Fallout 4

Ive been watching a lot of YouTube videos about how this game sucks in detail yet all the reviews of it say it's awesome. Why is that? Are there any other games that opinion is so different from the fan base and critics reviews?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=XuByMZzLxpM
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

It's not completely broken and obviously terrible so of course it got good reviews, it's a videogame.

gee i wonder why games journalists who have huge advertisements on the game on their websites that the publisher of the game is paying to have those adverts up and also gives them free review copies of the game, yeah i wonder why they give it a good score regardless of how good the actual game is

Because only a retarded faggot would make an in depth youtube video about something being bad.

Journalists put, at most, 20 or 30 hours into a game.
Fans put 300+ hours into a game.

With linear games the gap is lessened, but open world games where you can fuck around for however long you want tend to have worse user reviews since the cracks become far clearer after 100+ hours.

How new to video games are you?

Choke on Todd's dick some more

Good game, shit RPG

That's it.

The gunplay is fun and it's got a fun world to explore. That said, the dialogue system is fucking trash and almost ruins the game.

Fallout 4 isn't even bad when taken by itself. It's only bad in the context of the other games and I feel like the majority of reviewers only judge games as one offs.

Honestly even taken as part of the franchise it's not a bad game, and it's easy to see why casual retards would love it.

It's the epitome of the phrase "It's a good game, but a bad [series] game."

t. someone who fucking loves all of the Fallout games

you did buy it right?

It's almost as if "professional" reviewers are actually paid shills.

was this not obvious when that guy got fired for giving a bad review to kayne and lynch

Wait, what version of Higurashi is this?

>Power Armor is meant to be a strong but limited tool that gets you through difficult situations but not something you wear 24/7
>Redesign the entire PA system to make it work for those design goals

>Can't use it without going back to town then bringing it to where you need it, uses two fast travels and spending a ton of time. You need to somehow already know you'll need your 'emergency' armor before you actually go to the location.
>Cores are so plentiful that you can easily wear it 24/7 and still find more cores than you expend.

Such a waste.
It just needed a call down mechanic and cores to be rarer.

i think its just an edited webm not a full mod unfortunatly

As mentioned already by many anons its all about the money.

The "professional" reviewers get paid to play. If they write a shit review they don't get early access to reviewing Fallout 5. They have very little incentive to actually be critical of games.

Contrast this with a gamer who say $60 for the base game and then another $40-60 for DLC on top of the base game you will be far less tolerant of the faults.

Fallout 4 is not a terrible game by its self. Its extremely weak compared to other fallouts. Add in the very weak DLC content and creation club rip scam shit and you will have some very salty fans who are going to (rightly) give the game terrible reviews. People don't feel like they got there money out of the game.

Hell I paid $60 for the game and all the DLC on sale and I still feel like I got $30 worth of game. Its the first Bethesda game that I to mod in content (not QoL mods like patches and performance upgrades) to enjoy, since the weapon design looked like such shit.

What I want to know is what version of Higurashi it's based on.

People on Sup Forums (and those willing to make in depth videos of how much it sucks) are elitist nutjobs.

The critics are dirty, goddamn normies with shit taste who are paid to review games.

Just rent it, buy it, pirate it, whatever, and try it out for yourself
Form your own damn opinion based on gameplay

> all the reviews of it say it's awesome
Then you have been watching the wrong reviews.

>i hate thing!
>spends hours pouring over every detail of thing, recording and editing video and audio

yeah, only the only reviews that count are the ones I personally agree with

cracks where there in under ten man

i dont think theyre nutjobs, id agree with you if it was a brand new ip but bethesda keep streamlining and casualising every game they make more and more, when the previous game was much better than the new one then people have a right to be dissapointed

I'll take someone breaking down why they didn't like it over some retard that just says it's shit without going any deeper than that.

"become clearer" does indeed imply they were always present.

>It's not completely broken
Have you ever played it?

that can be done without making an autistic 2 hour video about it

What said.

This will be a bit longer, in 2 posts.

