Fallout 4 - Bethesda: Launch was successful

[Zephyr]

I think the biggest problem for game developers is managing player expectations. Especially so in a well-known and loved franchise.
Those who fell in love with and were imprinted by FO1-2 will forever be disappointed in anything that doesn't mimic those games. They fell in love with the look, game-play, writing, mechanics, etc. Anything less in subsequent iterations automatically draws howls of disappointment and bitter criticism.
I'm 67, born in 1948, and grew up musically in the 60s. I played guitar then and had a crummy garage band. To me, music has pretty much sucked since Disco hit and everything after. This includes Springsteen, The Ramones, AC/DC; you get the idea.
I see this with games and gamers, too. If the game doesn't fit or match the vibe you first encountered, played, and fell in love with, then everything that came after is crap.
If FO1-2 are the gold standard, go and play them. Game developers aren't in business to cater to your precious fee-fees about a certain genre or game. They're in it for the money. Deal with it. They're not there to meet your personal expectations. They provide a product and if you like it, fine. If not, too bad.
The game may not meet your personal criteria on every level or any level. Oh, my. The Butthurt. Want a game that hits your sweet spot? Write it yourself.

 

[pibbur who]

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.

No. It means that we don't know anything reliable about how people regard the game from those sources.

It's basic probability theory/statistics. To infer anything about a population (in this case the FO4 players) from a sample (voters on MC and similar places) requires statistical independence. In this case it means that whether you post or not must be independent of your views on the game (or bethesda). That you're just as likely to post if you strongly dislike it, or like it very much, or is just ok with it … It would surprise me very much if that was the case.

So we don't know anything from Metacritic user scores. We also have no guarantee that the people votying for FO3 are comparable to the FO4 voters, for instance the FO3 voters are sampled over a much longer period.

The only thing we know for sure are what the people who voted thought.

Pibbur who

 

[Sacred_Path]

The Butthurt.

indeed.

 

[Archangel]

No. It means that we don't know anything reliable about how people regard the game.

Pibbur who

We know as much as we know every other game because they are all scored in same way.
And because of that we can with 100% certainty say that Skyrim, F3 and FNV are better games overall.

 

[pibbur who]

We know as much as we know every other game because they are all scored in same way.

We know as little as we know about every other game.

I agree that voting is done using the same score system. But the sample of scorers is highly biased ("whiners" and "fanboys"). This means that we can't reliably compare votes for different games. Just one factor (which I've already mentioned) that without doubt may affect the scores: scores for Skyrim and FO3 are collected over several years, scores for FO4 over only a couple of days.

And because of that we can with 100% certainty say that Skyrim, F3 and FNV are better games overall

No.

It is basic statistics, I included an explanation in my previous post.

pibbur

 

[forgottenlor]

We know as much as we know every other game because they are all scored in same way.
And because of that we can with 100% certainty say that Skyrim, F3 and FNV are better games overall.

I disagree. I just went to Metacritic because this whole debate interested me. First there are a ton of people who gave this game a "0" out of principle, which drags the rating way down. In fact there is almost no one who gave the game a "5." Most gave "8" "9" "10" or "0". This shows that there are people who hate the game based on whatever reason, most of them hate the new skill system.
Also if you look at user ratings alone, almost all new games have low user ratings. The only games which score over "9" in user rating are over 10 years old. Witcher 3 managed just under 9, and a few of the other games up there are niche games, mostly adventures. Most AAA games suffer in user ratings, and that's because they are getting a lot of "0" scores.
By the way I haven't played Fallout 4, so I have no personal opinion of the game. Still I've played every Bethesda game since Daggerfall, and none of them were lower than a "6" for me. Not even Oblivion with its terrible level scaling.

 

[BoboTheMighty]

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.

Sorry, you'll need to put more effort than that…and odd thing here, is how "trolls" are actually more interested in discussing game here than showing "Either play or GTFO" attitude.
Play some more Fallout IV and Bethesda "witty" writing will maybe rub off on you.
Ok, that was trolling.

 

[pibbur who]

Personally, I think terms like "troll", "whiner" and "fanboy" are used too indiscriminately. We've had real trolls here, I don't think any of the posters in this thread compare to them.

pibbur in his holier-than-thou mode, who still disagrees almost completely with the bear, the angel and the other tr… ooops… critics here.

