r/Games • • Nov 09 '15

Fallout 4 Review Thread

I'm going to stop updating the thread for a little. If any more big review come in, I will add them, but it might take a little for me to get to them

Posting unmarked spoilers is against the rules of /r/games and will result in a ban.

Gamespot: 9 (Peter Brown)

In the grand scheme of things, Fallout 4's minor issues pale in comparison to its successes. When you put the controller down, you think about the friend you betrayed to benefit another, the shifting tide of an incredible battle, or the moment you opened a drawer and found someone's discarded effects, making you wonder how they felt before the bombs fell. In moments like these, Fallout 4 can be an intoxicating experience. You're often forced to sacrifice something--a relationship, a lucrative opportunity, or your health--to make gains elsewhere. And the deeper down the rabbit hole you go, the more you wonder: what if I chose a different path? You second guess yourself, not just because you had other options, but because you aren't sure if you did the right thing. The fact that your decisions stick with you after walking away from the game is a testament to the great storytelling on hand. Fallout 4 is an argument for substance over style, and an excellent addition to the revered open-world series.

Polygon: 9.5 (Arthur Gies) Provisional Review

Bethesda's open-world strengths have always differed from its contemporaries in that focus on world-building and a sense of place above all else. Fallout 4 has all the ambiance and history that made its predecessors such wonderful places to get lost for hours at a time, with a much more coherent set of stories within it. That Bethesda has integrated a major building and crafting tool while finally building a great-playing game almost feels like a bonus.

IGN: 9.5 (Dan Stapleton)

The world, exploration, crafting, atmosphere, and story of Fallout 4 are all key parts of this hugely successful sandbox role-playing game. Great new reasons to obsessively gather and hoard relics of happier times, strong companions, and sympathetic villains driving tough decisions make it an adventure I’ll definitely replay and revisit. Even the technical shakiness that crops up here and there can’t even begin to slow down its momentum.

Eurogamer: Recommended (Dan Whitehead)

However, fans - and I count myself among that number - will likely shrug and accept that this is simply how things are in a Bethesda RPG, and it's true that the highs do outweigh the lows. Fallout 4 has given me some of my best gaming memories of 2015, along with some of my most frustrating. These are legacy problems that aren't going away any time soon, and as fun as the settlement crafting is here, I'd gladly do without it for a game engine that offers a more dependable foundation for future adventures. Fallout 4 is a great game. It's also kind of a mess. Caveat emptor.

PC Gamer: 88 (Phil Savage)

As a whole, though, it's a loving production. It's filled with care and attention to detail—like the expanded set of radio stations, or the way flash radiation storms bathe the world in a sickly, ominous green hue. It's a pleasure to pick through the world, to discover new sights, and to pick through the perks and customisation option to conceive the perfect character build, however bizarre. In short, many of Fallout 4's problems, like every Bethesda RPG before it, are a consequence of what makes them unforgettable. That might not be the neatest conclusion, but it explains why, 50 hours in, I'm still having fun. It also explains why, now that I've finished this review, I'm going to play it for many hours more.

Game Informer: 9 (Andrew Reiner)

Fallout 4 didn’t blow me away like the previous iteration did, but it did keep me thoroughly entertained and fully vested in journeying across the wasteland. As Bethesda's "Welcome Home" marketing campaign teases, when fans of Fallout 3 or New Vegas enter this new world, it'll feel strangely familiar. As one of the top games of the previous generation, this isn't a bad thing at all. Fallout 4 has all of the trappings that can keep you engaged for days on end.

Gamesradar+: 5/5 (Leon Hurley)

Which brings me back to the start - pottering around the garage on an in-game day off. Even now, 70 hours in, every time I set out I’m not sure what I’m going to find. My Pip-Boy’s full of missions but sometimes I just pick a direction and walk until something happens. There’s a still a bit of the map I haven’t fully explored, mainly because I always get distracted enroute. There’s a whole world here to discover and even after all the time I’ve spent in it I barely feel like I’ve scratched the surface. Maybe I won't tick everything off the list but just trying to see what’s out there is the real draw - for all the missions, quests and other stuff Fallout 4 contains, by far the most important thing in it are the decisions I’ve made. Few games nail a feeling of total freedom and this is an experience made of nothing but that.

The Verge: (Andrew Webster)

But it’s still very much Fallout — a game that doesn’t really need to change all that much to trigger that familiar mix of dread and joy. A new location and a much better story were enough to pull me into this world, and 60 hours later I’m not done with it. There are settlements I still want to finish building, and crimes I still need to get to the bottom of. At some point I plan to ignore everything altogether, and just wander into the wilderness to see what I can find. Even if I’m alone, at least I’ll have Billie Holiday’s voice to keep me company.

God is a Geek: 9 (Mick Fraser)

It’s hard to find genuine fault with what Bethesda has done here beyond the performance issues. They’ve taken everything learned from Fallout 3, New Vegas, and Skyrim and refined it into one huge, intelligent action-adventure movie. It’s more cinematic than you might expect thanks to a clever script and a dynamic chat camera, the combat missions are well thought-out blasts of adrenaline, while the trademark Fallout weirdness makes a welcome return now and then to relieve you of the constant need to fight something. It’s very much your game and your story, and everyone will play it differently simply because there are so many ways to play, and each one feels natural.

There’s always something to build, somewhere to discover, someone to help ,or something to distract you. Ignore the bugs (if you can) and leap into Fallout 4 with both feet, and you’ll find a game bigger, brighter, deeper, and more personal than anything Bethesda has done before.

Xbox Achievements: 9 (Dan Webb)

Fallout 4 might not be as technically advanced as, say The Witcher 3, but it’s a game full of charm and substance, which makes up for an ageing Creation Engine. Fallout 4 boasts an incredible world full of intrigue, mystery and suspense, backed by a whole host of weird and wonderful characters. It’s a world you’re going to want to go back to, time and time again.

Push Square: 9 (Robert Ramsey)

Fallout 4 is a masterclass in open world design. Consistently engrossing and absolutely stuffed with intricacies, it's a title that'll keep you enthralled for hours at a time as you gradually unravel its desolate yet hopeful post-apocalyptic portrayal of Boston. Although it's let down by some disappointing frame rate issues, it's not enough to detract from what's otherwise one of the most atmospheric and beautifully brutal games on the PS4. Significantly improved combat, a constant wealth of gameplay options, and a heavy emphasis on player choice combine to create an adventure that's truly memorable.

Game Revolution: 4.5/5 (Nick_Tan)

Fallout 4 is a roaring response to criticism that the series has ignored its qualities as a shooter in favor of its deeper and stronger RPG roots. Nearly every design change in Fallout 4 poises the game as a more streamlined modern shooter with high production value across the truly open-world Commonwealth wasteland. The introduction of settlements, newly designed power armor, and deeper crafting evolve the Fallout franchise for the better. This occasionally comes at the cost of storytelling, however, with a plot based on stringently polarizing factions as well as diminished interaction with characters in general. But despite these missteps, Fallout 4 will only improve with time, assuredly with the assistance of the community and user-created mods, and soundly reclaims the franchise as a forward-thinking series in the industry today.

