Support NeoGAF

[Ooccoo]

Always funny when someones opinion on a game is discarded simply because they enjoyed a game you do not, grow up people. He didn't like the game, doesn't make his opinion any less valid than your own.

The thing is DA:I was reviewed poorly by a LOT of people. So he is indeed in the minority of players that actually enjoyed the game. Meaning is opinion IS marginal at best.

 

[7DollarHagane]

Not enough assassins Creed map full of icons design for the reviewer, huh?

Well, I'll call this a positive review. The game should be slow, and difficult, and not hold your hand.

 

[Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew]

Also hey OP, thanks for spoiling the opening of the game. Think before you post a thread next time, maybe actually read the article your posting... I know you updated the post but still, you didn't do it when you needed to, you only did it when I posted that there were spoilers.

It's Fallout. Here's spoiler for you: Nukes happen. Vault happens. People die. People live.

Thanks for confirming there are spoilers of the first 19 minutes of an 80 hour game.

 

[chubigans]

I'm 9 hours in and completely disagree with this review. To me the "interesting" part is just exploring the VAST wasteland that Bethesda has given us. The gameplay is good enough that I don't need a constant mission reminder or story nugget to remain immersed.

For example, no spoilers here, but a bit about a gameplay stretch from yesterday. I see a deep patch of water and dive in. I am getting eaten up by radiation, but it's been so long since I've played Fallout, I completely forget how it works. The radiation I mean. I figure I can get out, take a few stimpacks, and be good to go. Of course, I was wrong.

I'm early in the game, so I find myself stuck at about 25% max health thanks to radiation. Ok I guess, no big deal. I start exploring en route to a raider camp I want to clear out. I come across a place, turns out it's infested with ghouls. Uh oh. Naturally, this is my first death in the game. I am trying for an all melee weapon play through, but I have to break this for this encounter. I simply do not have the health to go toe to toe with a pack of feral ghouls.

So when I respawn, I try using my pistol. Nope. They are too fast and I don't do enough damage. Attempt #3, I use a double barrel shotgun I found. Yeah baby! It puts them down in 1, sometimes 2 shots. And Dogmeat is great at pinning ghouls down. I clear them out, explore the building they were blocking, and move on.

Maybe 100 yards away I stumble across some more. I take them out, enter a small place, and a brahma bull or whatever they are called, is glitches and stuck inside. I know, a glitch in a Bethesda title. So I can't fully explore it. I leave and go up into the second floor of another place. Yes! Stimpacks. I need them. On the way down I hear breathing so heavy outside I literally think something is out there fucking Dogmeat. I run out just in time for the bull that was glitched to speed by me, running and struggling and panting as fast as it can go to get where it was going. Hilarious.

I walk some more and come across a building. Mine at the door but does little damage. I go inside, scavenge a bit. I go deeper inside... another mine. Not so lucky this time. My low health means my legs are blown off and I am dead. Fuck.

I had no saved, so I spawned back in front of the ghouls. I clear them out, check the small building again and this time no bull glitched inside. I am able to go all the way to the back and sweet baby Jesus it's a medical kit. I side I find glorious Radaway! I am now fully healed, feeling great. I go back inside that building and.... fucking die again by the mine. It's strong.

And I'm back by the ghouls. I immediately clear them and get the Radaway again. This time I take a slightly different path to the building and find some armor and a machete. And best yet, grenades. I lob one into the building and the mine doesn't kill me again. I continue on my journey.

Gameplay personally doesn't get more interesting than that to me. And it's like that a lot in the game. There are obviously stretches of land with little to nothing going on, but it's a wasteland. If there were thriving strongholds and castles everywhere it wouldn't be a wasteland.

There seems to be very little actual meat in that review.

Great impressions. To me, very little of the story is what I remember of Fallout 3. I remember the smaller buildings that I explored, some containing nothing at all. It was the mood, the adventure, the joy of surviving...that's something no other game has done for me other than Fallout/Skyrim.

 

[Ullus]

Seriously. How fucking ridiculous: Dragon Age had the least captivating plot and the most uninteresting characters of any of the RPGs I've played recently.

Says quite a bit about Fallout 4 characters and story then.

 

[komplanen]

This is unreal. It's getting to a point where nothing really matters in a bethesda game: graphics, story, bugs, glitches, clunky gameplay, mediocre gunplay, nothing matters, all is normal and fine. As long as it has that bethesda game studios seal, it must be GOTY every year.

