disolitude said:
lol, see you are basing things on your personal opinion in games. A reviewer tends to be opinion neutral and needs to look at the game and what it offers from a critical perspective. Not all reviewers do this...but they really should. Its their job. I for one did not like Fallout 3, but that is a AAA game if I've ever seen one. Production, innovation, visuals, sound...everything was pretty much top of the line for that genre in 2008. I am not the fan of the genre, but I see the games quailities. Game like Halo 3 and Orange Box...these games offer more quality fun gameplay than 95% of other titles on the market. While it may not be your type of gameplay...for the gamers that like that type of game, there really was no better value for their dollar. |
So you don't believe being riddled with bugs is a detractor? Fallout 3 has a huge list of glicthes, and not just random freezes or odd graphic output but also physics-breaking issues that can cause stuff to fly that shouldn't or that can get your character stuck for no reason. Fallout 3 is a very poor example of game programming, and if that's not call to knock it down a peg then you're basically saying whether or not it actually works as it's supposed to is irrelevant to the quality of the game.
Now I'm not saying a game should get bonus points for not having glitches, but a game shouldn't be treated as one of the best ever if it's relatively likely that a player will have their game interrupted multiple times by multiple different programming errors.
You do not have the right to never be offended.