Game Over mixed up about Fallout Enforcer

Saint_Proverbius · Post by **Saint_Proverbius** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 3:22 pm

[ -> Review]

<A href="http://www.game-over.net/">Game Over</a> has posted <A href="http://www.game-over.net/reviews.php?pa ... 180">their review</A> of Fallout Enforcer as well, basically saying It sucks, no wait.. It's not bad even though I originally thought it sucked. They gave it an 80% rating:
 
 <blockquote>Brotherhood of Steel could be accused of being a mindless button-masher, and indeed, it can be played that way. It's perfectly possible to play the game, and to do well at it, by wading into the thick of your enemies and hitting X until they die. Then, press L1 to use a stimpack, the injectable medical cocktails that serve as "health potions," and heal your wounds. Lather, rinse, repeat.
 
 That's the simplest way to play the game, but it's by no means the best. Each of the three selectable characters (with two more that you can unlock by completing the first and second acts of the game) begin as basically the same thing, with four hundred hit points and roughly equivalent statistics. As you accomplish storyline goals and pummel monsters into a thin paste, you earn experience points, which will eventually lead to your gaining levels. </blockquote>
 
 So... What is this better way? Don't leave me hanging!
 
 Spotted this at <A href="http://www.rpgcodex.com/phpBB/">RPG Codex's forums</a>.

Thomas Wilde · Post by **Thomas Wilde** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:18 pm

Good morning. I was wondering what you lot would say about the review; somebody or another posted on the GO forums to comment on my preview, so I've been idly following your communities' reaction to BoS.

That's actually not a bad comment, though. I do tend to go meandering through reviews, so sometimes I lose track of an earlier point I intended to make. I'll have to see if I can make an edit to the review.

What I was alluding to, though, is that the "run at the other guy screaming" attack method can be broken up by using any of a few dozen other weapons, from grenades to different melee attacks to firearms to heavy rocket launchers, and you can design characters from the ground up to reflect whatever particular preferences you have towards that end. Granted, "design from the ground up" just means you'll have something like +50% chance of a critical hit, but what can you do.

--TW

DJ SlamÃƒÂ¡k · Post by **DJ SlamÃƒÂ¡k** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:23 pm

The whole rating system could use a re-evaluation. 60-69% is "below average"? Sounds a tad too benevolent.

Thomas Wilde · Post by **Thomas Wilde** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:52 pm

60-69% is a D, D-plus, or thereabouts; it's a vastly flawed product that is, for some happy reason, not wholly a failure. In other words, yes, it's below average.

Besides, it's not like there's some kind of sophisticated algorithm to determine what the final ranking is. You arbitrarily assign the game a number at the end of the review based upon your impressions, after having spent a thousand words or so justifying the rating. The numerical impression is just shorthand, and shouldn't be used as a shortcut towards reading the review itself... unless you're at IGN, where the reviews largely serve to irritate the reader. (I've still got issues from the site after Goldstein's hackwork on Panzer Dragoon Orta.)

DJ SlamÃƒÂ¡k · Post by **DJ SlamÃƒÂ¡k** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 6:03 pm

I realised what it means, but shouldn't the point distribution be more even? I mean, a D, D+ product should be somewhere along 30-40%, at least I believe that's how most people would interpret it. This way, the rating for bad games seems higher than it is.

And given that 80-89% is "a stellar representation of the genre", it only leaves you 10% between "very meh" and "PWNZOR".

I agree with the second paragraph of your post, but the numerical rating should at least try to match the review.

S4ur0n27 · Post by **S4ur0n27** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 6:04 pm

Thomas Wilde wrote:"design from the ground up" just means you'll have something like +50% chance of a critical hit, but what can you do.

YOU CAN DO NOTHING ABOUT IT. That's why the game sucks. It sounds like you are pardonning the developpers' shit work by saying : "at least they tried". Even if they tried the game sucks. We don't wanna play a game because they "tried" doing something good. We just want a good game.

Thomas Wilde · Post by **Thomas Wilde** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 6:23 pm

I agree with the second paragraph of your post, but the numerical rating should at least try to match the review.

The problem with that is that the entire industry is set up to operate around a similar model. There isn't a gaming site on the planet that is willing to say a 30-40% game is only "below average," if for no other reason than that you'd torpedo the average rating at Game Rankings. You'd look like an idiot, and gaming communities being what gaming communities are, most people wouldn't bother to read your site and find out why you gave a game a 30% that meant the same thing as someone else's 65%. They will simply default straight to an adverse reaction.