Reviewers generally only play something once, on a specific difficulty setting (usually the easiest mode to make things go faster, or because the Journo is incompetent) and don't do things to deliberately push the systems in the game to their limits. It's because they have deadlines to meet, there's three, maybe four, other games on their docket to play this week and they need to have their notes ready for an article before it has to go live. The time commitment for reviewing a game is a great deal higher than a movie and even most books, the reviewer is effectively juggling several different jobs including their own editor because most editors at game sites are out to permanent lunch. In some games this isn't so bad. For Devil May Cry it will produce an informative if ultimately somewhat shallow review. The skill ceiling won't come up because the reviewer never came within a mile of it but they will be able to tell you what kind of game it is, if it has any game breaking bugs, how long it takes to get through it, how much variety of enemy and weapon types and so on. For other kinds of games like Total War this is an absolute disaster of a situation. It's not just the infamous problem with Rome II (reviewers barely played it, scored it mostly within the 7-10 'worth a buy' range and people went in utterly oblivious to what a shitshow Rome II was at launch) but more that there's a large conceptual space for play. RPGs with multiple starting points for the story and lots of twists and turns withered on the vine due to these same pressures. They don't have the time to really play through a game five or six times to see everything and for awhile these reviewers were the taste makers.

I think they are though. Out of a thread of 500 replies of any popular game, maybe 2-3 will actually produce a worthwhile opinion to discuss bringing up the pros and cons of the game.
Everyone else is just attempting to be funny for attention, or pasting some huge rant from another thread that user deemed a sick burn.

I'm just saying I was 100% burned out in under 20
Settlements and power armor only go so far

nutjobs was used liberally but they're still elitists that overreact to shit
If you find one you think is "better" than good for you

Gameplay > anyone else's opinions

Yeah, nah. Everyone defending this piece of shit can fuck right off.

This is a 100+ hour RPG.
It has mediocre shooting mechanics which become a lot less tolerable the moment an enemy with a large health pool shows up.
This is the only competent thing in the game

The writing is complete and utter trite. It is one of the worst written games I have seen in a very long time, and I would argue it is worse than modern Bioware. The fact that choices in dialogue nearly don't even exist makes this point even more apparent.

The quest design at its best is entirely forgettable. It is atrocious.

The RPG mechanics are limited to the point where players have almost no freedom in how to develop their character. The moment you stop caring about what you're investing in because they're locked behind 10 or so levels, the RPG aspect of the game ceases being interesting.

Finally, the most unforgivable thing about this game; something that I will declare you a retard if you even question it; the core gameplay loop that Bethesda has successfully used for almost 2 decades has been broken. It does not work, it is NOT a functioning gameplay loop.

To expand; the core gameplay loop of these kinds of games has always been pick up as much shit as possible and sell it the moment you get to a settlement. From there, you upgrade your character, get that nice new sword you wanted, etc.

Fallout 4 gives you nothing for picking up loot bar ammunition. You have no incentive to buy anything anyway, as the shops sell approximately fuck all. There feels like there's no point to currency, caps get you all of diddly squat.

Then the building/crafting mechanics. Oh great, you can upgrade your weapon. You pick up any old shit, and you can use that. Wow, neat. But it's everywhere, not just dungeons.

Now you have literally no incentive to explore, the only thing that Fallout 3 had over New Vegas was in exploration.

GG Beth, you incompetent morons.

Nope. Yarr'd it. And considering just how abominable it is, im glad i did that.

sure its just a video game so its inherrently an overreaction due to it not being very important buisness but when the gameplay has things cut out and is made worse than the previous game in the name of reaching a wider audience then i think that makes the game inherntly dissapointing. Now if it was a new ip this wouldnt be a problem since it can be judged on its own merrits instead and in this instance i dont think we would see hour long Game x is shit videos

>describe game mechanics
>analysis is "is bad"

Just as bad as those youtube reviewers that say the game is good to be quite honest senpai

When the game has no redeeming features in comparison to both previous iterations and contemporaries, it doesn't deserve anything better. It's an awful product where the sales are fueled by nothing but brand momentum. Not a good game in any way, the content is bad; your game is bad.

This resulted in a destructive feedback loop that stripped out a lot of features that were mainstays of the Fallout series up through New Vegas. Even 3, to a limited extent, included them. So it became clear they weren't getting good notices because a quest could shake out in six different ways based on playstyle and choice - they were getting notices for the product of a run with little to no experimentation, so they built a game to be as impressive as possible along those lines. Solid enough for one run, everything after that is an afterthought at best. On second and third runs things like the fake dialog and fake choices become very clear, the player has more time to think about the problem of correlating the story you're told and the world you're shown with the rest of the series (someone's probably written a very long essay documenting it) as well as subtler problems in the internal logic of the story. And from there one's perspective starts to dip. The honeymoon effect that Bethesda games enjoy starts to wear off and the flaws become more important in forming an opinion of the game as time goes by. That's where these videos come from. The honeymoon is over, these people feel less than happy with their purchases, and now they're using the video format as a way of exploring why.

