My group was enjoying it. Had one rage quit a few days ago after being corpse camped by a Scorchbeast. We decided to take a break at least until a few patches come in.
Moved over to Aria... gluttons for punishment I guess.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Reviews are to inform consumers about potential purchases. It should be done with the majority of your viewers in mind. Not the small percent that could enjoy watching paint dry. Personally, I'm tired of reading extended ads instead of actual reviews on gaming sites.
How is this review NOT informative? It doesn't conform to people who dislike the game's opinion, and that's not the same thing. What you're looking for is for reviewers to be echo chambers of your own personal thoughts. That's NOT what the idea should be. A critic's role isn't to meet your expectations, but to share with you whether a product met their own.
It's not informative because instead of reading about the core aspects of the game like graphics, sound/music, performance, controls, responsiveness, UI, server stability, and bugs I got a story about adolescence.
Any game that is released online can be viewed as a "work in progress". The question is how much of that is acceptable in a game, what should the pricing be and is this approach more acceptable in some genres than others?
Well this all started with MMOs, players would play for a long time, even years, it was expected that the core game would need addons later. But we are now in the Survival genre and the core game is not completely there. I am not certain how much of a free pass we should give MMOs, survival games or any other genre but if we are going to then it will depend on my second question.
Pricing must reflect the core game not being as completed or bug free as it should be. If you sell at a pricing point that is high then you have to meet that standard.
We have seen so much stretching of what is acceptable in gaming, from loot boxes to early access, to what ready for launch means. These are all products of bad business practice being applied to MMOs, so a backlash is to be expected, which will only become stronger as more gaming companies want a piece of the cash grab pie.
I figured a review from this site would give it a score way higher than it deserved, after all, Bill gives it a 10/10 so no way would any other reviewer here would have the balls to go too far from that
Put me in the + column, as I'm having fun in FO76.
Do I think Bethesda rushed it out the door - oh yea. It feels more like a late alpha or early beta than a game that should have been released as complete and ready to play. That said the number of crappy MMO launches since 2007 I've been in would be most of them for one reason or another.
Granted, I do not have the long history of the Fallout games (MMO player not a FPS), so I'm not comparing it to all the other FO titles, which is what it seems most of the review are and happens when any new game (EQ to EQ2, WoW Vanilla vs every expansion), etc., nostalgia always wins. Would I give it a 7, IDK maybe, I definitely do not believe it's a 3-4.
As for the bugs, I haven't really experience a ton, but it does need work. My biggest complaint so far (I'm not rushing only mid-20s) is how clunky the UI is for 2018. The keybinding is a mess, no push to talk, taking photos (featured item is a PiA to get into that menu quickly) and some of the decisions Bethesda made (housing budget, Cap limit on vendors, notes/recipes with no way of knowing if you have them and can't sell them back, etc.) those are frustrating, not game breaking. I've played with worse launches.
One of the things I really like the NPCs and how they respond. The Scorched and Super Mutants dodge and use line of sight, try to sneak up on you, back away when you attack - that doesn't happen in most MMOs. Super Mutants talking to you while they're hunting you. Attacks on your CAMP by the different NPCs regularly. In most MMOs' forward attacking to death or running away is about it, you always no exactly what the NPC will do, not so in FO76.
Everyone has a right to their own opinion, and honestly I'm not sure I'd recommend running to buy this right now, it does need work, BUT I am having fun.
So to the reviewer - thanks for the review. I appreciate you reviewed the game not a comparison to every other FO game out there.
Giving this game 7/10 it's like slapping in the face of all gaming community.
More like "Giving this game 7/10 it's like slapping in the face of anyone who thinks it's not worth that."
People REALLY need to remember that reviewers are people with tastes and preferences that differ just like anyone else. Given that there are plenty of people who like the game, just as there are plenty who don't, it would behoove us all to look through the lens of "different strokes for different folks".
A reviewer's job isn't to tell you what you WANT to hear, but to tell you their honest opinion drawn from their own outlook and experiences.
I've not seen Bill (Murphy) have to post 4 times already to defend a 7.0 review. I really don't want to denigrate apologists for the game, because I respect there are those who have genuinely enjoyed it.
