'Ignore the bugs'

Exactly when did bugs and glitches in games become something that people should be "ok" with?

I bought a tomato and only a certain section of the tomato is rotten, rest is consumable so im "ok" with it.

A game (or anything else for that matter) being perfect is a matter of opinion, same as a review as well as the score at the bottom.

No I refuse to ignore the bugs, the game should be docked accordingly for having them. If we don't then it'll send the message to other developers to release more of their games broken at launch. If developers don't want to be criticized for having them, then they should fix them in Q&A before the final product is shipped.

Plus it wouldn't be fair to give broken games a perfect score while quality games without bugs get a lower score.

Hahahahahahahaha Yes I give a game a perfect score but forget every bug in the game, that's like saying give the order 1886 a perfect score but forget how short and lack of gameplay within the game but because it looks amazing forget everything else. bugs and performance should all be involved when making a game score.

Why it does not deserve a perfect score:

-Story is uninteresting and rushed. You don't have time to feel attached to any characters, because the story is progressing so fast, especially in the beginning.
-The HUD is bad and takes up to much space on screen.
-The gunplay gets tedious, because in many quests you have to shoot your way out of 100000 raiders or gunners. Why not have fewer enemies with better AI instead?
-Talking of AI, it is so easy to outsmart them, especially Deathclaws, Radscorpions and other, even on very hard difficulty. Raiders and Super Mutants are actually not as bad.
-Companions are useless. If you try to sneak, they aggro the enemies. They will often block your way in small corridors. And sometimes they will even glitch out of the place you are in, leaving you alone. I see them as extra weight only, that can carry my junk.
-I find the building part boring, and not fun. I would not have any problems if the building was optional. But many quests require building even main quests, it feels tacked on and forced. This is Fallout, not Sim City.
-Unstable FPS on some areas even on GTX 980 and i7. While Witcher 3 runs smooth 60fps everywhere... which looks 1000x times better.

Yeah, this game is more like 7.5/10 for me.

This click bait article shouldn't be here. It's got no content, just a paragraph about why we should read their review...

Bugthesda at it again. Decent title, ambitious scope, riddled with bugs (and not the ones of the nuclear variety).

Use some of the millions you are bragging about on a bigger QA team.

Delete article please.

Perfect? It makes no sense. It's inconsistent, dumbed down... Witcher 3 is not perfect. Phantom Pain is not perfect. Bloodborne on its own rules it's closer to what a perfect score should be...

But Fallout 4? Oh man... It's a dumbed down world...

Fallout 4 is not perfect at all. Bugs , graphics and story is what brings it down. Yet it still is an awesome game.

The amount of stupid articles is too damn high. This idiot wants an average game to be perfect so badly.

Fallout 4 does deserve a perfect 10. How many games with issues, glitches, and mediocre story lines were rated perfect 10? Why do they deserve perfect 10s and Fallout 4 less?

Bugs

Indicate

Lack Of

Perfection.

9.5/10 for me and definitely GOTY

I mean, can someone break down why Fallout 4 is better than Witcher 3? Im enjoying my time with Fallout, don't get me wrong.

But IMO, Witcher 3 takes "open world" to a whole other level.

By that logic The Order 1886 also deserves a perfect score if you ingonre all that is wrong and focus on the pretty visuals.

A game is not just made up by one thing but by many. Some lack gameplay, others have a weak story (if the game has one that is), some have technical issues, etc. See you can give a game a perfect score, and some outlets do that, if the things that are not perfect are still at least good, I'd be ok with that even though I generally don't think there is a "perfect" game when looking at it objectively.

As already mentioned Fallout 4 has many technical issues that are significant and that has to be reflected in a review. Yes, it might not bother many players, but it needs to be addressed in a review and needs to show in the score. If the game is a 10/10 for you subjectively, fine, objectively there is always something that makes it not perfect.

The game has borderline last gen graphics, long load times, average combat, and bugs galore. Despite all of this, it still deserves an 8.5 or a 9.

is 8.5 for me, the lag fest is a killjoy. When have 4 or more enemies you are fighting all of a sudden the frame rate drops significant;y and it's horrible cause it slows down the combat like in Fallout 3.

Fun factor is an 11/10.

Graphics are a 6/10 (if that).

Moddability is a 10/10.

Open-world feel and experience is a 9/10.

Gameplay is a 9/10.

The games definitely has bugs and the graphics are really bad, but I am having SO MUCH FUN now, and after I put in 100 hours and get a bunch of mods, it will look gorgeous and be a polished gem...to play for a 100 more hours!

There is nothing perfect about this game. Like all of Bethesda games it desperately need mods to fill in the gaps. The entire settlement management portion of the game feels incomplete and is begging for a PC mod overhaul.

I totally agree with nX ("Huh?
I'm 25 hours in and wouldn't call it unfinished or broken at all. Slightly buggy yes, but I have yet to encounter any serious problems... it's probably the best optimized Bethesda game of the last few years and I'm happy that they finally released a stable open world title. It's far from perfect but I wouldn't deduct many points for technical issues... the simplified character development & dialogue system however would make me give it a 9/10.") This game has hardly any bugs and I have yet to come across anything thats even mildly bothersom. Great game deserves very high praise.

Bring back freedom with magic (even if exploitable it's fun). Bring back utterly bizarre and memorable characters (starfield felt like theirs were designed by a committee of wet blankets). Bring back actual consequential player choice ie different classes and guilds/houses/etc that can't all be done in the one playthrough. And update or replace that damn engine for more seamless streaming/traversal so dungeons, towns and buildings aren't segmented separate levels. And for the love of god don't dare do that shitty dialog wheel and voiced player again

First of all, they should replace Todd Howard for that to happen.

Starfield could have become an (Xbox) megaseller and critically acclaimed milestone in the Sci-Fi genre.

I would have never let them work with CreationEngine 2 for that, but scrapped it completely.

the Fallout 4 Anniversary edition is a JOKE.. way too expensive.. and its broken.. Bethesda is a joke now..