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

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

Playstation 4: 50 with 20 reviews

Xbox One: 52 with 12 reviews

PC: 55 with 19 reviews

Yeah, I think this game will stay around the 50s. Even reaching 60 will be difficult.



Around the Network
John2290 said:
You know your "AAA" game is shit when IGN and Gamestop rate with less than 60 but when go to 50 and even 40... ya done screwed up.

Yep, it's very hard for then to give these kind of scores.

LudicrousSpeed said:
flashfire926 said:

Before X1X launch:
Xbox fans: DF is biased
PS4 fans: no they arent
After X1X launch
PS4 fans: DF is biased
Xbox fans: no they arent

edit: in honesty, no, theyre not biased in any way. People see what they want to see.

lol exactly. Do people get these theories from those stupid YouTube personalities? How can you possibly even be biased when dealing with factual analysis? 

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-does-resolution-really-matter yep no Damage Control... an editor from THE publication that do face-offs and focus a lot on resolution difference (which they used to declare X360 version superior on less than 80p difference, but on 720p vs 1080p is irrelevant) questioning the people that chose PS4 due to resolution and wants to prove resolution doesn't really matter. And you can look for much more from Leadbetter.



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:
John2290 said:
You know your "AAA" game is shit when IGN and Gamestop rate with less than 60 but when go to 50 and even 40... ya done screwed up.

Yep, it's very hard for then to give these kind of scores.

LudicrousSpeed said:

lol exactly. Do people get these theories from those stupid YouTube personalities? How can you possibly even be biased when dealing with factual analysis? 

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-does-resolution-really-matter yep no Damage Control... an editor from THE publication that do face-offs and focus a lot on resolution difference (which they used to declare X360 version superior on less than 80p difference, but on 720p vs 1080p is irrelevant) questioning the people that chose PS4 due to resolution and wants to prove resolution doesn't really matter. And you can look for much more from Leadbetter.

Theyre right, resolution doesnt actually matter. You cant go wrong with either console.



Bet with Intrinsic:

The Switch will outsell 3DS (based on VGchartz numbers), according to me, while Intrinsic thinks the opposite will hold true. One month avatar control for the loser's avatar.

DonFerrari said:

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-does-resolution-really-matter yep no Damage Control... an editor from THE publication that do face-offs and focus a lot on resolution difference (which they used to declare X360 version superior on less than 80p difference, but on 720p vs 1080p is irrelevant) questioning the people that chose PS4 due to resolution and wants to prove resolution doesn't really matter. And you can look for much more from Leadbetter.

I don't think you actually read the article you linked. That, or you have a bias that simply couldn't allow you to get past the title of the article, despite anything you read inside of it. The article doesn't argue that resolution doesn't matter. The article argues that with the resolution gap closing (which it did, or at least it shrunk, the base Xbone will never perform on par with a PS4) developers are finding other ways to make their games look better, emphasizing things such as frame rate over increased resolution.

Where in here does he say that "720p vs 1080p is irrelevant"? I didn't see that anywhere in there, even if you want to take it completely as face value and ignore the many layers of substance he applies to the talk about resolution. He even has multiple developers and even someone from Pixar backing him up.

360 games were preferred in tech analysis videos for more than resolution. In fact, they were usually preferred for the very reasons he is arguing in this article. Better frame rates, better performance, better effects. Side by side comparisons done last gen often showed 360 versions with better lighting, better textures, better or more assets in certain areas. Which dating back to GTA IV and RDR, he always downplayed.

You keep harping on an 80p difference which must be referring to GTA IV, a game in which he gave the PS3 version a lot of praise and detailed multiple areas where it outperforms the 360. He clearly didn't care about the resolution then. Nor did he in RDR, where the gap IIRC was bigger. It was those other areas where PS3 versions struggled, as they were prone to do. By and large outside of resolution differences there was no large difference between Xbone and PS4 games when this gen started. Not that it mattered anyway, this very outlet you're accusing of bias still made tons of videos showcasing the most minute differences in the games which they then listed and declared PS4 versions superior, so where exactly does the bias come in?

I'm not going to reply on this any more, can't feed the conspiracy theories. Enjoy the last word, I'll just sit back and chuckle.



flashfire926 said:
DonFerrari said:

Yep, it's very hard for then to give these kind of scores.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-does-resolution-really-matter yep no Damage Control... an editor from THE publication that do face-offs and focus a lot on resolution difference (which they used to declare X360 version superior on less than 80p difference, but on 720p vs 1080p is irrelevant) questioning the people that chose PS4 due to resolution and wants to prove resolution doesn't really matter. And you can look for much more from Leadbetter.

Theyre right, resolution doesnt actually matter. You cant go wrong with either console.

