Fallout 3: Sluggish, soulless and forgettablet ?!!!

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"]

But according to Vandal that sort of criticism and a low score means the reviewer misunderstood the game entirely. He's basically dismissing wholesale valid criticism and refuses to acknoeledge that people could see Too Human as effectively a flawed game.

subrosian

Since when have Vandal and I been the same person :| ?

Most of the negative reviews simply said "bad controls" or "bad camera", or "I died a lot". Many of them even said negative things about Mr. Dyack himself, which is frankly more than a little concerning when these same reviewers later claim to be more "credible" than the people who've actually beaten the game. The GS video review, for example, had broken armor pieces flashing red... if they knew that meant "broken" they would have repaired their gear.

Chances are they missed that, which does raise the point that they "didn't get it". I think it's more than fair to call Too Human misunderstood - to say that one audience will really enjoy it, while a casual player will find themselves facing a difficult game with a steep learning curve, one where how they are playing is not going to be in line with why the fans enjoy it.

Hell, the same could be said of Ikaruga - it's difficult, and it's about mastery rather than completion - but I wouldn't call Ikaruga a bad game. Of course, Ikaruga has fewer technical flaws than Too Human, and has a tutorial :P. But please, I've asked you nicely twice already - DO NOT make a judgment on what *I say* based on what *someone else* says. My opinions have rarely if ever been accurately represented by others.

I never called you Vandal.:| I was merely clarifying what me and Vandal are arguing about, that is all. And like I said right from the very first post 'TO VANDAL' was that some of the reviews were mistaken in parts. I agreed with that from the off. So don't try to make me understand any mistakes, I know them full well after spending seven hours constantly barraged with them.

OK, we'll stop talking now in this thread, since everytime I post a reply to you, you seem to think I'm putting what Vandal says into your mouth. Not true.

Coming from someone who has failed to prove he has even played the game! As someone who has, you're wrong. Each character offers divergent play styles, and I even listed them, but since you ignore it, I'll do it again. Commando; Ranged style Berserker: Predominate melee style Defender; Snares, aerial, and traps Bioengineer; Mitigation and healing. THis is the standard class layout you would find in most any roleplaying game on the market. The final class is sort of a hodgepodge and isn't even worth mentioned. (I don't care about all you champion fans, he is a jack of all trades and a master of none). Vandalvideo

Those classes converge together too much. They may have separate names, but they certainly don't all play completely separately.

And yet it is listed as an action RPG game by many other sites, and it has the roleplaying elements associated with the afforementioned genre; loot collection, character level progression, progressive level design, and indepth storytelling. I see no reason not to call it an RPG, and the reviewer didn't take the time to go and explore the story, clearly illustrated by his lack of understanding about the casual links between the levels, which the player CAN easily find.

I stated it has RPG like traits and a heavy focus on a levelling system. I don't even care about this point because it's an asinine "box" into which to place a game. Does it matter if it's Action Adventure or RPG... nope. But I still see it as inherently action adventure, again we disagree on a classification and frankly there's nothing that can be done here. Even Silicon Knights see the game as a mish-mash of genres.

That never happened. Not once. Now in some hypothetical dream land maybe that could have happened, but that never happened during the 50+ horus that I played the game. Netiher did I fall through the level like some reviews complained about. Vandalvideo

Plenty of people experienced glitches. Rememer subjective experiences, many reviewers were playing off a before final review code, that is beyond their control, they can only play whatever SK ships them to review. And yes the camera in the game was finicky and was not optimal at all. Example of glitch and messed up camera. No they weren't making it up.

Those classes converge together too much. They may have separate names, but they certainly don't all play completely separately.Hoobinator

I stated it has RPG like traits and a heavy focus on a levelling system. I don't even care about this point because it's an asinine "box" into which to place a game. Does it matter if it's Action Adventure or RPG... nope. But I still see it as inherently action adventure, again we disagree on a classification and frankly there's nothing that can be done here. Even Silicon Knights see the game as a mish-mash of genres.

Plenty of people experienced glitches. Rememer subjective experiences, many reviewers were playing off a before final review code, that is beyond their control, they can only play whatever SK ships them to review. And yes the camera in the game was finicky and was not optimal at all.