 

[Falchor]

Pretty enjoyable thread! I think this thread (along with all the other on-fire Fallout 4 forums around the interwebs) prove that Fallout games (and Bethsoft-style Fallout games, in particular), seem to bring out a lot of passion in folks… both negative and positive.
I've been with Fallout since the first game. And I've been with Bethsoft since "Daggerfall". So far I can say this is definitely the best Bethsoft-based Fallout game. That's not saying much, as they've only done one other, Fallout 3. And I'm not going to compare it to 1 and 2, as those were completely different animals. This is (and has always been) Elder Scrolls reskinned with the lore, environments, and people of Fallout. And Elder Scrolls games have always been as much of a first-person world simulator as anything else. Is it an RPG? I don't know, and tend not to get hung-up on definitions much anymore. GTA5 feels a lot like an RPG at times, as did Red Dead Redemption.
All I know is that these simulation-type games suck me in more than any other type of game I play… so I guess I fall into Bethsoft's core audience. That said, I find the engine disputes legitimate. They need to develop the next ES game on a new platform, and they need to use that platform for the next Fallout.
On the subject of bugs, I know they are there (as they always are with these types of games) but I've not experienced anything myself in about 15 hours worth of game-play. It looks good, runs well on my slightly-above average rig, and has some great art design. So, I'm pleased. But, I also wasn't expecting some kind of life-changing experience with this game either; I was expecting the next Bethsoft-style simulator in a setting I enjoy. And that's what I got.

 

[BoboTheMighty]

I disagree. I just went to Metacritic because this whole debate interested me. First there are a ton of people who gave this game a "0" out of principle, which drags the rating way down. In fact there is almost no one who gave the game a "5." Most gave "8" "9" "10" or "0". This shows that there are people who hate the game based on whatever reason, most of them hate the new skill system.
Also if you look at user ratings alone, almost all new games have low user ratings. The only games which score over "9" in user rating are over 10 years old. Witcher 3 managed just under 9, and a few of the other games up there are niche games, mostly adventures. Most AAA games suffer in user ratings, and that's because they are getting a lot of "0" scores.
By the way I haven't played Fallout 4, so I have no personal opinion of the game. Still I've played every Bethesda game since Daggerfall, and none of them were lower than a "6" for me. Not even Oblivion with its terrible level scaling.

There is an equal amount, if not more green reviews and this creates amusing chain reaction of back and forth stupidity between fanboys and haters.
Older games are reviewed by a more mature audience with less amount of extreme ratings, but I can't think of a single AAA hq game that was hugely down voted for no obvious reason.
Bethesda isn't a new developer…why the sudden very low score, by their standards?
In this case, in some part it's reaction to different direction from New Vegas ( the "dumbing down") and to what we've seen from Witcher III/Phantom Pain that raised storytelling/performance standards (respectively) for open world genre, making FO IV seem almost comical in comparison. The difference is far too noticeable.
I think metacritic actually provides a pretty damn accurate rating…if you average out between pro and user scores. Bioware ratings over the last ten years are a good example.
Critics tend to overlook, players overreact… In some twisted, universe has a weird sense of humor, kind of way…it actually evens out.

 

[rune_74]

Sorry, you'll need to put more effort than that…and odd thing here, is how "trolls" are actually more interested in discussing game here than showing "Either play or GTFO" attitude.
Play some more Fallout IV and Bethesda "witty" writing will maybe rub off on you.
Ok, that was trolling.

I called you out on your stupid comment, that's it. Don't like it? Don't write it.

See, you state you are more willing to discuss but all your posts have labeling involved then whine when you get labelled….

The game isn't any where near the comical level you think it is….heaven forbid some of us actually enjoy this.

There is some really interesting writing to be found in the game....a lot of the recordings are really well done. I guess if you aren't looking for anything you get what you want.

It is sad that instead of talking about a good game we get to get dragged into this with the usual people.

 

[JDR13]

I'm around 25 hours in now, and I'm still enjoying it a lot. It's a really good game if you enjoy the setting.

If you're looking for deep dialogue or lots of C&C, go play something like Age of Decadence. That's not what this game is about. Considering Bethesda's games have never been strong in those aspects, it makes me wonder why people would bitch about them not being strong in FO4.

I'm pretty sure that a large percentage of the negative comments from people that A.) still haven't actually played the game even though they claim to have - or B.) old-school fans that are still pissed off that Fallout is no longer isometric or turn-based.

 

[Carnifex]

I know I'd prefer it if the game were still turn based, but turning it into an action role playing game never stopped me from playing or enjoying it, for what it is. I've experienced one ending so far and since today is all about football, tomorrow I'll be looking to see if there are other endings in the game. I expect there are because I ran into several serious choice areas in the one path that I finished.

 

[rune_74]

I know I'd prefer it if the game were still turn based, but turning it into an action role playing game never stopped me from playing or enjoying it, for what it is. I've experienced one ending so far and since today is all about football, tomorrow I'll be looking to see if there are other endings in the game. I expect there are because I ran into several serious choice areas in the one path that I finished.

Yeah, my son beat it and plans on playing again. I haven't even come close because I have been wondering to each site and finding some neat stuff around. I unfortunately can't walk away from locations I'm actually enjoying this more then New Vegas as I feel it controls better and the modification system is really interesting.

 

[BoboTheMighty]

I called you out on your stupid comment, that's it. Don't like it? Don't write it.

See, you state you are more willing to discuss but all your posts have labeling involved then whine when you get labelled….

The game isn't any where near the comical level you think it is….heaven forbid some of us actually enjoy this.

There is some really interesting writing to be found in the game….a lot of the recordings are really well done. I guess if you aren't looking for anything you get what you want.