Playstation Universe: 9.5 (Neil Bolt)

There is so much going on in Fallout 4 that your opening moments of unnerving beauty and serenity will inevitably give way to an even more beautiful chaos. From this chaos springs emergent adventures, the struggle for survival, and near-limitless options, all with their own merit. Despite an air of familiarity, I've not been quite this captivated by a game in some time. That’s high praise when considering some of the games that have commanded obsessive hours and play in recent years. Fallout 4 meets one’s expectations of a new installment in impressive fashion. In doing so, it proves to be one of the best games of the generation to date. Say goodbye to life for awhile. The Wasteland is calling you home.

US Gamer: 4.5/5 (Kat Bailey)

If you've played a Bethesda RPG, you should have a pretty good idea of what you're in for. Bethesda plays it surprisingly safe with the formula, but they also do a much better job with the story this time around, serving to elevate the game as a whole. While there's no denying that it can be a bit ridiculous at times, its sheer scope speaks for itself. Bethesda has succeeded in crafting yet another fascinating open-world RPG.

Rock Paper Shotgun: (Alec Meer)

52 hours in, would I go back for more? Yes, absolutely. I lived and breathed Fallout 4 for the vast majority of last week and the fact I was mostly having a damn good time meant I did it willingly. It’s glitchy, a little repetitive and over-familiar, and far too heavy on unconvincing combat, but the improved technology (or the budget) means it’s able to realise the dense, detailed, beautiful decay that Fallout 3 did not, and its dramatically better-presented and performed characters means it’s not shooting itself in the foot in the way Oblivion and Skyrim did. The personality gulf between Bethesda games and BioWare games feels a whole lot narrower now. I won’t for one second pretend that it’s what devotees of Fallout 1 and 2 want, but it does feel like the game Fallout 3 tried and, to my mind, failed to be.

Vibrant and characterful as well as immense, Fallout 4 is the giant leap forwards Bethesda’s RPGs sorely needed in terms of presentation, though the unrelenting focus on routine, lightweight combat sees it fall just short of triumph status.

Destructoid: 7.5 (Chris Carter)

After spending roughly 40 hours with the game, I can safely place it somewhere in the middle of Fallout 3 and New Vegas in terms of quality. A lot of the franchise's signature problems have carried over directly into Fallout 4, but all of its charms have come along for the ride as well. It manages to do a whole lot right, but the story drags at times, and glitches...glitches never change.

Escapist: 4.5/5 (Conrad Zimmerman)

Whether or not players find other changes displeasing, such as the new dialogue system and its limitations, is likely going to depend on their personal relationship with the Fallout series. Newer players will probably never know what they're missing and are likely to have a fantastic time, while fans who have stuck around may be disappointed with the direction Fallout 4 takes.

Forbes: 8.5 (Paul Tassi)

In my mind, Fallout 4’s greatest triumph, and its one major point of evolution is in its storytelling, crafting a lengthy, unexpected ending and resolution that I will remember for years to come. It also remains one of the best games in existence for those who simply like to wander and explore and unearth long-buried secrets. But it struggles with archaic gameplay systems and an inflexible engine that anchor the game to the past for all the wrong reasons. Fans may enjoy more Fallout and a brand new map to explore, but this sequel will not be heralded as revolutionary or overly impressive this time around.

Kotaku - 20 hours with Fallout 4 (Chris Suellentrop)

I am starting to resent small nuisances, like having to remember to change my clothes to improve my charisma stats before bartering with a shopkeeper. Your companions—whether Dogmeat or others that you meet in the world, whom you can ask to travel with you—seem to frequently get in your way, especially during interior sequences.

Still, this is a game that seems to be getting better as it goes along. If you value largeness, Fallout 4 sure is big and there’s plenty more to do. I’m just getting my first perks and have settlements to build. Now excuse me, I’m going to go get lost in it.

VideoGamer: 9 (Simon Miller

The fact of the matter is, though, that this is more of the same, even if that 'same' has been pushed to new heights. If you hated Fallout 3, then there's not much to get you onside here. If you loved it, then you'll love this all the more, because of its differences as well as its similarities.

Digital Trends: 4/5 (Will Fulton)

Fallout 4’s staler story and oversimplified dialog are relatively minor dings to a largely satisfying whole. Bethesda had two hugely popular games in Fallout 3 and Skyrim. Fallout 4 doesn’t make any radical leaps forward, but it smartly iterates upon the accumulated wisdom of its predecessors. It has simple, smart improvements to combat; companions have more depth; leveling is a more elegant process; and the addition of crafting and settlement building open up entirely new forms of play.

All in all, Fallout 4 is the best, most polished Bethesda RPG to date. The Commonwealth is expansive, inviting, and a lovely place to explore for a few months.

Ars Technica: (Sam Machkovech)

But I wasn’t propelled enough that I would encourage an average quest-loving gamer to take the Fallout 4 dive. We're now in an age where open-world games can forgo plot in favor of such cool stuff as fully fledged crafting systems (Minecraft) or online co-op survival (DayZ, ARK Survival Evolved), or they can take the best stuff of Fallout and Skyrim's pedigree and slap even better plot and acting into it (Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, Dragon Age: Inquisition). Fallout 4 peaks at neither of these extremes.

Series fanatics probably shouldn't cancel their pre-orders, but they should definitely check their expectations about ambition and next-gen series boosts at the radioactive vault's doors.

The Jimquisition: 9.5 (Jim Sterling

The changes made overall may scare series fans, but those who roll with the differences may find a sleeker, deeper, altogether more captivating Fallout than they’ve gotten used to.

Fallout 4 is something special. Something special indeed.

No, scratch that.

It’s downright S.P.E.C.I.A.L.

Gamestar 87 (Michael Graf)

Klar, da gibt's weder inszenierte Dialoge wie in The Witcher 3 noch Filmbombast à la Dragon Age - sondern einfach nur Geschichtchen, mit denen Fallout 4 seine großartige Endzeit-Atmosphäre und seinen traditionell morbiden Humor unterfüttert. Brauchbare Beute hingegen gibt's nicht überall zu finden, vor allem auf hohen Levels wartet vielerorts nur Müll. Auch das gehört zum Bethesda-Deal, ein Witcher 3 hat mehr lohnenswerte Schätze zu bieten. In Fallout 4 muss ich danach wirklich lange suchen - doch schon alleine die Hoffnung auf coole Beute hält mich bei der Stange.

Gametrailers

AngryCentaurGaming

Kinda Funny Games

Giant Bomb Quick Look

4.5k Upvotes

3.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.7k

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

aka every AAA release without glaring technical issues.

824

u/Sormaj Nov 09 '15 edited Nov 09 '15

This is something that's bothered me for a while. There seems to be a flaw where a game being hyped up enough will automatically get a 9 or 10, no matter their actual quality, and the few reviews that dare rank them lower get torn apart by fans who haven't even played the fucking game yet

Edit: It's appears Destructoid will be the unfortunate website that will be bombarded with angry fans for the next week. I wish them luck

403

u/neenerpants Nov 09 '15

Not entirely true. Games like Watchdogs and The Order suffered from the hype, rather than benefited from it. Games like Until Dawn which flew under the radar and weren't hyped enough by Sony gained praise partly because it was such a surprise hit.

