Fallout 4 - Reviews thread

Wow 87 Metacritic

The Jeff Gerstmann effect

Really torn about that review

Ultimately the point of buying a video game is getting your money worth, in that regard: Of all the games I've bought this year I feel F4 is the most I've got for my money

Would I prefer this game not to be buggy? Sure.... At the end it doesn't really matters as there are virtually no games like Bethesda games anyway

Again if the goal of a review is to point out if you gonna get or not value out of a videogame... That Gertsman review is misleading, I bet my ass most people out there will get a lot of value out of F4, steam stats don't lie
 
Really torn about that review

Ultimately the point of buying a video game is getting your money worth, in that regard: Of all the games I've bought this year I feel F4 is the most I've got for my money

Would I prefer this game not to be buggy? Sure.... At the end it doesn't really matters as there are virtually no games like Bethesda games anyway

Again if the goal of a review is to point out if you gonna get or not value out of a videogame... That Gertsman review is misleading, I bet my ass most people out there will get a lot of value out of F4, steam stats don't lie

What's wrong with a 4/5 game? I could see myself getting value out of that.
 
What's wrong with a 4/5 game? I could see myself getting value out of that.

The console version has 3 stars, based on the very score system they came out with Battlefield Hardline is as recomendable (or not) as Fallout 4.... Opinions and all but that is crazy talk

Even for Gertsmann
 
Really torn about that review

Ultimately the point of buying a video game is getting your money worth, in that regard: Of all the games I've bought this year I feel F4 is the most I've got for my money

Would I prefer this game not to be buggy? Sure.... At the end it doesn't really matters as there are virtually no games like Bethesda games anyway

Again if the goal of a review is to point out if you gonna get or not value out of a videogame... That Gertsman review is misleading, I bet my ass most people out there will get a lot of value out of F4, steam stats don't lie

Indeed. Despite the flaws, Fallout 4 is easily the most value I've got for my money this year (It's definitely Witcher 3 though if I actually bought it, got it for free from nvidia deal).
And there's simply no competitor for this kind of games, which is kinda sad.
 
The console version has 3 stars, based on the very score system they came out with Battlefield Hardline is as recomendable (or not) as Fallout 4.... Opinions and all but that is crazy talk

Even for Gertsmann

I think those are two very different games lol.

I mean, would you have given the console versions a 4/5? What would you do with the PC version? 5/5?

I don't think this is a 100% game.
 
Really torn about that review

Ultimately the point of buying a video game is getting your money worth, in that regard: Of all the games I've bought this year I feel F4 is the most I've got for my money

Would I prefer this game not to be buggy? Sure.... At the end it doesn't really matters as there are virtually no games like Bethesda games anyway

Again if the goal of a review is to point out if you gonna get or not value out of a videogame... That Gertsman review is misleading, I bet my ass most people out there will get a lot of value out of F4, steam stats don't lie

While that might be your ultimate criteria, it's not going to be everyone's.

Moreover, there's going to be a huge disparity in how people define "getting their money's worth".
 
Every VATS kill is the same janky shit as ever. Even worse at times, with the ragdolls going apeshit.

I didn't say the animations were good, just better than Fallout 3/NV overall. Which is a pretty damn low bar. And, honestly, the gunplay has improved so much that I'm barely using VATS at all.
 
The console version has 3 stars, based on the very score system they came out with Battlefield Hardline is as recomendable (or not) as Fallout 4.... Opinions and all but that is crazy talk

Even for Gertsmann

I don't think these are comparable scores

While that might be your ultimate criteria, it's not going to be everyone's.

Moreover, there's going to be a huge disparity in how people define "getting their money's worth".

Yeah. It's easy to say I've got my money's worth with a lot of long RPGs, but that doesn't necessarily make them great, or even good, games.
 
I don't think these are comparable scores

They are, that is the point of scores, so you can make a comparison

Jeff has mention in the podcast that they came out with the star system because "People just want to know: Should I get this game yes or no?"

Based on the criteria they create, yes F4 is as recomendable as BF Hardline and Mad Max...

