-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The French almost reviews Fallout 3 and hates it
- Thread starter Sectus
- Start date
Mimir said:
Morrowind was amazing. Oblivion was still a great game but dumbed down too much. Shivering Isles was a great expansion and better than the original game.
They made this game with the same ideas as Oblivion with less dumbed down gameplay which sounds fine to me.
But hey, I'm one of those crazy guys who doesn't detest Oblivion.
beelzebozo
Jealous Bastard
Mimir said:
this game?
i guess, man. maybe i'm just a putz who thinks isometric pov's aren't designed to connect you to the action or put you in the shoes of a character, and are certainly not conducive to making you feel like you're--to borrow a vietnam phrase--"in the shit." i guess i just always conflate isometric points of view with real time strategy, and i just have a hard time being interested.
Flachmatuch
Member
Wizardry 8 did turn based stuff very very well. The problem with turn based JRPGs is long animations, but imo lots of games do turn based quite well. Combat in Grandia 3 for example is pretty awesome (shame the rest of the game isn't :-/ ). (I take "turn based" as anything that's not real-time action.)
Anyway, it's a console WRPG, the selection isn't too big so I'll have to buy it anyway
Anyway, it's a console WRPG, the selection isn't too big so I'll have to buy it anyway
Darklord said:
Do you REALLY think Oblivion was a better game than Planescape Torment, Fallout 2, and Baldur's Gate II?
Because if you look at the main stream gaming press' aggregate reviews on all those games Oblivion is by far ahead.
Sorry if that doesn't make some of us a wee bit pessimistic as to their credibility.
edit: Bethesda are what they are, a company that has lead the way in making "consolization" into a dirty word, along side Bioware. It doesn't mean their games are bad, but they lack the depth, character, and unique qualities that make their original great titles fan favorites.
Now they're trying to reach out to different fans, the casual gamer and all that. Good for them, enjoy the goo gobs of money if you're successful. But don't try and blow smoke up my ass about how these games are still keeping to their roots.
Grimm Fandango
Member
He sounds really bitter just because Black Isle is gone and that this game is taking a different direction.
Timber said:
Surely you must see the point then. Especially considering that tag of yours. Timber Gets it. The exact same could be said for Fallout 1,2 and 3.
Drek said:
No I don't think Oblivion is better than them. I do however think Morrowind and Kotor are MUCH better than them and they were both on consoles.
It might take a while for a company to meet that middle bit which is both deep but also easy to get into.
For example, the Oddworld series is one of my favorite games. When the company first took the jump from 2D to 3D it wasn't that great. The next game, Strangers Wrath, was fucking amazing. Sometimes it takes developers a second try to get it right.
Bethesda has made this game deeper compared to Oblivion with more stats, more content and less crap like level scaling(Yeah it is still in Fallout 3 but not like Oblivion, there are some areas which have pre-set levels) and I think that is at least a move in the right direction.
If you expect a game this generation to be like Baldur's Gate II then forget it. RPG's like that are very rare if not extinct.
SonOfABeep
Banned
I don't get the criticisms..
Fallout 1 and 2 had you ending up in samey looking caves very frequently and it never was that bad then. Hell, aside from New Reno, most all of the towns in those games were exactly the same looking anyways.
Fallout 1 and 2 were my favorite/most played games ever, and I'm really looking forward to Fallout 3.
Most of the complaints come from people living in a bunker with tin foil hats obsessed with fallout, and people who are just upset they ditched the lame fantasy world of oblivion.
Fallout 1 and 2 had you ending up in samey looking caves very frequently and it never was that bad then. Hell, aside from New Reno, most all of the towns in those games were exactly the same looking anyways.
Fallout 1 and 2 were my favorite/most played games ever, and I'm really looking forward to Fallout 3.
Most of the complaints come from people living in a bunker with tin foil hats obsessed with fallout, and people who are just upset they ditched the lame fantasy world of oblivion.
SonOfABeep
Banned
This bit:
Does worry me a bit. If it's truly that easy to influence your karma score, that's a REALLY bad thing. I liked how your actions had permanence in Fallout 1 and 2.. different towns would react to your previous actions.. Being able to reduce your karma score by killing random NPCs and then have it put back to zero after a few days seems like a near game-ruining element..
Does worry me a bit. If it's truly that easy to influence your karma score, that's a REALLY bad thing. I liked how your actions had permanence in Fallout 1 and 2.. different towns would react to your previous actions.. Being able to reduce your karma score by killing random NPCs and then have it put back to zero after a few days seems like a near game-ruining element..
