http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=47347

and this

http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=47007

What do you think about this Fallout3 review. Please read all three pages and comment here. If you agree to some parts of the review, what do you think should be done to prevent the same mistakes again?

Pretty fair, actually. I agree with most of what I read. A few niggles, details, whatever. But overall, I think they "bullseyed" the pros and cons.

And I say this as - not surprisingly, given the username? - a fan of Oblivion (when heavily modded) and Fallout 3 (also when heavily modded.) But there are just so many aspects of both games that could've been much stronger and more convincing / immersive. Hence, my love of (tons of) mods, I suppose. Hopefully, next time around (i.e., for Fallout 4 and TES 5) more thought and care will go into said aspects - most of which were covered in those reviews - and games will be made that can truly shine on the PC.

I wonder if it's plausible (in terms of cost/profit) to make the games playable on consoles (necessary these days, it seems) but also to have extra features exclusive to PCs. Even better, a slightly different game in some fundamental ways. Still using most of the same resources of course (e.g., meshes, textures, sounds...) - but, I admit, I don't know whether this would ever be worth a company's while. Even if they knew for sure that more people would buy the PC version for that reason...

Or, I guess, that's what "moddability" - a PC phenomenon, for the most part - is for. *sigh* Still, that's very much better than nothing...

I'm not even going to speak about the review in the first link other than to say that opinion seems to be the way the majority of people over at NMA feel about Fallout 3 and why I don't go to that website. They would not have been happy unless Fallout 3 was another isometric turn based game. Well, it's not, live with it. The second link had a few decent reviews.

The main problem with "purists" is that they live in a fantasy world where small gaming companies make low selling games for a limited amount of people. In the real world, that does not happen. Sure, Fallout 3 isn't perfect but I have yet to find a game that is. Top games for me in the last 5 years have been Fallout 3, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Dragon Age, and the Mass Effect games. None are perfect but they are some of the best games around. Simply put, game companies produce games for the widest possible audience. They don't spend millions to make games that cater to a few hardcoe gamers. I played through all of the original Fallout games and sequels, would I play again today? No. They really have no replay value. Fallout 3 however has immense replay value. There is so much to do and so much to see and that is even without throwing mods into the picture. When I play a game, I play to have fun, not to agonize and sweat over a bunch of numbers. I play online FPS games that rely on personal skill, not games that you have to worry about dozens of different stats and skill points. I used to do that back in the days of MUDs and TT D&D. Sure, I enjoyed it at the time but now I prefer games that embrace me in a storyline which Fallout 3 does. Sometimes I feel the NMA crowd wasn't going to be happy no matter what Bethesda did. They nitpick everything to death instead of enjoying the game for what it is, a game.

They get the same view that I give to most reviews 'meh'. I very rarely find reviewers who's opinions of a game mirror mine in a significant way, and NMA is no exception to that.



I agree... Except about the 'sometimes'.

I can't even say what I think about those "creatures" over at NMA without breaking rules and getting a mod warning. I forced myself to skim through both reviews just out of sheer lack of other things to do at the moment and can say that at the very least I'm glad those 2 gave the game more credit than 95% of the rest of the site.

But overall it was really just more of the same old thing those guys love to do when talking about Fallout 3. Exaggerating every feature/character without considering their purpose, such as the fact that some are MEANT to be humorous. And of course more pointing to plotholes and inconsistencies. In the end Fallout 3 is an incredibly fun game and I'm sure if they would have had it their way it would have been a much different story. :rolleyes:

I've only read the first review, and i don't really agree with his opinion.
Sounds like some can't-be-pleased really devoted fan :glare:
EDIT: HAHA the words fan and boy put together edits to really
devoted fan? :lmao:

Lol wow...they actually have to edit that. How is that even considered an insult. Can we get a little freedom of speech around here?

Meh they probably consider it flaming. :shrug:

The first link had a typical NMA opinion.

It close to perfect as a game.... BUT not as a Fallout.
Building a good impression until WHAM you drop the bomb. And since you just told how good the game is, the "bomb" will seem like an actual fact.