Misleading score IMO
 
They are, that is the point of scores, so you can make a comparison

Jeff has mention in the podcast that they came out with the star system because "People just want to know: Should I get this game yes or no?"

Based on the criteria they create, yes F4 is as recomendable as BF Hardline and Mad Max...

Personally speaking I think scores are dumb, there is way more to a review than scores or technical issues. But hey I didn't came out with Giantbomb's rules

No they're not, the games are completely different genres. You can't simplify things down that much.

Even if we assume that is indeed what GB are going after, it's obvious the scores assume some brain activity in the reader's head too. BF Hardline is not as recommendable to everyone as Fallout 4 is. What I get out of it is that, if we really want to simplify things, BF Hardline is recommendable to FPS fans to the same extent that Fallout 4 is recommendable to RPG fans. Which works, cause BF is an average shooter and FO4 is an average RPG game.

You can't have an universal scoring system in which every three-star game is as recommendable to anyone and everyone.

e: if this is literally what GB are going for, though, I take that back, obviously. I don't read their reviews nor do I care about reviews in general so I wouldn't know. It just sounds like you're drawing some pretty big assumptions from a simple, short sentence.

And if that is indeed the case, they really gotta re-think their review system.
 
They are, that is the point of scores, so you can make a comparison

Jeff has mention in the podcast that they came out with the star system because "People just want to know: Should I get this game yes or no?"

Based on the criteria they create, yes F4 is as recomendable as BF Hardline and Mad Max...

Misleading score IMO

Well to be totally honest Jeff has also said reviews are subjective, situational and meant to be linked to the text associated with them and half the problem is people taking the number as some sort of objective measure of quality and running with it. You are meant to look at it, read it, and make a bunch of self assessing judgements to decide how to use the review (for instance; do I like this genre). If you read the review it asks a bunch of these self assessing questions.

So if you read a different review of a different game in a different genre, often by a different reviewer and think they are equal you've misunderstood the point of a review score, at least in this context.

The only place a comparison of the 3/5 would be truly useful is comparing it to the 4/5 PC version.
 
Wow didn't check the MC for a day and a half and suddenly BAM! 87 MC.

I really like how reviewers are better using the 0-10 scale than they ever did before this gen, obviously there is still a long way for a proper use of the scale but they have definitely improved dramatically this gen, it's not so easy to get a 9+ like it used to be.

Hopefully it will remain this way with the big games of 2016 as well, If U4 is like U3 for example, a good but by the numbers sequel, it should be 8+, not automatically "Oh my god it's another Uncharted with pretty graphics and set-pieces- a 10!!" like the mentality they used to have for the last 20 years.
 
Ayy lmao the user scores are hyperbolic as ****.
87 is quite solid though for the reviewers but:5.4? For the users?
Wtf happened
 
Wow didn't check the MC for 1 and a half day and suddenly BAM! 87 MC.

I really like how reviewers are better using the 0-10 scale than they ever did before this gen, obviously there is still a long way for a proper use of the scale but they have definitely improved dramatically this gen, it's not so easy to get a 9+ like it used to be.

Hopefully it will remain this way with the big games of 2016 as well, If U4 is like U3 for example, a good but by the numbers sequel, it should be 8+, not automatically "Oh my god it's another Uncharted with pretty graphics and set-pieces- a 10!!" like the mentality they used to have for the last 20 years.
Last gen was the outlier not this gen.
 
Dont see your point (shit is very good and totally not broken) its frustrating that people hate a good game for the sake of hating on mc.

Actually some people are very disappointed with some of the decisions the studio has made with the game. For a lot of people what made Fallout engaging was the roleplaying element. Many, and probably all those posting those negative reviews, feel this factor has been neutered. It's not only about the performance of the game or how much better the combat is compared to the previous games. You don't agree with this? Totally okay, but many, including me, think it's what making the game very average. Also factor in that most of those reviews are extreme hyperbole but what I said is the common theme.
 
Dont see your point (shit is very good and totally not broken) its frustrating that people hate a good game for the sake of hating on mc.
Metacritic is as flawed as the reviews it aggregates. It deserves some ire, but I don't think that is all this is. FO4 may be a good game, but not a great one. It doesn't deserve all those 9's by any stretch of the imagination and should have been penalized more for all its glaring flaws and technical issues.
 
