Well I live in America and didn't see a single Fallout 3 T.V. add, so I'm basing my judgment/opinion off that. Although I've seen endless World of Warcraft T.V. adds and Red Dead Redemption T.V. adds (Rockstar always has big T.V. add campaigns) but never once saw a Fallout 3 add on T.V. Must be where I live. I know for a fact that a lot of fallout fans are from Europe.

Sorry I was not trying to be prissy. I know not everybody lives in the same country. It just stuck in my mind because most games I see advertised either dont appeal to me or just look shockingly bad on tv here. Thus needing more of a PR campaign

I'm sorry but I find it incredibly hard to believe that Bethesda, be it by money or massive amounts of advertising, was able to convince http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/fallout3?q=Fallout%203 to give Fallout 3 scores higher than an 80, with 71 of them giving it higher than a 90. I guess the lone 2 reviewers who gave it a 70 and a 75 are the only trustworthy people left or something?

Ouch, I mean ouch. Did you ever consider that even after a PR tainted launch (If indeed they had one). That fallout had some elements that if not new were done with a new view to things. And that after many, many years of soul draining bad rpgs, It at least shone some ray of hope to the genre. Apart from CDProjekts the Witcher, Bethesda is the one of the only companies. To release a playable written believable world rpg for some years untill now.

Didn't think you were prissy at all Well what appeals to English people may not be what appeals to Americans. Marketing is an evil industry they know what different groups of people across the globe like and dislike and they base their advertisemants off statistical data that's gathered by methods that are very questionable if you ask me.

Grand Theft Auto, Red Dead Redemption World of Warcraft, I guess those games appeal to Americans LOL, which is probably why I've seen so many T.V. advertisemants for those games over the last 2-3 years.



You know I think that's the point I was trying to make but you were able to sum up with less words.

A video game that's great during a time when its genre svcks is always going to look better when compared to a genre that has a lot of successful hits. I mean when one successful hit after another in the same genre gets produce I think people get bored with the genre or they get tired of the repetitiveness so they start to get negative because they've seen so much of a certain genre. I guess another way to putting it is "trends".

I don't recall saying Bethesda had to convince anyone. I merely pointed out that game critics rely on exclusives and advertising from big name developers and publishers, and this (along with hype) often plays a role when they review the final product.

We have the same examples above shown a lot too, So looks like shooting and killing is universal fun.

And thanks I just gotta feeling of WTF when I read the post.

Indeed it does play a role, but not such a huge role to take the broken, terribly buggy game that some people seem to see Fallout 3 as, and give it more than 80 positive reviews. Now, it's possible that a few game magazines would give it fantastic reviews to please Bethesda, but it's ridiculous to think that Bethesda was associated with every single one of those 80+ websites that gave Fallout 3 a great review.

Why?

Anyway I'd expect that if the top dogs praise it the rest will follow so as not to lose their cred.
Who are these 'critics' anyway? What are they credentials?
Are they some sort of digital arts gurus or intellectuals immune to the hype?

If I judge by how fast the reviews are out I doubt that they have enough time with the game to shake the hype off of them.
It's no wonder the best reviews come from specialized sites months after the game's initial release.


Anyway... I don't see any reason to worry now more than before AP was released.
What I gather from the reviews is that AP has a ton of great ideas crammed into a very unpolished product... which sounds pretty much exactly like... Obsidian.
(and it was their own thing - their chance to 'show the world')
If NV is a true Obsidian game that's what it's going to be like.

Once you get the bigger publishing houses behind your product, social pressure tends to take care of the rest. These days, if one reviewer bucks the trend of 10/10 scores for a game and levies legitimate criticism, there tends to be both popular backlash from the fanbase, and even shots fired across the deck from other game sites. Credibility gets questioned, the publisher applies pressure, advertising gets pulled, and people get squeezed. This didn't used to be such a big deal for videogames, but videogames are big business now. This sort of thing is the norm in big business, so much so that reviews should probably be viewed as a product all their own. The more money there is at stake, the more ruthless people tend to get about it.

But I never said that Fallout 3 was broken. I have problems with it sure, but I don't think it's a broken game overall.



Once again, I never said Bethesda had any ill intent. My point is that just because 80+ critics thought that Fallout 3 was the best thing since sliced bread doesn't mean I should take their word as gospel; game magazines and websites are out to make money just like any other business. This does not mean that I think Fallout 3 is a horrible, broken game. It just means that I'll take the word of "professional critics" with a grain of salt.

Not that I'm throwing in with one side of this argument or the other, and I'm no conspiracy theorist to be sure, but I just wanted to mention that there have been more than a few documented cases of magazine reviewers losing their jobs for trashing a title published by one of their employers' major advertisers. If this has been publicized more than once it makes you wonder how often reviewers are fired, or at least pressured, and we never hear about it.

You know, Stalker: Shadow of Chernobyl does the whole "sandbox" gameplay (complete with randomly generated quests and exploration), plus the whole "shooter" gameplay (oh god yes, Stalker is over nine thousand times a better shooter than FO3 is), plus the whole "post-nuclear wasteland" motif way better than Fallout 3. In fact, about the only thing FO3 has that Stalker doesn't, mechanically speaking, are RPG stats/skills and perks. Oh, and gimmicky VATS.



