Talk:Fallout 4

The years are wrong.

Someone decided to change the years for the dates, I don't think they were around back in 1802 Dohvahkiin (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism, already reverted. -- ferret (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

18th date

It seems i'm not the only one misleaded by the 18th date (two more edits so far)... i won't correct it again, and by the way thanks Ferret for changing the article to comprise both dates, but i'm still a litte confused.

The only date on official channel(s) seems to be the 14th US/15th Europe one, which misdirect users into correcting the latter.

I've been able to find the 18th date related just to the E3 event duration (16th to 18th), and can't find any direct evidence of the statement, found in linked article, The first full reveal of the game will be on June 18 at E3, Bethesda said.

ProprioMe OW (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It has a reliable secondary source. Bethesda may have responded directly to them as part of a press inquiry. Not all statements made to a secondary source will necessarily be available to us separately as a primary source. -- ferret (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Was more inclined towards a typo on that article, but probably you're right. Thanks. -- ProprioMe OW (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It's certainly possible, I won't deny it, but we can't make that determination. -- ferret (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Found other sources today mentioning both dates. We'll get more details June 14th during their press release (before E3 opens), but the big full reveal and show case is June 18th during E3 itself. -- ferret (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The Irishtimes article was written today. Could it be that the writer checked this Wikipedia article and basically wrote what was already on here? I'm thinking that the Independent article might just have been a typo seeing as it doesn't mention June 14. The official twitter accounts of Bethesda Softworks and Bethesda Game Studios have no mention of June 18 but do mention June 14. --The1337gamer (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It just feels a little weird to go "We don't believe the RS is right"... Can we make that determination? But in my view, June 18th makes sense because it is during E3, while June 14 is a pre-show press conference before E3. Any "show case" would be at E3, not before. The press conference is likely to lots of details on Fallout 4, but also all the other projects Bethseda is working on, while the show case would be all Fallout. -- ferret (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

One more bit, but The Independent updated the title of the article since yesterday, and the title now includes "on June 18". Previously was only in the body of the article. -- ferret (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Bethesda's website says "The Showcase airs live around the world via Twitch and YouTube on June 14th at 7pm PST.": [1] The showcase is their pre-show conference. The Independent article seems to suggest this as well with the sentence that follows the June 18 part: "The E3 showcase is the first time that the company has been to the gaming conference." Nearly every other secondary source and official channels mention June 14 but don't mention June 18. --The1337gamer (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the 18th statement for now... Can always add back as things develop. -- ferret (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Butchered sentence

"This is able to house a smart phone device, cannot hold any iPhone after the fifth generation where the pip-boy housing for iPhone 5 and older , which can then run the second screen functionality of the game.[38]"

Hard to even know what the author intended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.89.94.215 (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the central phrase. As Wikipedia isn't a guide, I don't think it is necessary to mention which smart phone models are compatible and incompatible with the device. A description of its functionality is satisfactory. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

SandraReed 'Rumor'/Leak

Considering it was a fake leak with incorrect information, it seems right to remove it from the page? The information is entirely redundant because it leads into saying that all correct details came from the Kotaku leak, therefore thwatting anything leaked by SandraReed. I can't really see any reason to leave a redundant tidbit of leaked information there, especially because many readers may skim the page and see that then think said rumors were true ("PS3/360 Release") without reading the entire paragraph dedicated to it. It was confirmed at E3 that all SandraReed's leaked information was wrong. --66.229.236.165 (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd probably remove it. Even though some game websites did pick up on it, when you think about the scope of what this article will become, that reddit rumour doesn't have much weight or significance. It was false and debunked almost immediately upon going viral by a website that did leak correct information. We shouldn't necessarily report everything that game websites do, especially if it speculation and rumours. --The1337gamer (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2015

68.52.140.26 (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done It isn't what you want changing. --The1337gamer (talk) 05:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2015

Correct the following sentence: "Players have the ability to construct and deconstruct buildings and items, and use them to build a settlement, which can attract and inhabit other non-playable characters." The use of the word "inhabit" is incorrect. The sentence should read: Players have the ability to construct and deconstruct buildings and items, and use them to build a settlement, which can attract and be inhabited by other non-playable characters. Peterbrockmiller (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done Kaciemonster (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Confusing Sentence Structure

The section regarding the game's story has a very confusing structure, some words aren't capitalised, and there are missing spaces after commas/full stops. This should probably be changed. Unfortunately, the article can't be edited.

Below is the section in question with the problems in bold:

On the morning of October 23rd, 2077, The Player Characters is preparing to go to a Veteran's hall. While getting ready, a Vault-Tec representative approaches the family and approves them for admittance into Vault 111. Mere moments later, a news bulletin warns of an imminent nuclear attack, forcing the family and their son, Shaun to rush to the Vault, where they're temporarily trapped outside when a nuke detonates nearby.

Suddenly, the platform below them was lowered just in time, and the family along with all of the other residents were placed in cryosleep. Over two hundred years,an unknown assailants [is there only one assailant or multiple?] open the players's pod and forcibly take shaun. as the wife/husband resists; [the entire sentence may need revising] however this only results in her/him being killed by one of the accompanying mercenaries.Depends of the player character chooses to play as a male or female, The Sole Survivor is the only one to emerge from Vault 111. [needs space after full stop but most of the sentence is confusing]

After escaping Vault 111, the player returns to Sanctuary Hills, the estate where the Sole Survivor is from. The Survior founded their former robot-butler, Codsworth, who still resides there. Despite not understand Codsworth word about being on the Vault for 200 years, The Survivor stated they "didn't go that very long". Out-lands of Boston's city limits, the player found a long lost dog, named Dogmeat, who were looking for a new owners. [this paragraph is hard to understand]

Note: I haven't played the game, so I may have made some mistakes in my corrections.

