I disagree the witcher 3 was fantastic.I will play this game,like i have the others.and come to the conclusion they are banana.my opinion ofc.
Last edited:
I disagree the witcher 3 was fantastic.I will play this game,like i have the others.and come to the conclusion they are banana.my opinion ofc.Sounds like you have not played the game and are basing your opinion on performance reviews.
The Witcher 3 is not the end all be all for modern western RPGs. The game was good, fallout is also good. Neither is fantastic, both definitely worth playing.
Metacritic is meaningless, you can't measure the merits of a title based on percentage points. It may not be your style of game but...
Poor optimization or performance != poor gameplay
Everyone I've talked to absolutely loves the game, including quite a few people on this forum
I disagree the witcher 3 was fantastic.I will play this game,like i have the others.and come to the conclusion they are shite.my opinion ofc.
I'm not here to argue what game is and isn't good.
It just seems many, in all corners of the internet, lend a reactionary response to reviews and criticism rather than actually developing their own opinion of a product or in this case a game. That includes many who have no intention of playing/buying the game they criticize. If you aren't into a particular title, that is fine and is something totally different.
And maybe this is just a product of the internet.
If an auto journalist criticized a car that he/she hadn't driven, should they be taken seriously?
If a tech journalist hadn't actually used or seen the product they reviewed, is their opinion credible?
Same goes for game reviews.
As for Fallout in particular, if you don't like Bethesda games you are not going to like this Bethesda game. But it is an improvement as a Bethesda game in pretty much every way. Fallout 3's main story was not that great and either was New Vegas's.
Bethesda games are about making your own story through your choices, character build, sidequests, text-based background info, dialogue, and overall personal freedom to do whatever you want. This is where the game differs from other titles like the Witcher, it is a more Sandbox-esque environment (obviously not true Sandbox).
No one has the right to say an individual has to like 'x' or 'y' title based on score, opinion or any other metric. Sure, reviews can help to determine whether or not a particular title is worth your time but part of the gaming experience is to determine your own likes and dislikes by actually playing games.
I'm not here to argue what game is and isn't good.
It just seems many, in all corners of the internet, lend a reactionary response to reviews and criticism rather than actually developing their own opinion of a product or in this case a game. That includes many who have no intention of playing/buying the game they criticize. If you aren't into a particular title, that is fine and is something totally different.
And maybe this is just a product of the internet.
If an auto journalist criticized a car that he/she hadn't driven, should they be taken seriously?
If a tech journalist hadn't actually used or seen the product they reviewed, is their opinion credible?
Same goes for game reviews.
As for Fallout in particular, if you don't like Bethesda games you are not going to like this Bethesda game. But it is an improvement as a Bethesda game in pretty much every way. Fallout 3's main story was not that great and either was New Vegas's.
Bethesda games are about making your own story through your choices, character build, sidequests, text-based background info, dialogue, and overall personal freedom to do whatever you want. This is where the game differs from other titles like the Witcher, it is a more Sandbox-esque environment (obviously not true Sandbox).
No one has the right to say an individual has to like 'x' or 'y' title based on score, opinion or any other metric. Sure, reviews can help to determine whether or not a particular title is worth your time but part of the gaming experience is to determine your own likes and dislikes by actually playing games.
April 1st, 2016 is still months away. Games that took > 5 years to develop that cannot even get 10/10 in any one area (sound, graphics, physics, animations, story line, character development, stability, UI, controls, dialogue, RPG choices that matter, fetch/side-quests that are meaningful, etc.) should not really be a contender for GOTY imo.
4.8 / 10 average user reviews. I am not aware of any PC game which has gotten GOTY with scores this horrendous. This may be the most overhyped game of 2015 on AT forums but over at Russian forums and elsewhere, it's one of the biggest disappointments of 2015 given the hype.
Steam has over 125M members and the game sold just 1.2M providing just less than 1% market penetration. That means most PC gamers didn't find it worthwhile to buy this game day 1, are either pirating it or waiting for months/year(s) to get it when it's fixed and modded because the developer couldn't get the basics right.
Since Steam is a requirement for this title, that's a pretty epic flop for one of the most overhyped games that has legions of fans, much bigger fanbase than The Witcher series. Meanwhile, BO3 is already at nearly 9 million copies and $550M in revenue and the install-base of consoles is minuscule compared to >125M Steam gamers and ~330M core PC gamers worldwide.
Performance so atrocious that with graphics well below Crysis / Warhead levels, the game runs like a turd on a 290X/970 level of hardware, dropping well below 60 fps but it's impossible to explain how such poor performance is even remotely justifiable given the primitive graphics. And no, throwing NV-lighting model on a game that looks like a 2007-2008 title doesn't suddenly make it a 2015 game.
No worries then, Skylake and 980Ti to the rescue, only to be faced with Core i5 Skylake bottlenecking and 980Ti micro-stuttering (4:40-4:50). All of this would be forgiven if the game had the best graphics of 2015, and was rock solid with no bugs/glitches. And yet, it has a completely buggy texture cache system that ensures terrible performance on consoles that requires an HDD/SSD upgrade, despite graphics that are nowhere near what the best XB1/PS4 games have to offer.
The only way FO4 gets GOTY over Bloodborne, MGS V, GTA V (PC), TW3, SC2: Legacy of the Void, from anyone is if Bethesda bribes the publication. Let's not even discount some other sleepers like Divinity: Original Sin Enhanced Edition, Pillars of Eternity, Ori and the Blind Forest.