Sure sure, if you think like that. Except they made a point to see every pixel difference in previous gen when X360 were ahead without caring to say how much it didn't matter besides also failing multiple times to put other aspects where PS4 outdone X1. Because face it or not the power advantage never left to exist even if they stopped caring much (only coming to matter more with X1X appearing).

LudicrousSpeed said:
DonFerrari said:

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-does-resolution-really-matter yep no Damage Control... an editor from THE publication that do face-offs and focus a lot on resolution difference (which they used to declare X360 version superior on less than 80p difference, but on 720p vs 1080p is irrelevant) questioning the people that chose PS4 due to resolution and wants to prove resolution doesn't really matter. And you can look for much more from Leadbetter.

I don't think you actually read the article you linked. That, or you have a bias that simply couldn't allow you to get past the title of the article, despite anything you read inside of it. The article doesn't argue that resolution doesn't matter. The article argues that with the resolution gap closing (which it did, or at least it shrunk, the base Xbone will never perform on par with a PS4) developers are finding other ways to make their games look better, emphasizing things such as frame rate over increased resolution.

Where in here does he say that "720p vs 1080p is irrelevant"? I didn't see that anywhere in there, even if you want to take it completely as face value and ignore the many layers of substance he applies to the talk about resolution. He even has multiple developers and even someone from Pixar backing him up.

360 games were preferred in tech analysis videos for more than resolution. In fact, they were usually preferred for the very reasons he is arguing in this article. Better frame rates, better performance, better effects. Side by side comparisons done last gen often showed 360 versions with better lighting, better textures, better or more assets in certain areas. Which dating back to GTA IV and RDR, he always downplayed.

You keep harping on an 80p difference which must be referring to GTA IV, a game in which he gave the PS3 version a lot of praise and detailed multiple areas where it outperforms the 360. He clearly didn't care about the resolution then. Nor did he in RDR, where the gap IIRC was bigger. It was those other areas where PS3 versions struggled, as they were prone to do. By and large outside of resolution differences there was no large difference between Xbone and PS4 games when this gen started. Not that it mattered anyway, this very outlet you're accusing of bias still made tons of videos showcasing the most minute differences in the games which they then listed and declared PS4 versions superior, so where exactly does the bias come in?

I'm not going to reply on this any more, can't feed the conspiracy theories. Enjoy the last word, I'll just sit back and chuckle.

You never fail to amaze.

And this is just one of his articles, where before they touted differences of 624p to 660p (not exact numbers) they now don't see much relevance on the difference of 900p to 1080p (or even 720p to 1080p), you can perceive their pandering to the type of words used to describe the difference as just "better on our eyes but indistinguishable to general public".

And he goes to put devs are finding way to make the perceived gap smaller with new techniques.

Also you are one of the last people on VGC that can acuse anyone of bias, at least until you decide to accept your own instead of always cover it and accuse others of console warmongering.



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
SvennoJ said:
shikamaru317 said:

I'm a Fallout fan and I went in with appropriate expectations (expecting a AA multiplayer Fallout game by a new, untested developer), it's as simple as that. Do I think it's amazing and that it deserved some award nominations at The Game Awards next month? No, of course not (well maybe a best soundtrack nomination because Inon Zur killed it, easily one of the top 2 soundtracks I have heard this year). But neither do I think it is terrible like the critics seem to, I'd say it's at least above average. It's far from the best game I have played this year. but that doesn't mean it is bad because I have mainly played good-amazing games this year (DragonBall FighterZ, Far Cry 5, God of War 4, Detroit, Spider-Man, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, AC Odyssey, RDR2), but I am enjoying it more than a few other games I tried this year like Monster Hunter World and Sea of Thieves (neither is bad per se, they just weren't my type of game). 

It's also worth noting that I rented Fallout 76 from Gamefly, if I had paid $60 for it like every previous Fallout and Elder Scrolls game since TES 4 in 2006, I would probably be a bit more disappointed than I am. 

How is it as a single player game? I enjoy simply exploring the map so the absence of a story is not a problem. Is the world still fun to explore like in Fallout 4? Can you play without interference from other online players? (Can you play offline?) I always enjoy the stories hidden around the map in Fallout games and at a discount I would still pick this up. Give me an interesting map to explore and I'm happy. A good soundtrack is always appreciated as well!

