Those games are extremely complicated and hard to make.
It doesn't surprise me that a game rushed out this early had issues. But consoles are PC lite now anyways so they'll patch it and the game will eventually be good.
I LOVE ICELAND!
| LMU Uncle Alfred said: And they get glowing reviews in the process...I think reviewers need to stop letting expectations determine their reviews, they do this with too many games just because they have expectations of them good and bad. Oh it's a Bethesda game, we can forgive them for that.. |
Yep it's exactly why I don't care about reviews. They did the same with Halo MCC. Online was broken yet the game is still getting 8+.
Wow, so glad I play multiplats on PC.
I predict that the Wii U will sell a total of 18 million units in its lifetime.
The NX will be a 900p machine
I haven't played Fallout 4, and no that GIF isn't gonna tell me the whole story. I'll jude when I play it a year, or more, later on PC.
Skyrim and FO3 are definitely considered broken in my book. Some of you are desensitized and used to the lack of optimization. Nintendo-like polish is a term that exists out of necessity.
"A cheap ass graphics card like 750ti can run better than consoles, How embarrassing." >_>
I predict that the Wii U will sell a total of 18 million units in its lifetime.
The NX will be a 900p machine
| PieToast said: People who can accept or ignore these performance issues can coexist with the people who don't. Don't direct your frustration on the fans, criticise the developers, call them on their short comings because that might lead to healthy discussion. Otherwise, you're intentionally opening a can of worms in an attempt to shame the people who will enjoy the game. |
I want to quote this post for emphasis.
If we had a thread where we could talk about the technical problems of the Fallout and Elder Scroll series, that would be great and I'd be all for it. I remember doing that on the forum I was on before I came here, though it was a non-gaming forum with a small gaming section.
However, here we have to deal with the same crowd up pop up in every Bethesda thread and say the same old, "omg its broken bethesfsda paid off jim sterling and ign and gamespot the hole game is 0 fps omg omg." You can't have a decent discussion when it starts out at such ridiculous levels and it's always the same people who ruin that potential. It's frustrating.
Pretty much every reviewer who gave Fallout 4 a good review explained why they gave it a good review; because they had a blast playing the game despite the techinical short-comings. That's not a game that's broken. Now, if you're a person who can't deal with those problems, that's perfectly fine, but don't go acting like you represent everyone else.
Drops to 0fps are convenient as they serve as a chance to stop and reflect on how awesome the game is.
Nintendo is selling their IPs to Microsoft and this is true because:
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=221391&page=1
| KungKras said: Those games are extremely complicated and hard to make. It doesn't surprise me that a game rushed out this early had issues. But consoles are PC lite now anyways so they'll patch it and the game will eventually be good. |
Since when is a game in development for the better part of a decade "rushed out" because it only had a five month marketing campaign? The game's done, probably more so than any Bethesda game we've seen last gen. It's just that it's a Bethesda game, and the buyer knows what he's getting into with these games.
You should check out my YouTube channel, The Golden Bolt! I review all types of video games, both classic and modern, and I also give short flyover reviews of the free games each month on PlayStation Plus to tell you if they're worth downloading. After all, the games may be free, but your time is valuable!
| 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/
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
