Had no idea MC did that. Makes sense though. Should Joe Blow's game site have as much weight as IGN or Gamespot?
Fallout 4 - Reviews thread
- Thread starter J 0 E
- Start date
Had no idea MC did that. Makes sense though. Should Joe Blow's game site have as much weight as IGN or Gamespot?
randomengine
Banned
Here is the problem for people who:
Love technically impressive games
Love Fallout
Because Bethesda releases their Elder Scrolls games first, then ports Fallout to a 4+ year old engine. If that cycle continues, we will never see a technically impressive Fallout game because it will always be using old technology.
Love technically impressive games
Love Fallout
Because Bethesda releases their Elder Scrolls games first, then ports Fallout to a 4+ year old engine. If that cycle continues, we will never see a technically impressive Fallout game because it will always be using old technology.
You said that the two studios are different sometimes so they bring different things to the table but that doesn't mean one is worse than the other. I think in the case of Fallout 3 vs NV, NV is much much better
Ghostmaster
Member
I mean it's not like Skyrim was technically impressive, it was still just an improved version of Gamebyro engine running on even at that point old hardware.
The last technically impressive Bethesda game was Oblivion.
Like 'literally' and 'feudalism', promiscuous use of this word is rendering it meaningless.
So basically, par for the course for Bethesda?
In a way, they are one of a kind. Very few (if any) allow for the level of freedom their games have.
The way I see it, they are starting to show their age and other developers have shown they are able to make worlds just as rich and with virtually the same freedom and at the same time also have a great looking game with good writing and acting (TW3 is the prime example).
At this point Bethesda gonna Bethesda, and anyone buying their games already knows what they're getting into. My guess is that some of these reviewers are getting tired of the formula and that reflects on the score.
IMO they need a new engine and direction bad. One has to wonder what the price for having a tipped bottle remain there forever is....
In a way, they are one of a kind. Very few (if any) allow for the level of freedom their games have.
The way I see it, they are starting to show their age and other developers have shown they are able to make worlds just as rich and with virtually the same freedom and at the same time also have a great looking game with good writing and acting (TW3 is the prime example).
At this point Bethesda gonna Bethesda, and anyone buying their games already knows what they're getting into. My guess is that some of these reviewers are getting tired of the formula and that reflects on the score.
IMO they need a new engine and direction bad. One has to wonder what the price for having a tipped bottle remain there forever is....
More_Badass
Member
Writing quality should matter more than popularity. If it's a well-written review that examines the game in depth and detail, why shouldn't it?
Turin Turambar
Member
Isn't this the opposite? This is their first game in the actual "nextgen" generation, the next one will be very similar graphically, if it releases on the same console cycle.
Admiral Woofington
Member
Unless I'm mistaken it's the same engine as Skyrim only with slight improvements to lighting and maybe character animation. Bethesda tends to use Elder Scrolls as their showcase for brand new versions of engines.
kavanf1
Member
I like a lot of the additions Obsidian made to NV, but as a game I much preferred 3 (I say that having put well over a thousand hours into the two games). To each their own. My main point was the fact that 4 does not include things that NV did have does not mean it should be viewed as a step back for the series. It also includes plenty of advances to the series too.
Anyway, I'll reserve judgement on 4 until I play it...was hoping that would be tonight but unfortunately no parcel arrived today.
Trickster
Member
This time around it seems plenty of reviewers are noting the technical flaws though. And in spite of that and other things like it maybe not being the biggest innovation of a series ever, the game is still coming out to great reviews and scores. Something that people seem incapable of grasping the logic behind.
So honestly, it just get tiring reading the same posts about how much bethesda and their games such, how they get a free pass, how they're buggy unplayable messes etc.
Vault Dweller 111
Member
Thank you.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Thank you. I held back responding out of a reactionary emotion. You expressed what I wanted to, in a more eloquent manner.
I have been gaming for over 30 years, and I seen a myriad of games that were fun as fuck, classics even, be docked in their scores due to that, since it is still a part of the game. The trend to do so seemed to stop the last several years to select franchises.
Precisely. Such a disservice to people who owned a PS3... and now an XBox One with it's similar 0fps issues. If the score reflected this shit, people would be inclined to actually read why. You see above a 9, chances are you impulsively buy more often than not.
SMH
.
Sorry, I'll remake my post.
This thread is like paradise for someone who posts outrageous things so that others will be compelled to respond as if the thing that that the person said was something they actually believed.
Is that better? Wouldn't want anyone to be confused.
