Brother None
SasqWatch
- Joined
- October 19, 2006
- Messages
- 1,558
A good review overall, I'll put it up together with Corwin's on NMA, it'll be interesting to see what kind of feedback it gets
Debating about the score is usually the most useless thing you can do concerning reviews. It's the words that are important, tho' sadly the reality is that many people skip the review for the conclusion + score, so for those short attention span people the score matters. For me, it doesn't, that much.
Anyway, good review, but there are a few things...
I don't like overstatements much, but I guess this is true. Still, I have a decent resolution (1440x900) on a decent monitor (19"), and I was pretty unimpressed by the vista compared to - say - BioShock's opening sequence, the first time you see the city from high up in Mirror's Edge or even seeing Liberty City from a chopper in GTA IV. I don't disagree that it's still one of the best, but comparing it to Oblivion is probably off the mark - Oblivion was a benchmark showing at its time, Fallout 3 is definitely behind the times, especially on PC.
I disagree. A large part of the problem with Fallout 3's FPS gameplay lies not in its combination of RPG mechanics and FPS gameplay - remember that Deus Ex approached it much the same way but actually had a bigger skill-to-accuracy impact (the impact of skill on accuracy in Fallout 3 was severely nerfed during development, and skill actually has more impact on damage than accuracy in-game). The problem with Fallout 3 lies more in its odd AI and combat manoeuvring. It feels kind of like an old FPS only enemies circle-strafe you (A LOT). Now combat AI in most modern shooters isn't that good either, but for experienced FPS gamers (and I'm not one) I can imagine how the enemy AI and behaviour feels kind of weird after, say, I dunno, Far Cry 2. And I've even heard complaints about FC2's combat AI and coding, yet it is so much better than Fallout 3's.
RTwP was ambitious when Baldur's Gate did it. Calling it ambitious now looks a bit farcical.
You're not wrong here, but don't underestimate the effects of the localized level scaling system. It's more subtle than Oblivion, which is why most people don't notice it, but I do think it's the explanation for the great variation in impressions people have of combat. I found it ridiculously easy. Vince found it pretty hard. You found it challenging but not impossible. Somehow, I suspect this is because of the different ways the three of us approached exploration and levelling up.
Actually, and I know this in part because of Per's obsessive compulsion to gather all Fallout 3 reviews until he reached round-up #101, that's not true. There were actually, and this still confuses me, reviews that praise the writing or call the Fallout 3 story "great", to the point of comparing it to Tolstoy or James Joyce.
I can only compare this to the self-censorship and compulsive denial that made reviewers ignore that Oblivion had a broken AI system and horrible level scaling in their reviews. I'm considering writing a "You're doing it again, guys" piece on just that.
Really? I guess we'll have to agree to disagree as it is a matter of taste, but I turned off Zur's soundtrack about 5 hours in because it's so bloody annoying. Especially the combat music is terrible and inappropriate. The radios weren't much better, mostly because the track selection isn't wide enough, and Three Dog is annoying.
Ok, honestly, having written reviews on games that leave you feeling conflicted myself, I can understand why you wrote this. But - and you may disagree with me on this point - I absolutely hate it when reviewers pull this one, and for that reason try to avoid it myself.
Don't "somehow" your readers. Readers aren't here to read how it all works "somehow". You're supposed to be the "expert", to some extent, this is one of the key difference between reviewing something and just talking about something on a forum.
I just finished playing Mirror's Edge on the PC. First off the way it's ported puts half-assed ports like GTA IV and Fallout 3 to shame. More importantly, it's a game that'll leave almost anyone with mixed impressions, and like Fallout 3 (but to a greater extent) it can't be simply be recommended as there's too much to be conflicted about in the title.
But if I write a review and just say "somehow it works anyway" who exactly am I helping by that? What's the point? Who will take anything extra out of me saying it works, "somehow"? How am I helping anyone understand the game better or make a more educated purchasing decision by noting I like it, but not explaining why?
Now obviously you've covered enough facts and clearly delineated recommendations early on the review, so accusing you of being unhelpful like that would be unfair. Still, I consider it a useless conclusion to say "it works somehow". I know it's difficult, but in the end to say it works "somehow" is just an easy way out, and even after a thoughtful review such statements should be avoided.
But maybe that's just me.
Debating about the score is usually the most useless thing you can do concerning reviews. It's the words that are important, tho' sadly the reality is that many people skip the review for the conclusion + score, so for those short attention span people the score matters. For me, it doesn't, that much.
Anyway, good review, but there are a few things...
txa said:When you come to the crest of your first hill and take a moment to look around, you will be struck by one of the most memorable graphical realizations of an environment in gaming history.