I understand your point, really, but personally, I'd be in favor of making the switch to a review model that doesn't involve an arbitrary numerical ranking before I considered overhauling the scoring system.

YOU CAN DO NOTHING ABOUT IT. That's why the game sucks. It sounds like you are pardonning the developpers' shit work by saying : "at least they tried". Even if they tried the game sucks. We don't wanna play a game because they "tried" doing something good. We just want a good game.

We all just want good games. I'm a game reviewer; that doesn't mean I have some kind of potent allergy to fun.

I'm not "pardoning" anyone, either. I genuinely don't feel that the game sucks; I think that it's fundamentally flawed, but a decent dungeon crawler and monster basher. That's the point of the opening three paragraphs: that the game is shamelessly addictive and entertaining despite its obvious problems, many of which were, strangely, not present in Dark Alliance. That's why it's an 80% game.

S4ur0n27 · Post by **S4ur0n27** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 9:48 pm

I should have wrote my post differently, the message isn't directed only to you. What I meant is, game reviews generally tend to be gentle and make the good things bigger than they are versus bad things looking less important.

So you end up buying a game with promising ideas but with also a lot of flaws that's gonna piss you off.

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 11:47 pm

Yes, the reviewers are very self-serving. If they give bad reviews to game that deserve it, the gaming industry will suffer, making it harder for them to find work.

Thomas Wilde · Post by **Thomas Wilde** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 12:08 am

I wouldn't put it quite like that, but then again, I'm biased.

You have to understand that as game reviewers, we tend to play more games than most people, and we have less choice about what we play that day. Some days, it's a revolutionary RPG that changes the genre forever; other days, it's some no-account FPS put together by two guys without arms working out of a toolshed in Peru. There are more of the latter days than the former.

So a game reviewer is more likely to look favorably upon an interesting idea or an innovative failure than an ordinary gamer would be. It may be the gameplay equivalent of flossing with detcord, but at least it's not another phoned-in license game or yet a fifth horrible misuse of the Unreal engine. We like the innovation; we like the "promising ideas but with also a lot of flaws."

Further, you have to understand, when we talk shit about a game or the people who made it, these are guys we're gonna see tomorrow or the next day at some press event or another. They aren't a nameless pack of bastards like they often are to you guys; they're Bob and Phil from the gaming company. It's a lot harder to really go off on a game, even if it does deserve it, when it represents three years out of the life of a guy who you know, and when you know he's gonna read it.

So yeah, sometimes, we softpedal. More often, we just have different opinions than you do, because we're professional gamers and that influences our viewpoint.

This didn't really play into my Fallout review, as I don't know anyone at Interplay--or didn't, before today--and I already know it isn't a particularly innovative game. It is, however, a fun, albeit occasionally mindless, monster bash with good controls and a black sense of humor, so it worked for its 80%. I'm not one of the guys who's going to bust on a perfectly acceptable dungeon crawler because it happens to be another run through what's essentially the same dungeon as last time, since hey, I enjoyed that run too.

Of course, your mileage may vary.

Killzig · Post by **Killzig** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 1:21 am

dark comedy = boobs? if anything, the humour in the game is juvenile. 80% for a game that's "fundamentally flawed" seems a bit much, that's like consumer reports giving a "good buy" rating to a car the comes with square wheels. Giving reviews like this just contributes to the constant lowering of the bar effect we're seeing in the gaming industry.

Canis Lupus · Post by **Canis Lupus** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 2:33 am

Thomas Wilde wrote:I think that it's fundamentally flawed, but a decent dungeon crawler and monster basher.

Yes, well it can be dungeon crawler and monster basher, just as long as the word 'Fallout' is absent from the entire game. Fallout is an RPG, not an action game.

Saint_Proverbius · Post by **Saint_Proverbius** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 3:05 am

Thomas Wilde wrote:This didn't really play into my Fallout review, as I don't know anyone at Interplay--or didn't, before today--and I already know it isn't a particularly innovative game. It is, however, a fun, albeit occasionally mindless, monster bash with good controls and a black sense of humor, so it worked for its 80%. I'm not one of the guys who's going to bust on a perfectly acceptable dungeon crawler because it happens to be another run through what's essentially the same dungeon as last time, since hey, I enjoyed that run too.