There's another blind spot reviewers have - they try to review games in isolation from each other for some reason. Given that game reviews are most essentially a form of consumer reporting, you think they'd be willing to say to prospective buyers, 'this game is sixty dollars and still has fleas on it like all AAA does these days, while this older game over here is a quarter the price and does the same thing' (this isn't limited to Fallout 4) but they don't. The reasons for that are complicated and beyond the scope of this post but it's still there.

There's more I could go into, explaining the how and the why but I think this is enough for now.

>When the game has no redeeming features in comparison to both previous iterations and contemporaries

But it does, you just have a raging hate boner for it. It has good and bads.

Problem is that cores also functioned as ammo for the gatling laser. Plus while you can wear it for long periods of time, especially if you spec for it, the actual armor gets shot up pretty quick and has to be repaired.

What's good about it?

Fallout 4 is a shit-tier Fallout game, but it does succeed at having a core gameplay loop that people enjoy. Looting carries value, building up settlements is its own reward if you love the town-building mechanics(and is basically required to proceed in survival mode), and the gunplay has been upgraded from dogshit to functional if not amazing. Kill shit to get shit to craft shit to kill bigger shit to get better shit to craft better shit is a pretty tried-and-true skinner box, and it works well with Todd making himself such a force of personality to the casual community. I should know, since my playtime in 4 recently eclipsed my playtime in New Vegas.

>hey Sup Forums, some people like this game but other people think it's shit!
>what's the deal? i thought all gamers had the same opinions!
>how am i supposed to know what to think if nobody tells me what to think?

Bodyslide et al.

>it's a bad fallout but a good good

whoever says this has no standards.christ

the only part that's somewhat tolerable is the shooting but that goes to shit 10 minutes into the game when you encounter your first bullet sponge and have to either exclusively use the more broken weapons or turn the difficulty down

>the fake dialog and fake choices become very clear
this so much since the journo's only play the game once they only have to give the impression that your choices actually meant something and they will praise the game for its branching narratives

youtube.com/watch?v=XuByMZzLxpM

Main redeeming feature was the removal of the ridiculous durability system for weapons. Armor and improvised pipe weaponry i can understand, but a military rifle isn't going to turn to shit just because you put 3 magazines through it. Also, the addition of a melee button was nice for not wasiting bullets on fast small shit like molerats and baby mirelurks.

>The RPG mechanics are limited to the point where players have almost no freedom in how to develop their character.

As opposed to say... Fallout 1 where you're free to develop your character however you want so long as however you want always starts out with combat skills, right?

Sorry, can you repeat that, i didn't quite catch that

"Fifteen men on the dead man's chest—
...Yo-ho-ho, and a bottle of rum!
Drink and the devil had done for the rest—
...Yo-ho-ho, and a bottle of rum!"

This

>(((reviews)))

While I agree that the gunplay has vastly improved (i.e. actually being able to hit the broadside of a barn at 1st level) looting did not need "fixed" When a new gun costs 1500 caps and each raider is carrying 50 caps worth of loot on them, one desperately yearns for the days of fallout 3/NV when you could shoot your way through a local raider den and if you didn't get a decent weapon out of the deal, the combined loot of them would be more than enough to get some new armor or weapon, have it repaired to full, and provide for a refill on stimpaks and ammo.

While the crafting mechanic isn't completely retarded, to many build-focused mods are locked behind an experience wall. Theres no reason that one should need gun nut 2 or higher to jury rig a suppressor out of an oil filter. or to figure out how to put a scope on a rifle.

As for the settlement building mechanic, its fun....the first time. After that, you start up a new character to realize that having at least a couple good settlements for water production and decent shops is a basic necessity, one that requires considerable investment of time, resources, and perk points. FO4 fails where the rest of bethesda's catalogue succeeded in that the 2nd playthrough doesn't feel different enough. You have no real choice in how things play out and no matter what happens, you're still going to wind up on the roof of a building watching part of boston get hit with a firey explosion that leaves no lasting impression beyond the institute being inaccessible.

...

