Some people will never be happy even if a developer is wise *cough* stupid *cough* enough to make what the consumers wants. They WILL find something to complain about.
Don't fall into hypes, they make you think of some perfect game in the making. Ultimately? You WILL be disappointed no matter the developer.
Keep your expectations low, and you will be enjoying the ride.
So, nobody can honestly say it's good without being in hock to the company? While it does happen, I'm sure, there are people who are honest.... honest.
So, nobody can honestly say it's good without being in hock to the company? While it does happen, I'm sure, there are people who are honest.... honest.
I don't like it. That means no one likes it. That means reviewers that like it are paid.
I love Elder Scrolls games and Fallout 3 & New Vegas.
But I wonder why Fallout 4 is even a step down in certain areas.
Partially poor stories, dialogue wheel with less options than in previous games (why ?) RPG elements taken out or simplified.... Uninteresting characters and story, bugs and graphics do not really look like dx11 (graphic bug ?) Really cool are the options for crafting....thats great.
My Rating (only some hours of gameplay) with the current release issues: 75% I cant imagine how the press and game testers did give a higher rating, sorry.
Deinstalled and checking back in some months after more patches and community mods are available.....maybe playing New Vegas again since its longer ago last time I did.
FA3 and New Vegas were just one of the best games I have played - with mods of course.
I bought Fallout 4 through Steam, played it for an hour, and got a refund. I've gotten pretty good at assessing which games will bore me to tears in a very short amount of time and this is one of them.
Really...those scores seem a little high. As another poster said, it's a good game but it feels like a Fallout 3 mod.
Sure .. "mod". Install Fallout 3 and see how much of a chore that game is these days. Prepare for crash every few hours too. Good think you can spam F5 though. And it wasn't much different back in 08'
Rose-tinted glasses off please.
Yes, FO3 was awesome, but for today's standards its too clunky. FO4 is a great polish over that. Literally everything is reworked.
Really...those scores seem a little high. As another poster said, it's a good game but it feels like a Fallout 3 mod.
Sure .. "mod". Install Fallout 3 and see how much of a chore that game is these days. Prepare for crash every few hours too. Good think you can spam F5 though. And it wasn't much different back in 08'
Rose-tinted glasses off please.
Yes, FO3 was awesome, but for today's standards its too clunky. FO4 is a great polish over that. Literally everything is reworked.
Actually there are many that hated Fallout 3 because it was different than it's predecessors. That's why so many are bashing it.
Frankly? For me I found New Vegas boring from the get go and Fallout 3 was the only game I ever completed 100% from Bethesda. So if it's a successor to Fallout 3 not New Vegas, that is much much much better for me.
Really...those scores seem a little high. As another poster said, it's a good game but it feels like a Fallout 3 mod.
Sure .. "mod". Install Fallout 3 and see how much of a chore that game is these days. Prepare for crash every few hours too. Good think you can spam F5 though. And it wasn't much different back in 08'
Rose-tinted glasses off please.
Yes, FO3 was awesome, but for today's standards its too clunky. FO4 is a great polish over that. Literally everything is reworked.
ES/FO3+ are hard to rate.
On one hand you have vanilla offering which usually sucks in many areas, OTOH you have mods that fix the game AND change/expand what they screwed up.
FO3 vanilla and FO3+mods are 2 almost completely different games.
But personally, i dont rate on potential, and vanilla offereing is lacking in same way previous bethesda offers are lacking. In time with mods it will (probably) be superb.
It's no longer an RPG with shooter elements. It's a shooter with RPG elements. If ever there was a game to complain about being 'dumbed down', Fallout 4 is it. Funny how the usual detractors of such things have chosen to stay oddly silent about FO4.
Please. Feel free to elaborate, because I don't see it at all. I hate it when people just spout off random crtisicm with absolutely no substance behind it. The Mass Effect series would be classified as shooters with rpg elements, that's an awfully broad category if you're going to include fo4 as well...
