I don't know how it was found out - I do know that FO4 uses a different system for modeling(at least for normal maps). I believe by new, I think he meant new stuff was added onto it.

As I said it's your right to not care, and a lot of the time I don't either.But I often see people say ' GOTY awards are pointless' or ' I don't need others to tell me what I like', again it's their liberty to think and say so, but their verbiage has a tacit implication that GOTY awards are something we should all look down upon, unless we are to value pointless awards or defer our preferences to others.

Invariably these discussions eventuate in people talking exclusively about whether they care about such awards, rather than occasionally propounding whether there's a meaning to be taken from them, or a reflection to be made on the gaming sphere as a whole.

While it's not an exact correlation, it's almost like discussing presidential vote percentages only for every second person to say 'well voting is pointless' or 'presidents don't do anything anyway'.Again I'd fight to defend the liberties of everyone, and especially of thought, writing and speech, but certain issues such as GOTY awards are dominated by one overwhelming thought.

Sales? It seems some people are taking a page out of the "How to defend CoD or Justin Beiber" fan book.

I don't know, someones got to come out on top - they're awards after all. It does often strike me as an odd conclusion that "this company made a good game that won many accolades" always ends up meaning "everyone who didn't win as many trophies made a horrible game."


Do the movie forums have this same thing? Do their forums feature threads about what directors need to learn if their movie was nominated but didn't win all the Oscars?


Good on CDPR. They're a good company and deserve what they've learned. Some day I plan on finishing Witcher 1, which has some neat things I liked. I'm also very excited about their Cyberpunk game (which is the game I used to run all through my highschool years.)


But their being good doesn't make everyone else bad. Could Beth learn some things from them? Sure, but I also think there'd be value in them looking at Ubisoft and other companies too.

And this is why I get irritated by the award threads. To me, it's just another reason to bash Bethesda. It's not constructive criticism, it's bashing. The thread title is a good indicator.

And I'm tired of the Witcher praising. No one sees me in the Witcher forums praising Bethesda.

IMO, Fallout 4 can't even compete in a lot of aspects compared to the Witcher 3. Not in terms of dialogue, story, characters, amount of quests and quality of quests.


Both have a similar character development, relying on perks. I personally feel they're both close to Borderlands levels of customization, which I see as a semi-RPG at best.


Combat is wildly different in both and is down to personal preference. You can't really compare them at all.



I think Fallout 4 had too little content. I wanted a story driven experience, but got a mostly empty sandbox. Sure, I can build sandcastles if I want to, but that's not nearly as great as experiencing the world through an engaging story. I was, at times, drawn out of the world by repeated fetch-quests that took me to the same chest I looted earlier in Fallout 4, while the Witcher constantly brought new stories to me and new places to explore.



We should probably be comparing Fallout 4 to Skyrim, otherwise there really isn't a discussion to be had.

I'd personally argue that there hasn't been any bashing going on in this thread, but even if there was, 'Liberty lies in the rights of those whose views you find most odious'.

If Bethesda decides to try even harder because of the GOTY awards and the 'bashing' that ensued, aren't we all better for it?

In this case, EA might be the better comparison...


Yes. Either they improve their or get left behind by better studios. Either way, better games for me
Well, that's the naive idealism of it, but we all know doesn't work that way in the real world

Does it though?

I found far too many quests involved "following the red vapour until it stops, then look for the red smudge/object/etc" that is within a bright yellow circle on your minimap which is more or less as bad as Skyrim's floating quest arrows. Then kill monster or bandits. There was no deducing on your own what monster you were going to fight. Once Geralt found a sufficient amount of "red stuff" the game told you what you were fighting. Granted the stories behind many quests were good and interesting, but gameplay-wise those quests were no better than TES fetch-quests.

I don't let awards dictate whether I enjoy a game or not. Heck if I own the game and the reviews says it's bad I don't let it tarnish my enjoyment.

Well, it's the stories that matter. Lord of the Rings is a fetch quest, i'm told

It's hard to say Fallout 4 sales prove it's success when it runs a 6 month marketing campaign focused around a live action commercial, collectible merch and Fallout themed apps; basically nothing related to the actual gameplay of Fallout 4. If anything, the agency behind marketing Fallout 4 deserve an award.

I mentioned this in an other thread when the 2015 Video Game Awards were on and the Witcher III took home GOTY:

I'm actually impressed at how little Bethesda had to do and still they broke so many sales records. The fans really hyped the game based on so little information, and the games media didn't help. "10 reasons to be excited for Fallout 4 based on nothing" They shouldn't build hype, they should ask the questions and deliver the information and help us make informed decisions when it comes to buying a game. The whole system is completely broken. All the way from hype culture, to rewards, to reviews etc.

Thats a harsh and unfair comparison. Skyrim's Journal was complete crap. There is virtually zero description of the quest or any kind of directions to the location unless you use questmarkers and it autolocates the destination for you. You can turn off quest markers and there are vague but usable directions in The Witcher 3. Additionally, most quests are fairly localized. You don't have to wander across the entire map for most of them.