No, I don't see your point at all, and I'm not sure how my tag relates to this. There's a big difference in changing a game's genre entirely (from RPG to FPS) and going from single to multiplayer only, and simply shifting between subgenres (turn-based to action). I don't think the Fallout comparison is apt. If I weren't looking forward to Fallout 3 then I wouldn't care about it, no matter how much I like the first two games.Fonds said:
The Witcher and Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer are fairly close to golden-era cRPGs. Much closer than I thought would ever happen again from a major developer. But there's always indie developers that carry on the style.Darklord said:
Anyone that's upset about how Fallout 3 is turning out, and really was hoping for a game closer to the originals should check out Age of Decadence. Fairly different setting, but the gameplay should be much closer.
I'll have to differ with you pretty strongly on that point. I don't think Morrowind or KOTOR are great shakes by any means. Good games but they lost a lot of what made Daggerfall and Baldur's Gate appealing.Darklord said:
Oddworld Inhabitants made that supposed transition in a single console generation. Also Stranger's Wrath was a phenomenal game but other than artistic style it left many of the previous Oddworld trappings behind. It captured much of the asthetic charm but the gameplay was different enough so I'm sure many fans of the originals didn't see it as a real successor to those games.
And so far I haven't even really seen an attempt by Bioware or Bethesda to bring some of the depth of their older games into their newer ones. They've had nearly a decade now to do so.
To me it sounds like they took out most of the crap that made Oblivion significantly worse than Morrowind, but still not addressing that core issue of devolving game play.
NWN2: Mask of the Betrayer feels like a pretty damn solid attempt.
I don't see this as a console v. PC thing at all by the way. The ability to make games with real choice and open ended approaches to solutions isn't about hardware, its about creativity and writing.
Choices in Bethesda's and Bioware's games at this point are largely binary. Its better than the "will you save the kingdom?", "no", "will you save the kingdom?" construct still used in JRPGs to this day, but it isn't nearly as diverse and enjoyable as the non-linear approach western RPGs used to provide.
Basically, in what way is Fallout 3 more a role playing game than Far Cry 2? Because it has a level counter you can look at? Because some quests have you play the roll of post-apocalyptic FedEx guy? The gameplay still boils down to killing X to get/reach Y.
It's not like the screenshots was the only thing. The developers expected him to review the game in a rather controlled environment with certain restrictions. That's just not fair and will inevitably result in a biased review.bathala said:
Because he seems more honest more than other reviewers. He was also surprisingly accurate and detailed with all his explanations. There were some things he personally hated, but he explained well enough to make me think "Okay, I can understand why he hates that part of the game but that wouldn't bother me."Darklord said:
If you look at reviews for certain other games (GTA4 as one random example...), you'll see the majority of reviews mindlessly praise it. And then slowly start to acknowledge the game's flaws.
I'd like to note that I'm rather impartial to Bethesda and the Fallout series. I didn't like the first 2 Fallout games, and I thought Oblivion was both amazing and horrible. I didn't make this thread because I hate Bethesda or Fallout 3, I made it because I thought that article was way more honest than most other previews or reviews out there.
SonOfABeep said:
If this is true, that's really...blah. It's like developers/publishers (who knows where it comes from) can't commit themselves to making the player truly think about their decisions, committing to them, and having them face the consequences without providing them with an easy out. It's frustrating to a guy like me who really wants this in modern games.
neoism
Member
I tell you right now this review/preview is laughable at best, I'm so glad I haven't played fallout 1 and 2. Though I did play fallout 1 a few weeks ago for exactly 5 minutes. I'm glad this is Oblivion with guns. It takes my two favorite genders (FPS, RPG) and puts them together, I have this fully paid for and can't fucking wait. I know a lot of you want this the BE "Fallout 3" but with Bethesda making it you should expect Oblivion with guns, good thing I loved Oblivion!
I think most knew this game would get tore apart by some, no matter how good it is. Bethesda was in a no win situation, if they stuck to close to the originals, they would get ripped for copying and if they changed things to much, long time fans would flip out. I think some of the criticisms are warranted judging by the videos, but quite a few were expecting the impossible. As much as I loved the original games, they were flawed as well and at the time they received a ton of criticisms. I am ok with chunky animations and some bad VA here and there, as long as they keep the atmosphere and feel of the series intact I will be happy. At this point in time, a slightly flawed Fallout game is better than no game at all. Hopefully the game sells well enough and they have laid enough groundwork to improve on in the future.
