Witcher 3 and GTAV outshine Fallout 4 or Bethesda for that matter? Man GTFUH...those games couldnt outshine a dim lightbulb let alone a company that makes better games than the companies responsible for those 2

steam rating is currently 88/100, much better than what the "internet" is telling you.

I don't know I haven't gotten far enough. I am having fun atm though.

Unable to read articles which may make you sad is not a great quality for an advlt, but ok...would you like me to grab pull quotes? How about the simple fact that Bethesda are incapable of providing much more than fetch quests or "clear the area" quests as a start?

Or OH ouch a pulled quote here it comes!!!

Ah, wonder where the hell that 7 is coming from then.

Can't really say I was disappointed personally as I was expecting a relatively mediocre game after seeing more and more as time went on. Everything that I thought would be bad turned out to be bad (or worse) as I expecting, *coughwritingcough*, It's not a bad game by any means, I'm having a fun time just living in my little shanty tower and exploring the world but that's about it. It failed in every other regard for me.

Again. Too early to make any kind of comparisons. We are less than 48 hours after release. All comparisons to average user scores from 4 YEARS worth of reviews on other BGS titles is pretty pointless right now.

Though yes, Steam review scores are more reliable by FAR than metacritic because everyone who writes a review MUST own the game.

I'm not sure why you thought that poorly written "article" would make me sad haha I didn't read it since it had nothing to do with what we were talking about. Your entire initial complaint was that NV was clearly better. When I said I liked 3 better, that's all you've decided to talk about in an effort to (poorly) disprove my own opinion about a game. Has Fallout changed since Beth took over, sure. If you thought that every Fallout ever should keep the same exact tone and feel as the originals, I'm sorry but you'll never get that again. I have no dillusions that 3 was more than it is. I think you're missing the opinion part here and trying to present "facts" that don't even matter when trying to maintain that NV was clearly better than 4. Still waiting on that btw

Much too soon to say it's a failure. The fact you had such high expectations says something about the company, I'm just waiting for it to freeze and glitch, backwards flying dragons, invisible guns and getting stuck in crouch mode.

I give most online ratings a confidence interval of about 50. civilization 3 is my standard for epic disappoinents and it I haven't seen any mainstream reviews under 8/10.

So who really cares?

I think a far more interesting study would be looking at those who were convinced the game would be bad before release and and if there's any surprise deviation in their opinion.

have to keep in mind, unhappy people are always the loudest too. and almost always disproportionately so. the people who like the game are playing it right now

Failure on what metric?

Financial failure? Doesn't look like it so far.
Failure in game media ratings? Nope.
Failure in community at large? No.

So in what way is the game a "critical failure" beyond your own opinion of it?

I agree with a lot of points made there. I'd just add that whereas in FO3 it seemed like Bethesda didn't get the setting and the lore of FO, the impression that I'm getting from FO4 is that it's not trying at all anymore. It looks like they're recycling anything remotely iconic from the past games, including FO3 and from the history of Boston, and are sticking it in the game whether it makes any sense or not. That's why we're getting people wearing revolutionary era uniforms and 'laser muskets' and a faction called 'the minutemen'. Maybe there is a really good lore explanation of why USS Constitution has freaking rocket engines attached to it but somehow I doubt it. Quests seem to be driven entirely by metagame concerns and power fantasy (it seems even easier now to join/become a leader of a faction than even in Skyrim).

Not that it wasn't a problem in Skyrim, but there I still had the feeling that the people writing the quests had TES lore somewhere at the back of their minds, not so here. Early gameplay of FO4 seems to be completely designed to push you into more combat and the Fallout Shelter base-building gameplay. Also, I spoiled the FO4 ending for myself, and let's just say once you get to it you'll know what I'm talking about, if you can believe what you've just seen at that point. If Bethesda writers just don't find the setting inspiring, fair enough, but if they are bored by the setting, how do they expect the people playing the game not to be? The answer is probably that they expect the players to just run around in power armor shooting stuff.

It also doesn't help that the gameplay looks to be a lot more geared towards running and gunning now. I guess if you hire a consultant from people who make Battlefield, you get a more Battlefield-like gameplay.

