Quantcast
Fallout 76 Review Thread - Opencritic: 55, Metacritic 50

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Fallout 76 Review Thread - Opencritic: 55, Metacritic 50

From what I hear seems like deserved



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network
shikamaru317 said:
Errorist76 said:

Surely not if you can't return/sell it afterwards. At least not until it's fixed and available for 20-30 or so, the price it should have released at to begin with.

If Fallout 76 was actually broken I'd agree with this, but it's not (I have only encountered 1 bug, an enemy stuck on a wall, in 12 hours or so personally). I honestly feel like it is being judged by the wrong standards. It seems like critics are judging it by the same standards as previous games by Bethesda Game Studios Maryland, a studio that consistently delivers 90+ quality games. But there is a big problem with that, Bethesda Game Studios Maryland didn't develop this game, it was developed by Bethesda Game Studios Austin, a studio that has never shipped a game before (their first game, Battlecry, got cancelled). Fallout 76 should be judged by the same standards that Elder Scrolls Online was judged by, as they were both developed by new, untested studios. But it doesn't seem like it is being judged by the same standards that Elder Scrolls Online got judged by, Elder Scrolls Online got a 71 meta on release (is now up to 80 after 3 years of updates), while Fallout 76 is sitting at a 49 meta, that is a huge difference. And having played both ESO and F76 on release, I can honestly say that Fallout 76 is better than ESO was on release. F76 actually plays like a Fallout game, with the main exceptions being the perk card mechanic and lack of NPC's, everything else feels like Fallout. ESO on the other hand at release felt like they just tried to make a traditional MMO WoW clone with Elder Scrolls themeing, it had terribly slow, action bar MMO combat that felt nothing like combat in mainline Elder Scrolls (thankfully it was improved on later updates). 

That being said, there is no harm in waiting to play it either. If it is anything like Elder Scrolls Online, it will only get better over time. Assuming it doesn't flop so bad that Bethesda closes the servers in a few months, I suspect they will update it, patch most of these bugs that others say they've encountered, add in voiced NPC's and proper questlines, etc. In 6 months most of the bugs should be ironed out and you should be able to find a copy for $20. 

Every game should be judged in similar standards so the grade can at least indicate something. Because what is the point in a bad game having a 90 because it was evaluated on the "Not-good game standard"?

This for me is one of the reasons we see some games getting a very harsh reviews and being nitpicked while others breeze even though they are bad.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

pokoko said:
JRPGfan said:

Common thats the "its more fun with friends" argument, we also saw with sea of theives.
Also people can enjoy bad games, and have fun in bad games. Their still  bad games though.

Anyways lets see what player base is like a month or two down the road.

Honestly, I don't give a rat's ass what Youtube entertainers and reviewers consider "bad games".  It's my opinion that I care about and it's nice to see other people take their heads out of Metacritic's ass and take the same approach.  Fallout 76 isn't a game that I would buy right now, or maybe ever, but it does have my interest provided I like what I'm reading with regards to future updates and content.  I sure as hell am not going to let a review score or people on forums who haven't even played the game decide if it's a "bad game" or not for me.

It is more that some people (not you since you said you don't even consider buying this game) have their heads sticked in Bethesda's ass than anything else as they usually get a lot of leeway on very buggy games.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:
shikamaru317 said:

If Fallout 76 was actually broken I'd agree with this, but it's not (I have only encountered 1 bug, an enemy stuck on a wall, in 12 hours or so personally). I honestly feel like it is being judged by the wrong standards. It seems like critics are judging it by the same standards as previous games by Bethesda Game Studios Maryland, a studio that consistently delivers 90+ quality games. But there is a big problem with that, Bethesda Game Studios Maryland didn't develop this game, it was developed by Bethesda Game Studios Austin, a studio that has never shipped a game before (their first game, Battlecry, got cancelled). Fallout 76 should be judged by the same standards that Elder Scrolls Online was judged by, as they were both developed by new, untested studios. But it doesn't seem like it is being judged by the same standards that Elder Scrolls Online got judged by, Elder Scrolls Online got a 71 meta on release (is now up to 80 after 3 years of updates), while Fallout 76 is sitting at a 49 meta, that is a huge difference. And having played both ESO and F76 on release, I can honestly say that Fallout 76 is better than ESO was on release. F76 actually plays like a Fallout game, with the main exceptions being the perk card mechanic and lack of NPC's, everything else feels like Fallout. ESO on the other hand at release felt like they just tried to make a traditional MMO WoW clone with Elder Scrolls themeing, it had terribly slow, action bar MMO combat that felt nothing like combat in mainline Elder Scrolls (thankfully it was improved on later updates). 

That being said, there is no harm in waiting to play it either. If it is anything like Elder Scrolls Online, it will only get better over time. Assuming it doesn't flop so bad that Bethesda closes the servers in a few months, I suspect they will update it, patch most of these bugs that others say they've encountered, add in voiced NPC's and proper questlines, etc. In 6 months most of the bugs should be ironed out and you should be able to find a copy for $20. 