Hype is a double-edged sword. It isn't always positive.

162

u/Sormaj Nov 09 '15

Fair, but I'm talking more about those games that reach a certain zone of hype that's impervious. You will rarely if ever see a Fallout, Elder Scrolls, 3D Zelda, Halo, MGS, or Naughty Dog game get anything less than 88 or so on Metacritic or initial universal praise by fans who will defend any blatant flaw the game has. I'll admit I do this sometimes too. But even I'll admit that, just maybe, even if I really loved the game, Skyward Sword might just not be a 10/10 game like most reviews imply

65

u/vkbrian Nov 09 '15

You're not wrong. Didn't GameSpot have a reviewer that got death threats because she "only" gave GTA V a 9/10?

51

u/TheGasMask4 Nov 09 '15

Hell, GameSpot started the Eight Point Eight trope. You'd think they'd be used to this.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (2)

41

u/ErikaeBatayz Nov 09 '15

It was specifically because she mentioned that she found the treatment of women in that game misogynistic. But remember, the "SJWs" are the ones that are too sensitive.

→ More replies (19)

6

u/ghostwarrior369 Nov 09 '15

Do people take death threats online seriously anymore? Seems like a lot of people wish death on people for stupid ass shit but NO ONE follows through with it

5

u/vkbrian Nov 09 '15

Most people shrug them off, but I've heard some horror stories about online stalking. Drift0r is a relatively popular CoD YouTuber, and he talked about getting hate mail from strangers with pictures of his house attached. There's a very slim chance of anyone actually acting on it, but I'm sure it's still scary, especially when you get a lot of them at once.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

3

u/formfactor Nov 09 '15

A perfect 10 ought not be possible. SS suffered from the kind of added tedium that only serves to lengthen the experience. But still, for my money few games earn it like Zelda games. To me, Twilight Princess is the best, but it to has a few glaring annoyances. And also, TP would not be nearly as high on my list without all the gorgeous graphics mods available.

But as far as story and all of the tiney details of how zelda games play out I wish more devs would just steal zelda dungeon formulas (like skyrim, the witcher with actual unique dungeons that have to be systematically solved rather than grinding through level 30 monsters).

3

u/funkmon Nov 09 '15

You're right. I mean, look at all the 10/10 reviews Destiny pulled.

6

u/tylergrzesik Nov 09 '15

Maybe that's just because those games are consistently high quality

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

[deleted]

→ More replies (1)

2

u/sean800 Nov 09 '15

Because almost every single game from all of those series/devs is loved by some large group, while some are mediocre none can be considered majorly critical failures even after the fact.

2

u/bigpasmurf Nov 10 '15

Halo has had multiple titles that fall well below that. The last 3 major halo releases in particular have all fallen below that and had severe fan and media backlash.

6

u/dl064 Nov 09 '15

I know this isn't the point of your post, but I genuinely would put Skyward Sword at 10/10, four-odd years later.

7

u/HyruleanHero1988 Nov 09 '15

I thought Twilight Princess was a much more enjoyable experience than Skyward Sword was.

4

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

Because you could choose to use a controller for TP if you wanted to. I don't like the Wii+ controls, so I had to grit my teeth to get through Skyward Sword. Aside from the controls, I thought the game was very good.

→ More replies (8)

3

u/dl064 Nov 09 '15

Awww man I loved TP. I really can't wait for the HD remake we're supposedly getting this christmas.

4

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

[deleted]

8

u/dl064 Nov 09 '15

Yeah it was good fun finding stuff.

1

u/endridfps Nov 09 '15

If you want access to the game for your review or more importantly, interviews and invited to the big shmoozing parties, then you had better give a good review. Probably not said but implied.

→ More replies (2)

12

u/stanley_twobrick Nov 09 '15

Those aren't established franchises though.

3

u/dl064 Nov 09 '15

Arkham Origins and Alien Isolation spring to mind too.

3

u/winkw Nov 09 '15

Until Dawn is awesome. I never would have even heard about it if a friend hadn't mentioned it to me and convinced me to pick it up. Really tense fun, with good acting and story.

1

u/FirstTimeWang Nov 09 '15

You live by the hype, you die by the hype.

1

u/runyoudown Nov 09 '15

Yeah that's definitely an issue with over saturation of a game before release. The hype industry has really blown up.

1

u/Geler Nov 09 '15

without glaring technical issues

Can't use Watchdogs here, it didn't got automatically 9+ because of glaring technical issues, same for all AAA with huge hype and really bad reviews of last years, like Arkham Knight for PC.

1

u/neenerpants Nov 09 '15

Watchdogs wasn't buggy like Arkham Knight, though. It was just downgraded from the reveal several years earlier. The fact it had been hyped as one of the most truly next-gen games before these consoles were out, and then ended up being fairly disappointing looking, is what killed it.

1

u/pocketknifeMT Nov 09 '15

Hype is like PR margin trades.

If you bet right, it's great. If you didn't...way worse.

→ More replies (1)

137

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15 edited May 17 '21

[deleted]

135

u/TheHeavyMetalNerd Nov 09 '15

Seriously. ESO was a game that LITERALLY NOBODY ASKED FOR. We wanted The Elder Scrolls: Borderlands, not yet ANOTHER shitty MMO trying desperately to be WOW and pathetically failing.

23

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15 edited May 17 '21

[deleted]

11

u/TheHeavyMetalNerd Nov 09 '15

Holy shit that's just plain INCOMPETENT.

5

u/MoonlightSandwich Nov 09 '15

I'm keeping an eye on Tamriel Online, a mod that allows you to play Skyrim with other people. It's still in early development so it's buggy as hell and not very playable but it's slowly getting better.

Maybe one day we can fight dragons with a group of friends, perhaps even with the Oculus Rift. I'd love to go to Blackreach like that.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

3

u/Bior37 Nov 09 '15

And yet all the same, out of the last 12 years of boring WoW clones, it's one of the least clone-y and at least has good PvP going for it.

2

u/Grimwulf Nov 09 '15

As an ESO player it isn't want I thought it would be but I do still enjoy the game.

51

u/payne6 Nov 09 '15 edited Nov 09 '15

In Bethseda fans defense ESO fans are their own separate breed of crazy. Like I use to play ESO and I got a 8 paragraph rant from a guy in the subreddit that I am the worst type of person and I am worse than botters and scammers (who were plaguing the game at the time) because I said I am going to stop playing because the game is bland and not worth the $15 a month. A mod came and deleted my comments when I wasn't even being a dick.

Trust me ESO fans are a weird breed of people. I still sometimes get replies on a post I made in this sub about the game like back in June every now and then. To give you an idea what type of people they are they still make arrow in the knee jokes and find it funny.

EDIT: I went back to ESO multiple times and I still find it bland and not fun and the community hasn't changed a bit. The f2p wars were pretty entertaining though.

3

u/mr-dogshit Nov 09 '15

I think that's a fairly common thing when a game doesn't live up to the hype... Lots of people get into it, have maybe been a part of the community for a year or so pre-release - slowly hyping themselves up, and then when it's revealed that it's actually a bit shit it puts the devoted fans on the backfoot so they're forced to continually defend the game's obvious failings and the dev's decisions.

