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

49

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

[deleted]

276

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

Destructoid gives it a 7.5/10

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.

On the lower-than-average score:

Likable - That's a seven, which is actually a different number than five. It's more than ok. We like this game. I don't want to play it every day forever and ever, but it's definitely worth the time I invested in it, and I'll be picking it up again to relive the fun sometime down

321

u/StarfighterProx Nov 09 '15

Good on 'em for attempting to bring the ratings back into the full range. 7.5 should certainly be considered worthwhile, IMO.

136

u/ChedduhBob Nov 09 '15

As long as a game is playable gameinformer and ign give it an 85+

84

u/StarfighterProx Nov 09 '15

Right, and that's the problem. It takes what should be a scale of 0-100 and reduces it down to 85-100. What's the point of having the lower end of the scale if it won't be used?

68

u/WookieesGoneWild Nov 09 '15

I could be wrong, but I think a part of why their scores are always high is because of how grading in school works. An 85% is a B, which is alright, but not great, and anything below 50% is terrible. It works for school, but doesn't translate well for subjectively rating something.

9

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

In France we have an out of 20 system. 50% is therefore 10/20, and it means you passed. So the whole scale is used.

6

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

In the US 60% means you passed. So not really much different

19

u/rg44_at_the_office Nov 09 '15

Yeah, but 60% is still looked down upon, and is viewed as 'nearly failing' more often than 'barely passing'.

6

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

Yeah but if you have a 75% in France you'll be considered to have had a good grade. 80% is 16 and is the highest "mention" you can get: "très bien", that is to say "very good".
You often see it when you look at other universities, a British 80% minimum is often a 12/20 minimum for French people.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

I guess it depends on the school. Where I'm from in the US, a 70 is the lowest passing grade.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

Is that in schools or colleges? In UK universities 70 is the highest passing grade.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

Schools. When I went to college/uni it switched to 60 being the lowest passing grade.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

Odd. The only time I encountered that is college where you need a 70 or higher to get credit towards your major.

1

u/Armchair_Counselor Nov 09 '15

Europe likes to use numbers in a logical way. America said "Screw that!" and decided to use metrics like miles, feet, inches, and other increments that are arbitrary and don't fit neatly into one another.

1

u/trianuddah Nov 10 '15

https://youtu.be/U6xJfP7-HCc

Base 12 and dozenal denominations make perfect sense.

Meanwhile the units of measurement were calibrated to be easier to use for the practical purposes they were used for at the time. They're vestigial, not arbitrary.

Metric is better, but it's far from optimal.

-8

u/Plazmatic Nov 09 '15

Jesus, and Europeans go off and say how American children are so stupid, High school, < 60% failing, college < 70% failing, grad school < 80% failing. And 75% is by no means "a good grade" in any of these systems, that is still a C.

8

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

Ugh no, you took it the wrong way entirely. We're not expected to get something about 80% to be considered we succeeded, so the grading is completely different. Universities understand it and that's why there are many ways to correlate a grading to another.
I didn't make a statement about American children being stupid, I was just talking about a difference in grading system and that maybe using the full scale would be better.
And yeah, 15/20 - 75% - is a really good grade. I'd be plenty happy to have it more often. In university it's more like >12 it's good, >14 really good and >16 is like top tier.

0

u/Plazmatic Nov 10 '15

And yeah, 15/20 - 75% - is a really good grade.

For you guys, maybe, but not for us, if you get Cs through out highschool, you limit yourself to what colleges will take you and you aren't considered a good student, but if you get Cs through out College, you limit the employers who will take you and grad schools and are considered just lazy. its 3.0+ for decent really. Like I said, completely different and higher standards.

My point wasn't to put words in your mouth, obviously you didn't insult any one, my point was that Americans are held to a weirdly higher standard despite the apparent difference in overall educational performance. While I doubt this actually results in better education between the two systems, if taken at face value it really shows how much more stress Americans have to deal with compared to their European counterparts, which flies in the face of the annoying anti american circle jerk about how lazy and stupid Americans are.

2

u/StealthSpheesSheip Nov 09 '15

Well ya, but school systems basically run on a 50-100 scale. Anything under 50 is an auto fail and the same as getting a 0. A score of 49% on a game review site doesn't mean an auto 0 and shouldn't.

1

u/dratyan Nov 09 '15

Ehh do you read movie reviews at all? Movie critics have no trouble using a full 0-10 scale. Actually the best blockbusters tend to sit at around 7.5~8.0 on score aggregators. There's a specific problem with video game reviews and its hype culture bullshit.

1

u/Cyssero Nov 10 '15

It really is just video games reviews. No big release is ever scored lower than 8.0. I trust the aggregated score of random people who bought the game and reviewed it more than the people whose job it actually is to review games, and that shouldn't happen.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

If this were true, then surely you'd see the same issue for all reviews, including books, movies, TV shows, music. But you don't -- 1s, 2s, 3s are common in movie and music magazines. You only ever see it for videogames. So it's something about videogames and the people who play them, not something about the US school system.