But even a score of 7 seems exceedingly generous for a asset-flip/co-op/PvP-lite Fallout 3/4/Skyrim...with more bugs than even mods could not sort out in 6 months, if allowed. I've played every Fallout game since the first in 1997. This seems a lazy effort from one of my favourite studios.
Let's just be realistic. I realise everything is subjective, but we expect reviews here to be more OBJECTIVE.
Reviews are to inform consumers about potential purchases. It should be done with the majority of your viewers in mind. Not the small percent that could enjoy watching paint dry. Personally, I'm tired of reading extended ads instead of actual reviews on gaming sites.
How is this review NOT informative? It doesn't conform to people who dislike the game's opinion, and that's not the same thing. What you're looking for is for reviewers to be echo chambers of your own personal thoughts. That's NOT what the idea should be. A critic's role isn't to meet your expectations, but to share with you whether a product met their own.
It's not informative because instead of reading about the core aspects of the game like graphics, sound/music, performance, controls, responsiveness, UI, server stability, and bugs I got a story about adolescence.
Having read it, I can say with full confidence that this would be a bad, uninformative review even without a score.
"Here's a metaphor about growing pains. Here's a few stories that you can experience in Fallout 76. And there's a few bugs, but enough of that, let's get back to the metaphor. Everything is okay because Fallout 76 is just a kid."
You may be up for the most contrived Pullitzer nomination in human history, but you utterly failed in writing a review. No discussion of the core gunplay. No discussion of the core gameplay loop. No discussion of how PvP works. No mention of how events work or how monsters scale. Or progression. Or the resource economy. Or the value for money prospect.
Even if the score were reasonably in line with expectations, this would still be unacceptable. A competent review can adequately inform a customer of the experience they can expect. This does not.
I'd give it a 6 or a 7, probably in the middle. It's far better than people seem to be making it out to be, but nowhere near what it SHOULD be.
And side note: scores, like opinions, are based on personal tastes and preference. Let's keep that in mind before telling someone else, including the writer, what they should think and feel.
I think this is a wierd one BM. It is a (fairly) fun game but isnt a well made game. I understand some people are angry because they feel ripped off. And they are rightly entitled to that. But how much should bad business practice factor into a game score???
Are we basing the score from fun?
From being polished?
From good will?
Most of the time these things go together but for fo76 its just weird.
NMS and Sea of Thieves had such a good foundation but lacking content. I feel something similar in fo76. Fo76 do have contents but lacking in polish and is full of bugs. Will it get better? Im sure of it. But will it get better quick enough is really the question right now.
and NMS get a lot of flak for this and I hardly saw anyone defending it, then they fixed most of the game, and now is a real game, the main diference here is one people is defending crap afraid they dont make more crap, when other no one cared, save the very devs, with now is oposed everyone cares and not the devs, bethesda depnedence of modders to fix they games are getting in such lvl they will next just toss the engine tools for then make the game, with of course cuts a lot of cost on development time, why pay someone to do so if we can do it for free, and even get money from it (remember the whole modders getting to sell they mods and bethesda getting a cut?, how much time till they try again?)
Just technically speaking, I don't think the game deserves the average rating.
Sure, the reviewer may have lucked out and not hit the majority of bugs others have hit, but that doesn't mean they're not there. That should be taken into consideration in the final score.
Yes, it's the reviewer's opinion, but I'm of the opinion a reviewer should construct the opinion with the audience in mind
But that's just selling out to a different audience.
He should give his opinion and he should support why he is giving the game his particular score.
I agree that he should acknowledge that there is controversy and that others have issues.
But in the end, if he bends his score because of the desires of others then he is selling out.
Whether it's to a corporation or to other players.
and 1 other.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I'm not sure I agree. I don't think think FO76 is the total cash grab so many are claiming, but I really disagree with the idea that this is a freshman attempt at online games. I can't find the exact quote, but I know I've seen comments from Bethesda about Zenimax involvement in the game, and that's not even counting the Elder Scrolls Online involvement from the Bethesda end.
I think their mistakes are pretty glaring and are of the sort that they should have known better. They developed the game on a new engine that hadn't been designed to be used as an MMO engine initially, so they took a large franchise leap while breaking in a new engine. That's not really a great idea, and we see the results.
