Thanks for the info, personally I couldn't care less about reviews and counting down to the embargo... the only countdown I need is the one for Fallout 4's release. But that might just be me haha.

I have become increasingly disillusioned with reviews in this day and age.

My two biggest disappointments for 2015, MGSV and Halo 5, were well received and moderately well received, respectively.

MGSV is a technical marvel, on some levels, however it has pissed off countless MG fans, including myself. Yet it was popular with the critics.

Halo 5 is nowhere near a technical marvel, with textures and animations that would be out of place even on XB360. However, even though nothing about Halo 5 is next-gen, it is being moderately well received, despite the massive rift it has caused with the fanbase.

I have little doubt that Fallout 4 will be a truly great game, and will probably be well received by the critics. But I no longer care what the critcs have to say.

With the embargo - how is IGN advertising a review next Wednesday, 4 November?

Seems like someone is cheating.

I'll be rather annoyed if Undertale becomes the highest rated PC game of the year on Metacritic. Other than that, I have no worries.

Yeah I don't even know where to stand on reviews anymore. Gamespot did nothing but complain about Syndicate in their videos, but when the review was released it got a score of 9/10.

A lot of reviewers were also saying how amazing the Halo 5 multiplayer is. To me it was the absolute worst Halo multiplayer I have played and I actually preferred Halo 4's to it, which is kind of sad considering how huge of a Halo fan I am.

yeah dude i know what u speak about, MGSV got a 10 on most review and when u read it u can imagine the really devoted fan who writing, and only bc it was the last game of Kojima.

A lot of my friend are telling me how much the been hating Halo5, not only bc is has a horrible open ending campaign but the multiplayer is bad too. +

Even Witcher 3 got a hype review when they overlook a lot of the problems.

I dont know review this day look more and more paid by companies.

I'm just waiting for the player reviews in the forums that come with every Bethesda release. You know, the ones that say the game is dumbed down, it's for casuals, Bethesda had lost its way, the loyal fans are back stabbed and so on. Oh yeah and the "boycott Bethesda" threads.

I'm not interested in game reviews as much as I am in technical reviews.

I want to know how this game runs on PC.

They aren't - they're advertising that they're going to grab a group of people and talk about Fallout (not just Fallout 4) for a while this Wednesday, and continue doing so every Wednesday for a while. There's no requirement in that that they'll talk about what they've seen in Fallout 4 (or even have people on the show who have played it yet).

EDIT: Also, MGSV is an amazing game - but it's very different from old MGS games, and it was never actually finished.

I review the game myself when I play it, as there is to much [censored] in popular reviewers now a days. ( Except Angry Joe)

yea...to much BS in reviews today, if you can even call them reviews anymore (cough) got payed for good review (cough), even though i like joes reviews, i think he hasnt... done to well with them recently, like with MGS5...think he gave it a 10/10 and the game has been said to be medicore and repetive...same with the witcher 3, gave it a good review and the witcher 3 (outside of the story) wasnt even that good.

Sadly I find IGN a joke for reviews. Hell any professional reviewers are a joke now. I basically go to IGN to see the comments. That is the real entertainment and get the real score what a game is. Or I come to the Bethesda forums for a real review.

Come on, how does New Vegas get a 7.5 scathing review because of bugs but Civ V gets a 9.0 and not one iota mention about how buggy and dull the game was on release. So I don't expect anything from IGN unless Bethesda decides to pay them this time. I guess Bethesda didn't pay IGN and other review companies for the reviews of New Vegas, so I believe Fallout 4 will get a low score this time around again since I don't see Bethesda or Zenimax paying off reviewers since they will know they will make mega bugs eventually with Fallout 4 anyways.

Out of curiosity what review/metacritic scores do people expect Fallout 4 to get?

As others have said (demonsblade specifically among others), there's nowhere to stand on reviews because they're an ever shifting ground of zeitgeist and crumbling integrity; rapaciously seeking attention and money that comes with conflating views and revenue with 'honest opinion'.

But having said that review scores are an interesting indicator of what others think and the current dynamic of the gaming sphere.

MGS5 is neither of those things. It is different in that it's not as story-focused as previous entries in the series (by a wide margin), and the final mission was cut out of the game so it doesn't even have an ending.

But up until that point it's easily got some of the best actual gameplay of any game (and I wouldn't be surprised if reviewers didn't realize that the game's ending had been cut out of the game prior to publishing their reviews). It's wonderfully designed, and is probably the primary contender with Fallout 4 for Game of the Year awards this year.

In my opinion people get too caught up in the perceived quality of a game, any game. So much of gaming is personal tastes, and generally I hate to say that a game svcks because it might have a 73 on Metacritic and have massive flaws with its gameplay while having the bloody fraps FPS counter be present on its Steam store page screenshots. Because the game I described is X3 Terran Conflict, and I find that its the perfect example of how you can look past the flaws of something and enjoy it on its own terms.

That being said though, with AAA releases I find that anything that scores in the 90's is basically considered to be a worthwhile experience, if not stellar. Metacritic is a fickle thing, however, and I also find the steam recommendation system to be a good indicator, both with the like/dislike ratio and what the most upvoted reviews are saying. In Fallout 4's case I am expecting it to be much the same as the other 5 games, with metacritic rating being sky high and the steam recommendations being intensely favourable.

MGS V is not mediocre by any conventional gaming standards (though I'd postulate that it is as a MGS game, but that's irrelevant), but it's demonstrably repetitive; requiring the player to replay many of the same missions again and watch the same story-centric cutscenes again from previous plot moments while the narrative has developed significantly since then.

To put it into perspective it would be like New Vegas enjoining the player to replay the quest 'They went that a way' when you're about to instigate the second battle of hoover dam.The repetition becomes monotonous and detrimental to the already egregious pacing of MGS V.

The gameplay is solid (hur hur), but the story is risible in comparison to the previous games in the series; it barely has an ending, it has no pacing whatso -[censored]-ever and it misses opportunities for character development all because of the repetitive nature of the second chapter.

My method though not as early i suppose is.... To just wait here.

IF the game is good, asides from the trolls I do not think I will see anything. Maybe just maybe someone will take a break to go "WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeee"

If its bad boy howdy will there be a wave...

There are a ton (I mean that) of people on here I respect (might not agree, but damn some are smarties) And there silence or typing will pretty much make or break the game for me.

( I am one of the few who did not preorder I Just can not do that)

This is a very good point. I can imagine the forum now if somehow the game ends up bad (which I don't see happening, but you never know).

Er, no it doesn't. MGS5 has optional re-treads of previous missions - but they aren't part of the core game. They're challenges that you can undertake, like many other games. You should only do them if you desire repetition; the presence of boring optional parts of the game shouldn't knock down its score if the rest of the game is A-OK.

They're almost certainly a part of the 'let's rip out the final act of the campaign' bit that occurred in that they're present in the main mission list instead of actual new missions, but they're not actually part of the mission structure at all.

Same here