It all comes tumbling down, tumbling down.

[Trannigan]

Did I say that the sales is what makes me purchase a game? No? Ok then.

They are however a good indication of the quality of a product. Common sense that loe quality products simply dont sell.

It's a lot easier to take that serious than a site with mostly "best game evar!" "Worst game evar!" reviews.

Are you 100% sure about that? Bought some broduct from Apple recently? Sales are not the best way to measure quality. Measuring quality is the best iway to measure quality. In other words, taking something like the I phone 5 or what ever is the newest model and comparing it to the competition. Or in Fallout 4s case, taking it's dialog and comparing it to Fallout 1 and 2. And there can be no doubt that that quality of the dialog was of higher quality in the previous games, that Fallout 1 and 2 have been also the better role playing games offering you more oportunities to role play and so on.

Sales to measure quality? In my experience it is way to easy to sell people mediocre products as quality. Most of the mass market works on that principle. And that's what the main job of all those marketing gurus are today. Look at Fast Food for example, like Mc Donalds. Probably one of THE most succesfull food franchises out there. Is it the best indication for quality food though? I would say no.

Bethesda and a couple of other AAA companies are game developers creating products that which are meant to be consumed in the way how you treat a fast food product from Mc Donalds or Tacco Bell.

That's not always a bad thing! I love fast food, at least sometimes. And I can enjoy mindless entertainment. And I would say that counts for most people here on NMA. Thing is, don't sell me a Mc Donalds burger as filet mignon please.

I'm absolutely 100 % sure that sales indicate if a product is good quality than a grouping of mostly not even well thought out reviews. Mosts just "game suxorz! 0/10" nonsense that shouldnt be taken any more serious than mindless positive reviews.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

We'll just have to disagree on that. I liked Inquisition a lot even if it had several problems and was inferior to Origins.

haha, I'm that one weirdo in the world that liked DA2. Inquisition was good from what I've played of it, although I never finished it. I got to the part where you meet Morrigan and I lost interest for some reason. Unfortunately, I didn't find the new characters to be too interesting in that one but I appreciated that they brought back a lot of the old characters and continued some of their incomplete story arcs, which I think a lot of the fans appreciated. I think the new combat system is what ended up bothering me the most though, removal of healing, having to hold down attack button, ugh.

That sounds even worse than Dragon Age 2 combat. I never played Mass Effect 3 because Dragon Age 2 taught me what happens when a developer makes a successful role playing game - they make the sequels awful mass marketed garbage action games presumably because these companies can't climax without bathing in the tears of their original consumer base.

The exception has been Obsidian, who is very good at taking other developers' games and making better ones (Knights of the Old Republic 2, New Vegas, etc.) and even their own Pillars of Eternity is great.

Super Bunnyhop did a great comparison of the main quests of Skyrim vs. Morrowind and it pretty much sums up what has happened with Fallout 4:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wujJnlsJh4

 

[Irwin John Finster]

Did I say that the sales is what makes me purchase a game? No? Ok then.

They are however a good indication of the quality of a product. Common sense that loe quality products simply dont sell.

It's a lot easier to take that serious than a site with mostly "best game evar!" "Worst game evar!" reviews.

All I can say is that it is very sad that while you are clearly trolling there are actually executives in high-level, decision-making positions at Bethesda and other large AAA game companies that actually believe this.

This line of reasoning is exactly what leads to Fallout 4, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect 3, Elder Scrolls after Morrowind or Oblivion, etc.

Please enlighten me as to how I'm a troll kiddo.

[X] No
[ ] Sarcastic
[ ] Maybe
[ ] Flirt

 

[PossibleCabbage]

Did I say that the sales is what makes me purchase a game? No? Ok then.

They are however a good indication of the quality of a product. Common sense that loe quality products simply dont sell.

It's a lot easier to take that serious than a site with mostly "best game evar!" "Worst game evar!" reviews.

With alarming frequency some really good video games do not sell well (Grim Fandango, Okami, Psychonauts, Beyond Good & Evil, etc.) and the "it sold well so it must be good" argument is applied incredibly selectively (hardly anybody ever uses it as a reason to buy Wii Play, Nintendogs, or Just Dance despite those things selling phenomenally.)

And for what it's worth, I really liked Dragon Age 2, much more than Origins and Inquisition at least.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

And for what it's worth, I really liked Dragon Age 2, much more than Origins and Inquisition at least.

