Any last minute predictions on how well Fallout 4 will rate critically?
- Thread starter iratA
- Start date
It's kind of telling that reviewers and players who are satisfied with the base product rarely discuss the underlying gameplay mechanics with any real depth, since this is consistently where the games fall apart for people who are looking for something more. I would go so far as to say that they are "bad" games from such a perspective, when they are riddled with so many fundamental problems like wearing heavy armor in Skyrim being pointless from a gameplay perspective since the armor cap can easily be reached with refined light armor.
Games can succeed in being appealing experiences in spite of poor mechanics though. Morrowind has the same kind of severe balancing issues as subsequent TES games, but for many hardcore fans the gameplay manages to be fun in spite of this, since the mechanics and systems are much more heavily interwoven with all aspects of the game to allow and encourage creativity and freedom in how they want to solve quests and all sorts of challenges. An aspect that has since diminished in sequels where solutions are more rigidly defined and scripted so that you can only play it in the way designers want you to play it.
Early era World of Warcraft is another example where mechanically the game was kind of shit in retrospect, but the social dynamics and community aspects of the experience were almost fundamentally different than they were today which is what makes many think of it more fondly than how it is today, even if things like itemization, combat and class balance are way more elegantly designed now.
So clearly there's something to the new school Bethesda games that make people overlook their many fundamental design problems. Critics like me are not out to belittle the opinions of people who immensely enjoy the base games in spite of this, but I'm still struggling to fully understand just why that is.
Iorv3th
Member
I would guess mid 80's.
Just guessing there will be bugs at launch and will probably get some dings for not changing the formula enough or reducing mechanics (basing this on how previous elder scrolls games have been more and more streamlined and had a cut down skillset/items compared to previous iterations).
Just guessing there will be bugs at launch and will probably get some dings for not changing the formula enough or reducing mechanics (basing this on how previous elder scrolls games have been more and more streamlined and had a cut down skillset/items compared to previous iterations).
Magic Mushroom
Member
It will get great reviews, because many critics won't dig deeper than 'oh, here's a great world with lots to do - 95%' instead of looking at the underlying mechanics, which Bethesda isn't really good at. In fact, I consider them to be a pretty poor and certainly highly overrated studio.
Basically what lazygecko said in more detail.
Basically what lazygecko said in more detail.
Cave Johnson
Member
The game is going to have to do something truly significant if it ever hopes to reach the high 90s. I'll go and say 88 at worst, 94 at best.
FairXchange
Member
10s and 9s, it'll be a critical darling. Don't belee juss watch.
Asscreed has a 76 metacritic tho
DanWensing
Banned
85-89
EnVy_CaLiBeR
Member
It'll be in the 90s.
Wut, Asscreed didn't get a 90+ MC for centuries almost.
After a quick check it never got 90+ on MC, even the best critically acclaimed game in the series, the second one is sitting at 90, and the last 2 games are 70+ so AC is far from being a critically acclaimed series.
shadowfall
Member
It will be a buggy mess. This time roles might be reversed and Xbox version might be worse. I would certainly like to know what version they send for reviews.
Meta critic of 93 - 95.
Meta critic of 93 - 95.
ROUGE_BLOCK
Member
It will get 10s for the unboxing
peanutbutterlatte
Member
I know this is a low blow but your avatar is Knack lol
banefirelord
Banned
Speaking for myself, a lot of my enjoyment stems from me deliberately not approaching BethSoft games as RPGs in the traditional sense. I never dive deep on roleplaying a specific archetype, tending to drift toward a "jack of all trades" character, and always ignore their story until I've exhausted all the other content. Rather, I go to Bethesda's games for a sort of fantastical tourism experience; for all their shortcomings with underlying mechanics and traditional storytelling, BethSoft does interactive, micro/macro world design better than anyone else in the business and being able to explore those worlds and drink in the locales and environmental storytelling (which they have always been FAR better at than traditional narrative) is more than enough for me to plonk down $60 every four years for a new place to run around.
In regards to the exploitation/brokenness inherent to the underlying mechanics, I actually find these sorts of exploits to be a boon in this exploration respect; being able to find the loophole that gives me an incredibly OP weapon or armor set just lets me get through their subpar combat faster and get to the cool finishing animations before continuing with my exploration.
