It's those crazy critical Europeans again (in this case Eurogamer).<blockquote>Visually, Fallout 3 is unremittingly bleak. So it should be, although you have to wonder if there will be enough variation in this vast wasteland to sustain interest. But let's give Bethesda's artists the benefit of the doubt on that count, because unfortunately the game has much more tangible shortcomings to take them to task on: the flat, sterile lighting, the excessive contrast, the feeble effects (excepting the mini-nuke explosions of wrecked cars' power units) and, worst by far, the hilariously, embarrassingly wooden animation.
This was a weakness of Oblivion's, too, but it's even more jarring in Fallout 3. The game presents itself in the first-person perspective, but you can pull the camera out to quite a distant third-person viewpoint and move it in full 3D. This means you can examine your character's Gerry Anderson jerking and flailing from any angle; we'd recommend you don't. Unfortunately, you can't help but observe the erratic path-finding, motionless trances and limp movements of the few enemies you encounter this early in the game. You simply can't invoke the visual style of an action game and get away with this stuff.
[..]
The game's showing in the Microsoft press conference was something of a bum note as well, with its gleeful ultra-violence and portable nukes failing to evoke the more down-to-earth flavour of grit Fallout is known for. We accept that was probably a hard sell for a broad audience, though. We accept that the game's setting, however dreary within the context of gaming in general, is refreshing within the world of RPGs. Above all, we accept that it's impossible to properly judge a game as vast as this in such a short time span, and that it undoubtedly has many hidden riches.
But beyond that, there are simple questions of quality that it's impossible to avoid: characterless art, cold visuals, wonky animation, weak real-time combat, off-kilter writing. As it stands, Fallout 3 just doesn't feel right, and it will leave many players shivering for warmth in its nuclear winter.</blockquote>There are a few positive notes (such as approval of V.A.T.S.), but also more criticism of, well, just about everything. German GamersGlobal likes it mostly, but hates V.A.T.S.<blockquote>We also learned to activate V.A.T.S., which is the acronym for "Vault Assisted Targeting System". This is meant to substitute the action point depleting targeting of the old Fallout RPGS -- but it could be the worst nightmare for real fans of the series! Let us explain further -- but keep in mind that this criticism could not (or only partly) apply to the finished game: Pete Hines told us that Bethesda is still tweaking all this stuff.
In the RPGs Fallout and Fallout 2 as in the tactic game Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel, you had a certain amount of Action Points (AP) which you expended to move or fire a weapon. Spending more APs in a turn for aiming let you chose a body part to shoot at -- which always decreased the to-hit-chance but dealt special damage to the opponent, with successful head-shots dealing massive damage and stunning the enemy, sometimes killing him instantly (exploding head). But in the current version of the Action-RPG Fallout 3 is, V.A.T.S. rather feels like a cheat mode. There are three reasons for this: First, you can queue up several shots, with big body parts costing less APs than, let's say, the head. But we always could queue up at least two shots, and mostly three, thereby doubling or tripling our to-hit chance. Second, regardless of what body part you hit in V.A.T.S. mode, the opponent will die. We killed a Super Mutant by shooting his leg with a pistol. Third, the APs regenerate far too quickly, we never activated the V.A.T.S. mode in our half-hour of play without being able to use it. So instead of using this mode a couple of times each hour like you would a high-level spell in Oblivion, we were basically using it for every single fight, making things too easy for our liking (playing on "normal" mode). Apart from using basic shooter skills like dodging, taking cover and not running into a group of superior opponents, we couldn't find any tactics involved. As long as you don't consider picking the body part with the highest to-hit probability as tactics.
[..]
So from this experience, from our talking to Pete Hines and from everything else we've learned so far about Fallout 3, we'd say that if you look for a return to the world of Fallout, or if you'd like to play an Action-RPG not closely resembling, but still similar to Oblivion (with another setting, of course), Fallout 3 is one of the games to watch for you this Fall. We think the wit, the cynicism, the fun will be there, again. But Bethesda will have to tweak the V.A.T.S. system to make it less powerful, or its "reload time" longer -- otherwise, experienced gamers will feel like cheating most of the time.
