Title says it all, but I should preface this by saying I'm enjoying Fallout 4 as it's own entity.While the story is clichéd and trite, I'm enjoying it more than any other mq from BGS.

With an 87.5 metacritic, did Fallout 4 fail to meet critical expectation?

Does it really matter? Sales undoubtedly went well, and BethGS will pump out another game in ~4 years. People will once again complain about the terrible UI, someone will post a similar question to this, they will again make sales, and once again produce another game. So repeats the cycle.

It will certainly be interesting to see if there are any "critical" reviews at all, offering anything other than blind praise for a once mighty Sandbox Giant who've been massively outshone by the likes of The Witcher 3 and GTAV.

Right now though, the 4.7 (and falling) user score on Metacritic is certainly telling if not a direct spelling-out of "DISAPPOINTMENT".

I like the game. It's far from a complete disappointment like some claim it to be. Some thing annoys me like the inability to bind buttons or the obvious console port and the mouse lag that I have no idea if it's my computer that's too slow or once again, the console port.

Except a wise person won't bother to use metacritic considering all the 0 ratings with no actual reviews attached.

No? Well its not a dissapoint to me atleast, actually its probably one of the best productions out from Bethesda Game Studios yet. Not sure if i am playing the same game as everyone else. It will probably sell well though and 87 on Opencritic and Metacritic in score is not bad to be honest, i can't believe Fallout 3 has 91. I think the hype was way way overrated though, but people like to set themself up for dissapointment. Don't expect every new game to be the best game ever made.

Pfft. Who cares about the Metacritic?

I bought the game on reputation and past experience and I've been havin' a blast. From wading hip deep in gangsters in a subway tunnel that turned into a Vault, with nothing to heal with except a handful of baked goods and some purified water, to turning a garage into my personal fortress of solitude, to helping the local DJ grow a backbone.

If there's something I'm supposed to be hating, well buddy, I have't found it.

LMFAO at GTA5

Anyways there are still plenty of sites like Kotaku that haven't done their review yet.

I haven't played TW3 (no interest in the subject matter) so I can't comment on that, but did you really just throw GTAV in there? It's only "sandbox" in the sense that it's open and has a giant area. There really isn't [censored] to do outside of missions. And if you wanna talk dissapointment, just look at GTAO directly. That took 2 years for them to get out heists that they touted during announcment. And Online itself was unplayable for the entire first week. So much, that they had to give away $1mil in store dollars because of how much people lost. GTA world is pretty from afar but nothing about it looks good up close.

There's a large amount of people who I know have been down rating the game becuase...

A)they don't meet the hardware requirements. I know of one person who has raged on the game and deemed it garbage becuase he only has a 360.

B ) The tracked down all the spoilers and now feel the game is ruined because they can't help themselves.

C)Because they are worried their favorite game will get outshone.

And they've been overwhelming the legit reviews and critcism.

Is this a thing people really worry about? That another game will get more limelight?

Just...buy the games you wanna play, and play it. Man, the illusionary value of public opinion.

Typical internet shenanigans in other words. This is why I don't bother with game critic sites that allow users to rate. Much like movie critics, I don't bother with them either although they were right about "Dude, where's my car?" That's two hours of my life I will never get back.

This is also the first time we're having people really jumping genres to try the game out. A lot of my friends had never played anything in the series but were now interested in it. Now sure that's due to marketing and showing the game having a lot more action (it does) but it draws in CoD people that will ultimately probably leave the game sitting and write a bad review because they don't "get" what the game or series is about. So do a bunch of random reviews from people that just tried the game out fo the blue mean anything to me? Nah. I'd have left a crappy review for Skyrim two hours into it also, just not my subject matter but I thought I'd give it a try. Fallout 3 reviews are probably from a lot of people that liked fallout anyway. Really this is the most main stream marketed fallout and it's going to draw in crowds that will not like it. That's just what happens

Shame, TW3 is the game FO4 appears to want to be in many respects but isn't quite up to the task. And yes, I threw GTAV in there as many GTAIV fans likely consider it an improvement which is not the case here (regardless if you consider NV or 3 its predecessor).

That's to an extent the point, considering the fervent hype surrounding Fallout 4 the metacritic score, while good isn't groundbreaking; or especially noteworthy in the spectrum of games.

That surely must Imlact Bethesda's reputation proceeding.Also to note, I've been sceptical of Fallout 4, but even I was surprised to see fo4 receive a score as low as this (relatively).

If anybody really cared about user ratings, at least use Steam ratings or something since most people on there actually give comprehensive and understandable reasons as to why they would like the game or not.

Bethesda must not be very wise then since they used Metacritic as a means of preventing Obsidian from obtaining a bonus. This was due to a review about...wait for it...BUGS. Something no Bethesda game has ever been shy about showcasing.

When I'm talking about metacritic scores I personally couldn't care less about the userscores; they're nothing more than a mouthpiece for the most reactionary of gamers.

Not an issue for me. I don't dabble in the business end, just the end product end, and at the moment I am satisfied. Of course I have yet to get much past concord because I am the type who likes to try out several different playstyles before progressing further into a game.

^This..

And so on and so on, until the day humans finally colonize the solar system....Then it will start again... ;^)

It isn't bad. It fixes many of the problems with Fallout 3 and to my eyes it looks immensely better.

The disappointing thing is that a lot of the content is kind of boring. I wish there were more interesting quests like the ones in New Vegas, where you could play for an hour and keep your gun holstered the whole time. I like clever, non combat solutions because combat is repetitive.

Was certainly an issue for one Chris Avellone, among others. Anyway like I said before it will be interesting to see if the aggregated scores continue to plummet or not. Reactionary user scores or not, these are still consumers who will think twice before reaching into their wallets next time.

Indeed. Though I have to say if you were looking for interesting quests and story from Bethesda you had unrealistic expectations. They really should have left this in Obsidian's hands imo.

They really REALLLY REALLY need a new engine though. I mean for Christ sake gamesas owns Id Tech which is a great engine. While this doesn't excuse BGS programmers and QA for their poor implementation, the horrid Gamebryo is pretty much limiting them and virutallly all the negative aspect of Fallout 4 whether it's the lackluster visuals or technical issues have to do with it.

Well for me it's a win just for the atmosphere of the environment like the lighting. If some of the textures are not as sharp others in the game they can catch up in future mods. I'm playing it mostly for the graphics at this point.