The average metacritic has dropped to an 89.5.Is that BGS' lowest ever metacritic?

Yeah but gameplay you get a feel for right away, and so far it's said to be terrible and outdated. It looks like that Counter Strike Source zombie mod. Will the RPG elements be great, though? Maybe, remains to be seen

This is the first game I've bought since Civ3 where I broke my "wait a week an see the discussions emerging". Since that total train of a game I can't trust my hype-o-meter.

lol

Agreed and to me FALLOUT 4 still looks like a major contender for Game Of The Year. Am liking how the Super Mutants are a tad more serious reminding me of the terrifying ones from the first FALLOUT game. They feel like they have taken on a purpose. Maybe there is a new... Master.

Definitely digging the monsters from the Jim Sterling review i just saw which feel like something out of a ultra creepy 1980s creature feature gore flick.

The ui loot interface also has a very natural feel to it the way the eyes and brain would sync up instantly to tell you what is in front of you just like in real life. I can also see that coming in handy in a Terminator mod as some sort of enemy recognition and scanning system.

No, Morrowind got an 89 on PC and a 87 on Xbox.

I've noticed the long loading times as well, on supposed PC streams. I don't know if they were using HDD or SSD.

I was expected numerous building/doorway loading screens, but the time factor worries me. Oh well...hopefully it won't be too bad.

I went ahead and spoiled myself on the first 20 mins - It looks solid to me.

I have no doubts this title will continue the successful and brilliant legacy of the Fallout series. I'm hyped

+1 For thus comment

The fact that it's that close suggests something in all honesty.

In all fairness, I am kind of sick to have to wait for mods every time to make characters in Bethesda games mortal. Well at least there ARE mods.

I absolutely love dogs in real life. Does that mean that I would want dogmeat to be immortal so that a virtual dog doesn't suffer deadly violence (because it does suffer)? Tell me that you did not say that seriously. I hate that it is immortal for other obvious reasons.

Reviewers have had their hands on the game since well before release. Some have logged 50+ hours with it already.

I dunno...from what I've read it sounds a lot like Fallout 3, in that there's a lot of stuff to do and see, but everything feels pretty 1-dimensional. That really bothered me about Fallout 3. Although New Vegas had some aspects that a lot of people didn't like, I felt the characters, factions, quests, etc. were deeper and more interesting. Don't get me wrong, I'll buy Fallout 4, but probably not until it's cheaper.

Well think about this, Destructoid gave Witcher 3 an 8/10 score which is only .5 higher than Fallout 4 and they are Obsidian fans to boot! So there's that.

I've been watching people on youtube play the game all day and heard nothing but good/ecited things from all of them aside from the things already mentioned in here and the usual Bethesda glitches.

This is definitely my GOTY.

I'm guessing you've yet to actually play it?

Regardless of your justifications, unforeseen events are exactly that; unforeseen.Just because Bethesda has led you through the right path previously doesn't preclude an unexpected turn in the future.

Edit:

Not to belabor a previous point, but Fallout 4's metacritic is slowly declining.It's currently at 89 PS4, 89 PC and 91 Xbox one.

What does this part even mean?

And I didnt say it's official GOTY I said it's MY pick. When it comes to these things the inly opinion important to me is my own other people's choices don't affect what I like.

Ok to get straight to the point, how can you formulate an opinion without playing the game, especially one as dogmatic as 'This is definitely my GOTY'?

You're obviously entitled to your own opinion, but if there's such a thing as an uninformed opinion, it would be this .You've seen at absolute most 1% of what this game has to offer, yet you claim that the other 99% is worthy of being your own GOTY without actually playing it.

It's your liberty as an individual, but this reasoning seems odd to me.It's statements like this that make me wonder if they're engender by the quality of the product or the severity of the bias.

Those are still very good scores though. Maybe they'd be a little disappointing if you were expecting FO4 to be a genre defining masterpiece, but otherwise the consensus seems to be that its a very solid Fallout game with some hiccups that will hopefully be patched up soon.

That's all very true, and as I've said previously there's no way this game could have satiated the hype surrounding it. But to put these scores into context, they are almost the joint worst scores BGS has ever had for a game.I didn't expect to be saying that...

They're worse than Skyrim and Fallout 3, which is a little worrying, especially when reviewers are calling it another Fallout 3 with some improvements, but giving it a worse score.

Reviewers have been giving insanely high scores to games that do not deserve them, even by their own review's merits. As much as I love Kojima's games and the MGS series, it didn't deserve to be called a master piece because of the game being shipped incomplete; The Witcher 3 didn't deserve to be called a master piece because it was broken for over a month.

The game looks and feels great so far. You get a power armor and a minigun within 10min of the game. Thats a little meh..

i wouldn't worry, check this link out its got like 50 reviews and most of them have it rated between 9 and 10 http://opencritic.com/#!game/1508/fallout-4

i agree but i think its prob cause the graphics when compared to games like the witcher, i think the player reviews will be quite high and as they patch some of the problems to minimize the glitches it should remain a solid game but yeah its slightly less then your typical bethesda game, not by much half a point maybe

A 9/10 I would accept if the game has a good review, but I don't even bother reading 10/10 reviews anymore since they're a load of BS. The reviewer will list a page worth of issues, but then say it's a masterpiece.

I saw the collection of reviews though, some say it's good, but I have read a plethora of [what I perceive to be] problems as well. I'm going in expecting another Fallout 3, perhaps a little worse because of the dialogue system, but I won't deny it either if the game turns out to be phenomenal.

**Side Note** I will no doubt get several hundred hours out of the game and it'll definitely be worth the purchase either way. I'm pretty cynical, so a lot of my posts probably come off as though I hate the game before it even comes out, but it's definitely not the case.

Going off this logic what was the point to all of the posters who have been griping about how Fallout 4 was going to turn out when none of you experienced it yet?


To answer the. questiion myself though; I have played 4 Bethesda games so far and absolutely adored them. It's practically gaurunteed that I will love the newest product too, and again, I watched streams (7) for about 6 hours today and saw absolutely nothing that I didnt like. This is actually the first Bethesda game where nothing looked objectively worse than previous games. Everything I have seen so far is either an improvement or at the very least works the same as it did in Skyrim or FO3.

Edit: Your hypocrisy is hilarious kiddo. So I'm not allowed to say I like a product because I havent played it yet but all that crying you and the other typical Bethesda haters have been doing since it's been anounced even though absolutely NONE of you tried it yet (and most likely still have't) is A-Okay huh? Gotta love faulty logic.