The only review i seen for this game was the Giant bomb quicklook. im sold.
Was unsold after hearing how busted it was on the podcast, how the story is lame, and that even after finishing the game Jeff didn't get the point of the base building having any significant benefit since you don't want Bethesda NPC AI on your side :P Didn't sound like I was missing on anything special.
 
Metacritic is as flawed as the reviews it aggregates. It deserves some ire, but I don't think that is all this is. FO4 may be a good game, but not a great one. It doesn't deserve all those 9's by any stretch of the imagination and should have been penalized more for all its glaring flaws and technical issues.

Speaking of flawed, so is this logic. If a game is good enough to warrant a 9 score in spite of whatever technical flaws it has, it should damn well get a 9.

I've played the game over 20 hours, and in that time I've run into a small number of bugs and framedrops in certain areas, but those things absolutely does not turn the game into some mediocre game like some of you seem to suggest.
 
Ayy lmao the user scores are hyperbolic as ****.
87 is quite solid though for the reviewers but:5.4? For the users?
Wtf happened

It's not that complicated; The user score is highly agenda driven. And because you don't even need to own the game to rate it.. Yeah, so why the user score is even displayed, I don't know.
 
Metacritic is as flawed as the reviews it aggregates. It deserves some ire, but I don't think that is all this is. FO4 may be a good game, but not a great one. It doesn't deserve all those 9's by any stretch of the imagination and should have been penalized more for all its glaring flaws and technical issues.

Well yes, a little more presure to the "Bethesda way of things" that hasnt changed in nearly a decade needed to happen with the reviews.

Actually some people are very disappointed with some of the decisions the studio has made with the game. For a lot of people what made Fallout engaging was the roleplaying element. Many, and probably all those posting those negative reviews, feel this factor has been neutered. It's not only about the performance of the game or how much better the combat is compared to the previous games. You don't agree with this? Totally okay, but many, including me, think it's what making the game very average. Also factor in that most of those reviews are extreme hyperbole but what I said is the common theme.

Yes, I wont fanboy but I admit with they made pretty a divisive game, I wanted to role play but now I have to look for my son, and have a law degree somehow and that is a pretty negative point (It may feel as a big one considering the series perspective for most of the fans)
It seems fallout is taking the skyrim direction: simplificating things and its pretty scary. Anyways I still consider the game to be good and, as a fan of fallout I dont ignore all of those valid points in their criticism.

But still, I believe that bethesda will take this criticism and make the next games better, while changing their philosophy.


(Just wanted to say guys that I am sorry for my english)
 
Well yes, a little more presure to the "Bethesda way of things" that hasnt changed in nearly a decade needed to happen with the reviews.



Yes, I wont fanboy but I admit with they made pretty a divisive game, I wanted to role play but now I have to look for my son, and have a law degree somehow and that is a pretty negative point (It may feel as a big one considering the series perspective for most of the fans)
It seems fallout is taking the skyrim direction: simplificating things and its pretty scary. Anyways I still consider the game to be good and, as a fan of fallout I dont ignore all of those valid points in their criticism.

But still, I believe that bethesda will take this criticism and make the next games better, while changing their philosophy.


(Just wanted to say guys that I am sorry for my english)

That's probably the point of the exaggerated reviews on MC. To have Bethesda listen. I hope you're right, but chances are they won't listen since F4 is a lot more simplified than Skyrim which was more simplified than Oblivion. That probably causes more people to post those negative reviews.
 
It amazes me this game is getting higher than an 8. I know it's Fallout but idk I guess I'm just not enjoying 4 like everyone else. It's a 7/10 to me.
 
I sunk more than 80 hours into Fallout 3 (vanilla) on the PS3 back in 2008 and loved it to death. But I couldn't get into New Vegas as it just felt too similar to me, even though most everyone said it's better. Disappointingly, I feel the same way about Fallout 4 after putting in a good 10+ hours. It's clearly more refined than 3, I haven't experienced any glitches, but I just can't get into it. I guess this experience is just a one-and-done for me. I hope everyone else enjoys it though!
 
