Critic in Exile: Is It OK to Finally Admit That I Didn't Really Like Fallout 3 All That Much?

Comments

• 
  Momo the Cow

  7/9/2009 10:22:27 AM

  Oh.... and kudos for having the honesty to admit your faults and own up, but now you're either committed to maintaining your honesty and journalistic integrity, or forfeiting your rightful ownership of the above.
  
  Best of luck.

  Reply »
• 
  Momo the Cow

  7/9/2009 10:16:21 AM

  I'm late to the thread and so I doubt anyone will read this, but I'll say I sympathise with your worries and doubts that led you to vote Fallout 3 as Game of the Year, but congratulations.... you've joined the rabble of commodity critics that help mediocre games like this made, and studios like Bethesda to stay their course without learning their lessons, and the industry as a whole to aspire to no higher than this dismal model.

  Reply »
• 
  Krey

  3/8/2009 9:04:55 PM

  The critic in me says, "Huzzah! Here's an old-school hardcore RPG! It's huge! It's epic! It comes in an awesome Collector's Edition which includes a lunch box! And it's a big thumb in the eye for casual games! Suck my V.A.T.S., Nintendo!"
  
  That's what the critic in you says? Sounds more like that's what your inner child would say. I don't believe you understand what a critic does.
  Also, old-school? You gotta be kidding me. If there is anything Fo3 isn't, it's old-school. I guess you don't know what old-school means either. Do you actually know the meaning of any of the words you use?

  Reply »
• 
  hogl

  1/29/2009 7:11:29 AM

  Great article!!
  
  I think the game would have been an instant classic it was released 5-10 years ago (with graphics matching that era). But for some reason, it just doesn't feel like one. I have the game lying around, I started it up one time where I knew I didn't have time to get immersed and haven't gotten around to it yet. I still think I will though.
  On a side note, I have three friends who bought the game, and all of them were ambivalent about it. They all appreciated the athmospere, but the story and persons didn't work for them. They all completed it though.
  
  I actually had a lot of fun with Oblivion, I just wish it had more depth. Some of the missions were really really interesting. But bring back the Morrowind island, that was amazing.

  Reply »
• 
  battling1

  1/28/2009 9:10:49 PM

  While I agree that fallout 3 was no where near as good as it could have been and has many fundamentally flawed characteristics (frankly the enemies keep getting stronger as you grow stronger model Bethesda uses makes leveling up so uneventful and almost dreaded), what you point out as a reason for not enjoying the game is npc interaction, role playing(while very shallow, atleast there were options), and the comercials emphasis on the games action. This makes it sound like you went in to playing an american rpg thinking it was a hack and slash. Essentially your reason for saying you voted for it was you felt pressured that you would be looked down upon because you thought it made you look shallow. I think you should try looking at the game for what it than what you wanted out of it.
  
  Now that I got the american rpg's need that stuff and its what makes them good rant out of the way, imo, you as a review should always, ALWAYS give your real opinion. If you didnt like something people will want to know, thats why we read the reviews. People will always disagree with you but if your job is giving your opinion you shouldn't hold back.

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  CG-Prophet

  1/28/2009 8:20:05 PM

  @nushmutt
  
  You should read Crispy Gamer. And that goes for the rest that jumped here from another site and blitzed the comments without actually reading the article in question. Read it and then use them fighting words ;)

  Reply »
• 
  snmn69

  1/28/2009 3:37:38 PM

  I believe this is one of those, "Better to keep your mouth shut and let the world think you are an idiot, than to open it and prove it." moments.

  Reply »
• 
  Kazona

  1/28/2009 2:23:34 PM

  So you voted for Fallout 3 as GOTY even though you didn't like it all that much because you were worried about losing credibility? In my eyes it's far worse to just go with the masses and lying not only to yourself, but also to your readers. And that is far more likely to cause your credibility to be damaged.

  Reply »
• 
  MortimerReed

  1/23/2009 10:31:45 AM

  Fallout 3 = EPIC PASS...or at least any RPG where I can convince NPCs to do my quest in exchange for a threesome.

  Reply »
• 
  Freduardo

  1/21/2009 3:48:26 AM

  In fairness, I'll start off my comment with the following: I hated Fallout 1 & 2. Found them utterly boring, could not play them to save my life. Got nearly to the end of Fallout 1 and just gave up. Wasteland was somehow more fun for me than those, probably due to that awesome paragraph book, and I finished that sucker.
  
  With that out of the way, Fallout 3 was easily my favorite game last year. The production values were great, the graphics were solid, it's easily moddable, the voice acting was well done, it's chock full of incredible detail, the story is engaging, and for me it was fun to play. Still is fun to play, in fact. I've been playing for months and still have yet to see everything I wanted to see or even finished the main storyline because I like trying it out different ways, putting in new challenges to the gameplay.
  
  As mentioned by previous commentors you're definitely backed in your dislike of the game by Fallout 1 & 2 purists: it's not a sequel to those games, and sometimes breaks canon.
  
  But I hated those games. If it really was Fallout 3 and made by some grandchild of Black Isle, I wouldn't buy it. Not my thing.
  
  As a sidenote, the Fallout 1 & 2 fans need to learn to embrace change. Pretend it says 'Wasteland 2' on the box, and maybe you'll feel better.

  Reply »
• 
  GusMastrapa

  1/20/2009 11:23:18 AM

  Wow, Jones. This story really attracted the tin-foil hat crazies.

  Reply »
• 
  Iozeph

  1/20/2009 11:02:37 AM

  "Man in the Arena" is an exceptional quote, but I'm not sure it's apt here.
  
  Fallout 1 & 2(a lesser extent for 2) were easily more innovative. They didn't have much competition, but that's because they were heralding the return of solid RPGs for gamers everywhere- something very few- if any- were daring to do at the time.
  
  Similarly, Fallout3 entered last year's PC arena without much competition to face(not so consoles). But what did Bethesda innovate? What risk was there?
  
  Bethsoft bought out a dying property for a song.(Thanks Herve Caen) And then handed us a glorified mod of Oblivion.-which was, in turn, was a glorified mod of Morrowind(their last semi-decent game and, itself, a poorly-executed, resource hogging, memory leaking console port).
  
  Ten years later- backed by Oblivion's sales, and an absurd amount of manufactured hype, was there really any question that TES V: Fallout
  would garner so much undeserved praise?
  
  If we're to apply "The Man In The Arena" to this topic, then I would venture that the "Arena" has diminished greatly.
  
