pokoko on 09 November 2015
| BraLoD said: Considering the backslash Unity had, it's pretty telling Bethesda has a way easier time with critics. The difference is that Ubisoft releases a AC every year, just that, because both AC and Fallout are about bringing more of the same, big games full of things to do, and both games get their fair share of technical issues. Considering Ubisoft is a big rush with their games it's even more understadable (not passable, though), while if Bethesda has way bigger cycles their games should be way better at the technical part. Of course the scope of Bethesda games can be more of the liking of critics and/or general share of more dedicated gamers, but even so, there should not be double standards. |
Doesn't really sound like much of a double standard, though:
"Bethesda’s always gotten some leeway with its quality control, mostly due to huge expansive its games are, and Fallout 4 is certainly of a high enough quality overall to where I find myself more forgiving than I otherwise would be. It’s certainly nothing like Assassin’s Creed Unity, where the bugs were constant and often devastating, and the fact the experience is so damn good that I’m willing the fight through even the most persistent annoyance says something about how great Fallout 4 is in spite of itself." http://www.thejimquisition.com/2015/11/fallout-4-review-s-p-e-c-i-a-l/
