How is this different from the very specifically written and voiced character we're forced to play in Fallout 4?

Critical success, yes, it got lower than they would have hoped for, and they are probably still beating themselves up over what they could have done to get New Vegas just a single point higher for that bonus to happen. Fallout 4 being at a 85 right now is right on that threshold, and I am sure for the DLC and TES VI they are looking closely at what reviewers said about their game to help improve on what people didn't like, because for their own development they haven't scored in the 80's since Morrowind. We'll probably be seeing a lot of fan feedback on these forums and elsewhere being put into the game, but as ive said many times before they don't look at hate, elitism, or hyperbole. They are looking at honest feedback based in humble opinion, and stating it in terms of "I don't like this" Instead of "They are stupid and dumbing down for inferior gamers" will get their attention instead of being glossed over as the white noise that every game generates.

Fallout 4 is basically a Skyrim re-skin. Is it a fun game? Absolutely... It is a good game but certainly not in the same level as MGSV and The Witcher 3. And of those two, MGSV unfortunately seems unfinished, rushed, could be great but something happened between Kojima and Konami that made it turned out like it did, The Witcher 3 on the other hand its difficult to point a flaw in that game, its a true masterpiece, its a beautiful game, with beautiful story, beautiful music, it is polished and round, and it was the better game out of those 3 games even though i think MGSV gameplay is flawless, The Witcher 3 wins in so many other departments that it overshadows the stiff gameplay. Fallout 4 is not even in the same league of those two, in my opinion. Let's not be fan boys don't let the hype influence your opinion on a game, i'm playing Fallout 4 right now and enjoying it, but be honest and anolyze the facts, its a buggy, outdated engine, with weak story even though it is a rich world setting, bad dialogs, awkward gameplay, zero AI, and the controls the menus and UI feels like a console port.

Sadly this is what we have in Fallout 4 with the voiced parent protagonist. I hope they don't add voice to TES 6 so I can go back to headcanon without being constantly reminded of being someone I don't want to be.

Still way better than Geralt's 2 choice answers, both which are the same but worded slightly differently. The third choice is a question for more information.

My subjective opinion, but Fallout 4 is more of a RAGE 2 than an actual Fallout.

It prances about in a Fallout costume and spews Fallout terms, but that is about as close to Fallout as it comes.

I have to say it's definitely my favorite game of the decade. Then again I'm biased towards Fallout

The world design is amazing, and they did a great job with the characters this time. Like Maxson... holy crap what a great character.

The enemy AI is a vast improvement from from the previous Fallout games and I find myself in more situations where I have to figure out what weapons and tactics to use.

My only complaint is companion pathing. It's pretty bad at times. I was standing on the other side of a chain link fence from Piper - there was a huge opening just 2 feet to the left. I tried to get her to walk around it and she just said "Don't think I can get there". *sigh*

Overall they did a great job with this game.

Maybe be given more than a year to deliver the same sort of game Bethesda take years to make and still have the same amount of bugs? And maybe not get unfairly slogged for said bugs while conveniently ignoring Bethesda's same track record? Would have been a start. Anyway, my point from the first "nearly a failure" post I made was only addressing critical and financial success. If we were talking philosophically I'd say it succeeded far more than Fallout 3 or 4 at representing what the creators of Fallout intended Fallout RPGs to be.

"Way" better? Yeah. I think we must use that word differently. Either way, that doesn't really address the issue of playing what is essentially a pre-made character.

No way, not even close.

No custom cahracter creation which is the single best part of a BGS game.

Not true open world

Not a persistant world

No world clutter

No dev toolkit

80% of steam reviews are positive and that speaks volumes.

It didn't get a single GOTY award though, not one.

I'm willing to bet the majority of the gaming industry will agree that FO4 is the best this year and we will know come JAN when the GDC awards go down just what they think.

As for me? Yes, best game of all time, taking the title from Skyrim by a large margin. <---this is me sharing how I feel about the game, not doling out indeliable facts. So disagree if you wish but don't tell me my opinion is wrong.

I've just spent a great deal of time cleaning up this thread so it could continue. People calling other people trolls, people calling other people names, by passing the autocensor, inappropriate posts...you name it and then there are the ones quoting those bad posts to also delete and warnings to give.

Moderators are busy this soon after release and we do not have the time to babysit threads. This one gets to continue for now. But if you see something against the rules, report it at lease. If we find it by just wandering in we will just close it due to time constraints.

Also, please remember it is ok to like this game just as it's ok not to like the game but don't bully others with your opinion or treat them like a lesser because they have a differing opinion than your own. Keep it civil.

This is a really stupid question but what separates a open world action game like Shadow of Mordor or the InFamous series from a RPG with character already defined for us?

I have no interest in playing TW3 due to subject matter but much of any "success" also comes from a fanbase and sales. I've never seen any of my friends on social media mention TW3, which as silly as that might sound, does say something. People I never knew enjoyed Fallout were excited and showed it. I probably have 2 dozen close friends raving about it without having any issues. Call it casual gaming if you want but it is a hit and is in front of more eyes than TW3. I wish I cared about the subject matter to try TW3 but from what I've seen I know it would just be a waste of money. And as you mentioned, MGSV is actually unfinished. Money and time issues left it with no real ending and that will hurt the game, as I've seen a few people really left with more questions than answers.

I dont thank we can call this the best game of 2015 only because it really was only made for hardcoe gamers.

sure a lot of "phone-gamers" will buy and enjoy this game but to really understand the greatness of Fallout 4 you have to put 100 hours plus into it.