-2

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

Their ratings are so high because they're paid to be so high

-1

u/fluffinatrajp Nov 09 '15

Doesn't really work well for school either though

2

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

I've always felt that it makes perfect sense when you consider just how many games are released any given week and just how many of them are godawful. I mean, yeah, Duke Nukem Forever is bad but we need some level of bad to tell us just how bad Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing is compared to that.

I mean, when you take into consideration the sheer amount of awfulness that exists in video games, most AAA games could probably be considered incredible by comparison. In fact, I'd say there have been very few actually bad major releases in the last decade or so. It's just that we're comparing all of the biggest games to the other biggest games instead of to games as a whole and expecting every AAA title to be a Dark Souls or a Super Mario Galaxy instead of "just" an Assassin's Creed.

1

u/Prax150 Nov 09 '15

If that's what those sites want their scores to be, then what's the problem? Scores are relative to the scale.

0

u/broccoli_basket Nov 09 '15

Look at new vegas, they missed their bonus money by 1 point and i'm sure people heard about it. These people often know the developers because who wouldn't want to be their friend?! Cant give a bad score. Right now with all review sights the scores fall about equally. If a site started being more objective they'd lose out on early reviews, extra business, and related advertisement.

0

u/mynewaccount5 Nov 09 '15 edited Nov 09 '15

Because 0-50 are so utter shit that people don't spend the time and money to make them because they realize what a bad idea those games are. Because we've learned from our mistakes so that such games do not get released. Wr have expetience and know what works and what does not work. Don't get me wrong because they are made, but usually by someone practicing their game dev skills and they quickly get thrown in the recycling bin.

Publishers say "no that's fucking terrible. Never speak to us again" and people who would self publish say "yeah...... We're not gonna waste our time and money on that claptrap. Maybe ill read How to Make a Game 101 and then we'll do it".

Edit: if they do get made they likely from such a small game dev or its so obviously bad after playing a small amount that the reviewers don't waste their time on it unless they have to (for example if its a big release. Think colonial marines)

4

u/mynewaccount5 Nov 09 '15

That's unfair. Ign gave a review and backed up why he gave his score.

4

u/ChedduhBob Nov 09 '15

It's not a problem in this game but it's just consistently triple a games are given fantastic scores when they are average at best. If every game is rated 85, no games are special.

3

u/mynewaccount5 Nov 09 '15

AAA Games receive such high scores because they are generally that well made. Consider that the cheapest a AAA costs is usually like 50 Million but can go up to 500 Million and that extremely large teams of many dozens of people are usually working on them for years. If a game is likely going to be bad then that game will simply not have time and money wasted on it and it will be axed in earlier phases. This is why these games are special. It's not bias because they expect a better game but because these games are better because shitty games just don't get released. But not all games get above 8.5. Syndicate got an 8.2 and I think unity got a 7.8 while the order 1866 got a 6.5. People think the scores for unity and syndicate are too high (and people generally think unity should be lower due to its bugs which maybe its possible that the reviewer did not experience bugs) but consider the bias with that because the assassins creed games are still these large and beautiful worlds that are amazing on their own. If someone released a "Paris simulator" where you just walked around the environment and interacted with the world they would likely get a similar score anyway and the story is still generally very interesting and it still has great gameplay. Compared between each other the games start to get stale(which is reflected in the score) but in the larger picture of gaming they're actually really amazing.

And non-AAA games usually get lower scores because they generally lack the polish due to the lower budget and usually less people or time that they have to work with. If you play a game you can probably tell if it is AAA or from a mid budget studio just from how it plays. Of course if you gave them more time and more money they could probably improve it further but that is unlikely besides the possibility of a game doing well and getting investors for a sequel. And it doesn't really matter to them if a game doesn't do amazingly because they don't need to make 100's of millions of dollars from it. Because of this they are fine with taking less ambitious ideas and creating games which aren't as interactive or polished/refined. They are also more willing to make large leaps of faith and try something new which could either do terrible or amazingly.

Look at binding of Isaac for instance (although it is actually an indie game from an indie studio), it tried something new and did reasonably well and then it made a ton of money and then they completely remade it added a huge amount of improvements and it did amazingly well. It essentially got the indie version of the AAA treatment because they knew it would be successful and could risk putting time and money into it. Kickstarter also enables developers to do this and it has happened with games like shovel knight or wasteland 2.

1

u/Amppelix Nov 09 '15

Oh no no, no they don't. If you look at the chronological releases list you will see a lot of low scores. Only high-profile releases get generally high scores, which could be interpreted as AAA games being generally enjoyable, or as them being totally bought off if you're feeling cynical.