Piss poor reasoning. Quick melee and removal of a function that added to destroying exploration in the gameplay loop. I had no issues with the repair system, things degraded maybe a bit too quickly, but it actually gave a survival element to the game. Something Fallout 4 fails abysmally at.

Game from the 90s with a shoestring budget vs. a multi-million dollar modern AAA product

arent games supposed to get better as technology improves, not worse especially when the new game has a multi million dollar budget

These are fair complaints, and I'll be the first to admit that unless you're invested in the settlement mechanic, you'll get a limited amount of enjoyment from the game. As someone who is a huge sucker for that mechanic, individually placing every wall, alcove, piece of furniture and appliance, the game is a joy to me. I've probably rung at least 150+ hours just out of building towns, and I kept running back to breweries looking for more bottles to make my lovely top floor terrarium restaurant and ensuring that every apartment got natural sunlight.

If you want survival, new vegas had the one in the bag too. You needed sleep, you needed food, you needed water, you needed medical supplies (or services) and ammo had weight to it so you had to keep a close eye on how much shit you were lugging around. All they had to do was copy and paste that system but no, that was too much fucking work.

This is precisely why Fallout 4 deserves zero praise.

What's interesting is that you can reveal the fake micro level thing by just creating a save before conversation and cycle through each response in turn. But the load screens average about 30 seconds on consoles so it would take over two minutes to do this even once. To really lay out a conversation five exchanges deep would be at least ten minutes long. And you'd need to keep doing this as you went through the game. Just pulling apart six such conversations is an hour's work in a game that takes around 40-80 hours to really finish, and if you're a journalist you're on a deadline. If this were in the EGM days they could have used division of labor to compare notes across four reviews with each assigned to do detailed breakdowns of this kind in specific areas or segments of the game but does anyone still do reviews like that?

Graphics can improve, AI can improve, processing can improve. Technology only increases the capacity of the bowl. Its up to the developers whether that bowl is full of Golden Grahms of Shugar-Frosted Shit Flakes

>Game from the 90s with a shoestring budget vs. a multi-million dollar modern AAA product

And that gives the 90s game on a shoe string budget the ok to have it's cock sucked how? Everyone keeps moaning and groaning about how "your roleplaying is limited" with the newer fallouts by spouting out dumbshit rhetoric.

>hurr I have to play as a housewife from the pre-war or some ex military

Neither of these backgrounds are of any consequence nor are you pressured into finding your son. In Fallout 1 if you wanna fuck off and do jack shit for the vault for the 100 days that they tell throw on you it's game fucking over. In Fallout 4 you can whore yourself out to all your companions for years and the game won't end on you. In Fallout 1 unless you start yourself off with combat skills you may as well just uninstall the game while in 4 not having offense oriented perks is no where near an insurmountable task. So really, which one of these two fucks you in the ass about your freedom in roleplaying?

>Main redeeming feature was the removal of the ridiculous durability system for weapons.
I will never understand this fucking argument.
Durability in the way it was balanced in NV just makes you be mindful of you gear and how you are using stuff, it reinforces the idea of struggle/survivalism in setting and is not like you can't fix it or pay for it.
It feels like people are just babies who can't deal with that little thematically interesting nuance because god forbid you feel like you are losing something in a video game.
Then again bethesda is always pushing for this retarded audience who wants everything to be as harmless, convenient and "theme park" as possible.

It's because what little durability your weapons have is just fucking retarded. How the fuck would you like to play a game that had vehicles that required you to gas up after every 10 miles?

> How the fuck would you like to play a game that had vehicles that required you to gas up after every 10 miles?
Not them, but it worked pretty well in Mad Max and Dying Light: The Following, it being almost a complete non-issue in both after a certain point.

you guys arent' even trying.

The game is complete garbage and it taught me to never buy anything from Bethesda unless I pirate it first.

its not a bad game
its just its a shit Fallout

It was far to aggressive of a durability loss. One can put a few thousand rounds through a rifle barrel (not all of it at once) without it noticeably affecting the performance of the weapon. Melee weapons that are smacked against robots and giant lizards all day? Fine. Armor that eats a couple hundred rounds of ammo per day? Fine. Guns cobbled together from irrigation systems? Fine. But a rifle pulled from a pre-war storage unit should need little more maintenance than a good cleaning and a bit of oil.

I've played Mad Max. I've beaten Mad Max. I've endured enough mighty dusters to tell you that you can drive your car for more than 10 in game miles before needing to gas up.