JollyTurbo1 (talk) 08:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

This has been removed entirely. It was basically a synopsis of the release trailer, rather than the plot of the game. -- ferret (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2015

IGN review score is 9.5 not 9.0

Kstarksss (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Already done -- ferret (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Release date

The release date in the beginning of the article says it was already released tomorrow. Being tomorrow, the date didn't happen yet, which means it was referring to speculation in the past tense. We don't need another ″Dewey Defeats Truman″. 69.119.172.116 (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Time zones, my friend. November 9th at 8am EST is November 10th at 12am in New Zealand and Australia. The game has been unlocked in those markets already. -- ferret (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

A negative review.

Per NPOV, the Reception section must have input from negative reviews too. I found one already from a reliable source. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Also the article has no mention of the large number of negative USER reviews. 109.152.235.209 (talk) 10:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Some of the negative reviews need to be added, but we do not mention user reviews (Whether negative or positive) because they are inherently unreliable sources. Unless a reliable source happens to comment on the user reviews in some way to make them notable, we don't include them. -- ferret (talk) 13:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

You don't use the metadata on user reviews because they're unreliable? And game review companies' reviews ARE reliable? What a crock. You use the Metacritic score, but fail to mention there are more negative user reviews than positive for the PC version. Steam is a bit different picture, where just under 80% of user reviews are positive. I'd say the opinion of the actual gaming community is far more reliable than the opinions of people paid by companies to write reviews. If you don't say something about negative reviews from the actual gaming community, then you're covering up negative opinions about the game and showing biased. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be as unbiased as possible? There's a little subject called Statistics. Eventually the user reviews will even out and reflect the opinion of the community within a certain error margin. This is no different than polls, which are cited all the time in Wikipedia. If it is some sort of policy on Wikipedia to not use user reviews, then that policy needs to change. But I doubt it's a policy. More likely it's just the decision of a few elite editors of game articles. 184.21.248.228 (talk) 03:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Except when polls are official, user ratings aren't. User ratings can be filled with developers praising their games to sky high, and haters trashing the game without playing it. There is no way it reflects "community" response. The only time community reception can be included is that it is mentioned and covered by multiple reliable sources. For example, the backlash caused by the new Dante from DmC can be mentioned. It is a guideline that should be followed, and this shouldn't be an exception. See WP:USERG. AdrianGamer (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2015

This article doesn't make sense since 10th November is a future date and therefore a fictional date. One cannot say that a game "was released worldwide on 10 November, 2015" as this event has not happened yet. Let's not bullshit the system by writing on an extremely popular wikipedia page an event that has not happened (yet). Maxbenson156 (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Time zones. At this point, eastern Europe is already November 10th. The game began to unlock in New Zealand 11 hours ago. Please remember that Wikipedia serves more than the USA. -- ferret (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2015

Hey. If you see the game credits, you will notice that Behaviour Interactive also worked on the game - programming, art, design and etcs. Because I can't edit the page, you can do it as "Additional development: Behaviour Interactive". BorisDG (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2015

Fallout 4 received positive reviews to Fallout 4 received critical acclaim 88.203.12.89 (talk) 10:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Chamith (talk) 13:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Year wrong, important for timeline setting

In the first part it says it takes place 200 years after the nuclear war (was was in 2077), but it's 210 years, which is important cause 2277 is when fallout 3 happens and fallout 4 is not going on at the same time as the third game but it 10 years after. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrandJS (talk • contribs) 15:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Fan Backlash

I don't know if it's NPOV or not, but as someone who's "in the trenches" of the PC launch I can tell you this is a very controversial game. It has thousands of negative user reviews on Steam and tons on Amazon as well. Some are criticizing what they perceive to be dumbed down mechanics, but vastly more are lamenting bugs and poor optimization while others report an inability to even play the product due to crashes. Also the whole 5gig on disc, 20 gig dl for the physical PC release is pretty controversial. The reason people buy physical copies is usually because their internet isn't a viable option. So people with bad internet who are 90% of the physical copy market are essentially paying for a box with a digital download code in it. I dunno. I've seen a lot of launches and this one is so bad that it seems worth mentioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.207.237 (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

User reviews by themselves, sourced directly from just Steam, Amazon and/or Metacritic etc are considered self-published and are not reliable. In an instance where they are cited, it is typically in regards to a wider issue reported by other sources (see Portal 2 as an example of this). To be honest though, sometimes it feels like every other major release, particularly on PC has this happen. Frankly Man (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2015

The line at the end is not correct:

"Fallout 4 broke the Steam record for most players concurrently online with almost 470,000 concurrent players, beating out the previous record holder Grand Theft Auto V.[60]"

If you read the claim's source carefully, you'll see that it's a record on Steam only among non-Valve developed games. I suggest something like:

"Fallout 4 broke the Steam record for most players concurrently online in a game not developed by Valve with almost 470,000 concurrent players, beating out the previous record holder Grand Theft Auto V.[60]" Ripsky4501 (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done --The1337gamer (talk) 06:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2015

Please add infomation on mods 65.175.243.206 (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)