Well maybe heres the problem Dannager.
If you are one that goes by what reviews and the self-proclaimed critics say, then we are going to disagree on a great part of what makes a good game.
No, I go by what
I say is a good game. But having the support of the entire video game critic community behind my position sure is nice.
I place very little weight on reviews, and only ever consult them for a general, across the board overview of the game. ie If 20 review sites say a gameis bad, chances are it's bad and I steer clear. When 20 say a game is great, I pay little heed to it when the game happens to be extremely hyped up, and responsible for sizeable advertising campaigns.
...so you believe that video game review scores are artificially inflated by hype?
I also have a fair few journalist friends who have written what I would consider critical reviews, only to have them edited to reflect a completely different opinion soley because the site or publication could not afford to lose any marketing sales from that publisher. There is a large behind-the-scenes battle going on.
That's a shame, but that only happens to major review sites (and I imagine it isn't the norm there). Even the small-time guys loved Oblivion.
Ever noticed how previews all say the game is going to be the next best thing, and then the review says it's "ok". Happens too often for comfort.
We're not talking about previews. We're talking about reviews. Of games they've done that are already out. And that have been glowing.
If you think the review sites are objective, then you are living in a fantasy world, I'm sorry to break it to you.
I'm not under some false perception that they're perfectly objective. I
am under the impression that when
every major game critic exhorts the glories of a game, that game is probably pretty good.
Bad is a very subjective term Dannager. Hence why we have a debate about reviews and their worth. One mans bad is not anothers. I've liked some terrible games, because they have done one or two things exceptionally well, yet largely they were panned and said to be bad games.
Yeah, that would have some merit if they were able to judge whether or not the game is bad, but they aren't. It hasn't come out yet. You can't call a game bad if no one has played it.
Polished should be a requirement of a game.
I agree. I also think that fantastic gameplay elements, stellar graphics, a thrilling musical score and plenty of other wonderful things should be a requirement of a game, but that doesn't mean it's common.
That also has nothing to do with their feedback. We have great faith that Bethesda will produce a quality product, but it won't be Fallout.
You don't know that.
Why bother with buying an IP to a game, and then make a totally different game?
It is an altered game, mechanically, that retains the game's universe, atmosphere and storytelling style. Basically, they changed combat. Are you telling me that if people are going to change a franchise's combat system they simply shouldn't bother?
It doesn't need to be Fallout 1 and 2, indeed I doubt it ever would be. What it needs is to maintain those things that the fanbase of Fallout 1 and 2 cherish about those titles.
So combat's going to change. I can understand if you're really,
really in love with a totally turn-based system, but that's not what makes this game Fallout. I mean, wow. Imagine if all developers took the "don't mess with core game mechanics" attitude. Where would we be? The Legend of Zelda would be 2-d without any of the mechanical innovation that started with the N64. Mario would be nothing more than a side-scroller.
Essentially what they are doing is what EA did to the Command and Conquer universe when they released C&C: Generals. Absolutely zero to do with C&C at all.
In what respect?
F3 has the vault, pipboy and perks, that, Fallout does not make. That's essentially all they are using from the license as far as I can see.
And you haven't seen much. No one has. We're operating on a handful of developer interviews and a teaser trailer. The game is over a year out.
When you bring in everything that we hate from Oblivion, and remove all we love from Fallout and buy the IP to cash in on it, then yes it is. Don't take that statement too literally, I was simply saying they've taken something I loved, and everything released so far makes me sad.
I'm not sure why. Why didn't you like Oblivion aside from the scaling difficulty thing?
Because they said it when they mentioned that people who don't like the things they are doing, won't like Fallout, yet those people who are fans of Fallout and a few qualities they mention, will like it. So because I disagree and place importance on things they have changed, I am not a fan of Fallout.
Uhhh...did you miss where they said "fan" at the beginning too? Here, I'll quote it back to you:
"If you are a fan who is adamantly against some significant changes to the way gameplay occurs in the Fallout series, I’m going to tell you right now and save you the disappointment: I don’t think you’ll like Fallout 3."
Emphasis mine.
Oblivion was a buggy and overly simplistic action oriented RPG. It's entire skill system is flawed. Your character will be better off if you place the skills you are interested in, in his minors, and choose one from each statistical group to be a major, so you can level him when needed. Any game that is so counter-intuitive, is flawed. I like fully functional games when they are released, not ones I need to mod myself, or wait for a like-minded group to do so in order to enjoy.
I can understand that you want a game that is custom-catered to you. Everyone does. That's one of the things that made Oblivion so amazing. The developers spent
a lot of time making Oblivion one of the most mod-accessible games ever created, so that in case you
didn't like the way the standard game works (in other words, people just like you), you could very easily find a set of modifications that makes it into the sort of game you'd really like to play. Did you take advantage of this feature?
They could make games that focus less on the shiny, and more on the decision making behind the scenes?
In what respect? Oblivion has one of the most robust AI systems ever created for a commercial game. The world is
vast to a degree that few 3-D game developers would even consider, and every inch is detailed and interesting. The skills thing is a valid complaint - I noticed that too - but it is also very correctable with a mod.
Indeed. I have no doubt that Fallout 3 will be equallty critically acclaimed, especially when that's solely a matter of throwing money at people until they sing praise.
If you're
really that concerned about corrupt review sites (a concern that I think is pretty largely unfounded), then watch the small ones, the sites that no publishing house will waste money bribing or offering incentives to. They still sung the praises of Oblivion, and they will likely still sing the praises of Fallout 3.
Bethesda can make polished games that appeal to the mass-market, but I am not featured in that demographic unfortunately, nor were the large majority of Fallout fans.
Oblivion appealed to pretty much
everyone. It's not like the Elder Scrolls doesn't have a fanbase. On the contrary, they have one of the largest hardcore fanbases in the entire video game community. And the vast majority of them thought Oblivion was fantastic - even the ones who, like you, were initially skeptical.