It's another example of why I want scores to go away. They don't match the words.
I had a laugh at this bit in the Eurogamer review:
"And yet I can't bring myself to slam the game too hard. For every minute spent cursing the inconvenience of some random glitch, there are 30 more where I'm completely, wilfully lost in the desolate ruins of Boston,"
So more than one occurence of glitching PER HOUR is okay.
Good job, everybody involved.
"And yet I can't bring myself to slam the game too hard. For every minute spent cursing the inconvenience of some random glitch, there are 30 more where I'm completely, wilfully lost in the desolate ruins of Boston,"
So more than one occurence of glitching PER HOUR is okay.
Good job, everybody involved.
Sanctuary
Member
They do kind of get a free pass though, or at least their games review higher than what some random nobody developer/publisher from out of nowhere would get. Part of it is hype, and part of it is "Oh, bugs are expected", which seem to get a pass towards the final score, even if the reviewer is annoyed by the bugs.
That's not to say their games don't turn out great overall, but they do get expections.
JinjoUnchained
Member
Hear, hear! The attitude you describe is really common here and, I'm not saying people are wrong for being so technical/critical, but for me thinking like that really ruins my enjoyment of games. It's important to remember that GAF is a bubble of enthusiasts that is often not reflective of tastes in general.
Don't get me wrong, it's interesting to read Digital Foundry analysis or watch Matthewmetosis videos, but I wouldn't conflate them with subjective reviews of a game's quality or enjoyment. Like you said, if you're sitting around counting frames in every scene of Witcher 3 as opposed to immersing yourself in the lore and scenery then, IMO you're dong it wrong.
Totally agree.
I'm glad that reviewers are actually being critical of games this gen for the most part. Skyrim was a great game but should definitely not have a 96 MC Score. Fallout 4 seems more properly adjusted.
From what I've read, it's another Bethesda RPG. They're honestly fantastic in their own way and don't come around often. If you like this type of game, get it, if not then don't. Fallout 4 won't do anything to change your mind but if you love that type of game then it will be just as good as the rest. Simple as that. I'll won't be playing it until around Christmas however since the game will be a bit more ironed out by then.
From what I've read, it's another Bethesda RPG. They're honestly fantastic in their own way and don't come around often. If you like this type of game, get it, if not then don't. Fallout 4 won't do anything to change your mind but if you love that type of game then it will be just as good as the rest. Simple as that. I'll won't be playing it until around Christmas however since the game will be a bit more ironed out by then.
Vault Dweller 111
Member
That's exactly what you can do. You play the game, take the good with the bad, and give it a score. So it has been, so it always will be.
Fallout 3 was full of bugs and still a 10/10 for me.
Not to be pedantic here but barely anyone is giving them 10/10s.
A lot of 9/10s though.
Whilst there's definitely a lot of the old stuff left, especially in the ways of toolchain, as a developer, it hurts to hear just "slight improvments" when they have pretty much completely redone to the renderer to use a deferred setup.It's just a pet peeve and I understand not everyone is that tech savvy, but there's a lot of misconceptions on game engines are utilized and the concept of a "new engine". That doesn't excuse some of the flaws and technical debt though, absolutely not.
la flama blanca
Banned
A good 90% of Neogaf doesn't grasp the real logic behind reviews and scores. And it should never get tiring as long as Bethesda keeps making games this way.
Because actual game design is massively more important. Metroid Prime would still be the greatest game of all time if it had glitches and frame drops.
Of course not, but that's so true of any big games franchise that no one should be surprised by this. (I'm not trying to say Fallout 4 is bad, I haven't played it, but I am saying game reviews are never critical enough, this is true of every game.)
Trickster
Member
See, this is where I fail to grasp. Plenty of people are acting as if, because it has some framerate problems and bugs, it should not be able to get anywhere near a 9. And to me, that's just not a logical leap to make.
The score just represents how good the game is overall, in view of the reviewer. So if a reviewer gives the game a 9 in spite of whatever flaws a game has in terms of framerate, gameplay, graphics etc. The only thing that score should tell you,is that in spite of those flaws, the game is still good enough to warrant that 9 in the mind of the reviewer.
No it doesn't lol
Obliterator
Member
Im sure they are cool with a 90 meta. Its getting much harder to get there this gen than last gen.
That said it did score lower than Witcher 3 and for personal pride they may have wanted to beat it
Sanctuary
Member
Why would they be anything other than happy, or do you mean the content of the reviews themselves, and not soley the scores (which on average have been great?