Man, I can't wait for the reviews thread.

This.

Review thread going to be fucking amazing no matter what the overall score is.

 

[diamount]

The thing is DA:I was reviewed poorly by a LOT of people. So he is indeed in the minority of players that actually enjoyed the game. Meaning is opinion IS marginal at best.

Don't talk crap, you know what they say with reviews. People who enjoyed a product/service are less to talk about it, so in fact the negative opinions are the minority. Doesn't matter anyway, opinions are opinions.

 

[antitrop]

I feel like he could have just straight up deleted that entire paragraph that even mentioned Dragon Age: Inquisition, I don't understand the point. It's a poorly thought out comparison, the paragraph goes nowhere.

 

[alexandros]

This is unreal. It's getting to a point where nothing really matters in a bethesda game: graphics, story, bugs, glitches, clunky gameplay, mediocre gunplay, nothing matters, all is normal and fine. As long as it has that bethesda game studios seal, it must be GOTY every year.

Man, I can't wait for the reviews thread.

It's weird, isn't it? I'm reading things like " you don't play Bethesda's Fallout for the story, or the shooting, or the gameplay, or the characters, or the graphics" and I'm wondering, what the fuck do you play them for? If the atmosphere and exploration are the only good parts of a game, shouldn't we expect some improvement eventually?

 

[RDreamer]

I feel like he could have just straight up deleted that entire paragraph that even mentioned Dragon Age: Inquisition, I don't understand the point.

It's a reference point. He's saying compared to Inquisition, there's nothing compelling him to do more content in this game.

 

[RulkezX]

Always funny when someones opinion on a game is discarded simply because they enjoyed a game you do not, grow up people. He didn't like the game, doesn't make his opinion any less valid than your own.

Well he links an article slating open world RPGs for being too big and praises DA:I for its fetch-quest-a-thon because it had a tighter narrative.

I get what he is saying, I too enjoyed DA:I and for the same reasons, but his criticism of FO4 stems from it not being a more story driven RPG with a tight narrative.

Anyone who loves Bethesda games already knew that was the case, the games are huge sandboxes, that's the appeal "here is a world, there is something going on in it, go have fun"

Don't talk crap, you know what they say with reviews. People who enjoyed a product/service are less to talk about it, so in fact the negative opinions are the minority. Doesn't matter anyway, opinions are opinions.

Which is proven to be bullshit when you look at the top user rated games

 

[antitrop]

It's a reference point. He's saying compared to Inquisition, there's nothing compelling him to do more content in this game.

Ya, I feel like his point needs significantly more elaboration or it just shouldn't be there at all.

 

[K.Sabot]

I feel like he could have just straight up deleted that entire paragraph that even mentioned Dragon Age: Inquisition, I don't understand the point. It's a poorly thought out comparison, the paragraph goes nowhere.

Agreed. The main thought of that paragraph amounts to "this side content has nothing to do with the main plot and this is bad".

 

[Gator86]

This.

Review thread going to be fucking amazing no matter what the overall score is.

Amazingly accurate

 

[diamount]

I feel like he could have just straight up deleted that entire paragraph that even mentioned Dragon Age: Inquisition, I don't understand the point. It's a poorly thought out comparison, the paragraph goes nowhere.

Probably his only other recent RPG experience, hence the comparison to another RPG. However flawed it maybe.

 

[shark sandwich]

I love how everybody is trying to tear down Dragon Age Inquisition like that will somehow make Fallout 4 a better game.

 

[antitrop]

Probably his only other recent RPG experience, hence the comparison to another RPG. However flawed it maybe.

I don't like the overly defensive tone of that paragraph, the mention of Inquisition at all seems to be there only to say "I do actually like RPGs, really!".

 

[shark sandwich]

This.

Review thread going to be fucking amazing no matter what the overall score is.

Lol is this yours? You should add "that reviewer liked Dragon Age Inquisition so that invalidates everything he said."

 

[banefirelord]

In principle, you're absolutely right. This is one of the greatest strengths of Morrowind's gameplay. Morrowind is generally held in much higher regard than the sequels by hardcore TES fans, while the game systems are in fact just as broken and unbalanced as subsequent titles. The main difference here is that Morrowind is inherently much more freeform and sandboxy in how its gameplay systems, the world and its characters are all seamlessly intertwined. When facing a quest or any other kind of challenge, you are invited to play around with the systems as you see fit and there is no real "right" or "wrong" way of dealing with things. This is where a lot of people get their satisfaction from since it really enables their creativity and sense of agency.

