Fallout 3 Comments by Kristan Reed

I don't know about the targetting system though. Every video i've seen has just headshots and it's obviously the most expedient way of dispatching the enemies, so just what exactly is the point of being able to target specific body parts if it's really not worth hitting anything other than the head?

So excited for this. But then I'm clearly stupid, as I loved, and continue to love, Oblivion.

i loved oblivion, twas my first experience of a game of its type... so i guess the flaws didnt annoy me as much as they did others.
this game is a day 1 purchase for me, not that anyone gives a shit lol

"I wonder what will actually satisfy people sometimes. "

The moon on a stick. Is that too much to ask for :P

"I don't know about the targetting system though. Every video i've seen has just headshots and it's obviously the most expedient way of dispatching the enemies, so just what exactly is the point of being able to target specific body parts if it's really not worth hitting anything other than the head? "

Those trailers have handily used a higher level character to show off head-shots, it's not going to be that easy to start with. Also, when the percentages are too low, surely a nice leg-shot to slow down your enemies is a good idea? Or as has been stated either int his review or IGN's (I forget which) you can target an enemies hand which is holding a grenade, and kaboom!! :D

I'm highly sceptical of this review.. Like someone said, IGN UK's review seems to be the only one that has honestly looked at all the parts. And if there are many bugs, graphical glitches, stupid interfaces, etc, than perhaps it deserves a 9 for being great, but not a ~10.

See Giant Bomb's Review.

Yeah, exactly. The official pre-release videos are a bit misleading. You'll usually have a much lower chance to actually hit the head than you have to hit the torso, for example.

Tat said, this official screenshot demonstrates it rather well.

it all depends how much you liked oblivion -- if you liked that, you'll like this

For the record (ie. despite my smarmy comments re: Bioshock and Fable 2) I thought this review was a fine read. We readers sure go out of our way to make an otherwise enviable job (games reviewer) a bitch. :)

Oblivion-bashing is clueless revisionism IMO. There were a lot of things just head-shakingly WRONG with the design, but it was so ground breaking and effective overall, I still consider it a solid 9/10. 2 years later and most RPGs shipping pale in comparison.

Which reminds me - the recent Fable 2 review is delusional. ;)

Also, to everyone complaining that Fallout 3 has been reduced to an FPS, or alternately that the review paints it as a BAD FPS... I think it's pretty clear from the review that it's not an FPS at all. Which is really, really, really good news. VATS has been the most exciting idea since this game was announced, and I hope it features heavily.

@Smelly
But im more than a little paranoid about a BIG game like this - as i know most reviewers rarely play games for longer than a couple of hours (if that)...

Krudster played it for 60 hours, which seems a more than reasonable time investment IMO.

"Differences in preferences. I can't understand that anyone could honestly think Oblivion was good. But I can't really care less if they do."

You care so much less that you are forced to hammer on it being awful as a fact at every opportunity.

@smelly

"especially when there are full screen ads next to the review."

Oh shuuuuut uuuuuup.

Seriously, grow up and change the record. This site is free to you and me because it is paid for by ads. Are you pretending to be dense about this one? Is this some kind of test? Do I win a prize if I spot the deliberate mistake?

"Fallout 2 did a little better in the UK - about 46,000. Still pretty poor, considering most of those sales were when it was released on the Sold Out label."

Isn't that because the UK is the console outpost of europe? I reckon that it sold tons in pc regions such as germany and the benelux.

It's easy to get bogged down with certain minor negative aspects of the game without really having experienced the bigger picture, at which point many of those things cease to bother you.

I don't agree with you that the negative aspects of the game are minor, to be honest. The dialogue system, the voice acting, the real-time combat, the map marker system when searching for a particular spot indoors when there are multiple floors, the repetitive, drab interiors... there are some pretty fundamental problems, as far as I'm concerned.

I do agree that the game improves the more you play, though. Just not enough for me personally (after just over 25 hours) to give it a higher mark, because I couldn't forget about the issues. I gave it an 8.3, which is low compared to most of the other scores on the Internet, but which I stand by. I'd recommend that everyone buys Fallout 3, because it's a really good game that needs to be experienced, but there's a lot wrong with it.