FO76 also really feels like it was developed to be a single-player game and then the multiplayer portion of it got tacked on post-development. I think that's why you see a certain world depth there, but the multiplayer functionality and netcode problems are all so prevalent. Most of the game's issues are directly centered around technology, not really concept. That's why I don't really think this is a problem with experience.
Put me in the + column, as I'm having fun in FO76.
Do I think Bethesda rushed it out the door - oh yea. It feels more like a late alpha or early beta than a game that should have been released as complete and ready to play. That said the number of crappy MMO launches since 2007 I've been in would be most of them for one reason or another.
Granted, I do not have the long history of the Fallout games (MMO player not a FPS), so I'm not comparing it to all the other FO titles, which is what it seems most of the review are and happens when any new game (EQ to EQ2, WoW Vanilla vs every expansion), etc., nostalgia always wins. Would I give it a 7, IDK maybe, I definitely do not believe it's a 3-4.
As for the bugs, I haven't really experience a ton, but it does need work. My biggest complaint so far (I'm not rushing only mid-20s) is how clunky the UI is for 2018. The keybinding is a mess, no push to talk, taking photos (featured item is a PiA to get into that menu quickly) and some of the decisions Bethesda made (housing budget, Cap limit on vendors, notes/recipes with no way of knowing if you have them and can't sell them back, etc.) those are frustrating, not game breaking. I've played with worse launches.
One of the things I really like the NPCs and how they respond. The Scorched and Super Mutants dodge and use line of sight, try to sneak up on you, back away when you attack - that doesn't happen in most MMOs. Super Mutants talking to you while they're hunting you. Attacks on your CAMP by the different NPCs regularly. In most MMOs' forward attacking to death or running away is about it, you always no exactly what the NPC will do, not so in FO76.
Everyone has a right to their own opinion, and honestly I'm not sure I'd recommend running to buy this right now, it does need work, BUT I am having fun.
So to the reviewer - thanks for the review. I appreciate you reviewed the game not a comparison to every other FO game out there.
If you're referring to MMOs such as WoW, there's a reason the mobs aren't as intelligent. It has to do with the fact that WoW and FO76 aren't in the same genre (FO76 isn't actually a massively multiplayer game).
Going a true MMO route means tradeoffs elsewhere, including individual mob AI. I agree that it doesn't excuse the level of dumb we see in most MMORPGs, though.
Reviews should not be tailored to your audience at all. They should be the reviewer's honest opinion. If reviews on this site tried to match the readers opinions most "reviews" on this site would simply be hating on every damn game! Or wildly loving them right up until launch day, then hating on them.
The only way for a site to actually be able to give a truly well-rounded review is to be its own aggregate site. Have 3 reviewers for each game: 1 who is a fan of the series and/or genre, 1 who traditionally dislikes the series and/or genre, and 1 who is new to the series and/or genre.
Readers who are fans of the series will get a review from their perspective, as will haters, as will people that haven't played one before. And each will see reviews from differing perspectives. But who's ever gonna pay 3 people to review that same game?
At the very least reviews should list where the reviewer stands on the fan-boy<------>hater scale so that readers can understand where the reviewer is coming from.
If the reviewer's experience is not indicative of the normal experience to be expected, it's a useless review.
Ignoring or down playing widespread bugs and glitches is not useful to players, even if the reviewer lucked out on the bugs themselves.
I disagree reviews should just be unprocessed personal opinion. That's what personal blogs are for. A review represents a journalist company informing readers of the merits and demerits of games.
Reviews should not be tailored to your audience at all. They should be the reviewer's honest opinion. If reviews on this site tried to match the readers opinions most "reviews" on this site would simply be hating on every damn game! Or wildly loving them right up until launch day, then hating on them.
The only way for a site to actually be able to give a truly well-rounded review is to be its own aggregate site. Have 3 reviewers for each game: 1 who is a fan of the series and/or genre, 1 who traditionally dislikes the series and/or genre, and 1 who is new to the series and/or genre.
Readers who are fans of the series will get a review from their perspective, as will haters, as will people that haven't played one before. And each will see reviews from differing perspectives. But who's ever gonna pay 3 people to review that same game?
