To be perfectly honest that was something that has repeatedly caught me off guard. I play a few games where that is standard and I find myself repeatedly trying it and getting disappointed. It's the reason I do unlock in the console because I know I'll forget to ever come back.

There are also a huge number of camp places...trailers, etc, that don't appear on the map. In my exploring, i've been using a radius method from a campsite, and then I move on after I've cleared that area, I'd like to mark those campsites.

With the exclusion of the other titles, Diablo 3 suffered from "WoW gayness" visual wise. The colors and atmosphere is so un-Diablo like. The isometric view is just to satisfy the fanbase and not to get to much flak from them. Also, how do do you judge the gameplay? it's not even out yet! Anyway, Fallout 3's gameplay is one of the main reason i'm still playing the game. V.A.T.S never gets old.

You may see Diablo 3 as staying isometric to please the fanbase, and that's certainly your right. Another way of looking at is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Or, maybe that's actually the sort of game they want to make. Part of the fun of the original Diablos was actually the gameplay. I liked playing it from that top-down view, clicking furiously away. The strategies I came up with to be succesful in that game at the harder difficulty levels aren't necessarily going to carry over if they were to change the perspective for some arbitrary reason. For me, that's part of the fun of the game, is how it's played. Change the perspective, and you're really changing quite a lot of the actual "game."

I mean, I really enjoyed Galaga when I was younger. I've likely spent way too much money over the years plugging quarters into that game. I enjoyed how that game played. But just because I like piloting a ship in Galaga and blowing up others ships doesn't mean that I'm going to like Wing Commander, or Star Fox. They're two completely different games. If Diablo 3 were to suddenly end up being first-person, that doesn't necessarily mean it wouldn't be a good game. But I wouldn't enjoy it for the same reasons I enjoyed the first two. Not to mention that it would also be a missed opportunity. Instead of refining what was already a very compelling game, and making it better - it would be starting all over again with a whole new playstyle.

Anyway, keeping in-line with the original topic, that brings me to my other pet peeve about Fallout 3. It's a good game, but it's also a missed opportunity. A new game with a refinement and improvement of the orginal Fallout's gameplay mechanics with current-gen graphics, physics, etc - could have been really interesting. Going real-time wasn't necessarily a bad thing for Fallout 3. I certainly understand why Bethesda wanted to go that way - those are the game they're used to making (and presumably the sort of games they're interested in playing.) I have a ton of fun playing Fallout 3. But if I'm being perfectly honest, every time I play I can't help but sort of wish I had at least an option to play it turn-based. Because shooter-type games really aren't my thing - but Fallout definately is.

I really like this game, and, in fact, without Black Isle games, Fallout 3 is really one of my favourite games. But :

- RT, ok. But the system must be the same. In this system the SPECIAL has little to no effects.
- No dumb dialogue. It's really a shame.
- Horrible main quest. My evil character who follows the same way as my good character. No sens.
- The spirit of the Brotherhood destroyed by that old, silly, and INVINCIBLE man. I want to go with the outcasts only !
- The ridiculous end, who made me think the game has lied to me since the beginning, like in these JRPG where what you say has in fact no consequences at all.
- The fat man, I never use it, because it's juste a stupid idea. That's all. The mini-nukes sell well, that's already that.
- Where's the poison of the radscorpions ?
- Invincible children. I prefer no children at all if they can't die. And making a children city with that...
- Compagnions has no effects on the world. If i go to tenpenny tower with my mutant friend, no one notice him.
- I want to play a ghoul, a mutant or even a deathclaw ! And, yes, I think talking deathclaws are not an error. Make just two races, simple, and if you don't like them, kill them, that's all.
- Ho, one last thing. When I see these Brotherhood officers without helmet, even in battle, I really like to shoot them in the head. One more time, Outcasts are real soldiers, Lyons mens are just some buffoons in power armors.
- Certainly others little things, but I can't tell all in one subject !

Well, if you started to notice the flaws at 20 hours, and most journalists who quoted playing time listed 30-40 hours, then that should have been ample time for them to have "noticed the flaws".

Would it have made any difference to you if there were more negative reviews?

Um, I've played on Very Hard. I still leave the vault with around a dozen stimpacks (more than enough to heal to full). I find stimpacks all over the Wasteland. They cost less than a six-pack of beer. I understand that the cost of using the stimpack is that - poof the stimpack is gone - but there are a LOT of stimpacks in the game.