That's probably the point of the exaggerated reviews on MC. To have Bethesda listen. I hope you're right, but chances are they won't listen since F4 is a lot more simplified than Skyrim which was more simplified than Oblivion. That probably causes more people to post those negative reviews.

Yes, that is the most probable reason.
Hope they stop that trend, the magic of the newer games is becoming fainter each new entry.
 
Fallout 4 got the score it deserves. In my mind it's not acceptable for a game with obstructive technical issues to be a 90+. Would you really classify a game with embarrassing frame rate drops and graphical bugs to be "superb" or "excellent"?

Yes, if the game is still amazing regardless of the issue, which to me it has been so far.
 
So where does Fallout 4 rank amongst the series? Are New Vegas and Fallout 3 superior?

Late on this but I just wanted to say it's definitely better that Fallout 3. Fallout 1 as well. Not sure if it will beat Fallout 2 for me. It really lacks a lot of choices in how you do quests, but playing with a Luck build is the most fun I've had with the combat in the entire series, even with the spotty framerate. No way it beats New Vegas.
 
That's probably the point of the exaggerated reviews on MC. To have Bethesda listen. I hope you're right, but chances are they won't listen since F4 is a lot more simplified than Skyrim which was more simplified than Oblivion. That probably causes more people to post those negative reviews.

I feel they are equally simplified, but in different ways. Skyrim did away with attributes and Fallout did away with skills. I, for one, wonder how Fallout 4 would've turned out if they went the static attributes, dynamic skills route.

Regardless, I'm loving the game.
 
They are, that is the point of scores, so you can make a comparison

Jeff has mention in the podcast that they came out with the star system because "People just want to know: Should I get this game yes or no?"

Based on the criteria they create, yes F4 is as recomendable as BF Hardline and Mad Max...

Misleading score IMO

Misleading as you don't agree with it?

People put way too much importance on MC scores these days.

With regards to the review; 4/5 is a fantastic score. The 3/5 score for consoles was also well argued - watch the gamespot podcast.
 
Metacritic is as flawed as the reviews it aggregates. It deserves some ire, but I don't think that is all this is. FO4 may be a good game, but not a great one. It doesn't deserve all those 9's by any stretch of the imagination and should have been penalized more for all its glaring flaws and technical issues.

I disagree, 20 hours in on ultra on PC and its smooth as butter and the most fun I've had all year and I've beaten most of the big titles.

Metacritic does suck though.
 
Game is one for the ages. I'm 40 hours in and barely scratched the surface and I fucking love it.

That said there is a shitload of jank along with some unrefined systems, but the overwhelming experience is a positive one. I'm hoping they knock the DLC out of the park.
 
"Activist" user ratings of 0 are just silly. It's the same reason I simply toss out 1-star ratings on sites like Amazon when researching things, especially when the review starts out "I'd give 0 stars if I could".

I just don't use reviews (users or critics) as a factor in my game-buying decisions. It's far too subjective. If a lawnmower has lots of 1-2 star ratings, there's probably an objective/quantifiable reason for it; that's far less true for games, considering how "passionate" people can be about them.
 
Game is one for the ages. I'm 40 hours in and barely scratched the surface and I fucking love it.

That said there is a shitload of jank along with some unrefined systems, but the overwhelming experience is a positive one. I'm hoping they knock the DLC out of the park.

What have you been doing if you've barely scratched the surface after 40 hours? I'm maybe 15 hours in and I've already seen most of the northern half of the map and I've done a bunch of quests

e: sorry, 11 hours
 
Even if these reviewers are 100% genuine with their reviews, that would just mean that they have ridiculously low standards for my liking and are essentially worthless for me when it comes to forming an opinion on games.

Someone doesn't notice any framerate drops even from 30 to 20? A 33% decrease at an already low starting rate? Well, if you don't notice that, you can be sure I won't take your view on all things fps serious anymore.

Shit-tier writing manages to excite you into a 90+ rating? Heavily flawed gameplay systems or mechanics don't even get noticed by you? Animations that were 'alright' a decade ago don't stand out badly?