Definitely not to be missed, mind. It's an experience alright.

Oblivion wasnt perfect either as has been much covered but if I look back at my "This Gen" gaming experience it still is one of the stand out moments (if you can class 80 hours as a moment)

Not saying any of the reviews are right or wrong but the feeling I get after reading 4 of 5 reviews is this game is going to be right up my street.

"Oh, and why you review an FPS game on a console, when there's a PC version is beyond me..... But then again, they keep saying the console market is more profitable... "

If this *was* a FPS game I wouldn't consider buying it for a second.

As it's an RPG with some shooting in, it's pre-ordered ...

Consoles are where it's all going mate, rightly or wrongly, deal with it ...

If Krudster had spent 60 hours trying to review this on the PC he'd have spent the first 30 hours trying to get it to work :)

Krudster: Seeing as you've finished the game, can you give us a word on the dialogue? Is it well written? Voice acting good? Are the characters memorable or are they just the faceless masses we knew from Oblivion?

"Fallout 2 did a little better in the UK - about 46,000. Still pretty poor, considering most of those sales were when it was released on the Sold Out label."

Aye, 46k sold and 500k pirated ...

Just a note on krudster's comments - from what i've read in this forum, most of the people complaining about the review do so because we feel that it was lacklaster in some -important in my opinion- fileds, like variety in gameplay, AI (which was addressed in this section), story and character development. I obvioulsy haven't played the game (and waited this review to see whether i will) but when such a highly anticipated game gets a 10, i expect a more detailed justification. I realise that in order to release the review in the first day you are not able to expand the article as much as you'd like, but still... OK, maybe i'm too harsh, but i have higher expectations from some sites than others.

I've put 160ish hours into oblivion. Played it on my pc first, then bought if for my 360 in the summer when there was no games so I could sit on my couch and play it. Sci-fi is my favourite setting and I especially like post apocalypse stuff. This game sounds like it was made for me. I'll trade in fable 2 for it, because it's utter pish. DID NOT LIKE!

"Oblivion's a straight 10. It's become fashionable to hate it for the two or three things that it got badly wrong rather than love it for the thousands of little things it got right, and the fundamental strengths of its open world. Nothing since has come close"

Absolutely 100% correct. +1

10 out of 10 is spot on, game of the year for me.

The storyline and characters are hard to discuss without giving specific examples and taking away the surprise element, to a large degree.

Firstly, it's a massive game with hundreds of characters. Some are fairly dull and lifeless, others quirky and amusing, some deadly serious, others intensely interesting. From what I understand, and from what I've experienced, there are around 100 voice actors in the game (correct me if I'm wrong). There's a shedload of variety, and yes, some repetition too. But there's hours and hours of dialogue to wade through, and, obviously, not every voice actor is as good as the next one. Not every character is as interesting or engaging as the next one. I'm 62 hours in. I still have about 20 locations to discover (assuming there are 100), and about seven actual story missions to finish (not main quest ones). I'm STILL finding new places, packed with new and interesting characters with stories to tell.

Sure, some of them are just faceless drones, and you quickly learn to spot who those people are, and can just wander past them. Others are really interesting to engage with. It's not always engaging, no, but it's certainly evident that FAR more effort went into crafting an interesting story and improving the dialogue than Oblivion. It might not measure up to what people experienced in Fallout 1 and 2, but there's so much passionate opinion to deal with there, it's almost not worth even getting into the discussion as a reviewer. You're in a no-win situation. Even if I thought Fallout 3 was better in a narrative sense than 1 or 2 (which I don't), there's almost no point going there. It's the Elephant in the room, and an argument that would never end.

