First round of Fallout 4 Reviews

I don't know it of course, so it is just a guess. But it would kinda explain all of this tight-lipped marketing by Bethesda perfectly. It seems most people feel that combat is so far the best part of Fallout 4 - at least definetly an improvement over Fallout 3, which is pretty much what was shown for months before the release. The rest of the stuff, was almost never shown. No details of the plot, companions, dialog, quests, or the factions really. And, what surprise, it is one of the main point of criticism, at least by some reviews and players. Not to mention the animations and a lot of what seems to be directly recycled stuff from Fallout 3. As one example, the whole visual damage mechanic on NPCs seems to be a DIRECT copy from Fallout 3. Like all of the kill animations, heads and limbs STILL cut off on the same "joints" like in F3, which I always found extremly stupid. I hoped they at least improved on the visuals of combat here.

 

Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

 

Sure I am. You want to see my "legitimate grievances" then go to Bethesda Forums and search for Gabriel77Dan and scour through my walls of texts you'll eventually find. Cause I ain't interested in rehashing the same shit I've been arguing for years. It's most likely still there since Bethesda doesn't delete threads. You wanna find my grievances then 'you' go look for them. Cause I quite frankly can't be arsed. I'm too lazy and just don't care about it anymore. They're out there for you to find, 'if' you want to find them that is.

 

I am not the kind of guy who gives much in to scores, but even as bad as they are, if like the only REALLY low user score from like 20 games is one game ... than I think that this should tell you something.

 

This also explains why they showed very little footage of the game itself during the previous months. All this money they spent for hype and other ridiculous nonsense could and should have gone to polishing the game as well as hiring better writers. The game should have been released early to the middle of next year. However, the raging penis envy Bethesda has towards CD Projekt Red for The Witcher 3 as well as wanting to get the Christmas sales and bonuses was just too much for them to bear.

 

The Bethesda Backlash, I saw it coming. I must have the sight myself.

 

To be fair #23 was cut out of the crop because it didn't fit into the print screen but it also had a red user score on it.

 

So what does it take to become an 'official' Metacritic reviewer anyway? If RPGamer is official, what about the Codex? Those guys would obviously give the game such a low score that the average would slip below well 84 (and hilarity would ensue).

 

or NMA. :p

 

I love that Undertale is higher on the list then Fallout 4. Its a cute little game that definitely deserves its praise. Its funny how a little Kickstarter game made with a couple thousand dollars has more character, heart and soul then Bethesda 5 to 7 years in the making, multi-million dollar, over hyped, broken mess of a game.

 

Gee. I could have sworn reading some comments around here prior to Fallout 4's release date disparaging Metacritic, calling it a poor example of where to find reviews and whatnot. But now that the game's out, and there's some critical dissonance in the general audience, people are all over it's scores.

Please don't make this a numbers game, it simplifies any construstive criticism and boils down a product's verying positive and negative elements to a simple digit. I will say it is good that the scores are more balanced and not far up the positive extreme. It means hype did not inflate expectations as much.

 

Metacritic is garbage. BUT whay we are doing here is not gauging the game's qulity on the score, what we are enjoying her is the fact that THE CONSUMERS are actually pushing back against hype on a massive scale.

 

You're so desperate for people to hate it you're actually listening to user reviews? Come on now.

 

Bethesda used Metacritic for Obsidian's royalty bonus. Bethesda handled QA of FNV and decided release date, they knew it was not ready for release yet forced it out which ended up in reviews that didn't give it that good of a score. Those reviews never changed. FNV didn't meet the metacritic score. Obsidian failed to get royalties.

If Bethesda loves Metacritic soooooo much when it comes to giving a third party royalties then I'm fine with gloating about its user scores for Fallout 4.

[edit]

Oh and I don't really care about "the merit of Metacritic". I use steam's user reviews to decide whether I'll get a game or not (along with researching gameplay videos and game details of course).

[edit]

And what kind of constructive criticism do you want exactly?

 

Exactly. Its hard to take Metacritic seriously due to the fanboys and troll waging a war against each other but the the fact that almost everyone has brought up the piss poor UI, the awful dialogue wheel, insane fps drops and the insane amount of bugs that make the game a unplayable mess, as well as Bethesda denial, is troubling. The Arkham Knight fiasco was not that long ago and is still fresh in peoples minds. The fact that Beth decided to release a broken and poorly polished game instead of delaying it a little while longer to polish it up is deplorable. They should have known better.

 

I am so desperate? Look at the Metacritic user reviews, they are mostly negative. Are you this desperate for people loving the game that you are actually ignoring current events?

 

It still is. If metacrytic - or any score, is the only basis of your opinion. Like the way how Bethesda and Obsidian did it with New Vegas. That is a huge bullshit thing, and both Obsidian and Bethesda are kinda stupid for doing it.

But if you have so many games, in a huge list, and ONE of those games has extremly low scores, it should make you at least raise an eyebrow or two. That's the point. I mean it isn't the only place where Fallout 4 is seeing criticism, from the PEOPLE that play it.

I would say that a lot of the points are somewhat unfair though, I don't believe that Fallout 4 is a game that deserves a zero, and a lot of those low scores most probably simply come from a (albeit very understandable) source of frustration.

Bugs. Tons. Of. Bugs.

No matter how great a game is, if it doesn't work properly, it will ruin your fun. That simple. And people will tend to be a lot more vocal if they are extremly frustrated. That's simply how our minds work.

Go and read some of the comments. It's pretty obvious that the people complain about. That they can't play it. Either because of glitches, or crashes or other bugs. Bugs that should really, not happen.

So yeah, even if you don't take metacritic or what ever to serious, you should not ignore it completely, particularly as we are talking about the user scores here. So they have SOME merit after all.

I am pretty confident that things will change once Bethesda has released a couple of patches and mods start to appear.

 

Nope, I don't put stock in reviews but you seem to believe user reviews on meta critic mean anything. They don't. There has been an army of 4chan trolls bashing the game and spoiling it for a week now before they had it.