 |
|
CG rating |
The Bad
- Well designed post-apocalyptic landscapes
- Atmospheric at times
- The stealth implementation
- My own post-apocalyptic house
- Plenty of room for improvement via mods
- Embarassing dialogues
- Too much loot for a post-apocalyptic world
- V.A.T.S. = Vault-Tec Assisted “I win button”
- The Capital Wastelands has noticeable limits
- Easily forgettable music (save for the not-original songs)
- Animations and character models are not on par with the ‘AAA’ label
- Superficial “Choices & Consequences” system
Review
|
Fallout. The first counter-argument I’d bring to the table if debating with the famous film critic Roger Ebert, who once claimed that video games can’t really be art.
And by Fallout I mean the first two titles in the series. In my opinion, most games aren’t really “high art”, but rather an interactive form of entertainment. However, there have been some games that managed to cross the line between their own, limited medium, and ascend to a higher plane.
Unfortunately, there’s a fundamental property of the video games domain that prevents them (in some people’s eyes, anyway) from aspiring to the “art” label, and by that I mean freedom of choice. The “human” element. Ebert (and others) claim that a mandatory prerequisite of art is that the object must retain its authorial form, unmodified and untainted.
In a way, I agree with the ol’ chap, but I reckon art (in any form) changes shape depending on the spectator’s perception of it. Seen this way, if the consumer’s feedback is expressed through squeaks, tears, laughter and various states of exhilaration when facing the big screen, we can experience the same amount and complexity of mind-boggling philosophy, literary devices and brilliant “acting” (in a broader sense) in front of our PCs, too. On top of that, games give us the opportunity of being "there", in the middle of it all, and doing stuff differently.
Naturally, it’s not enough to have just a bright display of moving lights to label something as being “art”. The artists themselves have to be more than video game producers. They have to be gifted with the ability of making a reality interesting and complex, to understand classic mediums before aspiring to the alternatives. And most of all, they have to care more about the quality of their creation rather than the number printed on their paychecks at the end of the day.
That said, I’m not completely sure the artisans down at Bethesda were perfectly aware of the importance of the Fallout license when they bought it from Interplay in order to make a sequel.
 |
 |
 |
 |
Once upon a time, after the bombs fell...
The backstory of the series describes a world that once took a left turn where we went right. We don’t really know when this historical divergence occurred (although it’s certain that it happened after the Second World War), but the result was a world both very similar and very different to ours.
A world in which scientists were able to master the power of cold fusion, where the U.S. of A are divided into 13 Commonwealths at the beginning of the 21st century, China invades Alaska in the winter of 2066 because of their desperate need of petroleum, and Canada is forcefully annexed by the United States for the same reasons in 2072. And that’s just the broad picture (Would you like to know more?).
Sadly, all the accomplishments of this version of humanity are wiped off the face of the Earth on the 23rd of October, 2077. The date of the Great War. When the nuclear bombs proved once and for all that “War never changes”. No one knows who pushed the button first, or why. Not like it makes a difference anyway.
The construction of anti-nuclear shelters, called Vaults, allowed a small percentage of the United States’ population to get away unharmed. It’s just that at one point in the Fallout series, it’s revealed that these Vaults weren’t designed to preserve human life in case of a nuclear apocalypse, but rather as playgrounds for various social experiments (Would you like to know more?).
The first two Fallout games take place in California and Nevada and are directly linked through the story and the fact that the protagonist in Fallout 2 is a direct descendant of the Vault Dweller from the first game.
However, the events in Fallout 3 take place in 2277 – more than 30 years after Fallout 2 is over – on the eastern coast of the U.S. Namely, in Washington D.C.
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Comments [Add a new comment]
| Yes | |
 | 59% |
| No | |
 | 27% |
| Haven't decided | |
 | 14% |
Total: 1666 votes
Apparently your brains weren't totally liquefied by art design and draw distance, unlike 95% of the other critics.
I agree with you on every point, except that it's Bethesda's best game. Can't agree with that. Someone please make a list of what Fallout 3 does that is new or revolutionary or is an example of extraordinary attention to detail-- something usually required for games that score in the mid 90s. Name a single thing.
It might look the best (maybe), but nothing that it actually does that matters (like quests, dialogue, or combat- just to name a few) is the best we've seen from Bethesda, in my opinion.
Thanks again for the solid review.
tl;dr incoming.
As for why I consider it to be Beth's best game - maybe I should have elaborated on the matter when stating it - I consider it to be Beth's best game because, rough as it is, Fallout 3 does try to sketch out some of the most loved features an RPG might contain - it does try to grant some quests a certain degree of freedom in solvability, and it does feature a flawed C&C (choices and consequences) system that can be improved, bit by bit, by modders.
I personally found Morrowind and Oblivion to be a bit dull - boring main quests, unconvincing characters (a perception worsened by the lack - as I see it - of expression and personality) and too sandboxy for me, I always saw RPGs as "controlled open-ended captivating stories" - especially considering that the open-ended aspects weren't all about different endings. I like to make my own path in an RPG and carve out the "roles" I have in the world - it's just that something about those two games kept me away, it was either the lack of drive or all the shallow "epic" features that wouldn't stand up to half the side quests in the old fantasy RPGs like Baldur's Gate or Planescape: Torment .
