^^^ What this guy said

actually it does work, fallout 3 and 4 are great games and fallout 3 was a huge selling game, fallout 4 is also a huge success, so the formula of using the ES framework does work, fallout 4 puts most games to shame and bethesdas formula of open world exploration, combat, enemies works very well, i wouldn't expect them to change their winning formula, they do what they do best, it would be dumb and catastrophic for them to do anything other than what they do best already, game companies go bankrupt very easily and bethesda has been a hugely successful company, if they listened to people like you who think you know more about game developing then they do, they would be out of business.

The way my rating system actually works (since I don't really use the numeric system unless I have to) is looking at what the game is (the system it's on, its genre, its series, etc) and thinking of what my ideal version of that game would be (making considerations of course for limitations for when the game came out). It's not a concrete idea made before I start playing, but a flexible thing that gets structured and altered as I play the game and see how things go. Was that better or worse than I was expecting? Did it still bother me after playing longer and getting more context? Are the things that fit my "ideal" version actually reasonable for the type of game that I'm playing (e.g. Does my constant desire for a jetpack actually make sense in the context of this game)?

One thing that means is that my rankings are never really equal. Two games getting 7s doesn't mean that I like them the same amount, so ratings like that are kind of hard.

With that in mind:

Fallout 3: 5

New Vegas: 9

Skyrim: 8.25

This was off the top of my head, so there might be a few things I'm missing (both positive and negative) for the various games.

I don't like the numeric system either. Like I said, Mario Kart might "get" a 10/10 from me while Skyrim got an 8.25, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Mario Kart is a better game overall in my opinion. It just means that it hits everything I could want from a Mario Kart game (including staying power as a game), while Skyrim didn't. So I prefer general recommendations over trying to assign a numeric score. Especially because it's mostly just asking for people to try and discredit your opinion by going "You gave X a 7 but Y a 9!?" Not that they don't do that with general recommendations.

Yeah I agree with yours as well, I don't see the replay value. I've considered making a "no" character who ignores preston garvey entirely and says no to people just to see how far you can get(but I got a feeling that in order to progress the game you will HAVE to say yes), but I'm not sure it is worth it.

Bethesda 10/10 marketing and hype. They do know how to sell a game, doesn't mean it a 10/10 game though.

I agree with that, I'd add Harold to a list of disappointments in FO 3, more so now that FO 4 had no continuation of lore, making his presence and state of being in FO 3 even more worthless.

Made you buy it though, mission complete

10

Not the best game I ever played, but definitely in my Top 10.

Positives:

Much improved combat

Better graphics

Like the new ghoul behavior (referred to as zombies in F3/NV, and now they act like it)

Nice to have 2 companions with vastly different accents

Negatives / Needs improving:

1. Settlement system is an interesting addition to the game, but it feels VERY under-developed / player-engaging, and incredibly bloated (in terms of the sheer number of sites the game gives you, and the endless radiant quests from the MM concerning them). Imo sanctuary / castle, and maybe 4-6 other sites should be all the player is given to manage, and certainly stop giving us endless quests to go and assist the sites, especially after we've made the rank of general and the MM are obviously rebuilt enough that the lower-ranks can take care of the day-to-day settlement defense. Wouldnt mind a -major- event here and there that requires the player's attention, but pls no more endless "they kidnapped my child" / "raiders/ghouls are attacking us, oh noes!" crap.

2. Cant craft your own ammo. Really? We can slap together gun mods of all kinds, turrets, ect..but we dont know how to make a bullet? >.>

3. Armor/weapon making system feels a bit under-powered once you get into higher levels. In NV. weapon damage was generally boiled down to your skill points in weapon class, + the base damage of the weapon/mod in particular. Which means that once you got high enough level, you were doing damage like the badass of the mojave that you were. In F4, even with the appropriate gun-nut / armor smithing / science perks maxed, and super-high int, it seemed like you were barely out-gunning your opponents.

