Yes in terms of making money Fallout 4 crushed it. In terms of a game people will be talking about in five to ten years from now... time will tell.

whatever...I played this game on xbox one and I got a game ending bug where my left stick just stops working and I cant move. no matter what I do..hard cycle my console, load past saves (which I know to do due to how buggy gamesas games are by reputation..), change controllers, uninstall/reinstall the game, nothing works. bugs like this are unacceptable and never happened to me w other titles like fo3, oblivion, or skyrim..idk, I think they rushed this one and I'm paying for it. waste of money and the worst part is they wont answer me in email..horrible customer service, despite sales and fans def not a goty winner imo but hey..they already got my money and I cant even play the game anymore..so whos the goose. lol on a happier note they do a great job w these games and I always look forward to them, or I did..prob not gonna buy another unfortunately.

The majority of people I've seen stopped taking about Witcher 3 about 3-4 months after it came out, and W3 lacks the modding community Bethesda games do.

Unless they somehow manage to kill a decade old modding community with Fallout 4, Fallout 4 will easily be the game people talk about for a longer period of time.

The Modding Community or the gaming community as a whole?

Most of the people I know were hyped for Fallout 4. They all played it and they tell me it didn't live up to the hype and they love Bethesda games from what they tell me. But they were hoping Fallout 4 would be more like New Vegas.

Reviews of Fallout 4 which I mostly see here pretty much all mention how Fallout 4 has little to no RPG mechanics and the dialogue is simple and pointless.

So much butthurt in this post. Its only gaem y u heff to be mad?

Also for the love of god stop equating sales to quality. Your movie anology pretty much says that Twilight was better than Oscar winning movies because it grossed more. Just do us all a favor and stop.

The gaming community as a whole.

and most of the people I've seen, even on the Witcher thread on /vg/ have said even they felt Witcher 3 was a disappointment, and that, while they also felt Fallout 4 was a disappointment, they have put many times more hours in Fallout 4 then they did Witcher 3.

And that is your opinion. My opinion is that FO4 does not have much in the way of Roleplaying compared to FO3/NV, your characters approach to almost every mission is to kill everything in sight... Not very diverse is it?

Yes you can create different character builds but they are not as defined as the previous game builds. In FO3 my initial SPECIAL choices stuck throughout the majority of the game, I could do 'Intense Training' but that was a genuine opportunity cost to consider, its not like FO4s levelling system where I can be everything I want to be after level 20 or so. My current character can smash up anything he wants in melee, with rifles, can hack robots and computers, build thriving settlements, charm anyone (without any unique dialogue associated with those charms), dominate in Power Armour, withstand massive blows, etc. etc. In FO3 I genuinely wanted to roll new characters to play the game differently, and my limitations genuinely affected my characters ability to handle situations.

Witcher 3 on the other hand provides a completely different roleplaying system. Instead of giving you a fresh character of your choice it puts you in the shoes of an existing character who has history. You still have choices but are limited to those that are logical for your character. I will agree that the 'create your own' system is better, but what Witcher did so well that Bethesda did very badly at was provide you consequence to your actions. Performing seemingly good actions can in turn cause an entire landscape to be ravaged and terrorised, decisions revolving around other characters can cause their death or elevation to greatness, etc. etc.

To me Witcher 3s roleplaying is better than FO4, but FO3 was leagues ahead of either game. Just because the character is not anyone you want them to be does not make it bad.

TL;DR: Roleplaying games are better when opportunity costs with weight, and consequences associated with actions are provided, FO4 does not have that with the exception of choosing factions to side with.

I started a new game in Fallout 4 after a 170 hours with my first. I put in over five hours into Fallout 4 today and all I was doing was making Sanctuary into a settlement.

So yeah a person can sink a lot of time into Fallout 4. But what were they doing with that time? Settlement building can be a good time sink but I am not going to say that makes Fallout 4 the best game.

i agree, a lot of the older style rpg players were spamming the metacritic site pretty bad with 0 to 3 scores and these guys didn't even play the game, a minority but very vocal group are upset bethesda is making the fallout franchise and they never stop crticiscising and fallout 4 coming out was a perfect opportunity for them to slam bethesda even more about the next installment of a fallout game.

And you can spend tons of hours walking through Witcher's dead, lifeless, world, where half of the marked locations in places like the skellige isles are nothing more then smugglers cache's full of worthless loot.

Doesn't make Witcher the best game either.

Winning awards means that the game focuses on the critics while generating revenue means that the game focuses on the players. Just look at the how well Dragon Age II was received compared to its metacritic score. There are far too many critically-acclaimed movies that bombed since the average viewer wasn't interested in them.

Personally, I find Fallout 4's response is due to the revolutionary nature of Fallout 3. Fallout 3 is a post-apocalyptic FPS/RPG Hybrid that was unlike most of what people have seen before. Fallout 4 doesn't have anything revolutionary in it like Fallout 3 had. Sure it has some new features, but it is just a decent improvement to the Fallout series. GOTY should not be described as a decent improvement to the Fallout series, but our mind is blown due to the sheer awesomeness of it. Was hoping for nuclear explosion, but could only find .

