F:BOS Gamespot Review

[Kadu]

I skimmed through all the posts and didn't see anything on a review, just the preview.

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/rpg/falloutbrotherhoodofsteel/review.html

A lot of you have probably already seen this, but I just wanted to throw it out there. Gamespot has always been pretty fair about reviewing a game and this one was no exception. I think it tries to tailor it to both sides of the conflict, without seeming like it's really trying to get in the middle. I thought they did an ok job, but I'm posting it here just to see what everyone else has to say about it.

More specifically, Brotherhood of Steel is clearly inspired by and closely resembles Interplay's outstanding action RPG, Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance--but it's not as impressive.

Brotherhood of Steel is no substitute for a true Fallout sequel, but it doesn't aim to be one. So, if you're looking for a hack-and-slash game that you can unwind with, but you're a bit weary of how they all take place in fantasy-themed settings, then Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel should do you good.

The two quotes that probably did this game review more justice than the others that either kissed Interplay's ass or just saying it down-right sucked.

Anyway, I leave it down to the rest of you to take this apart if you feel it should be.

 

[Mad Larkin]

Brotherhood of Steel isn't a long game, and it weighs in somewhere close to 10 hours from start to finish. However, it feels pretty long because the nature of the gameplay is very repetitive

I just love how they turn it to a good feature

Despite the variety, these enemies all adopt one of two types of tactics. If they have ranged weapons, they'll shoot at you, and if they don't, they'll run up and try to hit you at close range.

Omg teh A.I!

Gamespot rates should be read in the 4-10 scale... The rating inflation is reelly bad over there... Only time i've seen an under 4 score was about a game that didnt actually work

 

[Basil Zen]

I've only seen one below 40% score for Lara Croft: Angel of Darkness...ever. It doesn't show me that reviewers don't grade harshly enough, it just shows that 40% is a really, REALLY shitty score.

I've seen a 55% for Enter: The Matrix. Apparently, that game was only "pretty shitty."

Here's a fact of life. People that give good ratings, honest ratings, and objective (well, within reason) ratings do not want to throw out ratings based on gut instinct. Or at least they should not. I would hope a reviewer would lose any credibility he had WHATSOEVER once he started giving out scores on a whim.

I have not even once heard any review, even from people on these boards, that would have earned FO:BOS anything below a 6. Maybe because once upon a time they bought a 73% game, enjoyed it, and therefore assumed that 73% was a good rating and 40% was the start of bad ratings. Please. 73% is barely not crap. Remember that. Jagged Alliance 2 was a 78% game. That made it, "okay" or a C+. And a lot of tactical fans still act like JA2 was the second coming (and I don't mean of JA1).

Warped sensibilities and warped opinions abound, man.

Sorry, but anything below an 80% is not good. Anything around 60% is crap and, by all official standards, a failure. Anything at 40% does not function.

Next time I see a reviewer open by saying, "I hate the guys who made this game" or "I love the guys who made this game," I'm fucking clicking x and going to find someone not jacking off on the screen to a verbal rape/titfuck fantasy they like to call a review.

 

[VaultDweller]

Hey, at least they were frank and told the truth and weren't afraid of doing so.