I loved Fallout 3 and Skyrim. I'm 10 hours into Fallout 4 and so far, it hasn't got me hooked yet. Key points for me that are inhibiting a really high score:
1. Graphics are passable and not the big issue that some say, but expected more in 2015. 2. UI and controls are pretty bad - you have to scrap loads of things in Sanctuary, and the key presses to go through to do it require two hands i.e. R and Enter - or at least they can't be done in quick succession. Moving the mouse to click a small box is even more tedious. Clearly not ideal for the PC version. 3. I expected to find more to do whilst wandering between the main locations. In Skyrim, there were so many places to stop and interact with on your journey, but there isn't a lot to do whilst walking from A to B that you soon realise it's just worth using fast travel as soon as you can. 4. For what is predominently a shooter, ammo is not readily available and the guns seems underpowered. 5. There is a meta game within a game i.e. you have a base to build (there's another pointless meta game like Donkey Kong, which you will only want to play once). It's coming across as a bit tedious and stops you going out and about to explore. Takes ages to demolish the junk that is there and you are given no real indication what you need to build, when or why. 6. It's supposed to be open world and so yes, you can go and wander around, but the quests seem to be very much handed out in a specific order, so you are a bit tied to a specific story. 7. The local map is totally pointless and any time you look at it, you just seen crappy green drawings that relate to nothing that you can see around you. It serves no purpose at all. 8. So far, there's nothing RPG in it - I get asked to go and do something and I do it. Little meaningful story and I don't really get to do or be anything other than what I'm scripted for - it comes across as a bit linear, in that I must be the Dad in the game, the way it wants me to.
I'm a little surprised that the designers, whilst playing their own game, didn't think that any of the above was annoying enough to fix it and make the experience better.
In saying all of that, I'm holding out that the game will get interesting and exciting, but I like games to have grabbed me by this point, if I'm honest.
Honestly the Fallout Release was kind of Strage. One of the Biggest Marketing Hypes ever. They invested a shitload of money in Marketing. you saw Fallout 4 Posters and Ads everywhere. That in mind, i saw the ratings go down more every day. On the First days there where 10% Negative Votes on Steam, Day 2 there where 25% negattive vots. Looking on sites like Metacritic its even worse (273 positive, 484 negative ). Didnt people have bought a big hype or a worth game ? Im not sure. despite the Fact that the story seems kind of ok. The UI, the Graphics overall, the bordeom and mostly uselessness of building stuff etc. give me a picture of a game that wants to be something but isnt. And they sold the people a game that isnt even near to what they have promised. Empirical evidence through a wide range of people reviewing this beside the mainstream (maybe payed) game sites. The Witcher 3 is an exact contra Example of Fallou 4. Also a (not as) big markeing, but the content etc was good, so where the user reviews.
Thats one thing i am concerned about. How does the media report such good ratings (10/10 e.g.) where the users cant even nearly relate to ? I know that media often gets payed to "make a review", but maybe media was payed "A LOT" to make a over the top review to sell even more copies. In that case we are talking about fraud.
Thats one thing i am concerned about. How does the media report such good ratings (10/10 e.g.) where the users cant even nearly relate to ? I know that media often gets payed to "make a review", but maybe media was payed "A LOT" to make a over the top review to sell even more copies. In that case we are talking about fraud.
This is a valid point and bothers me also. I'd hate to think that a company can spend millions on marketing and also feel the need to buy the reviewers, because that's going to be their best marketing option if they did.
The official reviews compared to what people experience when they actually play it, are so wide of the mark, it makes you suspicious.
Not sure if there is actual money shifting hands in the review game, I think it goes more like; If you give us a bad review, you are not going to get a review copy of our next game (eg. skyrim 2), so your review will be one week later than all the outlets that gives us good reviews.
edit: Much like the music industry have been operating for years. Drop your interview of X unknown upcoming artist, and feature our Y unknown artist instead, or you'll never get to do an interview with Rihanna.
Well i played FO1 when it was released, and i was in love, after that i waited for FO2 and i was even more in love, couldn't believe that they made game that is even better than FO1. I played FO3, FONV, and i tried FO4, but unfortunately they are not even close to FO2, the only thing that is left from Fallout is name, some sounds, and lots of nostalgia.
Am I the only one who presses the numpad Enter when the game prompts for Enter key? I navigate most menus almost exclusively by the keyboard (with both hands) so it's quite convenient, and being it using my both hands, i can spam them faster, e.g. no finger movement from key to key, I press both in rapid succession.
Check it out. It works.
Also there is an way to load off all of your "junk" into your Workbench, just found it last night. Gotta love freeing up inventory space. The game then automatically scraps those junks when needed for building stuff.
Well i played FO1 when it was released, and i was in love, after that i waited for FO2 and i was even more in love, couldn't believe that they made game that is even better than FO1. I played FO3, FONV, and i tried FO4, but unfortunately they are not even close to FO2, the only thing that is left from Fallout is name, some sounds, and lots of nostalgia.
Excuse me, Sir, you misspelled rose tinted glasses wrong.