At the very least reviews should list where the reviewer stands on the fan-boy<------>hater scale so that readers can understand where the reviewer is coming from.
Absolutely! I agree!
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Reviews should not be tailored to your audience at all. They should be the reviewer's honest opinion. If reviews on this site tried to match the readers opinions most "reviews" on this site would simply be hating on every damn game! Or wildly loving them right up until launch day, then hating on them.
The only way for a site to actually be able to give a truly well-rounded review is to be its own aggregate site. Have 3 reviewers for each game: 1 who is a fan of the series and/or genre, 1 who traditionally dislikes the series and/or genre, and 1 who is new to the series and/or genre.
Readers who are fans of the series will get a review from their perspective, as will haters, as will people that haven't played one before. And each will see reviews from differing perspectives. But who's ever gonna pay 3 people to review that same game?
At the very least reviews should list where the reviewer stands on the fan-boy<------>hater scale so that readers can understand where the reviewer is coming from.
See my comment above. Regardless of love or hate, it is the reviewer's job to inform the audience about the core experience that they can expect. From that standpoint, they failed to do so, and no score, good or bad, is going to change that.
If the reviewer's experience is not indicative of the normal experience to be expected, it's a useless review.
Ignoring or down playing widespread bugs and glitches is not useful to players, even if the reviewer lucked out on the bugs themselves.
I disagree reviews should just be unprocessed personal opinion. That's what personal blogs are for. A review represents a journalist company informing readers of the merits and demerits of games.
There's this creepy mob mentality that some players/gamers have where they gravitate toward a particular opinion much like an angry mob or members of some sort of cult.
It does no one any good to get on a bandwagon when that's not your experience.
So "yes" acknowledging that others are having issues is good and should be done.
But to start sharpening pitchforks when that isn't one's own personal experience is a huge disservice and only helps to foster this mob mentality.
If I play a game and don't experience the issues that others are having then I'm going to say that. To start catering my opinion to others' experiences is just a lie and it seems more about being part of the crowd.
People oftentimes liken players to "sheep" because the group tends to lean towards a certain opinion or bias. Usually one that doesn't align with the person calling them sheep.
But I would offer that more realistically, anyone who alters their opinion to what the mob says when that is not their experience is acting more "a sheep."
Again, if one's review goes against the norm then one should acknowledge why it does. But I've seen enough fiery pitchfork gamer mobs to know that if I actually listened to them my gaming experience would be all the poorer.
Additionally, I've seen some footage of this game and some of the rendering issues. While I can acknowledge there are those issues, I can't acknowledge that the game that is created is such a abhorrent mess based on the more opinion based complaints.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I understand reviews are subjective, however, calling this a "review" is dubious at best. Rather, it is a long analogy making aimed at making excuses for the ($60!!!!) game being in a poor state by comparing it to a biologically expected course of adolescence.
Perhaps if the reviewer had paid $60 of their own money -- rather than playing a free PR copy -- they might have different outlook as well.
If the reviewer's experience is not indicative of the normal experience to be expected, it's a useless review.
Ignoring or down playing widespread bugs and glitches is not useful to players, even if the reviewer lucked out on the bugs themselves.
I disagree reviews should just be unprocessed personal opinion. That's what personal blogs are for. A review represents a journalist company informing readers of the merits and demerits of games.
There's this creepy mob mentality that some players/gamers have where they gravitate toward a particular opinion much like an angry mob or members of some sort of cult.
It does not one any good to get on a bandwagon when that's not your experience.
So "yes" acknowledging that others are having issues is good and should be done.
But to start sharpening pitchforks when that isn't one's own personal experience is a huge disservice and only helps to foster this mob mentality.
If I play a game and don't experience the issues that others are having then I'm going to say that. To start carting my opinion to others' experience is just a lie and it seems more about being part of the crowd.
People oftentimes liken players to "sheep" because the group tends to lean towards a certain opinion or bias. Usually one that doesn't align with the person calling them sheep.
I would say that anyone who alters their opinion to what the mob says when that is not their experience is equally "a sheep."
Again, if one's review goes against the norm then one should acknowledge why it does. But I've seen enough fiery pitchfork gamer mobs to know that if I actually listened to them my gaming experience would be all the poorer.