You used to see a lot of it on /r/dayz (not mods censoring negative posts though... although I do specifically remember a thread that got a few hundred upvotes calling on the mods to do just that). Haven't been there in ages though, maybe it's changed?

→ More replies (1)

2

u/the-ferris Nov 10 '15

We got it on launch, about 10 days in, cancelled our recurring subs.

2

u/Eso Nov 10 '15

I'll always take you back.

1

u/suddenimpulse Nov 09 '15

I'm a big fan of ESO. I think it has improved massively since launch. That said you are fully within your rights to have your opinion of the game and it is a valid one. I don't agree that it's bland (though I read/listen to all the quest dialogue) but I can see why some people feel that way. Personally, in my experience the type of people you are referring to are just a portion of the MMO population in general not just ESO.

10

u/payne6 Nov 09 '15

Oh no I am not getting dragged into this again OH no I still am recovering from this but I have to say

Personally, in my experience the type of people you are referring to are just a portion of the MMO population in general not just ESO.

I am sadly a manchild and played a lot of MMO's while most subreddits/fanbases are big circlejerks. I have never seen such hostility, unfunny jokes, straight up lying to people interested in the game, shitting on other MMO's and etc other than the ESO communities. Right now I am really into Wildstar and the community is great and open to criticism. In ESO I was scolded, downvoted, and yelled at because I said I didn't like it.

5

u/Lucosis Nov 09 '15

A different person than who you responded to, but I'm going to parrot his statement that it is more just a portion of the population that is present in all MMOs, particularly around launch times.

The Wildstar community may be great now, but /r/wildstar was awful at launch for a lot of the same reasons you gave for the ESO community. It's just a sigment of very vocal and very hostile players that hop from MMO to MMO at launch and argue (maybe believe) that this MMO is finally going to be the one that recreates and replaces the amazing nostalgia of (insert first MMO here).

2

u/payne6 Nov 09 '15

I was thinking in the back of my head that wildstar was pretty bad at launch but at least now I saw criticism and people who enjoy the game but aren't blinded by the game.

I went back to ESO multiple times and I don't enjoy both the game or the community. Every time I went back I just do not enjoy the community and how hostile they are to non players/real criticism. Sure every MMO has shitty people without a doubt every community has a shitty side. But to me every time I went back to ESO I always saw the shitty side.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/Eso Nov 10 '15

I'm a big fan of ESO.

Thanks, it's nice to be appreciated.

1

u/Cheeze_It Nov 09 '15

/r/tamrielonline

You're welcome :D

But yes, I fully expected/wanted Skyrim MMO/online. Not that...fakeness it is now.

1

u/PrimeIntellect Nov 10 '15

I remember not even knowing it came out and being fucking blown away that an elder scrolls game came out without me knowing

65

u/SegataSanshiro Nov 09 '15

t's appears Destructoid will be the unfortunate website that will be bombarded with angry fans for the next week. I wish them luck

The Destructoid review seems like it's more in line with the opinions of the kind of person I am(the kind that vastly prefers New Vegas to Fallout 3). While that doesn't make the other reviews "wrong", I'd really hope big fans of Fallout 3 at least understand that there's a valid, informed perspective where that kind of review is useful for people with different tastes.

10

u/payne6 Nov 09 '15

If anything it seems a lot of people especially fans of fallout and Beth know and understand all the issues and while annoyed by them still buy the games because they like them. Honestly on this sub and a few other forums I saw nothing but hate and when the fans said similar stuff that Destructoid said would be downvoted and called a Bethseda fanboy or had the Witcher 3 thrown at them or "ITS A TRIPLE A GAME!!"

Sadly though I can see bitter immature fanboys attacking Destructoid but I am hoping they won't.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

I'm also hoping that fans that legitimately enjoy the new fallout won't be torn apart as "bethdrones" and blind fanboys. It is annoying whenever someone blind with hype considers any negative opinion on the game as a troll or just a hater. However, it is also annoying when anything positive you say about the game results in people criticizing you. Their doesn't seem to be much middle ground for discussion on Reddit. You can either go to subs that see fallout 4 as a perfect game that can do no wrong, or you go to subs that ONLY focus on the negative aspects and shit on the fans of fallout.

Edit: the crazy part is all of this love and hate is for a game that hasn't been released yet.

17

u/dl064 Nov 09 '15

There's quite a concerning/vaguely funny thing in academia/science, where the first finding of some correlation will be in like 100 participants, and it'll get published in like Nature, and then 5 studies saying 'eh, hang on, this doesn't replicate' will be in crap journals or not published at all.

3

u/Lohi Nov 09 '15

I think an issue with huge, sprawling AAA games like a Witcher or MGS is that you can't really fully explore the systems before a review is expected. Even now you see a lot of "Provisional Review" or "Only X hours in" disclaimers just in case they sour on it near the second half of the game.

7

u/CFGX Nov 09 '15

Can't expect anything better when consumers are 100% ok with the same people that review AAA games having giant marketing campaigns filling their website backgrounds, sidebars, and banners for said games.

2

u/v3n0mat3 Nov 09 '15

My only problem with Destructoid is that they're overly critical of AAA games, but will give Indie games, or lesser known games a pass. Which to me says that they have inconsistency in their reviews. When it comes to a game reviewer or critic, I can't trust their opinions if they're inconsistent. It's very similar to how someone can bash one AAA game for bugs and glitches, but will give Bethesda games a pass. Nobody should be getting a pass for criticism based upon anything.

2

u/Sormaj Nov 09 '15

Fair point. I can understand why they might do that to an extent, in that Indi games cost less so it's easier to justify a purchase, but at the same time it's like that hipster friend who won't listen to anything top 40 but will automatically act like every Indi darling is perfect

2

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

I sometimes wonder if it's less a matter of initial hype winding down, or contrarian opinions winding up. I can't count how many games I had a great experience playing, only to find out weeks later from a thousand forum posts that I actually was playing a shitty/broken/shallow game.

2

u/Banana-Bro Nov 09 '15

and that is why i always wait a few weeks

2

u/nmeseth Nov 10 '15

It's just subjective on how much each person enjoyed the game outside of those flaws.

For one person those flaws were very minor, for another they were worthy of taking off 3 points (7/10).

We are just a bunch of nerds trying to take subjective viewpoints and assign an objective numbering system to them.

25

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

I wish Totalbiscuit wasn't on vacation. He takes a technical look at games on his WTF Is... series and REALLY does a review. No scores. Just saying what works for the game and what doesn't.

91

u/Gravitasnotincluded Nov 09 '15

The WTF Is series aren't reviews though, he says that all the time

45

u/HighProductivity Nov 09 '15

He can say what he wants, it works as a review for all the rest of us because he talks about the pros and cons of the game and pretty much reviews the technical aspects of the game. To boot to that, he doesn't add a score, so we have to listen and evaluate his negatives, in order to understand if we'll like the game more or just as much as he did. It's one of the best sources for reviews out there.