I don't like overstatements much, but I guess this is true. Still, I have a decent resolution (1440x900) on a decent monitor (19"), and I was pretty unimpressed by the vista compared to - say - BioShock's opening sequence, the first time you see the city from high up in Mirror's Edge or even seeing Liberty City from a chopper in GTA IV. I don't disagree that it's still one of the best, but comparing it to Oblivion is probably off the mark - Oblivion was a benchmark showing at its time, Fallout 3 is definitely behind the times, especially on PC.
txa said:While I have read - and agree with - many assessments of how clunky the game is as a shooter, I pretty much chalk up to the difficulty in translating RPG combat mechanics into FPS gameplay.
I disagree. A large part of the problem with Fallout 3's FPS gameplay lies not in its combination of RPG mechanics and FPS gameplay - remember that Deus Ex approached it much the same way but actually had a bigger skill-to-accuracy impact (the impact of skill on accuracy in Fallout 3 was severely nerfed during development, and skill actually has more impact on damage than accuracy in-game). The problem with Fallout 3 lies more in its odd AI and combat manoeuvring. It feels kind of like an old FPS only enemies circle-strafe you (A LOT). Now combat AI in most modern shooters isn't that good either, but for experienced FPS gamers (and I'm not one) I can imagine how the enemy AI and behaviour feels kind of weird after, say, I dunno, Far Cry 2. And I've even heard complaints about FC2's combat AI and coding, yet it is so much better than Fallout 3's.
txa said:I believe that without VATS the game would have been a terrible mess and that it is an ambitious attempt to bridge the real-time and turn-based system
RTwP was ambitious when Baldur's Gate did it. Calling it ambitious now looks a bit farcical.
txa said:Unlike Oblivion, where the combat was pretty binary - too easy for most but too hard if you leveled-up too rapidly - Fallout 3 has combat that is challenging but not impossible.
You're not wrong here, but don't underestimate the effects of the localized level scaling system. It's more subtle than Oblivion, which is why most people don't notice it, but I do think it's the explanation for the great variation in impressions people have of combat. I found it ridiculously easy. Vince found it pretty hard. You found it challenging but not impossible. Somehow, I suspect this is because of the different ways the three of us approached exploration and levelling up.
txa said: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.
Actually, and I know this in part because of Per's obsessive compulsion to gather all Fallout 3 reviews until he reached round-up #101, that's not true. There were actually, and this still confuses me, reviews that praise the writing or call the Fallout 3 story "great", to the point of comparing it to Tolstoy or James Joyce.
I can only compare this to the self-censorship and compulsive denial that made reviewers ignore that Oblivion had a broken AI system and horrible level scaling in their reviews. I'm considering writing a "You're doing it again, guys" piece on just that.
txa said:and the core soundtrack elements by Inon Zur are there and I found them more enjoyable as I roamed the wasteland than I did Jeremy Soule's Oblivion music
Really? I guess we'll have to agree to disagree as it is a matter of taste, but I turned off Zur's soundtrack about 5 hours in because it's so bloody annoying. Especially the combat music is terrible and inappropriate. The radios weren't much better, mostly because the track selection isn't wide enough, and Three Dog is annoying.
txa said:OK, maybe that reference doesn't work...but the point is that this is a very good game loaded with excellent features and enough bugs and flaws to completely obliterate most games. Somehow it all works; somehow you can forgive the silliness and lack of depth and closure and lousy writing and combat issues and on and on. Somehow you just keep coming back, trying to avoid hitting the end of the main quest so you can just keep on exploring the Wasteland.
Ok, honestly, having written reviews on games that leave you feeling conflicted myself, I can understand why you wrote this. But - and you may disagree with me on this point - I absolutely hate it when reviewers pull this one, and for that reason try to avoid it myself.
Don't "somehow" your readers. Readers aren't here to read how it all works "somehow". You're supposed to be the "expert", to some extent, this is one of the key difference between reviewing something and just talking about something on a forum.
I just finished playing Mirror's Edge on the PC. First off the way it's ported puts half-assed ports like GTA IV and Fallout 3 to shame. More importantly, it's a game that'll leave almost anyone with mixed impressions, and like Fallout 3 (but to a greater extent) it can't be simply be recommended as there's too much to be conflicted about in the title.
But if I write a review and just say "somehow it works anyway" who exactly am I helping by that? What's the point? Who will take anything extra out of me saying it works, "somehow"? How am I helping anyone understand the game better or make a more educated purchasing decision by noting I like it, but not explaining why?
Now obviously you've covered enough facts and clearly delineated recommendations early on the review, so accusing you of being unhelpful like that would be unfair. Still, I consider it a useless conclusion to say "it works somehow". I know it's difficult, but in the end to say it works "somehow" is just an easy way out, and even after a thoughtful review such statements should be avoided.
But maybe that's just me.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2006
- Messages
- 1,558