Quote: "You don't have to use the VATS system"
Indeed, but then the combat is just even more boring
I like the game, but i dont think it deserves the insanely high scores it receives. Obviously this is mostly opinionated, but are reviews not supposed to show the pros and cons of a game? Most of the game video reviews, just show the good side of fallout 3.... For example they manage to mention the good things:
1. Open ended gameplay, like that of oblivion....
2. Good rpg elements....
3. The V.A.T.S system....
4. Gives the impression that there is some awesome weaponry....
But they "forget" everything else such as
1. ...But the open world, is dull, which creates no incentive for whole world exploration. For example, most of the stores etc to explore, i only bother with if its on the way to a mission i cant quick travel too. Where as in oblivion, there is usualy a great momnument, or interesting structure where the place is.
2. ...But its been dumbed down since elder scrolls, for the "casual gamer".
3. ...But gets old after the first few uses, and makes the game too easy, because the "AP"(energy) bar recharges way too quickly. And for hardcore gamers, like me, who would rather shoot in the clasic fps style (i.e actualy aim), the gameplay is clunky. I understand its not supposed to be a shooter, but they should mention this in the reviews, which they dont in most.
4. ...But there is actualy only one "Awesome" weapon... The fat man, the other weapons have been seen in other games and have been done a lot better.
While me saying its overated, is an opinion, and of course other people are allowed to think otherwise, the fact that nearly all of the reviews tend to "forget" the bad points, is quite anoyying.
I will say once again, its a good game, but its more of an 7.5 - 8, than the 9.6 ign gives it.
Cheers
-General Reed
CPU: AMD X2 6000+ 3.0ghz GFX: NVIDIA BFG Geforce 8800GTS 640MB OC-550mhz core RAM: 2048mb