I don't know, I just think the terms you used in your review like BG: DA for dummies and mindless button masher would preclude the 80% rating, which states that the thing is excellent according to your site's critea. If it's really shallow, which is how I read that, it's certainly NOT excellent at all. For a 10 hour game, if it's that mindless, there's nothing that'll actually keep you engaged with the title.

Canis Lupus · Post by **Canis Lupus** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 5:25 am

It's evident that the people of Game-Over have no idea what Fallout is.

They say that 80-89% is 'an excellent representation of the genre'. They gave F:BOS an eighty per cent and it is the exact opposite.

Serbaside · Post by **Serbaside** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 5:51 am

Is it only me that is getting tired of these posts about how badly Ft:Bos is being reviewed?

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 6:26 am

Probably.

Thomas Wilde · Post by **Thomas Wilde** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 7:59 am

Saint_Proverbius wrote:I don't know, I just think the terms you used in your review like BG: DA for dummies and mindless button masher would preclude the 80% rating, which states that the thing is excellent according to your site's critea. If it's really shallow, which is how I read that, it's certainly NOT excellent at all. For a 10 hour game, if it's that mindless, there's nothing that'll actually keep you engaged with the title.

That's an excellent point, really.

The thing is that, as I point out in the review, I enjoyed the game. I like button-mashing dungeon crawls, so I liked Brotherhood of Steel. However, and this is why the latter half of the review reads the way it does, I'm also immensely frustrated with it, because it's very much a step backwards for what Snowblind's engine is capable of. Hence the hyperbole of the phrase "fundamentally flawed," as Killzig points out; the fundamental flaw is that they deliberately left out a lot of features that would've given the game a lot more depth and playability.

I do get what you're saying, and I'll keep it in mind for future reviews. This one turned out to be, in short form, "Not bad, but WTF?"

Canis Lupus wrote:It's evident that the people of Game-Over have no idea what Fallout is.

Actually, I have both Fallout and Fallout 2 right here. I've owned them for years. I'm not fanatical about them, but I enjoy both games.

Further, just for the sake of accuracy, that's my review, start to finish, including the rating. If you think I've made a mistake, don't blame Game Over Online; blame me.

They say that 80-89% is 'an excellent representation of the genre'. They gave F:BOS an eighty per cent and it is the exact opposite.

The genre at hand is "dungeon crawler." It's at the low end of "excellent," certainly, but it does what it does pretty well. If they stick a running strafe and character classes into BOS2, it'll actually be pretty damned good.

If you consider it to be a poor representation of some nebulous ideal that you point at and call "Fallout," and as such deserves numbers so low as to be purely theoretical, then that's your opinion, and we'll have to agree to disagree.

I appreciate the discussion I've seen in this forum today, and, as I said in my first post, I'd like to thank Saint Proverbius for pointing out the error in my review, where I started to make a point but then managed to leave it out. I've since fixed it.

I probably won't come back here, since I don't want to be seen as attempting to incite a flame war, but this, if nothing else, has raised some interesting points about game criticism that I'll try to keep in mind for the future.

Happy gaming,
Thomas

Canis Lupus · Post by **Canis Lupus** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 8:44 am

Damn, now I feel bad.

Saint_Proverbius · Post by **Saint_Proverbius** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 2:55 pm

Thomas Wilde wrote:The genre at hand is "dungeon crawler." It's at the low end of "excellent," certainly, but it does what it does pretty well. If they stick a running strafe and character classes into BOS2, it'll actually be pretty damned good.

Well, see, that's the thing. Dungeon crawlers as a genre are easy as hell to make. A dungeon crawler like Fallout Enforcer is incredibly easy to make because there's very little in the way of a character and combat system. For this game to only be 10 hours long alone should disqualify it from being excellent in any way, shape, or form. 10 hours long is ridiculously low, but most of us around here know it's only 10 hours long because Interplay cut the game in half to sell the second half as Fallout Enforcer 2.

But back to my point. Like you state in your review, there's a lot of flaws in this overly simple character and combat system. Some things simply don't work right, like the autotargetting system, the dodging, and so forth. Given how amazingly simple a game we're talking about here, there's just no excuse for this at all. It's almost like making a Tetris clone where the block pieces only rotate clockwise and have certain blocks that will never fit in a layer. If it's simple, then it shouldn't have fundamental flaws. Having fundamental flaws should knock it down from being excellent automatically, lower end or not.

Rosh · Post by **Rosh** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 10:17 am

"Professional gamer"?

What's that? You get paid off with free games?