Any last minute predictions on how well Fallout 4 will rate critically?

I'm expecting 9-10s across the board purely because it's highly anticipated. Whether or not it deserves those accolades is another question.

I agree with this.

Though I think I'll agree with the 9-10's for my own rating. It's going to be my GOTY (Bethesda will have to fuck up badly as in ruin things they do well as well as be just as bad or worse on what they don't for it not to be my GOTY). But I already know I'm going to be forgiving of bugs and bad story and just am going to totally love this game despite its flaws (or at least that's the trend I have with Bethesda games. I can fully agree with the criticisms but I still find them the most fun games I play. Which is why Fallout: New Vegas is my favorite game of all time. It does everything I love about Bethesda games and also is good where they are flawed).
 
It'll be well over 90 unless Bethesda made some really derp design decisions. This is a pretty huge deal, we won't see anything like it until the next GTA or elder scrolls
 
Well 85 is the new 90 so I'm guessing once the dust settles 84-86 meta.


It'll be well over 90 unless Bethesda made some really derp design decisions. This is a pretty huge deal, we won't see anything like it until the next GTA or elder scrolls


It's not even close to being in the same tier as those games.
 
so many websites trying to grab attention, that this game will get a few low scores as click bait...a few zero point zero...it will still score a 91 I think when it is all said and done..
 
Well, being a high profile, "AAA" game with a huge marketing push behind it I would expect it to review very well regardless of its quality.
 
I'd say mid 80s. I know Bethesda puts a lot of work and passion into their games, but the standards are going up more and more, and presentation is going to be a factor. In a world where things like GTAV and the Witcher III exist, Bethesda is going to need to do a tech overhaul at some point.
 
Low nineties.

I mean, if the systems turn out to be shit (since they're new), that might hurt it. But probably not if you can play it like a shooter. People seem to like that idea
 
90.

Positives will be the huge world, variety of quests and things to explore, style of the game.

Negatives will be usual Bethesda jank, dated graphics, so-so performance, base building junk and combat.
 
90+ for me. It's going to be an affair of the game being way less buggy than originally predicted and consequently, reviewers throwing out higher review scores regardless of how the game compares in other areas to its predecessors or other games of the genre (though it will likely compare favorably in most cases).
 
88-92 would be my guess, and this is despite (the assumed) initial bugs. I'll be waiting until the holidays to buy it (or later) so that bugs will be fixed.
 
As someone playing skyrim right now, if its like that game in its shortcomings, it deserves a low 80. And if filled of the same game breaking bugs it deserves a low 70.

But I know thats not going to happen and theres going to be high 90's everywhere. Or maybe they did a better game this time, who knows (some things of the trailers ive seen are pretty cool and its something that would make me buy the game, but with bethesda, its better to wait 6 months it seems).

If im enjoying skyrim is becuase of the work not done actually by Bethesda. The Interesting NPC's mod for example shits all over the work bethesda did in that game. +250 real characters with personality and changes algon the stor, fully voiced with more than 50 well done and complicated quests.

We can probably "fix" bugged quests via console, by progressing the quest manually to the next step. I did this in Skyrim and it saved me from frustration.

I tried this yesterday after I found a game breaking bug and it brakes the game even more. I have to use a save from 10 days ago with a character 6 levels down. Thanks Bethesda.

Witcher 3 too: full of bugs, but an outrageously good game.

Its really not comparable. They are very few game breaking bugs and are easily avoidable in the Witcher 3, for how big and well done that game is, the polish is outstanding. Skyrim is full of game breaking bugs, super easy to find them and brake your whole game (without you noticing until is too late), and full of horrible small bugs that do not brake your game but can turn your playthrough miserable (multiple random CTD are the most "fun"). And thats even counting that im playing with the fan made patch that tries to erase most of the bugs Bethesda left.
 
BMJaXu8.gif

nNQTqDE.gif
 
I expect the majority of reviewers to really like it, so mostly 8s & 9s.

