Fallout 4 - Reviews thread

Boo Boo'n said:
Is "I don't see framerate!" The "I don't see race" for gamers
Click to expand...

Oh god

2444256-8233831785-78793.gif
 
Screaming Meat said:
.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't mean to pick on the Xbox. I mean, I can tell the PC version is running more frames than the PS4 one, but unless something dips by like 15 fps I just can't tell too well. Ya'll making me feel so old.

Some of these reviews don't really have much to say about the game other than performance issues and that it's more of the same, two things I'd basically know as soon as I saw a Bethesda logo. I was hoping for more people talking about the writing and less about the faction structure. The writing in the trailers was unsurprisingly terrible, but with the buzz that it was just as bad in game I was expecting more reviews discussing it. Maybe I'm reading the wrong ones.
 
WanderingWind said:
The world building makes a little more sense in Fallout 4, but it still very much feels like a bunch of loosely connected locations with different "themes." This is not helped by what feels like a smaller world. The Commonwealth is not a wasteland. It's packed full of stuff.

If you want the lore to follow FO1-2, you will be sad. No spoilers, but there is a massive lore breaking feature that is included as part of the core experience. It follows the lore of FO3 a bit more in that regard.

No karma is excellent. It's about time the series that is ostensibly about survival ditched it.

The voice acting is very good throughout, but the compressed dialogue choices lead to situations and experiences that RPG fans feared. You will pick a response and expect your player to say one thing and get another. Many of the choices you'll be able to pick are just "tones" like "Sarcastic." That is your dialogue choice. It has a massive effect (heh) on the roleplaying aspect. Some people don't care about that. I do.

The characters are the paper dolls from Fallout 3 and not the slightly more nuanced characters from New Vegas. So far, every character that can be a companion asks to join you literally 5 minutes after meeting them (with one notable exception). It's very off putting. Luckily, there is a lone wanderer perk that let's you avoid the companions altogether, if that's your thing.

Overall, as one of the RPG Old Guard, this is a disappointing step back from New Vegas in every way. On the other hand, I can have fun with it for what it is, which is a silly, nuclear sandbox to go play it. It's going to piss off the hardcore RPG fans immensely.
Click to expand...

Literally everything I was fearing.

Preorder definitely cancelled.
 
jonjonaug said:
Does it have immortal NPCs like FO3 or can you kill anyone at any time like in NV?
Click to expand...

Hm. Good question. Companions can go down, and the game tells you so when they do and you have to go give them a stimpack. I haven't tried to kill any important NPCs yet.
 
Fine Ham Abounds said:
Well, I don't mean to pick on the Xbox. I mean, I can tell the PC version is running more frames than the PS4 one, but unless something dips by like 15 fps I just can't tell too well. Ya'll making me feel so old.

Some of these reviews don't really have much to say about the game other than performance issues and that it's more of the same, two things I'd basically know as soon as I saw a Bethesda logo. I was hoping for more people talking about the writing and less about the faction structure. The writing in the trailers were unsurprisingly terrible, but with the buzz that it was just as bad in game I was expecting more reviews discussing it. Maybe I'm reading the wrong ones.
Click to expand...

I was only kidding. :)

RPS has a few bits to say about the writing. Surprisingly positive... at least, in relative terms.
 
Arulan said:
grpgdiscussion.gif


I've yet to see any detailed analysis on the effects of having a voiced player-character, the radical change in dialogue system, and subsequently dialogue-based skill checks. Furthermore, has any review directly compared it to the criticisms of Fallout 3? Specifically the poor world-building, writing, and quest design. Are quests just a series of isolated affairs again? Are they more closely connected to the surrounding world? Is the writing as poor as before? Are we to expect absurdity such as a settlement built around a bomb, vampires, or children-led settlements again? Has Bethesda made any changes to respect the established lore, are running with the problems of Fallout 3, or is it worse? Does the world maintain a level of consistency and logic, or is it a theme park of locations to see? How does the game address the lack of a reputation or karma system? How is the execution of the tiered-level-scaling?

These are but a few of the questions I'd like to know, and while I already have my suspicions, it shouldn't be unreasonable to expect professional critics to address them.
Click to expand...

This ^ so many times. Although I have the game already and can answer the most of these question, but it is sad seeing reviewers gloss over all of that.
 
A huge section of Neogaf has been joyfully bashing this game and lustfully reporting any second hand negative opinion for the past 4 or 5 days, and now those same people are upset that the game reviewed well. What is the agenda here? I do not understand it. Game you inexplicably hate is liked by someone else --- so what? You don't have to buy it. It's your money.

Wagram said:
Jim's fantastic, but he's full of shit. He didn't notice them, but they're there. Predicting 87-89 range.
Click to expand...

He's not full of shit. I watched the DF video. PS4 mostly holds steady at 30 fps, rarely dipping far below. If it occasionally dips to 26 fps or 28 fps, that's not something I'm likely to notice unless I have a counter up.