  Bethesda winning multiple GOTY awards rings hollow, like a preening professional athlete making the rounds of small town contests to "compete" with relative unknowns.
  
  He walks over every one of them without breaking a sweat, hollering and pumping his arms wildly as he dares anyone else in the crowd to challenge him. The judges, easily cowed into submission, award him the medal and the victory, to little applause.
  
  With a satisfied smirk, the "winner" takes his bows, tosses the medal into the trunk of his car with the rest of his trophies, and climbs in. The spectators, still reeling, stare mutely as he flips them finger, and then peels out, tearing down the main stretch of town in search of fortune and glory in the next podunk burg.
  
  Congratulations, I guess.

  Reply »
• 
  23qwerty

  1/17/2009 4:33:09 PM

  Because a few people don't like it, it doesn't deserve Game of the Year?
  Fable 2 won G4's game of the year yet it was not even close to being GotY, same goes for Halo 3 last year.

  Reply »
• 
  23qwerty

  1/17/2009 4:31:55 PM

  I highly disagree with Scott here, Fallout 3 is easily one of the best games of the year, n doubt about it.

  Reply »
• 
  TheWhiteKnight

  1/17/2009 12:54:20 PM

  Everything I want to say is summed up by this quote by Theodore Roosevelt, titled "Man in the Arena."
  
  "It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."
  
  
  

  Reply »
• 
  Iozeph

  1/16/2009 12:33:25 PM

  Better to have kept silent and allowed the public's suspicions of poor ethics/standards in the gaming press to remain such, rather than confirming them here for all to see.
  
  Apart from its abysmal writing, Fallout3 fails to decide what it wants to be- even as a hybridisation of RPG lite(Bethesda's bread and butter) and FPS action.
  
  Unless you've invested heavily into a gun skill, you'll suffer greatly in ranged combat due to F3's gun wobble. I didn't find enjoy this mechanic in Deus Ex, and I'm no more fond of it almost ten years later.
  
  Wobble drags ranged combat down to a CQB slugfest where players load and reload game saves until their bullets hit "correctly". VATS, intended to remedy this somewhat, instead suffers the same handicaps while subjecting players to hours of mind-numbingly repetitive slow-motion.
  
  Top this off with a very a limited ammo supply, a clunky repair/degradation system, and an unreliable camera, and you have the recipe for a FPS nightmare.
  
  Having such cheques in place, in a FPS, where the most basic of abilities, aiming your weapon, is largely taken out of your hands, is frustrating. Sadly, it needn't have been this way.
  
  Bethesda could have ditched gun wobble in favour of a -more skill=more damage- system (a la Oblivion's archery system), and subsequently eliminated much the heartache from combat.
  
  Worse yet, is the setting. Fallout3's atmosphere shows how out of touch Bethesda is with the franchise. Per canon, 200 years have passed since the war. Why, then, does D.C. look like the bombs have barely fallen a week ago? Why, still, is mankind scattered into tiny pockets of civilisation that pale in comparison to the worst examples in the Mad Max films?
  
  200 years. Not only has the West Coast has saved humanity twice, they've also reestablished communications, trade, electricity, medicine, law enforcement, and a centralised government.
  
  200 years. And D.C. still lies in ruins. What a waste of potential. Game of the year, indeed...

  Reply »
• 
  MW

  1/14/2009 10:03:17 PM

  What? What? You're some kind of a game reviewer, and you lied while rating a game, because... telling the truth would require disagreeing with people? And that's the only reason?!? Are you not aware that this makes you a very poor game reviewer? Why are you here complaining about how bad you are at your work? Complaining, instead of apologizing?
  
  I don't mean any particular offense to you personally; you might be excellent at other things. But this is the worst review of anything that I have ever read. Were you fired for posting it? If not, then why would anyone take this site seriously?

  Reply »
• 
  thurauh1

  1/14/2009 3:07:24 PM

  Let's be frank here. Fallout 3 is indeed an RPG in which you talk to people to get the game moving along. You also do combat to get the game moving along. This game is neither Gears of War, Halo, Half-Life or Call of Duty 4. These are all great games (to me) in their own right. And is Fallout 3 supposedly.
  
  And yes, Scott, the Fallout universe, even in Fallout 3, is supposed to be bleak and depressing. Living in the Wasteland after the 'bomb' is not that fun....
  
  It is OK to not like Fallout 3 for private or personal reasons; the task assigned is still to review the game. Being a journalist, you should be able to distance yourself from the game in question. You need to be able to look at things somewhat objectively; this means that if you review and rpg, you need to review the game on its own merits; when you review a a shooter you compare it to other shooters and so on and so forth...
  
  

  Reply »
• 
  Melcene

  1/14/2009 12:53:40 PM

  I don't have a problem with the fact that you disliked the game for taste and style reasons. But I do have a few bones to pick with you.
  
  First, I am going to give you the "You're not an RPG person." Dragon Quest? First, you realize the last Dragon Quest was a PS2 title? Released in '05? Not to mention that most Square/Enix RPGs are cut of a different cloth than Western RPGs. So you show yourself to be that out of touch with RPG games, and you don't want to be called on it? Perhaps you should educate yourself more on the RPGs of today, or even the immediate yesterday, before you run off half-cocked.
  
  Second, you gave it ten hours, you say, and you deem this to be more than enough to make a fully informed opinion. In fact, you seem to imply that the three to four hours your peers invested were more than enough to make a fully informed decision about the game - well enough informed to write a bad review on it. This makes you just as bad as fanboys who play a game for an hour and decide it's god's gift to gaming.
  
  Next, who are you to decide for others whether they will like a game or not? You've turned two coworkers off to the game before they even got a chance to try it out. Just because it may not be their usual thing doesn't mean they won't like it. Many times gamers cross their comfort-genre for a game that is worth it. It is up to THEM, not you, to decide whether it is worth it.
  
  Finally, as others here have pointed out, you just admitted to voting for a game you don't even like. If you choose to vote for a game you didn't like, because you respect what that game has done, then you continue your respect, not blast the game. If you really disliked a game that much, you should not have voted for it - you have just shown that you are no better than fanboy sheep.
  
  Hopefully you can sleep better at night now that you have gotten this awful secret off your chest.

  Reply »
• 
  Li1t

  1/14/2009 10:45:31 AM

  I don't think Fallout 3 needed to be your game of the year, but this feature strikes me as part vengeful snipe at a game you didn't like and part guilty conscience.
  
