Network now...FEATURE
Edge Review: Fallout 3
Unlike Oblivion, which stymied its main quest-line with a repetitive slog through hellish realms, Fallout 3 keeps its most brilliant inventions for the central story. This begins in earnest when the player flees the cloistered order of Vault 101 to pursue his errant father into the wasteland – but other events quickly demand the player’s attention, from the personal problems of local townsfolk to the Super Mutant occupation of central DC.
As wastelands go, Washington’s is a surprisingly busy place, and the game contrives to distract you with meaty side-quests at every opportunity. The broad strokes are well considered, and the best recall the ingenious freedom that marked earlier Fallout games: an encounter with some slavers can find its resolution through complicity, violence, stealth or a fluid combination of all three; a group of cannibals prove to be much more open to reason than their grisly pursuits would suggest; mediating a land dispute between some over-privileged humans and their ghoulish neighbours gives the player several delightful avenues of self-expression.
The writing isn’t quite as consistent as the ideas that underpin it, however, and though dialogue trees rarely collapse into total logical failure, they do sometimes assume knowledge the player has yet to gain, and often have an unreal quality to them – as if human emotions had been explained to the writer secondhand.
Voice-acting is even less reliable, and though some of the robotic bit-parts prompt hearty chuckles, Malcolm McDowell seems to be the only main cast member at home here, albeit underused in his role as the sinister President Eden. Of course, there’s always the option to let your guns do the talking instead.
Fallout 3’s combat packs a decent heft, and the Vault-Tec Assisted Targeting System is a novel means of integrating shooter and RPG conventions, producing uniquely gruesome results to boot. Activating VATS switches from realtime combat to an action point system, allowing you queue up shots on multiple enemies and select individual limbs to attack, switching to a thirdperson camera to show severed heads cartwheeling from bodies in slow-motion geysers of blood.
It has its problems – rarely does the game give you reason to shoot anything but the head or torso, and the dynamic camera often produces less than cinematic results. It also seems to fall victim to parallax error: enemies that are easily visible in firstperson suddenly become obscured by scenery in VATS, as though the bullets do not fly from the same place on your thirdperson model.
For longer ranged weapons, like the scoped magnum, using VATS proves substantially less effective than shooting manually. Fallout 3 enjoys some of the benefits of being a slightly smaller game than Oblivion – it’s a more intensely designed world, and thanks to the concentration and thoughtful crafting of its quests the player never grinds.
These substantial boons aside, however, Bethesda treads water in most other areas of obvious improvement, and Fallout 3 is disappointing in its lack of finesse. But then submersion in this world means that you quickly look past the many frustrations – the uncanny NPCs, the occasional broken quest, the ill-conceived interface, the dozy voice-acting. It’s a game that rewards the long-haul with deep, inventive missions which eschew the usual fetch and kill structure, ensuring that the many hours spent in Fallout 3’s wasteland aren’t wasted.
7/10
Contact Us / About Us / Advertise With Us / BeltwayBlips / TechBlips / MassiveBlips / GamerBlips / FAQ
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
This is the best game I've played since Oblivion, mind you this is just my opinion. I'm having a really great time playing it! I spend about two hours before work playing, and at least two after work. I just think it is alot of fun. Sure nothing is ever perfect, just have fun.
I agree with this review 100%. I would add that the combat is somewhat lacklustre and hollow, moreso even than Oblivion, and the VATS is a wholly insufficient supplement for real-time combat - to say nothing of the AI. However, I put the disc in the drive at about 1pm the day I got it, and the next thing I knew it was 9pm, so there must be something captivating about it... I just can't figure out what exactly it is.
Regardless, this game isn't worthy of the intense praise that other websites have been giving it for whatever reason. It's not a bad game, but the various 9s and 10s out of 10 it has been given are a bit reactionary and hype-induced if you ask me, so once more Edge suits me fine.
This is why I like the out of 5 rating systems. There is a definite higher (4 or 5) lower (1 or 3) and mid (3)... There is no room for argument. And 3 out of 5 doesn't seem as bad as 5 out of 10 does it?
lower (1 or 2)***
I don't think there should be a final score whatsoever. Just the review, please.
I do agree with you on that, but some many people think anything less than an 8 is horrible. This is not the case as all. Out of 5 forces you to pick, good, okay, or bad... it's simple psychology, but yes... the best scenerio would be no numbers at all... but then again I think some people might start complaining that they had to read.
