If you say that The Witcher 3 and Fallout 4 have the same amount of bugs/glitches then TW3 clearly is superior in terms of scope/ambition.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Fallout 4: When are Glitches Acceptable? (Gamespot)
- Thread starter Zombie James
- Start date
If you say that The Witcher 3 and Fallout 4 have the same amount of bugs/glitches then TW3 clearly is superior in terms of scope/ambition.
Mostmanlyman
Member
Yeah this is why it is hard for to have a conversation about the downsides of fallout 4. Because they just always say, but it is big game, or they aren't that bad, stuff like that. They are just blind to the downsides of the game.
Makes the game run a lot better than off the internal Xbone HDD
Zombie James
Banned
I thought the exact same thing as Jeff before stuff started leaking. They're working on x86 across the board now and have close to 16x more total memory to work with as a baseline. No PPC, no Cell, no split memory pools. I expected better.
Zombie James
Banned
Embargoes.
JetBlackPanda
Member
The Witcher on PS4 was a technical mess at launch, I've played well over 10 hours of Fallout 4 and had no issues.
its all anecdotal I know but come on.
Q
Queen of Hunting
Unconfirmed Member
The same engine excuse doesnt workm these exact glitches were fixed in fallout 3 n skyrim etc so these glitches shouldnt really be here again
NoblesseOblige
Banned
Forgive me father for I have sinned. The devil has tempted me into finding pleasure in no face bugs.
Head.spawn
Junior Member
Anyone with some sense knew this game was going to launch busted as hell, literally every RPG they've ever released has been janky.
It was also CDPR's first attempt at an open world game. Fallout 4 isn't Bethesda's first rodeo at open world games. It makes it that much more damning. It's even more damning to people and more importantly reviewers who continue to gloss over this shit because 'oh it doesn't matter to me' even though it's a clear detriment, because it sends the message that it's okay for Bethesda to get away with it.
The fact that Bethesda wasn't hurt at all by the PS3 version of Skyrim is appalling. The way that game released is the kind of thing that should get people to consider legal action, not GOTY awards. If any smaller company tried to get a game approved by Sony with those kinds of problems, Sony would've thrown it back in their face and called it a page one rewrite.
This is gonna keep happening until Bethesda updates their tech, which given how Fallout is reviewing and selling they don't need to do. It's sad, but marketing and hype trumps the need for good performance.
This is gonna keep happening until Bethesda updates their tech, which given how Fallout is reviewing and selling they don't need to do. It's sad, but marketing and hype trumps the need for good performance.
SliceSabre
Banned
That is not even remotely true.
I mean, to be fair, those glitches weren't truly ironed out until the mod community helped fixed them. Vanilla skyrim on PC is still rife with all sorts of craziness.
Its more excuseable when its a open world game. linear standard AAA games dont have an excuse tho.
Besides any game they make got glitches its like a tradition. I got my first crash yesterday and im sure as hell save my game once every 10 minuttes as ived done with any game by bethesda.
Besides any game they make got glitches its like a tradition. I got my first crash yesterday and im sure as hell save my game once every 10 minuttes as ived done with any game by bethesda.
i dont personally look at glitches as acceptable ever
i tolerate them depending on the level of interference they have with my gameplay experience, but i think a product is overall better when the glitches arent there and the game works properly.
a lot of people are more tolerant than others depending on the developer though and i dont think that the preferential treatment should be overlooked when it comes to debate about things like this. i dont think critics are overreacting when they say that certain devs get raked over the coals for less.
also i feel that, in hardcore circles like neogaf etc, the populace will be more forgiving over time if you, as a dev, acknowledge the problems and are open to fixing them quickly and thus they'll speak much more highly of you in the future even if there were lots of issues with the game in the beginning (the general commentary on witcher 3 comes to mind here in light of the problems with fallout 4). Fallout 4 just came out yesterday; it hasnt had time to be patched yet... but you're not really giving anyone confidence that it'll ever be fixed (at least in a timely manner) if Pete Hines is ranting on Twitter about how there's nothing wrong with the game. And this isn't even his first rodeo, he did it with Skyrim too.
i tolerate them depending on the level of interference they have with my gameplay experience, but i think a product is overall better when the glitches arent there and the game works properly.
a lot of people are more tolerant than others depending on the developer though and i dont think that the preferential treatment should be overlooked when it comes to debate about things like this. i dont think critics are overreacting when they say that certain devs get raked over the coals for less.
also i feel that, in hardcore circles like neogaf etc, the populace will be more forgiving over time if you, as a dev, acknowledge the problems and are open to fixing them quickly and thus they'll speak much more highly of you in the future even if there were lots of issues with the game in the beginning (the general commentary on witcher 3 comes to mind here in light of the problems with fallout 4). Fallout 4 just came out yesterday; it hasnt had time to be patched yet... but you're not really giving anyone confidence that it'll ever be fixed (at least in a timely manner) if Pete Hines is ranting on Twitter about how there's nothing wrong with the game. And this isn't even his first rodeo, he did it with Skyrim too.
Same. Witcher 3 was a buggy POS at launch. Broken quests, crashing, etc...
Worth it, though. Hard to top the experience that something like the Witcher 3 or Fallout 4 can deliver. I'd take either over some linear JRPG.
SocksAndShoes
Banned
Same here. I easily had more problems in my Witcher playthrough than I have with my (albeit limited) time with FO4.
It's almost like...people's experiences with games are subjective? I dunno, call me crazy.
LordRaiden
Neo Member
Did you get your copy from a parallel universe?
I played about an hour, maybe two last night. I encountered several frame-rate drops but no devastating glitches. The frame rate did become an issue when I was fighting the Deathclaw or whatever they're called as I died by not knowing where I was when the camera went all goofy and the frame rate skipped all over the place.