Anyways, my problem isn't with how plentiful they are or aren't - my problem is that I can be engaged in a big fight, and someone could be in the process of burning my character down with a Flamer while his three buddies take pot shots at me with Hunting Rifles - and I could be down to my last few bars of Health, when suddenly - after glancing at my left forearm, I'm back at full, jacked up on + Fire Resist Ant nectar and Med-X, and basically ready to take these clowns, who managed to out-flank and surprise attack me, to school.

That or the "journalists" are really poor critics and easily wowed.

Maybe that's your problem?

Well, I've seen this argument a lot in the last day or two. Is this the new Drudge talking point? If you were to already not like the game, would a bad review change your opinion of it? Would a good review?

Well, i think the real problem might be that most of these folks aren't professional journalists, and as such, may not adhere to best practice journalism. That's why I don't put much stock in most of these online "experts" for any kind of anolysis, even for something as mundane as game reviews. If you wouldn't get your auto ratings from someplace called Carzrok111!1 as opposed to Consumer Reports, why would you get game reviews from a fan site?

We have so much more information available to us compared to even a decade ago. What's lacking now for many of us are the skills required to determine the quality of the information we are consuming.

Nope, I did this last night, so I'll just summarize it.

Mags and Online sites require that they get copies in advance to survive, studios aren't required to give it to them, therefore studios can attach whatever strings they want to the reviewer in exchange for early access. If the Mags and Sites don't have early access, they don't have traffic, they die. Studios have the power.

Mags and Online sites don't make money from us, they make it from advertisers, the advertisers are the studios. Studios can, and have, threatened to pull their ads for bad reviews.

Studios have all of the power in the relationship, they can simply kill a publication if it doesn't "Play Ball". Unlike newspapers, the publications are entirely supported by ad revenue.

So the way to deal with this is vote with your mouse click.... or take the reviews for what they are worth. That is, if these reviews are nothing but PR, then treat them like PR.

{zeropunctuationjoke}



Yes you are.


{/zeropunctuationjoke}

Well...You asked, I'll tell.
.....
[minutes later...] I'm having a time not comparing to the first two games in the series for explanation...

Fallout was the first game that I really felt worry about my selections and actions in-game. (Whether true or not) I felt as though my actions could shape the story in unseen ways that would radically affect what my experience would be with my character. For me... Fallout imparted a sense of apprehensive anticipation for the result of every action I did; This changed with Fallout 3. I made a decision to play it straight and with an open mind, but I found that I was trying to hop my infant over the play-pen fence and play in the toy chest during character creation, ignoring the dad, and he just stood there cooing at the floor where they expected the baby to be.... This could become a loooong set of paragraphs, so I'll try a bullet list instead.

• I like the F3 art direction (Diablo3's art I did not consider.... I only considered the raw gameplay of each for my example ~and Disciples 3's art blows any game I've yet seen totally out of the water)
  
• I can easily judge gameplay based on the released gameplay video for each game that I mentioned. They exist, I've seen them, I judge by what I've seen.
  
• I consider the ISO view in each of the four and any Fallout title to be integral (agree or don't).
  
• The designers of these games seem to have all approached their projects from the perspective of, "how best to apply modern effects to to our established series"; While it would appear that the Fallout 3 approach was "how best to apply this series to our modern effects".
  
• Fallout 1 & 2 had some really subtle stuff in them, things that benefit the player the that notices, but also they were things that don't adversely affect your game if you don't [notice them] ~so the game doesn't bend over backwards to point them out to you.
  
• As I saw it... The first two Fallout games had a three point play model. There was the exploration mode, the combat mode, and the dialog mode. (Fallout 3 has its version of each of these as well). Dialog and combat were the "relief" from the explore mode. The UI changed, and the mechanics of the game shifted. Players were presented with dialog choices based on their PC's stats. The options were simply there or not, and the player picked what they wished to say ~and the devs were uncannily good at offering just the right things to say. But it was up to the player to decide how the NPC might take it when said ~players could choose wrong. There was a perk that optionally altered the UI to color code the responses to give the player more information if they wished.
  
  ~Fallout 3 takes a page from KotOR and associates dialog choices with stats and skills... but in doing this, the sensible player then knows that these dialog choices are "special". I would think that many that are familiar with the series expected the same mechanics in dialog, and the same thrill of choosing between two or more basically positive answers and getting a different reaction (and consequence). Fallout 3 took the approach of "Yes, No, Meh", and I feel that it lost quite a bit in the decision.
  