 

DrDoomz said:
shikamaru317 said:

I'm a Fallout fan and I went in with appropriate expectations (expecting a AA multiplayer Fallout game by a new, untested developer), it's as simple as that. Do I think it's amazing and that it deserved some award nominations at The Game Awards next month? No, of course not (well maybe a best soundtrack nomination because Inon Zur killed it, easily one of the top 2 soundtracks I have heard this year). But neither do I think it is terrible like the critics seem to, I'd say it's at least above average. It's far from the best game I have played this year. but that doesn't mean it is bad because I have mainly played good-amazing games this year (DragonBall FighterZ, Far Cry 5, God of War 4, Detroit, Spider-Man, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, AC Odyssey, RDR2), but I am enjoying it more than a few other games I tried this year like Monster Hunter World and Sea of Thieves (neither is bad per se, they just weren't my type of game). 

It's also worth noting that I rented Fallout 76 from Gamefly, if I had paid $60 for it like every previous Fallout and Elder Scrolls game since TES 4 in 2006, I would probably be a bit more disappointed than I am. 

Is the game playable solo? I don’t really have gaming online friends (cuz I’m very fickle and basically stop talking to ppl the second I switch to a new game, so I don’t maintain gaming online friendships. I reserve my efforts in maintaining relationships of RL friends/family). 

I’m in a gaming slump right now and I’m not averse to wasting 60bucks on a game if I don’t end up enjoying it. I bought RDR2 full price and I havent’ gotten out of the snow area yet lol.

I'll respond to both of you since you asked a similar question. Yes, the solo experience is pretty good, especially if exploration was your favorite thing about previous Bethesda games. It's not as open and explore-able as previous Bethesda games, I have found some areas where the enemies are just too high level to explore, but it is still fairly generous with allowing you to explore in any direction right from the starting area up to a certain point. There are plenty of map locations to explore, mostly outdoor locations but I have found 3 locations with loading screens going into a cave or building. They stepped up the exploration lore compared to earlier games in order to compensate for not having voiced NPC's and side quests, there are even more notes and computer logs to find than prior Fallout games, as well as voiced holotapes you can find. I found alot of info about the early Brotherhood of Steel so far if the Brotherhood of Steel is something that you liked about previous games. 

You can't play offline but the other players aren't too obtrusive in my experience, the game only puts you into an instance with 20 or so other players and the map is 4 times bigger than Fallout 4's so you don't run into other players that often unless you you purposefully seek them out or unless they purposefully seek you out (everybody is visible on the map). As far as I can tell you have to enable PvP, people can't grief you by hunting you down, though you do get auto-flagged for PvP in certain areas or if you try to steal something from another players base. I believe you can disable voice chat for other players if you don't want their talking breaking your immersion. So all in all the solo experience is pretty good. 

I definitely recommend Fallout 76 for fans of Bethesda games, especially if the exploration aspect is your favorite thing about Bethesda games like it is mine. If not at release, definitely grab it later on down the line on sale. You can already get it for $40 in the XBL digital black friday sale this week. 



Yeah, PS4 had a BF sale on it so I went ahead and bought it. Installing now.



shikamaru317 said:
flashfire926 said:
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/fallout-76/BX3DSPQPVNQR?activetab=pivot:overviewtab

Bomba confirmed

It was already planned for the Black Friday digital sale even before launch, so no, it doesn't confirm that it bombed. 

If we see the physical version drop below $60 on Friday then we can call it a bomb, as no sale on Fallout 76 was advertised for black friday at any of the retailers, which would mean the retailers added it at the last minute to clear out excess stock.

https://www.gamestop.com/browse/games?nav=16k-3-fallout+76,28zu0,13162-ffff2418

 

$40 at gmestop too now



Bet with Intrinsic:

The Switch will outsell 3DS (based on VGchartz numbers), according to me, while Intrinsic thinks the opposite will hold true. One month avatar control for the loser's avatar.

OpenMeta went up to 55..... then dropped back down to 54.
So thread is correct again even if OP didnt update it :P

 

Alex_The_Hedgehog said:

Playstation 4: 50 with 20 reviews

Xbox One: 52 with 12 reviews

PC: 55 with 19 reviews

Yeah, I think this game will stay around the 50s. Even reaching 60 will be difficult.

And thats even with a few scores that are in the high 70's and low 80's (which are way to generious).



flashfire926 said:
shikamaru317 said:

It was already planned for the Black Friday digital sale even before launch, so no, it doesn't confirm that it bombed. 

If we see the physical version drop below $60 on Friday then we can call it a bomb, as no sale on Fallout 76 was advertised for black friday at any of the retailers, which would mean the retailers added it at the last minute to clear out excess stock.

https://www.gamestop.com/browse/games?nav=16k-3-fallout+76,28zu0,13162-ffff2418

$40 at gmestop too now

Wasnt there a place where it was 5$ off via some methode ontop of that 40$ price too?
Not sure if its normal that a 60$ game, a week after release has deals all the way down to 35$.