The making of Fallout 4 - Game Informer article

http://gfycat.com/ThatBelatedArkshell#

 

We only know there is a Bishop still, but they never outright state that it is the childof the Chosen one. Now I personally always take it like that, but the Chosen one is still vague.

 

Haha.. What the hell?!

 

Cut content, insane dlc prices etc is EA, Activision and Ubisoft... those companies have far more haters than fans.

 

I said I would be fine with it because pure actions game dont do much for me(with few exceptions like Wolfenstein) so I could just ignore it. But when its name is Fallout and when everyone is talking about it, it really annoys me(even on official Diablo 3 forums a guy posted about it on a few threads today).

Thats actually pretty good, reminds of myself when I play CSGO. I may buy this game if all raiders act like bored idiots.

Their sale numbers tell otherwise though. Maybe they are the perfect companies with equal amount of haters and fans?

 

One of the things that gives me hope that Fallout 4 will not be met with universal acclaim is that video game critics, as a whole, seem to be much less effusive with praise for the game of the moment than they were at any point in the previous gen (this makes sense since most of what we've seen since the advent of new consoles is "prettier versions of old formulas").

Like (ignoring Nintendo entirely here, and using Metacritic to purely gauge critical reaction, not actual quality) in the first two years of the last console generation after all the consoles were out we had 4 games to score a 95 or better metascore, and 12 games to score a 91 or better metascore. The first two years of this console generation is up in a couple of weeks, and so far we've had two games score a 95 or better metascore (both of which were enhanced re-releases of older games- GTA V and TLoU), and 5 games to score a 91 or better metascore (2 of which were re-releases- Journey and Flower). Certainly some of this is just "fewer games are coming out now" but it also points to video game reviewers becoming harder to impress. Like there's basically no standard other than "evolving tastes over time" by which Oblivion deserved a 94 and the Witcher 3 deserved a 92.

 

I wonder if it will get anything below 8/10 from major websites or magazines that people follow. Or getting something like 60 or 70 by critics on Metacritic. I cant even imagine the meltdown it will cause.

But I think those big websites will just give 8/10 or even 9/10 to avoid all the fuss. People care too much about scores on internet.

 

What in the unholy fuck was that...

I hope that was an android raider. I have no other explanation.

 

That's definitely true. It's almost as if the publishers realized that it's better to pay for an ad than a review score (see Destiny). Regardless, I suspect that this will be well-received. Bethesda just doesn't have much if any competition.

 

It's a good AI is all

 

Why do you asume that it will be to avoid all the fuzz?

It's probably going to be a great game and deserve great scores.

But let's assume it won't. Even a shitty Bethesda Fallout will be better than say, Assasins Creed Syndicate (that got 9 on Gamespot or a Dragon Age that also got a 9).

I am sorry, but if you as Gamespot give Syndicate a 9 it's just crazy to give Fallout anything lower than a 9....

In general all these sites are way too easy with giving these high scores to mediocre games.

And THAT is why people get mad/worried when Fallout doesn't at least get a 9 or something.

 

So even if the game is bad it should still get high scores? Not fanboyish at all...

 

I agree to this. Mediocre games get higher grades than they should just because of their popularity/publisher/being AAA titles(though Ive seen few exceptions to this). This will also be true for the high scores FO4 will get.

 

It's even worse ... they make statements about RPGs in general ... everything should be first person, real time and no dialog. If it makes sense or not? Who cares, it's the kind of RPG they like! And the masses, are always right. No exceptions!

 

Not only that but people don't like to admit that their wrong. When they have become so hyped about something they put it in their head that that movie, video game, ect is good or a masterpiece and rather live in denial. Just take a look at the deluded Star Wars fanboys that convinced themselves that the prequels were good.

 

And Sega. I was going to buy the new total war game, but after the dlc fiasco and their answer to it, i'm steering clear of that game and that company.

As for "haters", no they don't, because they are still selling shit loads of games and making a bank. More people are talking about their shitty ethics - yes, but whenever they release something shinny, most of them turn into sheeple people.

 

I don't think so. But that's how these gaming websites work.

We all know that Fallout 4 (even if will have all the flaws we fear for) won't be worse than Assasins Creed or Need for Speed.

Gametrailers gives Need for Speed a 83, which is obviously ridiculous. But now they can't give Fallout anything lower than that because that would be weird.
Gamespot gives Assasins a 9. How can they then give a game with 20 times more dialogue lines, bigger world, more gameplay, without microtransacrions, not a yearly milk release etc something lower?

The gaming websites shoot themselves in the foot with giving too high scores. It's not that I think that Fallout 4 should be getting high scores either way, it's that compared to other games that get too high scores it should at least get scores that are as high.