Fortnite

 PC
Metascore
81

Generally favorable reviews - based on 11 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 9 out of 11
  2. Mixed: 2 out of 11
  3. Negative: 0 out of 11
  1. Eurogamer Italy
    Aug 10, 2017
    70
    Quotation forthcoming.
  2. PC Gamer
    Aug 7, 2017
    55
    Fortnite suffocates what could be an incredible tower defense game beneath the some of the most tangential, egregious, impersonal progression systems we’ve seen.
This publication does not provide a score for their reviews.
This publication has not posted a final review score yet.
These unscored reviews do not factor into the Metascore calculation.

In Progress & Unscored

?
  1. Kotaku
    Apr 9, 2019
    There are so many people, so many places, so many things, that Fortnite risks veering off into meaninglessness, into the same cacophony that fills my headphones as I play or the same confusion I felt when Paul sent me the picture of that sweatshirt. But Fortnite wouldn’t be Fortnite without it.
  2. SpazioGames
    Jul 25, 2017
    Fortnite is a well-crafted mix, a game that takes all from Minecraft and Left 4 Dead to create something new. Unfortunately, this action builder from Epic Games could show everything in the few first hours. Also, it's very unbalanced in chasing the money from the "free" users.

Awards & Rankings

56
#56 Best PC Game of 2017
4
#4 Most Discussed PC Game of 2017

User Reviews

All reviews »
User Score
3.5

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 1688 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 381 out of 1688
  2. Mixed: 260 out of 1688
  3. Negative: 1,047 out of 1688
  1. ToBeSomebody
    Jul 27, 2017
    1
    Before this game was even released it had a pretty storied past. It's always difficult to live up to years of hype, even if there wasn't a tonBefore this game was even released it had a pretty storied past. It's always difficult to live up to years of hype, even if there wasn't a ton of it. Knowing that you waited to release the game solely because you wanted the experience to be great sets the bar pretty high, especially for first impressions.

    If I were writing this review based on my true first impressions, the moments I first began playing the game, I'd likely give it an 8, maybe even a 9. It's an interesting take on the survival/crafting genre that's executed well enough. A few things might need some simplification, but the gameplay was solid enough and my experience was, at first, very enjoyable.

    That was until I realized how much of the 'fun' gameplay was gated behind mechanics that are more suited for dull, shallow mobile games, all revolving around the 'loot' system. The in-game drops are heavily-weighted (not in your favor, of course), time-restricted and overall just distasteful. It's the gimmick of flashing the shiny toy in front of you and doing as much as they can to make you want it, without actually giving it to you. If you really do want it, however, you can up your chances by paying out of pocket for the same random loot drops with different weighting.

    This kind of gameplay isn't necessarily damning in itself. Many games have done similar and still maintained a fun, free to play experience. The problem is that the rewards you get from the loot heavily affect your ability to play the game in the fun, exciting ways that you'd like to. The experience is already a little grindy, which has its pros and cons, but adding a layer of pay-to-win gambling on top of it is a bit of a slap in the face to players who want to enjoy this to its fullest.

    I can't rightfully give the game a 0. It's not the worst thing I've ever played. But it joins a growing pool of games that could have been great, but fell to the temptation of microtransactions and greed. No matter how many times I see it, it's still sad to watch.

    I'd also remind you to be wary of reviews that are overly-friendly toward the game, especially when others have taken to criticizing it. They seem to be pretty professionally-crafted messages of praise, likely from the developers themselves or people paid to endorse the product.    … Full Review »
  2. reincarN8ed
    Jul 25, 2017
    4
    The most disappointing part of Fortnite is that there is a fun game buried somewhere beneath a pile of microtransactions, overly-complicatedThe most disappointing part of Fortnite is that there is a fun game buried somewhere beneath a pile of microtransactions, overly-complicated features, and repetitive grindy gameplay. The game is designed specifically to be addictive without being satisfying. Like penny slots in Vegas, the game keeps you itching for "just one more loot box." You can either grind for a few hours to earn loot boxes, or buy them with your hard-earned cash. You only need to know 2 words to understand why this game is so heavily monetized: Gearbox Publishing.