What I *can* say with absolute confidence is that the narrative structure, the dialogue, the facial detail and the overall STORY in general beats the crap out of Oblivion. That's just a personal preference, but I was far more engaged and driven through the game by Fallout 3's back-story and interwoven narrative and moral choices than I ever was in Oblivion. That's partly because I actually prefer the setting of the game overall, but also because I think that Bethesda just made a better fist of it this time. Characters are less wooden, and just generally more alive, but, yeah, they still do dumb things that break the immersion, but in a game as ridiculously complex as this, with as many choices as this, you have to cut the game some slack now and then, just like we have to in pretty much every game ever.

I hope that fills in a few blanks about my thoughts on the storyline. We're limited by a word count on these reviews, so it's simply not possible to just rant on and on about every single aspect of the game. That is, essentially, why comment threads can be useful sometimes.

One final point, though, I find it stunning to see certain comments deriding the game's interiors as 'drab and lifeless'. For the most part, they're incredibly varied, and have almost unbelievable attention to detail. Sure, there's repetition, but there's repetition in everyday life. Do you really expect every underground station, every office to have some sort of unique architecture? Playing the game over a period of time BEYOND 20-30 hours really hammers that point home. Even 60 hours in I'm finding new creatures, new types of building, completely batshit mental characters with new problems for me. Seriously, how many games can you possibly say that about?

I'm usually a fan of focused games that last 10-15 hours, but this proves to me just how engaging an epic can be when it's done correctly. It's NOT perfect, there ARE flaws - but as an overall experience it's one of the easiest 10s I've awarded in six years of writing for the site, encompassing more than 600 reviews.

Played it today on PS3 and 360. Unfortunately the 360 is graphically quite a bit better. Definitely get the 360 version if you own both consoles. But more importantly this seems like a really good game, a lot of depth and things to do, the game doesn't play like an FPS. More like Mass Effect than COD4. The way you can stop the action and make it turn based makes it a plus for me. The atmosphere and setting looks really good.I can't wait to get it and explore more.

And I had doubts about this game. But playing it has banished them.

"or is it a true 10/10? "

You're on Eurogamer, where only one 10/10 rated game actually deserves the score*, so I'm guessing no, it's not worth 10/10. GTAIV isn't 10/10, Bio-Shock isn't 10/10, Fable isn't 10/10, Oblivion most certainly isn't 10/10 and Halo 3 can barely scrape a 9, let alone a 10. The hit ratio for a properly rated game on this website is 10%, where as 90% chance to rate a game absurdly. With that in mind, I'm firmly going to say that Fallout 3 isn't a 10/10 worthy game. I could be wrong, but then, look at the odds. ;-)

* Okami is the only game this website has ever properly rated 10/10; it's the definition of the best in gaming design, all those other examples simply aren't.

Krudster: Thank you, that was the exact information I was looking for. While I'm disappointed that the dialogue doesn't compare to the quality of F1 and 2 it sounds like it's nowhere near the dire level it was in Oblivion. You got repetition of dialogue in all old games, but it was alot less noticeable because voice acted lines were a treat for special characters, as opposed to modern games where it's pretty much expected from every single NPC. It was just that Oblivion had a handful of voice actors and this fact became very, very obvious.

I'll be playing the game, of course, but now I'm feeling more positive about it. Once again, thanks for the additional information.

Boy, lots of whiners on this here comments thread.

"I haven't played it but I already know it can't be great!"

I'm looking forward to the game.

It sounds good, but you put me off when u said it's the most fun youve had since Bioshock....
Bioshock was simply no fun to play, that was my only gripe with the game :|
For anyone reading this, go play DEADSPACE - that is a quality game.

* Okami is the only game this website has ever properly rated 10/10; it's the definition of the best in gaming design, all those other examples simply aren't.

@Crofto

We should all bow to Crofto's valued opinion...NOT!
Okami's flaw is that it couldn't sell on 2 different consoles. Yea, that's a 10/10 game, alright ;)
Why do people, like Crofto, act like they speak for everyone?
TWIMC, for the 1000th time, a 10 score doesn't mean the game is perfect...jeez!

