First round of Fallout 4 Reviews

Ah but Fallout 4's technical problems are not nearly to the extent of Arkham Knight's though, and the game has made a strong impression on the PC audience. The two situations are hardly comparable if you know how it was behind the scenes; Arkham Knight was cobbled together by a very small team with barely any time left, and the PC consumers quickly caught on that and the game was pulled from Steam instantly. AS far as I know, the same is not happening with Fallout 4, infact quite the opposite it.

 

That's you? How do you do it?

Undertale is really cool. I get an Earthbound vibe from it.

 

Yeah, giving anything a 10 or a 0 is no better than having a binary system in place. And binary systems are awful.

Fallout 4 seems like it is a fun little run and gun adventure for people who just want to shoot shit up and I've said it before that it is most likely a great game for people who want distractions. Some people just wanna sit down and relax and dick around in a game. Sandbox games are great for that and sandbox games that are chock full of distractions are even better.

I don't think Fallout 4 should be given 0's either, just like I don't think it should be given 10's. To me, Fallout 4 seems like a 5.5 out of 10 kinda game. It'll be fun for a very specific type of gamer but anyone who wants 'more' out of experience would probably not enjoy it as much.

 

So who is more qualified to rate a video game, than the users of that video game?

Did they make this game for gaming "journalists"?
Nope. They made it for and sold it to: consumers, video gamers... USERS!

These are the very people who have no monetary incentive to give it a better or worse score than it deserves, and somehow you think they are the people who's reviews should be ignored? That's just moronic and it has no logical basis beyond you not liking what they've said and it not agreeing with the opinion you formed well before this product ever hit the market.

 

Maybe you should learn how to read. What we are lookign here is not the value of the individual scores from the users, but rather the very obvious pushback consumers are putting up. You can Cop out like usual and just call all of the negative reviews "troll reviews" but you gotta be aware that it's pretty disingenous to do so. Specially when the backlash is this huge.


The game is by all reports suffering from numerous Performance issues on all platforms and is riddled with bugs. Most of which has been transparently ignored by "profesional reviewers" and Bethesda's PR guy is even denying such performance drops even exist despite clear evidence of them. The Arkham Knight fiasco is still pretty much a fresh memory for every PC users.

 

Do what?

Spoiler

http://forums.bethsoft.com/index.php?app=core&module=search&do=user_activity&mid=552585

 

If one actually reads the user reviews on Metacritic, it's surprising to see how many of those who give the game a 10/10 still criticise it on a number of accounts, even if indirectly or implicitly, but defend the faults with that they don't matter or are to be expected in such a huge game. And since that critique is coming from people who obviously love the game and Bethesda to death, it's rather safe to assume that it is warranted and that anyone less well predisposed to the game might find the faults greatly detrimental to their playing experience.

 

Read through all the shit posts that frequently come up there. Every time I go and read some posts there, it makes my skin crawl.

 

Same here. If it wasn't for the bugs, dialogue wheel and awful UI I would give it a 5 or 6. Its probably a fun action and shoot em up game that caters to the CoD and casual audience that want a distraction but as a Fallout and RPG game it is terrible and poorly written. Then again the CoD audience is the audience that Bethesda wants at lest according to Todd Howard. So it looks like Bethesda accomplished that at lest.

 

I'm assuming or at least hoping most of those user reviews are honest (the positive, mixed, and negative). I would probably give this game between 5-7 as a shooter, but it would score poorly within RPG parameters. I only review games on steam or other sites IF and only IF I have actually completed a play-through of a game. So if any super Beth fan is curious, no - even if someone such as myself expresses that I do like what I see - we don't go around trolling review scores.

But holy cow its surprisingly that the scores are lower than Pillars of Eternity. It seems many users are not giving Bethesda a pass this time - and yeah I'm sure that makes a developer that slaved on some aspect of the game feel bad, but, I mean, how else are they going to improve the areas of their games that have continued to get worse if someone doesn't speak up about it?

Hell maybe this will finally make them step up their game for the next Elder Scrolls? Probably not, but eh, its a thought.

 

Good that you get the point across about numbers, but I feel you might be accentuating some of the more negative feedback here. You make it seem as if the customers are all rallying against Bethesda and decrying them for releasing such a poorly optimised title, like the backlash against Warner Bros with Arkham Knight but that just isn't strictly the case. On PC the game has a very high reception with its user base; it's got the negative scores sure, but it's not completely on one extreme here.

 

Oh I don't, not anymore.
I used to have a Manny Pardo kinda thick skin but I'm a fragile old hag by now and I don't have the energy to get into big debates about Fallout with those kinds of people anymore. I guess they won in the end. I like it better here, less delusional people to argue with. And I ain't kidding about the delusional part. Some people over at Bethesda forums are scary in how zealous they are towards defending Bethesda.

 

Hell even in the "professional" critic reviews they kept bringing up the bugs and performance issues that plague this game. Yet they still gave the game a 9 or a 10 with the excuse that "its a feature" or "its to be expected from a Bethesda game" or my favorite "we should just be privileged to have a another Fallout game! Those that complain about bugs and other issues are just entitled!"
This is just disgusting! There should be no excuse for releasing a broken product to the consumer.

 

Broken means it doesn't work at all. FFS The Witcher had a patch to fix 600 bugs and issues or something thereabouts.

 

Um... No. To me broken is having a bunch of bugs and glitches plague the game to the point that its almost unplayable. There is many definitions to the term broken in a video game. Why you are choosing to defend Bethesda and their dirty business practices and denial is beyond me.

 

Oh, your stove with an electronic panel for some reason mixes up the degrees when you put it at a hundred celsius and it burns things in minutes? Well, sorry Sir but that stove ain't "broken".

Anyway, as to this review: http://www.rpgamer.com/games/fallout/fallout4/reviews/fallout4strev1.html

"In Fallout 3, one of the most game defining moments was dealing with the town of Megaton. Early in that game, players are given the option of deactivating a nuke in the middle of this thriving settlement or setting it off and killing everyone inside. The key figures on each side of this event entice the player to help their side. For a simple, optional side quest there is a lot of depth in the way players are allowed to handle this situation. The problem in Fallout 4 isn't so much that it doesn't live up to that quest, but that it doesn't even attempt its own Megaton moment. Side quests generally lack any sort of gray area and rarely have any lasting impact on the game. Main quests and faction quests are usually pretty straightforward, leaving players to wonder how many fetch quests or slaughter missions there will be before the next bit of story. There are tons of side quests to fill the void, but most are just combat-focused smash fests instead of complex dialogue-heavy ones."

Just sayin'

 

It's a feature!

 

It isn't unplayable for almost anyone, broken means unplayable. I'm not defending anyone I'm criticizing your poor usage of the term.

 

Then that is really stupid of you because many people have been saying that the game crashes constantly or the bugs and fps drops make it unplayable to them. If that's not broken then I don't now what is but if living in your delusional fantasy world helps you play and like this game then more power to you.