Game Journalism is one of those things that puts you in a sensitive position.

If you want to break into the business after you've had your fun writing reviews, you better be making people happy.

Nobody's going to hire a critic, even if what they said is true. It has something to do with their attitude and egotism.

And, to be honest, there's no such thing as an unbiased review anyways and it's really all just opinion. Make your own opinions and observations by playing the game. If you don't like it, take it back and get another game.

It's not like each issue of PCGamer is more biblical than the last.

Game journalism puts you in the same position as any other kind of journalism. In fact, probably a safer position than many other kinds, seeing that criticism of political and social subjects actually gets journalists shot all around the globe.

It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of adhering to certain objective standards, regardless of popular opinion and the interests of people or organizations involved. Any journalist in the world would have an easier life just going with the flow, no matter what is it he's writing about.

You can't just throw ethics out of the window at every single instance in the market chain just because it makes it easier for the people to get good careers and earn a lot of money.

Sure, but money buys everything.

Besides, fanboys of the rabid variety are just as dangerous as any terrorist.

Quote:Original post by Cpt Mothballs
Sure, but money buys everything.

Acceptance of and indifference towards such attitude has led to enormous socio-economic problems, that are (un)fortunately beyond the scope of this thread to discuss.

Quote:Original post by Talroth

So, besides it not being a turn based isometric view, what design flaws were there? What was really a flaw in the design? Yes, the writing sucked compared to the first two, but the gameplay itself is solid and fun, and it is a great game.

Would I have enjoyed the game more if they pushed things and went for an AO rating rather than just an M? Yeah, maybe, but that doesn't make it bad in anyway, just different.

Just had to register for this post...

My playtime with fallout 3 would at max be around 2-3 hours, however I found several annoying design flaws which put me of the game for good.

As someone who always play a melee based char fallout 3 had several design issues in its melee system. Having one target area even if your skills with unarmed is low is beyond retarded, not giving out even 1 weapon at the start for unarmed combat while I were swimming in pistols is just poor design from the start.

The lack of weapons were just one of the things which put me of, but the biggest deal breaker was the "run at them and get shot at" or sneak up on em and pray they do not turn around. No way to close the gap quickly without taking damage, another poor design decision. The game was designed around using ranged weapons with little thought gone into the melee part of combat. Melee even felt awkward compared to ranged combat.

The third person view was also a major showcase of inability to cater to more than one playstyle. The third person view would not have been so bad if it was not for the way your character looked while moving, jumping well existing...

Quote:Original post by XinCer
not giving out even 1 weapon at the start for unarmed combat while I were swimming in pistols is just poor design from the start.

What are you talking about? You start in the vault with a baseball bat, and quickly get a police baton. Within an hour of being outside the vault I had brass knuckles, spiked knuckles, a tire iron, and a lead pipe. Within a few hours of being outside the vault I had a flaming sword.

Quote:The third person view was also a major showcase of inability to cater to more than one playstyle. The third person view would not have been so bad if it was not for the way your character looked while moving, jumping well existing...

You do know you can play the entire game in first-person view just fine, right?