I trudged through Dragon's Dogma and did notice the horrible framerate but didn't let it ruin the experience. Some people just aren't so volatile when it comes to framerate as some others.
 
The best thing I did in New Vegas was storm Mr. House's casino without realizing where I was, blowing everything up because fuck it I have huge guns, and being recognized as one of the most threatening people in the game by the major power players.

randomengine said:
The question we should ask ourselves is:

Is a seriously flawed game worth 60 dollars?

Personally, I say no.
Click to expand...

This is going to sound like a cop-out answer, and I think you know it already considering your post, but I think it's relative.

To me, I don't think the game is worth 60 bucks out the gate based on what I've learned and read. I also know I'd probably be more harsh on the game and not enjoy it as much considering I just finished Tales from the Borderlands last night. That game cost me around 15 bucks and I'm sad the game had to end.
 
WanderingWind said:
The world building makes a little more sense in Fallout 4, but it still very much feels like a bunch of loosely connected locations with different "themes." This is not helped by what feels like a smaller world. The Commonwealth is not a wasteland. It's packed full of stuff.

If you want the lore to follow FO1-2, you will be sad. No spoilers, but there is a massive lore breaking feature that is included as part of the core experience. It follows the lore of FO3 a bit more in that regard.

No karma is excellent. It's about time the series that is ostensibly about survival ditched it.

The voice acting is very good throughout, but the compressed dialogue choices lead to situations and experiences that RPG fans feared. You will pick a response and expect your player to say one thing and get another. Many of the choices you'll be able to pick are just "tones" like "Sarcastic." That is your dialogue choice. It has a massive effect (heh) on the roleplaying aspect. Some people don't care about that. I do.

The characters are the paper dolls from Fallout 3 and not the slightly more nuanced characters from New Vegas. So far, every character that can be a companion asks to join you literally 5 minutes after meeting them (with one notable exception). It's very off putting. Luckily, there is a lone wanderer perk that let's you avoid the companions altogether, if that's your thing.

Overall, as one of the RPG Old Guard, this is a disappointing step back from New Vegas in every way. On the other hand, I can have fun with it for what it is, which is a silly, nuclear sandbox to go play it. It's going to piss off the hardcore RPG fans immensely.
Click to expand...

What about factions? One review claimed that they do play some role in how the main quest turns out. To what degree? Can you piss them off?
 
People who thought this game would flop in the reviews are crazy. Bethesda was confident in their E3 presentation. They showed off like 30+ minute of gameplay, features etc. No way they would have scheduled their own conference and showed of some much of the game if they thought it was going to get mediocre reviews. 90 Meta is about right. PC modders will turn it into a 95 meta game within 6 months. And the DLC will probably make it all even better.
 
randomengine said:
The question we should ask ourselves is:

Is a seriously flawed game worth 60 dollars?

Personally, I say no.
Click to expand...

It's flawed but it's also a game that stands alone. No one else is making this type of game, and so, yes, even if it has obvious flaws, if this type of game appeals to you, you're going to want to play it. It makes sense to me.
 
Sylas said:
Scores are pretty... well, they don't make any sense these days. They seem to be used as a metric of enjoyment as opposed to a summation of the game's parts. It's just another example of how numerically breaking down something like a game doesn't actually work.
Click to expand...

They do if you understand how reviews work:

  1. reviewers get paid $200usd or less per review regardless of game length, so expect 20 hours or less of gameplay time
  2. with rare exceptions, they are not in the business of pissing off readers (I.e. fans of games) or publishers
  3. they have relationships with corporate PR, usually spilling over into personal
  4. many would like to work for pubs and or devs at some point
  5. big budget AAA retail games are extensively play tested and mock reviewed, the are literally designed to please reviewers

So there you go, now the 7-10 scoring system makes sense hopefully.
 
Jobbs said:
It's flawed but it's also a game that stands alone. No one else is making this type of game, and so, yes, even if it has obvious flaws, if this type of game appeals to you, you're going to want to play it. It makes sense to me.
Click to expand...

And yet, Bethesda decides to take out core features that no other RPG has, and replace them with boring things TONS of RPGs do.
 
yuraya said:
People who thought this game would flop in the reviews are crazy. Bethesda was confident in their E3 presentation. They showed off like 30+ minute of gameplay, features etc. No way they would have scheduled their own conference and showed of some much of the game if they thought it was going to get mediocre reviews. 90 Meta is about right. PC modders will turn it into a 95 meta game within 6 months. And the DLC will probably make it all even better.
Click to expand...

siren.gif

MODDERS CAN MOD METACRITIC RATING
SHOULD BETHESDA CHARGE FOR THAT?
 
Jobbs said:
A huge section of Neogaf has been joyfully bashing this game and lustfully reporting any second hand negative opinion for the past 4 or 5 days, and now those same people are upset that the game reviewed well. What is the agenda here? I do not understand it. Game you inexplicably hate is liked by someone else --- so what? You don't have to buy it. It's your money.

