Fallout Enforcer fails to impress GameSpy

Saint_Proverbius · Post by **Saint_Proverbius** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 3:28 pm

[ -> Review]

...which is fairly amazing, isn't it? <A href="Http://www.gamespy.com">GameSpy</A> used to lub <a href="http://www.interplay.com">Interplay</a>! Guess they know that <A href="http://www.interplay.com">Interplay</a> is a dying beast and can't afford to cough up many goodies anymore! Well, both of them scored Fallout Enforcer as a lackluster 3/5 stars.
 
 Anyway, here's a bit from the <A href="http://www.gamespy.com/reviews/january0 ... ps2/">PS/2 review</a>:
 
 <blockquote>Now, surely the corporate weasels at Interplay don't feel the Fallout franchise has more appeal to console gamers who've never heard of it than PC gamers who continue to worship it. The simple fact is that console games are currently selling in far greater numbers than PC games, and Interplay has to follow the money if it hopes to survive.</blockquote>
 
 Except that most of <a href="http://www.interplay.com">Interplay</a>'s console titles have crashed and burned.
 
 <blockquote>Unfortunately, Brotherhood of Steel isn't a real Fallout game; it's really just a sci-fi audiovisual mod of Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance, with a couple of new elements kludged onto the Alliance engine. Brotherhood's existence at the seeming expense of a genuine sequel has already alienated hardcore Fallout fans, and its Xeroxed gameplay structure surely won't win many new ones.</blockquote>
 
 There's a shocker, eh? So, pissed off the fan base, and the recycled gameplay just won't win over many new ones. Something we've been saying all along!
 
 On to the <A href="http://www.gamespy.com/reviews/january0 ... box/">XBox review</a>:
 
 <blockquote> Brotherhood's button-mashing combat has a couple of noticeable differences from Alliance. First, there's no blocking, which probably doesn't belong in a hack-and-slash game anyway, despite the pinch of depth it brings with it. You can dodge attacks to a degree, but it's a clumsy and largely unnecessary maneuver. </blockquote>
 
 They also point out that the crouching in the game is useless and that the auto-aim feature is a bit broken. Go <a href="http://www.interplay.com">Interplay</a>!
 
 Spotted this at <A href="http://www.nma-fallout.com">NMA</a>

Menno · Post by **Menno** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 5:13 pm

Saint_Proverbius wrote:<blockquote>Unfortunately, Brotherhood of Steel isn't a real Fallout game; it's really just a sci-fi audiovisual mod of Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance, with a couple of new elements kludged onto the Alliance engine. Brotherhood's existence at the seeming expense of a genuine sequel has already alienated hardcore Fallout fans, and its Xeroxed gameplay structure surely won't win many new ones.</blockquote>

There's a shocker, eh? So, pissed off the fan base, and the recycled gameplay just won't win over many new ones. Something we've been saying all along!

They just realized now that F:BOS is like wannabe Dark Alliance? Pretty much everyone on DAC was able to deduce that just by looking at the videos, and these monkeys at Gamespy, who've had access to a playable copy for awhile, actually come to this conclusion now. They could have done so months ago, if they could have stopped kissing ass in their previews.

Insane-Lark · Post by **Insane-Lark** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 7:59 pm

Well darn, haven't seen that name in awhile. I used to work with Zach & dated him. Ehehe. Never know what you'll find on the forums.

Ghetto Goose · Post by **Ghetto Goose** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 10:20 pm

Did he show you his "Freelance Weasle?"

heheheh

Menno · Post by **Menno** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 10:49 pm

I was browsing the Interplay fora and it seems as if the hardcore FOBOS fans are discrediting the online reviews since they're all pretty low. Here are the money quotes:

ShadowPaladin wrote:What the actual console magazines have to say is going to be more important than GS or any other online source.

Mr Cyber wrote:Anyway, I concur. The magazines will be more important.

You can bet your ass that if FOBOS received high scores in the online reviews, no way would they be discrediting them [instead they'd be hyping it]. Now they're going to wait for reviews such as the ones in Gamepro, who give out perfect scores like candy on Halloween.

Slave_Master · Post by **Slave_Master** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 11:00 pm

Menno wrote:I was browsing the Interplay fora and it seems as if the hardcore FOBOS fans are discrediting the online reviews since they're all pretty low. Here are the money quotes:

The thing I find so interesting is the hypocrisy of the FOBOS supporters. When the positive (in rating) Gamespot review was published, I remember them remarking about how, obviously, the FO fans would find some reason to discredit the review. Then all the negative ones pour in and it's "Oh shit! Let's, uh...wait for the magazine reviews! Yeah."

Interesting indeed.

Zetura Dracos · Post by **Zetura Dracos** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 11:36 pm

I liked the way the guy who did the reveiw kind of gave a general synopsis on why the game was wrong in the Fallout conotation and then kind of reveiwed it as its own entity showing how much the game sucks without being a luh-suh spinoff.