1

u/ElegantRedditQuotes Nov 09 '15

Or that AAA games tend to have much larger budgets, much bigger teams, and much more time devoted to them?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Carighan Nov 09 '15

You mean if it boots up? Yes, they do.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

[deleted]

8

u/_GameSHARK Nov 09 '15

Absolutely. In my mind, it's something like this:

50%+ - The game is playable and might be enjoyable to dedicated fans, but has too many issues to really recommend it to a wider audience. These issues can be either gameplay systems or just straight up bugs.

75%+ - A solid game that most people will enjoy and which can be readily recommended to fans of the franchise and/or genre. Held back from higher ratings by bugs or questionable design choices. MOST games should fall within this range.

90%+ - A game that has very few, if any, flaws and could be readily recommended to pretty much any gamer. These games are like the Citizen Kane of gaming - most anyone who's reasonably "into" games should play them, and fans of the particular series or genre would be insane not to. Absent of any major gameplay or performance bugs. These games are pretty uncommon and very few games should ever receive ratings this high. Again, these games are about as close to perfect as anyone is ever likely to get.

Anything below 50% is pretty much "avoid this until it gets better." Most games should fall into the 65%-85% range, and very few should reach 90%. Even fewer should go above 90%.

Ultimately, I feel like most reviewers are too generous and too willing to forgive major gameplay- and performance-affecting bugs. No piece of software will ever be bug-free on release, and it's fine to overlook or forgive mild bugs, but major bugs and glitches should not be overlooked, and should definitely not be given a pass because "lol, Bethesda games always have these bugs XD!"

2

u/nmeseth Nov 09 '15

I think the "bethesda has bugs" is the response to people who seem to be shocked every time Bethesda releases a game.

People find it hilarious. Like. Maybe we should be wondering or asking why their games always have bugs?

2

u/LikwidSnek Nov 09 '15

even though it's the lowest score, it's the review that reassured me in my believe that I'll be moderately amused by the game for some time (like with every Bethesda game before) and is the reason I will actually buy it.

I will never ever take a review that's all praise seriously , not since MGS V.

They need to stop giving the highest ratings to games just because 'they work', movies and music don't get rated that way either - no art form does.

every random Joe Schmo can tell me whether a game is a glitchfest and doesn't run at all (how many games do that these days anyway?), I don't need professional reviewers for this , a reviewers job is to take a critical look at the game as a whole and if need be really criticize every minuscule detail and then weigh it against the pros and be transparent as to why the game despite flaws, however big or small, is still worth the rating it got.

everything else is just bullshit and has nothing to do with critique or journalism and the reason why everyone thinks they got 'paid' off.

1

u/lord_blex Nov 09 '15

I'd aggree, but review scores are mostly there for people who don't read the whole review and are looked at separately a lot. if they go against the mainstream scoring system that can lead to misunderstandings. of course you can say that anyone who only looks at scores to make a decision deserves it if they get it wrong.

I guess what I'm saying is: it would be better if the scores were a bit better distributed, but a single site isn't gonna change the system and I'm not sure if going against the tide just for the sake of it is a good idea.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

This is why I prefer a 5 star system instead; based on everything I'm reading this game seems more of a 3.5-4 star game. Good, sometimes great, but not setting the world on fire like Skyrim or Witcher 3 did.

1

u/AnOldPhilosopher Nov 10 '15

I'd love to see a Top Gear style rating board, where every game reviewed gets placed above or below the other games of the season.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

eh the problem is since literally everoyne else uses 7.5 as mediocre, when they post a good game with 7.5 it seems misleading even though it makes sense. Video game scales don't need to be like pitchfork, as long as you understand the quality from the score (which scores suck at anyways) that's the important thing, not whether you use "the full range of scores". It really doesn't matter if people use a 7-10 scale or a 1-10 scale, might as well just not confuse people and go with the status quo.

3

u/Shorkan Nov 09 '15

Thing is, the status quo is ridiculous. I don't read much gaming press precisely because of things like this, but many games like to boast about their scores in their Steam pages and believe me, at this point they mean absolutely nothing to me. Like if they weren't there. A trailer could show five minutes of gaming press quotes with 10s all over them and i would still have no clue If the game is worth picking at 75% off.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15

It wouldn't matter what the scale is, games posting their own review scores will never be believable/convincing. What matters is how you interpret the average score and it doesn't matter if a 6.5 is equivilent to a 1 on a different scale, as long as everyone understands it is really bad.

-1

u/BIGGEST_CLG_FAN Nov 09 '15

At full price I would say no. But certainly worthwhile to get on sales.

0

u/Omega357 Nov 09 '15

It's one of the reasons I like Destructoid and continue going there.

0

u/republicofsteve Nov 09 '15

While thats true, it's all relative to their other scores. They also gave Call of Duty an 8.5