Duck and Cover

I believe that Kashluk, Mechanurgist, and rabidpeanut have alluded to this notion, but.....

How the hell does a game receive above an 80% and have nothing but cutthroat criticisms over its, apparently, flawed general design and lackluster game play? Can someone answer me this?

Seriously it was a damning review. The game painted was not one I would buy (just the condensed mutant-human-ghoul-raider neighborly union of proximity was enough for me to spit bile in my handicapped girlfriend's feeding tube).

Answer my question! It is a good question! I came out of the Wasteland/Megatronian Memorial Hall for this!

Money is the eternal lubricant. It's no secret that the game reviewing industry is bought off regularly. The fact that it can be refered to as an industry should have been a clue.

Reviewing games is a difficult thing.

How do you objectively review a game, and what do you compare it with?

Do you compare it with a game that's ten years older, made by people who were basicly pioneers in game development?
Games today, are made by people with an education in development and design. They don't have the same motives or drive that people back then had.

What about technology? How much does that enter into the equation?
Do you compare graphics from how advanced fallout was back then to how advanced Fo3 is today?

All questions quickly become very subjective, and you could argue for either method of reviewing a game.


But first and foremost, the important question was; How was the game experience in terms of atmosphere, design and challenge?
What was the experience like?

There's no reason that it couldn't be a decent game experience.
Oblivion certainly way, it had several interesting storylines to follow, places to visit and a list of achievements worth doing.
A good experience does not equal an exceptional game.

Don't be a dick, Smiley. He's refering to the two Fallout 3 reviews. The swedish one's content doesn't really give a positive idea of the game, while still giving 81%, which really can't be considered a negaqtive score.

It's probably the minimum you can give a game, while still getting phat loot in the mail.

S4ur0n27 wrote:Don't be a dick, Smiley. He's refering to the two Fallout 3 reviews. The swedish one's content doesn't really give a positive idea of the game, while still giving 81%, which really can't be considered a negaqtive score.

I'm just saying, what's the score based on..?
A followup to Fallout 2, or just a game by itself?

I'd like to see what they rate by, and what they think is fun.

Getting a wad of cash and free gaming paraphernalia = fun.

Smiley wrote:

S4ur0n27 wrote:Don't be a dick, Smiley. He's refering to the two Fallout 3 reviews. The swedish one's content doesn't really give a positive idea of the game, while still giving 81%, which really can't be considered a negaqtive score.

I'm just saying, what's the score based on..?
A followup to Fallout 2, or just a game by itself?

I'd like to see what they rate by, and what they think is fun.

Reading the review will tell.

Anyway, we're talking about the gap between the review itself and the score attached to it.

Fallout:3,They changed it now it sucks!