It's interesting to read such a negative opinion, but I get the feeling he's too caught up in older PC games and unwilling to accept any sort of change. He's a fan of old mechanics, dated or not.
The comment that really raised an eyebrow was...
I believe Yahtzee's review of STALKER Clear Sky was right on the money with this. It's an OLD PC design limitation that should remain extinct.
Auto-aiming is an entirely different issue, but in general, I feel mild aim correction (ala Halo) is preferred (and necessary) for a console based shooter. You can still present challenging, enjoyable gameplay with this. Try playing Crysis with a 360 pad (no auto aim of any sort) and you'll see why it's such a good idea for consoles. On the PC, however, auto-aim actually seems pretty rare so I don't understand the complaint.
I'm harping a bit too much on a small sentence, but I believe that it reveals the nature of the person spilling his impressions on Fallout 3. I don't completely disagree with some of the ideas that he presents and I can see where problems may lie, but I also feel that some jaded gamers are so caught up in the past that they fail to give credit to areas that are improved. I mean, one of the most beloved PC games of all time is Deus Ex (I certainly love it), but the game has so many poorly designed or broken elements that would NEVER fly today contrasting with its brilliance. So, yes, there may be no other game that matches certain great aspects of an older game (such as DE or Fallout or anything else), but these newer games make tremendous strides in completely different areas. Areas that I feel are brushed aside all too quickly (things that go beyond the visuals).
Of course, I can't deny that simplification is a bit disappointing when dealing with situations like this, but that certainly isn't going to RUIN a game for me.
The problem with some of the ambititous ideas you see in certain older games is simply that implementing such ideas in a modern title is a tremendous task. You basically have to balance yourself between releasing a polished experience or a somewhat broken, but deep, game. STALKER is a great example of this extreme. It's a fairly rich game and offers plenty to the player, but it's held down by a lack of polish and plenty of broken mechanics and ideas.
The comment that really raised an eyebrow was...
I know opinions vary, but I believe the old PC style of quicksaving was actually one of the worst things to hit gaming simply because it promoted lazy, unbalanced level design in so many instances. Checkpoints force balance and improve gameplay. The risk is, of course, that a poor developer will be unable to properly place checkpoints, but in most cases, checkpoints are a superior choice. I just can't imagine how anyone could really enjoy slamming the F5 key every single time you kill an enemy or clear a room. Battles become meaningless in the face of a quicksave key.
I believe Yahtzee's review of STALKER Clear Sky was right on the money with this. It's an OLD PC design limitation that should remain extinct.
Auto-aiming is an entirely different issue, but in general, I feel mild aim correction (ala Halo) is preferred (and necessary) for a console based shooter. You can still present challenging, enjoyable gameplay with this. Try playing Crysis with a 360 pad (no auto aim of any sort) and you'll see why it's such a good idea for consoles. On the PC, however, auto-aim actually seems pretty rare so I don't understand the complaint.
I'm harping a bit too much on a small sentence, but I believe that it reveals the nature of the person spilling his impressions on Fallout 3. I don't completely disagree with some of the ideas that he presents and I can see where problems may lie, but I also feel that some jaded gamers are so caught up in the past that they fail to give credit to areas that are improved. I mean, one of the most beloved PC games of all time is Deus Ex (I certainly love it), but the game has so many poorly designed or broken elements that would NEVER fly today contrasting with its brilliance. So, yes, there may be no other game that matches certain great aspects of an older game (such as DE or Fallout or anything else), but these newer games make tremendous strides in completely different areas. Areas that I feel are brushed aside all too quickly (things that go beyond the visuals).
Of course, I can't deny that simplification is a bit disappointing when dealing with situations like this, but that certainly isn't going to RUIN a game for me.
That's precisely what I'm talking about. This "reviewer" seems to be somewhat blinded by his rose tinted glasses. He recalls only the memorable aspects of these older games while completely forgetting about all of the flaws.
The problem with some of the ambititous ideas you see in certain older games is simply that implementing such ideas in a modern title is a tremendous task. You basically have to balance yourself between releasing a polished experience or a somewhat broken, but deep, game. STALKER is a great example of this extreme. It's a fairly rich game and offers plenty to the player, but it's held down by a lack of polish and plenty of broken mechanics and ideas.
Drek said:
I guess it's just preference of games. I loved Morrowind because of its massive unique world, amazing soundtrack, great story and tons to explore. I loved Kotor because it had an amazing list of characters and story.
Strangers was never a real successor. It was a spin-off. I'm just saying changing the style of a game might not be so easy as it seems. Oblivion was too dumbed down, they are fixing that somewhat this time.