  You don't have to like any particular game. I understand that when a game comes out that everyone's excited about, it can be a little alienating for someone who honestly doesn't like it, but that doesn't mean you're the only sane person in an industry gone mad. It also doesn't mean you should discourage someone new to the genre from playing Computer RPGs, as your words have obviously done to your boss. Strangely, lots of people like this genre of game.
  
  Lots of people do honestly like Fallout 3. It may take a while to get into, in may feature the worst birthday party ever, but that's kindof the point. The whole game paints the picture of a dystopic future, with you as the small fry trying to make a difference. It strikes me that you wanted a picture of a big hero in shining armour, when actually Bethesda deserve congratulations for not conforming to that stereotype.
  
  As for the advertising, advertising has always made something look more awesome than it was. In this case you're accusing of it advertising the wrong genre, but if it snagged someone who'd never looked beyond Halo 3 and introduced them to a new game genre that they liked, I'd be happy. I've seen plenty of adverts for slug-fests which made them look like they had more depth than they did, so what's wrong with the reverse?

  Reply »
• 
  Hippopenonomous1

  1/13/2009 3:00:47 PM

  You know what makes this game not depressing and boring? the radio, if you keep your Pipboy tuned to GNR it's actually fun. I would've stopped playing ages ago were it not for 3-dog.

  Reply »
• 
  BrotherGrimm

  1/13/2009 1:18:07 PM

  Wow...this article is such a shining example of why MOST video game journalism is a massive joke.
  
  1) You admit to voting for a game you did not necissarily like.
  2) You admit you played the game for less than 4 hours before forming an opinion.
  3) You wanted to vote for "The Force Unleashed" for GotY? Wow....

  Reply »
• 
  bartiaco

  1/13/2009 1:06:11 PM

  Scott,
  
  While I personally don't share your opinion on Fallout 3, I definitely respected your well thought out and reasoned piece. I have to say this is one of the better reviews I've read in a while (I don't normally comment on reviews).
  
  What I do find sad is that the game journalism is still so full of 'fanboy' culture that you (and I would imagine, many others) felt compelled to self censure. Giving yourself and anxiety attack.
  
  Differing opinions should celebrated and discussed, just like in other mediums.
  
  I noticed the same thing this year around MGS4. I played it. All of it. And as I read all of these reviews, and how it deserved to be the top of everyone's gamer lists, I could only wonder: Did we play the same game?
  
  Brian

  Reply »
• 
  Trulz

  1/13/2009 12:31:37 PM

  Way to go! You're why games journalism is a joke.

  Reply »
• 
  spenny

  1/13/2009 10:33:03 AM

  You voted for a game you didn't like? You know it's okay not to follow the herd.
  
  I mean how can I trust anything you say from now on knowing you just lie to fit in with everyone else?
  
  
  
  
  

  Reply »
• 
  spenny

  1/13/2009 10:28:23 AM

  You voted for a game you didn't really like? That's weak man. Stand up for what you believe in.

  Reply »
• 
  BCarruth

  1/13/2009 8:18:33 AM

  I'm about 45 hours in and looking forward to more. Scott's points are valid, each and every one of them, but I disagree with the conclusions. The game was misadvertised, plain and simple, and from there our assessments differ.
  
  Fallout 3 is a depressing game. You are constantly vulnerable, always too low on HP, short on ammo, food, water, and probably flirting with dangerous radiation poisoning at all times. Your inventory is cripplingly limited. Stats, perks, and gear only reduce this, never eliminate it, and you never reach a point where you can mow down an army of enemies with impunity. You will never reach an "experience surplus" (aka the Fable 2 phenomenon of "I might as well level Skill"). You are always an inch from screwed.
  
  Hate to pull this, but... so were Fallout 1 & 2. Fallout will not be everyone's cup of tea, not even every RPG fan. The setting has a very specific mood and the game mechanics support it.
  
  The people around you are NOT vending machines and they are not generally likeable. They're selfish, desperate, uncooperative, and infuriatingly focused on their needs instead of you, the player, the person with a camera over their head. In other words, they act like they're in more or less the same situation that you're in: always one clip or meal short.
  
  That the disparate elements of F3 work together, towards the same goal, as well as they do is testament to the strength of design, further supported by the art direction. As a creative work, Fallout 3 has no competition this year. Nothing comes close. As an entertaining interactive experience there's ample room for debate, and I'll be the first to say that for a lot of people it just won't be fun.
  
  Then again, maybe the medium is mature enough for us to, occasionally, recognize virtue beyond mass consumability. For all the arguments in favor of video games as an emerging artform, maybe it's time that we take them seriously as well and consider that sometimes art needs to offend, if only a little.

  Reply »
• 
  jackslackofsurprise

  1/13/2009 6:12:38 AM

  ElPresidente, thank you for your long post. It's good to know that *I* am not going mad.
  
  You absolutely summed up why your opinions "matter" and Scott's don't. All we ask from our critics is that they give an honest impression on what they see, with enough clues to give us an idea if it's something we'll be interested in. Critics don't make or break a product - even something panned can find a cult audience later on, and something well-reviewed will tank quickly if it sucks. They are the *first* guide; word-of-mouth is the last and longest.
  
  Internet media is there to be immediate rather than being something of lasting value. Because it doesn't have the editorial authority of some of the weightier print publications, the only way your voice is ever going to be listened to is if it is believed. There are a million blogs on the web and few are worth reading. ElPresidente, you summed up in your comments why I would be persuaded to read what you have to write because it is interesting and insightful. Having someone admit that they just followed the herd at the critical point just makes me think that their opinions just don't count for very much.
  
  To answer Scott's question, my experience is that people aren't buying Fallout 3 based on reviews at this stage - that only counted for the first week. People are recommending the game to their friends and that is what is persuading them to buy it - not the hype and not the ads.
  
  Oblivion doesn't continue to sell well because it was a cleverly-marketed title. People tell me that they bought it because their friends enjoyed it. It might not be your type of game, and it doesn't have to be. There is no obligation on your part to like it. All you ever had to do is to speak up at the time.
  
  If you want "mainstream", then the snobby cultural elite in high-school would have recognised a lack of individual thinking as its hallmark. If you really want to give one in the eye to the mainstream, try thinking for yourself.