Never heard anyone say that before. It has a User Score or 4.4 with over a thousand negatives and only 300 positives. It was a resounding, disappointing mess. Even the people who worked on the game said so (see below).

Inon Zur, the composer who worked on Dragon Age 2 (and Fallout 3/4) even went on record, saying this:

"Unlike other titles from Bioware, this [score] was kind of a rush job", he tells IGN. "EA really wanted to capitalize on the success of Origins, so the game was really being pushed hard to be released now."

You are, thankfully for me, in the great minority in this opinion.

Source: http://kotaku.com/5780870/ever-wonder-why-dragon-age-ii-came-out-so-soon

 

[Mr Fish]

Did I say that the sales is what makes me purchase a game? No? Ok then.

They are however a good indication of the quality of a product. Common sense that loe quality products simply dont sell.

It's a lot easier to take that serious than a site with mostly "best game evar!" "Worst game evar!" reviews.

All I can say is that it is very sad that while you are clearly trolling there are actually executives in high-level, decision-making positions at Bethesda and other large AAA game companies that actually believe this.

This line of reasoning is exactly what leads to Fallout 4, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect 3, Elder Scrolls after Morrowind or Oblivion, etc.

Please enlighten me as to how I'm a troll kiddo.

There is a user that goes by Trannigan on Bethesda Forums. He's completely unreasonable. So here you are after Fallout 4's release, taking a peek inside of NMA and saying that "oh but this sold well, clearly it means it is high quality", which is a dumb argument as there are shitloads of people who play mobile games who are just designed to hook players into a repetition and goad them into microtransactions and those kinds of mobile games are not good games. They're good wallet vacuums. So, yeah, I would say that either you are a troll or you're one of those weird people that think sheep mentality is the greatest thing since Jesus on sliced bread.

[edit]

Whether a game is good or not is something that one can only judge by looking at the game's content. Factors outside of the game does not matter unless it is directly related to something inside of the game. Such as if a game is buggy and a big triple a publisher promised to do QA but did a poor job of it and forced the game out when it wasn't ready just so that it wouldn't interfere with their own title they were working on. 'Then' you can bring up that fact when someone criticizes the bugginess of the game. It doesn't mean one can't complain about the bugs. It simply means you have to lay the blame on the right studio. Same thing if a certain part of the game isn't explained properly, a developer can post-launch say what's what about the thing that wasn't fleshed out and it can be accepted as an intended design that sadly never made it but are true non the less. But sales? Sales has nothing to do with anything inside of a game. Whether Fallout 4 sold well or sold like shit the dialogue system would still be a piece of shit, regardless.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

Did I say that the sales is what makes me purchase a game? No? Ok then.

They are however a good indication of the quality of a product. Common sense that loe quality products simply dont sell.

It's a lot easier to take that serious than a site with mostly "best game evar!" "Worst game evar!" reviews.

All I can say is that it is very sad that while you are clearly trolling there are actually executives in high-level, decision-making positions at Bethesda and other large AAA game companies that actually believe this.

This line of reasoning is exactly what leads to Fallout 4, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect 3, Elder Scrolls after Morrowind or Oblivion, etc.

Please enlighten me as to how I'm a troll kiddo.

There is a user that goes by Trannigan on Bethesda Forums. He's completely unreasonable. So here you are after Fallout 4's release, taking a peek inside of NMA and saying that "oh but this sold well, clearly it means it is high quality", which is a dumb argument as there are shitloads of people who play mobile games who are just designed to hook players into a repetition and goad them into microtransactions and those kinds of mobile games are not good games. They're good wallet vacuums. So, yeah, I would say that either you are a troll or you're one of those weird people that think sheep mentality is the greatest thing since Jesus on sliced bread.

[edit]

Whether a game is good or not is something that one can only judge by looking at the game's content. Factors outside of the game does not matter unless it is directly related to something inside of the game. Such as if a game is buggy and a big triple a publisher promised to do QA but did a poor job of it and forced the game out when it wasn't ready just so that it wouldn't interfere with their own title they were working on. 'Then' you can bring up that fact when someone criticizes the bugginess of the game. It doesn't mean one can't complain about the bugs. It simply means you have to lay the blame on the right studio. Same thing if a certain part of the game isn't explained properly, a developer can post-launch say what's what about the thing that wasn't fleshed out and it can be accepted as an intended design that sadly never made it but are true non the less. But sales? Sales has nothing to do with anything inside of a game. Whether Fallout 4 sold well or sold like shit the dialogue system would still be a piece of shit, regardless.

