PC Gamer UK reviews: fallout 3, dead space and more!

  • Thread starter Deleted member 56031
  • Start date
PaoloM said:
I cannot answer your question because I don't know what the plot holes are in FO3 and why they are there (deliberate artistical choices or simple neglet). I'll let you know as soon as I play the thing.

A quick thought: I wouldn't be in Deus Ex 3 developers' shoes... ;)
Click to expand...

I think it's more of the "IT'S KEWL LET'S PUT EET IN".

Oh yeah, and replay Fallout 1 before you play FO3. Note down important plot points and compare to FO3.

Eejit said:
I notice the C&C wiki in your sig Mikael ;)
Click to expand...

I'm one of the few that considers C&C3 a worthy successor to the C&C saga, since EALA has a lot of people from Westwood working there and it made use of material intended for C&C3 while WW was still in place.

Mind you, former WW/now Petroglyph dev has stated that even WW was unsure as to how continue the Tiberian storyline.
 
I'm referring more to the rediculousness of RA2 and 3 compared to the original.
 
Uh-oh, Official Xbox Magazine just gave Fallout 3 a 10/10. Let the dissing war begin. :D
 
Wth is wrong with Mikael Grizzly?
I dont post really often, but I have been keeping my eye on the boards for a very long time and Mikael Grizzly reminds me my little sister who doesnt get pencil crayons with the color she desires. NO INSULT THERE, just my humble opinion.

Anyway, Im looking forward to FO 3, as I did enjoy both FO 1/2 and Oblivion.
(Y)
 
They clearly like a brown Oblivion with guns n stuff.
 
I understand Mikael's opinion of the game as sort of a "bastardization" (for lack of a better term) of the Fallout franchise, with what Bethesda's done in terms of gameplay, etc.
However, claiming that it will be a bad game because of this is a bit much. I would probably be just as excited if Bethesda was making the same style of game without it being a part of the Fallout 3 franchise.
 
to ĐynastҰ: Oh my, an intelligent gamer giving his synopsis about the rabble! silly me.
 
What's wrong with brown? The original Fallout games look pretty brown to me. It's how a post-apocalyptic world would probably look.
Beside that, I have no problem with drab game color palettes. I don't understand why everybody demands such highly saturated color schemes these days.
 
ivisak said:
to ĐynastҰ: Oh my, an intelligent gamer giving his synopsis about the rabble! silly me.
Click to expand...

Just trying to mingle with the masses.

Chill Winston.

Ive got nothing to say about Fallout 3 having not played the first 2. From what ive seen, it looks plain. But clearly its good else the reviews would reflect it.
 
I never trust OXM considering pretty much any hyped game gets a 10 from them:
mass effect
bioshock
halo 3
fallout 3
gears of war (seriously GOW gets a 10?)
cod 4
 
I have a questiong about the first fallout games

are those still sold in retail?I cant buy online no credit card

is cuz the originals are interesting me more
so any chance of seeing those as "classics editions" things in stores or something like that?
 
RyanG said:
I understand Mikael's opinion of the game as sort of a "bastardization" (for lack of a better term) of the Fallout franchise, with what Bethesda's done in terms of gameplay, etc.
However, claiming that it will be a bad game because of this is a bit much. I would probably be just as excited if Bethesda was making the same style of game without it being a part of the Fallout 3 franchise.
Click to expand...

Man, you guys are hard to get through to.

He doesn't have a problem with the game.

He has a problem with the name.
 
I've never played a fallout game in my life. I bet I'm going to love FO3
 
<RJMC> said:
I have a questiong about the first fallout games

are those still sold in retail?I cant buy online no credit card

is cuz the originals are interesting me more
so any chance of seeing those as "classics editions" things in stores or something like that?
Click to expand...

Yes, they should be available. At least here they are.
 
So I take it you're going to refuse to play it, then?
 
If the opportunity presents itself, I might borrow it from someone.

But as something I would have to pay for? No, I'm not going to play it.
 
<RJMC> said:
well I hope to find it and that it works on vista

what atracts me more is that is a turn based rpg which I like
Click to expand...

RJMC try going to www.GoG.com and signing up you'll be able to buy both fallout 1 & 2 for $6 each and iirc, they do paypal now. Also the GoG versions work with both XP & Vista 32 & 64 bit editions perfectly.
 
Eejit said:
I'm referring more to the rediculousness of RA2 and 3 compared to the original.
Click to expand...

Westwood made RA2, and - while the ridiculous factor was amped up to 11 - everything was internally consistant. Given what we've seen of RA3 so far, all the canon appears to hold (mainly because of TIME TRAVEL!!11!!1!!! which pretty much wiped all of Ra2 from Canon... kinda.)

The main difference is that the EA division that is making RA3 is composed partially of Westwood employees, iirc? Or that they've made several games with the licence? Games that were considered to be awesome?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe the RA fanbase just isn't as rabid as FO.

And speaking as someone who first played Fallout 1 and 2 last year, Fallout 1 and 2 are awesome games.

Nothing more satisfying than scoring a critical hit and watching your enemies explode.

I love combat in F1 and F2, mainly because of the way in which - despite the old old graphics - it still feels so awesome. I think it's mainly cos of the sound effects.

/edit ZOMG double post.
 
Just to face reality, I *love* F1 and F2. I love that gameplay. I would really like to see more games of that kind but, come on, turn based combat is not mainstream anymore. We all know it. If we want a pure Fallout-style game we have to look at the indie scene. Niche games that no big company is willing to develop/publish.
Welcome to the age of action-RPGs, that's to say shooters in disguise.
 
PaoloM said:
Welcome to the age of action-RPGs, that's to say shooters in disguise.
Click to expand...
Who needs genres or creativity? Eventually they'll just mash every style of play together into an entirely mediocre and disappointing series of games with endless sequels.
 
Eejit said:
I'm referring more to the rediculousness of RA2 and 3 compared to the original.
Click to expand...

(Overlooked this)

If I recall correctly, Westwood devs didn't want to make RA2, and it ended up being made by different people than the Tiberian series.

That said, RA1 was always the C&C0 of the Tiberian timeline.
 
Yes, I'd love to see some actual argument there.
 
PriNcE oF SpAcE said:
you do realize you just perfectly described the first two fallout games right?
Click to expand...
Where textures, animations, palette, etc. are concerned, the first 2 FO games did indeed look like shit. The difference is that they weren't pitched as rock-your-pants, eye candy shooterfests in the way that FO3 is being sold to us. The whole point of having a 3D first person experience is to make it more immersive and believable, but whatever combination of Bethesda's design philosophy and the awkwardness of the Oblivion engine are the culprit, I keep seeing things which would shatter that immersion for me. And I know they would because they appear to be the same things that flawed Oblivion's immersiveness.

On top of that, I still find the death animations from the earlier games more satisfying than the gore I'm seeing in these vids.
 
Grizzly might be interested to know a fanbase are trying to recreate Fallout 1 in the Cryengine
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
My new PC Gamer UK copy arrived crysis and far cry 2 reviews
Replies
38
Views
5K
Gargantou
Gargantou
Javert
List of Banks and Lenders Imploded / Ailing
Replies
32
Views
6K
Rabdomin
Rabdomin
Maxi
Your DVD list
2
Replies
46
Views
2K
Mr_W
M
Maxi
Your DVD movies?
Replies
3
Views
778
Maxi
Maxi
James Isaac
Game Stars Live
Replies
4
Views
762
Chris D
Chris D
Back
Top