Dude... So he's a dike because he wants his personal preferances to speak for everyone but Obsidian are factualy bad.. riiiight...

(also Obsidian are awesome)

Hmmm. Just out of curiosity, how did we determine this as a fact? Seems to me they've produced some really wonderful games like KOTOR 2, Mask of the Betrayer, Fallout New Vegas and Pillars of Eternity to name a few. That these games have pretty ardent followings would lead me to believe that factually, Obsidian are great. But I'm not so silly I'd ever make such a statement.

Why oh why must every thread in here turn into Bethesda versus Obsidian or rather Fallout 3/4 versus New Vegas. There are other places on the forum to discuss this.

Really, I loved the work of both studios. But, while I know I would enjoy another Obsidian offering immensely, the posters on this forum (who act like Obsidian is the only ones who can make a 'real' Fallout game) have soured me to the idea of them being allowed to do another one.

I've actually loved both F3 and NV and have spent like 150 hours in each of those games. I also loved Skyrim because while it was indeed rather streamlined, there were still enough of decisions & consequences, character development and factions to join.

But F4? Had this game been released under a different name, the overall rating would've been 8 at best. Maybe even 7, considering the bad optimization, bugs and atrocious AI. But definitely not a *choo choo* hypetrain 9-10 GOTY best game ever/mods fill fix it rating.

With our current understanding of technology and subjectivity there is no true empirical way to assess a game.

The closest method would be to record the player's neurological activity in an FMRI scanner, and try determine the intensity and frequency of pleasure (basically the criteria of hedonic calculus) and attempt to infer what games create the greatest aggregate of pleasure.

Suffice to say the logistics of such an endeavor would be more trouble than it's worth, and there would still be an argument about the objectivity of one's 'pleasure' (it would be empirical though).

This!

By that logic should we call Fallout 4 a failure because of its garbage Metacritic scores?

Flawed logic is terribly flawed, AiTenshi.

Fallout 3 is one of my favorite games. I was replaying it recently.

I'm not a graphics hound so I don't really care about those things, never did. But in terms of how the world looks and operates, it seems to me an exaggeration to say it's a different engine rather than an updated version of the old one.

I'm definitely not giving the game a 10 but I sure as hell aren't disappointed with the game. I've put 4 days and 22 hours (118 hours? Ouch) worth of time into this game and I'm still not tired of it and it looks like I have a lot to do as yet.

Fallout 3 had NPC's in the virtual world but they didn't appear to LIVE in it. They rarely interacted. In Fallout 4 though they are bumping into each other other and triggering all sorts of multi-way combat scenarios... and that is the difference. AND I think there are less bugs than any Beth game I've played (not to say there aren't any because there are some doozies). For some bizarre reason, the longer I've played, the more stable the game has become. Usually it's the other way.

It looked janky because of the animations.

Those are enviroments, they don't have anything to do with combat itself.

True, I remember getting killed from 200 m by a guy peeking from a corner with a shotgun, and Super Mutants throwing infinite grenades at me.

Didn't really see this, not really using snipers for stealth (yet).

True, but that's enemies, not combat.

The cover system is pretty bad and unpractical, and it can't even be used in third person.

What do you mean with ''mid-combat'', exactly? You could already blow off limbs, and it would result in an instakill. Maybe you mean Ghouls?