Fallout 4 - Reviews thread

What does it say that the metacritic ratings for the 3 versions are Xbox>PS4>PC, exactly opposite of the games performance on the 3 platforms.
 
CTYoTInVAAA8G6J.jpg


CTY5DP6WsAANrDq.jpg

Oh, man. The Monster Factory video of this is going to be glorious.
 
Wait. Just wait a second.

General consensus:

Game has bugs (lots)
FPS issues on console (worse on XBO)
Graphically unimpressive
Decent story but nothing ground-breaking

But we don't "get the logic" behind review scores.

Well no I don't get it because I just described a 7.8 game from someone else other than Bethesda.
 
What percentage of posts per page about how salty a thread is do we need to hit before the thread is, in fact, low sodium?

Well aren't the posts about how salty the thread is, by their own nature salty, therefore we are always high on salt?

It's just like Global Warming, nothing stops this sodium train.
 
I may have to bust out this badboy for long sessions on PS4.

Micro.png


The poor PS4 controller is going to have a bad time. Alternatively I guess I could switch between my other charged ones, but it feels weird to switch controllers halfway through a session. Then the controller is cold. lol

It's like turning your pillow over
 
Wait. Just wait a second.

General consensus:

Game has bugs (lots)
FPS issues on console (worse on XBO)
Graphically unimpressive
Decent story but nothing ground-breaking

But we don't "get the logic" behind review scores.

Requesting someone make a gif with Neogaf man getting up from his desk, opening his arms to the camera, and the gif fades into the Bethesda logo.
 
What does it say that the metacritic ratings for the 3 versions are Xbox>PS4>PC, exactly opposite of the games performance on the 3 platforms.

Does IGN even bother to review more than one version of a multiplat unless they are released months apart? They just gave all 3 Fallout 4 versions the same review. I'm sure most of the big outlets are similar.
 
"..technical issues are frequent and severe"

-Gametrailers, 9/10

How? The discrepancy between metacritic and impressions here and elsewhere is getting huge. Who to trust??

Were you that disgusted that you turned it off before it said "Somehow in spite of everything, Fallout 4 consumed us".

If it has issues, but.still manages to grab you by the balls like nothing else you've played, it's still a 9, because opinions.
 
95+ on Metacritic almost never happens anymore. For the best, I might add. 80+ should denote a good game, as it does for non-AAA titles.
Oh I agree.
GTAV was a game where the budget matched the quality.

Untertale is killing it in ratings, but we know low budget games do not counts toward GOTY material.
Only half-joking
 
Wait. Just wait a second.

General consensus:

Game has bugs (lots)
FPS issues on console (worse on XBO)
Graphically unimpressive
Decent story but nothing ground-breaking

But we don't "get the logic" behind review scores.

Well no I don't get it because I just described a 7.8 game from someone else other than Bethesda.

"Just wait a second. I can judge this game better than people who have played and beaten it."
 
Wait. Just wait a second.

General consensus:

Game has bugs (lots)
FPS issues on console (worse on XBO)
Graphically unimpressive
Decent story but nothing ground-breaking

But we don't "get the logic" behind review scores.

Well no I don't get it because I just described a 7.8 game from someone else other than Bethesda.


Have you played the game? These titles have always been more about crafting your own story through exploration and actions/crazy unscripted events than enjoying Oscar worthy dialogue
 
Have you played the game? These titles have always been more about crafting your own story through exploration and actions/crazy unscripted events than enjoying Oscar worthy dialogue

Yeah, he even quoted the GT review earlier that says the main story is good but nothing special, but the surprises are what makes it a truly memorable game.
 
Wait. Just wait a second.

General consensus:

Game has bugs (lots)
FPS issues on console (worse on XBO)
Graphically unimpressive
Decent story but nothing ground-breaking

But we don't "get the logic" behind review scores.

Well no I don't get it because I just described a 7.8 game from someone else other than Bethesda.

Oh I love this game! Let me do Witcher 3:

General consensus:

Game has bugs (lots)
FPS issues on console (worse on PS4)
Graphically downgraded from reveal
Good side quests but relatively boring main scenario.

I just decribed a 7.8 game from someone else other than CDPR.
 
Oh I love this game! Let me do Witcher 3:

General consensus:

Game has bugs (lots)
FPS issues on console (worse on PS4)
Graphically downgraded from reveal
Good side quests but relatively boring main scenario.