POOPERSCOOPER · Post by **POOPERSCOOPER** » Tue Jan 13, 2004 12:29 am

3/5 is not low enough, nor is 7.3

Its just not fair

Rosh · Post by **Rosh** » Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:30 am

Insane-Lark wrote:Well darn, haven't seen that name in awhile. I used to work with Zach & dated him. Ehehe. Never know what you'll find on the forums.

No! Say it isn't so! *cries* 8)

Mr. Teatime · Post by **Mr. Teatime** » Tue Jan 13, 2004 2:36 am

Menno wrote:I was browsing the Interplay fora and it seems as if the hardcore FOBOS fans are discrediting the online reviews since they're all pretty low. Here are the money quotes:

ShadowPaladin wrote:What the actual console magazines have to say is going to be more important than GS or any other online source.

Mr Cyber wrote:Anyway, I concur. The magazines will be more important.
You can bet your ass that if FOBOS received high scores in the online reviews, no way would they be discrediting them [instead they'd be hyping it]. Now they're going to wait for reviews such as the ones in Gamepro, who give out perfect scores like candy on Halloween.

You've succesfully identified the two fans FOBOS has. They're both idiots as well....

Saint_Proverbius · Post by **Saint_Proverbius** » Tue Jan 13, 2004 2:38 am

POOPERSCOOPER wrote:3/5 is not low enough, nor is 7.3

Its just not fair

I tend to agree.

Post by **DarkUnderlord** » Tue Jan 13, 2004 10:07 am

Does this mean I have to write a huge article on all the gameplay problems in FO:BOS now?

Aegeri · Post by **Aegeri** » Tue Jan 13, 2004 12:11 pm

To be honest, I'm just plain shocked that Gamespy actually had enough balls to give it a poor review. Like, I'm AMAZED that they can actually give a poor review to a mediocre game.

Obviously they must have gained some intelligence, while gamespot has clearly lost some.

4too · Post by **4too** » Tue Jan 13, 2004 3:24 pm

Mag's Can Frag

S_M say:

The thing I find so interesting is the hypocrisy of the FOBOS supporters. When the positive (in rating) Gamespot review was published, I remember them remarking about how, obviously, the FO fans would find some reason to discredit the review. Then all the negative ones pour in and it's "Oh shit! Let's, uh...wait for the magazine reviews! Yeah."

If FO:BOS follows the same trajectory as Lionheart, expect a lot'a tough love from the glossy press.

I think the writers for mag's may be older, experienced, and or jaded gamers. Post Apocalypse may be "new-er", Guantlet With Guns may be
"refreshing", and if the game play is more of the same, same sh't different day, even a repeat of BG:DA, anticipate being duely informed.

That's my opinion of the print media. Your experience may vary.

4too

Oh. Gamespy dis'ed Lionheart too.

4too-2

atoga · Post by **atoga** » Tue Jan 13, 2004 7:01 pm

Saint_Proverbius wrote:
POOPERSCOOPER wrote:3/5 is not low enough, nor is 7.3

Its just not fair
I tend to agree.

Eh, ratings systems tend to be terrible. It's stupid to give a name a numerical rating based on its goodness; it's also stupid because reviewers, who are often easily hyped, will give a pretty good or merely okay game a near perfect before they can cool off. A much better system would be one of "DEFINATELY PLAY THIS GAME", "PLAY THIS GAME IF YOU'RE INTO THE GENRE", or "DON'T TOUCH THIS GAME AT ALL." Sage advice, rather than a stupid score.

It would help if reviewers actually built their arguments instead of just rambling, too... that's all too common nowadays.

N · Post by N » Tue Jan 13, 2004 8:24 pm

You know, seems like this same sort of shit recently went on with Deus Ex 2.

The numeric scores for the game weren't bad, weren't bad at all.

But then you read the text of the reviews, and hear about: non existant AI, poor damage modeling, boring dialog, short playlength, and other sorts of similar problems, and all I can extrapolate is this:

The numeric scores enable the game to get "good reviews/good scores from (fill in the blank with bullshit gaming site". You can post that on financial sheets, box fronts, all sorts of other "smoke and mirror" tricks that numbers can often provide. But the TEXT of the review, the written portion: that paints the honest picture. If somone goes on for three paragraphs about how "playing this game is worse than getting fucked in the ass with a flaming corn cob" and then score it a 8.3453728465t62/10 -- I'm going to trust that the numeric score is only there for stat padding.

Maybe that's just a conspiracy theory, but it just seems to be a little bit too commonplace to see and read this sort of bullshit for game after game, high profile title after high profile title.

Rosh · Post by **Rosh** » Wed Jan 14, 2004 7:54 am

Exactly.

Then you'll also find out that many of those numbers are paid for.

Duck and Cover

Fallout Enforcer fails to impress GameSpy

Fallout Enforcer fails to impress GameSpy

Re: Fallout Enforcer fails to impress GameSpy

Hmmm?