first of all, I am not biased because I haven't played either yet (my primary gaming PC needs to be replaced)..


and yes, reviews are always biased because they are based off of the individual opinion and emotional state of the writer, as such they are based entirely off the writers personal preference, thats bias.. only way we will ever see a non-biased review is if we somehow write a computer program to anolyze the product and output a review, because thats the only way a review would not be influenced by human emotion and personal preference..

EDIT: thats what i mean by reviews are not a sure sign of quality

not saying its the only reason, I just said it may be a contributing factor.. a games setting (or any media, not just games) can be a major factor in a persons enjoyment of the title based off of how interested they are in that kind of setting

I don't think anyone here claimed it was a horrible game or anything. But admittedly a lot of people are disappointed. For most, it was not GOTY material. Almost everyone *expected* fallout to be GOTY material. For me personally, it's not even fallout material.

As I see it, it is a good game but a not very good rpg. Judging from the countless reviews I've read a lot of people think this as well. But it still is a good game. I *would* rate it with 75-80 personally, even if it disappointed me as a fallout game, because that's what it deserves. I did expect at least an "90" from Beth though.

As for the sales, the franchise sold the first week's sales. It's common sense that their stellar sales will be affected negatively in long-term and in their next title, because of the simple fact that people didn't love it as much as previous titles. For example, they won't see a pre-order from me in their next title and it's obvious that a lot of people think like-wise.

Not all people are "affected emotionally" like you are. If that was the case, reviews all around the world for anything wouldn't happen, because they would be useless. There wouldn't be any way to objectify the level of quality of a product and everything would be subjective thus the term "low quality" wouldn't even exist.

But that is not the case. Reviews are not defining, but certainly indicative of the quality of a product.

Definitely not GOTY material. It feels too much like the attitude was "It's a bit disorganised.. oh well the community will fix it, they love us. We'll just focus on the bits they can't fix."

Exactly!

I tried W3 and found it not to my liking as I hated character movement. While Fallout 4 is a game I like to play. But even with that, I would have to be blind or crazy (imo), to fail to see this huge difference in quality between those two games.

Fallout 4 is almost entirely derivative and innovates nothing. Bethesda did make the game they wanted to make, sure- but CDPR schooled them entirely on how to make an open world game with good combat, story-driven branching quests, and real consequence, not to mention the beautiful art and graphics. They deserved to win GOTY. Also picked up RPG and developer of the year.

If Bethesda is going to keep going down this route of more linear, cinematic games with player VO, they need to seriously step up their game. As it is, I don't have much hope for TES VI, and all my futuristic game hopes are now resting on Cyberpunk 2077.

first of all, like I am? lol, seriously? I said I have not played either yet, as such I am not saying either product is superior until I do, TW3 may be better, maybe FO4 is, but I am not going to say either is better until i have a chance to play them.. I am simply stating the way things work


and yes, all peoples opinions on anything are partly influenced by emotion, its part of the concept of "The Human Condition" (something they used to teach you back in high school), the entire human psyche is ruled by emotion

however, the fact you are trying to personally target those who are not saying TW3 is automatically better (as seen in what i quoted, "like you are", and your earlier "naah, your biased!"), and the fact you posed the following:

your opinion may be more influenced by emotion than you may realize

Of course they do, just because they don't appeal to you and I doesn't mean they aren't great. In the same vein, I'm sure the Witcher 3 is a great game as well, and congratulations to CDPR for winning GOTY, but does it mean this will suddenly make me go out and buy it? No. The Witcher series just doesn't grab me the way TES/Fallout games do.

Besides GOTY is given out like candy nowadays, since every outlet feels they have to give their own award. Dozens of games get GOTY every year. It's not some super prestigious thing like the Grammys as some people make it to be: "Oh noes! FO4 didn't win any awards. Bethesda is crashing down!!11one "

Keeping in mind the somewhat controversial reception, I think it's safe to say Fallout 4 is not exactly "entirely derivative". It's an open world game with a dumb story focused around family, and it's set in the Fallout universe (even if slightly modified again). That's where the similarities with Fallout 3 end. Considering the amount of innovations (for better or for worse), I though it is quite obvious.

Why should a lack of prizes determine that something went wrong enough to go back to the drawing board ?

Sure, the game has its downsides, but in the end the value of the game is determined by votes of those who really played it, at least for a few hours.

And from the company's point of view, something certainly went right since they made a huge profit from Fallout 4 and they had top sales.

You are the one trying to claim that reviews and general reception is not to be trusted and that all this feedback is not indication of its quality, which, frankly, is ridiculous.

It seems then that you weren't paying much attention to class. If the "entire human psyche" was ruled by emotion the world would be a very different place. Emotions play a role but you don't seem to realize what it means to be "ruled by emotions".

I don't personally target anyone like that, that is something you whimsically claim. Maybe it seems to you that way because of what I suggested earlier - being too emotionally invested in it. That's also the reason you "selectively quote" a part of my opinion of the game, conveniently omitting other parts, thinking it indicates some kind of "hate" - but it doesn't - only indicates the game's characteristics which are derived by facts - and it also happens to coincide with many of its reviews.

