You hit the point.

And nothing speaks against that. But more people would have fun if they would have done things different without reducing your fun, keep that in mind and don′t always do like "i have fun so nothing is wrong, rest shut up".

New games get weightened of what they are on their own, long term franchises will always get weightened in compairsons. And sorry, but if fallout is printed on "this" i refuse to see it as it′s own, it carries a herritage that has to be fulfilled in some way and not just in a graphical manner. If Bethesda refuses to see that it might be ok from their point of view and do whatever they want with the bought franchise, but they should not expect the thousands of fans/customers of the old style of the series to shout "hooray" about these decisions.

I'm playing 7-8 hours every day, I know it's an awesome game

the lousy metacritic reviews are not from people who played the game, there is a great deal of animosity toward bethesda for developing the fallout franchise and thats just a fact, its no big secret, the old school rpg fans who are very upset bethesda has taken the franchise in a different direction from the old rpg style and its just a dynamic that exists and the hate some people have toward bethesda is just a dynamic that will always exist, it will happen again after fallout 5 is made and it happened after fallout 3, every new fallout game that isn't like the old games causes the group in question to become more and more vocal about their distain for the direction bethesda has taken the franchise, the game has sold millions and had more people playing it on steam then any game in history, its rating is about a 9 even higher if you look at all the publications and gaming sites combined, the metacritic site needs to be flushed down the toilet because its been used as a tool to express the hate some people have toward bethesada and their ownership of the fallout franchise, these people will NEVER be happy with any fallout game bethesda makes, not unless they turn it over to obsidian and since thats not happenig it just is what it is, and you seem to get your kicks by jumping on the bandwagon of anyone who "doesn't like the game" who cares, play something else then.

I should point out that 90% of the Xbox One reviews are also either 4/5 or 5/5 too. Are these people all wrong?

^This.

Metacritic used to be reliable for reviews (both professional and user) but it's turned into something of a circus. I would rather believe verified user reviews on Amazon or Steam, rather than questionable users.

That being said, I pre-ordered the Xbox One version of the game and also own the Season Pass. I was gifted a copy on Steam. I wrote my own partial review for Steam and here on the forum, not that my opinion matters that much. People might consider me in an unfavorable opinion just because I pre-ordered the game (uh oh fan girl) but that's okay. Reviews are opinions, not that they matter. I think people that purchased the game are more validated in their opinions of course.

What I would be concerned about as a potential buyer is not the 108 glowing reviews but the 69 one star reviews. Usually people take the time to write reviews because they have strong feelings about the game, be it positive or negative, and they want to express them.

I have never have posted a review on Metacritic. Personally, I like the game and gave it a thumbs up on Steam. I will probably do a full review when I finish the main story.

Amazon review get an hit from people having to download after buying the disc.

PC controlls are not very good, PC player also compare FO4 with an modded FO:NV while FO:NV had issues on PS3.

Not really. After all, it's a subjective thing. Some people think Wuthering Heights is the greatest book of all time. I happen to think it's a piece of trash. Some people think that Fallout 4 is amazing. I think it's a decent enough game that improves the franchise in some areas, while having so many problems that in the end it's a marginal improvement over Fallout 3, while others are more negatively disposed towards it than I am.

I wouldn't say all those people are wrong, at least not in the matter of fact way I would if someone said "2+2=Pineapple." YOU were wrong when you misrepresented the data, and bringing more data into it isn't going to change that. At best you were mistaken, at worst you were intentionally lying. Either way, it doesn't invalidate your opinion of Fallout 4.

I'm secure enough in my opinion that Fallout 4 is a decent if unremarkable game that I'm not going to tell other people they're wrong if they're enjoying the game more than I am. I wish I liked Fallout 4 more than I do. And I don't feel the need to misrepresent numbers or pretend "verified purchase" is the sole thing that validates an opinion, or ramble about some kind of conspiracy/cabal, like some people in this thread have done.

I don't find the game as enjoyable as you do. That's good enough for me. You enjoy the game. That should be good enough for you. I don't see why you feel the need to try and act as people who disagree with you are "trolls," "wrong," or not "real" or "genuine."

Not so many changes in gameplay actually: grenades and weapon bash, yes its on the same button and dropping an botlecap mine then you try to bash an molerat is bad, else all agree that combat is improved.

Removal of skills is unpopular among many, also the fixed special requirement for perks.

Have said enough about the idiot dialoge system. http://www.nexusmods.com/fallout4/mods/1235/?fixes the thing who is easiest to fix and is among the most popular mods

I dislike the removal of skills, but the SPECIAL requirements for perks don't bother me too much. I think there should have been other perks that weren't tied to SPECIALS as well, or at least more than 10 perks per stat, but the new system is fairly intuitive. That said, the level requirements for the perks is idiotic. I can see how it can balance out the combat ones, but the non-combat ones shouldn't have those requirements. You shouldn't have to get such a high level to max out sneaking or lockpicking. Essentially the game goes "Want to avoid combat? Well I hope you're ready to do a whole lot of combat to level up so you can get the perks to help you avoid combat!"

