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 don't know how I'd personally score the game as there's no way in hell I'm getting involved in this disaster. And I feel that so far 76 has been a pretty big black eye for Bethesda. So now you know where I stand in the whole Fallout 76 controversy.
That said I'd recommend a better strategy than just defending Mister Gula's review as his own personal opinion. I suggest like you guys used to do in the past that if someone disagrees with his review and score then to challenge them to step up and put their money where their mouth .. er keyboard is, and write a review themselves.
Normally , I would agree about giving a counter review but normally most of the points would be really subjective and worth debate/discussion/consideration.
In this case thats already available pretty much everywhere- Hour long video essays, millions of digital pages etc that go in depth in a way ive rarely seen. And certainly you can find those types of product breakdown with any title if you go looking- But the scale here is of such magnitude that you cannot avoid these dissertations even if tried.
In other words, it would be really redundant and not worth the time.
Theres no way on Gods green earth this game is 7/10- Even if you are enjoying it... Hell, some of my favorite games I would rate as 7/10 because of issues they have...And if this is 7/10, whats an 8/10 or a 9/10 look like in comparison?
edit- My favorite game of the last, probably 10 years is RDR2 and I would give that an 8/10 because as much as I enjoy it, its not near perfect (9/10 being near perfection)
Nope- I'm just stating my non paid for opinion here. The game isnt as bad as some make it out to be (its better than the 2.7 on metacritic) but the reason for the extra negative points is more complex than just an arbitrary number. I would rate it 3 based on all things considered and a 5 if this had been released without all the shadiness, lies, laziness and incompetence that went along with it.
edit- My favorite game of the last, probably 10 years is RDR2 and I would give that an 8/10 because as much as I enjoy it, its not near perfect (9/10 being near perfection)
Yeah the problem there is that 10 does not = perfect.
If perfection isn't possible, as most people point out, then there is no point having a 1 - 10 scale. Heck, if 10 was perfection and not possible you would only have a 1 - 9 scale.
I imagine a game that is a 10 (or anything that is evaluated on such a scale) means that despite any flaws, the experience is amazing, transcendent, better than the sum of it's parts.
I would say that any game that garners praise, has die hard fans and that lasts well after the release, a game that has a community, people write about it for years, stream it, discuss it, that would be a 10.
Again, greater than the sum of its parts. This doesn't mean it won't have its detractors but since we all have different tastes it's highly likely that a thing won't have detractors. Even if it's as benign as saying, "it seems like a good game but not my taste."
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
edit- My favorite game of the last, probably 10 years is RDR2 and I would give that an 8/10 because as much as I enjoy it, its not near perfect (9/10 being near perfection)
Yeah the problem there is that 10 does not = perfect.
If perfection isn't possible, as most people point out, then there is no point having a 1 - 10 scale. Heck, if 10 was perfection and not possible you would only have a 1 - 9 scale.
I imagine a game that is a 10 (or anything that is evaluated on such a scale) means that despite any flaws, the experience is amazing, transcendent, better than the sum of it's parts.
I would say that any game that garners praise, has die hard fans and that lasts well after the release, a game that has a community, people write about it for years, stream it, discuss it, that would be a 10.
Again, greater than the sum of its parts. This doesn't mean it won't have its detractors but since we all have different tastes it's highly likely that a thing won't have detractors. Even if it's as benign as saying, "it seems like a good game but not my taste."
I dont disagree with anything you have said here but I'm not the one using this system (except to make my point)
The system is used for hype purposes and I rarely ever see games journalists go as low as a 6 (so 7 is usually bottom of the barrel) but it just feels slimy.
I'd us a similar system to what ive seen used with some amateur critics and its a "buy/dont buy/wait for sale" with a breakdown of the game- The problem with adopting that method in a placve that relies on advertisers is that picking "dont buy" could potentially hurt your bottom line or restrict future access and it would be easy for people to see that you never choose "dont buy" which would appear really biased.
The number system allows them alot of leeway- But giving 76 a 7/10 also (imho) hurts their credibility.
Bethesda will remain a top supported company until another company does ALL of these that bethesda does, but they'd have to do it better
1. Extreme modability (you can make skyrim into a porn game, a dark souls game, a fallout game, a warhammer (fantasy/40k) game, harry potter game, a mario game, a zelda game...anything game). There is not one company that allows you to customize a game THAT much, closest competitor to that is GTA 5 but still not nearly same depth of modding tools
2. Sandbox singleplayer game (many do this, but fail to do #1)
3. Allow potentially 1000s of hours of game time (for example on steam I have 2k hours, haven't even beat main quest at all ever in skyrim and its still an awesome game cause of mods)
Witcher 3? Vastly better game. Sadly its lifespan is VASTLY shorter than Skyrim with a severe lack of replayability due to a vastly worse modding support. Skyrim is played by more people TODAY, despite it being super old, than Witcher 3 which is a lot newer.
Cyberpunk 2077 is almost certainly going to be an amazing game, but won't have the lifespan that Skyrim does.
Sadly, that is where Bethesda wins. The only single company to have such amazing mod support. Closest competitor being GTA series. No other company bothers to make amazing modding tools, despite that being a major source of Bethesda's success. Kudos to GTA though for having pretty much just as a good modding community as Bethesda.
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
I'm still waiting for an official to change "our" to the persons name or "my" so this whole "It's a personal review" flight can get off the tarmac.
The "write your own review" retort is kinda bogus too because when did everyone get the memo that submissions for features were being accepted? That always gets said after the fact.
For me, a 7 on MMORPG.com now means chances are, I'll feel like this playing the game.
Open the box my butt. The outliers can keep this Se7en for themselves.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
A minor request for the staff writers at MMORPG.com. Less analogy, more observations.
I've not purchased or played FO76, and this article did nothing to interest me in this game. 'Playing with Friends' was listed as both a Pro and a Con for the game. So which is it? The reviewer couldn't seem to categorize their observations and come up with a conclusive opinion. All in all, a pretty weak review, not giving me any confidence in the review, the reviewer, the product or this site.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Enjoying the game, has made me jump a few times. Working on the base, power gear and just surviving is interesting! Nice to be able to explore and wander around... not like wow where you use 3% of the map and do the same thing again and again and again... long term no idea
It's absurd to assume game journalists don't understand how misleading it is to categorize average as a seven on a ten point scale. Anyone who understands where the enthusiast press comes from and how it's survived can recognize why this inflation exists, and why reviewers are so frightened to be honest in regards to reception and scoring. If the reviewer isn't independent, you can safely assume you aren't reading the truth.
This review is just another example in a long list of examples of how far certain writers will go to protect their brand over their readers. Even if Fallout 76 was average, which is objectively false, the review in question has done relatively nothing to provide the data that would cement such an argument. Get your reviews elsewhere, stay for the forum banter.
"This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran)
Well, that is an opinion. If it was I'd be able to actually finish the thing.
It tells stories much better but in a way that leaves little room for the player's take on it.
As it stands, I've been playing Morrowind since it launched as well as Skyrim.
Played Oblvionfor 2 years +
I had to force myself to finish the 2nd Witcher (which eventually I enjoyed but have no need to play it again), couldn't finish the first and I'm trying to finish the 3rd.
So not really a vastly better game for me.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Bethesda will remain a top supported company until another company does ALL of these that bethesda does, but they'd have to do it better
1. Extreme modability (you can make skyrim into a porn game, a dark souls game, a fallout game, a warhammer (fantasy/40k) game, harry potter game, a mario game, a zelda game...anything game). There is not one company that allows you to customize a game THAT much, closest competitor to that is GTA 5 but still not nearly same depth of modding tools
2. Sandbox singleplayer game (many do this, but fail to do #1)
3. Allow potentially 1000s of hours of game time (for example on steam I have 2k hours, haven't even beat main quest at all ever in skyrim and its still an awesome game cause of mods)
Witcher 3? Vastly better game. Sadly its lifespan is VASTLY shorter than Skyrim with a severe lack of replayability due to a vastly worse modding support. Skyrim is played by more people TODAY, despite it being super old, than Witcher 3 which is a lot newer.
Cyberpunk 2077 is almost certainly going to be an amazing game, but won't have the lifespan that Skyrim does.
Sadly, that is where Bethesda wins. The only single company to have such amazing mod support. Closest competitor being GTA series. No other company bothers to make amazing modding tools, despite that being a major source of Bethesda's success. Kudos to GTA though for having pretty much just as a good modding community as Bethesda.
The Witcher 3 doesn't need modding. Cyberpunk 2077 won't need modding. These games are of legendary quality without them and will maintain relevance for years on quality alone.
I think Funcom's Conan fans wanted something more but know that a new MMO will never happen, from FC at least. The expectations for what FC could do with the IP were pretty low and fragmented. So they made a survival game at least as good as ARK was at launch with a different feel to it. It was success because they didn't break the disenfranchisement rule and they made an interesting game.
I find Conan Exiles to be excellent. I don't play it much because that isn't my main jam, but I do enjoy it. I love the flexibility and power Funcom delivers with server controls and the ability to host our own world.
I actually reviewed Conan Exiles and was pretty hard on it for the flaws it brought to the table. I gave it a 7.2. Today I would probably rate it a mid to high 8 because my feelings about a game change over time and FC has improved it a lot. I think it's stood a test of time and has an established fan base of its own.
It's pretty surprising to see FC *not* screw up a title. It seems to be in their DNA to come up with interesting ideas for games, with new twists on skills or combat, etc.... and then manage to completely flub it in execution/management. They've done it, arguably, with all 3 of their MMOs.
Their single player titles? Solid. Even their MOBA-like game was decent fun.
MMOs though? FC can't seem to not blow it.
Anyway... regarding FO76, to see much blowback *at all* for a Bethesda game is notable enough to me to conclude that they certainly screwed up pretty badly. That the low reviews exceed the positve or even mediocre by such a large margin can't be ignored, IMO. To say "well it's just opinions, man" rings a bit disingenuous, specifically because of who we're talking about here, especially considering how forgiving and even protective Bethesda fans can be. It's historically more likely to see reactions along the line of: "Oh, those silly Bethesda folks and their crazy bugs! No problem! I'll just wait for a mod to fix it!".
Considering that, the ermm... fallout (sorry)... over this is not what I was expecting. Seems to me they seriously shit the bed this time around, sufficient that even normally defensive fans are saying "Hell no". I *do* agree that the score/opinion of this particular review raises an eyebrow. An outlier for sure, at the very least.
My cynical side tends to think it was scored as it was specifically *to* get the kind of reaction it has. More visits to the site, more activity. More potential for ad revenue, etc.
I could be wrong, but something tells me that RDR2 Online is gonna come out and absolutely HUMILIATE this game.
At the very least, by rollout strategy. You give players a story in the map to get engaged and immersed in. Make them feel good about that world. THEN you bring them into the map with their friends.
So then any game that works, has a story, good graphics, and good gameplay is what, an automatic 11/10?
Or is this one of those it's really a 2/10 but gets a free pass because Multiplayer (+2), +1 because Bethesda, and +2 because Fallout (skin), situations?
So earlier today I cruised over to Best Buy. I was looking a TV's and I noticed many of the TV's were showing different scenes. At times it was showing game footage of Fallout and I mentioned to the salesgirl, "Have you heard the reviews on fallout?." She said, "No, but everyone in the store is playing it and loves it. I personally love the game." I was like wow and I didn't get into it with her since a lot of people seem to enjoy the game. Then I thought to myself am I being overly critical, because like many of you we comment in depth about games. Sometimes being in here which I love to do influences me to be absurdly critical. By the way the Sony OLED's have a great picture....
4) Add live NPCs with actual personalities. Your experiment with an NPC-less wasteland was not a pro in anyone's book I've seen. You can only hold attention through nostalgia recordings for so long before it becomes just another disembodied voice blabbering about the apocalypse.
yes, at this point just say it is an alternate universe. . I wouldn't really care.
My verdict at this point is one of disappointment and frustration. This game came too late in all honesty feels like something is missing. To me it's really sad because I really like fallout and I love the series, but this game just doesn't feel like that. I would score it a four or five at the most.
So hilarious watching streamers play this game for seven straight days all the while saing how its not as bad as people say it is. And that its still fun even though its buggy. Then when theyre sponsorship is up (most claim they werent being paid) they have all moved on to other games now. And when they get called out on it they claim theyre waiting for all the patches that magically appeared over the past few days to come in and make the game as epic as it should be then they will go back to it. Its like theyre all reading from the same script.
Now with all that being said there are moments and the game doesnt seem all THAT bad. I think a lot of people are just taking what they have heard and running with it. I own it and I havent played it yet. Because I am actually waiting for the patches to come. But I also only paid 35 bucks for it. Which may have been too much who knows how low it will go.
I would say that it does play better with a group of people you know and the larger bossy type fights (when they dont crash the server) with the people on the server all getting in on it are pretty epic. But after you do it once not sure how exciting it is after that. So replayablility is a little lacking possibly. Which for a Fall Out game is sort of anti IP.
But some of the larger and longer fights are pretty cool and didnt seem all that buggy. In fact only a few quests from what I saw were bugged and even those were not hard bugs (everyone was bugged) but random and some people could finish a certain quest and others couldnt. Not sure if that makes it better or not.
Also saw a few RDII coomets here, and the streams were overall mush worse. Not in terms of bugginess but in terms of the expected cash grab and monetization of each and every little thing. Literally locking you into horse menu and forcing you to go through the whole menu of things you can do (and pay for) before you can even exit the menu. Not forcing you to buy anything but making sure you were aware of the prices of things. But we all knew what it would be, shark cards all over again. But with RDRII its gold bars or whatever. So IMO inability to play because of forced store interface is nearly as bad as not being able to play because of a bug or a crash. But That game will die off as fast or faster than GTA V did on 'official' servers which is obviously all consoles can offer. So in terms of overall potential FO76 has a much brighter (possible) future. BUt once (if) RDRII comes out on PC and modders get a hold of it and private servers come out it will be pretty epic. And that is also where that game will have a better possible future than FO76. But really theyre two different games. And both could be epic in their own way. But both as is are pretty shitty.
I'm not going to defend or bash a review. I will say this, that although I don't know Dame in person, I am acquainted with him and I've always found him to have excellent integrity and sincerity. If he feels the game rates a value (for whatever those are worth) then I believe him. I may not feel the same way, but I don't doubt for one moment his reasons for rating it that way.
I think people would be better served treating a rating number for what its worth, not much, and focusing on the specifics and reasons for opinions within the article itself.
Same with Mike B, for me, over 12 years of seeing his posts. IMO he WANTS to love a game and make the most of it. I think that's a really good trait to have, especially these days with indie game companies trying to figure out what they're good at.
But with a Bethesda Fallout game, that shouldn't be required.
Nor should friends be required to enjoy a game. As a kid, I'd shovel slop(aka pig poop and ground, rejected animal body parts) under trees at a tree farm to make money. Or sort baby trees into bundles in a barn. Friends made that experience tolerable, if not enjoyable. If I didn't have friends to do that with, I'd have probably went postal. We know what happens in post offices when people don't make friends...
Also saw a few RDII coomets here, and the streams were overall mush worse. Not in terms of bugginess but in terms of the expected cash grab and monetization of each and every little thing. Literally locking you into horse menu and forcing you to go through the whole menu of things you can do (and pay for) before you can even exit the menu. Not forcing you to buy anything but making sure you were aware of the prices of things. But we all knew what it would be, shark cards all over again. But with RDRII its gold bars or whatever. So IMO inability to play because of forced store interface is nearly as bad as not being able to play because of a bug or a crash. But That game will die off as fast or faster than GTA V did on 'official' servers which is obviously all consoles can offer. So in terms of overall potential FO76 has a much brighter (possible) future. BUt once (if) RDRII comes out on PC and modders get a hold of it and private servers come out it will be pretty epic. And that is also where that game will have a better possible future than FO76. But really theyre two different games. And both could be epic in their own way. But both as is are pretty shitty.
Its off topic but so far RDR2 Online is going to be a massive disappointment and blatant cash grab. Initial (and totally scientific lol) calculations seem to show me that its going to take dozens of hours of grinding to do something as simple as customize your weapons look- Which is totally cosmetic. I'm not even going to touch the clear P2W direction the game is seems geared towards.
However, theres a major distinction here as well. I purchased both games and RDR2 had one of best single player experiences of the last decade- It oozed with love and care and detail and polish- It was just an outstanding experience. $70 well spent- The online portion is just a free added bonus and if it sucks or is totally p2w it does not undermine my purchase at all- If it happens to be great (doubtful at this point from what ive seen) thats all just icing on an already delicious cake.
FO76 was an early access asset flip which we were lied to about (16 times the detail of FO4!!! Biggest game we've ever made! etc..etc..) and theres no saving grace. As a $20 early access title I would been fine with this. As a $60 released game from bethesda? No way... I was ripped off and so was anyone else who bought this garbage.
It might be good some day (but I doubt it highly) but right now its 5/10 at best... And thats pushing it.
I don't often read reviews here, but this one is doing more sugar coating than any other site I visit. I hope they aren't all like this. The high school comparison was very fitting, but it's such an obvious excuse, you're not fooling anyone.
No one who's spent $60 on a product is going to be ok with it just hitting puberty...
I've a relative that's a shameless shill -- and not one you just call someone because you disagree with but a real one -- and he was suggested to give it at least a 7 as well (you'd be surprised at the ways it is suggested, from holding good relations with contacts to even going to events and befriending developers and management who talk about the difficulties / sob stories they have to give it a human element and interrupt professionalism and instill bias). With a similar level of sugar coating.
I say this because he opted out this time around and gave the free collector's copy to someone else; with a score this high pretty much anyone would be able to identify him.
Though taking a look at other scores, even IGN has given this a 5/10... which says something indeed. To say nothing of it being almost unprecedented that there are so many agrees with people who thoroughly disagree with this review... with not a single member defending the game that I came across before writing.
This just goes back to the whole "number system" being inconsistent with the intent of informing the public with the information that is representative of a game and not challenged by personal bias. But it wouldn't be games journalism if feelings and bias and opinions weren't flaring and people didn't come to the rescue of the poor billion dollar companies from the evil populace because they're friends with developers and know their struggle as their higher ups throw them to the wolves.
I note the "cons" section as a subject of interest. The first thing in the con section is how great the game is with the writer's chosen way of playing. Add to this every other sugar coated portion and we have a recipe for something.
Ethics in Journalism: How much does games journalism in general fail at? With everyone with a keyboard being able to write and accept gifts from companies, most without proper training or education with regards to reporting. This is not a shot at MMORPG.com but rather the state of most of the games journalism -- especially when you have your games journalists on twitter with personal rants and writing articles of hate against their own audience.
ARTICLE I - Responsibility
The primary purpose of gathering and
distributing news and opinion is to serve the general welfare by
informing the people and enabling them to make judgments on the issues
of the time. Newsmen and women who abuse the power of their professional
role for selfish motives or unworthy purposes are faithless to that
public trust. The American press was made free not just to inform or
just to serve as a forum for debate but also to bring an independent
scrutiny to bear on the forces of power in the society, including the
conduct of official power at all levels of government.
ARTICLE II - Freedom of the Press
Freedom of the press belongs to the
people. It must be defended against encroachment or assault from any
quarter, public or private. Journalists must be constantly alert to see
that the public's business is conducted in public. They must be vigilant
against all who would exploit the press for selfish purposes.
ARTICLE III - Independence
Journalists must avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety as well as any conflict of interest or the
appearance of conflict. They should neither accept anything nor pursue
any activity that might compromise or seem to compromise their
integrity.
ARTICLE IV - Truth and Accuracy
Good faith with the reader is the
foundation of good journalism. Every effort must be made to assure that
the news content is accurate, free from bias and in context, and that
all sides are presented fairly.Editorials, analytical articles and
commentary should be held to the same standards of accuracy with respect
to facts as news reports. Significant errors of fact, as well as errors
of omission, should be corrected promptly and prominently.
ARTICLE V - Impartiality
To be impartial does not require the press
to be unquestioning or to refrain from editorial expression. Sound
practice, however, demands a clear distinction for the reader between
news reports and opinion. Articles that contain opinion or personal
interpretation should be clearly identified.
ARTICLE VI - Fair Play
Journalists should respect the rights of
people involved in the news, observe the common standards of decency and
stand accountable to the public for the fairness and accuracy of their
news reports. Persons publicly accused should be given the earliest
opportunity to respond. Pledges of confidentiality to news sources must
be honored at all costs, and therefore should not be given lightly.
Unless there is clear and pressing need to maintain confidences, sources
of information should be identified.
These principles are intended to preserve,
protect and strengthen the bond of trust and respect between American
journalists and the American people, a bond that is essential to sustain
the grant of freedom entrusted to both by the nation's founders.
-----------------------
The sad truth of the matter is that most "games journalists" go to these events, make these contacts, become friends with many of them, etc. because the industry is hard to get into. They do so to get higher up, to write for better places and get more opportunities. They even try to work for many of the companies they write for as an in. Therefore they do not want to burn bridges or follow journalistic integrity. In essence it's a stepping stone and not a passion about the news. As such they're also easy targets to instill fanboyism, expand the hype industry and basically defend billion dollar companies over proper news reports and what should be the target audience for anyone that reports on these things.
Post edited by Yaevindusk on
Due to frequent travel in my youth, English isn't something I consider my primary language (and thus I obtained quirky ways of writing). German and French were always easier for me despite my family being U.S. citizens for over a century. Spanish I learned as a requirement in school, Japanese and Korean I acquired for my youthful desire of anime and gaming (and also work now). I only debate in English to help me work with it (and limit things). In addition, I'm not smart enough to remain fluent in everything and typically need exposure to get in the groove of things again if I haven't heard it in a while. If you understand Mandarin, I know a little, but it has actually been a challenge and could use some help.
Also, I thoroughly enjoy debates and have accounts on over a dozen sites for this. If you wish to engage in such, please put effort in a post and provide sources -- I will then do the same with what I already wrote (if I didn't) as well as with my responses to your own. Expanding my information on a subject makes my stance either change or strengthen the next time I speak of it or write a thesis. Allow me to thank you sincerely for your time.
Comments
In this case thats already available pretty much everywhere- Hour long video essays, millions of digital pages etc that go in depth in a way ive rarely seen. And certainly you can find those types of product breakdown with any title if you go looking- But the scale here is of such magnitude that you cannot avoid these dissertations even if tried.
In other words, it would be really redundant and not worth the time.
Theres no way on Gods green earth this game is 7/10- Even if you are enjoying it... Hell, some of my favorite games I would rate as 7/10 because of issues they have...And if this is 7/10, whats an 8/10 or a 9/10 look like in comparison?
edit- My favorite game of the last, probably 10 years is RDR2 and I would give that an 8/10 because as much as I enjoy it, its not near perfect (9/10 being near perfection)
Nope- I'm just stating my non paid for opinion here. The game isnt as bad as some make it out to be (its better than the 2.7 on metacritic) but the reason for the extra negative points is more complex than just an arbitrary number. I would rate it 3 based on all things considered and a 5 if this had been released without all the shadiness, lies, laziness and incompetence that went along with it.
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
The system is used for hype purposes and I rarely ever see games journalists go as low as a 6 (so 7 is usually bottom of the barrel) but it just feels slimy.
I'd us a similar system to what ive seen used with some amateur critics and its a "buy/dont buy/wait for sale" with a breakdown of the game- The problem with adopting that method in a placve that relies on advertisers is that picking "dont buy" could potentially hurt your bottom line or restrict future access and it would be easy for people to see that you never choose "dont buy" which would appear really biased.
The number system allows them alot of leeway- But giving 76 a 7/10 also (imho) hurts their credibility.
1. Extreme modability (you can make skyrim into a porn game, a dark souls game, a fallout game, a warhammer (fantasy/40k) game, harry potter game, a mario game, a zelda game...anything game). There is not one company that allows you to customize a game THAT much, closest competitor to that is GTA 5 but still not nearly same depth of modding tools
2. Sandbox singleplayer game (many do this, but fail to do #1)
3. Allow potentially 1000s of hours of game time (for example on steam I have 2k hours, haven't even beat main quest at all ever in skyrim and its still an awesome game cause of mods)
Witcher 3? Vastly better game. Sadly its lifespan is VASTLY shorter than Skyrim with a severe lack of replayability due to a vastly worse modding support. Skyrim is played by more people TODAY, despite it being super old, than Witcher 3 which is a lot newer.