I never called you Vandal.:| I was merely clarifying what me and Vandal are arguing about, that is all. And like I said right from the very first post 'TO VANDAL' was that some of the reviews were mistaken in parts. I agreed with that from the off. So don't try to make me understand any mistakes, I know them full well after spending seven hours constantly barraged with them.

OK, we'll stop talking now in this thread, since everytime I post a reply to you, you seem to think I'm putting what Vandal says into your mouth. Not true.

Hoobinator

No, I just think the debate between yourself and Vandal has turned this into being about "what ______ said about _________ in the Too Human review". Which isn't at all what I care about. My concern is simple - review scores and reviews aren't going to tell all of the dozens of audiences looking at Fallout 3 what they're getting into. People are excited about Fallout 3 for totally different reasons. Some people want to explore, some people want to nuke things. Some people want zombie / mutant fights. Others are concerned about characters, others still about the story.

People on the whole are a combination of some or all of those things - and there's a whole lot that has to come together to please "everyone". And in the end, really, there will still be some people who are left upset because they want an isometric overhead game - and others upset because they really wanted a revolution for the Fallout series, and instead got Eldar Scrolls V.

BUT... it's important to not look at the reviewing community as the answer to that. They don't have a damn clue, they NEVER have. When Fallout first came out they didn't even have a clue, they were only about to get STALKER in retrospect, and then when Clear Skies was a buggy mess, quite a few of them didn't even notice. It's not entirely their fault - it's not like they're going "oh yeah, let's screw with people!" - they only have a few hours to review increasingly complex games, and they already have a feeling on games that is largely shaped by pre-release events, showcases, and coverage.

So the topic - will Fallout 3 be great? No. But not because of what some ass who wants PC gaming to return to being a DOS prompt and isometric graphics says. It's going to be only "okay" because it's not going to make you fall in love with the characters. The only Fallout Boy that girls are going to cheer for is the *band*. That's the topic at hand - and as I've said numerous times before - I *really* hope Bethesda proves me wrong.

I hope Fallout 3 is the best damn game ever released - why wouldn't I want it to be? I hope it's the best game of this or any other year, I hope it puts Mass Effect to shame. I hope I buy this game and go "well, cancel every other preorder for the rest of this year - I don't need anything else". That would be great. Is that going to happen? I'm not counting on it - I think it will be okay - I don't think it's flushing your money down the drain or anything, I'm sure you'll get some fun out of it - but I don't think it's going to be the masterpiece I want it to be, I don't think it's going to advance the series as much as it could.

And that is, as I've said before, a damn shame. I want to see them do well - I genuinely do - and for it to be at "okay" is a let down for me.

You haven't shown anything, and you haven't even shown that you've even played the game to begin with! I've illustrated time and time again that these reviews are publishing patently false information. When they're posting patently false information it brings their justification into consideration.Vandalvideo

Most of the mistakes, like 'bad camera' or 'depth of combat' criticisms are inherently derived from subjective experiences and standards which are not universal. For one man to see a deep combat, another may see a shallow and inconsequential combat system. Many of the so called 'mistakes' were actually your opinion and experiences differering from theirs. Some of the mistakes were false, most were not out and out 'false' or misinformation. And even with the reviews that contained a few mistakes their central arguments and positions were still wholly valid, a few mistakes doesn't override their whole review.

Most of the mistakes, like 'bad camera' or 'depth of combat' criticisms are inherently derived from subjective experiences and standards which are not universal. For one man to see a deep combat, another may see a shallow and inconsequential combat system. Many of the so called 'mistakes' were actually your opinion and experiences differering from theirs. Some of the mistakes were false, most were not out and out 'false' or misinformation. And even with the reviews that contained a few mistakes their central arguments and positions were still wholly valid, a few mistakes doesn't override their whole review.Hoobinator

*Reviews and Fallout 3 stuff* subrosian

Didn't read. Honestly I'm far too tired to read any of that, let alone reply to it. I'll have a Fallout 3 conversation and what reviews mean in a wider context some other day. I've been here for over 8 hours and it's 2 in the morning in the UK.

For now I must kill Vandal.

Example of glitch and messed up camera. No they weren't making it up.

Hoobinator

He's playing multiplayer, the small character at the bottom could be his friend, and he could simply have the camera pushed forward. It's also possible to glitch the camera in co-op by standby glitching. However, as the camera is *player controlled* (using the D-pad and LB to auto-recenter) in either case the glitch he's doing is intentional. He is causing it to be that way, not the game.