It probably would have if it looked better, since that's where most of TW3's praise comes from other than the storytelling.
SpaceHorror
Member
bananafactory
Banned
They can't see the reviews through all the money raining down
I am sure they have expectations, projections and hopes for the review scores so I am wondering how they feel now. I would not be surprised for example if they at Bethesda are expecting a 90+ Meteoritic score.
A lot seem to be put on that number by the games industry so I think my question is the question of the hour, nay, of the day.
la flama blanca
Banned
A lot of reviews and pretty much all of the scores are a result of marketing influence, which people don't seem to realize. They'll be happy because they've got the hype, the scores, the reviews and the drones to buy their game without saying a word. If I were Bethesda, I'd be pretty thrilled to know that their model will still make them a bunch of cash.
I examine and review games from two separate standpoints; one being critical and the other personal. As an example I bring up Drakengard 3 where I would rate that game a 7/10 critically and 9/10 personally. I enjoyed it a lot, but there's technical problems everywhere, and I know for a fact it's not for everyone. Stating a game is a 9/10 and that it has significant technical problems in addition to several others makes me question if I should even trust that website. It seems downright dishonest to me.
Sanctuary
Member
In the end it probably won't matter much for sales, and their sales expectations will be met, or close to it.
I think the poster who mentioned previously that most people don't care that much about bugs and glitches is absolutely bang on.
I frequent a few other forums where games are talked about but aren't specialised gaming communities, and most of my friend group doesn't generally play games outside of COD/FIFA, and both Fallout 3 and Skyrim are insanely popular and well thought of. Skyrim especially penetrated beyond the usual hardcore communities in a way that very few games do, and those people aren't talking about bugs.
A lot of people posting on specialised communities like GAF really need to understand that Digital Foundry doesn't mean jack shit to most people when the quality of the rest of the experience is so high.
I frequent a few other forums where games are talked about but aren't specialised gaming communities, and most of my friend group doesn't generally play games outside of COD/FIFA, and both Fallout 3 and Skyrim are insanely popular and well thought of. Skyrim especially penetrated beyond the usual hardcore communities in a way that very few games do, and those people aren't talking about bugs.
A lot of people posting on specialised communities like GAF really need to understand that Digital Foundry doesn't mean jack shit to most people when the quality of the rest of the experience is so high.
Bonus' cancelled.
Trickster
Member
Do you actually realize how ridiculous this argument is?
You're making a claim based on a situation that has never happened. There's never been a developer, much less a random unknown developer, who has made a game similar to Bethesda's modern games.
You're litterally making up a completely fictional situation and attempting to use that as an argument for how Bethesda gets a free pass in reviews.
Well we just have vastly different idea how about review scores should be "calculated" then. Because to me it seems crazy that you would purposefully give a game you think is worthy of a 9, a score of a 7 instead. To me that seems much more dishonest. If you think a game is a 9, you give it that score. And then in the review you write about the pros and cons.
Admiral Woofington
Member
I see the argument that there's no reason to just accept it, but the audience largely buying these titles don't seem to care about the writing, and criticism seems to not phase them as they continue to write substandard main quests and simplistic characters. We are a relative minority stomping our grounds. Call it a defeated mentality if you want. I've always said they're good at world building (for Elder Scrolls) but inept at main story writing and that's what I expect now when I'm buying their titles.
Im honestly expecting MGS V to win it this year
Especially for the giantbomb squad
meanspartan
Member
You absolutely can, because 10/10 does not mean 100% like it's a math exam in high school. I would argue if the bugs are so frequent as to make the game unplayable or extremely annoying to play, then yes, mark it down.
But the occasional annoyance or oddity should not prevent a game from being a 10 out of 10 (or 9 outta 10, like this one seems to be).
Should Fallout 3 be disqualified from being a 10 for me because it crashed a couple times while I played it? Absolutely not, because that would be fucking dumb to me. Fallout 3 was exiting the vault and seeing the world, choosing to blow up that city or not, finding crazy ass 1950s future weapons. Fallout 3 was not the couple of times it crashed or that other time someone's face didn't load right.
More_Badass
Member
In what way do you think that opinion is dishonest? If someone feels a game is fantastic 9/10 quality, despite its technical flaws, how is that being dishonest?
Maybe if review doesn't mention technical issues at all, then maybe I'd see that as a dishonest critique. But a person explains how a game has technical issues but despite all that is a great experience worth playing, is he lying? Is he being dishonest in his score if he really believes the gameplay and whatnot is that quality?