Every game should be judged in similar standards so the grade can at least indicate something. Because what is the point in a bad game having a 90 because it was evaluated on the "Not-good game standard"?

This for me is one of the reasons we see some games getting a very harsh reviews and being nitpicked while others breeze even though they are bad.

In an ideal world, sure, but that clearly isn't the case. It's why we see indie games getting high 80's and low 90's metascores frequently, if they were being judged by AAA standards they wouldn't review anywhere near that high. Fallout 76 is a AA game if you really break down it's components and think about it, but it was judged as a AAA, judged as if it were a Bethesda Game Studios Maryland game. Admittedly though, Bethesda themselves are partly to blame for that, they marketed this game as if though it was the next mainline Fallout game. If they had been smart, marketed it as Fallout Online instead of as Fallout 76, made it clear that the Maryland studio didn't develop it but rather the new Austin studio, and released it at a AA $40 price instead of a AAA $60 price, the game would be reviewing much higher for sure. Hopefully they learned their lesson, they tried to market it as a AAA mainline in order to boost it's sales, and it bit them in the butt by killing the reviews. The poor reception on release is partially deserved, I just hope people don't let it color their opinion of the game in the future, there is a solid foundation here for a really good Fallout game after a year or 2 of updates and changes. I hope most Fallout fans will give it a chance in a few years, assuming it stays online that long, because this is the only Fallout they're getting until the middle of next-gen at the soonest, Starfield and TES 6 are coming before Fallout 5, I would put my money on Fallout 5 coming in 2024 or later. 

Last edited by shikamaru317 - on 21 November 2018

DonFerrari said:
From what I hear seems like deserved

Came to say pretty much this. Bugthesda strikes again. It may or may not be the engine itself, but Gamebryo / Creation seems to be a shaky foundation for big Bethesda games. Whatever went wrong with FO3 / NV / Oblivion / Skyrim happened again. Bethesda fucked up with FO76. The code is buggy. They should assert(3) more.



Currently (Re-)Playing: Starcraft 2: Legacy of the Void Multiplayer, The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past

Currently Watching: The Shield, Stein's;Gate, Narcos

Around the Network

https://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-one/dead-by-daylight

That’s my most played game of all time, sitting at a beautiful 58 metascore. I can’t fathom what would lead reviewers to give what launched as a perfectly playable and greatly priced for the content game a 58, but I assume it just reviewers reviewing the game who aren’t particular fans of that kind of game.

I see the same happening here, salty reviewers upset that it isn’t Fallout 5.



DonFerrari said:
pokoko said:

Honestly, I don't give a rat's ass what Youtube entertainers and reviewers consider "bad games".  It's my opinion that I care about and it's nice to see other people take their heads out of Metacritic's ass and take the same approach.  Fallout 76 isn't a game that I would buy right now, or maybe ever, but it does have my interest provided I like what I'm reading with regards to future updates and content.  I sure as hell am not going to let a review score or people on forums who haven't even played the game decide if it's a "bad game" or not for me.

It is more that some people have their heads sticked in Bethesda's ass than anything else as they usually get a lot of leeway on very buggy games.

Yeah, no.  It's more that people are enjoying themselves by playing what they want without letting people like you make their decisions for them.  If they're having more fun playing a buggy game than a polished game then that is their business.  You don't like it?  Too bad.  It's better than someone who has their head shoved up Metacritic's ass.



LudicrousSpeed said:
https://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-one/dead-by-daylight

That’s my most played game of all time, sitting at a beautiful 58 metascore. I can’t fathom what would lead reviewers to give what launched as a perfectly playable and greatly priced for the content game a 58, but I assume it just reviewers reviewing the game who aren’t particular fans of that kind of game.

I see the same happening here, salty reviewers upset that it isn’t Fallout 5.

I don't have much of a problem with low review scores, to be honest.  I can't fault reviewers who run into frustrations or bugs during their limited play-time.  What I find fault with are the people who let haven't played the game, who probably weren't going to play the game to begin with, acting like review scores are all that matter.  People have had and will have tons of fun playing games with low Metascores.



LudicrousSpeed said:
https://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-one/dead-by-daylight

That’s my most played game of all time, sitting at a beautiful 58 metascore. I can’t fathom what would lead reviewers to give what launched as a perfectly playable and greatly priced for the content game a 58, but I assume it just reviewers reviewing the game who aren’t particular fans of that kind of game.

I see the same happening here, salty reviewers upset that it isn’t Fallout 5.