[QUOTE="subrosian"] *Reviews and Fallout 3 stuff* Hoobinator

Didn't read. Honestly I'm far too tired to read any of that, let alone reply to it. I'll have a Fallout 3 conversation and what reviews mean in a wider context some other day. I've been here for over 8 hours and it's 2 in the morning in the UK.

For now I must kill Vandal.

I would suggest you stop as the YouTube video you just linked to is a troll exploiting the game to fake a camera glitch :|. People discussing camera problems meant that sometimes the camera will "cinematically pan" in the wrong direction, aka, it might pan to give you a better visual experience, but make it so you can't see an enemy!

This is why experienced players use "strategic" or "isometric" camera modes - as really, visuals are unimportant compared to a wider view of the action.

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"]

[QUOTE="subrosian"] *Reviews and Fallout 3 stuff* subrosian

Didn't read. Honestly I'm far too tired to read any of that, let alone reply to it. I'll have a Fallout 3 conversation and what reviews mean in a wider context some other day. I've been here for over 8 hours and it's 2 in the morning in the UK.

For now I must kill Vandal.

I would suggest you stop as the YouTube video you just linked to is a troll exploiting the game to fake a camera glitch :|. People discussing camera problems meant that sometimes the camera will "cinematically pan" in the wrong direction, aka, it might pan to give you a better visual experience, but make it so you can't see an enemy!

This is why experienced players use "strategic" or "isometric" camera modes - as really, visuals are unimportant compared to a wider view of the action.

Meh, I googled whatever vid I could find just as an illustration that people have come across glitches in this game, which he was wholesale dismissing. I also stated the panning problem also, the camera will at times "angle" to obscure certain enemies and sights, it all factors in as part of the annoyance.

Many reviewers probably wanted to focus up close to the graphics so they gauge better the level of detail and clarity etc, which is why many of them have stated having so many camera problems, they were probably forcing themselves to play in modes and angles for review purposes and hence got a "higher than average" bad camera angle.

[QUOTE="subrosian"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"]

[QUOTE="subrosian"] *Reviews and Fallout 3 stuff* Hoobinator

Didn't read. Honestly I'm far too tired to read any of that, let alone reply to it. I'll have a Fallout 3 conversation and what reviews mean in a wider context some other day. I've been here for over 8 hours and it's 2 in the morning in the UK.

For now I must kill Vandal.

I would suggest you stop as the YouTube video you just linked to is a troll exploiting the game to fake a camera glitch :|. People discussing camera problems meant that sometimes the camera will "cinematically pan" in the wrong direction, aka, it might pan to give you a better visual experience, but make it so you can't see an enemy!

This is why experienced players use "strategic" or "isometric" camera modes - as really, visuals are unimportant compared to a wider view of the action.

Meh, I googled whatever vid I could find just as an illustration that people have come across glitches in this game, which he was wholesale dismissing. I also stated the panning problem also, the camera will at times "angle" to obscure certain enemies and sights, it all factors in as part of the annoyance.

Many reviewers probably wanted to focus up close to the graphics so they gauge better the level of detail and clarity etc, which is why many of them have stated having so many camera problems, they were probably forcing themselves to play in modes and angles for review purposes and hence got a "higher than average" bad camera angle.

Right, which is again where a tutorial was vital, but Too Human didn't have one, and that screwed a lot of people up. If there was a tutorial that said "you can get in close for cool visuals, but you probably should keep the camera zoomed out" and explained how to work the camera a little better, they wouldn't have put themselves in a bad situation. They would have hit down three times, been in isometric mode, and said "woah, no camera problems!"

Fault? Sure - but more that Silicon Knights put all this stuff in the game, and then didn't explain it to anyone. Too Human has a ton of stuff it just doesn't explain. People run around with flashing red armor (like GameSpot) with no idea that means it is providing 0 armor bonus. If you go from 1000 armor to having 0 armor because you don't know to go to the repair shop or find new armor, you're going to die... a lot.