    Pros: base building, 4-player co-op
    Cons: microtransactions, grindy progression, overly-complicated menus and features    … Full Review »
  3. Unworthy
    Aug 7, 2017
    3
    Fortnite is what happens when a game with vision gets ruined by gambling. While advertised as a survival/tower defense hybrid, it's barelyFortnite is what happens when a game with vision gets ruined by gambling. While advertised as a survival/tower defense hybrid, it's barely anything of the sort. It's really a gambling & grinding game. The vast majority of your time is spent gathering supplies and crafting items that go away after a round.

    When you watch the trailer, you're tricked into believing this is a game like Minecraft or 7 Days to Die or Ark, but it's not. It's actually more like a third-person Diablo clone, where you go through repetitive random missions doing the same thing over and over again (mine, scavenge, shoot some zombies at the end). Not only is 80% of your time spent on scavenging and only 10% building and then 10% fighting, *everything you build disappears after the round*. Your namesake fort is not permanent. It only lasts about 5 minutes, and then you have to play another mission, spend another 30-40 minutes gathering, and then build another 5-minute fort. You don't get your resources back either.

    That's the gameplay, which by itself is already overly grindy and tedious. Add in a gamble-to-progress and deck-building system and it soon becomes obvious that the gameplay was completely sacrificed in order to make room for a mobile-like pay-to-progress system. When you play the missions, the only loot you get are some crafting supplies and low-durability weapons that last only a few minutes of active use. To get weapons and traps that you can keep, you have to gamble with loot boxes ($1 each, or you can earn them in game at the rate of maybe 3-4 a week) and pray that you get "schematics", which let you craft them with the resources you've scavenged. Even the crafted weapons have limited durability. To give you an idea of the progression system, this is how you actually gain power:

    * Gamble for epic, legendary, or mythic ranged weapon schematics and then level them up by recycling other schematics. Keep in mind that even rarity is not a guarantee of quality, because the same item could spawn with different random bonuses, so even a legendary could potentially have bad bonuses.

    * Gamble for epic+ trap schematics and then level up them by recycling other schematics.

    * Gather enough crafting materials by repeating missions and quests over and over in order to craft any of the above.

    * Gamble for epic+ hero schematics and level them up by recycling other heroes. Although you only play one hero at a time, you can choose up to 2 other heroes to add to your "squad" to provide passive bonuses, like a health or armor boost. You have to level up the other heroes in your squad, too, in order to maximize your bonuses.

    * Gamble for epic+ "survivor" schematics and level them up by recycling other survivors. The survivors do not appear in game at all, they just give you passive bonuses like your extra squad heroes. However, whereas you only need three heroes, you need several DOZEN survivors, each assigned to a squad like "The Gadgeteers" or "The Engineers" or "Fireteam Alpha". You have to mix and match survivor jobs AND personalities to maximize their effect, and that's in addition to the rarity system and the level system. By estimation, you'll probably need several hundred dollars of llamas to get anywhere near completion... or if you're playing for free, probably several lifetimes. Epic+ survivors drop very, very rarely.

    * Wait real-world time for research points to accrue, and then spend them on really boring upgrades (like + a few points to health or damage). To make matters worse, research points are also used to "transform" weapons (Fortnite's equivalent of the Horadric Cube in Diablo, which lets you transform unwanted items into something else). So you have to wait for several days worth of research to either gain some tiny passive bonus or use it to transform several of your items into ONE random item.

    * Gain XP and skill points to level up your skill tree (different from research), which is a mix of passive buffs and the occasional active skill. Something as simple as melee heavy attacks is buried deep in the tree, accessible only after 10+ hours of XP grind. Other much-needed game mechanics, such as the ability to recycle or transform items, are also buried in the skill tree. After 20 hours played, I still have not yet finished the first tier of the skill tree. It reminds me of Path of Exile, and not in a good way... when active game mechanics (i.e., the skills and abilities that add variety and gameplay challenge) are locked behind stupid passive buffs, there's only one real explanation... they want to lengthen the process to keep you paying.

    * There's also a "Collection Book" that requires you to sacrifice schematics and personnel for rewards. Once you sacrifice something, they're gone forever and you have to re-collect it from a llama if you want to keep using it. This is on top of the already insane need for recycling and gambling.

    Fortnite is a great idea sadly destroyed by greed.    … Full Review »
See all user reviews »