Additionally, I've seen some footage of this game and some of the rendering issues. While I can acknowledge there are those issues, I can't acknowledge that the game that is created is such a abhorrent mess based on the more opinion based complaints.
This isn't hating on the game because Zeni is an evil corporation; this is actually demeriting the game based on the rampant glitches and bugs being experienced by players and evidenced by the absolutely metric shit ton of videos showing said glitches and bugs.
Down playing that or ignoring it is a disservice to your readers. Being afraid to acknowledge it because you are afraid of being called a "sheep" is a cowardly excuse for not taking Bethesda to task as appropriate based on the issues present.
If you want to merely describe your own experience while ignoring issues that you know exist for many but haven't affected you personally, write a blog. Nobody looks to blogs as guidance for their purchasing decisions like they do reviews.
EDIT- the situation is exacerbated here because Bethesda is already infamous for having modders fix their shoddy coding work. Modders can't save them here. So it's doubly inexcusable for these glitches and bugs to be so common.
I find the hate on the game really cute to be honest...
People tend to forget its engine they used to make single player games and yet managed to hook it for multiplayer support...
"Hurr durr look at these glitches" ones are just cute and gets booring after couple. I dare you to show me any game that was completely glitch free at the launch date, people do forget what a mess was skyrim launch...
"No human npcs" argument is just ridiculous... While you may enjoy it first time, next playtrough will be pretty much skipping the dialogue and being annoyed because its quite long one, bethesda just saved you some time. You like lore of Fallout? Plenty of notes, holotapes, terminals with diaries and ect are pretty much everywhere for you to dig in. You just whine that its not force fed to you...
"Outdated graphics" people need to learn that games are not just about graphics for the love of Atom..
They actually outdid themselves in this one, Mire area is just gorgeous, closest thing you can get is FO3 Oasis area.
Playing with friends is fun until one of them decided to be an ass and loots every single PA spawn before others that need it get to it..
In over 100 hours so far ive only ran into one random jackass that wanted to be a pain in the butt, i just kept ignoring him until he gave up, later saw him to rack up some bounty so i decided it would be fun to pop a cap in hes skull with literal quad barreled musket (he didnt liked it at all)
Game has some issues that need to be fixed, but it doesnt really deserve all the hate it gets (it does deserve some of it), if you get +100 hours out of it its already decent purchase, most AAA titles cant even rack up 50hours...
FO76 has ~80hours of pure exploration, maybe more if you look around really carefully to learn the lore.
I just hope it will age well like NMS did and not get abandomed after year or two..
If they nail this we might get Co-op feature in future games as well.
I find the hate on the game really cute to be honest...
People tend to forget its engine they used to make single player games and yet managed to hook it for multiplayer support...
"Hurr durr look at these glitches" ones are just cute and gets booring after couple. I dare you to show me any game that was completely glitch free at the launch date, people do forget what a mess was skyrim launch...
"No human npcs" argument is just ridiculous... While you may enjoy it first time, next playtrough will be pretty much skipping the dialogue and being annoyed because its quite long one, bethesda just saved you some time. You like lore of Fallout? Plenty of notes, holotapes, terminals with diaries and ect are pretty much everywhere for you to dig in. You just whine that its not force fed to you...
"Outdated graphics" people need to learn that games are not just about graphics for the love of Atom..
They actually outdid themselves in this one, Mire area is just gorgeous, closest thing you can get is FO3 Oasis area.
Playing with friends is fun until one of them decided to be an ass and loots every single PA spawn before others that need it get to it..
In over 100 hours so far ive only ran into one random jackass that wanted to be a pain in the butt, i just kept ignoring him until he gave up, later saw him to rack up some bounty so i decided it would be fun to pop a cap in hes skull with literal quad barreled musket (he didnt liked it at all)
Game has some issues that need to be fixed, but it doesnt really deserve all the hate it gets (it does deserve some of it), if you get +100 hours out of it its already decent purchase, most AAA titles cant even rack up 50hours...
FO76 has ~80hours of pure exploration, maybe more if you look around really carefully to learn the lore.
I just hope it will age well like NMS did and not get abandomed after year or two..
If they nail this we might get Co-op feature in future games as well.