Fallout 4 is one of the most, if not the most polished game released in recent years. Compared to other Bethesda games it has better technical performance (bugs, tearings, frame drops, crashes, memory leaks - these are almost non-existent). Does it matter that much that its not a 3D copy of FO2? The game needs direction change with each iteration. Otherwise we get Call of Duty ....
Witcher 3 was a breath of fresh air when it launched because of the amount of polish it had. Y'all thought its not a clone of previous games because they actually made the combat user-friendly and you didn't notice it. Fallout 4 uses the old combat, but a bit more streamlined and y'all lose your shit and call it a mod of Fallout 3. What? If i was a Fallout developer and knowing how much work went into this shit, i'd be quite upset. You people take it for granted because it works. That doesn't mean it was easy. Look at other publishers and the buggy launches they have. Yeah ... they release multi-million dollar projects with bugs blocking progression because it's cool to do so in this day and age right?
And once the GECK comes in early 2016, you'll see just how much effort went into this engine.
This game is fantastic because nobody makes games like this. No games put you into a world with little direction anymore whether with objectives, or character building and encourages exploration like Bethesda games.
A bit buggy, sure. That will change though. More of the same? Kind of but all the systems feel more polished and better implemented. Also other builds feel more balanced but this could be attributed to the fact they removed specific skills.. (not happy about that).
All in all I can't stop playing until I have explored everything and almost no games have me care about doing so as much as FO3/NV/Skyrim/FO4.
Now Playing: Bless / Summoners War Looking forward to: Crowfall / Lost Ark / Black Desert Mobile
This game is fantastic because nobody makes games like this. No games put you into a world with little direction anymore whether with objectives, or character building and encourages exploration like Bethesda games.
A bit buggy, sure. That will change though. More of the same? Kind of but all the systems feel more polished and better implemented. Also other builds feel more balanced but this could be attributed to the fact they removed specific skills.. (not happy about that).
All in all I can't stop playing until I have explored everything and almost no games have me care about doing so as much as FO3/NV/Skyrim/FO4.
Now even less so as even Bethesda has found this strange sense of missing elements such as quest lines. Their games are actually becoming more and more directional. The progression with Darkfall, Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim... The removal of freedom, and the addition of quest lines and features, zones being blocked, npcs becoming invincible. The ultimate culmination of ESO which is simply a standard issue mmo.
The older games allowed you to ruin the game for yourself, you had ultimate freedom. If you weren't interested in the quest line and just wanted to kill everyone in the world you could do it.
I'm not a fan of the Fallout series, played them but just couldn't get addicted, but there is a parallel sense of narrowing in those games too.
This game is fantastic because nobody makes games like this. No games put you into a world with little direction anymore whether with objectives, or character building and encourages exploration like Bethesda games.
A bit buggy, sure. That will change though. More of the same? Kind of but all the systems feel more polished and better implemented. Also other builds feel more balanced but this could be attributed to the fact they removed specific skills.. (not happy about that).
All in all I can't stop playing until I have explored everything and almost no games have me care about doing so as much as FO3/NV/Skyrim/FO4.
Few companies do games like this because it's not easy to code.
Many people like to dish bethesda for releasing buggy games but they fail to acknowledge that there are very few games which let you do whatever you want without having to force you do the main story.
Dynamic events are a bitch to code, some bugs are bound to be there. Why do you think GW 2 took so much to make a new expansion? Creating fluid dynamic events is not a walk in the park.
Well i played FO1 when it was released, and i was in love, after that i waited for FO2 and i was even more in love, couldn't believe that they made game that is even better than FO1. I played FO3, FONV, and i tried FO4, but unfortunately they are not even close to FO2, the only thing that is left from Fallout is name, some sounds, and lots of nostalgia.
Excuse me, Sir, you misspelled rose tinted glasses wrong.
Fallout 4 is one of the most, if not the most polished game released in recent years. Compared to other Bethesda games it has better technical performance (bugs, tearings, frame drops, crashes, memory leaks - these are almost non-existent). Does it matter that much that its not a 3D copy of FO2? The game needs direction change with each iteration. Otherwise we get Call of Duty ....
Witcher 3 was a breath of fresh air when it launched because of the amount of polish it had. Y'all thought its not a clone of previous games because they actually made the combat user-friendly and you didn't notice it. Fallout 4 uses the old combat, but a bit more streamlined and y'all lose your shit and call it a mod of Fallout 3. What? If i was a Fallout developer and knowing how much work went into this shit, i'd be quite upset. You people take it for granted because it works. That doesn't mean it was easy. Look at other publishers and the buggy launches they have. Yeah ... they release multi-million dollar projects with bugs blocking progression because it's cool to do so in this day and age right?
