Fallout 4 - Reviews thread

The aftermath of the excellent Witcher 3 has clearly affected how reviewers react to Fallout 4, it seems... I hope it has not affected me too much. I loved Fallout 3 (way more than Skyrim), so I am expecting to love Fallout 4 too... don't disappoint me Bethesda!
 
No it wasn't, that is to say not because it was a shit game. What kind of bullshit is this. It both reviewed well and sold well.

The reason why Irrational closed down is because the studio spent a huge amount of time and budget on making assets that ended up not being used and 2K felt that having a big Ken Levine run studio wasn't worth it.

If your line of reasoning were the correct one, they would have identified Ken Levine as the person to cut and not the entire studio. How many instances do we have of well-reviewed, well-sold games that shutter their studio?

Edit: Actually, I can provide one now that I think about it: L.A.Noire. Team Bondi, but that game used state of the art technology and did things other games never did before.
 
One thing I'm getting from these reviews is that Fallout 3 is the norm for every comparison and not Fallout: New Vegas. 'Better writing and characters than Fallout 3' means absolutely nothing to me when you have New Vegas to compare it to.
 
so it seems like FO4 is more of the same then? i've never been able to get into fallout (or any of bethesda's games that i've tried, tbh), so i guess this one isn't gonna win me over, either
 
Personally, I thought it was. It was responsible for destroying the studio that made it. Good games usually don't do that.

Your the only other person who shares my sentiment on the development hell that game went through.

Not to derail but that Game went from looking intriguing to a shooter with sky hooks that went around the area your enemies were in instead of the whole city like the 2011 reveal would have you believe.

If your line of reasoning were the correct one, they would have identified Ken Levine as the person to cut and not the entire studio. How many instances do we have of well-reviewed, well-sold games that shutter their studio?

I seriously praeched this earlier this year on a youtube discussion on the original concept of the game.

Glad to see someone didn't drink the Kool-aid with all the glowing reviews the game didn't deserve IMHO.

Sorry to derail, back to the thread.
 
I don't think not wanting shitty writing, bugs that could possibly destroy your game save, and graphics/animations that are at least close to what we're getting in other games would really change what kind of game it is.

Nope absolutely it would not you are right. But the people that basically say the only thing there is to like about the game is picking up trash, and they say this seriously, would not be happy with these reasonable changes.

But those are the concessions they have to make so we can pick up objects in the world and that's what makes Bethesda great. The worlds they make are so interactive and immersive and dynamic.

100/10 todd is god

Point proven.
 
The Witcher 3 is probably the biggest mess this year, in terms of console performance and glitches/bugs. Seems like every update fixes one thing and breaks three things. I say that as a huge fan of the Witcher series.

Batman.

Edit: Whoops, sorry read that wrong. On console alone you may be right. But otherwise, Batman.
 

How about Fallout: Florida?

Bethesda need only to browse Off Topic for stories they can put in as sidequests
M4oe5vt.gif
 
That's fair. People like different things. I don't really understand it so much because I think NV and Fallout 3 were far more alike than they were different and Fallout 4 looks to be pretty much the same. But I suppose if the only things you enjoy about NV are the things that you think NV did better, you would feel this way.

New Vegas is, for me, much better than Fallout 3 for a bunch of different reasons. The way the world and story is presented, the level of immersion and freedom, the way the dialogue works. It was made by Obsidian. It shows.

Fallout 4 on the other hand, is made by Bethesda, and they are making all the same mistakes Fallout 3 made, and more. Locking you behind a backstory you don't want, poor story telling and writing, a wasteland that doesn't feel seamless and integrated and real beyond the surface, and on top of that, shoving tons of voice acting with a character you aren't really creating yourself just to make it feel like other AAA games.
 
If your line of reasoning were the correct one, they would have identified Ken Levine as the person to cut and not the entire studio. How many instances do we have of well-reviewed, well-sold games that shutter their studio?

Just this year? MGS V

Only 2K isn't as stupid as Konami and they realize that Ken Levine is one of the most recognizable names in video game industry and the one most people associate with everything good(and bad) with Bioshock, which is pretty unfortunate but true.

And the entire studio wasn't cut, just the majority, Ken is still a studio lead of Irrational veterans, it's just that 2k feels that having him make big budget games is no longer profitable.