Stop picking on Kristan - his review covers most of the major points that the average gamer wants to know, and I know for a fact that he worked on this review after investing nearly 70 hours constant play time into the game - it wasn't an unresearched write up by any means. The whole purpose of reviews is to gain an opinion, and it is clear that the opinion of an Oblivion-lover (which many, though obviously not all, Fallout purchasers are likely to be) may not speak for everybody, but no review can.

If you didn't like Oblivion, fair enough, but don't knock Kristen for having an opinion - simply do what all educated gamers should do, and have a look at the wider picture, check out some of the more negative reviews, then you should have a more balanced outlook on the game. If reviewers left personal gaming preferences aside, reviews would evolve into boring personality-devoid facsimilies, press-release Daily Mirror reviews - I for one don't want to see that happen.

Like Oblivion, this game will not appeal to everyone - Fallout series fans may be disappointed by certain areas, graphics whores may pick at the game's sub-Mass Effect animations, FPS fans may find the whole stop-go RPG element too slow or lacking in immediacy, Bethesda haters are not likely to be converted, the casual crowd and those without the time to invest may simply be intimidated by its scope... but such is the nature of a game in Fallout's category - it is guarenteed to divide opinions, in the same way that classic films, great music, and noted works of art always have done. Enjoy this review, stop knocking it, and see it for what it is: a deeply researched opinion from somebody who was clearly touched and enthralled by a game he loved.

@krudster - thanks for your most recent comment. It sounds like this is the game the Fallout 1/2 fans were alledgedly looking for then, which makes it all the more ironic that people are already complaining about dodgy FPS mechanics LOL.

It also makes up my mind re: PC vs. XBox360. Sounds like the best way to appreciate this one is to play it for 60+ hours, and I'm not sitting in front of any PC for 60+ hours unless I can send a bill afterwards.

@Crofto - different strokes. I thought GTAIV was 10/10 material. And I thought Okami was overrated, a true work of art, but eventually a rather boring game. (Disclaimer: I didn't finish either one.) No matter how a game reviews, it is up to the discretion of the player to buy games that suit their taste in genre, gameplay, content. That's just common sense.

Krudster, you've turned my rotten day into a not so bad one, sooooo looking forward to this game! Loved both Oblivion and Bioshock

Thanks for the added info - i didn't know about the word count - shame really, perhaps you could add the posts here to a link at the review, because they really do justice to the game's score (sorry for any wrong expressions or spelling, but i'm greek). I'm sold, i'll order it, i was between fallout, Fable and far cry, but this seems the best package as a whole.

Eurogamer gave sega rally a 9/10, Gears an 8 and Dead Space a 7 which = can't be trusted

This wasn't hugely on my radar....but hell.......now its is......so many games so little time.....! 10/10 for this and Fable 2, it does bring into question the giving of a 9 to Saints Row 2 mind....its fun and all but a 9??? From what Krudsters saying however he does eloquently justify the mark here and from the majority of comments Fable 2 is being well received.

looks like i've stumbled into a bit of.... fallout here.....

Eurogamer gave sega rally a 9/10, Gears an 8 and Dead Space a 7 which = can't be trusted

Ah, stop it already. Opinions, people. They differ. From person to person.

That doesn't make Eurogamer non-trustworthy, it only makes it necessary to use your own intelligence when reading those obviously subjective reviews. This is their truth, but you need to find your own truth yourself.

Some of the scores here recently have seemed a little high, but then again there's been some good games released recently too!

I bought Saints Row 2 and Bioshock on the strength of the reviews here (and from the various 360/PC players saying that the game was great and recommending that PS3-ers jump in - thanks folks).

Bioshock is proving to be a real treat; graphics are beautiful, story is excellent and there's a real sense that I'm playing an *event* game here. Saints Row 2 in many ways is the very opposite, but its heaps of fun all the same! Perhaps people would have preferred if Saints Row 2 was marked down a notch or two becuase of the faults, and then we could say "Pah! Only a 7?", and feel better about ourselves that graphics aren't that important to us. Or something.

I reckon now I'll be getting Fallout 3 too now. I liked Oblivion despite its faults, although most of my characters turned to crap at about level 10 (I never mastered the levelling system). It sounds like Fallout 3 is an improvement all round. I'll probably get many, many hours of fun out of the game without ever finishing it...