There's no reason for me to care for anything you say then. And I really haven't cared for these reviewers in years. It's not even like that's an elitist's attitude about it. After all there are plenty reviews that actually pay attention to and properly address all these aspects. It's just not from the usual suspects of these 'AAA reviewers'.
It's your own subjective opinion just like it's mine and I barely agree with any of what your saying, I don't think the writing is that bad and it really does suck that there are technical issues, I have been lucky and I have seen the occasional framerate drop but it hasn't been that bad at all for me, I am having a fantastic time with fallout.

Metacritic is as flawed as the reviews it aggregates. It deserves some ire, but I don't think that is all this is. FO4 may be a good game, but not a great one. It doesn't deserve all those 9's by any stretch of the imagination and should have been penalized more for all its glaring flaws and technical issues.
I disagree I think if someone likes it enough to give it a 9 than it deserves the review.

I love the user score on metacritic. People realizing that this is an overhyped game.
User Score is one of the most useless things to look at because you will have idiots marking it either a 0 or a 10 without any reasons.
 
It's your own subjective opinion just like it's mine and I barely agree with any of what your saying, I don't think the writing is that bad and it really does suck that there are technical issues, I have been lucky and I have seen the occasional framerate drop but it hasn't been that bad at all for me, I am having a fantastic time with fallout.

I disagree I think if someone likes it enough to give it a 9 than it deserves the review.

User Score is one of the most useless things to look at because you will have idiots marking it either a 0 or a 10 without any reasons
.

So, if someone dislike it enough he CAN'T give it the score he want's and the game doesn't deserve it? ok
 
So, if someone dislike it enough he CAN'T give it the score he want's and the game doesn't deserve it? ok

I think he meant 10's and 0's without context. Negative reviews are fine just give your reasons and explain your experience. Ton's of metacritic ones are "0 lol witchers better".
 
Metacritic is as flawed as the reviews it aggregates. It deserves some ire, but I don't think that is all this is. FO4 may be a good game, but not a great one. It doesn't deserve all those 9's by any stretch of the imagination and should have been penalized more for all its glaring flaws and technical issues.
Have you played it? Its incredible. It absolutely deserves high scores. There is love and passion in every inch of this game. I can't imagine anything more insulting to Bethesda than people saying they were lazy or just didn't care. They obviously poured their hearts into this game and just because they don't use resources the way you might like them too doesn't mean that they didn't work their asses off for 7 years to make this game.

I love the user score on metacritic. People realizing that this is an overhyped game.
If this isn't sarcasm.... LMAO.
 
I disagree, 20 hours in on ultra on PC and its smooth as butter and the most fun I've had all year and I've beaten most of the big titles.

Metacritic does suck though.

If you have brute hardware strength, many technically flawed games can be forced to run great. Users with a beefy PC that can run this game on ultra isn't really where the complaints about this being a technically flawed game are coming from.

But surely you knew that right and was just using this as an opportunity to chest thump?
 
I'll give you that the combat feels similar overall.

But fucking lol at saying the graphics and animations feel similar/identical.

Graphics? No they are using higher poly assets and higher quality textures.

But you are kidding yourself if this game doesn't have the exact same garbage animation jank as all previous Bethesda games have had. The awkward scripting, the piss-poor ragdolls in VATS, the janky animation transitions, movement cycles, clipping, floating, collision, etcetera.
 
Jeff has mention in the podcast that they came out with the star system because "People just want to know: Should I get this game yes or no?"

Based on the criteria they create, yes F4 is as recomendable as BF Hardline and Mad Max...

Misleading score IMO

I think people might also want to know, given a sea of choices, which games they should get.
 
If you have brute hardware strength, many technically flawed games can be forced to run great. Users with a beefy PC that can run this game on ultra isn't really where the complaints about this being a technically flawed game are coming from.

But surely you knew that right and was just using this as an opportunity to chest thump?

Nope I was saying you can't blatantly say a game isn't great when other people love it and are having a different experience. Not even all console people dislike it my brother has 40 hours already on ps4 and loves it. You don't even need brute hardware on pc as shown by digital foundrys budget pv vs console vid.
 
Top Bottom