Morrowind was very deep and Kotor had amazing characters and story telling. A game doesn't need 500 stats to make it a true RPG. It's only this generation that has dropped in quality.
Adding more stats and fixing level scaling is 2 of the core issues that devolved the gameplay. I'm not sure what you mean.
Well I haven't played Fallout 3 so I can't properly answer this but as Oblivion you have to expect it'll be an Action/RPG not a full on RPG.
I just think people look at what the game doesn't have rather than what it has. No it won't be as RPG heavy as older games. No it won't be a perfect game. Look at it this way, we wouldn't even be getting a new Fallout without them and lets face it, the last 2 were crap so the series isn't flawless.
People are just too quick to judge. They kick up a stink because there is too much colour in Diablo 3. They whine over the word "Origins" in Dragon Age. They complaining because Starcraft 2 is split into 3 games even though they know it would have gotten an expansion or 2 anyway.
Bluemercury
Member
dark10x said:
EDGE was also critic of the system....
Cow Mengde
Banned
Zzoram said:
Oblivion's biggest flaw is that it's not fun.
tomchoucrew
Member
Xboxygen: positive (french) We were in this "luxurious hotel" too.Darklord said:
http://www.xboxygen.com/index.php?file=Sections&op=article&artid=474
i have put little time into fallout 2
i didn't like oblivion
fallout 3 with vats is a really repetitive game
fallout 3 without vats is flawed because bethesda has never learned how to line up their weapons with the crosshair
the game is ugly, not because the world is a wasteland but because it looks greasy (makes PDZ look like proactive)
and once again the stupidity of the game is all in the phrase "I'M A COMPUTA!"
i didn't like oblivion
fallout 3 with vats is a really repetitive game
fallout 3 without vats is flawed because bethesda has never learned how to line up their weapons with the crosshair
the game is ugly, not because the world is a wasteland but because it looks greasy (makes PDZ look like proactive)
and once again the stupidity of the game is all in the phrase "I'M A COMPUTA!"
eXistor
Member
Fonds said:
I dunno, maybe I'm just not as hung-up on the past as some other people. Fallout 1 and 2 are both in my top 10 of all time, I love the games to death, but I don't feel bitter in any way that Fallout 3 is not by Black Isle and that Bethesda has made it their own. I'm just glad it's being made at all.
I see what you mean though, I guess I would feel the same if it was a Zelda or main Mario game that was made by a different studio. But I figure that if Bethesda didn't make Fallout 3, no one ever would have. Now Interplay is doing a Fallout mmo. I really doubt this would be possible if Bethesda didn't hae their way with Fallout. They made Fallout part of modern gaming again for better or worse remains to be seen.
They gave Mask of the Betrayer a 7/10 because it was only for fans of the genre.Darklord said:
And The Witcher had its fair share of problems, so 7 is probably a pretty accurate score. The much improved Enhanced Edition got an 8. I'd probably give it a 9, but 1 point isn't a big deal.
hrm...saunderez said:
I love this... A few people in one thread express doubts about a videogame and someone tries to make it sound like a gaf meltdown.
I am not an "NMA" but I am a big fan of the originals. I'm not a fan of Bethesda so much and I think Fallout 3 looks like a snore fest.
With so much to play this fall... I think I can wait.
Adventure games have nice stories. Platformers have massive unique worlds. In what way does it make these games good RPGs?Darklord said:
I'm not saying Bioware and Bethesda haven't made good games recently. But as companies that once pioneered the RPG genre, you don't find it the least bit disingenuous that they still try to keep their core fanbase while offering less and less choice and freedom in quest and plot development? A game shouldn't be labeled "RPG" just because it gives you experience and a visual leveling systema nd stats.
See above, an RPG doesn't have anything to do with stats. Hinterlands doesn't have an overly burdensome stat system but it involves much more role playing than any game Bethesda and Bioware have made in a while.
I honestly don't care about level scaling and shallow statistical systems nearly as much as the fact that they're getting iteratively less and less original and diverse in story structure and plot development. They're basically embracing the worst traits of JRPGs, but without the anime fan service roots that JRPGs largely feed on today.
Great, then don't try and sell the fans of Fallout 1&2 a bill of goods like Bethesda has. They kept saying that the original fans wouldn't be left out and that the game would be for them too. So what, now everyone should just ignore those blatant lies and heap accolades on a game that completely didn't deliver?
When Molyneaux did that with Fable people threw a shit fit even though it was still a solid little action beat 'em up with some unique sim and leveling mechanics. Doesn't Bethesda deserve the same?