TL;DR, I don't go to BethSoft games for a great RPG or mechanistic experience; I go for a fantastic world experience. Can't wait for the inevitable VR mods.
Dangoesforth
Member
I wasn't correlating the two, I was saying that for a game like GTA you might find a small reviewer giving the game a 6/7 out of 10 for clickbait.
Then separately some reviewers wont give 10/10 like Gametrailers, due to a belief that no game is a perfect 10, which can affect the metacritic.
I expect an average of 8.8. Many technical issues and some wonkey animations but a great and grand game at it's core.
I also expect it to be my second favourite game of the year (WIII:WH being number one). However, MGSV and Batman are probably close for me. And Bloodborne as well.
I also expect it to be my second favourite game of the year (WIII:WH being number one). However, MGSV and Batman are probably close for me. And Bloodborne as well.
PanicFreak
Member
93
Same as the other top tier releases this year.
Same as the other top tier releases this year.
Yep.
The way people talk about Fallout 3 around here you would think it was a broken game.
New Vegas had WAY more bugs..
This, but it happens with every AAA Title and that is the reason I don't give a shit about numbers anymore.
Amen. I loved Oblivion back in the day, despite seeing how watered down the Morrowind template had gotten, but Skyrim and Fallout 3 were just bland beyond belief.
Great worlds, awful combat, tedious quest design and mediocre dialogue/story. I expect much the same here.
silvermember
Banned
Players and Critics will give it a 99/100.
Both groups will ignore all the major flaws of the game such as technical, story etc.
They will call it game of the year ignoring an even better game technical wise and in some ways overall (witcher 3).
They will praise its mediocrity. The side effect of this undeserved praise is more games attempting to be more like it and failing.
So pretty much like every Bethsoft game.
Both groups will ignore all the major flaws of the game such as technical, story etc.
They will call it game of the year ignoring an even better game technical wise and in some ways overall (witcher 3).
They will praise its mediocrity. The side effect of this undeserved praise is more games attempting to be more like it and failing.
So pretty much like every Bethsoft game.
Dragon Puncher
Member
88. Great game, but has lots of bugs (obviously) and many reviewers aren't blown away by the new mechanics. Still a great story and a great world though.
Reviews don't wait for the dust to settle.
Metacritic scores for past Bethesda open world games:
Morrowind - 89 PC / 87 Xbox
Oblivion - 94 PC/ 94 360 / 93 PS3
Fallout 3 - 93 360 / 91 PC / 90 PS3
Skyrim - 96 360 / 94 PC / 92 PS3
PS3 memory issue won't be applicable here, so I am going to say 89-95 for all three versions.
Problem with all the complaints about Bethesda games on this forum is that they typically center around bugs (which reviewers never seem to care about. Look at scores for actual broken games) or repetitiveness that takes 20-30 hours to start setting in. Reviewers will play for 10 hours, everything will be awesome, and they will assign their score.
Morrowind - 89 PC / 87 Xbox
Oblivion - 94 PC/ 94 360 / 93 PS3
Fallout 3 - 93 360 / 91 PC / 90 PS3
Skyrim - 96 360 / 94 PC / 92 PS3
PS3 memory issue won't be applicable here, so I am going to say 89-95 for all three versions.
Problem with all the complaints about Bethesda games on this forum is that they typically center around bugs (which reviewers never seem to care about. Look at scores for actual broken games) or repetitiveness that takes 20-30 hours to start setting in. Reviewers will play for 10 hours, everything will be awesome, and they will assign their score.
Vault Dweller 111
Member
Reviewers are scoring lower this generation.
I'll say 85-89 even though it will probably be better than Skyrim and FO3.
I'll say 85-89 even though it will probably be better than Skyrim and FO3.
The_Hitcher89
Member
They'll have to fuck something right up for the combat to be compared unfavourably to that of TW3
psychotron
Member
89-92 metacritic
Though I don't really care. I love Fallout and can't wait!
Though I don't really care. I love Fallout and can't wait!
I mean, all they have to do is make the same God-awful combat engine they've been using for years. TW3 was't perfect, but it was fine. It worked and it felt decent.
Don't think I've ever said the same for the combat in Skyrim/Fallout.
Mostly for new IPs that don't innovate much, or for annual sequels. There hasn't been a Fallout game in 5 years. Look at Metal Gear Solid V's scores despite complaints about the story and microtransaction stuff.