I don't trust NMA's reviews (any more). They always carry that automatic bias and bigotry which makes their rewievs on FO3 very unreliable.
That line I mentioned always pissess me off, since there were only a few things were Fallout 3 changed the canon or broke it. Feral Ghouls are pretty much the only case where such breaking was not explained.

Fallout 3 was a new start for the series. Everyone knew this right from the start, it was inevitable. People shouldn't even bother comparing FO3 to FO 1 and 2, because aside from a shared setting, it was never meant to be a direct sequel. The FO2 to FO3 transition wasn't going to be the same as the FO1 to FO2 one.

Fallout 3 is an excellent game on its own, and gets even better with mods, and that's what should be looked at. People shouldn't complain about it just because it doesn't meet whatever standards they set when playing FO 1/2.

I don't agree with some of the options in the review. Like, I think playing the game in first person is better way to play Fallout3 in this time. But there are many things that are absolutely right about the review. We can't even argue with it. Doesn't anyone want them fixed? Like quest that aren't like bring me ten x's, kill 20 x's. Take this and give this to X... or better dialogue design?, normal script, animated characters that they actually look like people instead of robots..., bugs that stop you from finishing the game, etc.. Isn't anyone bothered by these things? I don't care about the huge explosions, etc,etc. I didn't even bother trying to nuke Megaton, leaving for the kids to enjoy. While we had incredibly beautiful quests, dialogue, script and design with old Fallout games (with the mediocre isometric view due to trends in the time those games were released), We now have the opposite with Fallout3. Isn't this a problem in your opinion? Do you really want the same for the next Fallout and you want to buy it if it's the same?

The first review presented some valid criticisms, although it was rather clumsily written. The story was undeniably simplistic and often incoherent, and game's dialogue was poor. Other aspects of the game such as its gameplay mechanics and side-questing were praised... I don't see what the problem with this review is.

Seems to me like the real "fan boys" are the ones who cannot accept that FO3 is not a perfect game. :glare:

Actually the transition of Fallout 1 to Fallout 2 had quite some changes. Fallout 3 is in line to Fallout 1, certainly in terms of mature content and footprint. Varied changes happen between each of a series, but nothing that could make you say 'this isn't Fallout' when playing any of them. All excellent of course, complete with minor real-life imperfection that we all love.

S'fair comment I suppose. Can't expect everybody to like a game, especially when said game is in a franchise that person likes, and is changed in ways they don't. First review was more an overview. The second is one guy's somewhat long-winded dissection of Fallout 3. The more critical you are of the jump Fallout 3 made though the more it'll come back to bite you in the ass as the evolution of the franchise becomes something worthy of praise - even from hardcoe Fallout fans.

Taking Fallout 3, and improving with mods, and then officially changing with New Vegas, and then... onward... to no doubt greater changes and evolutionary if not revolutionary additions and tweaks with new titles and DLC until the franchise can find its proper footing, and a great (maybe perfect) balance of all the elements is found, and (almost) everybody is happy. S'a good thing. Those overly critical of 3 might come to reread and sneer at their own words, as 3 is pretty much a foundation for every new title in the franchise, and it shows every sign of becoming something truly epic. If it does, s'hard to knock the game that launched the revival. More so if you're a longtime Fallout fan. Eh?

IMO GrayeWolf has it right though. You get that small crowd who want to keep the crowd small, genuine gripes for Fallout 3 aside, there is definitely an underlying Nerd Rage for keeping something they like... small. Don't ask me to expand on that though, as their reasons elude me.

Edit: Can say one thing for Bethesda though, that even NMA can't dispute. Modding is given absolute, unflinching support. The genuine Fallout fans are probably modding FO3 up the butt. S'nice that they have that option. Those that can't mod... rant. :shrug:

/rant :laugh:

I still think that in Fallout3, we are controlling a character that has huge mental problems and sees the world differently from the rest. The character we are controlling is living in a fantasy world. That's the way to save Fallout universe, and move onward.

