This Mod Wants to Fix Every Fallout 4 Bug
- Thread starter ffronw
- Start date
You claim I'm lucky. That may be so, but I'm claiming you're unlucky.Charcharo said:You were just lucky truth be told.Lightknight said:
You had few and not super severe bugs. Not what I saw on launch day, and no this is not me talking about the absolute amateurish stupidity of the PC port and its lack of FOV/Mouse Acceleration/Frame Lock and Vsync options. Those are a seperate issue.
FO4 was a worse experience for me than Skyrim. Which was bad (though better than Oblivion and FO3... and New Vegas, except NV is a far better game).
It is great you were lucky, but it ain't the same for all around.
From the bug lists and everything like that, FO4 is significantly more polished and less buggy than a wide range of former games. That's just an empirical assessment of bug numbers and severity/priority of said bugs as compared to previous versions.
Keep in mind though, bugs get fixed over time. FO4 is not as polished as Skyrim is now. But it is more polished than Skyrim was at launch. So if you played Skyrim later in its life cycle then sure, you may have had a more polished experience. But at launch? Not even close.
I don't care if the game is good enough. That's a wholly subjective claim. What I am claiming is that FO4 is significantly more polished at launch than Skyrim and the previous generation's fallouts.Charcharo said:I have a lot of PCs though... on which to test games or at least play them.
The list of what they are fixing is still not good enough. Not even close yet. Bethesda needs better talent, there is no other way for real progress to happen with them
The game I do like though.
Skyrim in particular was one I tested extensively. That's why I was able to figure out the root cause of the problem on the PS3 before others did (hurray for asset category bloating that was exclusive to Sony's stupid proprietary garbage requirements to break assets up).
Depends, is quality where everything looks perfect from a technical perspective or is quality where the game is fun?Charcharo said:And I disagree. It is just as bad/good as Skyrim when it ShOULD have been MUCH better than it. It should have been more polished han Witcher 3, for example.Lightknight said:I don't care if the game is good enough. That's a wholly subjective claim. What I am claiming is that FO4 is significantly more polished at launch than Skyrim and the previous generation's fallouts.Charcharo said:I have a lot of PCs though... on which to test games or at least play them.
The list of what they are fixing is still not good enough. Not even close yet. Bethesda needs better talent, there is no other way for real progress to happen with them
The game I do like though.
Skyrim in particular was one I tested extensively. That's why I was able to figure out the root cause of the problem on the PS3 before others did (hurray for asset category bloating that was exclusive to Sony's stupid proprietary garbage requirements to break assets up).
I was not talking about whether the game is good or not. Though you were the person that thought that gaming media and game critic's are a good indication of game quality? Not I
If you are familiar with the critics you are following then they are a good indicator because you know where their focus and bias lies. You know the critics that will artificially raise a score because there's a leading woman in it. You know the critics that hate everything you like. You know the critics who ignore technical polish and those who focus too much on it.
The most important thing to do is find critics who are consistent in their reviews so you can apply the filter of their bias to it in order to figure out if you'll like the game.
You had fun playing the game. That you're mad at the polish of it is kinda irrelevant to the quality of the game itself so much as an indictment of the half-assery of the studio.
At the time you could root the ps3 and have a pretty darn powerful machine. I mean, if you bought it at the starting price and never rooted it then yeah, pretty bad scam since you couldn't enjoy having a unix compatible fairly powerful machine at the time.The PS3 is irrelevant to me. No idea how anything on it is. It is a scam for super rich westerners anyway
Oh, that's right, because I remember that time I built a really powerful machine for only $600 and it never became comparatively weak (sarcasm intended as playful banter since you and I communicate privately).Charcharo said:The PS3 was surpassed in a year. In 2-3 years it was becoming comparatively weak. I play the long game always
Fallout 4 does not deserve that and isn't particularly buggy for an open world game. Again, your anger is with Bethesda and not the game itself. Metabombing the game is disingenuous and misleads customers looking for a review. Most frequently it ends up harming the development staff which may have just not been given enough resources by the publisher and metabombing it allows the publisher to keep even more money in their pocket.
The only way to ever mostly hurt the right people in this scenario is to not buy their game. But Fallout 4 is a lot of fun as you've acknowledged. So people are going to buy it.
I like a few reviewers in Gameinformer and Yahtzee is always good for a few laughs and some good points. I understand Jim and his background so I can use him for a good review too but he doesn't always tackle big-boy games. ProJared provides a pretty good run down in a short amount of time (he does a good job of prefacing with his bias and distinguishing between quality story vs quality gameplay vs quality coding). My only complaints with him is how much he likes Nintendo and how a 1-minute review becomes 3 minutes for some reason.Well good for your critics. I can only trust my friends. Who do you follow BTW
What? The ps3 lasted the whole time. 2006-2013 (and I'm told by some that it lasted longer than that too). 7 years. That's one of the benefits of consoles, that developers specifically QA and engineer for their games to fit and work on the consoles. So a $600 pc you built in 2006 sure as hell wouldn't have played Skyrim but the ps3 did.Charcharo said:
You know me, we both work with computers and have gaming rigs. But I'm going to give credit where it's due. The ps3 was an excellent machine at the time for the cost if you were willing to pay for it. The consumer market at the time just wasn't up to dropping that much more than normal. To be frank, it was a relatively cheap or average priced Blu-ray player at the time too which was ridiculous that Blu-ray players were that expensive.
We've (you and I) already discussed this. It isn't worse than other games. There are only a handful of companies that deliver on this scale and complexity anyways and so far only Witcher 3 seemed to pull really it off on such a large scale. Most games of this scale have these kinds of ridiculous bugs at launch. They all just patch them over the first few months leading up to the expansions.Did Bethesda not act badly towards Obsidian for Fallout New Vegas? I remember something about the scores and the buginess of that game.
Also this happens every time they release a game. Repeatable. And it is much worse than most other Open World games (provided some are worse games, but then again I am a literature elitist after all... everything is worse
I don't think so. The computer and gaming literate live in a sort of bubble. Fallout 4 made so much more money that previous games and the next iteration will probably make even more. I have absolutely zero confidence in the claim that anyone has learned their lesson. And besides, while being the same price as other games it was still more enjoyable than the vast majority of titles released around that time. Ergo, the opportunity cost per dollar was remarkably low if not negative.
You told me you had fun with it. Did you not get an equitable amount of fun out of it?