Jump to content
The Community Blog (An Invitation)

The Reviews

Pop
 Share

Recommended Posts

zkylon

zkylon

Posted
Posted
What did Gamestar give Fallout 3?

The German Gamestar gave F3 93%.

 

Tomorow when the first subscribers get the new GS issue I'll post the AP score here.

Uh, well, 93% for Fallout 3 isn't so good in my book but might be good for AP...

fuZZ

fuZZ

Posted
Posted
I think zkylon means that he disagrees with the score of 93% for Fallout 3.

 

why would anyone do that it was a good game IMO

Deraldin

Deraldin

Posted
Posted
I think zkylon means that he disagrees with the score of 93% for Fallout 3.

 

why would anyone do that it was a good game IMO

 

Because some people don't think it is a good game? Because some people think that it's merely okay rather than 90+ best ever material? Because Bethesda Fallout is Fallout in name only? :lol:

Thorton_AP

Thorton_AP

Posted
Posted

A lot of people (especially if you go onto boards like RPGCodex, NMA, and DAC, as well as even this board) do not think that Fallout 3 is a very good game, especially when compared to the other Fallout games.

 

Unfair perhaps, but to them Fallout 3 would probably be rated a bit higher if it wasn't actually called a Fallout game.

Klemer

Klemer

Posted
Posted
A lot of people (especially if you go onto boards like RPGCodex, NMA, and DAC, as well as even this board) do not think that Fallout 3 is a very good game, especially when compared to the other Fallout games.

 

Unfair perhaps, but to them Fallout 3 would probably be rated a bit higher if it wasn't actually called a Fallout game.

 

:p

 

If anything Fallout 3 made me miss how Fallout 1 and 2 were. I don't mind FO3 but as a fallout title I didn't like it.

worcanna

worcanna

Posted
Posted

Most people feel that way with Fallout 3. Its a very good game...just not really a fallout game, more a mod someone made in the fallout universe. :p.

 

Back on topic, i find myself being a little be confused by the reviews. Almost every video i have seen has shown off very little gameplay and if the gameplay isn't that bad, why not show it off?. So far, only the Game-night video showed ANYTHING of worth but that was a beta build. I guess il known soon. For the price on steam, i think it was worth the risk...but ive been burned by obsidian before. :p so...who knows.

 

I will say this, 80%+ scores for most reviews were enough to make me look at the gameplay footage more to see if i was just going mad.

Gorth

Gorth

Posted
Posted

Just speculation, mind you, but maybe showing too much gameplay would give too many spoilers?

 

Information is an asset. It gets choppped up and sold piecemeal to the highest bidders (doesn't have to be money, can be "return favours"). What will the press/reviewers offer in return for snippets of info here and there?

“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” - Albert Einstein
 

worcanna

worcanna

Posted
Posted (edited)
Just speculation, mind you, but maybe showing too much gameplay would give too many spoilers?

 

Information is an asset. It gets chopped up and sold piecemeal to the highest bidders (doesn't have to be money, can be "return favours"). What will the press/reviewers offer in return for snippets of info here and there?

 

Logic loop, here we come.

 

Okay. So spoilers via game-play footage, funny how about 99% of the games out there manage it without spoilers, more so in games like RPGs and such where even the monsters you fight become spoilers to the areas your in. Simply showing things like "How things work" wouldn't be hard. There are videos of the conversation system (Which is the most vague system ive seen, how exactly do you know what your going to say, a stance dosn't equal response to most things i find. But then, its a spy film. Il take it with a pinch of un-reality). What you get in return for information?...rather a easy answer. You get people to see what your game entails, details of the game itself and weather its worth putting down money. Since you wont be doing a demo im guessing, having information out there that people can look up outside of conversation system seems a smart idea. Even Gametrailers preview was rather short for them because they just didn't seem to have information.

 

But then, here comes the logic loop. Information brings sales, if your not 100% confident in your game or if you know there are mistakes and errors, i can see why little information would be a good thing. The "art of misdirection" would fit rather well. And no, im not bashing your game. Id not of put money down if i wasn't willing to try it now would i? What im requesting is maybe some logical thought behind trying to sell a game. You get people hyped for a game with gameplay footage that shows of a variety of things without spoilers. If other games out there can do it, it there for isn't impossible, right? :p

 

Also "Return favors" being? Considering the other groups variation on favors being more often then not good review scores, id be very concerned about you saying that. >.>....

Edited by worcanna
Bendu

Bendu

Posted
Posted

PC Games (Germany): 82 %

 

 

(They rated ME 1 with 85 %, ME2 with 88 % and FO3 with 90 &)

zkylon

zkylon

Posted
Posted
I think zkylon means that he disagrees with the score of 93% for Fallout 3.

Yeah, sorry for not making that clear. 93 is way of the charts for Fallout 3. At least, it looks worse and has worse AI than AP, has no multiplayer and at the same time fails at everything AP is awesome (choices, good writing, well thought characters). But well, goes to show how much marketing influences a review.

 

Anyways, better not enter a Fallout 3 debate here. I'm just rooting for AP and feeling happy.

Rostere

Rostere

Posted
Posted
Yeah, sorry for not making that clear. 93 is way of the charts for Fallout 3. At least, it looks worse and has worse AI than AP, has no multiplayer and at the same time fails at everything AP is awesome (choices, good writing, well thought characters). But well, goes to show how much marketing influences a review.

 

Anyways, better not enter a Fallout 3 debate here. I'm just rooting for AP and feeling happy.

 

Fallout 3 does have a lot of funny references and details and a good atmosphere (although different from the originals) though. When it first came out I was positively surprised. On a scale where 0 is Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing and 100 is Torment I'd give Fallout 3 a score somewhere between 50 and 60.