But with each new entry in the series, this aspect has been diminished through things like scaling back the complexity and openness of the systems (like creating your own spells, and the variety of spell types available), and also imposing more arbitrary restrictions where certain things no longer have to abide by the fundamental mechanics, like an NPC becoming unkillable or completely immune to mind-altering spells because reasons. It makes the games more rigid and only playable in the narrow, pre-defined ways the designers explicitly intend. This is why the newer games are more criticized for this.

I definitely understand that and feel that "theme park" creep. In admittedly more extreme situations than what Bethesda's been doing, I've had tabletop DMs ram me through "Their Story" in The Way They Intended It To Be Played and it's terrible. Going more superficial than the underlying mechanics, this is what particularly worries me about the decreased dialogue choices and the voiced protagonist in F4...it feels like a shift toward designer priority over player priority.

The problem for me is that we're still in a place where Bethesda doesn't have any direct competitors. The style of game they make is my favorite style, but they're not very good at it at the end of the day, even though ironically they're sort of the only people that make them. Witcher 3 nails worldbuilding and story, but it's an abysmal sandbox. Divinity OS has that freedom of mechanics and exploiting systems, but it's not that open world, real time, first person game I want.

I feel that I love Bethesda games out of more a lack of choice in the market than a particular affinity to them. If some other dev comes out with that particular combination of game elements and does it even moderately better, I'll drop BethSoft in a hot second. But for now, I'll make do.

 

[samn]

The thing is DA:I was reviewed poorly by a LOT of people. So he is indeed in the minority of players that actually enjoyed the game. Meaning is opinion IS marginal at best.

Metacritic user scores, chortle!

I bet half of them were upset it had uncracked DRM.

 

[Alucrid]

lol i like how he links to a kotaku article about open world games not respecting your time, explicitly about Dragon Age Inquisition.

 

[Ogimachi]

This.

Review thread going to be fucking amazing no matter what the overall score is.

Perfect.

 

[VanCityGamer]

The thing is DA:I was reviewed poorly by a LOT of people. So he is indeed in the minority of players that actually enjoyed the game. Meaning is opinion IS marginal at best.

Yeah. I won't hold it against him too much though since the majority of the press gave DA:I great reviews. I loved that game for about 10 hours until the awfulness of the side quests and my disdain for the combat turned me off. I would personally give that game 7/10.

I fully expect Fallout 4 to be great. Based on what I've seen, likely a slight disappointment next to the massive expectations. Witcher 3 was a 9.5/10 and Fallout 3 was something similar at the time it released for me. I suspect some of what made Fallout 3 outstanding won't have quite the same effect in today's landscape. My guess for my personal review of Fallout 4 is 8.5/10. Meta score of 88.

 

[Waldo Lydecker]

Hm, well it sounds to me that the biggest problem of Bethesda games is returning also here:

Spoiler

an incredibly boring main quest

 

[Arion]

This.

Review thread going to be fucking amazing no matter what the overall score is.

That should be turned into a bingo card.

 

[-tetsuo-]

It's weird, isn't it? I'm reading things like " you don't play Bethesda's Fallout for the story, or the shooting, or the gameplay, or the characters, or the graphics" and I'm wondering, what the fuck do you play them for? If the atmosphere and exploration are the only good parts of a game, shouldn't we expect some improvement eventually?

I have said it many time on this very forum, but lots of people really enjoy just walking around and looking at shit.

 

[shark sandwich]

That should be turned into a bingo card.

Here's a bingo card I made a while back. Too lazy to make Fallout themed graphics though.

 

[Ollie Pooch]

This is unreal. It's getting to a point where nothing really matters in a bethesda game: graphics, story, bugs, glitches, clunky gameplay, mediocre gunplay, nothing matters, all is normal and fine. As long as it has that bethesda game studios seal, it must be GOTY every year.

Man, I can't wait for the reviews thread.

Or, the appeal of the rest of the game is so high that the odd bugs and glitches don't matter. I never played a Fallout game before 3 nor any of the games preceding Skyrim and I had a great time playing both of them and can't wait for 4 on Tuesday...even with Skyrim's 'flailing arms on a stick' combat. Bethesda as a studio carries no weight for me liking these games, their atmosphere is just unmatched, imo.