It is sad that instead of talking about a good game we get to get dragged into this with the usual people.

Eh, now I feel I'm the one being trolled here. Voices of Harmless criticism, that's what Archangel and I are all about.
Only Luj is left, since Joxer seems to have crossed to the dark side.
Luj, where are you?

 

[Terry]

Hey Rune can you explain "controls better" then FNV.

 

[forgottenlor]

There is an equal amount, if not more green reviews and this creates amusing chain reaction of back and forth stupidity between fanboys and haters.
Older games are reviewed by a more mature audience with less amount of extreme ratings, but I can't think of a single AAA hq game that was hugely down voted for no obvious reason.
Bethesda isn't a new developer…why the sudden very low score, by their standards?
In this case, in some part it's reaction to different direction from New Vegas ( the "dumbing down") and to what we've seen from Witcher III/Phantom Pain that raised storytelling/performance standards (respectively) for open world genre, making FO IV seem almost comical in comparison. The difference is far too noticeable.
I think metacritic actually provides a pretty damn accurate rating…if you average out between pro and user scores. Bioware ratings over the last ten years are a good example.
Critics tend to overlook, players overreact… In some twisted, universe has a weird sense of humor, kind of way…it actually evens out.

I think what it proves is that when a game comes out people tend to give a very emotional scores. Just so you know one very highly rated game (in terms of user metacritic) is Vampire:Bloodlines. Vampire:Bloodlines received terrible criticism when it was released, because of the terrible amount of bugs. It would most definately have a lot of "0"scores today, because people give "0" scores if a game is unplayable for them. Just look at Steam reviews. The fact is any version of Vampire:Bloodlines you buy today is well patched. In addition you can get a patch to restore lost content.
Over time the people who have actually finished a game, and had time to consider their opinion rather than people who say give a review after 10 hours of play or less start weighing in. I'm guessing these people are probably less likely to give a "10" or "0", because they have thought over rationally what the game deserves. Also with each patch the number of people who give bad reviews because of technical issues decline. With each year older and older computers can run a game without problems. I really can't believe that Fallout 4 deserves a "0" and I'd be surprised if it deserves a "10" either, which is why if you want to judge anything by metacritic you should wait 6 months or so. I've played some bad games in my time. I can't think of any one that I'd give a "0" to though. People are giving a "0" out of principle and not because they consider gameplay as a whole.

 

[Moriendor]

Yep. Always lots of "political" votes on those sites like MC. People hate Bethesda for buying the Fallout franchise 0/10, people who hate Bethesda for suggesting paid mods 0/10, people who have a hard-on for Bethesda because they nerfed their favorite class in ESO 0/10, and so on.

It would be interesting if one could somehow find out whether someone has actually voted on the game or on unrelated issues or Bethesda as a company.

Steam is slightly better because you can at least see how many hours someone with a negative review has put in the game but Steam suffers from being very undifferentiated.
You can only vote two-bit style. Thumbs up or down, no in-betweens, which leads to curiosities such as this (first random negative review I just found)… guy has played ~65 hours and gave the game a thumbs down in spite of a 7/10 score (dafuq? apparently a modern gamer kiddie for whom everything less than a 9/10 is an epic fail)

[FONT=&quot]Fallout 4 is an okay game. A solid 7/10.


[/FONT] ​

And the other problem, of course, is that Steam is only PC gamers. You don't get the majority vote from the (rough guess based on their previous games) 70%+ people who play it on consoles instead of PC.

 

[zahratustra]

I've experienced one ending so far and since today is all about football, tomorrow I'll be looking to see if there are other endings in the game. I expect there are because I ran into several serious choice areas in the one path that I finished.

You've finished it in 5 days???

Yep. Always lots of "political" votes on those sites like MC. People hate Bethesda for buying the Fallout franchise 0/10, people who hate Bethesda for suggesting paid mods 0/10, people who have a hard-on for Bethesda because they nerfed their favorite class in ESO 0/10, and so on.

You forgot (conveniently or not) the other side of the coin: those who vote 9/10 or 10/10 because it's Bethesda. I tend to agree with forgotten and pibbur - right now we see only positive and negative bias and so it's impossible to judge F4 by Metacritic score just now. Maybe in a year or so?

 

[Moriendor]

You forgot (conveniently or not) the other side of the coin: those who vote 9/10 or 10/10 because it's Bethesda. I tend to agree with forgotten and pibbur - right now we see only positive and negative bias and so it's impossible to judge F4 by Metacritic score just now. Maybe in a year or so?

No, I did not really forget that. As I pointed out, the people with the 0/10 political votes are those who cast their votes unrelated to the game. The vast majority of them has neither bought the game nor are they basing their score on the actual game. They just vote 0/10 because they hate Bethesda's guts for some reason unrelated to FO4.

The Bethesda 9/10 + 10/10 fanbois have very likely at least bought the game and are basing their score on the game. It's a related score. It may be overrated or whatever but at least they are actually voting on the game and not on something unrelated that Bethesda did or did not do in the past, the present or even the future.