While I'll definitely agree the red trails were not something I liked, I didn't really need to use them. Although I did use them out of convenience a lot of the time, there were actual marks on the ground to follow if you didn't. They were just a lot harder to see. I am not sure if there were marks for everything, but every time I checked I remember them being there. Footrprints, tattered clothing on a branch, clawmarks, blood splatters, etc etc. I don't think scent was traceable without the red markers though so you may have me there. Also, when it comes to sidequests, having all of them make sense within the context and have an interesting story is pretty much what keeps you doing them. I never got the "ugh, 10 more nirnroot?" syndrome while playing.

I'd disagree with the gameplay part as well. At least for all of the contracts and a good portion of the quests, there was a fairly interesting enemy to fight that wasn't Arch Lich no. 87 or Legendary Bulletsponge no. 52. For many of the quests, you could solve them without bloodshed through simple dialogue or the Axii power. Very few locations reuse assets on the scale of a TES game. Granted that Fallout 4 did a bit better at not having a ton of reused assets compared to Skyrim. I'd say the side quests were a major upgrade over TES-style fetch quests in pretty much every regard.

The most they might do is discourage me from getting a game that I was on the fence about. Only in significant quantity and with reasons I find valid though. There are a handful of reviewers who do a good job and reviewers are the ones who usually hand out awards so I do let them have some weight before I get a game. However, if I liked/disliked a game I wouldn't really care about awards or reviews.

I voted, I don't care. While I want Bethesda to step up their game and have better writing, if this post is based on GotY awards, I don't care about GotY. Bethesda shouldn't be doing this for GotY but to make us happy and for something they can be proud of.

So yes, I want Bethesda to do better for me, not for stupid GotY awards that mean nothing.

No, actually there isn't. Other than Wasteland 2 and the Fallout series you'd be hard pressed to find a post nuclear rpg series that releases on both PC & Console. Meanwhile, players like myself who actually want rpg... in their rpgs and not Call of Duty: Nuclear Warfare are out of luck.

Bethesda's continued success is one irritating consequence from video games becoming a multi-billion industry. Only a company whose mother corp is boarded by media fat cats could land rave reviews, for releasing the same game every 4 years. Any other studio would need to mature creatively, or admit the intellectual defeat of their properties. What we play now is the Streamlined World of Inventory: The Quest of Inconsequential Decisions.

Yeah, I want CD Projekt to eclipse BGS for awhile, but not because I care about Witcher or Cyberpunk. They haven't made a single game since 2002 with technical, artistic, or narrative merits it's own. Its all been shovelware copied from mods and Bioware and marketed to the widest possible audience.

What I do find funny is that some people claimed GOTY awards were irrelevant when New Vegas didn't get any, yet make a huge song and dance about how Fallout 4 didn't get as many as Witcher 3.

fallout 4 is more popular on twitch, fallout 4 is not inferior to the witcher one bit.

Your seriously misguided if you think that Witcher and F4 sales are even close to each other.

You even admit it took Witcher 6 weeks to get to the 6 million in sales while also admitting F4 potentially did that in 1 day (more like the first week though) on the first day just onSteam alone there was roughly 1 million players.

Quoted for truth. Theres a lot of people on here that suddenly care about awards now thatBethesda didn't 'win' yet when Skyrimwon in '12 Bethesda 'bought'that win.

I never said The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt and Fallout 4 sales are close to each other. I said that The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt sold 6 million copies in 6 weeks and Fallout 4 sold and shipped, SHIPPED a total of 12 million copies in 24 hours. Not all 12 million of those copies were sold to customers, the rest were copies that are sitting or were sitting on the shelves at brick and mortar retailer stores world wide.

On Steam the PC version of Fallout 4 was at 480,000 PC gamers playing it on 11.10.15, so almost a half a million PC gamers playing Fallout 4 in one day.

However I do not think Fallout 4 sold 15 million copies to this day today. I think Fallout 4 sold up to possibly 10 million copies.

I also think The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt has sold either 8 million copies by now or 10 million copies by now.

You just contradicted yourself.

Popularity does not equate to quality nor does quality equate to popularity. I've only ever heard good things about Witcher games as quality. Fallout 3 and 4 are games where the fun isn't derided from the quality of the game but the quantity. I deeply love Bethesda games and that's why I am sharply critical of the fact Bethesda has such a wanton regard to design. Look at how many bugs get untouched under what feels like a "Meh, it's alright, the unofficial community patch will fix it" design. Bethesda is far too complacent in relying on the loyalty of its fanbase for sales and I think that is what has led to the quality of their storytelling. Their design function has basically been "As long as the ride was fun that's all that matters."

I would agree, and i am interested to see how BGS reacts now that it has serious competition.

Will they trust their fanbase's good will and continue as is, or will they start to make the changes many have asked for during the years? :popcorn: