ok, it's not in the actual game, but ... in the New Vegas Metacritic bonus legacy. For those unfamiliar with the subject, Obsidian (the studio that made Fallout New vegas) missed a financial bonus (specified in the contract) from Bethesda because the game failed to score 85+ on Metacritic.

Now, Fallout 4 fails to score 85+ on Metacritic too. PC is currently 84, equal to FNV PC (and keeps sinking. It started at 90+ from the first batch of enthusiastic reviews, and after the unexpectedly negative user reviews kicked in, seems like the journalists adjusted to the public opinion and started pouring the mediocre scores).

What does this tell us about the game, using Bethesda's own quality indicator? If a game falls lower than 85, it doesn't meet their quality standards. How will this affect the future of the game? More patches, more dlc, will they change the team and hire new people who can achieve 85+ on Metacritic? Do you think this low reception will trigger any changes @ Bethesda Game Studios?

No, for the same reason no one at Bethesda or Obsidian considered Obsidian's failure to met the 85 metascore a sign that Obsidian needed to make changes.

The game made them more cash then Skyrim did, and their next game will make them even more.

No doubt the game is a financial success, I am more interested in their internal quality evaluation. If 84 is too low, then maybe we're in for some change. DLC, patching, manpower,, etc.

Again, doubtful. Bethesda's parent company Zenimax is a shell company it created to manage other companies.

There's nothing, and no one, that can force them to change, and they have said numerous times they like having a small team of people that have been together for 10+ years.

I can only imagine what Obsidian could do with 7 years development time for New Vegas or a new Fallout title.

I really hope for another Obsidian Fallout.

Metacritics might be just the beginning. The real victory or defeat for BGS will be the Goty awards. For a company that loves to boast numbers and awards, being beat by a small studio from Poland would be too much.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't CDPR bigger than BGS? As far as team size goes, not so much popularity.

Still, the Witcher 2 got them some buzz and the Witcher 3 was hyped to hell and back

Anyways, undoubtedly, both BGS and CDPR will both win at least one GOTY award.

Ok, but the same small team of people got 94 score for Skyrim, 91 for Fallout 3... there must be some internal awareness of the decline, I mean there are people paid to evaluate the reception. The reception is undeniably the poorest for a BGS game.

I agree but I think Beth views Fallout as their baby now. Could you imagine another developer making TES?

Don't think any serious gaming company gives a flying about Metacritic. If anything, I would bet that the 85+ thing between Obsidian and Beth is meant as a joke. Like, "if you can convince that ungrateful bunch, you have succeded!" kind of thing

Only validity Metacritic has, is that too many isn't critic enough, of what they read on the internet, and will gulp down any news or review as the pure truth, because that source said so.

Avellone and most of the rest of the Fallout dudes don't work for Obsidian anymore, I thought.

On the PC, which isn't their target audience.

On the PS4 and Xbox One its sitting at 87 and 88.

The development team was bigger indeed, much bigger. But the studio itself as an entity (reputation based on previous work) is smaller than Bethesda for sure. Bethesda is huge, is legendary. It's Blizzard, Bethesda, BioWare and the rest.

It was exactly what it was, a bonus. If you don't get a yearly bonus at your job does that mean you're a failure?

But Witcher 3 is so polished. Though I've been waiting for this game for years and haven't slept since it's release, CD Project Red knocked it out of the park. Fallout 4 is awesome because it's fallout, but it's a step down from their previous games.

Also click bait title is click bait.

I really like the Bethesda formula. It's different, it's big and is very loose allowing for a lot of possibilities but it seems like Fallout 4 is the most constrained version of this formula to date, and I believe it's simply due to the fact that you have the same guys working on the same franchise for more than a decade.

There was probably a point in their careers where they spent a lot of time playing other people's games and bringing those insights back to their own projects. But when your leadership team is building features based https://youtu.be/RGjn4D0cztI?t=648, it's a tell-tale sign that you need to hire and trust newer employees to build the games you had time to play when you were younger.

I understand that it's great to work with people that you're comfortable bouncing off ideas with and what not, but if all you know is Elderscrolls and Fallout, and all you do is work on the next game and pursue life outside of developing your own talents, you cannot expect to hit it out of the park every time.

That being said, I thoroughly enjoyed Fallout and definitely think it's worth every dollar I paid for it. It's no less than an 80 in my books.

For now, but as I said, the Metacritic for Fallout 4 started at 92-93 for all platforms and then declined systematically. It's like Metacritic's algorythm only allowed the stellar scores from the big magazines in the first wave, and then allowed the "peasant tier" reviews after a while, and those sunk the overall score. Target or non-target audience is less relevant in quality evaluation, if they failed to score 85 for one platform then it means the game is not good enough on that platform, like FNV. It's the same people responsible, unless they use separate team to port the game to PC.

You keep mentioning this 85 but where other than a BONUS to Obsidian was it ever mentioned that 85 was some pass/fail number?

We don't have other inside info except what they said, so we have to work with what we have. If Obsidian wasn't offended by this "failure threshold" then they wouldn't have made it public and we wouldn't know

Looks like the NV mega supporters are out in force.

While I didn't really care for NV, I hope that something comes out that works for NV supporters. I'd hate for them to drop Fallout.

I think the reason Obsidian made it public is they were in deep [censored] at the time and really really needed the extra money. Otherwise it's a pretty unethical thing to complain about, imo. You signed a contract, fullfill it it's that simple.

I feel for Obsidian but Chris Avellone seems to bring a bad ending wherever he goes.

But it's a completely irrelevant metric you're attempting to use. Just because they didn't reach the level to make a BONUS doesn't mean it was considered a failure. Like I said before, if you don't make your goals for a bonus at your job are you considered a failure? And besides, it was a metric Bethesda used for another company making something with their permission. Why on earth would you think they're using that same metric on themselves? I just don't see how you're coming up with this idea. Sure I'd love for Obsidian to make another Fallout but do I think NV or 4 are a failure because they may not hit some number on [censored] metacritic? pfffffttttt GTFOH

Some (certainly not all) of the New Vegas fans wouldn't be happy with anything Beth does with Fallout. They've had their minds made up on Beth's version of Fallout for the past 7 years and nobody or nothing will ever change their mind...short of a full return to what Fallout was.

At least that's the impression they sometimes give off. Whether they mean to or not, that is how it sounds sometimes.

I haven't played FNV, not a supporter myself I'm just interested if Bethesda uses the same tools and indicators for their own evaluation. If affirmative, Fallout 4 may as well be percieved as a decline and maybe bring more attention, more resources, bigger team, new team, different DLC approach, etc... for us, the mega supporters of BGS-made Fallout.