High chance he was just fooling around then got bored because of lack of objectives.

Open world games are not for everybody.

That's not my point. In fact, I've pointed out at least twice now in my posts that it wasn't his cup of tea, and even specifically said that my opinion of the review wouldn't have changed had he saud he loved it.

What I'm saying is that I hardly give his review any real weight because of the discrepancy between what he looked at and what we already know is in the game. Unless the game is truly a horrendus pile of crap that gives Big Rigs a run for its money as "worst game ever", I don't see how that review is expected to be taken seriously.

That's an assumption. It's very possible he finished the main quest. Using the term payoff would seem to imply it. I don't understand why you think he didn't bother to look around at the game more than was necessary to understand the main quest? He discusses side quests and NPCs and says he didn't find them engaging. A game is not a movie. 20 hours of Fallout 3 is not materially different from the next 100. Its unlikely this game is any different.

You can agree or disagree with the review but it seems to me people are trying to impugn this guy's effort based on very little.

Based on any of Bethesda's games, I have easily been able to tell the quality of the game based on the first twenty hours.

He has played over twenty hours simply leveling up to tackle main quests, where he states once you get past the boring and bland side-quests to actually level up enough that the game gets better, but that he isn't sure if it's worth it.

It sounds to me like he gave it a fair shake and that he probably had a fairly good idea of what the game is generally like. You don't need to complete every side-quest and crawl every inch of Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 3 or New Vegas to get a good understanding of the game.

Furthermore, you and many others are merely taking what his review says entirely out of context, while others are simply saying the guy doesn't know anything about Fallout or calls him an idiot for disliking a game that he has actually played. I'm curious if people calling the guy an idiot have actually played the game?

Agreed. It seems like people are intentionally taking his words out of context to write him off as an idiot or blasphemer for not liking a Bethesda game that they, themselves, have most likely not played yet.

i think u defending him to much, his review as a Video game review have ALOT of weak points.

Like what? I only started "defending" him when people started repeating the claim that he only played 10 hours despite the review plainly stating he played for at least 20. Now people are claiming he didn't finish the main quest when we certainly don't know that at all. When obviously factually incorrect statements are being thrown around as valid criticism I do like to point this out.

Here's what the IBT reviewer now says about the "Full" review. Hahaha, bizarre: h ttps://twitter.c om/vbale striere/status/663040450400550913

I'd link it normally but apparently I "don't have permission to post links." Just delete the 3 extra spaces. Annoying.

No option to publically fund settlements. 0/10.

So he's saying it wasn't a full review? Good to know.

Apparently. I'm guessing by posting a "Partial" review he thought he'd get around the embargo, which makes absolutely no sense.

I wouldn't call it a "partial" review either, he was pretty conclusive in his thoughts on the game. It was just a "poor" review, not very well-written, very short on content, and containing nothing insightful whatsoever.

What are ramifications for breaking a NDA is it strictly civil or like a huge fine?

Probably a civil suit followed by nobody in the industry ever trusting you ever again, thereby depriving you of a source of income from them.

The guy will have gone on record handing out a poor review to the eventual winner of so many game of the year awards---by prestigious outfits, mind you---that you'd lose count of them all.

So big deal. He can boast to his girlfriend about how he's so alternative and against the mainstream consensus. Good for him.

Has less than zero effect on me.

II love Bethesda games for their relatively slow pace. It puts me in tune with the make believe world that I am losing myself in for a couple of hours. If you want arcade, twitch reflex stuff, go for it. I don't want Bethesda games reduced to that.

I actually stopped playing DAI. I did like the characters but the game play itself did not cater to my preferred style of play (stealth). Doesn't make DAI bad, it's just not for me. I also don't like the Witcher because I am Geralt. I don't want to be Geralt.

Bethesda games have been hitting the sweet spot for me since Daggerfall. Apparently there are a few million others who feel the same way, and probably a few million who don't.

Damn, to have privilege to an early copy of the game only to muck it up with a lame review that as far as I know, wasn't even informative....My goodness.

Does this also mean 3-dog is possibly facing civil issues for his tweets back in the day? I was always under the impression if you broke a NDA your ass was grass.

He's in full blown "cover my ass mode".

How so? I havn't clicked any leaks because I am scared of los spoilers, is this guy claiming his review wasn't a full review and therefore somehow gets around the NDA?

Pretty much.

Depends on weather or not 3-Dog was under a NDA, ehat the terms of the NDA was, and whether or not him saying anything fell under that.

But from the looks of it, no. He just hyped up fans by telling a small fib- he wasn't hired or interviewed for FO4 at the time IIRC, so I doubt any NDAs he signed were still in effect.

Even if he was, tweeting that he might be doing Voice Acting for gamesas is likely juuust vague enough to be frowned on by the suits but not litigation worthy.

Pretty much, that and the fact it wasn't a very good review in the first place.... So saying it wasn't a full review is an excuse for how shoddy it was.

i cant think when it was the last time i play a open world game, where the slow pace wasnt present. That why i think his review have 0 clues how a open world game work

*Chuckles to self* What a fool!

Review went up on IBT. Review was taken down off IBT. Then he tweeted:

I don't think Geralt wants to be Geralt.

I think this is true of RPGs in general. This isn't a genre for people looking for fast paced stories, and non-stop action. Frankly, I'm surprised this guy enjoyed Dragon Age: Inquisition... I thought that one was pretty slow even by RPG standards considering how much time the game made you waste on doing trivial, and repetitive side content before you could progress through its story.

Judging by his twitter feed his thing is cars and racing games,

so, ok, thanks for the opinion, but no thanks.