  
• In Combat the resolution hinged upon the player's choice of action, (If the player was undecided ~combat stopped); Players were given infinite time to weigh their many options and assess the risk vs. benefit of anything they had a mind to attempt. AP's were finite and precious ~Choosing to use them was irrevocable. AP's also had multiple uses (and even three distinct kinds ~The Agility AP's, the Bonus AP's, and dedicated movement AP's); This gave each build special considerations in combat, as a player with 4 extra movement AP's could [with the right weapon] sometimes double or triple the number of attacks they could complete while still able to back out of range or behind cover; And players with Bonus AP's could have a higher number of AP's than their Stats would allow, meaning that they could have a sniper rifle paired with both High AP's and high Perception (giving much higher range, and lethality) ~That's a lot of power in each, and was a benefit of developing your character in a particular direction; Where as choosing a different direction might give a PC that cannot move like that in a fight or shoot from such a long distance, but (via a different perks) can distinguish at range among 5 clumped raiders, which one is "Ian" and which one has the SMG and not a 10mm ~and be someone that when they do hit, they hit damn hard and very damaging.
  
  I just don't see that much variation in any significant way between PC's and I don't see that being a specialist in anything has any downside (or much of an upside either when compared to the previous games). Maybe I'm wrong?

I feel that the game should have been planned [whether realtime ot otherwise], to present players with diverse paths of development. Fallout had a common rule system for all, and cheated a bit with player perks that allowed them to bend those rules each in a different direction. Future Fallout sequels IMO need to provide ways that PC's can do the same to their new combat and dialog systems.

(When you consider that Zenimax may might try an MMO of their own if Interplay fails to deliver... having those ways to diversify the player character with unique abilities would lend itself well to online multiplayer, in addition being a bit more like the originals).

Actually its kind of the same here I don't hate FO3 inside and out, but many here think I do.

I put it down to people seeing critisim as negitive and a sign that you must hate the game unless you love every little bit of it.

Also some just accept whats on the service (which is fine, to each his own) but if you like to anaylise the detail, well thats just nit picking.

If you lament things you liked in the origonals that was taken out, thats just rose coloured glasses and nostaliga, not that you really actuly liked the way the game plays.

Don't get me wrong some great threads about this comes round every so often so its worth sticking around for that

We know we are not "haters" but unless we want to change our posting habits and keep our opinions to ourselves (can't see that happening) I guess we just have to live with the misrepresentation

So, although I've been a hardcoe gamer and an RPG freak for longer than many of those "gaming journalists" have been playing games, my criticisms don't carry any weight because I'm not a "professional gaming journalist?" With all due respect (seriously, I mean no disrespect) - pah-leez.

We saw the same thing happen with Oblivion...praise all around from the big gaming journalism sites, but the smaller sites and many, many actual players had criticisms that were nowhere to be found in any of the reviews on the big-time sites and publications.

I'm not implying that there's "funny business" going on, but a lack of criticism from reviewers doesn't mean much. Just look at Far Cry 2...glowing reviews from the major gaming publications, but the actual players (and enough of them to be more than just a vocal minority) have been very vocal about the things they don't like. You don't have to be a "professional gaming journalist" (what are the qualifications for this title anyway...I mean, really) for your opinion to count.

A professional anything, is someone who gets paid regularly to do that kind of work.

You know - hardcoe gamers, RPG freaks and forum commenters aren't the target audience of most "professional gaming journalists". Consider how many times in forums that you've seen people say that reviews don't matter to them, or that they don't choose their games based on reviews.

The "big gaming journalism" reviews are really for people who aren't going to do a lot of research into the games they buy. Folks who will just go by the reviews of a couple of reviewers they like. Or for parents deciding whether to get a game for their kids. For these folks, perhaps a shallow review is actually a good thing. What I mean is, if you're going to get someone else to decide what games you should be playing, you aren't going to be putting a lot of thought into anolyzing the game yourself.

I think one reason we see more "criticism" threads over "praise" threads is that there's usually more to talk about in the former over the latter. I mean, if I start a topic about "The Art Direction is Quite Impressive" it's not going to last terribly long. Everyone's going to say their two cents and move on - there's just not really much to discuss. The responses are going to be "yes I agree" and that's about it. I've posted on threads like that, but rarely do I feel the need to check back later and see if anything interesting is happening there.

But I start a thread saying "this element wasn't perhaps the best implemented" then that's something that's actually going to spur a lot of discussion. Everyone's going to have their own opinions about it, and there's enough material to debate on at length (as we've seen over and over again.) If I post my opinion on a topic like that, I'll be checking back later on to see what other points have been brought to bear. And often I'll add or reiterate my own points to the ongoing debate. Threads like this will stay up at the top simply because there's more to talk about than a "praise Fallout 3" thread - unless you get enough people in there who disagree with that sentiment.

For myself I just find the "nit picking" threads to be more interesting. I'll usually gravitate towards a thread where there's a good civil debate going on (in any forum) than one where it's just:

"I like this part."