I suspect you're talking about Painkiller or one of its sequels.

I stopped caring about what magazines say some time ago. About the time I read the first Look Back type of article.

The game that was a 9.4 or some such 2 years ago, with flawless everything....now that the sequel is about to come out and the producer is hyping it up...now the Look Back mentions all these "obvious" and "glaring" errors.

Incidentally I was just wondering...



Anyone Else Worried for Fallout 3 after what Bethesda did to the ES series in Oblivion?

You have to remember, Obsidian is making the game based off of Fallout 3's game engine. They aren't going to use the game mechanics for Alpha Protocol more than likely, and it's been stated in interviews with staff that they're just tuning the game up, like letting you aim down the sights of your guns. For example on the home page of Fallout it says at the bottom, "1Up has a new preview on Fallout: New Vegas stating, 'New Vegas builds upon and enhances Fallout 3.' Read more previews for the game at The Sixth Axis, Xbox 360 Achievements, and PlayStation Future."

In my opinion Stalker felt way to slow, was a bit too hard and I always felt like I didn't really know what to do. Also I never felt that V.A.T.S. was a gimmick, there were time when I found it quite usefull.

Thought i would throw my two cents in before thread gets locked, i really don't care what anyone has to say about games being bad or great, if i like a game and i am set on getting it, i will get it. There are people who absolutely loath F3 but i still think it is a amazing game and one of my favorites. ,Metro 2033 got some bashing, but i got hooked on that as well, then Alan Wake got knocked on but i think it awesome. The list goes on, all that matters is if you like the game. :foodndrink:

Oh, I dunno. Sword of the Stars with all expansions and updates come pretty damn close. I don't think I've seen a single bug in that game since A Murder of Crows was released

You're looking at Alpha Protocol as a 3rd person shooter and not as an RPG. You're looking at Fallout 3 as an RPG and not as a first person shooter. Also, System Shock, Deus Ex.

I don't think Fallout 3 is a horribly buggy mess and I don't think Alpha Protocol is a horribly buggy mess. I don't think that Alpha Protocol deserves higher scores than it's getting. I do think that Fallout 3 didn't deserve as high scores as it got. I haven't played Alpha Protocol very much, so this opinion may change, but that's not my point. My point is that reviewers can't be trusted to be unbiased or even consistent with their bias. You have to look at the facts they present instead of the way they present them. I mean, I read the Kotaku review for Alpha Protocol and it actually said that a negative point was that the enemies don't scale to your level. Similarly, a lot of reviews said that a negative point was shooting being based on character skill more than player skill. To me, these things are not problems, so that explains why I liked the game more than the reviewers.

My point is that reviews don't mean anything. Most of the time I can look at a few previews and a list of info on an RPG and know whether I'll like it or not. If you like the way Fallout: New Vegas is shaping up, chances are you'll like it, and that's all that matters.

I love the fact that one of the most discused posts is about worries about reviews.

A topic that is so popular because everyones got an opinion and few match 100%.

Theres going to be blood......

Fallout: the Review Wars.

War.
War never changes.

That review about had me pulling my hair out when he said that. About the only people I can seem to find who actually like level scaling, are the reviewers. Reviewers also liked rubberbanding AI in racing games when that fresh hell was first introduced. Now it's a plague that we're all afflicted with, and they openly criticise it.

[quote name='Cpl. Facehugger' date='02 June 2010 - 10:44 AM' timestamp='1275500668' post='16000664']
You know, Stalker: Shadow of Chernobyl does the whole "sandbox" gameplay (complete with randomly generated quests and exploration), plus the whole "shooter" gameplay (oh god yes, Stalker is over nine thousand times a better shooter than FO3 is), plus the whole "post-nuclear wasteland" motif way better than Fallout 3. In fact, about the only thing FO3 has that Stalker doesn't, mechanically speaking, are RPG stats/skills and perks. Oh, and gimmicky VATS.

i never played stalker, i wish they would come out with an xbox version of it, i've watched some of the gameplay though it seem cool. on your comment about vats, i like VATS a lot, its a practical function, not everyone has fast reflexes, especially as some of us get older, plus i like the animations in slow motion they tie together with VATS, its fun to target certain body parts and let your character do the moves. VATS is brilliant actually, its ingenious.

Reminds me when they reviewed Half Life 2 and compared the PC to the XBOX version. PC got a 10, and the XBOX version got a 7 or so, merely because the XBOX version had load times. First time I ever called a magazine anything from a list of vulger names.

Yep. Some reviews actually break down ratings into graphics, control, fun factor, stability, etc. so you can at least see how the score breaks down. Just giving a number based on a completely arbitrary set of criteria that changes game-to-game isn't a good basis for a rating system. Sadly, most reviews are just some dood throwing out a number based on how he's feeling that day.

@ Softnerd

Your sig makes me laugh every time i see it. :thumbsup: