Why would you think F4 is trying to be like TW3? What gave you that impression? I haven't seen anyone say that 4 isn't an overall improvement to 3/NV. Are you just saying [censored] just to get people riled up lol cuz I can't see you making much sense in your posts

One has to wonder how many of them who voted 0 but didn't create a review actually spent money on the game ... you know there are a lot of them. That and the ones who only put a couple hours into the game and because it wasn't perfect by "their" standards immediately uninstalled it and posted a 0.

It's certainly not an improvement over NV, but I would personally agree it's better than FO3. If only because just about anything would have been.

The dialogue interaction reminded me of Bethesda's version of trying their hand at Current Gen trends and getting the consolation prize.

Oh yes I remember that story. Talk about low blows!

Well, keep going with that. I want to know why you think that. I liked 3 more than new vegas, aside from mechanics. Throwing the NV mechanics into 3 would have made a different argument to me. It's obviously personal preference. I'd already rather play 4 than NV any time

For one? FO:NV is actually an RPG, written by people who know how to make (and have a long, storied history of making) RPGs.

Fallout 3 had really terrible dialogue, storytelling and NPCs not to mention they really completely missed the point of the setting as Black Isle had designed it.

edit: This is a great, thoughtful piece which really says it all. I should probably sig it:

http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=27085

It's just...........

The outdated graphics. Expected so much more. Still like the game.

Their are so many graphics mods made just for you buddy, download them, they are free.

Fallout 4 isn't an overall improvement on FONV IMO.it's graphically superior, as is the combat, but that's possibly where it ends.I've not played enough to offer a definitive opinion, but in comparison to the first 10 hours of New Vegas I wouldn't say fo4 is superior.

User metacritic scores for me are a fairly reliable indicator of what the problems in a game are. Of course you have to account for all the 10/10 and 0/10 reviews, trolling, astroturfing etc etc but in the end it averages out to something in the right ballpark, if there are enough reviews. They're certainly more reliable than the 'professional' reviews who will never give an AAA game less than 70-75% no matter how many problems it has, unless maybe it's completely broken. I do agree though that now it's probably too early to get a reliable picture.

I for one think we have to move on from "Mods will fix it" as a society.

Yeah sorry, this is really just opinion. I prefer 3's story to NV. I couldn't care at all about NV's story or factions. It just didn't make me want to do anything for anyone but myself. I don't really need to read an opinion article by someone else that tells me why HE didn't like it. I thought you were actually going to provide some kind of clear evidence really. Like I said, mechanics wise, I liked NV better. But I can't say I was at all interested in the couriers story until lonesome road. I haven't gotten through much of the MQ in 4 but I'm already more interested in the struggle between factions. And what does "actually an RPG" mean? You really think the mechanics are so wildly different in 4 that it isn't still an RPG? How long have you played 4?

I understand this. Why should we have to rely on Mods, for the price we paid for the game.

Just a question.

With the irony being that Pillars of Eternity, developed by obsidian has a higher metacritic than Fallout 4 (both released this year).

Seriously? I was bored and uninterested in NV's story through the entire MQ. I'm shocked that you of all people are defending such a boring unsympathetic story

I don't think so.

Well it is an article written by somebody well-informed and familiar with the material who put a lot of thought into dissecting the series, so your loss if you pass it off as nothing more than an Op-Ed. In fact, I doubt you'll find a more critical study of the series anywhere else online.

ˉ\_(ツ)_/ˉ

Which still leaves nothing supporting your NV is worlds better claim...

LOL a this whole thread. Who cares? if you liked the game, play it. if you don't, go play something else. people who spend all this time trying to convice everyone else to not like something because they didn't really need to find a hobby or something. some of you guys have been hanging around here for years badmouthing bethesda games. it's almost become a job for ya.

If you are able to don the attitude of a diplomat who is able to rise above their own personal feelings and read the article I wouldn't need to, since my feelings are in perfect alignment.

the witcher 3 appeals to people more into graphics, the graphics are amazing but the game doesn't come close to fallout 4 in way of content, the witcher is just a midevil fantasy game with excellent graphics, its not very replayable and it really isn't in the same category as fallout 4, maybe its closer to skyrim type of game but not fallout, when i want a midevil fantasy game i'll stick with the elder scrolls series, for me the witcher is over rated.

Short answer? No. Long answer? Heck no.

I'm not even going to offer any points at the moment besides this: The game has been out less than a day and half. It is far too early to call it a critical ANYTHING. We need more people to finish the game and see what kind of legs it has and what kind of reception it will have with the general public.

I think so far the consensus is this: The game is great, but a lot of people feel Bethesda played it a little safe. The same Bethesda bugs as always are present. 9/10 seems fair as average score.

Ok. Deflect my question about why you think NV is better to try and disprove my personal opinion of 3 being better than NV? Got it. I'll just move along here. You've made no points

And that rating on Steam seems to average out to be a 7 (at least from what I see when Googling it, haven't been on Steam in a while). Sounds far more reasonable than Metacritic, but still, these are some surprising numbers were seeing here. It has dropped significantly from at least a 90 to a variety of numbers in the 80s on Metacritic.

I can understand the criticism for the game, but I did not expect this much. I myself am enjoying the game immensely, though also knowing how flawed it is.

I believe this game is now one of the lowest rated games Bethesda has developed?

Remember folks, before you compare reviews, remember that the game has been out for a whopping 24 hours. Seems to ne it'll take more than just that for us to get an accurate reading for reviews.