I got 35 hours out of Dynasty Warriors 9. I did not enjoy a single solitary moment of that time. I was searching for redeeming value in a series that I normally like. I could have gotten hundreds of hours in and still not enjoyed myself.
Time is not a metric of quality. Time is a metric of quantity.
Comments
Moved over to Aria... gluttons for punishment I guess.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
It's not informative because instead of reading about the core aspects of the game like graphics, sound/music, performance, controls, responsiveness, UI, server stability, and bugs I got a story about adolescence.
Well this all started with MMOs, players would play for a long time, even years, it was expected that the core game would need addons later. But we are now in the Survival genre and the core game is not completely there. I am not certain how much of a free pass we should give MMOs, survival games or any other genre but if we are going to then it will depend on my second question.
Pricing must reflect the core game not being as completed or bug free as it should be. If you sell at a pricing point that is high then you have to meet that standard.
We have seen so much stretching of what is acceptable in gaming, from loot boxes to early access, to what ready for launch means. These are all products of bad business practice being applied to MMOs, so a backlash is to be expected, which will only become stronger as more gaming companies want a piece of the cash grab pie.
Do I think Bethesda rushed it out the door - oh yea. It feels more like a late alpha or early beta than a game that should have been released as complete and ready to play. That said the number of crappy MMO launches since 2007 I've been in would be most of them for one reason or another.
Granted, I do not have the long history of the Fallout games (MMO player not a FPS), so I'm not comparing it to all the other FO titles, which is what it seems most of the review are and happens when any new game (EQ to EQ2, WoW Vanilla vs every expansion), etc., nostalgia always wins. Would I give it a 7, IDK maybe, I definitely do not believe it's a 3-4.
As for the bugs, I haven't really experience a ton, but it does need work. My biggest complaint so far (I'm not rushing only mid-20s) is how clunky the UI is for 2018. The keybinding is a mess, no push to talk, taking photos (featured item is a PiA to get into that menu quickly) and some of the decisions Bethesda made (housing budget, Cap limit on vendors, notes/recipes with no way of knowing if you have them and can't sell them back, etc.) those are frustrating, not game breaking. I've played with worse launches.
One of the things I really like the NPCs and how they respond. The Scorched and Super Mutants dodge and use line of sight, try to sneak up on you, back away when you attack - that doesn't happen in most MMOs. Super Mutants talking to you while they're hunting you. Attacks on your CAMP by the different NPCs regularly. In most MMOs' forward attacking to death or running away is about it, you always no exactly what the NPC will do, not so in FO76.
Everyone has a right to their own opinion, and honestly I'm not sure I'd recommend running to buy this right now, it does need work, BUT I am having fun.
So to the reviewer - thanks for the review. I appreciate you reviewed the game not a comparison to every other FO game out there.
Proud member of Hammerfist Clan Gaming Community.
Currently playing: RIFT, EQ2, WoW, LoTRO
Retired: Warhammer, AoC, EQ
Waiting: SWToR & GW2
and bills to pay
But even a score of 7 seems exceedingly generous for a asset-flip/co-op/PvP-lite Fallout 3/4/Skyrim...with more bugs than even mods could not sort out in 6 months, if allowed. I've played every Fallout game since the first in 1997. This seems a lazy effort from one of my favourite studios.
Let's just be realistic. I realise everything is subjective, but we expect reviews here to be more OBJECTIVE.
"Here's a metaphor about growing pains. Here's a few stories that you can experience in Fallout 76. And there's a few bugs, but enough of that, let's get back to the metaphor. Everything is okay because Fallout 76 is just a kid."
You may be up for the most contrived Pullitzer nomination in human history, but you utterly failed in writing a review. No discussion of the core gunplay. No discussion of the core gameplay loop. No discussion of how PvP works. No mention of how events work or how monsters scale. Or progression. Or the resource economy. Or the value for money prospect.
Even if the score were reasonably in line with expectations, this would still be unacceptable. A competent review can adequately inform a customer of the experience they can expect. This does not.
and NMS get a lot of flak for this and I hardly saw anyone defending it, then they fixed most of the game, and now is a real game, the main diference here is one people is defending crap afraid they dont make more crap, when other no one cared, save the very devs, with now is oposed everyone cares and not the devs, bethesda depnedence of modders to fix they games are getting in such lvl they will next just toss the engine tools for then make the game, with of course cuts a lot of cost on development time, why pay someone to do so if we can do it for free, and even get money from it (remember the whole modders getting to sell they mods and bethesda getting a cut?, how much time till they try again?)