  Reply »
• 
  JohnnySmash

  1/13/2009 6:11:47 AM

  I got hooked on Fallout 3 by watching my friend wander the wasteland finding quests and cool stuff along the way. It reminded me of the Mercenaries games only with a bigger purpose to wandering around as you actually found things and leveled up your charcter. It really appeared to be the ultimate adventure game I'd always wanted- honestly I was extatic when I played a GTA game where you could wander the countryside instead of just be in the city so it was like they took that aspect of exploration I love and multiplied it times a million.
  
  When I bought the game honestly I found the beginning really annoying, ammo was too hard to come by, and the areas and quests in the SE D.C. area were too linear. It was still fun and there were lots of extras to find, but I found more fun in wandering the wasteland and just killing stuff and finding new things.
  
  I think it's easy to misinterpret Fallout 3... it's easy to underestimate how much the RPG aspect matters, or fail to realize the huge world you can explore at will, or even to realize that it's a nonlinear game in the first place. You might also get confused with the inventory and combat, picking up everything or treating the fighting like Halo will leave you with a sour taste in your mouth.
  
  The second you "get it" though, it's amazing. I think Fallout 3 is the first game to tap a very untapped well- huge worlds to explore in a single-player game with incentive to explore them. Imagine a Mario game where you could just wander a giant contiguous mushroom kingdom finding stars and obstacles and quests for stars along the way? Fallout 3 has done that with the RPG/shooter genre. It deserves all the praise it gets.

  Reply »
• 
  XDoggStrafe

  1/12/2009 11:36:57 PM

  Honestly, I've never played Fallout 3, but I did play a bit of fallout 1 & 2, never really got into them. But that's not really what I wanted to say, what I wanted to say was I'm glad to see a reviewer say "I didn't like this game that much" despite everyone else on the planet loving it for no real reason. I personally hated Gears of War, I can't stand it. Bad experience with playing it and yet everywhere I looked my friends were saying how awesome this game was. It was infuriating that I couldn't like this game so much, it was supposedly better than Halo 2 or any other game I played. But it wasn't. It was garbage to me, which brought me to the question, why? Don't get me wrong, it had awesome graphics and an apparently good story, just not to me. My point though is that while I don't agree that you voted for something you don't like for Game of the year, you at least came out and said you don't like it later. Which is what I wish more reviewers would do, be flat out honest with people. No more of this hiding in the dark praying they aren't the one to get fired for not going with the crowd. So, congratulations to Mr.Scott Jones, you may have messed up bad, but you at least tried to fix it.

  Reply »
• 
  Azurecharade

  1/12/2009 9:35:57 PM

  I am not bad mouthing your job, Mr. Jones, nor the gaming journalist industry as a whole, and please don't take this as trolling...
  
  But this is the exact reason I think more people should stop listening to reviewers so much and actually play the game. Reviewers (usually) do a good job pointing out pros and cons of games, but most of the time the actual opinions are skewed, such as Mr. Jones vote for GotY.
  
  I personally found the start of the game particularly engaging, as it gave you somewhere you came from, and the rest of the wasteland enamored me as i wandered around aimlessly, discovering things(I didn't even go to megaton for the first 15 hours i played).
  
  Bland textures, yes. Very little direction, yes. Glitches out the ying yang, yes. But don't write it off as boring, when you know people are going to listen to you.

  Reply »
• 
  iamthemonkeyhead

  1/12/2009 8:11:55 PM

  Its interesting that people are calling dumpster diving an 'acquired taste' in RPGs. I love RPGs but I found a lot of them intolerably slow. Quite a contradiction, I know, but I have to agree that Bethesda is simply not that great at keeping me hooked (despite not having played Fallout3). I loved the first half of Oblivion until all those oblivion gates needed closing and it was simply too much and too boring. I loved the first hojillion hours I poured into Morrowind running around stealing things and having to complete idiotic quests that required me to run across the entire map while fending off those pterodactyl creatures. At some point you have to realise they just aren't good at rewarding you very convincingly or at moving away from utter mind-obliterating repetition.
  
  I also wanted to congratulate Scott Jones for coming clean in an industry that has often punished honesty and pressures you with making the most crowd-pleasing decisions for an often (not always) naive and intolerant readership and for the respect of your peers. However, I hope this serves as a lesson in the responsibilities of a journalist and the way that they may be forgotten along the way, because your vote for GOTY was technically inethical and may have lead to further purchases of a game.
  In any case, I have to admire your honesty again, however brown-nosing it appears.

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  RyanKuo

  1/12/2009 6:38:51 PM

  My favorite (music) critic, Simon Reynolds, wrote this about end-of-year lists the other day:
  
  "...for a certain kind of person there's always going to be a fatal confusion of Favourite and Important, matters-to-me and Matters, pleasure and 'truth' ... You can see various impulses battling it out--the gigantism of all-inclusiveness versus whittle-it-down brevity ... The shorter the list (the thinking goes) the less likely it'll succumb to worthiness, tokenism, dutiful eclecticism that doles out praise across the genrescape, and other liabilities of the profession."
  
  It arguably takes a more sophisticated critic to realize that these two concepts (favorite vs. important) exist side-by-side, let alone are often at odds with each other. That you cultivate a personal taste, with its own rules, alongside the supposedly objective critical one, which is built up by readers and some righteous critics to be some seamless, deterministic slide towards the Truth.
  
  Getting caught up in "worthiness, tokenism, dutiful eclecticism" is part of all criticism -- as a RESULT of striving for objectivity -- and it speaks volumes about games journalism that this is an alien concept, gets immediately mis-read as simple peer pressure.
  
  Also, this is the Scott Jones who dissed LittleBigPlanet (http://www.crispygamer.com/gamereviews/2008-10-28/littlebigplanet-ps3.aspx), to much consternation. So much for a lack of "honesty" or "objectivity."

  Reply »
• 
  nushmutt

  1/12/2009 6:27:43 PM

  Scott Jones,
  
  I don't know who you are. I don't read Crispy Gamer. But I felt compelled to make an account simply to tell you: I agree completely.
  
  I, too, enjoyed the physics-defying decapitations of the VATS system, the aesthetic of the Capital Wasteland, however depressing. I like bobbleheads.
  
  But I couldn't stand the endless conversations that seemed to go nowhere, of useless information. Choices are nice, and there were those -- but they were boring choices. Black and white choices. Even when something ended in an unexpected way it was still..anticlimactic. And boring.
  
  I couldn't stand the abundance of locations that had no soul or personality. Is that ANOTHER abandoned building? Why would I want to go in there? And I couldn't stand the story that never took off, like a plane that is supposed to go and, as you sit expectantly in your seat for the turbulence, you feel ... nothing, nothing, absolutely nothing.
  
