I have to try and keep myself from Fanboying, because I catch myself doing it. but many reviewers compare it to the "perfection" of Witcher 3. the game with the terrible menus, poor/delayed controls, juvenile treatment of women and the poor senseless itemisation. I finished it, and it's a GREAT game, but it's not Perfect. Controls specifically are unforgiveable.

MGSV? perfect? have people played beyond mission 20 when the game loops right back around and you start redoing objectives? or past mission 20 when you need to pay Konami insurance thigs real world cash to not lose your simgleplayer earned assets?

I haven't played or know all that much about Fallout 4 yet, but these opinions must be taken with a grain of salt, or a fistful. Gaming is going down a very rocky road at the moment and maybe a step backwards is actually what it needs.

Expecting even more low scores after the release, from the independent (or hater) reviewers who didn't get a review copy and will wait to purchase the game from the store like a regular customer. For a company who is so proud of awards and Metacritics (remember Obsidian and the Metacritic missed bonus, like Metacritic is alpha and omega of quality evaluation) the scores so far aren't quite stellar.

Seems like the lower score reviewers are mainly giving the low score because this game isn't like whatever their favorite game is. Once a reviewer starts comparing games you pretty much know that they're biased.

It happens to many games, some outliers giving low scores, happened to Fallout 3, happened to Divinity OS, etc. I think the total score will level somewhere around 90-91 which is pretty much on par with Fallout 3. And, dare I say, in my book 90 out of 100 is pretty damn good, if not excellent, superb and who knows what other synonyms. Let's not forget it's on a 0 to 100 scale, not 50 to 100 or something.

Some gamers are becoming too dependant on what is served by the media, what is a must buy, consequently a triple A game with a 85% score is suddenly bashed on the interwebs for "failing to kill" or "being killed by" another triple A game that got 89%, what a tragedy lol. Too much black and white, kill or die zeal, I like to watch and practice this hobby in a more relaxed stance, I can love (and play the [censored] out of) concurrent games, I don't have to pick just one. Also, I have played and truly enjoyed many games that got scores in the 70's or even 60's.

So far reviewers seem to agree on most things, from the reviews I've read (Ars, eurogamer, ign, destructoid, pcworld) this is a summary:

Pro:

+ Atmosphere and world building

+ Crafting

+ Power armor, customizations

+ Lighting effects

+ World size

Neutral:

-+ Perks

Bad:

- Writing is insufficient

- Dumb and meaningless companions overall (with exceptions)

- Gamebryo (creation engine) is starting to show its limits

- PS4 has problems again, just like Skyrim PS3

- Bugs, crashes, glitches

- Beth isn't the only triple A open world RPG creator anymore, competition has caught up

- Character models and movement

Games should be re-reviewed after being out a month. My enthusiasm for Witcher3 declined steadily toward the end, and I have no desire to replay it or buy the DLC. And what can I say about MSG5... Fantastic combat AI, unfinished game. Nothing there after mission 20 or so, and I won't pay Konami blackmail for insurance.

Edited to add:

I also felt seriously betrayed by CD Projekt Red in Witcher 3. They promised us a Red Kit for modding comparable to Witcher 2. Then they reneged.

Now we can make the horse a unicorn.... And that is about all.

They are still a very good company for customer support - but not modding.

And that will always be a problem. I am not going to compare Fallout 4 and TW3 because they are so vastly different. Maybe one of these games has a feature that would fit the other, but thats it. One can still like both games, or more games and don't feel the need to compare.

Its called the honeymoon phase. Its all awesome then and there, but a few weeks later its a very different experience. I normally like to replay games a few months after they came out to really decide how i feel about it and see if it stands the test of time and has the replay value.

It seems to be doing pretty well.

Open world games have really taken off in the past few years so it's to be expected that it would score lower than previous games now that there is more competition.

I imagine a lot of people have played previous Bethesda games and don't need a review to know if they should play this game or not.

I love Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout 3, and Skyrim. It's highly unlikely that I won't love this game as well.

I really don't care how it stacks up against other games, I only care whether it's enjoyable and that everyone seems to be agreeing on.

LOL, wow. Game "critics" at their finest. What did you expect form the people that gave an unfinished boring repetitive mess a "95" (MGSV). Maybe they liked the fact that it was riddled with microtransactions...

I expected as much really. Game journalism is beyond corrupt nowadays. Bethesda didn't treat them to a nice trip and a five star hotel, like all the other "masterpieces" did. That's what you get for not indirectly bribing them.

I haven't read any reviews, just skipped to some scores and summary. IGN actually said "Good story". So, that gives me a little hope as far as the writing goes, as I'm pretty sure they also gave NV a positive for story/quest writing as well. I will start finding out tonight.

Well I'd say they were different and they worked. Fallout 4, while amazing, no doubt sticks to Bethesda's usual formula. You can't really give something a ten if there's nothing they didn't try much new. It would need to revolutionise something to be an objective 10 in my opinion.

It got great reviews. What are you talking about.

I do agree with you on MGS5. was very repetitive and was clear that a lot of story and content was cut out and the story felt unfinished. But It was still a great game non the less.

Most reviews are base on the first few hours. A lot of people say MGS5 is great then about half way through the game it's boring.

Patently false.... I know a few of a few critics personally that have already racked up at least 75 hours on Fallout 4.

Part of why review embargos exist is specifically so that critics/reviewers don't rush through or render judgment halfway, and that they have time to really try out the whole package.

Still not enough time for Fallout in my opinion.

New Vegas is my favourite game but only because I've played through it multiple times and see how things look from different factions and perspectives. A single playthrough isn't enough for it.