@clasmae: Granted it's a difficult proposition, and I'm not saying that I think it's likely that it will happen for the foreseeable future. But that doesn't mean that you do nothing -- support disarmament agreements, support like-minded politicians, and vote your conscience.
I reviewed MTG (the card game) for a small regional board-gaming magazine, way back when it first came out, and rated it a 6 out of 10, 8 out of 10 as a collectable. I really did not enjoy playing it, nor did I like the effect it had on my gaming group (fortunately, most people grew bored with it quickly).
That said, I followed my own advice and treated it as a collectable -- only a few years later, I was able to sell all of my unopened MTG boxes and display cases for enough money to pay for quite a nice vacation in Europe (no joke). So I owe a lot to MTG -- not enough to want to actually ever play the game again. But still, I owe a lot to it. That was great vacation.
BTW, the primary inspiration for MTG was an incredible game called "Cosmic Encounter". If you play no other board game ever, you should definitely play that game. The most recent edition of it is still in print (by Fantasy Flight Games). It's among the most influential board games of the 20th century, and for good reason because it's hellishly great fun, and infinitely replayable.
@Tekarukite: I definitely did it in the '60s, but I can't recall when we stopped doing them, exactly. I suspect that they had stopped some time in the late '60s or VERY early '70s, at least here in upstate New York. I know that we did them in the very early grades of elementary school, but not in Jr. High or H.S.
As buggy as Fallout 4 is, it's still a helluva lot better than New Vegas -- more crashes per unit playtime than any other Bethesda game since Daggerfall (my memory of Daggerfall is a bit shady, but I do recall pulling my hair out with that game). The fact that FO4 actually made news when the (probably not isolated) game-killing bug was found is an indication that Bethesda has been doing a much better job with QC than with their previous games. I hope that this is an ongoing trend.
@Majin72: It definitely should be included in a review, but the ONLY thing that should go into a numerical rating is how much did you enjoy the game. The problem is that you can have 10 things in a game that are clearly objectively inferior, and yet have as much or more fun with the game. For example, a game may have superior graphics, a superior story, and a superior UI, but if you actually enjoyed the objectively inferior game more, that needs to be reflected in the overall rating. And personally, I've seen that happen time and again. For example, I love Master of Orion. And I agree that just about everything in Master of Orion 2 is superior. But I have to give the first one a better number because I may never play it again because I prefer the first one.
Reviews and ratings absolultely are not supposed to be objective -- they are supposed to reflect what the reviewer thinks about the game IN SPITE of any objective facts. Sure, you should mention everything that is relevant, but that does not mean that everything that is relevant has an equal weight. It's a reviewer's job to say that Game A is more fun than Game B, regardless of whether or not Game B may be OBJECTIVELY flawed. It's not that you are ignoring the flaws, it's that when you played the game, those flaws may be outweighed by just how much fun you have in the game. Sometimes you cannot even put your finger on why you might enjoy one game more than another. Sometimes complexity and depth gets in the way of fun. Not always. Sometimes the overall art design may create something which draws you into the game more, in spite of it being lower resolution or whatever. Believe me, it happens. I see it all the time. Look at the lists of the best games of all time, and you'll see games on those lists that are objectively horribly bugged, or have primitive graphics and sound, or other flaws. But they still were compelling enough that players became obsessed with them. I'm talking about games like Master of Orion, Fallout 2, Arena, Daggerfall, Alpha Centauri, etc.
@groowagon: You probably don't have to reload if you get stuck in the terrain. Open the console, type "TCL" (which will allow you to move through objects), close the console, move just enough to get unstuck, then reopen the console and type "TCL" again to undo that change. I have no idea how to open the console on an XBox1 or PS4, but on the PC, you press the tilde key (the key immediately left of "1" on the keyboard)..
@thereal25: I would question that number. But in any case, the exact number is irrelevant, since that assumes that you skip all of the content, such as exploring buildings, sewers, and so on. It's not about how big the area is, but how much there is to do within that area.
For example, I spent an hour or so just clearing a single building, including multiple floors and sections, as well as a roof with multiple structures and scaffoldings on top of that roof. That 20 minute number means that the player has not actually entered any of the areas in between, which can be quite spacious, and on a different scale from the outside world. It reminds me of this old challenge from way back when -- people would talk about how long it took them to see all of the important pieces of art in the Louvre (Mona Lisa, etc.) and I think the record was like 10 minutes or so. It's an absurd number -- if that's how you are going to explore the Louvre, you are entirely missing the point. Same thing with Fallout 4's wasteland. If all you are going to do there is run from one side to the other, you are completely missing the point of the game.
People who are unable to play, or play properly (of which there have been) are giving the game very low marks, which would be fair, if they put in the effort to find out what their issue is (do they need to reinstall? Upgrade drivers? Do they really meet the minimal specs? Have the contacted tech support? etc.).
Based on the reviews I've read, many are merely disappointed that the game isn't FNV or Fallout 2 or whatever it is that they were hoping for -- and then didn't give it a chance. If instead of reviewing what the game ISN'T, maybe if they gave it a shot, they might find that they MIGHT enjoy what it IS. I'm not saying that will be true for everyone. But I've seen people do that all the time where they judge something not on its own merits, but on a different game's merits, which isn't fair. This is the game. It is what it is. If you don't rate it as a whole entity, and instead zero in on an aspect that is not as good (in your opinion) as in a different game, then you are not actually rating the game, you are instead saying that the whole game comes down to this one thing and one thing alone and it's second best, so I'll just trash it, because giving an fair rating is just too difficult.
Then there's those who don't like the UI, and I have to agree with them to some extent. But the difference between me and the others is that I didn't get so frustrated that I rated the entire game on that one aspect, without actually learning to cope, and actually playing it and seeing what else the game has to offer. The UI has issues, but it's something that can be worked around, at least until Bethesda, and/or modders can deal with. When I finally have played enough that I feel confident that I can rate it fairly, I'll certainly deduct a point because of that. But to trash the game on that one aspect would be equivalent to throwing a hissy fit.
All ratings are a matter of emotion. What you like and what you don't like come right down to an emotional response. If you let yourself be sidetracked by a single aspect that drives you nuts and not look at the game as a whole, you cannot possibly give it a fair review, much less a fair chance.
8 hours in, and I'm loving the game. I've had exactly one glitch, where the game froze for a few seconds. But other than that, it's been smooth sailing on a 4-year-old pc on medium settings. Not everything is perfect. But I'm still having a ball with it.
GrahamZ's comments