And once the GECK comes in early 2016, you'll see just how much effort went into this engine.
lol, did u even read my post, i said nothing about engine, bugs, or that i want 3D FO2. I just said that new fallout games do not have that atmosphere or filling like FO2, even depth, diversity or consequences. I didnt say that FO4 is bad game, i just said that it is not that interesting to me, and it just doesnt give me the filling of post-apocalyptic world in which i have to survive, with all consequences of my actions. that is just my opinion, everybody will have different, that's ok. And it is sad that u have to wait for DLCs or game upgrades so that game become what it is meant to be. FO2 was full and beautiful game from the day of release, without any DLC!
Comments
Don't fall into hypes, they make you think of some perfect game in the making. Ultimately? You WILL be disappointed no matter the developer.
Keep your expectations low, and you will be enjoying the ride.
I self identify as a monkey.
But I wonder why Fallout 4 is even a step down in certain areas.
Partially poor stories, dialogue wheel with less options than in previous games (why ?)
RPG elements taken out or simplified....
Uninteresting characters and story, bugs and graphics do not really look like dx11 (graphic bug ?)
Really cool are the options for crafting....thats great.
My Rating (only some hours of gameplay) with the current release issues: 75%
I cant imagine how the press and game testers did give a higher rating, sorry.
Deinstalled and checking back in some months after more patches and community mods are available.....maybe playing New Vegas again since its longer ago last time I did.
FA3 and New Vegas were just one of the best games I have played - with mods of course.
Fallout 4 - Fallout 3 - Fallout New Vegas
Metacritic (PC)
4,7/10
8,0/10
8,4/10
Metacritic (PlayStation)
5,5/10
8,1/10
7,7/10
Metacritic (Xbox)
5,3/10
8,6/10
8,1/10
Steam
79% Positiv
83% Positiv
96% Positiv
Amazon.de (PC-Retail)
2,6/5
4,0/5
3,9/5
Amazon.de (PlayStation)
4,0/5
4,1/5
3,3/5
Amazon.de (Xbox)
4,0/5
4,3/5
4,1/5
Amazon USA (PC-Retail)
1,9/5
3,4/5
3,6/5
Amazon USA (PlayStation)
4,1/5
4,2/5
3,3/5
Amazon USA (Xbox)
4,1/5
4,4/5
3,8/5
PSN-Store
5/5
4/5
5/5
Xbox-Store
5/5
4,9/5
4,1
Rose-tinted glasses off please.
Yes, FO3 was awesome, but for today's standards its too clunky. FO4 is a great polish over that. Literally everything is reworked.
Frankly? For me I found New Vegas boring from the get go and Fallout 3 was the only game I ever completed 100% from Bethesda. So if it's a successor to Fallout 3 not New Vegas, that is much much much better for me.
On one hand you have vanilla offering which usually sucks in many areas, OTOH you have mods that fix the game AND change/expand what they screwed up.
FO3 vanilla and FO3+mods are 2 almost completely different games.
But personally, i dont rate on potential, and vanilla offereing is lacking in same way previous bethesda offers are lacking. In time with mods it will (probably) be superb.
1. Graphics are passable and not the big issue that some say, but expected more in 2015.
2. UI and controls are pretty bad - you have to scrap loads of things in Sanctuary, and the key presses to go through to do it require two hands i.e. R and Enter - or at least they can't be done in quick succession. Moving the mouse to click a small box is even more tedious. Clearly not ideal for the PC version.
3. I expected to find more to do whilst wandering between the main locations. In Skyrim, there were so many places to stop and interact with on your journey, but there isn't a lot to do whilst walking from A to B that you soon realise it's just worth using fast travel as soon as you can.
4. For what is predominently a shooter, ammo is not readily available and the guns seems underpowered.
5. There is a meta game within a game i.e. you have a base to build (there's another pointless meta game like Donkey Kong, which you will only want to play once). It's coming across as a bit tedious and stops you going out and about to explore. Takes ages to demolish the junk that is there and you are given no real indication what you need to build, when or why.
6. It's supposed to be open world and so yes, you can go and wander around, but the quests seem to be very much handed out in a specific order, so you are a bit tied to a specific story.
