\
I generally think most people do, I know I do. Which is why I have no problems with Bethesda games. Even at their worst, they're better than 99% of stories/gameplay out there.
Fallout 4 - Reviews thread
- Thread starter J 0 E
- Start date
I generally think most people do, I know I do. Which is why I have no problems with Bethesda games. Even at their worst, they're better than 99% of stories/gameplay out there.
Beelzebufo
Banned
Content, they're good reviews. They'll be happy when the financial data comes in.
Sounds like the role playing elements are better than they ever were in 3 or NV, it's just the leveling system is less convoluted.
meanspartan
Member
haha thanks guys
I really don't think what I'm saying is controversial though.
Ghostmaster
Member
Nah Mario Maker will be number 1 for Giantbomb.
Especially since Brad is lukewarm on MGS V, he is the only one who can push for a game against Jeff and Dan.
Sanctuary
Member
I don't know what your agenda is, but you're getting ridiculously defensive over nothing.
You're right that no one else has made a game in a similar scope yet (Which is part of the problem and part of my point!), but there have been plenty of games with less bugs, better gameplay or graphics that review worse because of them being a technical mess, and because they aren't a Bethesda RPG.
Personally, I don't care. It's just more of the same to me, and expectations will probably be met.
RichiRamjag
Member
Whoa, gotta disagree there. Gameplay maybe due to the worlds they create, but their stories are pretty cliche and basic.
More_Badass
Member
Games like...?
Acerac
Banned
You're never going to see another Fallout 1/2. Best to accept it now, games aren't made like that any more.
I agree with everything you said.
Except... the PS3 version of Skyrim was nearly unplayable for me. Like, it was entirely, unplayable broken. It was inexcusable, directly affected my enjoyment of the game because of how bad it got.
... PS3 version had a 92/100 on Metacritic and won "Game of the Year" from countless avenues before Bethesda got anywhere CLOSE to fixing it to be even "tolerable".
I do have a problem with that.
Sanctuary
Member
Buy Age of Decadence, now available on Steam!
EDIT: Obviously you meant in the AAA market but still.
I'd go so far as to say Bethesda shouldn't get their bonus if their game doesn't reach 90+ metacritic.
Denton
Member
I think they knew long ago (somewhere around May 19) the days of unfettered "10/10 from everyone" were over. But the reviews are still mostly great, it will sell shitload, so I am sure they are fine.
Yeah, that's some quality there. The only thing that the man doesn't mention is the dialogue system and the dialogues themselves, which sometimes make two characters understand each other pretty well, while not actually communicating anything to each other verbally.
Ghostmaster
Member
What....the story is complete shit and barely even there in this game.
Underrail, Wasteland, Pillars, Age of Decadence etc.
Trickster
Member
I guess my agenda is to try and call out some of the ridiculous stuff I see posted in here. I guess that can seem defensive or confrontational because of how I word it. But when you're litterally making up a scenario that don't exist and using that as examples of Bethesda getting free passes, I get annoyed and get the urge to call it out.
Anyway, I'll leave now, gonna go sleep the rest of the wait away.
Jawbreaker
Member
I'm expecting more Fallout 3 with a decent new coat of paint, and that may be enough if it can capture my interest again. It's been years since I last played Fallout 3, so I have no idea if it's going to reel me in once more, but I'm willing to find out. My fear is that I've burned myself out on open world titles recently after playing The Witcher 3, Grand Theft Auto V, and Metal Gear Solid V consecutively.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
Not the best example for a "true RPG", that game has a horrible narrative/story and horrible conversation system.
It doesn't have a great quest design IMO.
1 single point is deducted for massive technical issues, poor pacing, etc? 1 single point for huge glaring issues makes no sense to me. There comes a point where personal opinion supersedes the critical foundations of a review. That's why I like to use Drakengard 3 as the example. I love it, but it's flawed as shit. It would be dishonest to throw that game a 9/10 simply because I liked it and decided to ignore all its flaws.
The problem is there's no consensus on how things should be scored. That's why I really prefer the words because they're far more telling than the arbitrary number that is heavily biased by personal opinion.
That's not what he said. If you read his words, I mean. He simply said the ratio of amazing moments to bad moments is 30 to 1, not that every single minute that passes falls into one category or the other.