  I really DO like RPGs. My favorite game is Planescape Torment, I've played Fallout 1 and 2, KOTOR I and II, Neverwinter Nights I and II (+ expansions). I played Icewind Dale II, Baldur's Gate II - I really like RPGs. But I didn't like Fallout 3, despite my incredible desire to WANT to like it.
  
  So when every gaming outlet began to spout how amazing this game was, how wonderful it was, how it was everything everyone expected and more...I was confused. It was like I had gone insane. But then I remembered that the most interesting character in the entire game was the dog, and I realized the truth: that it was not ME that was insane, but everyone else.
  
  So, thank you, Scott Jones. It's good to know the world hasn't gone crazy just yet.

  Reply »
• 
  ElPresidente

  1/12/2009 6:15:08 PM

  (Part The Last :P) For the record I quite liked Fallout 3. It wasn’t the Fallout I wanted (i.e. something that legitimately aped the deep mechanics and conversation systems of the first two games) but with Interplay no longer with us, Black Isle naught but a memory of the Nameless One and Troika a ghost that only a devoted few remember... well it does in a pinch. However it isn’t old-school, it isn’t hardcore and it isn’t really all that ‘Fallout’.
  I’m afraid that you have really messed up here Scott. You don’t understand the franchise, you don’t understand the marketing behind the product, you don’t understand the people who bought it and you definitely don’t understand the people who have supported the franchise for the 11 years it has been in existence.
  These are all minor crimes though compared to the big one... you didn’t have the testicular fortitude to do your job and say what YOU thought. Thankfully not all game critics are like this and while you may have shot the integrity of this website in the foot there are plenty of other publications both online and off that do what they are supposed to do and that is report honestly on what they think.

  Reply »
• 
  ElPresidente

  1/12/2009 6:14:34 PM

  (part 2) First lets us speak about the considerable Fallout fan base you were so afraid of insulting. Of the people singing Fallout 3’s praises I can guarantee that the vast majority were not and never have been a part of the Fallout fan base. Why? Because all the major Fallout communities... the fans that have been discussing this remarkable franchise for the past decade are exceptionally vocal in their dismissal of the game. No Mutants Allowed, RPG Codex, the list goes on...
  All of which, very neatly, brings us to our second point. “Voting for Fallout 3 felt like a vote for the old-school and the hardcore. After all the casual bullshit that Nintendo peddled in 08, my guess is that a vote for Fallout was a small catharsis for game writers.” – No. No and no. There is nothing hardcore or old-school about Fallout. Much of Fallout 3’s design hinged around making the game as accessible as possible to the same people that gobbled up Oblivion. The release of Oblivion saw a significant shift in the way Bethesda designs games and ‘hardcore’ aint it. “A thumb in the eye for casual gamers”? No. Just proof casual gamers have managed to insert their thumb into all aspects of our hobby, including what has traditionally been the least accessible genre – the RPG.
  Finally the ‘clever marketing’; ahhhh yes, blame the ad men. It was marketed as an RPG (which it only barely is if you’re a genre purist) and sold off the back of the Fallout name and the fact it was from the creators of Oblivion. Those two big points alone should be enough to provide even casual gamers with clues of what Fallout 3 contains. Failing that, well, there is a back of a box for a reason. Caveat Emptor – especially when information about the game’s content is so freely available.

  Reply »
• 
  ElPresidente

  1/12/2009 6:13:41 PM

  Well this is an embarrassing post to the say the least.
  I won’t pretend to have been in this game all that long (just four years) nor is the role of game critic one that I invest the majority of my time in (I write in my off hours) but to be honest not only does this post is insult your own integrity but you make the crime of, to use the cliché, tarring everyone in the industry with the same ignorant brush... and as a member of said industry I can’t say I’m pleased.
  If someone suggested to me that my reviews or my GOTY nominations for the publication I write express opinions that are not my own but rather the mindless parroting of what my instinct tells me my fellows feel... well, I would consider that a grave insult to my integrity. My magazine alone – in a year which saw the release of Half-Life 2 – saw significant disagreement between contributors when a significant portion of the team voted Troika’s swansong Bloodlines as the year’s best game. Most votes went to Half-Life 2 (which is entirely warranted, it is a great game) but when the magazine made print, significant mention was made of the fact that no, we didn’t all agree on the result. Oblivion got our game of the year when it was released in 2006 but most regular readers know that I hate the game because I do my job and write about my experiences. I never gave it a GOTY vote because I didn’t consider it GOTY material.
  It is your job to report on YOUR observations. Not to follow the flock. There is nothing to be proud of in ‘coming clean’; you didn’t do your job in the first place.
  But this is not the total extent of your critical faux pas - criminal lack of understanding of the subject matter under consideration comes sliding in at position number 2.

  Reply »
• 
  jackslackofsurprise

  1/12/2009 5:26:12 PM

  Do you also blame Marlboro for your smoking habit? They Made Me Do It?
  
  Journalism is no place for the weak. You have to tell the truth, even if that means losing friends, and God knows it's hard! Sometimes you might be tempted to find something to like if it nudges it up to a '6' from a '5'. Sometimes you get carried away and give a '10' to a game that only merits a '9'. Sometimes you might detest a genre you're asked to review, so unfairly give a low score because you literally don't know any better. In that case, you could blame the editor, because your opinion on that would be worth no more than my mother's, but you don't blame the marketing department for your own weaknesses.
  
  You have now undermined the faith of the reader in your integrity and in this website. Your mistake was not to admit now how you feel, but in failing to do so in the first place, when it was the only thing you were ever being asked to do.

  Reply »
• 
  wassano

  1/12/2009 3:13:31 PM

  I disliked Fallout 3 as well, but to say that Force Unleashed deserved the title of goty more is severely misguided. Just because you like a game doesn't make a good, just like a game you don't like doesn't make it bad.
  Force unleashed was buggy in ways games shouldn't be in this era if they are trying to be taken seriously. Graphical errors, gameplay issues (I equipped a costume after getting it and had to restart the level, and regain the cube while wearing the costume) I dislike GTAIV because I dislike sandbox games, but GTAIV did what it did well. I enjoyed playing fable2 but I recognize the problems in it. GOTY is a decision that requires objectivity no matter how much we hate it.

  Reply »
• 
  reverseclipse

  1/12/2009 2:24:12 PM

  Playing the first 10 hours got through the most challenging parts. After that you're too superpowered to take down by anything but a deathclaw.
  