4. Companions still feel lack-luster, no real attachment to them. To be fair, NV and F3's companions were basically the same. Eye candy or pack mules at best (or a perk / achiv to be unlocked) or at worst, to quote a fave yt game reviewer, "baggage holding baggage". Yeh their voice-work is great in F4 (especially curie's and kait's accents) but i still felt detached from them. Part of this is due to the lackluster dialogue for the whole game in general, and the lack-luster story-telling for the game as well.

5. No open way to play your character. like you could in nv. Maybe i didnt want to help the minute men when i first enounter them? Why couldnt i have slaughtered the group, joined the raiders, and rise up the ranks of evil badass'ery to rule the commonwealth with a bloody and iron fist? We had 4 possible endings in NV, depending on which faction you joined/supported, no such closure here. Just finished blowing up the institute, and i get treated to a brief cinematic about my character, and thats it. No saying what the now free synths did w/ their new lives. Did my freeing them work out (more or less) as the railroad intended? Did they turn out to be the terror's that the institute thought they'd be w/o control? A bit of both?

And as an add-on to this, why cant we, for once, get a multi-factional game that lets the player UNITE everybody for once? Your character had the ear/confidence of EVERY major faction's leader..with high/max charisma, why couldnt we have convinced the institute to stop treating their synths like mere machines, the rail-road to start co-operating w/ the institute for the mutual benefit of EVERYbody, the brotherhood to stop acting like elitist jerks who look down on everybody who isnt in a suit of power-armor, and the minutemen handle the day-to-day job of protecting just about everybody else, or acting like the "regular" police/army forces for the commonwealth while it rebuilds.

6. Still no truly interesting under-water levels or area's to explore. You gave us a water-breathing perk, why not put it to some good use?

7. No karma system/ faction rep. Would have been interesting way to open up new quests, npc's, sites, or even a cple "hidden" / rare companions once you got in good with BoS/RR/Insti/MM. If you're the ace that these factions are resting all their plans/goals on, surely they'd have stuff/people/intel on undiscovered sites they'd share with JUST you and nobody else..

So in all all, w/o knowing what the DLC's are going to bring/fix/adjust, i'm giving vanilla F4 a 6/10 rating. A cple steps ahead when compared to nv, but def. more then a cple steps backwards.

Seems another solid 9 for me. I don't think I can ever rate anything a 10 in my life, there's always something I would have done differently if I was in charge of the design team, although there's a fair bit more for Fallout 4 than there usually is.

I do have to laugh at all the people who knew that they were going to hate Fallout 4, but still bought it anyway proving that Bethesda does not have to work at all to get their dollar. Buying a product time and time again despite having some sort of weird problem with it existing sends a very clear message.

The beauty of having a roommate is that sometimes, you can try a toy out before you spend money on it yourself.

He's happy with it though, so it works for both of us.

Gave it an 8. I think it is a great game, love the story and characters etc. The only thing dragging the score down for me are some bugs (MacCready's perk etc) and the fact it is pretty sluggish and not optimised on PS4 at least....hopefully they will patch the bugs out and optimise it a bit more for stable frame rates. Then I would give it a 9, lol.

That works too. Just find it weird when people knew exactly what Fallout 4 is and still bought it with the full expectation of not liking it. Seems like they scammed themselves.

Ive got some weirdo performance issues on PC that I am continually trying to tweak. Its not been the stablest launch for me personally, I think Skyrim was the best, but the great thing about computer hardware is that you can have two separate systems that bug out in completely different ways and you're just going to have to deal with that stuff.

I think Bethesda wanting a equal experience across all 3 platforms is kind of a tall order, and I think they know it. Back in the Morrowind days the Xbox version was severely gimped in many ways, both feature wise and in how well it worked. Having to push out a patch that fixes things on 2 different systems alongside the wild wasteland of PC's in the exact same way sounds like the exact kind of nightmare that assured me that I never want to work heavily with computers.

I voted 10....... cos I couldn't vote for 9.8 or 9.9

Nothing deserves a 10 in reality..... but 9.9, I can vote for that !

Yes, a masterpiece of game-play..... so far.

If not for the bugs and lack of information when building settlements, and vague descpritions like 'better, superior, high, very high chance' the game would get a 10. Oh yeah and I count the addiction as a bad thing, cmon Bethesda, I had a life...