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I think their mistakes are pretty glaring and are of the sort that they should have known better. They developed the game on a new engine that hadn't been designed to be used as an MMO engine initially, so they took a large franchise leap while breaking in a new engine. That's not really a great idea, and we see the results.
FO76 also really feels like it was developed to be a single-player game and then the multiplayer portion of it got tacked on post-development. I think that's why you see a certain world depth there, but the multiplayer functionality and netcode problems are all so prevalent. Most of the game's issues are directly centered around technology, not really concept. That's why I don't really think this is a problem with experience.
Going a true MMO route means tradeoffs elsewhere, including individual mob AI. I agree that it doesn't excuse the level of dumb we see in most MMORPGs, though.
The only way for a site to actually be able to give a truly well-rounded review is to be its own aggregate site. Have 3 reviewers for each game: 1 who is a fan of the series and/or genre, 1 who traditionally dislikes the series and/or genre, and 1 who is new to the series and/or genre.
Readers who are fans of the series will get a review from their perspective, as will haters, as will people that haven't played one before. And each will see reviews from differing perspectives. But who's ever gonna pay 3 people to review that same game?
At the very least reviews should list where the reviewer stands on the fan-boy<------>hater scale so that readers can understand where the reviewer is coming from.
Ignoring or down playing widespread bugs and glitches is not useful to players, even if the reviewer lucked out on the bugs themselves.
I disagree reviews should just be unprocessed personal opinion. That's what personal blogs are for. A review represents a journalist company informing readers of the merits and demerits of games.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Perhaps if the reviewer had paid $60 of their own money -- rather than playing a free PR copy -- they might have different outlook as well.
Down playing that or ignoring it is a disservice to your readers. Being afraid to acknowledge it because you are afraid of being called a "sheep" is a cowardly excuse for not taking Bethesda to task as appropriate based on the issues present.
If you want to merely describe your own experience while ignoring issues that you know exist for many but haven't affected you personally, write a blog. Nobody looks to blogs as guidance for their purchasing decisions like they do reviews.
EDIT- the situation is exacerbated here because Bethesda is already infamous for having modders fix their shoddy coding work. Modders can't save them here. So it's doubly inexcusable for these glitches and bugs to be so common.
I knew from the start it would have issues, good thing I trusted my instincts.
People tend to forget its engine they used to make single player games and yet managed to hook it for multiplayer support...
"Hurr durr look at these glitches" ones are just cute and gets booring after couple. I dare you to show me any game that was completely glitch free at the launch date, people do forget what a mess was skyrim launch...
"No human npcs" argument is just ridiculous... While you may enjoy it first time, next playtrough will be pretty much skipping the dialogue and being annoyed because its quite long one, bethesda just saved you some time. You like lore of Fallout? Plenty of notes, holotapes, terminals with diaries and ect are pretty much everywhere for you to dig in. You just whine that its not force fed to you...
"Outdated graphics" people need to learn that games are not just about graphics for the love of Atom..
They actually outdid themselves in this one, Mire area is just gorgeous, closest thing you can get is FO3 Oasis area.
Playing with friends is fun until one of them decided to be an ass and loots every single PA spawn before others that need it get to it..
In over 100 hours so far ive only ran into one random jackass that wanted to be a pain in the butt, i just kept ignoring him until he gave up, later saw him to rack up some bounty so i decided it would be fun to pop a cap in hes skull with literal quad barreled musket (he didnt liked it at all)
Game has some issues that need to be fixed, but it doesnt really deserve all the hate it gets (it does deserve some of it), if you get +100 hours out of it its already decent purchase, most AAA titles cant even rack up 50hours...
FO76 has ~80hours of pure exploration, maybe more if you look around really carefully to learn the lore.
I just hope it will age well like NMS did and not get abandomed after year or two..
If they nail this we might get Co-op feature in future games as well.
Time is not a metric of quality. Time is a metric of quantity.