He's not full of shit. I watched the DF video. PS4 mostly holds steady at 30 fps, rarely dipping far below. If it occasionally dips to 26 fps or 28 fps, that's not something I'm likely to notice unless I have a counter up.

I trudged through Dragon's Dogma and did notice the horrible framerate but didn't let it ruin the experience. Some people just aren't so volatile when it comes to framerate as some others.
Click to expand...

Let us not kid ourselves, you'd notice the minigun vs. Deathclaw dips.
 
WanderingWind said:
Overall, as one of the RPG Old Guard, this is a disappointing step back from New Vegas in every way. On the other hand, I can have fun with it for what it is, which is a silly, nuclear sandbox to go play it. It's going to piss off the hardcore RPG fans immensely.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your answers.
 
I came here to see reviews but once again gaf doesn't disappoint in the fact people want to actively hate a game. I'm getting that it's by no means perfect but still highly enjoyable from the reviews. That's good enough for me. The framerate issues have little excuse though. Get your shit together Bethesda. Steady 30 fps doesn't have different definitions
 
WanderingWind said:
The world building makes a little more sense in Fallout 4, but it still very much feels like a bunch of loosely connected locations with different "themes." This is not helped by what feels like a smaller world. The Commonwealth is not a wasteland. It's packed full of stuff.

If you want the lore to follow FO1-2, you will be sad. No spoilers, but there is a massive lore breaking feature that is included as part of the core experience. It follows the lore of FO3 a bit more in that regard.

No karma is excellent. It's about time the series that is ostensibly about survival ditched it.

The voice acting is very good throughout, but the compressed dialogue choices lead to situations and experiences that RPG fans feared. You will pick a response and expect your player to say one thing and get another. Many of the choices you'll be able to pick are just "tones" like "Sarcastic." That is your dialogue choice. It has a massive effect (heh) on the roleplaying aspect. Some people don't care about that. I do.

The characters are the paper dolls from Fallout 3 and not the slightly more nuanced characters from New Vegas. So far, every character that can be a companion asks to join you literally 5 minutes after meeting them (with one notable exception). It's very off putting. Luckily, there is a lone wanderer perk that let's you avoid the companions altogether, if that's your thing.

Overall, as one of the RPG Old Guard, this is a disappointing step back from New Vegas in every way. On the other hand, I can have fun with it for what it is, which is a silly, nuclear sandbox to go play it. It's going to piss off the hardcore RPG fans immensely.
Click to expand...

I want to like Bethesda games, I really do, but their amateurish writing and disjointed world design (theme parks as you call it) are what put me off this game. After playing The Witcher 3, which had incredible writing and an amazingly cohesive world, I just don't think I can settle for this. Combine that with the technical issues it apparently has and this game has definitely gone to being a skip.

Maybe I'll pick up the legendary edition in a year or two when it's on sale for $20.
 
Sounds like a technically flawed game that's a lot of fun to play, and fortunately I play games to have fun. Wish it was a stable 30fps on consoles, but I'll still be buying this tomorrow.
 
I asked a reviewer who played the Xbox version for over 30 hours about the stuttering, and he said he'd noticed some performance issues in towns, but nothing serious that he could put his finger on.

Maybe it's not as bad for everyone? Or maybe he is very forgiving for such things. I dunno.
 
I'm guessing the answer is no, but is there any word on how loud the PS4 runs while playing this?


Wish you could do full installs, my PS4 has been struggling recently
 
ilnadmy said:
I want to like Bethesda games, I really do, but their amateurish writing and disjointed world design (theme parks as you call it) are what put me off this game. After playing The Witcher 3, which had incredible writing and an amazingly cohesive world, I just don't think I can settle for this. Combine that with the technical issues it apparently has and this game has definitely gone to being a skip.

Maybe I'll pick up the legendary edition in a year or two when it's on sale for $20.
Click to expand...

Yeah, everything I've seen and read has cemented in me that Fallout 4 continues Bethesda's trend of not delivering role-playing games where it's actually fun to...YOU KNOW ROLE PLAY
 
It feels good to have some good reviews about it, and the Rock, Paper, Shotgun felt like a balanced one. Now I feel pretty confident about my purchase of the game, in the sense that even if some things turns out bad, the reviews are at least a promising sign.

Even if the game is flawed, so it's pretty much all Open World RPG's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Atomfall - Reviews Thread
2 3
106
8K
Humdinger replied
The Outer Worlds >>>>> Fallout 4
2
60
2K
Ridaxan replied
Looking for the best Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas and Fallout 4 mods that are close to baseline
12
378
Strategize replied
South of Midnight - Reviews Thread
11 12 13 14 15
707
32K
nkarafo replied
Split Fiction - Reviews Thread
2 3
149
10K
AJUMP23 replied
Top Bottom