 

[diamount]

Well he links an article slating open world RPGs for being too big and praises DA:I for its fetch-quest-a-thon because it had a tighter narrative.

I get what he is saying, I too enjoyed DA:I and for the same reasons, but his criticism of FO4 stems from it not being a more story driven RPG with a tight narrative.

Anyone who loves Bethesda games already knew that was the case, the games are huge sandboxes, that's the appeal "here is a world, there is something going on in it, go have fun"




Which is proven to be bullshit when you look at the top user rated games

No, he praised DA:I for it's style of storytelling and narrative, nowhere did I see him mention it's 'filler quests' as being superior to how FO4 does things. He obviouly prefered that style of game, it might of been an editorial mistake to include it but I'm just reiterating it being fucking stupid to discard an opinion piece when the tables can be turned just as easily.

Also it's not proven to be bullshit in the slightest, even positive reviews are still going less of a fraction of total sales altogether.

 

[komplanen]

Lol is this yours? You should add "that reviewer liked Dragon Age Inquisition so that invalidates everything he said."

That should be turned into a bingo card.

The .psd file is still called FALLOUT4_REVIEW_BINGO because it started as such. Too lazy to do it now but anyone else can.

 

[Pilgrimzero]

Stopped reading at:

"However, "Dragon Age" had a decently captivating plot and, more important, charismatic characters to invest you in their world, make you laugh and pull the story along. "Fallout 4" doesn't have either of those things."


I found DAI boring.

 

[Hasney]

It's weird, isn't it? I'm reading things like " you don't play Bethesda's Fallout for the story, or the shooting, or the gameplay, or the characters, or the graphics" and I'm wondering, what the fuck do you play them for? If the atmosphere and exploration are the only good parts of a game, shouldn't we expect some improvement eventually?

That's what I love doing. The last game I had that much fun doing that with was Dragon Age Inquisition and it's been almost a year. I'm ready for another 100+ hours to sink into exploring an environment like this.

While I did enjoy driving around and taking out guardposts in MGS, there wasn't enough explorable landmarks in that.

 

[Hero Prinny]

I'm not against negative reviews cause I'm not a meat rider, fallout 4 has flaws and I know it (my personal biggest one being the dumbed down dialogue for the sake of having a voiced protag) but:

To be fair, I praised the sheer number of activities and quests available in "Dragon Age: Inquisition," a game similar to "Fallout 4." However, "Dragon Age" had a decently captivating plot and, more important, charismatic characters to invest you in their world, make you laugh and pull the story along.

this dude is tripping. DA:I is trashy as trash gets when it comes to rpgs imo.

 

[shark sandwich]

I definitely understand that and feel that "theme park" creep. In admittedly more extreme situations than what Bethesda's been doing, I've had tabletop DMs ram me through "Their Story" in The Way They Intended It To Be Played and it's terrible. Going more superficial than the underlying mechanics, this is what particularly worries me about the decreased dialogue choices and the voiced protagonist in F4...it feels like a shift toward designer priority over player priority.

The problem for me is that we're still in a place where Bethesda doesn't have any direct competitors. The style of game they make is my favorite style, but they're not very good at it at the end of the day, even though ironically they're sort of the only people that make them. Witcher 3 nails worldbuilding and story, but it's an abysmal sandbox. Divinity OS has that freedom of mechanics and exploiting systems, but it's not that open world, real time, first person game I want.

I feel that I love Bethesda games out of more a lack of choice in the market than a particular affinity to them. If some other dev comes out with that particular combination of game elements and does it even moderately better, I'll drop BethSoft in a hot second. But for now, I'll make do.

This sums up my feelings regarding Bethesda pretty well. It's a cycle of "holy shit this is amazing, I can go anywhere and do anything!!" followed by "well shit, nothing I do really matters". I'd love a game in this style that had a better central narrative and choices that can actually make a significant impact on the world.

 

[Coolbgdog12]

It's weird, isn't it? I'm reading things like " you don't play Bethesda's Fallout for the story, or the shooting, or the gameplay, or the characters, or the graphics" and I'm wondering, what the fuck do you play them for? If the atmosphere and exploration are the only good parts of a game, shouldn't we expect some improvement eventually?

You don't "play" Fallout 4 like you do other games. You just "experience" it and that experience is subjective. I don't need good graphics, gameplay, story, quests, music, animations, dialogue options, narration, online, controls or anything to have a good experience. A good game is in the eye of the player.

