First round of Fallout 4 Reviews

Bubba Zanetti said:
MercenarySnake said:
I kid but seriously it seems they put more time into the character creator then everything else.
Click to expand...

Marty Feldman lives!

Eternal said:
Need some more examples before I call in the pitchforks, but that ain't good.
Click to expand...

Yeah, agreed. Are there other examples of reviews being deleted or was it just this one Tyrant guy?
Click to expand...

I haven't really checked. To be fair I found this on the Codex but I wouldn't be honestly surprised if we start to see more of this what with the Metacritic for this game on all three ports being as low as they are. For a AAA developer like Bethesda who have been basking in the praises and having scores in the 80's and 90's for almost all of their over hyped games this is probably making them squirm a little. The Steam score is undoubtedly going to get a little bit lower as more people start to finish the game and realize what a heaping clusterfuck it is. If they start pulling scores to combat the inevitable negative reviews its going to get it won't be surprising in the lest.
 
Last edited:
PossibleCabbage said:
Crni Vuk said:
If you ask me, they shouldn't have wasted even one line on that recording, or ... they should have set the name for the player ... I mean since they want to copy Mass Effect anyway, so they could have gone the full way here as well. Codsworth should have simply called you Sir or Mam depending on your gender.

LIke I said, they should have used those resources in a much more meaningfull way, with 1000 lines you could probably do a couple of more quest? Giving some important NPCs more depth? No clue.
Click to expand...

I think that those aren't mutually exclusive. Like the lack of intricate quests or fleshed out NPCs is really due to writing, and writing is pretty much the least expensive part of game development. The Codsworth thing is simply a matter of coming up with a list of names and paying an actor to stand in a studio and read them off for a few hours. Coming up with a list of names is cheaper than writing a script and two hours in the studio is going to cost the same whether you're reading the phone book or Hamlet.

I do think that the idea that someday you'll be able to play a game as a character that looks just like you and has your name and everybody calls that character by their name is something worth pursuing, and before you can pull it the right way you have to make incremental steps. So I don't mind that Bethesda recorded a bunch of names, I'm just slightly miffed that they decided to validate immature choices rather than just having more people's names. Like you could have gotten away with just Fuckface and Boobie (Anthony "Boobie" Dixon is a running back for the Buffalo Bills) and recorded a half-dozen common names instead of all those other ones.
Click to expand...

There is still only so much you can do. A team has a budged same as the whole development project. I am curious how much resources have been in my opinion wasted on completely useless and superficial features. Like this idea that you need ants crawling on a stub, or million of different textures for consoles. Those thousand lines, expensive or not, could have been used to flesh out the character of cuntsworth. Or using the resources and money for some more quests.

I am personaly not a friend of voiced protagonists in RPGs like Fallout. I have no problem with it in games like Mass Effect or the Witcher where you are supposed to play one and only one character. Particularly The Witcher was one of the better RPGs I have played in this decade. However, there is no doubt about it that even game like The Witcher comes with a lot of limitations, as you never can brake out of beeing "The Gerald of Rivia", not that you are supposed to, I am just saying. For example, the game would never allow you a path where you actually side with the leader of evil faction 0815. Simply because it would not consort with the idea of Gerald as character.

Within the framework of Fallout though you're not supposed to be limited in your way of role playing different characters. What ever if they have a background or not. That's at least my opinion.
 
Ha! My character of 9 INT still comes off as the village idiot. May not be the most charming, but surely my smart ass can put in a smarter reply than ''what's that? ''
 
Money4U said:
It's just me or most of negative Metacritics user reviews are gone?
Click to expand...

They mostly got rid of the trash ones(funny how they kept most of the perfect 10's that are trash though) but the game still stands at a 4.9 as of right now. In all honesty, I think that once they release a couple of patches in the next month or so the game will probably hover around a 6 or maybe even a 7 if people are forgiving. However the damage has been done. This game that Bethesda touted as their Magnus Opus is being torn apart but even their own die hard fans and is not getting the high "critic" score on Metacritic that they have hoped. Right Beth is going into damage control and these next couple of weeks are going to be a wake up call for them. That is if they choose to wake up.
 
