http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/fallout-4

As reviews are rolling out, I'm seeing the same theme echoed through most of the criticisms. Fallout 4 is safe. Fallout 4 is what you expect and nothing new. Fallout 4 also happens to suffer from bad performance, ugly textures, and terrible companion AI like its predecessors.

While none of the last points are surprising, it is worrying that many of the reviews seem underwhelmed by the game. BGS' games are never perfect, but they usually always offer something new and revolutionary the last game didn't. Oblivion had Radiant AI and Oblivion gates. Fallout 3 had VATS. Skyrim had Radiant Story, dragon fights and shouts.

This time around we got a voiced protagonist, solid shooting controls, in-depth crafting, and settlements. Overall, opinions on the voiced protagonist seem to be mixed. Some love it. Some hate it. That was expected. Everyone seems to like the new shooter controls and crafting. Settlements seem to be more mixed with BGS not adequately explaining how they work and function.

I've also read that the story has questionable pacing and the ending is disappointing. Either way, the trend through most of these reviews is Fallout 4 isn't all that different from Fallout 3, and I think to some degree that's an issue when we are seven years later and Fallout 4 is supposed to be the "next gen" version of a BGS game.

Usually BGS always tries to push boundaries in major ways with their games. This time around, Fallout 4 seems to be more of just an upgrade and not really anything that is blowing anyone away.

Building settlements > radiant anything

Actually decent gun play > shouts

That is most definitely what I'm NOT reading on most of these reviews. They're praising the game for almost having TOO MUCH to do. They are, as you said, stating quite plainly that it suffers from the bug-storm that every Bethesda game has suffered from, however, they're saying that the game is wonderful as well.

Like I've said in another thread (and seen in various others over the years) BGS uses Fallout for testing new waters and Elder Scrolls for revolutionizing the industry. IMO they're using FO4 to test out voiced protagonist and modding for consoles.

Honestly, I'm not even remotely shocked...the hype was just hype, they really did play it safe this time around.

I disagree in terms of impact. Radiant AI in Oblivion was revolutionary in terms of immersion. We went from Morrowind, where NPCs didn't do anything, to Oblivion where they had schedules, they ate meals, and they also had a disposition towards the character. That changes quite a bit of the experience. So far settlements don't seem to actually really change the game play all that much, and we've had housing in BGS games since Morrowind, so it's not really "new" either. The problem I see with settlements is it's entirely optional and doesn't actually seem to add anything to the game. It's really just hearthstone on steroids, which is great for some, but doesn't do anything for others.

While I like that gun play is improved and hated how bad it was in Fallout 3, this is a logical improvement. Shouts actually were an entirely new mechanic that changed gameplay in Skyrim. Shooting isn't anything new, it's just being executed better in Fallout 4.

Really the biggest innovation in Fallout 4 is the voiced protagonist, and that is split between those who like the Mass Effect approach and those who just want to RP a silent protagonist.

There's always a lot to do in BGS games. That is to be expected. That's not the issue here. The problem is Fallout 4 doesn't seem to really revolutionize the BGS model in any way, besides arguably the voiced protagonist which seems to be a win for some and a loss for others.

While I'd like to think this isn't true, TES tends to be more revolutionary in terms of the ambition and the types of systems BGS is incorporating. I don't like to think they see Fallout as their "safe" franchise, but Fallout 4 definitely feels that way from all these reviews. It would be a shame if that is the case as TES VI won't be released any time soon.

Yeah. I'm starting to think part of the reason BGS did not want to show off the game too much is because they really showed off their guns at E3. Everything else in the game is what we already expect. The hype for BGS games is always over the top. It has been that way since Oblivion. But usually BGS has some way of at least jusifying that hype to an extent. This time around I think Fallout 4 is really running on the coat tails of BGS' legacy rather than standing on its own.

The crafting system, apparently the writing, and the perks are huge steps forward. If those aren't the revolutionary bits then I don't know what is. They've already done Radiant AI and Radiant Stories, what else is there to do besides allowing us to reshape the world however we see fit?

So because Bethesda didn't add something that hasn't been thought of or suggested, the game is disappointing and riding the coattails of previous games, despite the noted improvements and added features.

Mmkay.

Crafting is definitely a plus, but that's not new. It's an upgrade from the previous crafting system that had a lot to be desired and certainly a much needed upgrade. Again, I've heard mixed reviews on the writing due to the nature of a voiced protagonist. I've also heard bad things about the main story. Perks are nothing new to Fallout. The issue many are pointing out is that Fallout 4 really just seems like an upgraded Fallout 3 rather than being a next gen BGS open world game.