-

Vandal isn't going to give up though, he's not going to go "I get what you're trying to say, but you're saying it in the wrong way". He's going to prove your points wrong until you say exactly what he wants, in the way that he wants. 100+ posts just show a stubborn Vandal and get us off track. And it's a stupid debate, because Bethesda isn't Silicon Knights. I doubt "camera angle" is going to come into being a problem in Fallout 3 - really I'd say 70% of the concern is location / story / characters, and the other 30% is how combat / growth / items are going to work in the game.

Right, which is again where a tutorial was vital, but Too Human didn't have one, and that screwed a lot of people up. If there was a tutorial that said "you can get in close for cool visuals, but you probably should keep the camera zoomed out" and explained how to work the camera a little better, they wouldn't have put themselves in a bad situation. They would have hit down three times, been in isometric mode, and said "woah, no camera problems!"

Fault? Sure - but more that Silicon Knights put all this stuff in the game, and then didn't explain it to anyone. Too Human has a ton of stuff it just doesn't explain. People run around with flashing red armor (like GameSpot) with no idea that means it is providing 0 armor bonus. If you go from 1000 armor to having 0 armor because you don't know to go to the repair shop or find new armor, you're going to die... a lot.

-

Vandal isn't going to give up though, he's not going to go "I get what you're trying to say, but you're saying it in the wrong way". He's going to prove your points wrong until you say exactly what he wants, in the way that he wants. 100+ posts just show a stubborn Vandal and get us off track. And it's a stupid debate, because Bethesda isn't Silicon Knights. I doubt "camera angle" is going to come into being a problem in Fallout 3 - really I'd say 70% of the concern is location / story / characters, and the other 30% is how combat / growth / items are going to work in the game.

subrosian

Yeah I agree with you almost wholly on these points. The fact is that you can at least attest to and are willing to state Too Humans downfalls and at least understand where the reviewer is coming from, his subjective position, his experiences with the game and why they would give Too Human and games like TH such scores in general when factoring in the 'review process' of gaming media. Many of the simple faults really were just oversights by SK, small things that could have taken Too Human from being a bad/decent/good game to a AA one easily.

And as for Fallout 3 the story and how cohesive the game world is will factor in much more than small complaints and oversights. For a game with such scope, small oversights are usually replaced by something you find exceptionally above average or 'cool' in the game. I just hope the games media reviews the game for what it is and doesn't get bogged down for what it's not.

[QUOTE="RuprechtMonkey"]

First of all, I take it you're no familiar with NMA. Asking No Mutants Allowed ANYTHING related to Fallout 3 is like asking the hardest core Microsoft Fanboy on this site anything about Sony.

Also, what they're talking about comes from a PREVIEW of the game in some no-name French magazine.

ice144

Who cares if it's a preview or a "no-name French magazine".

The man brought up fundamental issues with the game.

I HIGHLY doubt he'd flat out lie about what he saw in the game(20 second VAT for example).

Dude... get off the sac already. I don't like the french anyway. I'll wait for someone with a little more cred to tell me how much this game rocks or not.

Yeah I agree with you almost wholly on these points. The fact is that you can at least attest to and are willing to state Too Humans downfalls and at least understand where the reviewer is coming from, his subjective position, his experiences with the game and why they would give Too Human and games like TH such scores in general when factoring in the 'review process' of gaming media. Many of the simple faults really were just oversights by SK, small things that could have taken Too Human from being a bad/decent/good game to a AA one easily.

And as for Fallout 3 the story and how cohesive the game world is will factor in much more than small complaints and oversights. For a game with such scope, small oversights are usually replaced by something you find exceptionally above average or 'cool' in the game. I just hope the games media reviews the game for what it is and doesn't get bogged down for what it's not.

Hoobinator

The problem with games on the scale of Fable 2 or Fallout 3 is that the media won't have time to see whether they really deliver on the promise of "epic content". They have to produce a review only spending a certain amount of time with the game, which is really where these games can slide through the cracks. For example, they can't possibly play through the game as every possible character type and play st yle, nor can they explore every area, get in every fight, et cetera. And even if they did, not every gamer is a completionist - what's the overall experience? How does it hold up?

They also won't be playing the games in the same was as a general gamer - getting the reviews out as early as possible means more site views. The magazine reviews have to meet printing deadlines. There's just no way a review of Fable 2 or Fallout 3 can be really "accurate" to the whole experience of the game in such a short time. So, we're not really going to "know" what a person playing Fallout 3 at a leisurely pace thinks, we're not going to know how different RPG community groups feel, other than of course the short impressions we get from events.