I just "finished" the game yesterday. By that, I mean I finished the story. I have since reverted to a previous save and am continuing on with other quests I may have missed. I can't put the game down. The DLC can't come soon enough. Yes, the game has some problems and 7 out of 10 isn't a bad score, but you should try to be more consistant with your scoring.
If a game is to be detracted points because of bugs then Fable 2 should get a 5 because I can't play it anymore, literally.
Its not a xbox exclusive so its not aloud to beat Gears of War 2 or Fable 2 gotta keep the money coming in Edge
I seem to recall LBP getting a 10, beating both Gears 2 and Fable 2, so can we assume Sony paid for that one, or is it ok when Sony get good reviews but for some reason M$ have to pay for them? Seriously, this fanboy wingeing is getting really really old.
9/10 for Fable 2 but 7/10 for Fallout 3? Fable 2 is just as buggy as Fallout 3, in fact there is a bug in Fable 2 that stops you from progressing with the story requiring you to create a new game. I think that's a bigger flaw than a couple of NPCs not killing each other. I enjoy both games and they both have their benefits and flaws, but from this review and with other reviews, such as Edge's 7/10 score of Mass Effect, if company wants their RPG to receive 9/10 rating from Edge, you best have your traditional swords and magic in play. None of this silly contemporary aged warfare.
A review score of 7 ain't mediocre. The problem is that comsumers and the press have inflated the scores values in their minds. On a regular scale 5 should be mediocre, not 7. I see people scream high in the sky if a game won't get a 9 and they think everything below that is bad. I mean... come on?! So no.... this review does not say that the game is bad, it's still a good buy but with some quirks, according to EDGE.
Review scores are treated like grades
7/10 = 70% = C = Average
5/10 = 50% = F = Fail
9/10 = 90% = A = Awesome
Everybody wants to play awesome games.
Check out www.gamerankings.com to see the overall scores of a game.
Btw - The PC version of Fallout 3 has an average score of 90.4% based on 42 different reviews. The Xbox & PS3 versions scores are higher.
Okay, so what are numbers 1-4 used for? Do we need to discern between degrees of failure?
I know we grew up grading ourselves with this system, but this is a game review, not high school.
Actually, now that I think about it, I think the scale goes like this:
10/10 = People complain about other great games that didn't get 10's.
9/10 = People complain about other good games that scored 7's or 8's.
8/10 = People complain.....a little less, but will argue both directions.
7/10 = People complain about other games that were rated higher but weren't as good.
6/10 = People complain that the score is unreasonably low.
1-5/10 = People finally stop complaining because they universally agree that the game is terrible.
Good review, but I think a 7 is a little low. It's isn't the best game of the year, but when I think 7, I think mediocre, something this game isn't. Sure it has a few bugs, but the game is so huge, you have to expect a hiccup every now and then. An 8, or maybe even a 9 would've done just fine.
This review is a perfect example of a quantitative criticism which belies the qualitative value of the source material. Sure, there are plenty of glitches and interface quirks which are mildly irksome and slightly detract from the enjoyment of the game at times. But the experience of Fallout 3 (which has consumed roughly 60 hours of my time; I am now enjoying my second play through) is so compelling, and the atmosphere so peerless in depth and so unique in setting and aesthetic, that the game surely deserves a much higher score than that given here. I'm not sure why the reviewer chose to focus his attention and his review on the niggling negative aspects of the game, and I pity him for missing out on the most gratifying gaming experience of the year.
And that is why the TEXT is so much more important then the words.
OK, I know, the TEXT doesnt sell the game, the metacritic score does.
Every single part of the review is correct, but for me its more of a strong 8. (And yes I have played the other "big" games this autum.
Good work EDGE, (shame about the score :))
I enjoy this review, if only because it seems to remember the RPGs of past -- and how the modern RPG of today fails to live up to its predecessors. The more they dumb down and blockbuster-ize RPGs, the worse they get. That's not to say fallout 3 is a bad game (though i really thought Oblivion was) -- it just isn't what these games used to be. Fallout 2 is a far superior title, despite the lack of sheen present in triple A titles today. The bar doesn't get lowered simply because time has passed. It stays at its height till it is surpassed, and Bethesda hasn't done that. If Fallout 2 is a 9/10 or a 10/10, then making Fallout 3 a 7/10 suddenly makes a lot of sense.
Though, I think it a better game than the latest tomb raider o_0
Edge reviews are a joke, giving tomb raider underworld a better review than fallout?