I just decribed a 7.8 game from someone else other than CDPR.

Now do Halo 5.
 
"everything in Fallout 4 feels more carefully crafted and stuffed with intrigue than the games that came before it"

That's word for word EXACTLY what I wanted to hear Gametrailers. Hype up.

Bethesda should consider putting this quote in their marketing campaign!
 
Witcher 3 didn't have a lot of interactions? You just couldn't engage conversation options with every single person you cam across. But there were a lot of thing's you could do to npc's.

I am talking interaction with the world. Fallout 4 has far more actions regarding environments and especially with the new modding/building systems.
 
i liked this. i never watched their show but... I used to love how EGM did reviews, in print. They still used scores but every game had 3 or 4 separate 1-10 scores based on multiple reviewers' impressions. They gave out "awards" (silver gold and platinum?) for games in which everyone was unanimous in their praise (i.e. if everyone gave 8.0s or higher), but a single game didn't get a single 1-10 score assigned to it so much as a small collection of how different people felt about it, without leaving the publication. In their descriptions, you could understand why different people came up with different scores based on their own preferences. You didn't have to guess at where the ultimate number came from like we do when we look at a 90 and an 80 compared to one another on metacritic. In helping you make a buying decision, I always thought this was so much more helpful than just comparing all of the individual big site reviews for the consumer. Different people focus more on different aspects and what's important to you as an individual may not even be mentioned let alone reflected in any given review, so "averaging" reviews that may not all use the same criteria to assign a simple label (this is a "metacritic 89 game") isn't just pointless but actively harmful.
 
Wait. Just wait a second.

General consensus:

Game has bugs (lots)
FPS issues on console (worse on XBO)
Graphically unimpressive
Decent story but nothing ground-breaking

But we don't "get the logic" behind review scores.

Well no I don't get it because I just described a 7.8 game from someone else other than Bethesda.

So pretty much current day AAA. Throw in a ton of DLC also, and you can call it a wrap.
 
Oh I love this game! Let me do Witcher 3:

General consensus:

Game has bugs (lots)
FPS issues on console (worse on PS4)
Graphically downgraded from reveal
Good side quests but relatively boring main scenario.

I just decribed a 7.8 game from someone else other than CDPR.

Funny how easy the game is to play when you absurdly reduce every fault to a bullet point on a list of "features" and ignore the things people like about the game, isn't it?
 
"..technical issues are frequent and severe"

-Gametrailers, 9/10

How? The discrepancy between metacritic and impressions here and elsewhere is getting huge. Who to trust??

its amazing how a games can be a technical mess at times yet get a high score...that money hatting
 
I may have to bust out this badboy for long sessions on PS4.

Micro.png


The poor PS4 controller is going to have a bad time. Alternatively I guess I could switch between my other charged ones, but it feels weird to switch controllers halfway through a session. Then the controller is cold. lol
In this journey through the wasteland, you and that controller will become one. The others, though shiny, responsive, and clean will no longer be worthy. Souless husks they will now be to you and must be cast into the depths of oblivion as they do not even deserve what little pity your weary eyes would give them. Where some would see sticky triggers and deteriorating thumbsticks, I only see badges of honor and when it must be laid to rest, you will find out where the red fern grows.
salute.gif
 
If a reviewer felt a game was a 9 despite the issues, then I don't mind. However, I do think it is a disservice to not mention technical issues at all if they do arise. As long as they properly inform the reader of the issues, then they can score it however they feel. The content of the review is more important than the score to me.
 
I didn't expect such good review scores.
And I absolutely love it that there were these lists of excuses the "defenders" would post if there would be low scores and now it just completely turned around, trying to find excuses why the game doesn't deserve the high scores.

I must admit I wasn't interested in that game at all but I may take a closer look at it.
 
Funny how easy the game is to play when you absurdly reduce every fault to a bullet point on a list of "features" and ignore the things people like about the game, isn't it?

I'd actually like to know what it is people like so much about these games. I played Skyrim for about 80 hours according to steam, and in hindsight, I couldn't remember any of part of the game standing out and making the game worth the several dozen times the game crashed and burned. It wasn't so much "bad" aside from that, more just straight-up dull.
 
Top Bottom