oblivion, I will probably give the game an 8/10 rating (3/5 in the rpgwatch rating system). I'm also sure that I will agree with txa and other reviewers is that the game is good as a game; my point is just that the game really ought and should have been reviewed as a Fallout game, not a game in its own right. It is a continuation of a series, afterall - and, yes, with those flaws mentioned in the review, I's have given the game a lesser score...

DArtagnan said:

I've certainly played and enjoyed CRPGs greatly that didn't have those "greats" - like Daggerfall, Diablo, Storm of Zehir, and so on.

Click to expand...

But most of those games excelled at one or more things. I loved Icewind Dale, it was a fun dungeon crawler. Lots of combat, most of it balanced, difficult without being frustrating, beautiful graphics, a rousing soundtrack, just great atmosphere.

Sure, there wasn't much depth to the dialogue, the story was mildly entertaining, there wasn't any C & C and it was linear. But it did what it did awesomely.

Diablo and Daggerfall were groundbreaking titles. Diablo pretty much perfected the type of action/dungeon crawling RPG experience and Daggerfall the whole non-linear sandbox RPG.

DArtagnan said:

Yeah, SOME great CRPGs either have great stories or focus almost entirely on that aspect - but others don't.

That said, some games are carried by story or writing - like adventure games - and there are CRPGs that would have nothing without it.

Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying and I agree. And I shouldn't have been so quick to say that RPGs required story, dialogue, etc. Because I've enjoyed games like ToEE and IWD that didn't have much of those. But again, those games did something well, whether it was the combat engine in TOEE or the atmosphere AND combat in IWD.

What exactly is carrying Fallout 3? It's a large sandbox with "stuff" to do. Ok, we've seen it already from Bethesda. It's no surprise they keep calling it Oblivion With Guns, because that's exactly what it plays like.

Except that the "stuff" to do is hardly deep or emotionally gratifying or requires strategy or thinking or even much planning. So yes, it's enjoyable. But then what is left? Everything else brings the game down a notch.

Especially the writing and voice acting. I mean, I love JRPGs so I can't be THAT picky when it comes to voice acting but the voice acting and dialogue in Oblivion and Fallout 3 is just horrible. It kills immersion completely.

What else? The combat is predictable and repetative. It can be fun for the first few hours but 20 hours in you've already seen all there is to see.

Have gaming standards dropped so much that we're OK with a forgettable main quest as long as there is stuff to kill and a few decent side quests? Is it all about quantity and not quality?

As console action RPGs, I can see the allure of Oblivion & Fallout 3. There really isn't anything like those titles for consoles. But take into account the lineage of these games and from the point of view of a long-time PC RPGer, they're dumbed down, and simplified and dull.

We can go in circles forever here so I won't respond again. Obviously I won't change my opinion on the game or the score.

I enjoyed the game for what it was (just like the rest of you) and don't regret my purchase. It was a bit of fun with a lot of disappointment and I won't replay it. I'd personally give it a 75/100. But so many games that deserve far more praise have been completely ignored.

It's just sad that Bethesda gets all the praise they receive when they're really doing nothing special. Maybe if I was 19 I'd see how "freaaaaakin awesome" Fallout 3 is. Maybe I'm just a grumpy old gamer.

Right now all Bethesda is seeing is tons of 4/5s, 95/100 and perfect scores and probably saying to themselves, "We did it again boys! Keep up the good work".

aries100 said:

...my complaints about the review from txa (and other reviewers) is that the score given do not reflect the flaws that the reviewers (not just txa) mentions is in the game.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

But this point seems much too extreme to be understood by some (and I'm not talking about the reviewers who have already said they'd probably score it 3.5 if they could).

Relayer said:

Have gaming standards dropped so much that we're OK with a forgettable main quest as long as there is stuff to kill and a few decent side quests? Is it all about quantity and not quality?

Click to expand...

Sadly, yes - 'people' claim 2008 was a great year ... I think it was terrible.

Relayer said:

But most of those games excelled at one or more things. I loved Icewind Dale, it was a fun dungeon crawler. Lots of combat, most of it balanced, difficult without being frustrating, beautiful graphics, a rousing soundtrack, just great atmosphere.

Sure, there wasn't much depth to the dialogue, the story was mildly entertaining, there wasn't any C & C and it was linear. But it did what it did awesomely.

Diablo and Daggerfall were groundbreaking titles. Diablo pretty much perfected the type of action/dungeon crawling RPG experience and Daggerfall the whole non-linear sandbox RPG.

Click to expand...

You're simply giving passes to games you like. IWD has beautiful graphics, atmosphere and a great soundtrack? If I said FO3 had great graphics, absorbing atmosphere and I loved exploring while listening to Butcher Pete, you'd say I was a graphics whore and talk about dumbed down gameplay. IWD just wasn't that hard, you know. I loved it, but from a gameplay perspective you have 60 hours of mediocre paused-based Infinity Engine combat.

What does perfecting a genre have to do with quality gameplay - you avoided talking about the gameplay (or anything else) in Diablo altogether.

I understand what you are saying and I agree. And I shouldn't have been so quick to say that RPGs required story, dialogue, etc. Because I've enjoyed games like ToEE and IWD that didn't have much of those. But again, those games did something well, whether it was the combat engine in TOEE or the atmosphere AND combat in IWD.

What exactly is carrying Fallout 3?

Click to expand...

Exploring - discovering the gameworld is almost as good as it gets. No, it's not about strategy or thinking but that doesn't mean it isn't a worthwhile experience, with lots of interesting things to discover. While we've criticised the quest writing, there are actually plenty of good quests - I think all of them could have been improved with better writing - but there were definitely good ones.

