Saturday, January 24, 2009
I Have Fallout 3, but I Did Not Inhale
We decided to take advantage of Circuit City's going out of business sale, and I found the PC version of Fallout 3 for 10% off. Not a huge discount, but better than nothing. So I snagged it.
But I did not install it. Not yet. I vowed not to play it until certain other tasks (and games) have been taken off my plate. I need to find a good place to hide it so I don't think about it.
Anyway - there were quite a few copies of both the XBox 360 and PC version of the game at the local shop, if anybody was looking at getting a little bit of a discount on it. Circuit City's loss is your gain.
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
tell us how it is. I am a lurker, and old ultima player and I have been mourning the death of RPGs. I noticed you have been putting a lot of effort into what makes an RPG successful. I think that the unifying theory comes down to innovative features. Here is a list of great RPGs by following this law - U4,U5,U6,U7,UU, BG1, BG2, Morrowind, UO, FF7, Elite and a few others. Each of these offered something worlds beyond the other games of their times, Not with Graphics (though they were good) but with new features.
The above games created tile rpgs, smooth 3d rpgs,infinity engine, party interaction, paperdoll, weight inventory, npc schedules, non-leaniarity in RPGs, and on and on. Each of these features alone can't rebuild a great game (why gothic isn't a great game -weakly tries to copy ultima). What makes them great is that the ideas were new at the time and created an immersive experience when they came out. That is why Oblivion blows. There is nothing new except graphics, and graphics alone dont make immersive gameplay. By my definition fallout 3 SHOULD be great (new targeting system) provided the rest is passable. Tell me how it goes
The above games created tile rpgs, smooth 3d rpgs,infinity engine, party interaction, paperdoll, weight inventory, npc schedules, non-leaniarity in RPGs, and on and on. Each of these features alone can't rebuild a great game (why gothic isn't a great game -weakly tries to copy ultima). What makes them great is that the ideas were new at the time and created an immersive experience when they came out. That is why Oblivion blows. There is nothing new except graphics, and graphics alone dont make immersive gameplay. By my definition fallout 3 SHOULD be great (new targeting system) provided the rest is passable. Tell me how it goes
Fallout 3 then hmmm.... the combat is great fun but quest-wise don't expect anything like the quests in Oblivion. The quests in FO3 (and especially the main quest) are boring and mostly unexciting. It's a good game, some of the perks (= feats) are cool, e.g. Mysterious Stranger is now one of the coolest game characters for me. But don't put your expectations high on quests.
It has probably, at max about 15 hours of gameplay, and thats if you're going slow. Its better than Oblivion, but not by much.
Apart from the peculiar beauty of the post-apocalyptic landscapes and a reasonably enjoyable (if simplistic) combat system, "Fallout 3" is not a worthwile or particularly memorable experience. Bethesda's latest RPG isn't awful by any means - it just happens to be as uninspiring, underwhelming and flat-out boring as any AAA title could be without at the same time suffering from a number of glaringly obvious design flaws. I would say more or less the same thing about the equally competently produced and similarly yawn-inducing "Oblivion", but at least the Gamebryo graphics engine was significantly more impressive in 2006 than it is in 2009...
Hiding it is a good idea :D I have my wife hide my games from me so I only focus on one or two. Helps focus and enjoy each game much more.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
<< Home