Add in that too many reviewers are simply clueless on how to review RPGs, or what the RPG audience is looking for versus general consumers, and I frankly am just not enthusiastic about what I'm going to see coming out of the review community for these games. I believe it will be extremely positive - but frankly I'll trust nothing short of my own experience as far as delivering a "final verdict".

but frankly I'll trust nothing short of my own experience as far as delivering a "final verdict".

subrosian

I don't think anyone here doesn't know exactly what that opinion will be.

[QUOTE="ice144"][QUOTE="RuprechtMonkey"]

First of all, I take it you're no familiar with NMA. Asking No Mutants Allowed ANYTHING related to Fallout 3 is like asking the hardest core Microsoft Fanboy on this site anything about Sony.

Also, what they're talking about comes from a PREVIEW of the game in some no-name French magazine.

ryurage

Who cares if it's a preview or a "no-name French magazine".

The man brought up fundamental issues with the game.

I HIGHLY doubt he'd flat out lie about what he saw in the game(20 second VAT for example).

Dude... get off the sac already. I don't like the french anyway. I'll wait for someone with a little more cred to tell me how much this game rocks or not.

I would trust this guy it seems over the numerous "crediable" reviewers any day.. Oblivion was absolute garbage for an rpg. It had no redeemable qualities, and could vaguely be considered a RPG.. Even if SOME considered it a great game, it had GLARING design flaws in enviroment, combat, character development, to over all rpg elements in general.. Things that were never mentioned in really any of these critical reviews that praised the game.

well too bad he did it and you guys can stop crying now damn!

Seriously if he was going to pirate it what maeks you think hes going to buy it??? if anything he woudl rent it so blockbuster would get money and rentals are hurting THE INDUSTRY!!

So personally I would like to thank you kojamax for helping the gaming industry and I truely hope more good people like you are out there!

The second element that makes me think that Fallout 3 is condemned to mediocrity, as a Fallout episode but also as an RPG, is the total lack of coherence between all the elements of gameplay. Just an example. Pretty soon, you'll discover that the game has more to do with a doll's house than with roleplaying: you spend your time picking up clothes or armor parts that, *magic trick*, influence your skills. Pick up a surgeon overall, gain five Medicine points. Wear a camping suit, your agility is increased. All of a sudden, the building of a "role" - a specialized but unique and believable character, exactly what made the core of Black Isle's RPGs - is blown away. You just have to spend your caps on weapons, but even that is not necessary...For the rest, everybody who thinks for at least thirty seconds can make a multivalent character. One just needs the appropriate clothes, drugs to suddenly turn into a pyrotechnician, scientist, or burglar.

From the quote alone from this guy, the game shows that it is exactly Oblivion.. Its character system or lack of one, shows that decisions don't make a difference, that you will always be the super man capable of doing everything at the word go.

I've been reading through this thread, and I can't believe how many people actually think this game isn't going to suck ass.

Seriously? I mean, come on, watch this gameplay footage, and then go look in the mirror and try to tell yourself with a straight face that Fallout 3 doesn't look like absolute garbage.

Unless you are intoxicated or have recently hit your head really, really, hard, you will probably have a difficult time doing that.

I've been reading through this thread, and I can't believe how many people actually think this game isn't going to suck ass.

Seriously? I mean, come on, watch this gameplay footage, and then go look in the mirror and try to tell yourself with a straight face that Fallout 3 doesn't look like absolute garbage.

Unless you are intoxicated or have recently hit your head really, really, hard, you will probably have a difficult time doing that.

jethrovegas

I kind of agree with you. Ever since seeing the E3 footage of Fallout 3 I've had a hard time getting hyped for it. The gameplay doesn't look that appealing to me, and if half the stuff this "review" says is true I probably will dislike it as much as I now dislike Oblivion. That being said, if it gets some decent reviews, and heck, maybe even if it doesn't, I'll probably rent it just to give it a go.

[QUOTE="jethrovegas"]

I've been reading through this thread, and I can't believe how many people actually think this game isn't going to suck ass.

Seriously? I mean, come on, watch this gameplay footage, and then go look in the mirror and try to tell yourself with a straight face that Fallout 3 doesn't look like absolute garbage.