If you doubt about these facts, must I really list them for the 100th time in this forum and quote wiki entries again in order to prove my points? Because if you have played previous titles to be able to compare you wouldn't interpret the quote as "hate", but you would understand it's because some elements are missing from the game.

Again, I don't "target" anyone. You started the conversation by quoting my post and I just find the fact that you seem to think that the average reception of the game in reviews, awards, user-scores etc is not indicative, absurd.

Of course they should go back to the drawing board and decide if they're going to mimic ME and Witcher linear story driven games or they are going to stick to be "who you want to be and do what you want to do". I played it for days, and it's a lot worse after the first playthrough. There are no options. You can accept the quest or just postpone it until you accept it. The sales are from the hype. Yes i was hyped to, weapon customization, vertibird, power armor, but that doesn't always work.

The first days sales come from the franchise and success of previous titles. You can be certain and it's common sense that their long term sales, as well as the sales of their next title, will be affected. As I said, for example, I will definitely not pre-order the next title and from what I have seen so far there are far too many people who think like-wise.

Fallout 4 not even 1 month old, I bet the reviewer haven't even finished the game yet.

You should have never pre-ordered anything, no matter how awesome the game or company seems. getting hyped is your own fault, whatever happened to making informed decisions?

Sorry but Witcher 3 is TERRIBLE. How an you can compare a kiddy hack n slasher with NO immersion whatsoever with the masterpiece that is Fallout 4.

Answer me this

- How is the combat where enemies hit your sword EVERY TIME you block - a 'marster-piece of gaming'?

- The dodge/roll is too arcadey for a game of this type why is it in there?

- How stupid are the NPC's where they let you rob their house in front of them?

Well said.

Despite the minor faults and irks, It is easily my GOTY and probably many years to come as well and that is all that counts.

Its a shame it didn't get anything, I think it deserved the soundtrack award at least. Inon Zur's score is fantastic. Pillars should have won rpg of the year.

Grats to CDProjekt, I expected The Witcher to clean up, but I think we all did really. Its a shame Divinity: Original Sin wasn't in the running for rpg of the year with their Enhanced Edition, but they did get nominated last year so I can't be too bummed.

It may not make you go out and buy it,but there will be people who will be swayed to purchase it based on the extra recognition.It may not mean much to some of us,but that goty tag is something i'd be willing to bet most serious publishers and devs want associated with them.

It's not often i see a game i think deserves to win awards,actually win them.So i'm extremely happy a studio that puts everything into a game and appreciates their fans take it home.CDPR definitely deserve it.No question.

Your second statement strikes me as a tad emotional and defensive though.

Fallout 4 is the first game I've bought in the last 2 years where I didn't feel like I totally wasted my money. So Bethesda can feel good about that. As others here have said, GOTY for me.

As for Witcher 3, haven't played it so I have no opinion on it. Had friends talk me into getting Dragon Age Origins a few years back and did not like it one bit.

it did get a 90....i sure as hell wouldn't pay attention to the "metacritics user rating, thats been spammed by people who just hate bethesda games [mainly cause they own the fallout franchise] and they don't even have the game, they rate from like a 0 to a 2 ? ROFL....yeah thats like 100 people spamming the metacritic site with 0's and 1s arbitrarily, the game is very good and most people are enjoying it,, i don't expect deep stories from bethesda, i expect maps with a lot of enemies, places to explore and battle it out and a lot of good humor and fun, they delivered, don't ever expect them to get into deep story writing and ditch the exploration and combat aspect of their games, resources can't go everywhere, like pete hines said, they can do anything but not everything, so i'm ok with the anything part being exploration and combat.

Seeing the titles/studios they were up against against in the categories they competed in I'm not surprised they didn't win. The only category where I thought they might have won was GOTY and even there, for me, TW3 deserved that reward more.

Fo4 isn't a bad game, it does a lot of things quite well. I like exploring it, more than anything that has come out this year. If there was a "best sandbox" category it would have won, hands down.

I'm hoping Bethesda will look at TW3 (and even FNV) and understand that a greater narrative depth, more complex story telling and more fleshed out characters go a long way when it comes to making a good game a great one. Beth makes worlds you wan to explore and have improved massively in some aspects (shooting mechanics for example) but with some design choices they took too many steps back. Dialog system is a complete abomination, how can an RPG franchise like Fallout developed by the people that brought us Morrowind end up with a game where the dialog system is so shallow it feels more like a bland action game? Stop streamlining so many things, your audience is not stupid.

Hopefully this will light a fire under Bethesda's ass. They held the open world rpg crown for a long time, and now CDProjekt is showing that it isn't a monopoly anymore. Competition is always a good thing, and if it doesn't drive Bethesda to make a better rpg than Fallout 4, well it doesn't matter. Now there are alternatives.

I don't like having a fixed protagonist but the Witcher did it and actually has more choices, consequences and different, branching storylines.

Fallout 4 gave us 4 dialogue options (Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes), essential NPCs with the memory of a goldfish and pretty sub-standard writing at parts.

FO4 somehow manages to give you less freedom (dialogue and storywise) than a game like TW3, it's crazy.

I like both games but TW3 deserved this. Fallout 4 could have been so much better.