One final point, though, I find it stunning to see certain comments deriding the game's interiors as 'drab and lifeless'. For the most part, they're incredibly varied, and have almost unbelievable attention to detail. Sure, there's repetition, but there's repetition in everyday life. Do you really expect every underground station, every office to have some sort of unique architecture? Playing the game over a period of time BEYOND 20-30 hours really hammers that point home.

We'll have to agree to disagree here, Kiran - at least partially. I found many of the interiors to be confusingly laid out (surely you must acknowledge the problem with the map marker indoors?), and really rather repetitive. When you've got a grimy, dark setting spread over several floors where most of the rooms are identical, heading towards a map marker with no idea what floor the destination's on, it's easy to get lost and frustrated.

Who knows, though? Maybe I'll change my mind after the 30 hour mark when I've discovered even more locations. I can only go by the quests that I completed in the course of reviewing the game. For me, the outdoor environments are in a different league to the indoor ones. That being said, you're bang-on about some of the attention to detail. Seeing long-dead bodies in abandoned city houses, surrounded by various pre-war paraphernalia, is rather affecting. Oh, and I love the "baby-carriage-used-as-a-mine". That's an EVIL touch.

^^^^^ Thanks for the spoiler? ^^^^^

"I hope that fills in a few blanks about my thoughts on the storyline. We're limited by a word count on these reviews"

Well that's a shocking revelation, to me at least. Care to elaborate on the size of that word count limit?!

^^^^^ Thanks for the spoiler? ^^^^^

Come on, you call that a spoiler? :)

I presume you only read every twelfth word of the review and the score at the end, just in case!

Smelly wrote:
But im more than a little paranoid about a BIG game like this - as i know most reviewers rarely play games for longer than a couple of hours (if that)...

What an absolutely idiotic thing to say. Ever been a reviewer? Exactly how many reviewers do you personally know? Where did you find this wonderful stat from exactly?

If any reviewer who wrote for any reputable site/magazine, spent less than or around two hours on any game (other than perhaps a retro download off of one of the console download services, or as part of a round-up) they would lose their job quicker than a flash. Most reviewers get paid an absolute pittance, somewhere in the region of £10-£20 a review isn't uncommon unless you write for one of the bigger magazines/sites, yet they still put in hours into every game in order to give the reader the most balanced view they possibly can. All for the princely sum of about £0.50 - £1.00 an hour, when you consider that most games require 10-15 hours minimum, some much, much more than that.

God, Yes. You had me worried for a moment back there. Best hurry up and finish Fable II.

the review posted by eighthours is imho way better and more balanced than this here.
( http://www.incgamers.com/Games/1943/revi... )
i really hoped that mr. gillen or mr. donlan would review this game but wtf

i just finished my first run (i had to get a hold of a modded xbox just for this) and i'd say that it is a solid 8/10 and not the second coming of smack a lot of reviewers make it out to be. (same with far cry 2... how anyone could award it a 9/10 -or even a 100% score- while keeping a straight face is beyond me)
it was fun while it lasted although it's certainly not the crack equivalent that makes you skip a day at work or your social life etc but at least it has some replay potential.

tomorrow i'll fetch my pre-ordered pc-version with high hopes that it will be mod-able despite the fact that bethesda isn't releasing a sdk (yet?).

looks great might get it come january when i have a bit more time to play it.

Thanks for all the elaboration here krudster, I think it's awesome you even read this dribble and you have me convinced. I was more than a little worried when this game seemed botched in the preview and suddenly hosannah in this review. I'm getting increasingly anxious over games websites ditching out tens for blockbuster games and reviews that read like the press release. The gamespot incident does not rub off easily I guess.

edit: don't mean to say your review reads like a press release, more like in general. Your review is actually pretty good, but I missed a rationale as to why the final review came out so different from the preview.

Great!

/waits for 360 to come back from repair... grrrrr

10?

Hilarious.