While extremely bugged, games like Temple of Elemental Evil, VtM
I'd leave Daggerfall out of the statement though, not because it's necesarilly better than Fallout 3, but because there's little comparison between the two and the way I see it they pull away in completely different directions. I still play Daggerfall every now and then as one of those "alternative, Winter Season RPGs ".
Also, some people might consider me a snobbish elitist mutant fanboy, but I assure you it's not the case. Most of the things I mentioned about Fallout 1 and 2, like being superior despite being launched a decade ago can also be found in lots of other oldschool RPGs.
Most of the D&D games have a solid C&C system, and I'm especially fond of Planescape: Torment's script. It just felt that comparing attempted role-playing features in Fallout 3 to the first games of the series would be more natural, since they're... you know... in the same series. Besides, the lore differences, like it or not, can't be pinned to any other game.
To answer a couple of questions I've been adressed since writing this -
1." Why does Fallout 3 have a 72 rating, while Oblivion's grade is 84, and you were saying Fallout 3 > Oblivion? "
Computergames.ro changed its rating system. It used to be an average between different aspects of a game, like graphics, sound, etc. Nowadays we rate games based on our own personal evaluations as opposed to conforming to a very restrictive pattern. I personally don't approve of rating games, partly because a lot of lazy people don't read reviews, they just browse through the ratings and then start epic flame wars based on them not agreeing with the grade, but considering it is one of my responsabilities I do my best to rate it accordingly.
2. " Would you have given the game a different rating if it was named otherwise? "
Most likely, no. I accept that the game tries to be a sequel, and I treated it accordingly. Some takes on the game would have been different (I probably wouldn't have been so confused by the lore mutations) but it would have still been a 72 game in my book.
3. "Did you rate it 72 just to stand out from all the praise F3 got?"
No, I rated it 72 because I sincerely feel that's the grade it deserves. I did my best to back my statements up and provide decent arguments. While some may not agree with what I wrote, I tried to like the game. I didn't start playing with my mind already made up, though to be fair, the footage I had seen beforehand, as well as screenshots and announcements about the game hadn't helped its cause. It would have been a drag, however, to be morose during my entire week playing F3 and just be nitpicking, but every time I dug deeper my expectations were torn mercilessly.
4. "Why do you consider the social exchanges to be utterly retarded? They seem brilliant to me, Fallout 3 belongs at the Hugo Awards, next to Watchmen and Sandkings."
Don't know, it's just that their vast majority caused a lot of facepalms around my apartment. Best tip I can hand out would be to try and compare them to either quotes from Fallout 1 and 2 (which can be found on imdb) or quotes from Planescape: Torment (which can be found on wikiquote), start from there. Better yet, play those games if you haven't already to hear the lines in context, intepreted by people who I perceive as real actors.
5. "Fallout 2 had its fair share of booing when launched because of all the pop references, Monty Python tributes and ultimately because it wasn't the perfect game everybody says it is nowadays. Why is it praised as the gem of all gems nowadays?"
While I agree Fallout 2 isn't really the perfect jewel nostalgic fans make it out to be, it's still, in my opinion, on a way "higher" shelf than this game right here. I think it's superior in nearly every aspect, save for architectural design and landscapes, to Fallout 3. Social-wise, you can check the quotes or play the game to get the idea.Regarding music, I can only say this: a lot of people are playing F3 while listening to F2's OST, and that's saying something. Combat-wise, the fights were tougher and tactics actually had a more important role there. Role-playing-wise, the fact that you lost unticked Perks added a lot of replay value to the experience, and then there's the deeper impact you have on the world.
6." What difficulty level did you play on? "
I had a first run through the game on normal difficulty. Then I finished the game one second time on Very Hard while I was writing the article. The first run was more thorough, and I had time to explore more of the sandbox content, and I did the second run mainly so I wouldn't be wrong about the balancing, loot and V.A.T.S. issues. Nothing had dramatically changed, the game was a bit harder to finish but the V.A.T.S. wasn't less effective., there was still plenty of loot (although I did use more ammo) and there still were weird combat situations.
Cheers!
Seriously though, if you're only here to make assumptions based on... heck knows what, don't bother to make an account just to drop a comment.
Go go ,fallow the herd ,my dear poor Turd.
http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x22/maxyro/worldtoday.jpg
As for the score, the it is supported by the arguments contained within the article. I know it's a long one to read but you can do it! I for one, would go with a score supported with by arguments anytime. The alternative that you are proposing is to go with the previous scores and try to stay close to them. Hmmm... does it make sense? Sorry if my comment was too long for you to read. I apologize deeply, next time I will just record it and upload the mp3 somewhere.
metacritic on fallout 3 - critics 92, users 80
metacritic on fallout 2 - critics 86, users 94
personally I never really like the serie at all, but... what matters is users, not critics. At least that's what it should matter for other users. Couldn't care less if beth payed gamespot to ensure they'll get a nice review, noone has any profit from it bar gamespot's shareholders(where gamespot is just a random example).
and if you want reviews that praise the game, there are plenty... so go read those.
that's probably because you're so stupid that you can't even figure out a country from it's domain... which frankly it's your problem alone.
I'm curious, have you written any other game reviews? I'd love to read some.
^ Top ^