Personally, I always loved the crits in Fallout, but you could, completely at random, take enough damage to kill your character several times. Fallout 3 is relatively easier than Fallouts 1 and 2.But that ease should be no less irritating than the completely capricious crits that were part and parcel of the first two Fallout games. If you, as the player, fill up your packs with paperweights, then I have very little sympathy that you didn't have room for better stuff.Īnother example is difficulty. And all three games forced players to decide on what to take and what to leave. Even worse, some of the details that folks present as part of a review in comparing FO3 with the previous titles are things that detracted from those titles as well.įor example, if Fallout 1's inventory and trade between the PC and companions were perfect, why did BIS change it for Fallout 2?. However, most of the time, the list of issues contain such picayunish details that I have to wonder why someone would cite them in the first place. Some of these things are certainly big issues for some folks, and I can understand and respect that. The disconnect is someone will cite something like, say, inventory control as a major detraction from the game.But, even though I can see their point about inventory control, I can't understand why it's such a huge problem with the game.
When I see the lists of complaints, I'll often agree with many of them.
The basic problem with that review is the basic problem of every die-hard fanboy rant against Fallout 3: they can't seperate the wood from the frakking trees & perfectly sensible criticisms that can be levelled against the game (and there are many) get lost in the vitriol against anything and everything.
0 kommentar(er)