Unless you are intoxicated or have recently hit your head really, really, hard, you will probably have a difficult time doing that.

KodiakGTS

I kind of agree with you. Ever since seeing the E3 footage of Fallout 3 I've had a hard time getting hyped for it. The gameplay doesn't look that appealing to me, and if half the stuff this "review" says is true I probably will dislike it as much as I now dislike Oblivion. That being said, if it gets some decent reviews, and heck, maybe even if it doesn't, I'll probably rent it just to give it a go.

That footage reminds me of a dumbed down Mass effect system.. No cover, no abilities other then firing the gun.. The explosion was pretty cool, so was the slow motion intill they kept on doing it over and over again. The fact that the article pretty much states it will have a character developmetn system as stupid/nonexistent as Oblivion's, gives little to even expect..

The second element that makes me think that Fallout 3 is condemned to mediocrity, as a Fallout episode but also as an RPG, is the total lack of coherence between all the elements of gameplay. Just an example. Pretty soon, you'll discover that the game has more to do with a doll's house than with roleplaying: you spend your time picking up clothes or armor parts that, *magic trick*, influence your skills. Pick up a surgeon overall, gain five Medicine points. Wear a camping suit, your agility is increased. All of a sudden, the building of a "role" - a specialized but unique and believable character, exactly what made the core of Black Isle's RPGs - is blown away. You just have to spend your caps on weapons, but even that is not necessary...For the rest, everybody who thinks for at least thirty seconds can make a multivalent character. One just needs the appropriate clothes, drugs to suddenly turn into a pyrotechnician, scientist, or burglar.

From the quote alone from this guy, the game shows that it is exactly Oblivion.. Its character system or lack of one, shows that decisions don't make a difference, that you will always be the super man capable of doing everything at the word go.

sSubZerOo

unfortunately that is exactly what fallout 1/2 were like - which again leads me to think this guy has never played them. with mentats / drugs / books / gear / guns you could drastically alter your character in previous fallouts. it was necessary if you didn't have certain skills in your party ;)

Should i play oblivion first in order to understand this game?:P

Should i play oblivion first in order to understand this game?:P

LOXO7

No, don't do that.

That's like eating some warm dog crap so that you can be ready to eat some warm horse crap.

I've been reading through this thread, and I can't believe how many people actually think this game isn't going to suck ass.

Seriously? I mean, come on, watch this gameplay footage, and then go look in the mirror and try to tell yourself with a straight face that Fallout 3 doesn't look like absolute garbage.

Unless you are intoxicated or have recently hit your head really, really, hard, you will probably have a difficult time doing that.

jethrovegas

Wow, that looked awful. And the user rating on Gametrailers is 9.0 for that footage. :?

I'll never understand why people think this looks great. The ridiculous swaying when walking animation was horrible. The enemy AI seemed braindead.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

The second element that makes me think that Fallout 3 is condemned to mediocrity, as a Fallout episode but also as an RPG, is the total lack of coherence between all the elements of gameplay. Just an example. Pretty soon, you'll discover that the game has more to do with a doll's house than with roleplaying: you spend your time picking up clothes or armor parts that, *magic trick*, influence your skills. Pick up a surgeon overall, gain five Medicine points. Wear a camping suit, your agility is increased. All of a sudden, the building of a "role" - a specialized but unique and believable character, exactly what made the core of Black Isle's RPGs - is blown away. You just have to spend your caps on weapons, but even that is not necessary...For the rest, everybody who thinks for at least thirty seconds can make a multivalent character. One just needs the appropriate clothes, drugs to suddenly turn into a pyrotechnician, scientist, or burglar.

From the quote alone from this guy, the game shows that it is exactly Oblivion.. Its character system or lack of one, shows that decisions don't make a difference, that you will always be the super man capable of doing everything at the word go.

3picuri3

unfortunately that is exactly what fallout 1/2 were like - which again leads me to think this guy has never played them. with mentats / drugs / books / gear / guns you could drastically alter your character in previous fallouts. it was necessary if you didn't have certain skills in your party ;)

Except this is clearly a combat orientated game.. There will be LITTLE choice in deciison making when it comes to dialogues or quests, and what little tehre is will make no difference what so ever.. Not only does the combat look awful, but the character development system is generic/non existent.. Just like Oblivion.. This game for a lack of better words IS oblivion with guns.