I'll probably will still be getting that game when the modding tools are out but until that point I don't feel I'm that interested, unless I see something that proves my first impression wrong.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/68/3a/8a/683a8a88799df8c921fffc446691a517.jpg

Like that post doesn't come across as totally pompous or anything? That's simply your own opinion. Also, not for nothing, but If you actually think Metacritic truly means anything substantive these days, you're gravely mistaken.

So is Fallout 4, last I checked.

You don't have to act all ultra-intense about this, you know, like gaming is simply THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE WORLD. Some people just take this stuff way too seriously, and love to narrowly (and inaccurately) define what an RPG is just to appear more elite than others in the geek-tribe. Like, if you're more into actual "role-playing" than "roll-playing," then you're simply a dilettante tourist, or something.

How do you know it's poorly written if you didn't read it? Anyway, I didn't say you were about to read the prose of Doestoyevsky. Well-researched and well-reasoned is what it is.

Also, nonsense about the "never again" straw man as Obsidian clearly and overwhelmingly pleased droves of original fans upset with 3 (those who could get beyond the crappy engine, that is).

And yet you keep spewing negative ones, all in a pathetic attemp to wallow in whatever percieved negativity you think Bethesda deserves because your too immature to get over them owning Fallout. Not their faults that Interplay was too incompetent to stay in business.

Not Black Isles fault either.

Personally, I find this game to be way better than Witcher 3, particularly in terms of the RPG aspects. Witcher 3 is a railroaded hand-holder. Do this quest, go through this dialogue. Yes you can explore but there are virtually zero customization capabilities beyond gear appearance, and modding is not really a thing due to the lack of a Bethesda caliber modding engine like the CK.

Bethesda really are the leader in the industry when it comes to customization and modding, which is the future of video games. If I had money, I would buy a ton of stock.

I understand and respect that everyone has their own opinion, but all these negative and overly critical reviews sound a bit canned to me. Almost like when Facebook was experimenting with social emotional engineering. It almost feels it is "supposed" to be "the cool thing" to post negative reviews, when the game hasn't really been out long enough to formulate the overall conclusions some have seemingly reached.

It smacks of memetic paroting to me, but again, I do respect other's opinions. When it comes to the quality of this game however, I certainly do not share them, or even understand really where they are coming from.

of course its not a failure in the slightest

metacritic is meaningless. especially the user scores.

so dont cite that crapheap.

its easily the best fallout game so far.

graphics are sublime. lighting even better.

love all the new additions.

a 'score' is irrelevant. scores can be faked or fixed.

As for me, I don't really care what Metacritic says. I only buy 3 (maybe 4) games a year, and I usually really only read / trust 3 or 4 reviewers anyway.

Critical success for me is whether I like the Game. While Fallout 4 isn't my favorite (I didn't expect it to be as a post-apocalyptic world isn't necessarily my favorite genre), I am having fun and expect to spend far too many hours playing it - therefore it is a success.

Storm

I only brought up TW3 and GTAV as examples of vast, open-world games which look and act very much like current-gen games which FO4 sadly doesn't (or does, but just barely). I would wager many folks were disappointed not just with the incredibly dumbed-down Streamlined! mechanics and neutering of established and well-loved RPG character-building elements (SPECIAL and skills and traits and perks all bundled into one now? Not so SPECIAL anymore...) but ultimately that the game just doesn't look like the product of 7 years of progress. FO4 would have been received better, despite the Streamlining! and neutering, if it came out 4 years ago. Probably.

Fallout 4 is pretty much like you expect. An Fallout 3 upgrade.

Lots of new features as expected, most work well the ones who don't work well are not catastrophes, just bad.

Fallout 3 was the real change,

Despite the degree of grammar failures and misspellings, it's hard to argue with much of what's actually IN those metacritic reviews:

http://www.thejimquisition.com/2015/11/metabombed-fallout-4-is-vomit-trash/

Right now I am loving this game and is better than I thought it would be at launch. Then again I kept my expectations quite low. I am still early in the game and it might change when the new car smell wears off.

In my opinion: no.

Don't tell them i said this, but i think this is their best game yet (I've played them since Oblivion).

Granted, i haven't yet delved into the main quest, but i'm in for the gameplay, and that i think has the best mechanics they've ever had. Well, so far at least, but have to keep in mind that Skyrim fell apart after level 30

Though 87 does sound little low, i would have expected the hype alone to take it to 90 at least. Of course, scores are worthless in reviewing games, but that's another topic altogether.