What the fuck happened to Fallout 4's weapons?

Devil's advocate... Bethesda developers are likely working under a policy that insists on self-contained pieces that look good with any other piece; rather than carefully matched pieces that play nice with the others [with little to no clipping]. In my Armor mod, I had the freedom to animate the helmet hoses, to look [and deform!] as though they were attached to the armor, but this looks silly when just the helmet is worn... The Bethesda and Obsidian devs wouldn't have been able to do that.

Also, I put a lot of work into subtle armor deformations in extreme poses... Deformations that are not physically possible, but are not easily noticed at the speed they play out; and so my armor mesh just doesn't seem to clip very much at all; but I don't know if they can focus their time on one model like that; when they have so many to complete in a short time.
 
I'm watching the interview, and I love how Tim says that Bethesda got the lore done pretty well... but FEV in Fallout 3? That doesn't work, FEV is localized they should have made it more unique.
 
Dr Fallout said:
FEV in Fallout 3? That doesn't work, FEV is localized they should have made it more unique.
Click to expand...
A hypothetical new strain of FEV should not result in Super Mutants who look like orcs and have yellow skin.
They ought to be much different (new type of mutants) or be like Mariposa SMs but with new deformities at least.

Or it may be better to not have a new FEV strain.
 
Greed said:
2. If that was so, why does Fallout 4 have a better review score then NV?
Click to expand...

It doesn't. On steam NV has Overwhelmingly Positive reviews, while 4 has only Mostly Positive reviews. And on Metacrtic, while their "critic" score is equal at 84, the User score for New Vegas is 8.6 while 4 just has a meager 5.4. BUT! If you wanna get a bit more in detail in the critic section there's more green positive reviews for NV than there is for 4.

Now, I may not be a smart person, but I think Vegas's numbers are better than 4's.
 
DR_LaZer said:
It doesn't. On steam NV has Overwhelmingly Positive reviews, while 4 has only Mostly Positive reviews. And on Metacrtic, while their "critic" score is equal at 84, the User score for New Vegas is 8.6 while 4 just has a meager 5.4. BUT! If you wanna get a bit more in detail in the critic section there's more green positive reviews for NV than there is for 4.

Now, I may not be a smart person, but I think Vegas's numbers are better than 4's.
Click to expand...
Nice cherry picking
New Vegas: http://www.metacritic.com/search/all/new vegas/results
PC: 84
X360: 84
PS3: 82
Average: 83.3
Fallout 4: http://www.metacritic.com/search/all/fallout 4/results
PC: 84
X1: 88
Ps4: 87
Average: 86.3
 
DR_LaZer said:
It doesn't. On steam NV has Overwhelmingly Positive reviews, while 4 has only Mostly Positive reviews. And on Metacrtic, while their "critic" score is equal at 84, the User score for New Vegas is 8.6 while 4 just has a meager 5.4. BUT! If you wanna get a bit more in detail in the critic section there's more green positive reviews for NV than there is for 4.

Now, I may not be a smart person, but I think Vegas's numbers are better than 4's.
Click to expand...
Console scores should not really count for much.

I noticed that plenty of the user reviews for console ports of games tend to be less critical and more child-like in assessment with frequent one liners and claims like "Screw the haters!" or "Fuck the PCMR!". As a result, I try not looking at Metacritic scores as a point of reference for anything since it is easy to rig scores on Metacritic (in fact, IIRC Fallout 4's PC port score kept fluctuating at one point because fanboys kept trying to raise the score and haters (along with less-than-satisfied customers) kept lowering it).
 
Greed said:
Nice cherry picking
New Vegas: http://www.metacritic.com/search/all/new vegas/results
PC: 84
X360: 84
PS3: 82
Average: 83.3
Fallout 4: http://www.metacritic.com/search/all/fallout 4/results
PC: 84
X1: 88
Ps4: 87
Average: 86.3
Click to expand...

Console reviews? Ehhhh...... those have a lot of different factors, I can bet you that a lot of those higher scores are from console mods. It's easier and better to go off of just PC, for both of them. But even then, the user score don't seem that different. Same for steam reviews.
 
Greed said:
Nice cherry picking
New Vegas: http://www.metacritic.com/search/all/new vegas/results
PC: 84
X360: 84
PS3: 82
Average: 83.3
Fallout 4: http://www.metacritic.com/search/all/fallout 4/results
PC: 84
X1: 88
Ps4: 87
Average: 86.3
Click to expand...

You're cherry picking as well by keeping the blatant false green reviews (such as the infamous 100 ratings for Fallout 4, implying it's literally the most perfect game out there, to which the entire web ripped on it and laughed for days on end). Metacritic is not a trustworthy site for it''s critic reviews OR for the user reviews since some like to shitpost, but either way, the most trusting reviews do usually come from the user reviews.

I mean honestly, you actually believe in gaming jounalism? That's cute.
 
Last edited:
CerberusGate said:
A hypothetical new strain of FEV should not result in Super Mutants who look like orcs and have yellow skin.
They ought to be much different (new type of mutants) or be like Mariposa SMs but with new deformities at least.

Or it may be better to not have a new FEV strain.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I agree with Tim. Leave the FEV in California, and aim at something new.
 
DR_LaZer said:
Console reviews? Ehhhh...... those have a lot of different factors, I can bet you that a lot of those higher scores are from console mods. It's easier and better to go off of just PC, for both of them. But even then, the user score don't seem that different. Same for steam reviews.
Click to expand...
Uhh, all those reviews came out before console mods.
 
DR_LaZer said:
Console reviews? Ehhhh...... those have a lot of different factors, I can bet you that a lot of those higher scores are from console mods. It's easier and better to go off of just PC, for both of them. But even then, the user score don't seem that different. Same for steam reviews.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The PC reviews seem to be the better way to assess something when compared to console reviews (unless a game has a horrid PC port like Arkham Knight). I get the vibe that console players toss out positive reviews simply because they are grateful to have something to play on the damn thing (or that's what I think since I happen to own a next-gen console and it is hard to find any reason to buy games that do not have PC ports).
 
Gizmojunk said:
Didn't I read somewhere that Bethesda has changed their review policy to giving access only the night before release?
Click to expand...
That was after Fallout 4 came out, but yeah.

The first Bethesda Softworks game to fall under that was Dishonored 2.

Also, nice 666 likes there gizmo
 
whirlingdervish said:
So what we're saying is that they were too lazy to bother making decent models that don't have clipping issues with their giant stupid looking guns that appear to be designed by people who have never fired a gun or seen one before.. and that's why somehow Fallout 4 isn't worse than New Vegas which it totally is by most objective standards.

There's nothing about having lots of types and pieces of armor that precludes not having your holstered weapon clip into things.

They just had to do actual work (during that 7 year development cycle), and apparently that was tough and they were unwilling.
Click to expand...
Of course they are lazy, so they couldn't do what different modders did themselves?
Two of those mods were made less than 4 months after the game was released and before the CK was out, one was released less than 3 months. :shrug:
I guess modders are magicians or something since Bethesda's developers couldn't do it because of the so many pieces of armor, while they are paid to work on the game and spend 8 hours a day doing just that for almost 7 years. :roffle:
 
Bethesda may not be lazy, but their priority is not on fixing bugs, since they know the customers don't care and the modders will fix it.
 
I think it's incompetence really. That and people settle for it so why improve when it's cheaper?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top