It is in fact amazing just how similar the fates of Kojima studio and Irrational games are.
 
Just this year? MGS V

Only 2K isn't as stupid as Konami and they realize that Ken Levine is one of the most recognizable names in video game industry and the one most people associate with everything good(and bad) with Bioshock, which is pretty unfortunate but true.

And the entire studio wasn't cut, just the majority, Ken is still a studio lead of Irrational veterans, it's just that 2k feels that having him make big budget games is no longer profitable.

Kojima Productions was dead before MGS V was reviewed or released.
 
I don't think not wanting shitty writing, bugs that could possibly destroy your game save, and graphics/animations that are at least close to what we're getting in other games would really change what kind of game it is.

But those are the concessions they have to make so we can pick up objects in the world and that's what makes Bethesda great. The worlds they make are so interactive and immersive and dynamic.

100/10 todd is god
 
The Witcher 3 is probably the biggest mess this year, in terms of console performance and glitches/bugs. Seems like every update fixes one thing and breaks three things. I say that as a huge fan of the Witcher series.

How many were game breaking though? I played it unpatched for a while and only saw on console the performance issues.

Were there huge bugs that killed the game like there have been with Bethesda games?
 
+1 GOTY contender, it seems, especially since shooters really hadn't been represented. This week is fantastic for gaming.
I don't want to sound hyperbolic but the fact that Bethesda is allowed to put out buggy games is the closest thing gaming will have to the holocaust.
"I don't want to sound hyperbolic, but I'm going to be extremely hyperbolic."
Love it.
 
Nope absolutely it would not you are right. But the people that basically say the only thing there is to like about the game is picking up trash, and they say this seriously, would not be happy with these reasonable changes.

I've previously said the only thing that kept me playing Fallout 3 for the length I did was the environment/setting. That's it. Thought combat kinda sucked, thought the story was hot trash, characters were completely forgetable, quests were bland, animations weren't great, graphics were ok I suppose, and luckily I didn't run into too many bugs on my play through.

Hiring some good writers would make me a fanboy of the damned series and company. As it stands I usually end up getting the the games, messing around a bit and getting bored and let down at all those things I mentioned before. Good writing can go a long way.

I think the frustrating thing for those of us with negative feelings is that there's literally a list that fans have that they say don't matter which is fine, but that also means if they improved those things the fans would still be fine with the games too.
 
Personally, I thought it was. It was responsible for destroying the studio that made it. Good games usually don't do that.

It was well reviewed and sold five million copies. Regardless of how you personally felt about the game, saying that Irrational's dissolution was due to to B:I's quality is a load of bullshit. It was due to 2K having misplaced expectations and Ken Levine wanting to get out of AAA development.
 
You know what you are getting from a Bethesda game. Acting like people are going to shake their head in shock when they hit the 20 hour mark and realize everything is shallow, soulless shit is silly. This is the fourth Bethesda Softworks game since Oblivion. All of them have been fairly similar from a design perspective, and all of them have sold better than pretty much anything else in the WRPG genre. It's not just blind hype from naive, uninformed buyers pushing these games past the 10M mark globally. People generally like what they are playing or they wouldn't keep playing it. Most of the people buying Fallout 4 will have played Fallout 3 or Skyrim. Series that disappoint the majority of their customers don't continue selling a decade later.

So people who don't like that it's shallow, soulless shit or following the same basic design for several games shouldn't criticize any of that because it's Bethesda and we know what we're in for?

That's one weak justification for telling people that they shouldn't complain. If anything, soulless, shallow and derivative are all great reasons for people to expect more.
 
Kojima Productions was dead before MGS V was reviewed or released.

Yes, but for the same reasons that Irrational games closed down.

Irrational games was also dead the moment 2K had to hire Rod Fergusson to get the game finished.

2k was just more or less shitty because they didn't let Irrational know until the DLC was complete.

But then again Kojima studios had to work on the game until it was out even though most of them were already fired from the company and had to work as contractors, so Konami is not that much better.
 
One thing I'm getting from these reviews is that Fallout 3 is the norm for every comparison and not Fallout: New Vegas. 'Better writing and characters than Fallout 3' means absolutely nothing to me when you have New Vegas to compare it to.

People are saying it is just more FO3 and nobody is comparing it to New Vegas. It kind of sucks that Bethesda can't learn from their betters in areas where they're weak.
 