I'm not a Fallout fanboy so for me, this isn't acceptable. I don't need perfection at 60FPS, but I need something more consistent than what we're given here. And the open world isn't even that graphically impressive (to me) to the point where I understand why the framerate issues exist. There aren't any insane effects or destructible environments or something that lets me know where the processing power is going. I'll give the game five or so more hours and if I continue to be peeved by these issues, I'll just shelve it until they fix them.
I'm not a Fallout fanboy so for me, this isn't acceptable. I don't need perfection at 60FPS, but I need something more consistent than what we're given here. And the open world isn't even that graphically impressive (to me) to the point where I understand why the framerate issues exist. There aren't any insane effects or destructible environments or something that lets me know where the processing power is going. I'll give the game five or so more hours and if I continue to be peeved by these issues, I'll just shelve it until they fix them.
Because, reviewers, like most people, tend to see game quality and technical glitches as two entirely separate things. You have several bugs, glitches, and framerate drops while still overwhelmingly enjoying your experience. It's weird. That's what this discussion is about, though. Should they be separate? How do we combine the conversation? Is it fair to do so?
DOWN
Banned
Please. Witcher 3 shows its budget and pulp fantasy in troves. It also doesn't perform notably better on consoles than Fallout 4. If anything, Witcher 3 had a worse start despite having way less unique assets and interactive objects.
Head.spawn
Junior Member
Let's Gofundme a new engine for Bethesda.
TatteredHat
Member
When it's a Bethesda game, apparently. Brilliant branding, you can release a janky, low performance game and people will just go "It's a Bethesda game" and pre-order anyway.
Hibiki Kurosawa
Member
I love their Fallout games, but I agree, the glitchy, janky shit shouldn't be so consistently present with their games all the time. Make/use a better engine and/or pay for a better QA team. They can easily afford it.
Windom Earle
Banned
Developed some new found respect for Gerstmann in this, didn't expect that to happen.
UnemployedVillain
Member
Aaand done. They're acceptable because reviewers keep giving them a pass, then making editorials afterwards complaining about the glitches and pretending that counts as actual condemnation.
You guys can keep saying that it's excsuaablw considering the scale and ambition of what theyre trying to do, but Bethesda isn't some small dev shop. They have the resources to give their games more thorough QAing if they wanted to.
CecilRousso
Member
I think every review I have read so far, has mentioned bugs and glitches, so no. If people just read the scores and not the texts, then it's their own fault for missing the information.
That's a pretty solid post there, as to why you still by their games. Which other companies makes these kind of games, without bugs and glitches? The Witcher 3 sure wasn't a perfect game, and the Risen/Gothic /Two Worlds games are pretty much definied by jank.
Sensible post right here. Whilst devs should strive hard to iron out as many bugs as possible I don't think it's realistic to totally rid them in a game with so many variables. Unless people are prepared to wait indefinitely for their games while testers try out every single variable. I imagine it would be a monstrously time-consuming task with diminishing benefits. At some point pubs have to draw the line and release the game in as good a state as reasonably possible.
I havenÂ’t got Fallout 4 yet so I can't comment on whether Bethesda have done enough here, but it's a recurring theme whenever an open world games is released. Strive for better, yes, but we shouldn't expect the impossible.
SolidSnakex
Member
He gave it a 4/5. So how's the much different from the sites that gave it a 9/10?
Which raises another question about Bethesda games. Why is that throwing a bunch of shit into the game that you can do a plus? Especially when a lot of it isn't done particularly well in the first place. Just having something there shouldn't be praiseworthy.
Hibiki Kurosawa
Member
Just watched an ad for Fallout 4 before watching the vid lol
Scientist Supreme!
Banned
The console versions were given a 3/5. That's the PC score.
Zombie James
Banned
And then you have Polygon - which makes a big deal about being able to give different scores to different platforms - giving the exact same score across all three platforms.
SolidSnakex
Member
But that's because of performance issues (as in the framerate) .The janky aspect is in every version.
Scientist Supreme!
Banned
Yeah that's the point. I haven't played it myself but I'm sure the PC version is much better then the console versions. It may have jank but console versions seem bad.
100% PR. They've patched in some stuff, bit its still the same dev platform.
edgy
CecilRousso
Member
So you're more forgiving towards games that interest you, just like Bethesda fans are towards what interest them? Sounds reasonable.
Marvel
could never
Yeah lol
Wait this is probably a joke post right? Almost got me too.
Trojita
Rapid Response Threadmaker
finalflame
Banned
Bethesda's official response:
The issue is there are absolutely no contenders to the formula that Bethesda uses for their games. This shouldn't give them a pass, but the fact of the matter is that it's a huge undertaking to create a world as open and dynamic as they do, even if aspects of the game are stuck in the past. That's probably why they dare reluctant to create a new engine.
Until someone else comes along and does that formula better (I loved TW3, but it's not the same), they will continue to put out buggy messes and people will buy it. I'm not happy about the practice, but I bought the game, simply because it has been a while since I've played a new open-world Bethesda and I had that itch.
The issue is there are absolutely no contenders to the formula that Bethesda uses for their games. This shouldn't give them a pass, but the fact of the matter is that it's a huge undertaking to create a world as open and dynamic as they do, even if aspects of the game are stuck in the past. That's probably why they dare reluctant to create a new engine.
Until someone else comes along and does that formula better (I loved TW3, but it's not the same), they will continue to put out buggy messes and people will buy it. I'm not happy about the practice, but I bought the game, simply because it has been a while since I've played a new open-world Bethesda and I had that itch.