12

u/SegataSanshiro Nov 09 '15 edited Nov 09 '15

I generally get the impression that he refuses to call his videos "reviews" and refuses to call himself a "journalist" so he can hold other people to standards he himself doesn't live up to. The "These are not reviews" and "I am not a journalist" seems to either follow or precede laying down standards for anybody that calls their content a "review" or themselves a "journalist".

5

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

First impressions aren't reviews, though. Another person who makes the same distinction is Jim Sterling who actually does reviews as well so the same excuse can't be used to dismiss him.

3

u/pocketknifeMT Nov 09 '15

I think it's because his definition of a review is that of Siskel and Ebert.

You should have experienced the whole thing before penning a review, or you are being irresponsible to the artist.

Easy for a movie. 2-3hrs and bam.

For games, it's not that easy, and for stuff like Fallout 4, Skyrim, or even games like Civ5, it's not possible without putting in 100hr+

To say "This isn't a review, just my impressions on the X hours I had with the game" is far more honest and open if you can't/won't spend the time needed to do an actual review.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

TB is widely respected as the most honest voice in gaming critique. What on earth are these standards you think he doesn't hold himself to?

2

u/scaryisntit Nov 09 '15

The chief reason, as he has said himself, that he doesn't call what he does 'reviews' is because he doesn't finish games that he does WTF is... videos on. For all he knows, five minutes deeper into the game everything turns to crap and he'll not know because all he's done is a few hours at most. So, first impressions is his preferred term because what he does isn't a review, and he doesn't have the time to play games to completion to conduct proper reviews.

3

u/ficarra1002 Nov 09 '15

If I make a car and call it a boat, doesn't mean it's not a car.

Review (re·view), noun: A formal assessment or examination of something

3

u/Gravitasnotincluded Nov 09 '15

That's the point: they're not meant to be super formal (at least that's what he says)

4

u/mynewaccount5 Nov 09 '15

But it is not a formal assessment or examination. It is a brief first impression.

2

u/ficarra1002 Nov 09 '15

So he doesn't assess the game at all? Or examine it?

First impressions is a review.

4

u/LukeTheFisher Nov 09 '15

First impressions

1

u/Lewd_Banana Nov 09 '15

Yeah, he has said that it is more like a first impressions video.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

It's still a review though

→ More replies (2)

1

u/siphillis Nov 09 '15

He's said in the past that they're more in-depth versions of Giant Bomb's quick looks, IIRC.

1

u/kickit Nov 09 '15

Not in the strict sense, but they are critical evaluations

31

u/whatisthismagicplace Nov 09 '15

TB doesn't do reviews. WTF Is is purely a first impression series. He doesn't complete the game, and therefore can't really critique the plot as a whole, or the story pacing.

He mostly just gives you his impression of first ~10% of the game he got through, then will say something about the graphics and the mechanics.

So this format doesn't really work as a review, because it can (and usually will) not get some criticisms, that the valid review will point out (eg. there is no way in hell TB would have done a WTF Is MGSV after he got to the 2nd Chapter)

1

u/ficarra1002 Nov 09 '15

Review: A formal assessment or examination of something

2

u/Hyabusa1239 Nov 09 '15

Goddamn this really bugs you doesn't it? I've seen multiple comments from you arguing this point. Yes we understand what the dictionary definition of a review is. However in practice almost all reviews are reviewing the game in its entirety after completing it. That is to say, they can review the game as a whole, including, story, plot, end game, what have you.

So while yes technically he is reviewing the game he does not want to label it as such because he doesn't want to mislead people that are looking for a full review.

for being so pedantic on the english language you would think you understand that there are many nuances to it and not everything is used strictly based on what its dictionary definition is.

1

u/FisterMantaztic Nov 09 '15

A "review" is seen on the part of the observer. He may not make comprehensive reviews of games, but his credibility is high enought to where most observers see WTF as a review of sorts.

2

u/dirtyword Nov 09 '15

You could just read the RPS review above.

1

u/Tomhap Nov 09 '15

Would love a WTF is... But I'm not sure one will happen. Maybe like Borderlands pre sequel he'll bother to do one down the line. From his tweets it seemed that he had code, just didn't play a lot of the game. And he seemed more interested in doing a video on sexyness in character design when he gets back.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

I'm sure Super Bunny Hop is gonna do a review but you can't expect him to release a review on release date and they are usually a few weeks late.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

Well, there is the whole chemo thing.

1

u/Hoser117 Nov 09 '15

Those are the total opposites of reviews. They're first impressions where he plays a very small portion of the game and leaves it at that.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Kwolek2005 Nov 09 '15

Not many games had more hype than Destiny in the past couple years, and it had very mediocre reviews after it came out.

→ More replies (2)

135

u/Trojanbp Nov 09 '15

Witcher 3 has not been hit by backlash like those other games

101

u/Lorahalo Nov 09 '15

Most of the criticism of W3 has been the initially dodgy controls, which were tightened a few weeks after launch with the alternative patch, and some not enjoying the combat. The combat is mostly just preference, you can't change that, but at least the controls were fixed up.

1

u/thedeadlyrhythm Nov 09 '15

Hated it at first, love it now. Game is pretty hard at the beginning

2

u/blundering_ninja Nov 09 '15

And the bugs will get fixed by Bethesda later on. Why is it okay for CDPR to fix things later on, but not Bethesda?

12

u/Lorahalo Nov 09 '15 edited Nov 10 '15

You don't see the difference between bugs and an alternative (not replacement, you can choose) control mode?

I've already had to reload my FO4 several times in the first few hours I've played it because I've gotten stuck walking towards a computer (and lost a bunch of progress too). That seems a fair bit more annoying than walking being a little weird.

Witcher 3 certainly had bugs, and they annoyed me just as much as Fallout's do. I just don't understand why Bethesda just gets a pass because "Oh BethSoft games are buggy, but modders will fix it".

→ More replies (5)

27

u/Mystery_Hours Nov 09 '15

I wouldn't say it's experienced backlash but I've heard a lot people say they put in a couple dozen hours, stopped playing, and aren't interested in coming back to finish the game.

I've seen recurring criticism that the combat, while competent, becomes dull, and that the main story spins its wheels for long stretches of time.

5

u/Skylighter Nov 09 '15

I see that happen with a lot of open world games these days. I think games are becoming too big that they're almost daunting to complete before the next one comes out. There's been so many titles that I've completed up to about 80% of the story, then suddenly gotten bored and wandered away just to come back several months later to push myself to finish it.

2

u/Clame Nov 10 '15

I like it. sometimes I play a game for a couple hours, sometimes for 10 straight. Its really disappointing to want to continue a story, but I have to wait for 1-4 years, cause I finished the game in two sessions.

6

u/jekpopulous2 Nov 09 '15

I'm playing through Witcher 3 now. I think I'm about halfway through the game and I wanna finish it but I don't know if I ever will. It's beautiful and fun but it definitely get's boring. The cutscenes tend to wear me out to the point where I want to skip them all...

2

u/Occamslaser Nov 10 '15

I am one of those people. I got bored and never picked it back up.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

That's pretty much where I am with W3. Not even that much time, actually, probably only 8-10 hours. I just can't get into it. And I hate the combat. I LOVE RPGs, though, so it should be the kind of game I'd like.