Looks great but the same negatives from the 3 or 4 reviews I just read confirmed my initial plan:

Not buying until its been patched and fixed several times.
 
I was expecting a 99 on MC so I'm gonna quit vidgaimz now.

No but seriously great reviews all around. Hope the flaws it has in terms of framdrops on consoles, especially on X1 can be solved quickly.
 
I guess certain games get free passes to hover in the 9's with arguably dated graphics and performance/bug issues, while others get docked for those very same issues. That gaming cultural hype effect.
 
I've previously said the only thing that kept me playing Fallout 3 for the length I did was the environment/setting. That's it. Thought combat kinda sucked, thought the story was hot trash, characters were completely forgetable, quests were bland, animations weren't great, graphics were ok I suppose, and luckily I didn't run into too many bugs on my play through.

Hiring some good writers would make me a fanboy of the damned series and company. As it stands I usually end up getting the the games, messing around a bit and getting bored and let down at all those things I mentioned before. Good writing can go a long way.

I think the frustrating thing for those of us with negative feelings is that there's literally a list that fans have that they say don't matter which is fine, but that also means if they improved those things the fans would still be fine with the games too.

That's actually fine and reasonable. Hell even I'll admit that the Obsidian game had better writing than FO3, I have yet to play 4. I think Bethesda can improve in this area. But then when I play these games, I get lost in them for hundreds of hours. They just click for me for a variety of reasons. For those that these games click for, who's to say what they like is incorrect? Who's to say it needs to be improved upon or changed if it is hitting the needs of a very large and quite thirsty audience? I don't think this makes these people blind fanboys for liking what they like, does it?
 
Well that's very very disappointing.

The modders will patch it.

He's talking about the PS4 version which he played for review purposes. He said he's gonna mess around with the PC version and see how that goes. Just some quotes he dropped on Mixlr (stolen from the GB thread)

"It's like Fallout 3, but looks better".

"I feel like smooth framerates should not...I guess, smoother...oh man, it gets so bad in some spots"

"It gets so low that at some point it gets hard to shoot things and that's a bad place to be"

"Slideshow city. Crazy shit."

"It's still a game where you're talking to an AI guy and another AI guy walks up and says 'Hey, what's up?'. It's still that game."

And another quote saying if its wrong that he really wanted the game to be better than it was.
 
That's actually fine and reasonable. Hell even I'll admit that the Obsidian game had better writing than FO3, I have yet to play 4. I think Bethesda can improve in this area. But then when I play these games, I get lost in them for hundreds of hours. They just click for me for a variety of reasons. For those that these games click for, who's to say what they like is incorrect? Who's to say it needs to be improved upon or changed if it his hitting the needs of a very large and quite thirsty audience?

Because nothing we are asking for them to improve on is at the expense of the things you like.
 
One thing I'm getting from these reviews is that Fallout 3 is the norm for every comparison and not Fallout: New Vegas. 'Better writing and characters than Fallout 3' means absolutely nothing to me when you have New Vegas to compare it to.

Probably the thing I'm taking away from this thread is that I want to reinstall New Vegas sometime soon.
 
I guess certain games get free passes to hover in the 9's with arguably dated graphics and performance/bug issues, while others get docked for those very same issues. That gaming cultural hype effect.

*shrug*

Some of the reviews even emphasize that they major issues.
 
The RPGamer review is unfair:
The problem comes from the fact that this feels like more of the same, not a step forward. Fallout 4 doesn't break the same new ground Fallout 3 did with its jump to 3D, and its storytelling and intricacy of choice falls short of what New Vegas offered...Fallout 4 just feels safe, even when trying new things.
Comparing "storytelling and intricacy of choice" in a Bethesda game to an Obsidian game is clearly a sign of bias.
 
How can a product with such glaring technical issues get a 9/10? I'm not saying technical issues make it a bad game, but surely you have to take everything into account?
 
The RPGamer review is unfair:
Comparing "storytelling and intricacy of choice" in a Bethesda game to an Obsidian game is clearly a sign of bias.

To be fair, Obsidian made a better Fallout game than Bethesda ever could.

People were hoping Bethesda would learn from Obsidian, in terms of worldbuilding and storytelling and choice. They apparently did not.
 
Top Bottom