Tired of all star reviews yet that indicate Fallout as the greatest thing since sliced bread and boobies? I know I'm not. IGN just put up their review of Fallout 3 and it's stellar. Some interesting bits I found included that there are apperently only a dozen or so "primary" side quests which last for afew hours. Everything else is pretty much fetch quests.
Their only real complaint thought aside from the game crashing occassionally? The animations, going on to say:
The larger, and far more recognizable, blemish in Fallout 3 that all versions share is the animations. Everything in the world, from the fantastic landscapes to the oftentimes over-the-top personalities therein, comes together to create a believable and engrossing atmosphere. And then you'll see a person or animal move and be given a reminder that this is just a game. The way people move is stiff and lifeless and is a stark contrast to the rest of the outstanding look and feel of Fallout 3. This is especially noticeable in the third-person view. It's great for seeing the unique armor you find, but your character moves awkwardly and doesn't even look like he's interacting with the world he's standing on.
At the end of the day, they gave it a 9.6 making it the third highest rated 360 game. My question and this is a honest question for IGN: How can you claim to have non-bias in reviewing Fallout 3 to begin with when your site is plastered by revenue generating ads and wallpapers displaying the game. This is a point that has been raised before, but I honestly don't see how you can give a game a fair score when the guys who made it are keeping you in bussiness.
You can read the article here. |
