Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Fallout Discussion' started by The King of The Worms, Jul 31, 2017.
Wasn't your "grossly disappointed" something like "9/10, it's ok"?
8/10 which is "above average" to me.
Given Fallout 3 was one of my top ten all time favorite video games of all time....that's a pretty big step down.
I, literally expected this to be one of my favorite games ever because Skyrim is also on this list. I expected better graphics, good story, and romance.
I got....a half finished hatchet job full of Minecraft and barely done companions.
But like... They have never told an interesting story. Except that one time. Also romance? From fallout? No.
I liked the story of Fallout 1 and 2 and 3.
As for romance? Why the hell not? They make characters like New Vegas, they can do a good a job as Bioware.
8/10 is more 'good'.
6-7/10 is 'above average', which Fallout 4 isn't.
You don't have to make excuses for yourself, just go steady in future.
Good ol' Phipps, we love ya.
Also I will never know what Crystal Pepsi tastes like.
Oh yeah, I remember now. You lowered it to 8 after several pages of arguments over the scoring.
It still does not compute to me how a "grossly disappointing above average hatchetjob" scores for 8/10 (or 4/5)... Where does your scale start? 7? 6? Not that it matters, but it's one of those things that keep me thinking "Bethesda fans are weird", for they can not even force themselves to not be apologetic about the developers shit in some way or another because they somehow owe them that unyielding gratitude that muffles all criticism that isn't undermined, sugarcoated, cushioned and apologized for before giving.
When I still read Beth's boards few years back, every little bit of criticism started with something like "I really really love the game, both physically and mentally, I have X number of copies and Y number of hours put in each and have made Z number of mods for it, and it has changed my life and brought me back from the ditch, from almost killing myself, and I named my child after the first sentence of your copyright claim, and my mother is jealous about my feelings for Todd, so you can obviously see I am not going to pour shit on this magnificent piece of high art you have gracefully bestowed upon us mere mortals here on your blessed boards, but..."
Some things a man will never understand I suppose. I've seen similiar behavior in CDPR boards, but not quite like that...
I honestly can't think of many games I'd give an 8 out of 10.
Homeworld, Fallout 1-2, Dwarf Fortress...But not much else.
"I made this thread to see if I like this site or not."
Nice try, AccountNameM.
What in the fuck kind of score system where 8/10 is average? This make no sense. Shouldn't 5/10 be average? Guess IGN and Gamespot somehow brainwashed people to think this is how score systems work.
I played Fallout 3 and New Vegas and i actually didn't care for either. Then i decided to play them again and 3 is just so bad, specially compared to New Vegas. New Vegas has actual moral dilemmas in quests where there's no good or evil bullshit, the world actually reacts to my decisions like picking NCR will make the Legion hate me and some other similar stuff. I feel like i'm a denizen of the world instead of Fallout 3 where i'm just a Gary Stu who is perfect at everything.
I've never played Fallout 4 because I've seen very detailed videos and read extensively about the game to know it's just Fallout 3 but with better graphics and in some cases worse than that game when it comes to game mechanics.
How is 8/10 "above average"? Wouldn't that be 6/10?
CT in a nutshell.
Cons: Everything else.
CT's score system is literally game 'journalists' standard of scoring games these days. Just watch Dunkey's video here where he called out these so called 'game critics'
And if you look hard enough, or if you're lucky, you might stumble into some of these 'game journalists' trying to call out Dunkey by literally saying that "7/10 is average"
Hi guys! I'm new here. I just made this thread to see if all the rumors are true about NMA being a cesspool, so I will toss out a bunch of strawmen, double posts, and passive aggressive douchebaggery and see if anybody bites.
"Hi Bethesda forums, I hear you are all a bunch of idiots who will line up to sit on Todd Howard's cock. I wanna know if it's true, give me your best Todd Howard rap tributes"
"I just came to see if this really is how things about discussing these games are here on the developers own boards..."
Amusingly, COD: Ghosts and COD: Advanced Warfare are some of the few negative reviews I've given.
But yes, 8/10 is a decent solid game I devoted time to playing.
6/10 is "barely worth playing"
10/10 is a great game.
Fallout 3 and Skyrim were great games.
Fallout 4? Not so much.
The image of Doppel-Coop makes this inherently more amusing.
That does explain a something, at least. To me, the way I look about scoring tables like this, an 8 is a great game only a couple notches below being absolutely stellar; 6 is an above average game that's far from stellar but still pretty playable and without too many nuisances (e.g. I had fun with Wasteland 2, it's an overall decent game with some fairly obvious shortcomings, I might replay it some day and would probably give it a 7, maybe 6,5); 10 is the perfect game for me, and there has not been one of those made yet (I would probably give Fallout 2 a 9, but even that feels a bit like exaggerating).
My "gross disappointment of a hackjob" back in 2008 would've been - if I had scored it - something between 1 and 3 for not having anything at all that I had previously held in great value in the series, and that much only because I was naive enough to think "maybe it gets better if go a bit further" and finished the game (it obviously didn't get better, on the contrary... higher character levels in Beth games means more trivial and less fun gameplay and you can multiply the effect with how artificially inflated and prolonged their games are).
Since someone tagged me here because my video was mentioned by OP. Just wanted to clarify a few things I said in the video:
1. I said that Fallout 1 was near-perfect considering the technology at the time.
2. I mentioned faults I found with each game following the next, so I may have criticized Fallout 3's overuse of mid-1900's music in inappropriate times, that is also reflected in future games.
3. I specifically called out the good things New Vegas did over Fallout 3, but I personally wasn't as much a fan of the theme.
4. At the end I specifically state that none of the Fallout games are bad, but that they've lost mechanics, atmosphere and the freedoms the earlier games had.
I know that there are some hardcore fans of both the new games, the old games or believe that everything but New Vegas was bad, but I believe there are good parts of each game.
Personally, if you took the story and atmosphere of Fallout 1, the writing, reputation/faction system and quest design of New Vegas and dropped it into Fallout 4's improved engine with its slicker gunplay, I think that would be a fantastic start -- my only other bugbear is fixing called shots/VATS to make it less jarring to switch back and forth from realtime. I loved the old tactical games, but aside from XCOM, that genre isn't particularly popular now so I can see the need to appeal to a bigger audience, but my main complaint about the newer games are its forced scenarios that take away agency, the diluted atmosphere and setting and the dumbed-down quest/dialogue options and mechanical depth.