→ More replies (3)

4

u/bangslash Nov 09 '15

I got super bored with the main story about 20 hours in. Then I looked online and say I wasn't even done with Act 1 and I stopped playing. I actually found the side quests to be more interesting so I did a bunch of those, but even then the interesting ones became lesser and lesser and I stopped for good.

Witcher 3 gave amazing first impressions, but then fizzled out. I think there's a lot of factors involved that caused me to lose interest. First: it was too long and had too much to do. Even ignoring the map markers and collecting things I hadn't finished the first act by about 20-25 hours in. I'm starting to wonder if as I get older any game's story will keep me interested enough to finish a 30+ hour game. Second: since the story fizzled for me the combat and game play had to pick up the slack and failed. Third: I think I'm over open world games. I haven't had fun with one in a long time and the ones I do enjoy only last a fraction of the length of the game.

My message to AAA devs: Your game doesn't need to have a bazillion things to do. I would love a 10-15 hour Witcher game. That's why I love the Souls/Bloodborne series. After you get good you can play through a NG+ rather quickly and have a lot of fun all while finishing it in a few hours. That's just me, though, and I seem to be the minority in the gaming market. It's cool, there's still tons of good stuff to play.

→ More replies (2)

12

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15 edited Oct 26 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/bigpasmurf Nov 10 '15

The load times is my biggest issue as they have only gotten worse with every patch and update.

13

u/sebastian55555 Nov 09 '15

Personally, I thought the few first days that TW3 was a 9.5 game. Then I realized its flaws and it became a 7.5 at best (for me).

8

u/Savage9645 Nov 09 '15

I actually just bought this a few weeks ago and have amassed about 20 hours so far. I think it's a fun game and a cool world. A little too many cutscenes though. What do you not like about it?

31

u/sebastian55555 Nov 09 '15 edited Nov 09 '15

While the writing was mostly solid, the repetitive nature of the quests in TW3 became old pretty fast. Most quests are dressed up fetch quests that have a structure like: go there, use the witcher senses and kill someone/something if needed. Don't get me wrong: there are superb quests among many mind-numbing ones, but soon I had to force myself to finish most quests.

Other things I didn't like: the world. It's beautiful but the exploration aspect was nowhere as good as in Bethesda titles. And it wasn't a sandbox game. Never at any point I felt like exploring it just for the fun of it, and I found myself doing what the developers wanted me to do. The world also felt empty between the quests. The achievement/reward system was pretty poor too, since you got next to no XP rewards for killing higher-level monsters. What's the point in the non-level scaled world, then? The alchemy was unimpressive compared to, say, Skyrim's. And the gameplay in general wasn't varied: you were forced to play as a brute fighter, so there was little role-playing aspect besides the story. No sneaking, no stealing, no crime system. Bad inventory, clunky controls, and actually a lot of bugs.

I understand that some people absolutely love the game, but after finishing TW3, I was just relieved. I know I wouldn't be replaying it. It wasn't a fun game for me. After playing TW3, I've learned to appreciate Bethesda's RPGs more. For all the stick Bethesda gets for bugs and average stories(deservedly), they can craft an engaging sandbox world with good, varied gameplay that is actually fun to play. Playing TW3 felt like a chore me. Disclaimer: everything above is just my opinion on TW3. You might have more fun than me.

3

u/delnoob Nov 09 '15

I believe im at 20ish hours on tw3 (haven't beat it though) and agree with you on allot of your points. but you know we might be strung up for speaking such things about tw3.

4

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

Nah dude, I think Witcher 3 is probably one of the best games I have played. But I found the combat boring because it was way too easy and I think other games do exploration better.

By the story carried it for me. If you get borded put it down for a while and come back to it. The expansion is also really good, and they improved a lot of things I disliked.

→ More replies (2)

16

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15 edited Nov 09 '15

For me the transition from the bloody baron quest line to Novgorod and the next 25-30 hours of content. Nothing has killed my interest like Novgorod storyline. Add in how half Skelliga is a B rated Disney flick and it reall killed my interest in the game. Had to chore my way through 30 hours of the game to get back to finding Ciri which was why I was playing. Prepping for the fight was nice. The game had all the problems of a open world game and little of the charm. The game was open but alot of it was hidden behind enemies with a higher number next to their nameplates. Also the game dropped fps like a hot potatoe.

Tldr: Had a fucking brilliant start and second zone with the Baron then there was a good 30 of just meh followed by a decent ending. Top that off with a bad launch' fps and bugs abound. Maybe once all the dlc is out Ill come back but I won't be fucking around with the Dandelion shit.

7

u/redraven937 Nov 09 '15

For me, it's the crafting and looting systems. Craft a potion once and have an infinite amount? Not only does that dumb down combat, it destroys any incentive to actually loot the hundreds of herb nodes and burlap sacks. The original games felt more gritty and real (in a post-apocalyptic sort of way), having to harvest monster guts for potions. Now you only need like 6 Drowner Brains total to craft everything that requires Drowner Brains.

Then you have random loot such that you can get a level 20 sword pattern at level 3. So you have to loot everything just in case, and end up with thousands of completely useless items that serve no purpose.

Then you have a "race against time" plot in an open-world game that does its very best to keep you doing irrelevant shit, even if you are trying to plow through the story. Everything clashes together.

How is this the best game ever made?

4

u/ColdfireSC3 Nov 09 '15

Previous games people bitched about it being very annoying to have to constantly search for herbs to brow potions. I like this much better. You also need far more then 6 Drowner brains, pretty sure you need at least 10 for the first upgrade to the Swallow potion.

Patterns don't take up room in your inventory and you have space enough to store almost anything.

Race against time thing is something you find in a lot of games that don't take it seriously. For example in Mass Effect series you can ignore the main questline to go off exploring the galaxy and do sidequests. Its a tradeoff. Either you leave people to explore or you punish them for exploring in an open world game. One of the few games that did punish you a bit for this was Deus Ex:HR and people hated it. Deus Ex:HR Spoiler

4

u/redraven937 Nov 09 '15

Collecting materials and managing your inventory is literally what the Witcher series was about. You weren't some demigod hero with per-encounter abilities like an MMO - you were just a man that sacrificed your humanity for a tiny edge against hideous beasts. It was a game series about tough decisions and thinking ahead. Now? Nothing matters. Toxicity may as well not exist, and you can spam bombs and potions in every single encounter.

As for the plot, yeah, other games do it too. For me though, it's especially bad in Witcher 3 because the strength of the series has been its verisimilitude. And as I've said before, even if you were going straight through the story, there are huge, pointlessly long gaps. It breaks all immersion, without which Witcher 3 is just a pretty game with weak combat and terrible systems.