I don't actually know what you are ranting? about with the fetch and carry quests and bugs that prevent you from finishing the game. There are very few fetch and carry quests that are required in FO3 and certainly you cannot say they didn't exist in the originals. Fallout is based on a fetch and carry quest and it's a timed one! And I've never been prevented from finishing anything in FO3 because of bugs either on the 360 or the PC although I know the game presents a lot of problems for other players. There are a lot of players that prefer the originals to FO3. IMO they cannot be compared. They are just too different. The need that some people have to go over and over the differences between them puzzles me. I didn't think the originals were all that great myself. Sure, the stories were okay and the dialogue was good enough, but the gameplay svcked. A lot. So much I will never play them again. TB was fine, but I find the games awful to play whereas I find FO3 a joy to play even if it suffers from inadequate dialogue. The world is stunning and I just love being in it. Tastes differ. I don't think anyone is ultimately right in this discussion.

Okay, so in the first link review the reviewer is critical because of the 'unrealism' of many of the things about F3, forgetting that the isometric view so favoured would completely destroy any immersion.

Mmmm...I think that if people are so hung up on a game that they form a 'lobby group' to continue it's life indefinitely (NMA), they need to see a psychiatrist.

That's just silly. What about the thousands of members who still hang around the Morrowind forums, years after its release, and will continue to do so for many years, because they love the game? How does really enjoying something and wishing to continue to do it make them mentally unfit?

Llama, we may not be able to compare the games themselves, but we can certainly compare the plot and dialogue, and I challenge anyone to make a case where Fallout 1 & 2 win hands-down.

As a side-note, I much prefer Fallout 3 to its predecessors.

Yes, I agree. We can talk about those things. I guess, having been here for over a year now, and having been through the long, long arguments about how much better the old games were v. the new game and blah blah blah that I just don't have much interest in the discussion any more. The old games, being TB and so completely different from FO3 can't really be compared to each other. They are like apples and oranges. We can talk about characters, and dialogue and the way the games look I guess. But even those conversations are difficult to have with the diehard, old time fans of the originals. I like to imagine myself, years from now, when FO4 comes out, being like that about FO3 and hating the new game and refusing to like it at all and complaining endlessly about FO3's superiority. I am not unsympathetic to the fans of the originals who "grew up" with them and can appreciate and understand their biases.

@ Llama: These kids and their newfangled tech. Holographic pipboys and thought-controlled Illudium Q-36 Space Modulators. Why back in my day, we were kicked out of the vault with a baseball bat, a plinkety-plink pistol and a BB Gun and we were damn glad to have them.


Get offa my lawn! :swear:

:rofl:

Both of those were one sided and constantly compared to the original 2

I swear, my blood pressure rose, looking at how they picked apart the dialog system...

I have some dialog for them, it says "bugger off"! This isn't fallout 1 or 2. It isn't the same engine, developers,combat system, or writers... In short the the first 2 games are IRRELEVANT as far as the gameplay of fallout 3!

Sorry to rant, it really hurts to see the best game I have ever played yanked apart by those wannabe gamers.



Also, one of them whines about unrealism. This game is about the perceived 1950s future stretched 200+ years and after a nuclear ragnarok.
Ok, let's entertain your silly realism for a moment... Modern Bunker buster does it's job, full ordinance of USA and China launched. Do you know what that equals?I sure do... There would be no vaults,no power armor, no robots, no brotherhood, no enclave, no ghouls, no laser guns, no FRIGGIN GAME!!! Besides that, who said the aim was to be realistic?
(and by the by, there would be no ruins, it would all just be blown to s***

...Which could be vastly improved if it included better dialogue and plotlines.

I don't argue with that point...

Not everyone'll like Fallout 3 dude. It has its flaws, and biased reviews making comparisons with older games whilst wearing rose-tinted specs tend to focus on them. Whereas the reviews that built up and gave it a good metacritic score focused on the good things, as well as highlighing the bad. Awards up the butt and massive sales means its not coming to an end any time soon, and things like lore like can be improved, as can the dialgoue, and other elements. Small niggles on a huge game, which was a hugely successful game.

I enjoy playing Fallout 3. One or two of my mates couldn't stand it when I recommended it to them. One or two loved it. Love it or hate it, it is a huge part of the Fallout series now. What's the beef? :shrug: