Fallout 4 - Bethesda: Launch was successful

[Archangel]

But "people" aren't saying it's bad. Some people say it's bad. We don't know how many find it's bad.

Pibbur who admits that a significant lower user score for FO4 compared to other Bethesda games in sites like metacritic may be an indication. Especially if the results are uniformly low on numerous sites. The statistical uncertainty is huge, though.

And some people are saying it is good. Since we only have those some on both side their average total score says the game is of average quality. And since it is a hyped AAA game that means it is a bad game.

 

[Archangel]

Wouldn't this mean everything in the world is bad then? No matter what it is you will find people who think it's bad.

Everything is bad to some people and good to other people. But when a big group of those people come together and give 1 to 10 scores we can work out an average score.

And by looking average scores of other Hyped AAA games, we can see that on average this game is worse.

 

[Archangel]

I am surprised people here are accepting the "mass effected" dialogue system.

This is not the hardcore RPG community. RPGCodex is that one (unfortunately Codex has some other problems).

 

[Deleted member 18181]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CT1Xq4TUwAA2sG7.png:large :lol:

 

[Morrandir]

It needs to be said that the game's launch with 12 million units sold before or on day 1 wasn't economically successful because it's a good game but because it's predecessors have been popular and the PR worked out.

Doesn't mean that FO4 isn't a good game of course.

 

[joxer]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CT1Xq4TUwAA2sG7.png:large :lol:

Bookmarked!

 

[GuybrushWilco]

I am going to say that probably most people who play games never bother to vote on them on Steam or metacritic. This game is 100% a RPG, and it doesn't have to have deep dialogue or a good user interface to be an RPG - these are not prerequisites for being an RPG. These may be features that some people care about and personally prefer, but they are just not necessary for the game to be considered an RPG objectively. It has widely variable character builds, open-ended design, world reactivity, multiple solutions, and multiple endings depending on how you play the game.

To me personally, I feel like the combat is a lot of fun - the exploration is deep and rewarding, the side quests are often more than fetch and run and kill variety and tend to have more interesting stories to them than most other RPGs. The overall storyline is solid, and the character building is good too. I don't think that the loss of the stats reduced the overall depth of the game, just how you have to approach picking your perks. It still gives a lot of variety to how you want to build your character. If you don't like to build stuff, then you largely don't have to do it, but the base building and weapon customization is a lot of fun for me. If having these extra features makes Fallout 4 less of an RPG, then I guess Witcher 3 is just a card game because it has gwent in it.

I think a lot of the negative reaction to the game is knee-jerk fanboyism. "The game doesn't specifically have some of the features that I personally prefer, so it is therefore an objectively poor game and I'm going to go on metacrtitic to whine about it so everyone knows how much more right I am about what good game design is".

 

[Deleted member 18181]

@GuybrushWilco

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGn25URIss8

 

[Archangel]

I am going to say that probably most people who play games never bother to vote on them on Steam or metacritic. This game is 100% a RPG, and it doesn't have to have deep dialogue or a good user interface to be an RPG - these are not prerequisites for being an RPG. These may be features that some people care about and personally prefer, but they are just not necessary for the game to be considered an RPG objectively. It has widely variable character builds, open-ended design, world reactivity, multiple solutions, and multiple endings depending on how you play the game.

To me personally, I feel like the combat is a lot of fun - the exploration is deep and rewarding, the side quests are often more than fetch and run and kill variety and tend to have more interesting stories to them than most other RPGs. The overall storyline is solid, and the character building is good too. I don't think that the loss of the stats reduced the overall depth of the game, just how you have to approach picking your perks. It still gives a lot of variety to how you want to build your character. If you don't like to build stuff, then you largely don't have to do it, but the base building and weapon customization is a lot of fun for me. If having these extra features makes Fallout 4 less of an RPG, then I guess Witcher 3 is just a card game because it has gwent in it.

Yea? No. Keep telling yourself that buddy.
RPGs absolutely must have more than changing your looks and having 100 different fetch quests.
I know in modern games the lines has blurred a lot and because of that the line must be drawn even more rigidly.

And Fo4 does not need to be a RPG to be fun to its intended audience.
It certainly has some RPG elements in it but it is obvious those took a back seat so other things could be implemented (settlement/crafting minigames)

 

[GuybrushWilco]

@Archangel, I disagree completely. Fallout 4 does have these other gameplay elements, but the RPG aspects did not take a back seat to them. In reality, it is probably the other way around as the base building has quite a few odd design choices and does feel slightly rushed, but overall enjoyable.

When I think of an 'RPG' I think of these aspects, but not necessarily in order of importance:
1 - Reactiviety. That is how the game world and characters change or react to the decisions you make
2. Character building. That is how you can change your characters focus based on the options that the game gives.
3. Exploration. That is the ability to go off the beaten path and find side quests and secrets.
4. Quest design. That is how fun the quests are to do and if they feel rewarding or impactful rather than just being there to fill a quest quota.
Edit: 5. Combat. This varies very wildly from game to game, so there isn't really a standard RPG combat system, but generally it should have some kind of tactical element where you have to consider your approach to the fight and be prepared before hand, rather than run and gun corridor shooters like Doom. I think Fallout 4 meets this criteria as well, and maybe even better than some other RPGs like diablo.

Less important aspects to RPGs, for me, are storyline and writing. If a game has great writing then it just makes it that much greater, but I dont' feel it it has to have deep writing to be an enjoyable game, or to be an RPG. Fallout 4 does have pretty solid writing though, and while it isn't on the level of Witcher 3 or Planescape: Torment, it is still good in my opinion. Therefore Fallout 4 hits all of my marks to be an RPG. It doesn't do all of them great, but I don't think it does any of them poorly. If deep writing and long dialogue responses are necessarily for an RPG, then why do we consider Wizardry and Bard's Tale to be RPGs?

 

[Archangel]

Well your definition is than very different from what has been considered normal in last 20 years. But don't let me stop you from screaming it, have fun.

 

[sakichop]

Everything is bad to some people and good to other people. But when a big group of those people come together and give 1 to 10 scores we can work out an average score.

And by looking average scores of other Hyped AAA games, we can see that on average this game is worse.

Worse among a very, very small amount of people ( 3775 out of millions that purchased) that care to comment.

Also your leaving out human nature. People are more likely to tell others of a negative experience than a positive one. 2 to 4 times more likely is what I learned many moons ago in business school. Studies disagree slightly on how many more people but they all agree more will complain than praise. I would bet it's even higher now with the Internet.

So maybe it will help you to think every time you read a negative comment there's 2-4 people who like the game so they feel no need to comment.

It does matter really because there's no worse way to find out if I'll like a game than listening to a bunch of random people on the Internet.

I have a weird system to see if I like games. I don't make checklists of features and see if they are all met, I don't listen to reviews, videos or random comments on the web.

I buy the game. I start playing the game. If it's fun I continue to play it until it's either not fun anymore or I finish it. If it's fun then it's good, if it's not fun then it's bad.

Not very scientific but the systems yet to fail me.

 

[GuybrushWilco]

Well your definition is than very different from what has been considered normal in last 20 years. But don't let me stop you from screaming it, have fun.

Can you go ahead and list your baseline criteria for an RPG? If it isn't reactivty, character building, tactical combat, quest design, and exploration, then what?

 

[Archangel]

Worse among a very, very small amount of people ( 3775 out of millions that purchased) that care to comment.

Also your leaving out human nature. People are more likely to tell others of a negative experience than a positive one. 2 to 4 times more likely is what I learned many moons ago in business school. Studies disagree slightly on how many more people but they all agree more will complain than praise. I would bet it's even higher now with the Internet.

So maybe it will help you to think every time you read a negative comment there's 2-4 people who like the game so they feel no need to comment.

It does matter really because there's no worse way to find out if I'll like a game than listening to a bunch of random people on the Internet.

I have a weird system to see if I like games. I don't make checklists of features and see if they are all met, I don't listen to reviews, videos or random comments on the web.

I buy the game. I start playing the game. If it's fun I continue to play it until it's either not fun anymore or I finish it. If it's fun then it's good, if it's not fun then it's bad.

Not very scientific but the systems yet to fail me.

Since all other games are scored in the same way, by same people using same range of emotions we can safely say the scoring system is best we got so far and can be used to compare games.

Until the day comes where everyone that buys a game must give it a score after 10-15h of playing (or before) this is how the game are going to be scored.

 

[Drithius]

The first month following a hyped game's launch is always so amusing.

 

[rjshae]

Right, so the definition of "trolls" is now people who have different opinions about games than you do? Do you have some reason to believe those people aren't real RPG fans and/or aren't giving you their real opinion? I don't think so, if anything it's the opposite. If you're not interested in hearing other people's legit opinions about the topic at hand, then why are you on a forum?

Err.. by definition it's trolling.

"One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument."

It is entirely possible to post useful alternative opinions without trolling. All it takes is a modicum of thought.

 

[Sacred_Path]

Ok @GuybrushWilco, now I'm intrigued. How reactive is FO4's world? What choices can you make that have wildly differing outcomes?

 

[zahratustra]

The first month following a hyped game's launch is always so amusing.

Let's see for how long F4 is able to hold people's attention.

 

[rune_74]

Let's see for how long F4 is able to hold people's attention.

Well...20 hours so far for me. Still really enjoying it, not sure this angst people are having.

The idiots in here who somehow think because they don't like it they are more intelligent as bobo the troll alluded to. Never mind the fact that they whine against people calling them out and then turn around and do the same thing.

Anyone who uses 1 out of 10 or 10 out of 10 to make their arguments is failing in my book.

 

[sakichop]

Since all other games are scored in the same way, by same people using same range of emotions we can safely say the scoring system is best we got so far and can be used to compare games.

No WE can't but you can if you want.

Until the day comes where everyone that buys a game must give it a score after 10-15h of playing (or before) this is how the game are going to be scored.

No matter what system we have I'm not the kind of person that will substitute others opinions for my own.