Spoiler

/S

 

[GreatNumber]

.

I don't usually check out the reactions to the reviews in the review threads, but this is making me want to just have the review thread for Fallout 4 be in a separate tab for a day or two. Just to see how fast that list gets filled.

 

[Newtype-001]

This.

Review thread going to be fucking amazing no matter what the overall score is.

 

[Orayn]

The thing is DA:I was reviewed poorly by a LOT of people. So he is indeed in the minority of players that actually enjoyed the game. Meaning is opinion IS marginal at best.

"Your opinion is invalid because you liked a game with a low Metacritic user score"

Do you ever think about this kind of shit before you post it? Because it's seriously impressive how bad of an argument this is.

 

[plasmawave]

This is the only review that matters anyways.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC-fnNhJ95s

 

[captainnapalm]

Skyrim had flaws, and I'm pretty sure Fallout 4 will have some of the same, but my God it's nothing like the pointlessness of roaming around those DA:I maps.

There are single quests in Skyrim that are more engaging and involving than entire zones in DA:I.

 

[Gurgelhals]

Stopped reading at:

"However, "Dragon Age" had a decently captivating plot and, more important, charismatic characters to invest you in their world, make you laugh and pull the story along. "Fallout 4" doesn't have either of those things."


I found DAI boring.

Well, to be honest, DA:I probably has a much better plot as well as more interesting characters than Fallout 4. That doesn't mean, of course, that I'm praising the clichéd, teenage soap opera style characters in DA:I, but you gotta admit that this is at least something compared to the, for a lack of a better word, bland nothing that Bethesda usually dishes up in that area.

On the other hand, I'd actually wager that gameplay-wise Fallout 4 will be more entertaining than DA:I. After all, Bethesda sandboxes at least offer you a lot of different shit to do (even if it's usually rather pointless shit, that doesn't connect to a greater whole with regards to plot and world building), whereas DA:I is just a shitty offline MMORPG.

 

[Dynasty8]

The thing is DA:I was reviewed poorly by a LOT of people. So he is indeed in the minority of players that actually enjoyed the game. Meaning is opinion IS marginal at best.

Reviewed poorly? Give me a break. It got the most Game of the Year awards by almost every media sites/magazines last year.

Majority, including myself, loved the game. Please stop acting like GAF is the only voice for gaming. We don't even make 1% of the people who played DA:I. The game was fantastic on its own.

 

[Wallach]

"Your opinion is invalid because you liked a game with a low Metacritic user score"

Do you ever think about this kind of shit before you post it? Because it's seriously impressive how bad of an argument this is.

Metacritic user reviews - the last bastion of honesty.

 

[Messofanego]

This is the only review that matters anyways.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC-fnNhJ95s

I knew it'd be itsGWC, the best!

#bars

 

[nelsonroyale]

Uhhh no. I don't agree.

Yeah, Dragon Age Inquisition had a pretty poor story and pantomime villains. It was painfully average overall.

 

[Basketball]

Skyrim had flaws, and I'm pretty sure Fallout 4 will have some of the same, but my God it's nothing like the pointlessness of roaming around those DA:I maps.

There are single quests in Skyrim that are more engaging and involving than entire zones in DA:I.

I hate DAI

i can't even list out points of the game because I hate all of them, the combat, the armor , the gameplay, the story, characters bleeeeeehh , it sucks

my time and money ;_;

 

[Team Klimt]

Does the shooting in this game actually "feel" like shooting? That was the biggest turn off for me w 3. If your game is first-person and has guns, a dice roll is major BS

 

[Basketball]

Does the shooting in this game actually "feel" like shooting? That was the biggest turn off for me w 3. If your game is first-person and has guns, a dice roll is major BS

Someone in the fallout sub reddit said it feels a bit like Far Cry 3/4

 

[semiconscious]

no big surprises here. me, i love these games, but, yeah, they have a definite tendency to 'meander' a bit, which i can see as being a turnoff to many. like any other games, they're just not for everyone...

 

[Jedi2016]

I just skimmed the review to avoid spoilers, but it seems like what they didn't like is pretty par for the course for these games. So I'll be ticking the "Doesn't like Bethesda-style games" box on that checklist up top. Having played their games before, I already have a pretty good idea what I'm getting into in terms of how the story is told.