If, on the other hand, you played Interplay's predecessor RPGs mainly because you liked the turn-based, tactical fighting, you'll definitely be disappointed. Because there's a lot of fighting, but much less tactics than in various tactical shooters...</blockquote>What is it with this continent?
This was a weakness of Oblivion's, too, but it's even more jarring in Fallout 3. The game presents itself in the first-person perspective, but you can pull the camera out to quite a distant third-person viewpoint and move it in full 3D. This means you can examine your character's Gerry Anderson jerking and flailing from any angle; we'd recommend you don't. Unfortunately, you can't help but observe the erratic path-finding, motionless trances and limp movements of the few enemies you encounter this early in the game. You simply can't invoke the visual style of an action game and get away with this stuff.
[..]
The game's showing in the Microsoft press conference was something of a bum note as well, with its gleeful ultra-violence and portable nukes failing to evoke the more down-to-earth flavour of grit Fallout is known for. We accept that was probably a hard sell for a broad audience, though. We accept that the game's setting, however dreary within the context of gaming in general, is refreshing within the world of RPGs. Above all, we accept that it's impossible to properly judge a game as vast as this in such a short time span, and that it undoubtedly has many hidden riches.
But beyond that, there are simple questions of quality that it's impossible to avoid: characterless art, cold visuals, wonky animation, weak real-time combat, off-kilter writing. As it stands, Fallout 3 just doesn't feel right, and it will leave many players shivering for warmth in its nuclear winter.</blockquote>There are a few positive notes (such as approval of V.A.T.S.), but also more criticism of, well, just about everything. German GamersGlobal likes it mostly, but hates V.A.T.S.<blockquote>We also learned to activate V.A.T.S., which is the acronym for "Vault Assisted Targeting System". This is meant to substitute the action point depleting targeting of the old Fallout RPGS -- but it could be the worst nightmare for real fans of the series! Let us explain further -- but keep in mind that this criticism could not (or only partly) apply to the finished game: Pete Hines told us that Bethesda is still tweaking all this stuff.
In the RPGs Fallout and Fallout 2 as in the tactic game Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel, you had a certain amount of Action Points (AP) which you expended to move or fire a weapon. Spending more APs in a turn for aiming let you chose a body part to shoot at -- which always decreased the to-hit-chance but dealt special damage to the opponent, with successful head-shots dealing massive damage and stunning the enemy, sometimes killing him instantly (exploding head). But in the current version of the Action-RPG Fallout 3 is, V.A.T.S. rather feels like a cheat mode. There are three reasons for this: First, you can queue up several shots, with big body parts costing less APs than, let's say, the head. But we always could queue up at least two shots, and mostly three, thereby doubling or tripling our to-hit chance. Second, regardless of what body part you hit in V.A.T.S. mode, the opponent will die. We killed a Super Mutant by shooting his leg with a pistol. Third, the APs regenerate far too quickly, we never activated the V.A.T.S. mode in our half-hour of play without being able to use it. So instead of using this mode a couple of times each hour like you would a high-level spell in Oblivion, we were basically using it for every single fight, making things too easy for our liking (playing on "normal" mode). Apart from using basic shooter skills like dodging, taking cover and not running into a group of superior opponents, we couldn't find any tactics involved. As long as you don't consider picking the body part with the highest to-hit probability as tactics.
[..]
So from this experience, from our talking to Pete Hines and from everything else we've learned so far about Fallout 3, we'd say that if you look for a return to the world of Fallout, or if you'd like to play an Action-RPG not closely resembling, but still similar to Oblivion (with another setting, of course), Fallout 3 is one of the games to watch for you this Fall. We think the wit, the cynicism, the fun will be there, again. But Bethesda will have to tweak the V.A.T.S. system to make it less powerful, or its "reload time" longer -- otherwise, experienced gamers will feel like cheating most of the time.
If, on the other hand, you played Interplay's predecessor RPGs mainly because you liked the turn-based, tactical fighting, you'll definitely be disappointed. Because there's a lot of fighting, but much less tactics than in various tactical shooters...</blockquote>What is it with this continent?