Cyberpunk 2077 is almost certainly going to be an amazing game, but won't have the lifespan that Skyrim does.
Sadly, that is where Bethesda wins. The only single company to have such amazing mod support. Closest competitor being GTA series. No other company bothers to make amazing modding tools, despite that being a major source of Bethesda's success. Kudos to GTA though for having pretty much just as a good modding community as Bethesda.
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul
The "write your own review" retort is kinda bogus too because when did everyone get the memo that submissions for features were being accepted? That always gets said after the fact.
For me, a 7 on MMORPG.com now means chances are, I'll feel like this playing the game.
Open the box my butt. The outliers can keep this Se7en for themselves.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
This review is just another example in a long list of examples of how far certain writers will go to protect their brand over their readers. Even if Fallout 76 was average, which is objectively false, the review in question has done relatively nothing to provide the data that would cement such an argument. Get your reviews elsewhere, stay for the forum banter.
"This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran)
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
Their single player titles? Solid. Even their MOBA-like game was decent fun.
MMOs though? FC can't seem to not blow it.
Anyway... regarding FO76, to see much blowback *at all* for a Bethesda game is notable enough to me to conclude that they certainly screwed up pretty badly. That the low reviews exceed the positve or even mediocre by such a large margin can't be ignored, IMO. To say "well it's just opinions, man" rings a bit disingenuous, specifically because of who we're talking about here, especially considering how forgiving and even protective Bethesda fans can be. It's historically more likely to see reactions along the line of: "Oh, those silly Bethesda folks and their crazy bugs!
Considering that, the ermm... fallout (sorry)... over this is not what I was expecting. Seems to me they seriously shit the bed this time around, sufficient that even normally defensive fans are saying "Hell no". I *do* agree that the score/opinion of this particular review raises an eyebrow. An outlier for sure, at the very least.
My cynical side tends to think it was scored as it was specifically *to* get the kind of reaction it has. More visits to the site, more activity. More potential for ad revenue, etc.
At the very least, by rollout strategy. You give players a story in the map to get engaged and immersed in. Make them feel good about that world. THEN you bring them into the map with their friends.
NO!
So then any game that works, has a story, good graphics, and good gameplay is what, an automatic 11/10?
Or is this one of those it's really a 2/10 but gets a free pass because Multiplayer (+2), +1 because Bethesda, and +2 because Fallout (skin), situations?
Give me a break. I was think more like a 3. Too many issues.
Proud MMORPG.com member since March 2004! Make PvE GREAT Again!
Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!
Now with all that being said there are moments and the game doesnt seem all THAT bad. I think a lot of people are just taking what they have heard and running with it. I own it and I havent played it yet. Because I am actually waiting for the patches to come. But I also only paid 35 bucks for it. Which may have been too much who knows how low it will go.
I would say that it does play better with a group of people you know and the larger bossy type fights (when they dont crash the server) with the people on the server all getting in on it are pretty epic. But after you do it once not sure how exciting it is after that. So replayablility is a little lacking possibly. Which for a Fall Out game is sort of anti IP.
But some of the larger and longer fights are pretty cool and didnt seem all that buggy. In fact only a few quests from what I saw were bugged and even those were not hard bugs (everyone was bugged) but random and some people could finish a certain quest and others couldnt. Not sure if that makes it better or not.
Also saw a few RDII coomets here, and the streams were overall mush worse. Not in terms of bugginess but in terms of the expected cash grab and monetization of each and every little thing. Literally locking you into horse menu and forcing you to go through the whole menu of things you can do (and pay for) before you can even exit the menu. Not forcing you to buy anything but making sure you were aware of the prices of things. But we all knew what it would be, shark cards all over again. But with RDRII its gold bars or whatever. So IMO inability to play because of forced store interface is nearly as bad as not being able to play because of a bug or a crash. But That game will die off as fast or faster than GTA V did on 'official' servers which is obviously all consoles can offer. So in terms of overall potential FO76 has a much brighter (possible) future. BUt once (if) RDRII comes out on PC and modders get a hold of it and private servers come out it will be pretty epic. And that is also where that game will have a better possible future than FO76. But really theyre two different games. And both could be epic in their own way. But both as is are pretty shitty.