30 to 1 sounds fine by me.
funkystudent
Member
After MGSV and Witcher 3. Two games that do have flaws but they also have unquestionable ambition from a technical and a design perspective its really disappointing to see Bethesda just make another Bethesda quality Bethesda game with the same structure and busted tech.
Is it Laziness? Incompetence? Poor leadership? I dont know whats going on at that studio.
People eat it up anyway so I guess they know they dont have to do better so they wont try
Is it Laziness? Incompetence? Poor leadership? I dont know whats going on at that studio.
People eat it up anyway so I guess they know they dont have to do better so they wont try
At the reveal, Todd Howard said "few other things are as great as Fallout".
I doubt they can hear beyond their ego.
Looking at this scores I think no one cares about anything.
Sanctuary
Member
I didn't, although I kind of assumed most already knew about it.
Maybe the sequel won't be (see my edit), although I was mainly focusing on gameplay elements. I also enjoyed much of the writing in DOS, even though you're right about the main story barely being there.
XenogearsX
Banned
I really liked the gamespot review. it was honest and deliberate.
More_Badass
Member
It's not a math equation. What exactly a ranking on a scale equates to doesn't fall into nice definite categories that if a game has these bugs and these issues than it can't be a 9/10. Someone might feel that the gameplay and experience is excellent despite those technical issues. Not a masterpiece but a must-play game
Thus a 9/10
A game is a sum of its parts. The gameplay, the art design, the story, the tone and pacing, the music, the visuals, and so on, all coalesce into an single experience. Where one area might falter, other areas may stand tall.
And of course "poor pacing" is a opinion that might apply to you but not others
How many hours did you spend with the game? I haven't played yet, I can't until midnight.
In any case, I wouldn't call any AAA game dev "lazy", I'd put that last behind "hates the indoors" on a list of descriptions of them. I'd also question your assessment of incompetence and poor leadership given the high review scores. It'll also likely sell a metric fuckton, so, yeah.
I bet many other studios aspire to this level of "incompetence".
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
The infamous pretending to be obtuse to game reviews, as if no games are ever docked for glitches and issues.
Well if one wants to ask...
Any FPS shooter with an online component where reviewers now wait until online is up before they rate it based on how it fares in the beginning, on a technical level.
Move along, nothing to see here.
Battlefront reviews should be fun when it hits, and if there are server issues for a day or two, since online FPS games have been docked in the past based on that aspect.
That is the issue I have as well with all of this.
Could not agree more. Everyone should be able to agree on this. Just as I loved SWG before that NGE train wreck... but others have hated it. I disliked WoW, while others adore it. Personal bias/hype/honeymoon phase does effect a lot, and scores are even more a culprit.
I think it's just a matter of going with a formula that has worked for them in the past.
Amazing
Canis lupus
Member
That's a great concept, but it doesn't seem to make much of a difference, scores are very similar. Also goddamn the site is terribly designed, some Vox Media web 2.0 hipster stuff.
Dr. Kitty Muffins
Member
I just hope there isn't any save data issues. Those should be tackled first with the patches if any exist.
Interfectum
Member
People care about playing a fun, engrossing game. Seems Fallout 4 covers that in spades. Crazy, I know!
Ghostmaster
Member
Wait....does that technically mean that GTA V was the best reviewed game three years in a row?
Man, Rockstar is swimming in that money even more than usual.
More_Badass
Member
I was asking for specific examples. I rarely play AAA games and don't really much attention to them, besides the rare exception like Fallout, Uncharted, and GTA
meanspartan
Member
How are so many of you getting copies of the game early?
I am in no way trying to excuse their performance or lack of polish... but, I imagine, a GDC talk would very important in trying to gleam why their game looks the way it does or preforms the way it does. Sounds like, either their engine is a limiting feature... but I'd really be interested in seeing what the resource hogs are in it and see what they could have culled, but didn't.
That's really hard to imagine considering how it was polished to a mirror finish and was a technical marvel, both to look at, and admire from performance standpoint.
Red Blaster
Member
wasteland 2 doesnt hold a candle to the original fallouts
More_Badass
Member
If you have the game pre-loaded, you can VPN to another region and play now
We were discussing one of the reviews. However, my point was moving beyond Fallout in particular.