But as it stand now, it gets an 8 from me. I've allready added some mods so now it feels like a 9. With the patches coming out and DLC's I think it will come close to 10. Hope the patches are what the community expects.

Like I said before, Fallout 4 may not be a good Fallout game because it is simply better than the games that came before it. The same way that humans are not very good apes, we evolved into something better.

You seem to think that 'your' kind of rpg is the only kind of rpg out there, and in that case you are wrong. There are many kinds of rpgs out there in the vast world of gaming.

You say it's better, others say it isn't. What makes you more right exactly?

The average is 7.6 so far. Sounds pretty real, actually.

5/10

Mainly because the two major core features - settlements and Minutemen missions - are so poorly implemented and riddled with bugs. It feels as if this game was never alpha/beta tested by an independent control group.

Don't get me wrong - the other myriad of small bugs are not that much of an issue, given the overall complexity of the game. I just feel that the above-mentioned two core features should at least have been properly quality controlled and tested before release.

I am right that my opinion is that Fallout 4 is the best Fallout game. I'm not sure how I could be wrong about what my own opinion is...

This is a topic about rating Fallout 4, is it not?

I always find it weird how games are rated in the games press compared to other pieces of media.

Go on metacritic and you'll find that nearly every game falls within a 60-90something range. Ive yet to see a clean 100, but there's a very clear hierarchy for releases. The 90's scoring games are good experiences for nearly everyone, highly recommended, the 80's scoring are high quality but contain elements that may drag down the experience for some and not for others. The 70's are the truly average games, a lot of them being smaller scale games that don't have the giant force of budget to make as many things happen, and the 60's is where the usual bottom goes to die.

Anything below that and you get into being so horrendously broken on release that it'd probably be disowned by the developers if they could. A lot of those happening these days, but not nearly as often that it stops being a event when it does. X-Rebirth is probably the title the freshest in my mind that was just a flop from every angle.

Fallout 4 joins Morrowind and New Vegas in getting in the 80's. A very high quality experience that may not be for everyone, for varying reasons. Makes me wonder how Bethesda reacted to it, and what their plans going forward would be. Ever since Oblivion they've scored in the 90's, and while this isnt a fall from grace at all its at least shaking something up.

I gave them a 7.


I really hate doing that as I am a huge fallout fan.

When I booted up the game the first time, o was stunned and excited and enthralled.

I do love the game and the new concepts.


At the same time, I've come to dislike some of the new concepts. They feel unfinished and lacking.


Don't care much for the MQ but that is subjective; opinion based.


The constant kidnappings and little niggling quests that come back to back from Preston are just annoying. I get it, they build XP and garner loot.

Settlement building is great fun and I love that they've implemented this but please, can we fix it? It's so clunky and aggravating.


All in all I love the game and will probably buy a copy for PC as well as the first I bought for Xbox.

Just hoping there will be some polishing and finessing coming.

but that is just ur opinion bc what make Fallout 4 a good or bad Fallout game or what make any Fallout game a Fallout game is subjective.

Tactics is a Fallout game, and isnt a RPG game.

On the other hand, like it or no a game is a success base on the number of copies that sell for that netter fallout 4 is actually a success. I know most ppl think that sell numbers dont meter but for Triple A game is all that meter, that why we keep getting CoD or AC game each year bc they sell well.

Opinion is the whole point. The small anti-Bethesda crowd here is persistent though and keeps trying to ram their opinion that Fallout 4 isn't a real Fallout and/or an RPG down everyone's throats, so they end up getting responses like TeamBacon's.

Vote results so far may be a bit off, it's early days.

Once players come to find the depth of play, it's polish, and different ways of play...........

I agree with this. The dialogue really holds it back imo. While not a complete disaster, being locked into an eventual conversation outcome really hinders the experience of conversing with npcs. For some that is a disaster, not for me. Tolerable is what it is, but it could have been a whole lot better.


I like the voice acting but only one voice per gender again is holding it back. Should have had at least 4-5 options on voices.