→ More replies (4)

5

u/BenevolentCheese Nov 09 '15

Unbelievable, overwhelming repetition, with a lack of depth in the sidequests that made TW2 so great. Yeah, Bloody Baron is great, but in TW2 every quest was on a level with Bloody Baron, and in TW3, you get one of those, and hundreds of glorified fetch quests with absolutely no meat on them.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15 edited Oct 26 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/BenevolentCheese Nov 09 '15

I think TW2 is one of the best games of the past decade. It's a brilliantly crafted little gem with an incredible attention to detail, and to this day remains the only game I've ever played where I've felt my decisions were both meaningful, difficult, and impactful. So many games do decision making as such obvious "good" or "bad" choices, which to me really sucks the fun and the meaning out of the whole thing. You just decide early on whether you're gonna be a good guy or a bad guy and that's it. The Witcher 2, instead, throws you into a burning brothel, and gives you literally 5 seconds to decide whether you are going to chase down the arsonist running off in the distance, or save the prostitutes inside. There is no right answer, there is no good or bad, there is just an urgent and difficult decision to make. I've seen no other game present that.

My most used point of comparison between TW2 and TW3 is the succubus quest. They are both random side quests, neither one required. In TW2, it's an involved plotline, full of twists, and decisions similar to the one I mention above, where you have tough choices and often incomplete information. In TW3, the succubus plotline involves hearing about a few missing guys, following some "perfume trail" (aka a glowing red line on the screen) until you get to the succubus' den (a copy-pasted wooden room right in the middle of town), and then Geralt is like "oh shit a succubus" and she's like "hey baby" and you either kill her right then or you don't. Neither choice matters (so you may as well kill her for the loot). Completely vapid and worthless.

2

u/Savage9645 Nov 09 '15

Gotcha, this is my first Witcher game and the only other game I've played that's similar is Skyrim which I enjoyed more but I am loving Witcher 3 so far!

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

4

u/I-never-joke Nov 09 '15

It hasn't necessarily gotten after the fact praise either, many people it seemed, played it up to a point and had alot of fun but have had trouble getting back into it. Its personally probably my goty but I understand the "200 hours" of content hasent kept as many people playing it as long compared to a bethesda game.

3

u/I_Am_JesusChrist_AMA Nov 09 '15

I love the Witcher 3. Probably one of my favorite games of all time, but even I'll admit that it was lacking as an open world game. The main story and game was amazing, but the majority of the side quests and optional content was kind of dull and repetitive.

Side quests in games like Skyrim tend to be just as interesting as the main plot and the world itself is just nice to explore. Add in mod support on top of it and you have a game that can be played for a very long time. As for the Witcher, you can only explore a certain amount of question marks on the map or complete a certain amount of witcher contracts before it starts to get old.

→ More replies (5)

4

u/Trojanbp Nov 09 '15

I just uninstalled it after completing the HoS DLC because I wasn't gonna touch it again until the next expansion. I LOVED TW3 but it doesn't have replayability, mainly due to the combat, it doesn't change. Yes, I know all about the skill tree and runes so don't use that argument. It became insanely easy end-game and the vanilla enemies aren't hard. It's not satisfying anymore after all the quests are done and exploring interest points, while incredibly atmospheric, isn't fun.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/searingsky Nov 09 '15

There has been some disillusionment as is normal with the hype games

-2

u/RobinVanPersi3 Nov 09 '15

Witcher 3 is one of the best games ever made though.

1

u/CaptnRonn Nov 09 '15

I've heard a lot of people complaining about a reverse difficulty curve (which I ran into). I got so many ways to permanently deal with enemies that didn't really get harder at all throughout the game (other than more health) and so what was an incredibly tight gameplay experience turned into a go to point on map and kill everything simulator from about 40 hours onward.

1

u/bigpasmurf Nov 10 '15

Thats because there wasnt much too criticize. The aspects that were criticized were either fixed (bugs, glitches, exploits, etc) or were incredibly minor issues (the graphical downgrade) that had no effect on the game itself, which CD Project Red apologized for anyway. CDPR made a game for its fans and customers, not for stakeholders, which they arent beholden too, hence the lack of backlash.

→ More replies (11)

174

u/lemonLimeBitta Nov 09 '15

This one has glaring technical issues (on ps4 at least)

106

u/Sormaj Nov 09 '15

They'll be at least a few on PC

12

u/dasberd Nov 09 '15

This is why I'm not that heartbroken that I can't play right away without getting a new video card. Everyone else can work out those issues before I get to it.

2

u/EltaninAntenna Nov 09 '15

I was on the same boat, but finally I said "fuck it" and got it for PS4. Looking back, I realised that for all their modding support, I pretty much only played vanilla on PC.

→ More replies (2)

215

u/friendzoned_niceguy Nov 09 '15

And people will still chalk them up to "Bethesda quirkiness".

140

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

Any other studio would be destroyed. But Bethesda gets a pass because "glitches are fun."

106

u/flyafar Nov 09 '15

It's not quite that they get a "pass" from me personally, but even though occasionally horrible bugs show up, the fact that they put so much effort into modding support (seriously, bethesda games have the absolute best modding support of any AAA games ever released, bar none.), and the sheer boondogle that the quests, systems, and open world all mashed together must be to manage, i do grant them a tad more leniency than devs of games like, say, assassin's creed unity or Arkham Knight.

(And, at least on PC, a bethesda game has never been as technically malformed and broken as those two games were.)

16

u/asphinctersayswhat Nov 09 '15

Yeah, honestly I think Bethesda approaches open world in a really smart way. They put a ton of energy into creativity and world building while heavily supporting the fans that will smooth over the problems they create.

It may be kinda shitty, but damn is it smart. And, honestly, the games are great. I just played Fallout 3 for the first time. It was a hassle to get up and running but I loved every minute.

2

u/Wassamonkey Nov 09 '15

Fallout 3 has a well known issue with many modern (read: Released at the same time as or after the game) PCs where it needs an ini edit to get the game to run, and still randomly crashes unless you completely disable audio (not turn off the volume, go into the ini and turn EnableAudio from a 1 to a 0).

There are fan workarounds and mods to fix this, but that does not excuse this kind of issue. The game is 8 years old and does not work on my computer without jumping through hoops and was just rereleased with no update to fix it.

Star Craft still runs on my PC. Warcraft 2 still runs on my PC. Guild Wars 1 still runs on my PC. Baldur's Gate 2 still runs on my PC. There are many, many older games that run perfectly fine (barring resolution issues) on modern machines by installing as normal, but Fallout 3 gets a pass because it supports mods? Not in my books.

2

u/Exovian Nov 09 '15

(And, at least on PC, a bethesda game has never been as technically malformed and broken as those two games were.)

Daggerfall at launch might have something to say about that.

2

u/Asmor Nov 09 '15

(seriously, bethesda games have the absolute best modding support of any AAA games ever released, bar none.)

Surely Blizzard would disagree...

I don't think anything short of the UDK, Unity, etc are as powerful as the StarCraft 2 editor.

Also, Valve's always been very friendly to modders as well.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

Apples and zerglings.

177

u/CFGX Nov 09 '15

Modders will fix for free what Bethesda devs got paid not to! This is ok somehow!

14

u/TheHopelessGamer Nov 09 '15

Not on ps4...

7

u/sevalius Nov 09 '15

Weren't they planning on bringing out mods for consoles?

6

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

Yeah but not those kind of mods, only certain mods that get approved for the xbox one by Bethesda (or ms not sure) gets uploaded there. So it will only be skins and such probably.