Sometimes it's the serious sites that make you laugh hardest.
So this review is only about a month late...
That's because Edge still want to be primarily known as a paper-based magazine. I know that if they just posted up contact straight away I wouldn't bother buying the mag
I'd buy the mag, but I'm not paying 3x the cost of any other gaming rag over here in the U.S. I miss the old Next Generation (U.S.) mag, but Play's pretty good with its mix of gaming, tech, anime & comics.
My biggest criticism of Fallout 3 so far (I'm just over 25 hours in, which has been spent mostly just exploring with some quests and main story progression) is that there is a barrier to entry: most people will have to invest time into the game before its brilliance shines through.
In the beginning, scrounging up weapons that work, ammo for those weapons and bottle caps (the gameworld's currency), is a huge chore, even if you're mowing down Raiders frequently. It literally forces you into a mind state of survival and scavenging. But as you level up, get a home, thankfully you put the days of mere survival behind you.
I think it's definitely a fair review of the game.
Manu_G:
The Edge score difference between Mirror's Edge and Fallout 3 is fairly close to the Meta critic difference (Currently Fallout 3 sits at a 93 and Mirror's Edge is at a 79). On top of that it could be that Mirror's offers only about 6-9 hours of structured game play, whereas Fallout 3, if you only did the main quest clocks in at a minimum of 18 hours. Mirror's Edge is not an innovative game, it's a game that doesn't use its innovative mechanics and gameplay to their full potential.
If you think something is fun, that does not mean the faults of a game are not present.
I completely agree that the faults can be distracting but that's a small price to pay for such a great, immersive world. I think that it is a far better game than Oblivion - the central story is far superior, the VATS combat is more engaging than the previous slash-block-spell and some of the side quests are fascinating and surprisingly multi-dimensional. While some of the assassins and thieves guild missions were excellent in Oblivion, many of the quests felt like unnecessary filler and a good percentage of the 200+ hours felt like a chore. There was nothing in Oblivion as evocative as the Tenpenny Towers mission in Fallout 3 - I actually felt guilty taking the evil route and found the outcome quite harrowing. While some of the voice acting is pretty poor (The Craterside Supplies woman made me want to blow up megaton) a lot of it IS darkly amusing and in the spirit of the original games.
Anyway, I think the review is fair from an objective perspective but, personally, I'd give it a 9. Few games are this imaginative and ambitious.
Fallout 3 and it's review reminds one how incredible Bioshock is.
WHAT!? 7/10 to this Oblivionesque Glitch-fest and 5/10 to the innovative Mirror's Edge!?!? This Oompa-Loompa is dumbfounded!!!
Although I agree Mirror's Edge could have received a higher score, the glitches in Fallout 3 are exaggerated... it seems certain reviews tend to emphasize on them in great detail while in reality, they aren't as obvious.
Not as good as Oblivion, but that doesn't stop it from being a stand-out game in my opinion. Oblivion seems to me the deeper game with a more convincing game world and smarter interation with NPC's (though admittedly the acting is worse).
In terms of Quests and side-missions, I think that Oblivion has the more intersting missions by far. Graphically, NPC's are a cut above in Fallout 3, however am I alone in believing that the landscape, while savage for a reason, is ratehr dull and colourless in Fallout, in comparison to the lush detailed envirnment in Oblivion.
It's an enjoyable game, no doubt. But I think Bethesda could have done better.
I played it, and I'm glad that I didn't buy it. Fallout 3 is so far from being as amazing as 1 & 2, it inherited all the flaws (personal opinion) from Oblivion: main quest is TOO short, lack variety in enemy types, not challenging, and VERY VERY lame ending presentation.
Good Review... I am in the camp of people who find it very easy to overlook the problems the game has in favor of the sheer quality of the world and the quests on offer. The lack of annoying fetch quests is great. Overall, whilst this isnt the best game ever made, I must admit that I have never enjoyed a game as much since Morrowind. Great stuff, look forward to the DLC.
Not very surprised. Since the videos from E3 somehow Fallout 3 doesn't appeal to me, the same way Oblivion didn't. Morrowind was the last Bethesda blockbuster I enjoyed -- not for its glitches and gameplay, but for its style and world.
That's interesting, because I found Morrowind to be extremely tedious & un-fun, while Oblivion and Fallout 3 have both been significantly better experiences (for me). Reviews are subjective, so it's hard to fault a less-than-stellar review here & there; that's what averages are for.