Design issues like that are were I really miss skills.

Gamestar is a german magazine. At the end of the review 8 editors gave their personal opinion that was very mixed up and should have resulted in something at 74%. The final rating was suddenly the one from the editor that gave the highest number. So much for serious judging from the professional sites.

Game Informer gave 9/10.

If you listen to the interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hqYxXEdw8Uthey suddenly sound totally different to what rating they gave the game.

Yeah, professional reviews are often not very relable because companies like punish reviewers if they dare to say something critical.

Gonna speak from the heart here, because these games are a passion of mine and they mean a lot to me.

I almost exclusively play Bethesda games. Occasionally I'll step out of my comfort zone to play something like The Witcher, or Divinity. But around 95% of my gaming time is spent with Elder Scrolls and Fallout. Just recently I picked up Morrowind in the Steam sale, and I'm currently modding that up for my first playthrough (I don't know why its taken me so long to get to Morrowind, but I've got it now anyway). I'd probably pick up Arena and Daggerfall, but some games are just too clunky to play these days. Morrowind is as far back as i'll go I think.

For years I've heard all the insults thrown at Bethesda and while I could understand the complaints, I didn't agree with them. Whatever shortcomings their games have were always surpassed by the excellent atmosphere and replayability their games gave me. I knew what I was getting with a Bethesda game, and what I was getting suited me down to the ground. I could always rely on their games to match my tastes. Oblivion, Fallout 3, Skyrim and NV (okay, that was Obsidian, but its still very much in the spirit of Bethesda). These games enthralled and inspired me, it was as if Bethesda were making games just for me. Their games were unique, nobody else in the industry offered the same sort of experience you'd get from an Elder Scrolls or Fallout game.

Then came Fallout 4, and it felt like some other developer was making a game in the Bethesda style. I got lots of entertainment from that game, more so than any game that year. But it didn't feel like the other games Bethesda made in the past. Its really hard to describe it, but this isn't the Bethesda I've come to know over the years. This feels different. It doesn't have quite the same appeal as the others, the same addictive cant-wait-to-get-home-from-work-and-play attributes I've come to associate with Bethsdas games. I don't really know what Fallout 4 is, and Fallout 4 doesn't know what it is either. Kind of a weird compilation of games. Its lost that unique style I've come to associate with their games. I'm a Bethesda fan because I like Bethesda games, but when Bethesda stops making Bethesda games, there goes any reason for me to play.

Is Fallout 4 a good game? Yes. Absolutely it is. Is Fallout 4 a good Bethesda game? No, it isn't. I think thats a crucial difference, for me at least.

But my voice is just one that will be replaced by hundreds more that love the direction Bethesda is going in, so ultimately it doesn't matter. Bethesda are in business to make successful games, and thats exactly what they're doing. Maybe Fallout 4 was just a mistep, and they'll be back stronger than ever with Elder Scrolls 6? Who knows. I doubt it (I think its a clear indicator that I'm no longer the target market) but who knows. We'll have to see.

Anyway, sorry if I rambled. Just throwing my thoughts out there.

As a player who has played RPGs since they began with the original D&D, AD&D, and Wizardry, as well as franchises like Phantasy Star and Ys, I have to correct one thing in your response.

Bethesda did not and has not changed anything about the original RPG mechanics/concept. Fallout 1 and 2 were not very good RPGs, plain and simple, which is why they did not do well and were only niche market products compared to other RPGs. FONV had the same problem, more or less. Elements such as dialogue choices leading to different paths and consequences or having multiple ways to complete a quest are NOT fundamental RPG elements at all and never have been. Multiple paths are a standard, fundamental element of Japanese adventures and visual novels, a genre of games that has never had mainstream market share in the Western markets despite many of us loving them greatly (and even sometimes pointing out that they could possibly be argued to be the only "genuine" RPGs exactly due to the mechanic of multiple paths and consequences to the choices made during a playthru).

The point here is that elements such as multiple paths and dialogue choices leading to different consequences, or different ways to complete quests, were never part of any RPG in the past but were fundamental to Japanese adventures and visual novels, as well as hybrid RPGs that incorporated those elements such as Langrisser, Growlanser, and Agarest War, just to name a few franchises as examples. If these elements HAD been fundamental and/or had they had decent market appeal in Western markets, it is likely BGS would have focused effort to include them in some significant way just as they did with other elements that have proven popular (e.g., building/sim elements... I'm not a Minecraft fan or Sims fan, by the way... and ironically, these elements are exactly the elements that people screamed for after FO3 was released, elements that allowed players to have a world where rebuilding was more evident).