Have gaming standards dropped so much that we're OK with a forgettable main quest as long as there is stuff to kill and a few decent side quests? Is it all about quantity and not quality?

Click to expand...

No. But main quests do not have to make an RPG. I bet there are a few fans of Storm of Zehir, here. Main story sucks. Fallout - Fallout - definitely didn't hang entirely on the main quest but the places and people you discover on the way. You talked about ToEE (which I also love) - main story sucks. Cm'on, how does it not boil down to "stuff to kill and a few decent side quests"?

I'm sure you don't agree but for me, I loved exploring FO3's gameworld. Enough to overcome the other irritations and shortcomings and come to a 4/5 score. It's interesting to explore those failings and talk about what they did wrong but for me, they still did at least one thing extremely well.

As console action RPGs, I can see the allure of Oblivion & Fallout 3. There really isn't anything like those titles for consoles. But take into account the lineage of these games and from the point of view of a long-time PC RPGer, they're dumbed down, and simplified and dull.

We can go in circles forever here so I won't respond again. Obviously I won't change my opinion on the game or the score.

I enjoyed the game for what it was (just like the rest of you) and don't regret my purchase. It was a bit of fun with a lot of disappointment and I won't replay it. I'd personally give it a 75/100. But so many games that deserve far more praise have been completely ignored.

It's just sad that Bethesda gets all the praise they receive when they're really doing nothing special. Maybe if I was 19 I'd see how "freaaaaakin awesome" Fallout 3 is. Maybe I'm just a grumpy old gamer.

Right now all Bethesda is seeing is tons of 4/5s, 95/100 and perfect scores and probably saying to themselves, "We did it again boys! Keep up the good work".

Click to expand...

Hang on - you'd give it 75%? You're arguing the difference between our 4/5 and the 75% you'd give it?

I get the sense a big part of your passion comes from sending Bethsoft some sort of <4/5 message so they don't congratulate themselves. That's not our job. If you have a list of reviewers who score based on sending a message to the developer rather than their personal experience from playing the game, let me know so I can wipe those sites from my list.

I never realized there was a law that states a reviewer can't point out multiple flaws, yet still give a semi-high score.

txa1265 said:

Sadly, yes - 'people' claim 2008 was a great year ... I think it was terrible.

Click to expand...

I would say 2008 was far from terrible, unless you're refering to crpgs only.

JDR13 said:

I would say 2008 was far from terrible, unless you're refering to crpgs only.

Click to expand...

It is more that what most sites called the top 3 games - Far Cry 2, Fallout 3, and GTA4 - are all pretty average, and if that is state of the art it says a lot about where things are going. So it isn't that games are terrible but that expectations are sliding.

txa1265 said:

It is more that what most sites called the top 3 games - Far Cry 2, Fallout 3, and GTA4 - are all pretty average, and if that is state of the art it says a lot about where things are going. So it isn't that games are terrible but that expectations are sliding.

Click to expand...

Sure, if you're actually going to go by what they say. That says more about the reliability of their reviews/opinions than it does about the state of gaming imo.

Admittedly, 2008 was pretty weak afa PC RPGs were concerned. It was fairly strong in the action genre though, with quality titles such as Dead Space, Assassin's Creed, Crysis Warhead, CoD: WaW, Brothers in Arms: HH, etc.

Of those, none (except possibly Dead Space) are mentioned near 'best of the year' status ... and personally nobody thinks CoD:WaW is anywhere near as good as CoD4 (it was praised for merely not sucking), and Crysis Warhead, ditto. Brothers in Arms was good but definitely the least of the franchise ... and so on.

But I was more echoing the point that if everyone buys Fallout 3 and everyone praises it, then it becomes established that making games like that is a good idea - and we know this is true because of Oblivion. The bar is being constantly lowered. When mainstream folks think of Bloodlines they think of bugs and low sales, not that the depth and role playing and writing make FO3 look like a wet paper towel in comparison.

My point is that most serious gamers could care less what the opinions of those gaming sites are, because we know by now that their idea of "best of the year" is quite often far different from ours.

The purpose in mentioning those games wasn't to imply that they should be included in Game of the Year discussions, just to point out some of the quality titles from a year that was far from bad in most genres.

aries100 said:

I will just reply here:

No, I haven't played the game, Fallout 3, since my videocard does not support it (much). However, my complaints about the review from txa (and other reviewers) is that the score given do not reflect the flaws that the reviewers (not just txa) mentions is in the game.

I'm sure the game is a lot of fun to play. Like Oblivion, I will probably give the game an 8/10 rating (3/5 in the rpgwatch rating system). I'm also sure that I will agree with txa and other reviewers is that the game is good as a game; my point is just that the game really ought and should have been reviewed as a Fallout game, not a game in its own right. It is a continuation of a series, afterall - and, yes, with those flaws mentioned in the review, I's have given the game a lesser score...

Click to expand...

Here's where I have a problem. It's a game called Fallout 3. This may surprise some people, but I imagine there are a large number of GAME players out there who have never heard of Fallouts 1&2 and could care less about them. THEY want to know about this NEW game called F3 and whether or not they should buy it!! Mike and I were reviewing ONE game, not a series. Sure we mentioned the other 2, but that was not the core purpose of the review and in some ways is totally irrelevant to this game, except for those who played and loved the earlier ones. We have to cater for both groups!!

Immediately after leaving the vault I sensed something wrong:
* "sliding" ten footsteps to the nearby town
* "sliding" forty footsteps to the nearby bridge
* meeting crabman
* running and gunning backwards
* blowing the first group of mutants to smithereens

The closest comparison for this game would in my opinion be Stalker, which incidentally is listed in the database as Non-RPG.