If I had the marketing budget of Bethesda I could sell a million people a literal dog turd. Not a game that was a dog turd - I mean literally, people would pay me for a dog turd. Some people think that advertisers are their friend, and most of those people appear to hang out at the Beth forums.

 

[Mr Fish]

Wasn't there something that actually sold shit to people? Like, real poop, and people still bought it?

 

[Hassknecht]

Wasn't there something that actually sold shit to people? Like, real poop, and people still bought it?

Probably some postmodern "artist".

 

[Irwin John Finster]

Wasn't there something that actually sold shit to people? Like, real poop, and people still bought it?

Probably some postmodern "artist".

There was a story recently about an artist who had one of his works in an exhibit and a janitor or someone threw it away thinking it was actual garbage.

 

[Deleted member 79804]

"Unlike other titles from Bioware, this [score] was kind of a rush job", he tells IGN. "EA really wanted to capitalize on the success of Origins, so the game was really being pushed hard to be released now."

I'm not even remotely surprised about that, thankfully the score still turned out pretty good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMgwB46XD-E Still doesn't compare to origins though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vbc-WBVQwY

 

[Crni Vuk]

Wasn't there something that actually sold shit to people? Like, real poop, and people still bought it?

Probably some postmodern "artist".

Artist's shit

Still better storyline and gameplay than Oblivion and Fallout 3.

I'm absolutely 100 % sure that sales indicate if a product is good quality than a grouping of mostly not even well thought out reviews. Mosts just "game suxorz! 0/10" nonsense that shouldnt be taken any more serious than mindless positive reviews.

Well, yeah. But which person with a sane mind is taking those serious?

It also really depends what issues people have. If there thousands of 0/10 reviews where 90% of the reviews go like "Sorry, shit game! Can't even start it due to bugs" than I think those 0/10 could be justified. There are troll reviews in every direction. If you can get F4 runing, it probably is no 0/10. But it is definetly not a 10/10 either. And it definetly is not a quality product based on sales alone. Like I said, the mass market is made for large sales. And it is constnatly mocked for that. Sometimes rightfully, sometimes it is exagerated. A company like Bethesda is selling people Mc Donalds food as filet mignons.

No one's saying you should not enjoy their products. But you should not try to explain people with a deep love for RPGs that any recently released Bethesda game is the pinacle of RPGs, or even "good" quality, particularly if the strongest argument are sales.

I mean Fallout 1 did not sell 30 milion copies, and yet it was seen as good enough by Beth to pay millions to buy the licence so they could twist the Fallout franchise to fitt their Elder Scrolls formula. Go figure.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

Wasn't there something that actually sold shit to people? Like, real poop, and people still bought it?

Probably some postmodern "artist".

Artist's shit

Still better storyline and gameplay than Oblivion and Fallout 3.

I'm absolutely 100 % sure that sales indicate if a product is good quality than a grouping of mostly not even well thought out reviews. Mosts just "game suxorz! 0/10" nonsense that shouldnt be taken any more serious than mindless positive reviews.

Well, yeah. But which person with a sane mind is taking those serious?

It also really depends what issues people have. If there thousands of 0/10 reviews where 90% of the reviews go like "Sorry, shit game! Can't even start it due to bugs" than I think those 0/10 could be justified. There are troll reviews in every direction.

If you actually take the time to read the Metacritic reviews, the 9's and 10's almost always begin with "I'm doing this to balance out the low scores because they're just trolls and really like the game" whereas the low and intermediate scores are actually writing out long lists of reasons for their score. The only people complaining about the 0 and 1 scores, which still have good reasons written in their reviews, are the people giving the games 9 and 10 (fanboys - not Fallout fanboys, but Bethesda fanboys). It is a sad state of affairs where children will go to bat for a corporation that exists to take their money and nothing more, all the while believing that they are their friend and must defend them for free.

If someone scores a game at 0, it is probably because they found it so awful they stopped playing. If I could not play the game because I found it that bad, I'd probably give it a 1 or a 0 too. And the truth is I have to quit playing Fallout 4 sometimes because the voice acting, writing, dialogue, bugs, or something else is so mind-numbingly awful that it makes me literally cringe in my seat. In my mind Fallout 4 is about 5/10, which is where its current User Score sits.