I also expect a number of GAF critics to really hate it--loudly and constantly.
 
I'm predicting an 87 metacritic. It will be a great game, but I feel like Bethesda's style of gameplay has become outdated. Unless they've drastically reduced the clunkiness of combat, I don't think this is going to be receiving the same 95+ scores that Fallout 3 and Skyrim received.
 
I don't wanna say anything regarding scores except:

Probably way too high. It will be released in usual Bethesda fashion. Full of bugs, 2-3 months early. But hey, the community is gonna fix it right?

Personally, I never digged Bethesdas quantity over quality approach as far as their content goes.
 
If im enjoying skyrim is becuase of the work not done actually by Bethesda. The Interesting NPC's mod for example shits all over the work bethesda did in that game. +250 real characters with personality and changes algon the stor, fully voiced with more than 50 well done and complicated quests.

The problems are compunded in Fallout by the fact that they're building on top of a foundation laid by other developers who clearly had a better grasp of a lot of this stuff. Not just the quality of the writing but also the game's systems/design and their balance.

The various gameplay overhaul mods available for Skyrim really lampoons how poorly thought out and unimaginative the original perk system was. So the fact that they are now deviating even further from the character progression system of the original Fallout games has me extra worried.
 
90-95. Critics will adore it, as will most players. Some will hate it for not being enough like the old Fallout games and others will say that FV:NV was way better, but most people will be really happy.

There'll still be a shit-ton of bugs, but it'll still get great scores.
 
90-95. Critics will adore it, as will most players. Some will hate it for not being enough like the old Fallout games and others will say that FV:NV was way better, but most people will be really happy.

There'll still be a shit-ton of bugs, but it'll still get great scores.

Pretty much my thoughts exactly.
 
Yeah, I'm waiting on a balance/stats overhaul before I spend a cent on this game. Going by what we've seen of how this game works, there are obvious issues that can be solved decisively by mods.

I bought Skyrim at launch and it was such an obvious step down from Oblivion with OOO. They learned nothing. There's no reason for me to fall into that again when I can get the game cheaper, with patches, and mods that make it much more fun for me to play.
cool enjoy the wait. do come back in a year and tell us what you think of the game.

but I don't disagree. You make perfectly valid points.
 
The problems are compunded in Fallout by the fact that they're building on top of a foundation laid by other developers who clearly had a better grasp of a lot of this stuff. Not just the quality of the writing but also the game's systems/design and their balance.

The various gameplay overhaul mods available for Skyrim really lampoons how poorly thought out and unimaginative the original perk system was. So the fact that they are now deviating even further from the character progression system of the original Fallout games has me extra worried.

I didnt like much Fallout 3 when I played it some years ago. Found it repetitive and bland. I have still to play New Vegas, I know already that the writting is going to make me like it a lot more.
If what you say its true about simplifying even more the game, it doesnt inspire me much confidence either.

If they fail at the writting once more, i really dont undertand why they dont hire better writters to create the important characters and quests. The guys from Interesting NPCs for example, why not hire them? They are clearly much better than you, and are fans of your game.

cool enjoy the wait. do come back in a year and tell us what you think of the game.

Wow, are you trying to be sarcastic?
He is absolutely right, you know. Im playing Skyrim for the first time now with a bunch of mods, and I will had probably stopped middle game like with Fallout 3 if I had played the game vanilla. That is a little sad I cant talk about the game excitedly with other people while all are playing? yes, but is the price you have to play for a better experience.
 
overwhelmingly positive with a small cadre of mindful reviews realizing bethesda's 1000-mile wide kiddie pool is worthless after 12 hours
 
avg. around 93

Comment that will be common among reviewer:
- I spent 100/200/300 hours, and i barely scratch the surface
- There's so much quest
- I spent many time crafting and perfecting my town
- There's a few bug, but it didn't stop me from playing
- This game is massive, a new standard in open world RPG
- A major upgrade to fallout 3
- A masterpiece, GOTY candidate
- Immersive
 
Top Bottom