9, 10 i dont give a crap even if they gave it a 6 (and if they did then boy whoever reviewed it was a dumbass) this is still one of the greatest games ever made
Why does it matter if it got a 9 or a 10? It's a sweet game, so if sweet games are your cup of tea you'll have a blast playing it. I personally could barely stop playing it long enough to write this comment. And away I go
It's finally out!! A nine out of ten was a bit of a shock with how you guys were praising it almost non-stop in the other articles. Kinda like MGS4, Mercenaries 2, Star Wars Force Unleashed, Dead Space, Silent Hill: Homecoming...you get where I'm going with this right?
WTF!?
You gave Halo 3 a 10, but Fallout 3, Dead Space, Fable II, and Far Cry only get 9's?
You guys need to get your priorities straight.
I love my 360 and (almost) all the games on there, but if I lit Halo 3 on fire, set it on someone's porch, and rang the doorbell they'd stomp it out and be like "Aww, I got Halo 3 on my new italian loafers! Curse you darn kids!!!"
9's and 10's usually dont matter much to me, it's just that the fact that you could hold Halo 3 in higher regards than ANY new shooter makes me strongly reconsider listening to GR's verdicts in the future...
I think you should use a 10,000,000,000 points scoring system then you can really give a super accurate mark! This game would have to be somewhere between 9,301,654,159 and 9,523,569,852. Please note this is sarcasm. A ten point scheme is quite adequate, the 9 given to this game is the reviewers opinion and 9 is supposed to represent an awesome game. I don't think there should even be a number rating at the end of a review. If done properly, the text should give a good enough indication of quality and stops 'tards getting stroppy because a 9 has been awarded. Objecting to a nine is surely akin to thinking your missus doesn't fancy you because she doesn't faint every time she sees you.
I agree with the 9 I guess, It would definatly be a 10 if you could custimize and or create your own armor out of Items and animals that you find throughout the game, kinda like Monster hunters. The game does rock, It rocks hard core. I love it and will play it for a while to come.
This review is right, but I don't agree to the unsatifying side quests. I believe it would have gotten a 10 out of 10 from this site, but I guess the unexpected... LIKE THE SIDE QUESTS. Oh well.
The problem is that 10 out of 10 isn't for the perfect game, but for a game that makes you overlook its shortcomings because it's strong points make you daze. That said, I prefer PCGamer 100% style where a game CAN'T reach 100% and you know it is a masterpiece from 90% and up.
Also, I get just mad that games like Halo 3 and Guitar (fuck this game is boring as hell, I'll listem to a CD instead) Hero 2 get 10 when they have very serious shortcomings and Fallout 3 gets a 9 when the things that'll bother you in it are only noticeble when you try finding them.
Pretty much, for me the criticism for Fallout 3 are: Radiant AI is still very experimental: It is an incredible AI, but like 3D looked like shit in its first attempts Radiant AI acts like a retarded baby at times. Fortunately it acts proper most of it. Torsos don't get damaged: Really minor, but it bothers me that everything from a body is turned into mush and the torso stands there impecable. At least a ribcage burst would make me perfectly happy. Voice acting is quirky: but way better than in Oblivion and very good for game standards, considering the fuckload of people (and everyone talks) in it. Dogmeat should learn to stop dashing for the people you're throwing granades at: it is annoying. At least your companions have very decent AI overall, even standing far away AND sneaking when you do so. Oh, but mostly I hope people stop disappearing and killing themselves in an early patch: because fiddling with console commands to get them back really packs a punch againt gameplay.