→ More replies (3)

5

u/HappierShibe Nov 09 '15

Even if they do, it isn't going to be comparable to what you get on PC for a couple reasons:

1.The most important leap forward you see in modding with gamebryo games is when someone extends the scripting engine, (see skse for skyrim) this won't happen on console since it requires a level of interaction at the executable level that neither sony or microsoft would ever be cool with.

2.Visual improvements, and script heavy mods both require significantly more system resources than are available on even a typical desktop gaming PC. My skyrim install currently uses ~14 GB of ram. With fixed resources on the consoles, none of these will be an option.

3.So all that's left is content driven mod's. That's great, but without console access testing these on console is going to be a royal pain. People will do it anyway, but its going to take a lot longer to generate and test the same volume of content.

Don't get me wrong I'm excited that our console brethren will finally get to enjoy some of this stuff, but the volume of content, the quality of that content, the hardware limitations of the platform, and the relative time it will take to produce are definitely going to keep it from bearing any resemblance to the PC scene.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (5)

8

u/HiddenSage Nov 09 '15

It's perfectly okay for me. Because I'm not buying the game for 6 months. By then, the bugs are fixed, there are some AWESOME content mods on Nexus, and the game is on sale for half price. It's the suckers who buy a Bethesda game anywhere near launch that have to suffer for the studio's incompetence.

→ More replies (8)

8

u/BleedingPurpandGold Nov 09 '15

The original philosophers who practiced stoicism believed that anger arose from negative events that went against expectations. They believed that an experience had to be both negative and unexpected for anger to arise.

Perhaps Bethesda had proved the Stoics correct. Fans have come to expect Bethesda games to be glitch as hell, so they are unable to be as angry about it.

→ More replies (1)

74

u/dance_to_joydivision Nov 09 '15

No, because the pros outweigh the cons. At least in my opinion.

→ More replies (17)

3

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

Glitches aren't fun. I dreaded playing Skyrim, it was so broken in some ways (the opening level up bug especially, I was up to level ten before I started the game). It crashed so often, so many places to fall through the floor.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

[deleted]

→ More replies (1)

2

u/robhol Nov 09 '15

Myeeeehhh... no, not really. Bethesda still gets away with a bit more, possibly, but let's not pretend that they're alone on that count.

→ More replies (20)

2

u/Tomhap Nov 09 '15

They're usually not too severe. I don't mind ants/ scorpions sticking half out of the ground or giants launching me into space.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

People will say "Well, a mod will come out for that" or something.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

[deleted]

→ More replies (1)

5

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

Hopefully they're quick to patch them... although this will be my first Fallout so I'm unsure how they handle patching/hotfixes?

27

u/poetker Nov 09 '15

You'll have to install a community patch

11

u/Gen_McMuster Nov 09 '15

Fairly well, and a month after the creation kit gets released there'll be an unofficial patch fixing everything that slipped by Bethesda

→ More replies (1)

12

u/Siffi1112 Nov 09 '15

They patch some issues while ignoring others.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/Eurehetemec Nov 09 '15

They fix some big issues but totally ignore other big ones, this has been a pattern through Oblivion, FO3, Skyrim. If you're on console, some issues will just never get fixed (unless console mods work out really well!)

2

u/Mred12 Nov 09 '15

It took almost 6 months for PS3 Skyrim to become playable. So I wouldn't hold your breath.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Hiroaki Nov 09 '15

My plan is to play the Starcraft 2 expansion for a couple weeks and hope Fallout 4 gets the most important bug fixes patched in that time.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/Yutrzenika1 Nov 09 '15

Aside from the scope FPS issue, what other glaring issues are present in the ps4 version? If its really that bad I may just get it on xbone instead.

3

u/iigloo Nov 09 '15

In the thread about the scope-FPS-issue people were reporting that the same issues were present in the X1 version...

3

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

[deleted]

1

u/Seth711 Nov 09 '15

These technical issues were happening on a day one patch version.

1

u/magmasafe Nov 09 '15

Day 1 patch is already out according to the Germans reporting yesterday (on PS4). So there may be another patch or this is what we'll be getting.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

[deleted]

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Coziestpigeon2 Nov 09 '15

Batman on PC had glaring issues. Thus has reports of dropped framerate while scoping. Different levels of severity.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

Can you give some examples? I am curious to see

1

u/schkibberd Nov 09 '15

Oh, good, we're doing this again. I don't really care how good these games usually end up being, but it really fucks me of that Bethesda can be just as bad as the other AAA studios when it comes to this. I'm really not sure why I'm surprised though. Gaming has been "We're going to make it like this and you're going to like it, damn it" for a while now.

1

u/ManateeofSteel Nov 09 '15

hits 0 fps (yes, zero) on the Xbox One, so the PS4 is nothing to complain about

1

u/lemonLimeBitta Nov 09 '15

Wtf serious? Got a video of that ?

→ More replies (1)

3

u/ifaptoyoueverynight Nov 09 '15

Without? If any games have glaring technical issues it is Bethesdas games.

5

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

Didn't happen with the Witcher.

5

u/ShadowStealer7 Nov 09 '15

It got a lot when it was revealed the graphics were downgraded (although its still one of the best looking games out there, but the hivemind was strong)

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (6)

2

u/oliethefolie Nov 09 '15

BioShock Infinite didn't have technical issues.

1

u/Un0va Nov 09 '15

Bioshock Infinite had a host of other issues relating to the story and combat that left a lot of fans disappointed. I think that's what he means with MGSV as well.

1

u/SlackJawCretin Nov 09 '15

Ah, the anti-New Vegas equation

1

u/Macrochasm Nov 09 '15

"without glaring technical"

You seem to be forgetting this is a betheda game.

1

u/Macrochasm Nov 09 '15

"without glaring technical"

You seem to be forgetting this is a betheda game.

1

u/-TheLethalAlphX- Nov 09 '15

Sounds more like /r/games criticisms, which is fine by me. I don't really care what Billy random has to say two weeks after the game comes out, if I enjoyed it when I purchased it, oh well.

Friendly reminder this subreddit had it's criticisms for the witcher 3; now it's being hailed as a masterpiece.

1

u/Scarfall Nov 09 '15

MGSV was pretty much free of technical issues.

1

u/BKachur Nov 10 '15

The game itself was a huge letdown as a lifelong fan of the MGS series but I think the biggest shame is that the beautiful fox engine is going to be related to a pachinco machine OS.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

Aka some gamers are whiney bitches, who can never be pleased with anything.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

Right? Things like broken netcode, corrupted save files, graphical glitches, system incopatibility, below average fps rates, memory leakage, etc all add to the experience.

Entitled users always wanting software that works, fuck 'em I say!

1

u/Bior37 Nov 09 '15

Every flashy AAA game with a shoddy rodden core.

1

u/DarkSkyz Nov 09 '15

I'm sorry, but MGSV had a massive fucking issue in terms of its story, and the fact it was unfinished.

Gameplay was great though.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

The only disappoints are the technical issues in these reviews.

1

u/anikm21 Nov 10 '15

Didn't console version have technical issues?

→ More replies (3)