And on consoles it's not much better - 5/10 and 6/10 for Xbox and Playstation. It is clear: actual users of the product are justifiably disappointed with it, while paid console critics are giving it 100/100. On PC there are at least some professional critics giving the game 60 or 70 out of 100. On consoles, those shill critics are universally calling it the best game ever made with 100/100 scores.

The User Scores for Fallout 3 and New Vegas were not so unbalanced and Fallout 3 has a User score of 9/10 last time I checked, Witcher 3 has good User Scores as well. It's not trolls - Fallout 4 is a bad game and users do not like what Bethesda has done with a once great RPG. They dislike it even in comparison to Fallout 3.

I'm sick of people like Jim Sterling who literally yells "F*** KONAMI!" in his ranting YouTube videos for ruining Metal Gear Solid turncoat and claim that we are all unreasonable for pointing out that Fallout 4 is a mediocre game that has been dumbed down for children, has awful writing, and has only had improvements in things that don't matter to Fallout fans - first person shooting, crafting, the dog, Codsworth says your name. He even gave Fallout 4 a higher rating than Witcher 3: The Wild Hunt, and wrote an entire article saying that we're all a bunch of unreasonable trolls full of hate and vitriol if we don't like Fallout 4, using cherry-picked Metacritic user reviews to imply that if we gave Fallout 4 a bad score, it was not to be taken seriously.

 

[Trannigan]

Whole lot of adorable excuses from illogical clowns who simply want to hate on Bethesda simply for buying a "good" series. Face itclowns Fallout 4 is leagues better than NV or the turds that make up the originals.Bethesda doesnt cate about the irrelevant whining and Fallout 5 will thankfully be more inline with 4 than anything else.

 

[Kilus]

Whole lot of adorable excuses from illogical clowns who simply want to hate on Bethesda simply for buying a "good" series. Face itclowns Fallout 4 is leagues better than NV or the turds that make up the originals.Bethesda doesnt cate about the irrelevant whining and Fallout 5 will thankfully be more inline with 4 than anything else.

Who is Cate and why doesn't Bethesda like her?

 

[Crni Vuk]

Whole lot of adorable excuses from illogical clowns who simply want to hate on Bethesda simply for buying a "good" series. Face itclowns Fallout 4 is leagues better than NV or the turds that make up the originals.Bethesda doesnt cate about the irrelevant whining and Fallout 5 will thankfully be more inline with 4 than anything else.

The reason why you're not geting + Rad here is becuse your half-life is way to short.

Seriously, does this community even need such posters? We banned people in the past for less reasons. And I doubt that he is here for any other reason but to stir up useless debates and fights.

 

[RangerBoo]

Whole lot of adorable excuses from illogical clowns who simply want to hate on Bethesda simply for buying a "good" series. Face itclowns Fallout 4 is leagues better than NV or the turds that make up the originals.Bethesda doesnt cate about the irrelevant whining and Fallout 5 will thankfully be more inline with 4 than anything else.

Who is Cate and why doesn't Bethesda like her?

Cate must not be a very nice person.

 

[Trannigan]

It's not me who started the bull shit. Some immature clowns on here just cant stand to hear or read anything they dont agree with and god forbid Bethesda gets any positive credit for anything.

 

[Stanislao Moulinsky]

Did I say that the sales is what makes me purchase a game? No? Ok then.

They are however a good indication of the quality of a product. Common sense that loe quality products simply dont sell.

You heard that guys, Michael Bay's Transformers movies are all excellent (sales don't lie).

Maybe you should check "logical fallacies".

https://yandoo.wordpress.com/2014/12/28/common-sense-fallacy/
https://yandoo.wordpress.com/2013/06/18/argumentum-ad-populum-argument-from-popularity/

 

[Mr Fish]

It's not me who started the bull shit. Some immature clowns on here just cant stand to hear or read anything they dont agree with and god forbid Bethesda gets any positive credit for anything.

Sure we can. If we couldn't then the moderators at this place would probably outright ban anyone with a dissenting opinion. Have you been banned? No? Then I guess we 'can' stand it. We just don't agree with it and will gladly scrutinize it. Or do you think that no one's opinion or arguments should be scrutinized, ever?