 

Based on the reviews I've seen thus far, Alpha Protocol would get a score somewhere around 80 on the same scale. But since none of the reviews have emphasized what I think is important in the game, that might be a low estimate.

"Well, overkill is my middle name. And my last name. And all of my other names as well!"

qaz123

qaz123

Posted
Posted (edited)
I think zkylon means that he disagrees with the score of 93% for Fallout 3.

Yeah, sorry for not making that clear. 93 is way of the charts for Fallout 3. At least, it looks worse and has worse AI than AP, has no multiplayer and at the same time fails at everything AP is awesome (choices, good writing, well thought characters). But well, goes to show how much marketing influences a review.

 

Anyways, better not enter a Fallout 3 debate here. I'm just rooting for AP and feeling happy.

 

 

Really don't understand all the FO hate. In fact, I was playing it recently to pass time until Red Dead Redemption and its still a lot of fun imo. It is definitely not a FO:BoS.

 

Why would fallout 3 need to have multiplayer?

 

Actually, I don't think AP looks better than FO3 and even if it does, AP should look better than FO3 since its releasing almost 2 years after the fact. Also, the AI comparison is debatable. FO3's AI was far from the industry's best, but the same can be said about AP. I don't see a huge gap of difference between them.

 

You can say it was good marketing with a little wine and dining, but truth is FO3 was going to get good scores regardless. (except from NMA ;) ) On the consoles, games like morrowind, oblivion, and bioware's offerings are king. However, I don't think all the marketing in the world is going to help AP not get slammed in the graphics department. Also, if I was a betting man, I'd wager that every other review will compare AP to ME2 with ME2 being perceived as the better. I'm not saying this is fair or not, but its likely to happen.

 

Anyways, I really hope AP does well and Obsidian makes bank. Definitely hyped for this and New Vegas.

 

2010 is Obsidian's year. ;)

Edited by qaz123
qaz123

qaz123

Posted
Posted (edited)
To be clear, when I (and presumably others) say that AP "looks better" than FO3, I'm not meaning graphically. It looks like a better game IMO.

 

Ok, I must of got confused. :p AP definitly looks great. (I'm not meaning graphically j/k) Although, FO3 and AP are very different. FO3 is more of a sandbox game. It did have a karma system but that could be greatly abused. One minute you're nuking a town and in your next breath giving water to wastelanders so you're an angel again. :shifty: They even added perks for insta karma make-overs. While AP is a game with the tag-line "your weapon is choice" with little second chances in dialog/missions from what I've seen.

 

It just seems odd that it is getting compared to FO3 and even more odd that zkylon said FO3 failed at everything. :ermm: Also, even if AP looks awesome we have yet to play it.

Edited by qaz123
zkylon

zkylon

Posted
Posted
Really don't understand all the FO hate. In fact, I was playing it recently to pass time until Red Dead Redemption and its still a lot of fun imo. It is definitely not a FO:BoS.

 

Why would fallout 3 need to have multiplayer?

 

Actually, I don't think AP looks better than FO3 and even if it does, AP should look better than FO3 since its releasing almost 2 years after the fact. Also, the AI comparison is debatable. FO3's AI was far from the industry's best, but the same can be said about AP. I don't see a huge gap of difference between them.

 

You can say it was good marketing with a little wine and dining, but truth is FO3 was going to get good scores regardless. (except from NMA :shifty: ) On the consoles, games like morrowind, oblivion, and bioware's offerings are king. However, I don't think all the marketing in the world is going to help AP not get slammed in the graphics department. Also, if I was a betting man, I'd wager that every other review will compare AP to ME2 with ME2 being perceived as the better. I'm not saying this is fair or not, but its likely to happen.

 

Anyways, I really hope AP does well and Obsidian makes bank. Definitely hyped for this and New Vegas.

 

2010 is Obsidian's year. :p

I'm just saying that the same complaints about AP could be transferred to FO3, and that 10-15 points of difference are what expensive marketing's for (just like with Mass Effect, Oblivion, etc...). And to clarify: i said Fallout 3 "fails at everything AP is awesome (choices, good writing, well thought characters)".

 

I just compare it to FO3 because it's a credibility check.

qaz123

qaz123

Posted
Posted
I'm just saying that the same complaints about AP could be transferred to FO3, and that 10-15 points of difference are what expensive marketing's for (just like with Mass Effect, Oblivion, etc...). And to clarify: i said Fallout 3 "fails at everything AP is awesome (choices, good writing, well thought characters)".

 

I just compare it to FO3 because it's a credibility check.

 

Well, even if it is true, AP should be better than a two year old game not have its faults comparable to it. I'd stack it up against ME2, a 2010 rpg, but I guess will have enough of those comparsions soon.

WorstUsernameEver

WorstUsernameEver

Posted
Posted
I'm just saying that the same complaints about AP could be transferred to FO3, and that 10-15 points of difference are what expensive marketing's for (just like with Mass Effect, Oblivion, etc...). And to clarify: i said Fallout 3 "fails at everything AP is awesome (choices, good writing, well thought characters)".

 

I just compare it to FO3 because it's a credibility check.

 

Well, even if it is true, AP should be better than a two year old game not have its faults comparable to it. I'd stack it up against ME2, a 2010 rpg, but I guess will have enough of those comparsions soon.

 

Meh, the only thing in which Alpha Protocol should be superior to a 2008 game are technical aspects.

I mean, most of RPG, especially hybrids, are still inferior to games like Arcanum, Fallout and Deus Ex, by your reasoning, they don't deserve so much praise...

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...