GOTY isn't a game that you liked the most in 2015, but a game that accomplishes the most for its genre, stands out the most against all competition in that area in its genre and is the most well-rounded game from all areas overall -- it sets an example for future games for both its respective genre and otherwise. From that perspective, FO4 isn't even a contender for the top 3 of 2015.
Skyrim sold almost 23M copies to date. However, Fallout 3 was a 2008 game so Bethesda had 7 years to make FO4. Skyrim came out in 2011 or 4 years ago.
For a studio with that much $$$, what they released on the eve of 2016 is inexcusable. Of course if this had one of the most complex and emotionally involving stories with deep character development, then it would be more justifiable but it cannot achieve that either.
[]
Several people have already responded to the many mistakes and short comings in this post but up have you even looked at the meta user reviews?
Out of the first few:
"I looked at the graphics on this and it made me crap out a turd"
Obviously you might argue that we should value the opinion of people who haven't even played the game. Most of the people that are playing it aren't in a hurry to post on meta...
Then this gem:
"I thought I bought an RPG but this game is a shooter! Are you kidding me?"
Obviously, this guy didn't do his research. The modern fallout series.....it is well known that.......nevermind.
There are some people who complain about not being able to play it on old PCs, at least we can assume those people actually own the game.
i take it that you haven't played this game either, just feel the need to bash it....a whole lot. Kind of your thing, I guess? Do you even play PC games anymore? What are the last few PC games you bought?
I actually find fallout 4 fun and it plays really well. Frame rates are very high, I even capped them because it gets wonky when you are playing at 144hz. Sure, I guess you can complain about that too, can't even play at 144hz boohoo....
But to the guy actually playing the game, it's no big deal. It actually makes me wonder why or how people are complaining, my frame rates are sky high.
doesn't really matter, you will continue to bash, just like every other time.
My point is, anyone can log on and down the meta user rating. People who don't own the game and haters alike. I don't know anyone actually playing the game that has such negative distaste for such things as graphics, etc.
Sure it could look better but I can't say it's the puke you try to make it out to be. The game has some very beautiful scenes and it doesn't look terrible to me.
Nor to the many others who actually have the game and posted in this thread
I just want to know when Bethesda will finally get rid of the 64hz bug. It's been in their games since Oblivion, dangnammit, and it makes the game absolutely awful to play.
And using iFPSClamp to remedy it is yucky.
This is the VC&G section. We aren't here for the game play is fun aspect of the game. That's simply moving the goalpost.
There is no reason for a game to suck up so much performance for effects that are of minimal image value. Like going from low to high on God rays. There is also no reason for a game to not be brand agnostic. No reason for it to run worse on one brand over the other. We have plenty of examples that run equally well on both AMD and nVidia.
You can use RivaTuner Statistics Server that comes with MSI Afterburner to limit your FPS. Just add Fallout 4 to the application list, set your FPS limit to 60, and application detection to Medium or High. Works very well, haven't had any issues.
The topic was brought up upon the discussion of whether or not the game has merit based on its performance and graphics. We are simply discussing that if the game should be played off as 'bad' based on its graphics and performances.
I think the goalpost is fine where it is.
Except you have a 980 ti and a 144Hz monitor. I'm assuming you want to run at the screens refresh rate?
You can use RivaTuner Statistics Server that comes with MSI Afterburner to limit your FPS. Just add Fallout 4 to the application list, set your FPS limit to 60, and application detection to Medium or High. Works very well, haven't had any issues.
This is just an attempt to deflect the discussion from the issues the game has.
How about we just grant you that it's a fun game and get back to the discussion of the performance issues?
Doesn't get rid of the microstutter. It's less perceptible at higher framerates, but you're still intermittently dropping 3-4 frames; the renderer is still using GetTickCount despite your framerate. What it should use, is TimeGetTime instead; as demonstrated by the Oblivion/Fallout3/New Vegas Stutter Remover mod.
I mean I hate the graphics (although some shots posted here look great) but we can complain about performance. Even graphics.
But for whether people should buy the game. Go ahead? I mean as long as a game isn't ac unity bad in optimizations then buy it. We all know where fall out 4 will end up after mods, patches, etc.
It's a much safer and fun buy then triple a titles on a yearly release schedule that's for sure!
I doubt it'll beat the Witcher 3 for me though. I'll see soon enough my roommate is about to start playing this weekend on my rig.
April 1st, 2016 is still months away. Games that took > 5 years to develop that cannot even get 10/10 in any one area (sound, graphics, physics, animations, story line, character development, stability, UI, controls, dialogue, RPG choices that matter, fetch/side-quests that are meaningful, etc.) should not really be a contender for GOTY imo.
And why do you care? This is forum, it is solely for the purpose of voicing ones opinion. Why you feel obligated to answer to him sharing his opinion on the matter? Don't you get tired of it?Sure, do you have anything else to add other than what has already been stated?
Do you feel the need to constantly hammering home Godray settings and Creation Engine shortcomings over and over to feel vindicated despite the fact that you do not plan on playing the game?
I understand. You are not a fan of GameWorks. You are not a fan Nvidia. Why keep going around and around in circles in every thread about it? Don't you get tired of it?
Well that is something I am not sensitive to. Sounds like you will have to wait for mods then.
And why do you care? This is forum, it is solely for the purpose of voicing ones opinion. Why you feel obligated to answer to him sharing his opinion on the matter? Don't you get tired of it?
Game's is lacking. From the first leaked screenshots the game woes on graphics front.
How is it supposed to compete on graphic level with Witcher3, Ryse, old Crysis3, upcoming Tomb Raider, hitman or DeusEx, when it can't even compete with its older brother with mods...
Bethesda didn't deliver once again.