Bethesda responds to Fallout 3 critcisms

As the game is so amazing they have to criticize the little stuff (except for the ending of the game)..

u know, about “2″, it’s a great game and nobody wants a great game to end. so i think that “2″ would stand even if they would have made a 1000 hour game.

“Criticism: “Fallout 3″ is just mediocre when judged as a first person shooter”

That is the dumbest criticism I’ve heard for an RPG.

“Criticism: “Valkyria chronicles” is just mediocre when judged as a third person shooter”

“Criticism: “Fallout 3″ is just mediocre when judged as a first person shooter.”

No shit. It’s an RPG.

You know, though I hate MTV, I quite like their Multiplayer blog. This really is the stupidest thing they’ve ever posted though.

Good that he ignores the critisism about the PS3 treatment.

#
Michael O’Connor said:

January 26th, 2009 at 4:21 pm

“Criticism: “Fallout 3″ is just mediocre when judged as a first person shooter.”

No shit. It’s an RPG.

You know, though I hate MTV, I quite like their Multiplayer blog. This really is the stupidest thing they’ve ever posted though.

i agree with you mtv has gotten really bad, their blog on the other hand is meh.

“Criticism: The ending isn’t very satisfying and much shorter than other “Fallout” endings

[...] addressed in DLC [...]”

/facepalm

Oh, yeah we forgot to put an ending in the game, but if you give us money you can have it. Oh, I mean some of you can have it.”

Criticism: “Fallout 3″ is just mediocre when judged as a first person shooter

I think it’s a valid criticism to an extent because the game allows you to play it like one. It’s mediocre because played like that it doesn’t control well and in particular is unresponsive in some respects. The fact that there is a good RPG around this is great, but that doesn’t excuse poor controls. Things that if they were improved would make playing the game notably more enjoyable.

“Things that if they were improved would make playing the game notably more enjoyable.”

It wasn’t enjoyable enough already?

That’s like criticising Zelda as being “mediocre when judged as an RPG.”

While we’re at it, lets label the letter F mediocre when judged as part of the alphabet.

It’s taking half the package, and ignoring the rest. It completely misses the point, and it’s pretty anally retentive in relation to genre to boot. What’s the point of judging a game based solely on HALF its mechanics?

In the context of Fallout 3 anyway… if the gun-play mechanic were more dynamic, it would completely defeat the whole point of the VATS system entirely. Just because you hold a gun and can play from a first person perspective does not make it a first-person shooter.

Doesn’t stop it from being flawed – if it’s a way to play the game, then it’s a mechanic that can be criticised. What are journos supposed to do – completely ignore its flaws?

That said, the feature should have focused on the godawful compass, the arbitrary piles of impassable rubble and the depressing, repetitive underground areas. Or the AI silliness, the flat voice acting, the pretty average script or the stilted conversation mechanic.

Or the fact that it looks stupid to be shooting someone in the face from point-blank range only for them to barely react (admittedly this is only really a problem at the lower levels but still).

I can think of two more.

4) The game has bloody mess on by default, which makes the really bloody mess pointless.

5) Why are they taking the piss with complete lack of PS3 support?

I find these more important than the criticisms he covered, I’d love to hear some real and very technical reasons as to why they don’t support the PS3–they have tried before but eerything they’ve come up with has been debunked, sometimes in very technical ways.

I want to hear the real deal from them. I just want them to be honest about it.

As for 4, that can be fixed by a mod for the PC version (and I use that mod) but console owners don’t have that luxury.

“Doesn’t stop it from being flawed – if it’s a way to play the game, then it’s a mechanic that can be criticised. What are journos supposed to do – completely ignore its flaws?”

Whatever flaws it might have, it was up there with LittleBigPlanet as my favourite games this year. I’m not arguing flaws though, I’m arguing the reasons for the criticism.

“5) Why are they taking the piss with complete lack of PS3 support?”

Probably for the same reason they did with Oblivion, and the same reason many developers are; the 360′s PC-like architecture makes the console much easier to develop for. They obviously don’t think the extra development is worth the cost.

Of course, the fact that Microsoft paid them loads of money to *not* put into the extra development time, along with the 360′s higher attach rate and userbase, probably helped.

Less development time with more profit? YES PLEASE!

Quit living in dream land if you expect companies to put morals before profit, especially in the current economic climate. Any company who gets through this unscathed is on the lucky side, and right now it’s every man for himself.

Oh, yeah we forgot to put an ending in the game, but if you give us money you can have it. Oh, I mean some of you can have it.”

See, this is what annoys me. People say, “this is why DLC is a bad thing”. As if the ability to download extra stuff would have affected the ending in the first place.

On the flip side, this is why DLC is a GOOD thing. Without it, we would never be able to play the full game, because they quite clearly made a mistake in that they didn’t realise people would want to continue past the ending. Back in the PS2 era, we would just be stuck with this unsatisfying conclusion. Now we have the ability to carry on.

Depends on the dev Ecu; whilst some do actually make new interesting DLC, others just cut stuff out of the original game to sell back to us after. Theres a good side and a bad side to DLC.

Wrong Ecu. Back in PS2 days they would have had the need to be more careful with releasing a game because they knew they had no chance to fix mistakes afterwards. Now that console games are becoming as easy to patch as a PC game they dont need to be so carfully. Plus they already calculate coming DLC into their game profit. Some developers, like Bethesda, are just greedy. Signing a exclusive deal with MS for the DLC and cutting out the real ending of Fallout 3 to release it as a DLC is clearly proof. If you look at Criteron Games ( Burnout Paradise ) you can see the opposite site of DLC. They patched the game serveral times, added new features and until now all for free.

Conspiracy Theories aside, I doubt that they did the ending just so they could sell DLC at a later date. In fact, it just seems like DLC 3 was going to be something else but they re-thought it because we all hated the crappy ending.

Bethesds’s games are the best. I love the elder scrolls series and thought Fallout3 was great.
I agree though that I didnt like the fact the game just ends, two worlds did the same and I hated that too.
The game itself is wonderful and full of stuff to do, can’t wait for the next elder scrolls game!

“B” “E” “T” “H” “E” “S” “D” “A”

Gesundheit.