7. The local map is totally pointless and any time you look at it, you just seen crappy green drawings that relate to nothing that you can see around you. It serves no purpose at all.
8. So far, there's nothing RPG in it - I get asked to go and do something and I do it. Little meaningful story and I don't really get to do or be anything other than what I'm scripted for - it comes across as a bit linear, in that I must be the Dad in the game, the way it wants me to.
I'm a little surprised that the designers, whilst playing their own game, didn't think that any of the above was annoying enough to fix it and make the experience better.
In saying all of that, I'm holding out that the game will get interesting and exciting, but I like games to have grabbed me by this point, if I'm honest.
Im not sure. despite the Fact that the story seems kind of ok. The UI, the Graphics overall, the bordeom and mostly uselessness of building stuff etc. give me a picture of a game that wants to be something but isnt. And they sold the people a game that isnt even near to what they have promised. Empirical evidence through a wide range of people reviewing this beside the mainstream (maybe payed) game sites. The Witcher 3 is an exact contra Example of Fallou 4. Also a (not as) big markeing, but the content etc was good, so where the user reviews.
Thats one thing i am concerned about. How does the media report such good ratings (10/10 e.g.) where the users cant even nearly relate to ? I know that media often gets payed to "make a review", but maybe media was payed "A LOT" to make a over the top review to sell even more copies. In that case we are talking about fraud.
The official reviews compared to what people experience when they actually play it, are so wide of the mark, it makes you suspicious.
I think it goes more like;
If you give us a bad review, you are not going to get a review copy of our next game (eg. skyrim 2),
so your review will be one week later than all the outlets that gives us good reviews.
edit:
Much like the music industry have been operating for years.
Drop your interview of X unknown upcoming artist, and feature our Y unknown artist instead,
or you'll never get to do an interview with Rihanna.
I played FO3, FONV, and i tried FO4, but unfortunately they are not even close to FO2, the only thing that is left from Fallout is name, some sounds, and lots of nostalgia.
Check it out. It works.
Also there is an way to load off all of your "junk" into your Workbench, just found it last night. Gotta love freeing up inventory space. The game then automatically scraps those junks when needed for building stuff.
Excuse me, Sir, you misspelled rose tinted glasses wrong.
Fallout 4 is one of the most, if not the most polished game released in recent years. Compared to other Bethesda games it has better technical performance (bugs, tearings, frame drops, crashes, memory leaks - these are almost non-existent). Does it matter that much that its not a 3D copy of FO2? The game needs direction change with each iteration. Otherwise we get Call of Duty ....
Witcher 3 was a breath of fresh air when it launched because of the amount of polish it had. Y'all thought its not a clone of previous games because they actually made the combat user-friendly and you didn't notice it. Fallout 4 uses the old combat, but a bit more streamlined and y'all lose your shit and call it a mod of Fallout 3. What? If i was a Fallout developer and knowing how much work went into this shit, i'd be quite upset. You people take it for granted because it works. That doesn't mean it was easy. Look at other publishers and the buggy launches they have. Yeah ... they release multi-million dollar projects with bugs blocking progression because it's cool to do so in this day and age right?
And once the GECK comes in early 2016, you'll see just how much effort went into this engine.
A bit buggy, sure. That will change though. More of the same? Kind of but all the systems feel more polished and better implemented. Also other builds feel more balanced but this could be attributed to the fact they removed specific skills.. (not happy about that).
All in all I can't stop playing until I have explored everything and almost no games have me care about doing so as much as FO3/NV/Skyrim/FO4.
Looking forward to: Crowfall / Lost Ark / Black Desert Mobile
The older games allowed you to ruin the game for yourself, you had ultimate freedom. If you weren't interested in the quest line and just wanted to kill everyone in the world you could do it.
I'm not a fan of the Fallout series, played them but just couldn't get addicted, but there is a parallel sense of narrowing in those games too.
Many people like to dish bethesda for releasing buggy games but they fail to acknowledge that there are very few games which let you do whatever you want without having to force you do the main story.
Dynamic events are a bitch to code, some bugs are bound to be there. Why do you think GW 2 took so much to make a new expansion? Creating fluid dynamic events is not a walk in the park.
I didnt say that FO4 is bad game, i just said that it is not that interesting to me, and it just doesnt give me the filling of post-apocalyptic world in which i have to survive, with all consequences of my actions.
that is just my opinion, everybody will have different, that's ok.
And it is sad that u have to wait for DLCs or game upgrades so that game become what it is meant to be. FO2 was full and beautiful game from the day of release, without any DLC!