Money4U said:
It's just me or most of negative Metacritics user reviews are gone?
Click to expand...

Yeah, a lot disappeared as far as I can see. User score for PC is a 4.9 by now, seems to be rising. Still over 500 negative reviews left, though.
 
Hassknecht said:
In the grim, dumb future of Bethesda's post-apocalyptic Boston, every dialogue is low INT dialogue.
Click to expand...

Well... it's not easy to envision smert-talk when one's dumb as a rock.

It's similar when they put someone very smart into a cop show, like, the resident nerd or something, and their smartness fails at being believably smart.
 
Hassknecht said:
Money4U said:
It's just me or most of negative Metacritics user reviews are gone?
Click to expand...

Yeah, a lot disappeared as far as I can see. User score for PC is a 4.9 by now, seems to be rising. Still over 500 negative reviews left, though.
Click to expand...
If they are really removing negative user reviews that are trash but aren't doing the same for the 10/10 that are also trash then what is that? Corruption or something? Cause if they only remove one side of the trash but not the other then there is some clear favoritism going on here or Bethesda's paid them off.
 
Mr Fish said:
Hassknecht said:
Money4U said:
It's just me or most of negative Metacritics user reviews are gone?
Click to expand...

Yeah, a lot disappeared as far as I can see. User score for PC is a 4.9 by now, seems to be rising. Still over 500 negative reviews left, though.
Click to expand...
If they are really removing negative user reviews that are trash but aren't doing the same for the 10/10 that are also trash then what is that? Corruption or something? Cause if they only remove one side of the trash but not the other then there is some clear favoritism going on here or Bethesda's paid them off.
Click to expand...

Just read and find the trash reviews that are a perfect 10 in comparison to the trash reviews that are 0. Its quite telling. I wouldn't be surprised if Beth is having a hand in this. They are starting to enter damage control mode right now.
 
Mr Fish said:
Hassknecht said:
Money4U said:
It's just me or most of negative Metacritics user reviews are gone?
Click to expand...

Yeah, a lot disappeared as far as I can see. User score for PC is a 4.9 by now, seems to be rising. Still over 500 negative reviews left, though.
Click to expand...
If they are really removing negative user reviews that are trash but aren't doing the same for the 10/10 that are also trash then what is that? Corruption or something? Cause if they only remove one side of the trash but not the other then there is some clear favoritism going on here or Bethesda's paid them off.
Click to expand...
Last night when I checked there was something about 1200+ negative reviews from users on metacritic, and now there is not even a half of them lol
I can understand removing some of them (the same goes for most of the 10/10 trash) but about 700+ in couple of hours sounds silly/odd to me.. Also there was some reports about removing negative reviews from actual gamers who did play the game for hours on Steam... Lol
P.S. Even at Bethesda forums people are complaining about game breaking bugs/CTD's/corrupted saves etc, and also about completely silence from Bethesda..
 
Last edited:
None of the "reviews" are trash it's user opinion who cares IF they didn't even play the game?
Do you really need to play it to know it's a shitty game? Logic would tell you no.

The graphics arguments are actually very valid arguments.
I like the hypocrisy of Toddy's worshipers "Fallout is not a game for graphics"
Oh really? so all those people bitching they didn't play the originals because of "shit outdated graphics" ???


I keep reading bullshit comments like "that hater/troll didn't put in 100+ hours and that's not enough to know if game is good"
Only a fucking Retard would need that amount of time on anything.
What kind of Idiot keeps doing something IF it's shitty




when I try food, I know right away if it takes like shit or if it's good I do not keep eating
when I watch a TV/movie I know right away "oh this sucks" and watch something else i do not keep watching
same with books, internet or whatever.
 
I have also been hearing that those who played the game but hated it and had it refunded are not allowed to post negative reviews on Steam. I know that this has dated back long before Fallout 4 and started with Steams new refund policy but I think its kinda stupid for those that played the game but didn't like it and had it refunded are being barred from giving a review.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top