Radiant AI and Radiant Story changed the way we played BGS games in a major way. These elements in Fallout 4 are nice and are much appreciated, but honestly mods (besides the voiced protagonist) could do a lot of this work.

Why do these have to be different?

They seem to have no idea what "safe' means. We can build whole settlements, completely mod every gun and layer our armor. Not very safe elements at all to add into an already expansive explorable open world game. I mean, if these were safe elements.. all other games would have these things by now. Bethesda has basically combined more elements from more types of genres all into one game than any other game company would dare try... or maybe even know how to do. The reviewers complaints most likely comes from lack of knowledge as to how difficult it is to make a game.

There's nothing wrong with making a safe game. If it ain't broke don't fix it. The problem with that mentality though is its inconsisent with BGS' legacy. They never just play it safe. Yeah, there are cornerstones that are consistent in all of their games, but they usually have some game feature that completely changes how the game is played. Fallout 4 just seems to be lacking that.

Oh please. What game these days doesn't have a crafting system?

Well, it's better than Quick Time Events

I've heard otherwise.

But I shall be the ultimate judge of THAT. I am the Shakespeare of my generation after all.

The crafting isn't just an upgraded version of the old one, it's completely overhauled, and it extends much farther. In the same way that the Radiant Story was an extension of Radiant AI, FO4's crafting is an extension of FO3's crafting.

This. this is my point. If building entire cities from scratch isn't a revolutionary new mechanic for Fallout 4, then I don't know what is. We can reforge our pistols and SMGs into sniper rifles and LMGs, we can fine tune our power armor, make unique sets of armor from many pieces. Fallout 4 has leaped into the new generation, guns blazing.

It's safe in the sense that player housing isn't anything new to BGS games and neither is crafting. Certainly they are major improvements and the workshop (settlements and crafting) were a herculean effort, but they are also entirely optional.

I think what is likely the biggest improvement to this game is more on the technological side rather than the gameplay. Due to more powerful hardware BGS is able to create a more densely populated world with more verticality, which seems to be the case with Fallout 4.

It is the same reason they make remakes and sequals of movies and rehash old ideas... It is almost impossible these days to come up with something new and revolutionary. They are trying to sell as many games as possible with minimal risks.

I'm sure the game will be great, safe or not.

A voiced protagonist changed the game in more ways than shouts and dragons do. Whether you like it or not is another story.

I think you are overselling these features that "completely changed the game" from previous titles. The power armour is entirely different, the attribute system changed, character crafting and customization was ramped up to crazy levels, there are many more voice actors, the map is twice the size as Fallout 3, guns actually play well... I mean what's safe really got to do with it? If anything we should be glad they avoided gimmicks in favour of more practical and fun features.

I certainly understand a tendency to play it safe. You have an install base already and there is little risk of failure. However, that leads to a product becoming bland over time. What's ironic is the workshop (settlements and crafting) were originally going to be for modders only. BGS changed their minds and made it part of the base game on all consoles, which probably saved them a lot of heartache. I think Fallout 4 is without a doubt a great game. These reviews just seem to suggest aside from arguably the voiced protagonist, BGS doesn't appear to have done anything really new with this game.

I agree that the voiced protagonist is probably the biggest depature given their legacy of a silent protagonist. However, it's a system that seems to be receiving mixed reviews. BGS doesn't seem to be getting the same love and adoration BioWare or CDPR gets when it comes to the voiced protagonist.

Power armor is definitely interesting and I like what BGS has done without it. However, reviews have indicated due to the scarcity of fuel, you can't even really use power armor that often. It's a nice tweak, but not something you can really say changes the gameplay as it's an occasional use. Character progression has been simplified and streamlined in every BGS game since Arena. I'm not sure I'd consider that game changing as it always happens.

As for the map, I've heard it's actually pretty small. Where the exploration comes into play is there is a lot of verticality in buildings and the world is dense.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/fallout-4/critic-reviews and reading from the bottom up, it does seem like a smooth gradient of reception in regards to Bethesda playing it safe and offering up more of the same.

But frankly, as someone who enjoys what Bethesda's Fallout franchise brought, I'm looking forward to playing it in the future.

Rather have them "play it safe" than add a bunch of bulls*** features no one wants.

Like I said before, playing it safe is not necessarily bad. BGS is my favorite developer and I love their games, so it's not as much of an issue. It's just uncharacteristic of them is all, which I find to be interesting. It may explain why they were so unwilling to show off the game after E3. Usually they love doing demos and showing off the new bells and whistles.

This really just comes down to disagreements over what is 'revolutionary' or 'next gen' and what isn't.