  I love the fallout idea and have been waiting for another taste of the wastes since fallout 2. I'm not one of those guys from NMA who think the game is crap because its not just like the originals. I like what Bethesda did with the concept, but there isn't enough to differentiate characters.
  
  I miss being special! In the first couple games if you didn't chose good gun skills you were in big trouble, but there were parts of the game with huge rewards for having non-combat skills. Now almost all the quests are open and the rewards aren't that great.
  
  I miss the feeling of imminent death. I remember walking into a raider camp and having my head shot of instantly. That's how it should be! Having a god character too early breaks the illusion of the wastes that they're trying so hard to make.
  
  Those are my only real problems with the game. I played though on the 360 and then got the pc version. I'm hoping that a balance mod and maybe some weapons mods will make it more what i wanted.
  
  I have a ton of respect for Bethesda releasing their dev tools to modders. There is still active Morrowind activity, so there is lots of hope for fallout 3.
  
  Thanks for bringing up your problems with fallout. Hopefully these things will be addressed in the next one.

  Reply »
• 
  gwlaw99

  1/12/2009 12:18:46 PM

  I have to agree with the other posters that say that fallout 3 has many flaws, but the ones you listed were silly. It just sounds like you haven't played the game that much. By lvl 3 you can see a huge difference if you pump up small guns and you haven't even touched some of the better quests in the game (ie the Replicated Man). I loved Fallout 3, but it does have some easily fixable major flaws.
  
  1. Having good or bad Karma has no consequence except for companions.
  2. After Rivet City, the main quest is boring as hell.
  3. Many major areas are just dungeon crawls with no quest associated with them. And companions have no quests and minimal storyline.
  4. There is no branching in the main quest. It's the same no matter how you role play until the very last part and that choice is minor to game play.
  5. Skill checks in dialogue except speech are useless.
  6. The overall dialog writing is poor.
  7. The game is too easy at higher levels even on hardest mode.
  
  That said the real fun of the game is just trying to survive and thrive in post apocalyptic wasteland.

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  evohollywood

  1/12/2009 10:17:29 AM

  @RyanKuo and MK81: FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!

  Reply »
• 
  Foe_Monkey

  1/12/2009 10:12:59 AM

  I wanted to play it, it sounded fun, but Jones talked me out of it. Now I feel like I have to play it to see what all the fuss is about.

  Reply »
• 
  Archives66

  1/11/2009 10:35:47 PM

  "As I endured those 10 hours -- and don't give me any of this 'you're not an RPG person' business; while role-playing games are far from my favorite genre, I have played my fair share of Dragon Quest games over the years..."
  
  But you're not an RPG person. Well not a Western-style RPG person.

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  RyanKuo

  1/10/2009 12:20:22 PM

  No point, just an observation. You're a hands-not-falling-off-in-the-post-nuclear-wasteland type of person.

  Reply »
• 
  MK81

  1/10/2009 12:04:42 PM

  So, your point is?

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  RyanKuo

  1/10/2009 11:56:45 AM

  Well, hands not falling off was #1, so...

  Reply »
• 
  MK81

  1/10/2009 11:40:09 AM

  It would take a lot more than that to fix Fallout 3. You completely missed the point. Unkillable kids are the least of the problems that bug me in Fallout 3.

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  RyanKuo

  1/10/2009 11:10:35 AM

  So ... it would be a smarter game if you could shoot a kid in the chest with a real rocket launcher as he was running in a zig-zag away from you and it would blow a big-ass hole in his chest and his hands didn't fall off? To various effects with different skill sets?

  Reply »
• 
  MK81

  1/10/2009 6:55:51 AM

  LOL! You know why Fallout 3 sold so well? It sold so well because people read bribed reviews which praise games even when they are nothing out of the ordinary. Fallout 3 is an ok game, medicore at best, yet all the sites are giving it incredibly high scores. And what is Fallout 3? Lets take a look:
  1. You have incredibly stupid gore. I mean, you shoot a guy in the chest and his hands fall off, like he is made from dried shit.
  2. You have teddy bear rocket launcher and in Fallout 3 a teddy bear to the chest means R.I.P.
  3. You have dumb quests which make you run around and get yourself irradiated, so some crazy chick could examine the effects of radiation
  4. You have retarded AI, in which enemies just run straight at you.
  5. VATS is broken mechanic which allows you to win against everyone using the same tactic again and again, making skills and diversity in combat redundant.
  6. Writing in the game is atrocious, like it was written by a 10-year old.
  7. The world should have been post apocalyptic, and yet it's full of people and enemies wherever you go.
  8. Apparently there is no clean water and yet people die from thirst, although you have robots with unlimited water supply.
  9. You can be a murderer and a real hell spawn who kills everyone at sight, yet you can still have good karma if you use the unlimited water supply and give it around to beggars!! That is just retarded.
  10. You have unkillable NPCs and children.
  There is hundreds of stuff I could find that are just WRONG in Fallout 3. Now I am sorry, but I have played many, many better games and Fallout 3 is just WRONG! Sure, if you are a kid you may admire the stupid gore and laugh your ass off when you shoot someone in the chest and you see the same slow motion camera for 5000 th time, but for me that is just repetitive and boring. Now, don't get me wrong, Fallout 3 is a medicore game. It has it's moments, but most of the mainstream media just closes their eyes at obvious flaws and just goes with the rest. WRONG!

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  CG-Prophet

  1/10/2009 6:37:39 AM

  Gus, I can tell you have never been poor. I love scrounging for stuff. What I don't like is breaking a bunch of lockpicks to find a spool of yarn and five gold.
  
  Five gold will buy me an onion, Bethesda.
  
  Yeah, yeah i'm living in the past.

  Reply »
• 
  GusMastrapa

  1/9/2009 5:16:15 PM

  The "dumbed down" argument is asinine. There are already three "smartened up" Fallout 3 games out there to play. The games are so good we don't really need another one. And if we did get another one we wouldn't be talking about it because it would have sold miserably. Case in point Valkryia Chronicles -- outstanding tactics game for the PS3 sells 33k copies.

  Reply »
• 
  MK81

  1/9/2009 7:31:52 AM

  You know, I salute you for disliking Fallout 3, but it seems to me you dislike it for completely wrong reasons. It seems to me you don't like the game because you have to think and use your brain instead of just running around and shooting things like in Bioshock. But the worst thing is that Fallout 3 is actually dumbed down Fallout. It is nowhere near complex or deep as original Fallouts and in Fallout 3 you have to use your brain far less then in old school RPGs. Fallout 3 sucks as a shooter and it sucks as RPG. And just so you know most Fallout fans hate Fallout 3, because it is full of next gen crap that is far from true innovation.
  