As someone who also really enjoys Dead By Daylight, I agree with you. Sometimes critics just don't like a game, it doesn't necessarily mean it is bad, sometimes they just went in with the wrong expectations or they just weren't part of the intended audience for the game. I can think of several examples of games this gen that didn't review that well that I liked (as well as plenty of examples of the opposite, games the critics liked which I didn't). Some examples of games this gen I liked that critics didn't:

ReCore: 58 meta, personal score 80
Crimson Dragon: 55 meta, personal score 85
Dead By Daylight: 58 meta, personal score 85
Agents of Mayhem: 62 meta, personal score 80
The Order 1886: 63 meta, personal score 80
Fallout 76: 49 meta, personal score 80 (currently)

It's all a matter of expectations. I didn't go in expecting a AAA singleplayer Fallout game crafted by Bethesda Game Studios Maryland, because I knew it was a AA multiplayer game crafted by BGS Austin, a new studio. Seems like critics didn't know that though, or just didn't care and wanted to hate on it just because it was multiplayer.

Last edited by shikamaru317 - on 21 November 2018

shikamaru317 said:
DonFerrari said:

Every game should be judged in similar standards so the grade can at least indicate something. Because what is the point in a bad game having a 90 because it was evaluated on the "Not-good game standard"?

This for me is one of the reasons we see some games getting a very harsh reviews and being nitpicked while others breeze even though they are bad.

In an ideal world, sure, but that clearly isn't the case. It's why we see indie games getting high 80's and low 90's metascores frequently, if they were being judged by AAA standards they wouldn't review anywhere near that high. Fallout 76 is a AA game if you really break down it's components and think about it, but it was judged as a AAA, judged as if it were a Bethesda Game Studios Maryland game. Admittedly though, Bethesda themselves are partly to blame for that, they marketed this game as if though it was the next mainline Fallout game. If they had been smart, marketed it as Fallout Online instead of as Fallout 76, made it clear that the Maryland studio didn't develop it but rather the new Austin studio, and released it at a AA $40 price instead of a AAA $60 price, the game would be reviewing much higher for sure. Hopefully they learned their lesson, they tried to market it as a AAA mainline in order to boost it's sales, and it bit them in the butt by killing the reviews. The poor reception on release is partially deserved, I just hope people don't let it color their opinion of the game in the future, there is a solid foundation here for a really good Fallout game after a year or 2 of updates and changes. I hope most Fallout fans will give it a chance in a few years, assuming it stays online that long, because this is the only Fallout they're getting until the middle of next-gen at the soonest, Starfield and TES 6 are coming before Fallout 5, I would put my money on Fallout 5 coming in 2024 or later. 

Sorry but that is the issue in itself. Then we see people comparing games per score and saying one is better than other. Also neither metacritic nor reviewers say "this is a 8 because it was a free game or 5 USD made by 1 person, if I were to evaluate by regular standard it would get a 2", so when they pretend to use a same standard then they should use it.

Another problem of the most current gens is that reviews and grades aren't made into categories anymore like graphics, performance, music, art, story, gameplay, etc and as many different points you want to give and then have the score. For me it seems much more like "how much did I like this game" type of score and one that is much more biased and affected by preferences.

Also the opening for trolls... like cases where someone would go and give a 4 or 6 to Horizon Zero Dawn and a 9 or 10 to a Barbie game... can we say that was done with any standard at all even if one for AAA and other for Indie? Because when looking for the average of those games the person gave to little to HZD and to much to Barbie.

MajorMalfunction said:
DonFerrari said:
From what I hear seems like deserved

Came to say pretty much this. Bugthesda strikes again. It may or may not be the engine itself, but Gamebryo / Creation seems to be a shaky foundation for big Bethesda games. Whatever went wrong with FO3 / NV / Oblivion / Skyrim happened again. Bethesda fucked up with FO76. The code is buggy. They should assert(3) more.

Well as far as I know Bethesda do it since the dawn of times so it is more like their philosophy than the engine, they just care more about other things than bug testing.

LudicrousSpeed said:
https://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-one/dead-by-daylight

That’s my most played game of all time, sitting at a beautiful 58 metascore. I can’t fathom what would lead reviewers to give what launched as a perfectly playable and greatly priced for the content game a 58, but I assume it just reviewers reviewing the game who aren’t particular fans of that kind of game.

I see the same happening here, salty reviewers upset that it isn’t Fallout 5.

Haven't played much, but to me it seems like it was more of a 7 game than 58. Still sometimes we like games that reviewers hate and vice-versa and that is no problem as long as review was well done (I find most to not be).

pokoko said:
DonFerrari said:

It is more that some people have their heads sticked in Bethesda's ass than anything else as they usually get a lot of leeway on very buggy games.

Yeah, no.  It's more that people are enjoying themselves by playing what they want without letting people like you make their decisions for them.  If they're having more fun playing a buggy game than a polished game then that is their business.  You don't like it?  Too bad.  It's better than someone who has their head shoved up Metacritic's ass.

Bethesda for ages have sold a lot of copies and got high reviews for games that perform terribly, so nope it isn't me deciding what they should buy (they may like whatever they want)

And seeing 4.9 Meta, 2.9 users on PS4... X1 50 meta 2.4 users... PC 60 Meta 2.9 users seems like players are even more strict than the critics on this one and the ones sticked on Bethesda are defending more.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994