But with a Bethesda Fallout game, that shouldn't be required.
Nor should friends be required to enjoy a game. As a kid, I'd shovel slop(aka pig poop and ground, rejected animal body parts) under trees at a tree farm to make money. Or sort baby trees into bundles in a barn. Friends made that experience tolerable, if not enjoyable. If I didn't have friends to do that with, I'd have probably went postal. We know what happens in post offices when people don't make friends...
F76 couldn't have gone much more wrong, IMO.
However, theres a major distinction here as well. I purchased both games and RDR2 had one of best single player experiences of the last decade- It oozed with love and care and detail and polish- It was just an outstanding experience. $70 well spent- The online portion is just a free added bonus and if it sucks or is totally p2w it does not undermine my purchase at all- If it happens to be great (doubtful at this point from what ive seen) thats all just icing on an already delicious cake.
FO76 was an early access asset flip which we were lied to about (16 times the detail of FO4!!! Biggest game we've ever made! etc..etc..) and theres no saving grace. As a $20 early access title I would been fine with this. As a $60 released game from bethesda? No way... I was ripped off and so was anyone else who bought this garbage.
It might be good some day (but I doubt it highly) but right now its 5/10 at best... And thats pushing it.
Buy Fallout New Vegas GotY. Play it and and enjoy it much MUCH more. Old World Blues FTW.
Want to play with your friends? Find ANY game that lets you play with your friends and play it. It will probably be better than this.
To be honest though any OLED TV is amazing - UHD of course. LG make all the screens by the way but yes the Sony electronics do shown them off well.
No one who's spent $60 on a product is going to be ok with it just hitting puberty...
ARTICLE I - Responsibility
The primary purpose of gathering and distributing news and opinion is to serve the general welfare by informing the people and enabling them to make judgments on the issues of the time. Newsmen and women who abuse the power of their professional role for selfish motives or unworthy purposes are faithless to that public trust. The American press was made free not just to inform or just to serve as a forum for debate but also to bring an independent scrutiny to bear on the forces of power in the society, including the conduct of official power at all levels of government.
ARTICLE II - Freedom of the Press
Freedom of the press belongs to the people. It must be defended against encroachment or assault from any quarter, public or private. Journalists must be constantly alert to see that the public's business is conducted in public. They must be vigilant against all who would exploit the press for selfish purposes.
ARTICLE III - Independence
Journalists must avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety as well as any conflict of interest or the appearance of conflict. They should neither accept anything nor pursue any activity that might compromise or seem to compromise their integrity.
ARTICLE IV - Truth and Accuracy
Good faith with the reader is the foundation of good journalism. Every effort must be made to assure that the news content is accurate, free from bias and in context, and that all sides are presented fairly. Editorials, analytical articles and commentary should be held to the same standards of accuracy with respect to facts as news reports. Significant errors of fact, as well as errors of omission, should be corrected promptly and prominently.
ARTICLE V - Impartiality
To be impartial does not require the press to be unquestioning or to refrain from editorial expression. Sound practice, however, demands a clear distinction for the reader between news reports and opinion. Articles that contain opinion or personal interpretation should be clearly identified.
ARTICLE VI - Fair PlayJournalists should respect the rights of people involved in the news, observe the common standards of decency and stand accountable to the public for the fairness and accuracy of their news reports. Persons publicly accused should be given the earliest opportunity to respond. Pledges of confidentiality to news sources must be honored at all costs, and therefore should not be given lightly. Unless there is clear and pressing need to maintain confidences, sources of information should be identified.
These principles are intended to preserve, protect and strengthen the bond of trust and respect between American journalists and the American people, a bond that is essential to sustain the grant of freedom entrusted to both by the nation's founders.