Fallout 4 is a great game, better than pretty much any other game on the market today (new games, not prior products). It blows prior BGS games like Skyrim out of the water because Skyrim had so great a bias towards melee warriors and lack of any sort of reward for doing anything versus ranged combat or magic. BGS Fallout has had (and still has) a similar problem to the latter point with energy weapons (i.e., an enormous bias towards ballistic weapons and against energy weapons). Fallout 4 has some issues (e.g., far too restrictive on materials/resources such as wood and steel for basic building, the usual horrible character visual aesthetics, etc) but is leaps and bounds beyond products like Witcher 3 due to the simple fact that it allows a far broader appeal and play style (as can be seen by many people stating that they have no interest in Witcher due to being forced to play Geralt, a character of no interest to most players). For writing/story/characters, nothing is going to beat the Japanese-made RPGs (not Japanese RPGs as there is no such thing... the Japanese got the idea for RPGs from Western developers, specifically Wizardry, and did not come up with the concept on their own).

People who complain cannot name another game with more value and/or more interactivity/content. Yes, everyone has preferences, but people who prefer other types of games such as FPS or puzzle games should not be buying and attempting to play an action/RPG hybrid. It's like using a screwdriver to try to hammer in a nail and complaining that the screwdriver is poorly designed for the task. Well, of course it is because it isn't designed to hammer nails.

You should probably back that claim up with some reasons, especially as it seems to fly in the face of popular opinion. Those two games are often lauded as two of the best rpgs ever made, up there with Baldurs Gate 2.

You can't just claim something controversial like that and expect it to be accepted.

Fallout 3 and New Vegas? I guess its arguable depending on the person and their views, but saying people haven't been able to come up with another game just isn't true. People have been using those two games constantly as a counterpoint to Fallout 4 since its release in November.

Completely untrue. I don't know why you're saying this. There are literally 100's of rpgs that do exactly what you're saying they don't do. Fallout 1 and 2, Alpha Protocol, Deus Ex, The Witcher, Planescape Torment, Ultima, Vampire Bloodlines, and dozens more all offer choice and consequence (to varying degrees). Some of it is expressed in the dialoge choices you make and are offered, and some of it actually changes the world you're playing in. It is the hallmark of many rpgs.

At this point reviews are irrelevant. The game launched to 12 million in sales, and is probably nearing 2o million now. And anyone who thinks you sell that many copies off "hype" or "name" or whatever people here claim are either a bit touched in the head or in some serious denial.


The arguments that go on here are some cross between funny and stupid. For probably 90% of the people who bought the game they just don't care about any of the stuff people here are arguing about. They play it on its own merits without a care in the world if it is enough lake FO1, 2, 3, NV or whatever.

Some people are trying so hard to convince themselves it's a bad game ... Even without calling anyone who disagrees a devoted fan or seeing the professional reviews as some sort of Bethesda pay-off conspiracy, this is quite pathetic.

Since the last 10 years professional reviews are only swimming with the waves, everything else would risk their sales. No need for conspiracions on this.

Agree on that, but that is how things go. Throw something into a room and wait how the dogs react.

I both like and enjoy playing Fallout 4. I will no doubt, thanks to mods, enjoy it for months to come.

That said, dismissing people who object to Bethesda's design direction as trolls is inappropriate.

What is interesting about the Metacritic data is that professional reviewers aren't as happy with it as they were with Fallout 3. I also note that of all Fallout's, it is Fallout 4 that has a clearly lower User score.

I read some of the '0' reviews, and while the score was excessively bad, their objections to Fallout 4 were well argued, even if I didn't always agree with them.

This clearly shows that there is more going on here than sour graqes over Bethesda's possession of the license.

You make some good points, apart from the troll 0s in Metacritic which certainly exist, some of those "well argued 0s" as you call them (even if their reviews don't translate to a 0 score) probably were given because of their disappointment. I think it boils down to this with FO4, it is a good game but people were expecting much more from BGS, and even though in the past most of the time they have delivered (for some arguably every time), this time they didn't.

The only flaw in your logic is the review scores are still very high, and very good. Most consider it the second best game of the year. And only narrowly so. You make it sound like 3 got an average score of 95 and 4 an average score of 60. It's more like 3 got a 92 and 4 an 88.

At any rate, it would have been pretty hard to top 3. Bethesda drastically changed and reworked the game for that installment. They made it far more appealing to far more people. There was no way to make so many drastic changes as they did in 3. FO4 brings a degree of "same old same old" that 3 never had to worry about

And iirc the scores for F3 were quite a bit lower shortly after it's release with the initial wave of "it's not F1" people trolling the scores.

Actually the professional magazine ratings are 91 for Fallout 3, 84 for Fallout:NV and the same 84 for Fallout 4. (keep in mind that this 84 was the reason bethesda refused to pay reward-payment to obsidian as they only give that at 85 or higher).

There is no flaw in my logic, as I merely made a factual observation.

Also a few points difference is more telling, given that professional reviewers seldom give games a really low score.