I even find it a bit more defensible in Molyneaux's case because its entirely predictable and expected. He isn't doing it to sell you, he's doing it because he believes it. It just happens that he overshoots and therefore under delivers often enough for it to be a known fact.
Oh really? Because Feargus Uquhart of Obsidian said some publishers approached them about making Fallout 3 if they (the publisher) was to get the rights.
Of course, in the same Q&A he basically predicted this problem for Bethesda, that they wouldn't be able to satisfy the fans of the real series, that it could very possibly be "Morrowind with Mutants", very fun, and still very much not Fallout 3.
And what do you mean that the last two were crap? If they were so crap then why even buy the license in the first place? Its totally different from the stuff Bethesda makes. So if its crap and nothing like their games why even get involved? Because they could sell the IP to enough people to get an extra sales boost.
Whiny fanboys throw fits because Diablo 3 has some color in the palette. That is an artistic design choice that in no way lies to the consumer about a dramatic change in what they're being hyped up to receive.
Fans of Baldur's Gate and the sequel who were told that Dragon Age was a spiritual successor to BG, only to see the recent developments with the IP, have every right to be very skeptical.
Fans of Starcraft who aren't real crazy with what looks like wallet gouging for what will assuredly still be an outstanding game by Blizzard also have the right to be irritated. I don't see them calling into question the quality of the game just because it'd be divided up, just their discontent with the likely excessive pricing and delay until the "full version" of the game can be realized.
None of this would be such a big deal if the industry wasn't so focused around basically bribing reviewers, getting retailers to give the hard sell for reserved/pre-ordered games, and the fact that retailers have pretty strict return policies that leave you out in the cold if a game just sucks.
Instead we do have all of that and this is just another case of a developer selling a bill of goods to fans of a franchise, trading on that franchise's good name, to get sales up when they are in fact delivering nothing like what those fans were lead to expect or even want.
If Bethesda had balls they'd put their money where their mouth is and at least have an extensive demo available. But they don't, because they know if they did the IP would be basically worthless as a selling point for this game.
klownboots
Member
Thank god I don't take anything anyone says on here to heart lol. If that was true I would never have gotten out of bed this morning.
I just love reading all the "Yeah I played it, total shit" posts. It is really odd to see that in other forums, only to see the game be awesome and everyone changes their mind...
Anywho, leaving my opinion of it (good or bad) for when I play it in a few weeks.
I just love reading all the "Yeah I played it, total shit" posts. It is really odd to see that in other forums, only to see the game be awesome and everyone changes their mind...
Anywho, leaving my opinion of it (good or bad) for when I play it in a few weeks.
So, when is someone going to create the happy Fallout 3 thread?
I'm just now playing Fallout 1, and I've never played Oblivion. I'm really finding it tough just to play Fallout 1 because of the controls.
So, all in all, I don't have anything to judge what a crapfest Fallout 3 may be. So, I'm still excited for it.
I'm just now playing Fallout 1, and I've never played Oblivion. I'm really finding it tough just to play Fallout 1 because of the controls.
So, all in all, I don't have anything to judge what a crapfest Fallout 3 may be. So, I'm still excited for it.
beelzebozo
Jealous Bastard
i have really enjoyed all the videos of the game i've seen thus far. the tenpenny tower stuff, the megaton stuff, going in the science museum to get the antenna and fix the radio. . . all that was pretty rad to me. i guess it's possible i may get my hands on it and despise it, but most of the time, personally, seeing is believing, and i know what keeps me interested. if nothing else, i want to see how deep the well goes with fallout 3. i have an inkling that i may have enjoyed oblivion if i didn't think that goofy fantasy setting was so off-putting. a nice apocalyptic wasteland with old timey music (which makes anything better) is sure to keep me sucked in.
Mimir said:
I need to play Witcher. Big time.
I love golden-era CRPGs and most recently have gone back and played Baldur's Gate II.
But yeah, I grew up on CRPGs (Wizardry I and II, Ultima I-IV and Bard's Tale on Apple II) and stuff like the old SSI D&D games and beyond on PC XT and ATs.
I did not like Oblivion's idea of what an RPG is -- generic action, relative leveling, and zero plot.
Let's hope Fallout 3 is better.
Grimm Fandango
Member
After reading all of the comments on NMA about the article... um wow. Don't do it :lol
I will admit I am a little bit more aprehensive about the game now and will wait for more reviews before deciding on a purchase.
I will admit I am a little bit more aprehensive about the game now and will wait for more reviews before deciding on a purchase.