  Salute!

  Reply »
• 
  GusMastrapa

  1/8/2009 5:26:26 PM

  It's funny that you voted Bioshock last year, because while I liked the game world, I found the scrounging for stuff and constant menu manipulation took me out of the game -- one that I wanted to be immersed in. In Fallout 3 I think Bethesda better managed to make a game out of all the loot organization, repair, etc. In Bioshock I felt like it was getting in the way of me being in Rapture. Also, I kinda wish Bioshock wasn't a shooter. My best for last year was unequivocally Portal.

  Reply »
• 
  JohnKeefer

  1/8/2009 2:37:39 PM

  Bring on the disagreement, the fights, the pummeling about the head and face. The idea of the Game Trust is to present diversity in opinions and not a one-site-voice that is out there now. We love dissenting opinions and highbrow discussions. We love fun, we love games, and we love ANY dissertation that encompasses all of it.

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  RyanKuo

  1/8/2009 10:23:29 AM

  It seems pretty normal for critics to have to make a difficult choice between personal favorites and Important Creations. Hence the "it just felt right even though I actually hated it, etc" mentality. Personally, I'm much more interested in reading about Scott's (and anyone's) personal "crappy" taste in games rather than some general consensus that nobody can that strongly disagree with.
  
  It could be a good sign - that there's an increasingly strong sense of diversity in games, and room for disagreements to happen without leading to someone being crucified. Not that critical "objectivity" should go out the window, but it should be balanced with a healthy dose of dissent.

  Reply »
• 
  Chasmang

  1/8/2009 10:17:33 AM

  I felt kinda' the same way, being a Wii-owner and everything, but I would say Professor Layton & The Curious Village was my GOTY.
  
  I don't see anything wrong with voting for smaller, under the radar games. It's not a question of what game do people THINK will be GOTY or WANT to be GOTY, but PLAYS like GOTY, and it sounds to me like PixelJunk Monsters was the closest thing you had to a GOTY.

  Reply »
• 
  ScottJones

  1/8/2009 8:44:46 AM

  Mastrapa! I wasn't looking for your forgiveness. You big, lovable bastard.
  
  As for why I voted for Fallout 3...well, honestly, I felt like there were no obvious choices for me this year. (As there was with BioShock last year. Which I played. Replayed. Then re-replayed.) All my choices seemed kind of crummy and terribly low-brow this year. The game I sunk the most hours into in 08 was probably PixelJunk Monsters. (Side note: Playing through Gears 2 now; man, what a piece of total crap.) But does that make PJM Game of the Yr. material? That's my question. Will we see a year in the not-so-distant future where a smaller, downloadable game wins this title?
  
  Some of the games that I had the highest hopes for--Resistance 2, for example--kicked me in the pants. So at year-end I was left with a lot of guilty pleasures, but no clear GoTY winner. As I think a lot of us were this year.
  
  One more thing: voting for Fallout 3 felt like a vote for the old-school and the hardcore. After all the casual bullshit that Nintendo peddled in 08, my guess is that a vote for Fallout was a small catharsis for game writers.

  Reply »
• 
  strictmachine

  1/8/2009 6:31:02 AM

  oh jeez...i guess the pitchforks will be aimed at me when i say i traded in my psp and games for fallout 3 at ebgames, only to sell it on craigslist 3 days later after lots of disappointment. i'd honestly say a game like Fallout 3 is not made for someone with ADD like myself- i simply can't get into a game that in depth. i'm to blame. however, great concept- much rather see this with a combo GOW strategy.

  Reply »
• 
  Chasmang

  1/8/2009 1:27:17 AM

  While I'm glad you took the time to explain why you dislike Fallout 3 (I couldn't agree more; the game is simply far too niche to be receiving this much praise), I'm confused as to why you voted it game of the year.
  
  Was it just peer pressure or do you honestly think the game deserves that title based on the developer's "ambition"? If it's the latter, you've got to be joking.
  
  Who cares about ambition? I could have an idea for the most incredible RPG ever made, then throw some horrible game together in RPG Maker and have people play it. That doesn't make it a good game in any way.
  
  This just strikes me as a bit unethical.

  Reply »
• 
  GusMastrapa

  1/7/2009 7:20:01 PM

  All is forgiven, Scott.
  
  And Ryan that new GECK mod-making tool set for Fallout 3 makes the Drifting Classroom experience possible in the Capitol City Wasteland. You probably still can't kill kids, though.

  Reply »
• 
  ScottJones

  1/7/2009 5:35:08 PM

  This was a funny piece to write. It began as a kind of confessional, but as I wrote it (and gathered feedback from Fudge, Ryan, and Vogel), I began to explore the strange pressure that I feel as a critic, particularly at the end of the year. There are moments when I feel like I have to put my crappy taste aside, don my critic's beret, and do the right thing.
  
  And when my tastes don't run with the rest of the industry, I feel a weird insecurity creep in. Am I right? Wrong? What right do I have to write about games? Who do I think I am? What was I thinking wearing this shirt today? Etc. So the story isn't so much about whether or not Fallout 3 was good for this reason or bad for that reason; but rather about the choices I make as a critic, and why I make them.

  Reply »
• 
  the.skunkape

  1/7/2009 5:29:27 PM

  I like Fallout 3, but I have to admit that I think I liked Force Unleashed better. I know the games are completely different in terms of genre, but I found it more playable in spite of the bugs I experienced playing it.
  
  Don't get me wrong. I love post-apocalyptic RPG's. You're talking to a guy who played Gamma World with his middle-school RPG group in 8th grade for a year. I've seen every Mad Max movie and loved them. Hell, I even liked Night of the Comet. I think that there are elements of the game that need to be fixed or dumped. Neverwinter Nights has that same element within it. Talking to bots. I've played RPG's my whole life. The GM always managed to make the NPC's worth talking to. Video games just aren't that good yet. It's hard to find an AI script that's can replace a good Game Master.

  Reply »
• 
  shred

  1/7/2009 4:36:35 PM

  I loved Fallout, it was among my favorite games of the '90s. Fallout 3 managed to keep the spirit and a surprising amount of the mechanics of the first games while adding in an open-world beauty and a genuine sense of loss that really blew me away.
  