I for one love this fact and in my opinion this game is a 11/10 but compared to a game like Batman where anyone can get the full experience from it with just 20 hours or so.

Every single RPG with a story has a "pre-made" character for a protagonist, the difference is how much freedom you are given to role play that character. Besides not being able to choose from different voices, I am feeling much more in control of my character than I do with Geralt. But that's because Witcher 3 is more of a story driven action game with roleplaying elements.

Yeah, I just don't see it as being that much different in regards to the conversational element. And honestly I'd sort of rather be Geralt than the doofy dingbat who owns the voice of my Fallout 4 character.

They probably thought that with New Vegas being kinda similar to a expansion pack it could be completed in a lot less time, but whoever was in charge of that decision was wrong and sadly New Vegas really suffered from 16 months or so of development time. Even with the engine, a lot of the art assets, and all of the gameplay figured out it still was absolutely not enough time. I wish that New Vegas was in the incubator for way longer than it was, maybe releasing in 2012 after Skyrim. It probably would have been getting the high 90s like Bethesda's other games did at the time. You're right that people did slog New Vegas a lot for its bugs, when personally I didn't encounter any game breaking ones, and im sure other people didn't either. But thats just how PC gaming works, some people have completely flawless experiences where other people have their Skyrim just decide to delete major quest NPCs off the face of the world. I still can't figure out how that last one even works at all.

New Vegas also made almost as much as Fallout 3 did, selling a whole bundle of copies and making a giant pile of money for Obsidian and Bethesda. I don't think anyone involved considers New Vegas a failure at all, considering how much money it made both parties and how many fans absolutely loved it. 84 is still nothing to scoff at.

Fallout 4 is much worse in this regard. Whether it is a sarcastic, passive, or aggressive remark you will get about a sentence of unique dialogue before the character says whatever they were scripted to say. The Witcher is more like a tree where if you choose an option the response is unique for that one option you chose. I recall most side quests involving minor characters working like this (not the ones where Bob from village wants you to kill monster).

1. Sure is, which is why it's complete crap that Bethesda decided to use this as their metric for whether or not Obsidian deserved a bonus. Especially when your game is being slogged for the very thing the company holding the bonus over your head is legendary for. Sigh.
2. Isn't it though? That's kind of my point. In this age of dodgy journalism as an industry-wide epidemic, most popular games don't tend to fall far below the 80 mark.

And as far as attitudes revolving around the incident? For an industry where everybody has to plaster a smile on their face and say nice things about each other whether they mean it or not...MCA surely didn't hide his feelings from twitter.

Usually what is used as a measurement of success is agreed upon by both parties. It's never one sided. It's discussed, written by their lawyers and agreed to. You can never blame the outcome of a legal document on one or the others signers.

It's best not to talk about things we just don't know about and we don't know what who put into this agreement as we weren't party to it. All we know is what we've heard and I was taught to never believe anything you hear and only half of what you see.

While in 2010 AAA games may I have been higher ranked I am going to argue that most of them now fall into the 80s with some 70s and fewer 90s.

From metacritic:

PS4: 90s-2, 80s-9, 70s-7

Xbox One: 90s-3, 80s-10, 70s-5

PC: 90s-2, 80s-8, 70s-7

Edit: That is just from the most popular games list on the right side of the page if you are looking at a game. If you look at the entire list there is a hell of a lot more of 80s and 70s and lower.

I think you're reading too much into the bonus. Sure its really bad that they didn't get it, but this was agreed to long before the game was released, and Bethesda doesn't have control over what the reviewers thought. Its not like they decided to withhold the bonus out of some form of malice, that is absolutely not whats going on here. Personally I wish that I could go back in time and find some way to get the bonus to Obsidian, because then people might think that Bethesda's games might be even more worthwhile to make, and we could be seeing that open world renaissance ive been hoping to happen ever since I played Morrowind.

1. I'm sure they both agreed upon it! And I'm sure at the very least Obsidian were completely caught off guard by the hypocrisy of the reviewers who gave Bethesda a free pass on their buggy reputation. It's easier to slog the smaller company who's also very known for though, I guess.
2. Well I don't think we're hurting anybody by talking, but I get your meaning. That said I do tend to trust the artists more than the companies, especially when the artists delete their comments which seems to be a pretty good indication of true frustration at perceived iniquity.

Fair enough. I really don't pay as much attention these days.

Superbad and the first Transformers are in my top 5 favorite movies of all time for my own personal reasons. That doesn't mean I think they're the best movies of all time. That's sort of how I feel so far with Fo4. I love it. It's likely my favorite game now. At the very least, it's insanely fun, addicting, has great replay value, and has tons of content even if you don't replay it. That said, I do think that TW3 was the better experience for me. Some truly haunting and upsetting moments. I laughed. I got pissed. I almost cried (almost). I stood in awe of just how completely impressive it was visually and in its storytelling. It was, however, a journey that came to an end - not incredibly fast mind you but it's not gonna even come close to the amount of hours I'll spend with Fo4.

In the end, I'd argue that they were both amazing at different things and that how you value those things is completely subjective and personal.

best game this gen, its way better than witcher 3 and bloodboring

The OP never played a Fallout game before. That's fine and all, but don't act like most of your other bullet points wern't in the other games. I'm not sure why he's so impressed by "Map looks and feel like it was hit with a bomb adding to immersion" and "arts of the game you feel you really shouldn’t be there, consequences of alarming hostile NPC’s".

These types of things are in all open-world games, not really what makes Fallout special. I'm glad to see he enjoyed his first video game game though.