"Wow, so do I."

"Yep..."

"Uh-huh, yeah sure is nice..."

sometimes this stigma is not that bad. A certain "missinterpretation" can make your point be seen as heavier/stronger or seen afterall as its by mistake understood as prvocation but those that are realy interested in your point or inteligent enough and able to read between the lines will take some valuable information out of it and see your original point.

Of course, and I agree with this 100%. I definitely see it as a difference in types of gamers. Some folks just want to take a game at face-value and have fun. There is absolutely, positively nothing wrong with that. There are certainly types of games I view that way. I think that everyone views things that they like and have experience with differently than those that don't. It's just the way it is.

Creating a good RPG system is not easy, and for someone that loves RPGs the way I do, a well-crafted RPG system is a beautiful thing. The previous Fallout games (and many other older RPGs) were games that had a lot of meat to the RPG mechanics, and the player could choose how deeply they wanted to dig into understanding those mechanics. Of course, you had to understand them at least a bit in order to succeed at the character creation/development metagame. I would have liked to have seen Bethesda stick to more of a "meaty" RPG system, but that's just the type of gamer I am. I can most assuredly accept the fact that others don't give a flying frak about the RPG mechanics, but to me it's sad to see the system watered down.

Of course my opinion isn't the only one that matters, but the players' opinions should matter...at least a bit. I'm sure that those of us that care about some of the gripes I listed are in the minority, but in some cases I think that even those that don't might find the game more fun that way even though they might not realize it because they don't care enough to dig that deep...or maybe I'm nuts...that's entirely possible. There are always going to be the folks that say things like, "hey, why can't I get every perk and max out every attribute and skill?!?!?" and those that say, "well I'm having fun so the system is fine." I'd say that's a very different type of gamer than the type of role-players I'm used to playing with, but you can't please everyone...so the developers should just stick to pleasing me and then at least I'll be happy.

Giz has every right to post as much as wants (as we all do) you have the right to ignore his posts ( like we all do)

Down to forum mods if they are happy with the direction of the thread thats up to them, if you think someone has derailed the thread to much report the post, if Mods agree they will put the thread back on track which can lead to new threads being opened

Occurs on both sides how would you like to be known as a totaly Beth toady and suffering from blind devotion like a little sad lap dog, just because you had stong poitive opinions about the game, not nice is it. You want to call a point into question call Giz out tell him to back himself up, these forums are hot on saying "its all opinion" so all posts are therefore opinionated.

You are joking. Giz can take up 4 sides of A4 detailing exactly what he does not like, many of us "haters" can, you want more detail, quote the post and ask for it.

Because thats the stuff some would like looked out, I like discussion that has points and counter points and this is not really true some of us including Giz have said time and again what we like, but just because its not in the top 3 RPGs ever for some of us we must be haters



Time will tell, I think you are wrong and I think particualy D3 will win over a lot of the fan base and attract new players as said Blizzard are appling tech to the next game while being mindful of what made the Diablo gameplay appeal to those fans in the first place

You can add new things to a game series without gutting the game play that made the game great in the first place entirly in fact if your going to do that you might as well reboot the series, and in fact Beth have changed a lot about FO from story and writing priority to lore to gameplay to the general atmosphare, oh yeah but its got Vault boys in it

Another good point.

I sort of think that one of the advantages of having a roleplaying game on a computer (or console) is that you can have these really "meaty" systems (which I also am a big fan of) without having to get bogged down in the details. I mean, if I want to play a game of GURPS with all of the advanced rules - that's a lot of reading. I have to really know what I'm doing and how things work if I'm going to GM that game, and even as player I'd have to know at least a little bit of the rules.

But on a computer, the software can take care of all of that. The player wouldn't have to worry about any of the behind-the-scenes mechanics unless they want to. Even Fallout 1, I had fun getting into the "meat" of the system, but I don't really think it was necessary to enjoy the game. You don't have to know everything STR is going to have an effect on to know that if you want to be a big strong dude that you should put some points into there. Or if you want to get better at shooting people then you should focus on putting points there. I don't really need to know what my base chance to hit (and all the modifiers that go into that) to know that if I'm not hitting people as often as I want to that I should put some more points into Small Guns the next time I level up. You can have that really "meaty" system, but you don't really need to know much of how it works. Ideally, at least. I agree with you, in that I think a lot of the people who think the Fallout 3 system is fine just the way it is would find that it'd be even more enjoyable if there was some more meat in the stew, so to speak.

Strength could have affected hundreds of things in Fallout 3 without making it any harder to play, enjoy, or understand after all.