  Scott, it's OK not to like Fallout 3. But saying that you know about RPGs because you played Dragon Quest is like saying that you're familiar with mexican food because you've eaten a nacho-cheese Dorito. They're not remotely the same thing, despite some superficial similarities.
  
  "Ten hours probably isn't enough time to see tangible effects in stat-boosting. But after 10 hours of carefully making these choices, shouldn't I get something -- anything -- in return?" From this comment, I'm going to guess that you spread your points around, trying to be a little bit good at a lot of things. That's a valid strategy but not a terribly rewarding one.
  
  Fallout 3 has always encouraged specialization; you only really start seeing notable improvements once you've boosted a stat a lot, and to do so you have to make choices.
  
  Until late in the game (when perks and stat-improving bobbleheads make it easier to be good at everything), you need to decide what ROLE you want to play. Are you a sharpshooting diplomat? A kung-fu fighting thief? A big bruiser with a minigun? Fallout 3 supports and even rewards each of these styles of play, and punishes the generalist.

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  RyanKuo

  1/7/2009 4:18:54 PM

  Oh, OK, so the game doesn't have to play out in a depressing way. I was picturing something like Umezu's "The Drifting Classroom" ... more Dissection than Radiohead.

  Reply »
• 
  GusMastrapa

  1/7/2009 3:09:56 PM

  Why do people read "The Road?" The book is morbid in the extreme and I think people need that from time to time -- to try death on for a while and try to figure out how they'll face it. But Fallout 3 I think is a little different. The setting is depressing, but you can set it right. You can't undo the nukes, but you can score minor moral victories. You can prove that humanity deserves to survive. Or you can just wallow in defeatism and drag the last bits of civilization down the drain.

  Reply »
• 
  The_Skipper

  1/7/2009 2:15:05 PM

  It is kind of like listening to a Radiohead album. It grows on you and you find nice little nuggets as you play (like Jones I got the sheriff killed and after breaking into his home found his kid) that, while depressing, also make the game interesting. You just have to be in the right mood.
  
  On the gameplay itself, combat has grown on me. The Vats system that lets you think through your best targeting options, plus the multitude of weapons makes it more fun than simply blowing off a mutant's head (although that is rewarding). I found for example that the sledge hammer is the best option for dealing with the random dogs and pig creatures that suddenly show up and start chewing on my legs. I hate wasting precious ammo on them and the sledge is brutally fun.

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  RyanKuo

  1/7/2009 1:36:19 PM

  I'm interested in the 'depressing' angle. A depressing book is one thing. Why would you want to actively play a game that depresses you? (Have not played this game yet.) Is there some kind of catharsis to be found in the journey? Are there any moments of levity amidst all the gloom? Is the actual gameplay fun enough to justify the depression? Or is there some vicarious fun to be had in the depression itself?

  Reply »
• 
  The_Skipper

  1/7/2009 1:01:04 PM

  I think a lot of what Scott wrote is true - the first hour almost lost me. Then the combat system frustrated me until I figured it out. But then I got hooked. Probably 12 hours in now I agree with Gus that this game is for those with an acquired taste for RPGs. I really enjoy the dumpster diving and the agony of choice - do I really need the two of the same weapon (for repairs of course) or should I dump a 10 mm gun for a rare book (or toy car)? I kept the car (I have 2 real kids at home after all). So I found that it is possible to enjoy something so thoroughly depressing. Would I enjoy it more with a less depressing environment? Maybe. But then again gaming allows us to live out fantasy worlds that are thankfully just that. I still give it a thumbs up (or should i say "Buy it"?)

  Reply »
• 
  DaveLong

  1/7/2009 12:33:52 PM

  Once we got down to the final three or whatever options we could vote on for Game of the Year here at Crispy, and I realized I hadn't played any of them or they weren't my thing, I simply didn't put in a final vote.
  
  Sometimes what everyone else loves just isn't your bag.

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  w1ndst0rm

  1/7/2009 11:10:44 AM

  I don't have a dog in this fight but I came here expecting to type, "You contrarian bastard!" But instead I found a thought out introspective piece. And more importantly an introspective piece sans navel gazing. Although you do still need to man up and speak sooner, pansy.
  
  (ps. Gus, you are still playing Halo 3 wrong.)

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  CaptainHomeless

  1/6/2009 9:55:23 PM

  One of my favorite things about Fallout 3 is its unrelenting depressing-ness. :)
  
  But seriously, you shoulda spoken up! I'm the guy who voted for "Professor Layton and the Curious Village" as his second-place GOTY ... I'm all for people expressing their personal opinions on games.

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  CG-Gabe

  1/6/2009 9:53:53 PM

  Okay, maybe one or two Nerf darts to the head.

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  CG-Gabe

  1/6/2009 9:51:52 PM

  I know CaptainHomeless can be kind of scary, but he's really a pussycat. You could have voted initially for what you really thought should have been Game of the Year without fear of reprisals.

  Reply »
• 
  Granny_Goodness

  1/6/2009 9:21:51 PM

  I am sooo glad some one else dosnt like it haha. People at work are all what are you talking about its fun. Dont care for it at all.

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  JasonMcMaster

  1/6/2009 9:10:30 PM

  Seriously, though, I really liked Fallout 3 but I can understand where it would leave some feeling cold.

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  JasonMcMaster

  1/6/2009 9:00:10 PM

  Don't make us order a code red on you Jones.

  Reply »
• 
  GusMastrapa

  1/6/2009 8:26:00 PM

  I think RPGs, especially those that hew to the old ways, are becoming like foreign and art films. They're an acquired taste. Very rewarding, but you're going to have to read some subtitles.
  
  There's that idea of five minutes of gameplay that make the core of a game. In Halo it's shooting your enemy full of lead, running close and butting him with your rifle. In Fallout 3 its scrounging through rubbish, getting jumped on by a Ghoul, dispatching the fiend via vats, then looting the guy, realizing that you have to pick between the carton of cigarettes he dropped and the pristine book you found in a a dumpster. I'll always go for the game that forces me to make those interesting decisions.

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  CG-Prophet

  1/6/2009 7:30:27 PM

  I liked Fallout 3 - it wasn't my GOTY but it was fun, if now flawed. I get what you're saying here and feel the same way about Dead Space and Mirror's Edge; some games, for some people just aren't that fun.
  
  

  Reply »

Want a new look on the discussion?
» Take It to the Forums

Leave a Comment