Once I was done with Witcher 3, I couldn't play it again. But I am happy to make another character in Fallout 4, will be even more interesting with mods (new areas/quests/houses/traders/random events/fancy clothes). Then with the DLC the game will be brought to life yet again.

Plus I hate playing as a male, especially in such a male world.

The amount of disappointment was definitely bigger over FO4 than over TW3, you have to be blind or ignorant to not realize that. Also the amount of hours you invest in a game doesn't make it automatically better than games you've invested less hours in, I still don't get how people use that as an argument.

And there you just showed how biased you are..... TW3's world is far from lifeless and dead. But I guess your definition of a vivid world is stuff killing each other around every corner. Sigh.

Opinion m8. I once spent literally 10 minutes walking around the map and saw nothing at all. That's not very lively.

And then when I did find something, such ass a monster nest, it was 4 weak mobs standing around a nest, that, when you blow it up, may spawn a slightly stronger, but still terribly weak, mob.

Sales doesn't equal quality. But lack of sales does equal end of franchise, so . . . yeah.

As far as AiTenshi being "butthurt" nah. She speaks pretty accurately as far as I can tell.

I agree there have been some structural changes in FO4 that change the "feeling" one gets about one's character and their progression through the world, but saying it "isn't RPG" is just absolutely absurd. There is a LOT of momentum, carrots, encouragement, etc. for the player to move in certain directions. There are also alot of radiant quests and it is easy to get 'caught up' in those and suffer the illusion that 'there is no story in the game.' There are also a lot of 'bits' of information laying all over the Commonwealth that can easily be dismissed as 'filler' or trivia, but not all of them are . . . maybe none of them.

But since we are not in Spoilers I cannot really point to how many rich characters, and fairly complex stories there are in the game.

The other thing that I think adds to the false notion that the game is "lacking in RPG" elements are the settlers. The fact they are generic and the fact that you can pretty quickly accumulate a lot of them for whom you are a steward, it does give it a superficial feel.

People who say "it isn't an RPG" are IMO justified in the sense that "it is different than past RPGs" but I'm not even sure it is fully "worse." Some of the new features seem like they are not fully fleshed out, but then that might be intentional: make sure the basic stuff works before you try to elaborate on it.

FONV was a good game, though the world was a bit too canolized and small for my tastes. I never finished it really but that was more to do with RL stuff than the game.

So tell me, out of all the "quests" or other "stuff" you can do in FONV: what proportion involved "not killing everything in sight?"

My recollection based on playing maybe 30% of the vanilla game map, was that was pretty much the same thing in that game: get a quest "Go here, find this, kill everything in sight" come back to quest giver "Thanks a ton!" here is your reward and your XP. Pretty standard model for such games it seems to me.

There must be 100 to 200 quests in FONV, can you give us even 10 examples that reflect this supposed attribute you are lauding where you do not "go here kill everything in sight?" I'm hard pressed to think of any myself.

Are you defending the person that literally said this:

Did you even bother to read this? This is accurate to you?

This quote is some of the most inaccurate drivel I have read so far on this board.

Limited appeal? It literally sold millions of copies, how is that limited?

It shouldn't win any awards based purely on sales numbers? What the actual [censored]?

What the majority prefers for their entertainment instantly equals quality?

Are you actually defending this pile of [censored]?

Witcher 3 isn't all that appealing to the female sector of gamers, soo...

In that case I stand corrected, let me kowtow 30000 million times to apologize.

Fixed that for ya.

What gets said on the internet is like the LEAST useful or reliable source for what is happening in the marketplace for something like a computer game.

My hypothesis is that you've got a few dozen loudmouths like you and the majority of users are not here, or not engaging and even if you were to tally up the opinions of those on this board you'd still be in a minority.

You are perfectly justfied to have your opinion, and even to live the delusion that your opinion reflects the aggregate marketplace in which millions of transactions are taking place. But I'm also free to point out your delusionality. Sorry, but there you have it.

You know we will never truly forgive you

Nah, steam reviews was my source, which is a pretty good sample size.

Also please help me understand your logic in defending what that aitenshi person said instead of conveniently ignoring it.

Eh, at the very least I gave it my best shot.

Fallout 4 is my GOTY for 2015/16. I have never had this much enjoyment from a vanilla Beth game before.

Oblivion had a broken level system and the very annoying A-bomb bug.

Fallout 3 had unbalanced weapons and a low level cap of 20.

Skyrim was very dull with clunky controls and turn sensitivity.

I cannot wait for the dlc that will add to the delicious Fallout 4 that we have.

Steam reviews are full of people complaining about the latest things...once a small amount of complaining begins a whole lot of people join in, just to be on the winning team. You know how people are.

Another good place to gauge opinion though is by looking at who is actually playing a game. Say on Steam. http://steamcommunity.com/app/377160 vs http://steamcommunity.com/app/292030

Stats at this very moment.