It all comes tumbling down, tumbling down.

[Mr Fish]

It'd be better IMO if Steam allowed people to make reviews on games they haven't bought, but wouldn't be allowed to mark them as Positive or Negative, instead it gets marked as Negative/Positive Observation or something. And this can only happen if you have a Steam account that is "registered". Basically, if you've owned a steam account for half a year, made purchases for up to 60 bucks on it and haven't violated any rules so you're strike-free for 6 months 'then' you're allowed to make an Observation piece. That way we who don't want to waste money on the game can make our voice heard, we're allowed to steer the score with our piece just like anyone else, and it is less likely to be abused as there are several prerequisites you need to meet before you can make such a review.

Is this a serious suggestion?

Yea? It allows people to make reviews and it is less likely to be exploited and abused. Then when scores get low people can't use raids as an excuse for it. It ain't perfect but it seems better to me than the current setup with steam user reviews.

[edit]

Then again, this could allow people who have accounts but hate ____ just for the sake of hating it and give it negative Observatory reviews just to fuck with people. I guess there's always going to be issues when it comes to this kinda thing. Either way, I don't like it when I can't create a user review for a Steam game that I don't own, even if I do own it outside of Steam or if I own it on console or if I just refuse to buy it because of its bastardization and want to make my voice heard. Cause the way I suggested it I ain't gonna be creating 9 more accounts and spend 60 bucks on games I'd rather have on my main account for each of them just so that I can abuse that voting system.

 

[SaucyLad]

Stop trying to make Metacritic Illuminati Conspiracy happen. The game is mediocre at best and the user scores reflect that no matter where you look.

There is no Metacritic Illuminati. You're using the worst source possible to try and back your point. Points have already been made as to why it's bad.

Steam has 6,000 negative reviews which is 3 times more than Fallout 3.

It has a little over 5x the positive reviews, though. The percentage of negative reviews is about the same between the two. So uh, any more comparisons?

 

[Irwin John Finster]

You're using the worst source possible to try and back your point. Points have already been made as to why it's bad.

If Metacritic scores are "the worst source possible to try and back your point" then why did Bethesda stipulate a minimum Metacritic Score for Obsidian to gain bonuses with New Vegas? Or is it that only paid Metacritic "professional critic" reviews are legitimate but everyone else can go F*** themselves with their opinions.

I've read hundreds of the user reviews for Fallout 4. My conclusion is the negative and mixed user reviews provide legitimate reasons for their scores, while the 8-10 scores generally have little writing other than "this is to balance out the trolls" or "this is the best game evar!"

And the negative reviews are not stopping. If you organize Fallout 4 user scores by date, there's STILL people posting reviews and the majority of them are mixed or negative.

This is the only major release that has this issue, and yet you cling to the notion that metacritic is unreliable. Every other Bethesda game lacks this discrepancy, and Witcher 3 doesn't have it either. Just face it, people don't like Fallout 4.

 

[SaucyLad]

Do you mistake me for a Bethesda fanboy or something? I only enjoyed Fallout 4. Doesn't mean I like the company.

Anyway, yeah even that is worthless. Look at some of the sites that scored New Vegas badly (which made them miss out on that bonus pay.)

I don't recognize a lot of them and the ones I do would not be a place I would go to determine whether or not a game is good. (GameShark/Cheat Code Central/1Up aka ex-EGM shills)

http://www.nma-fallout.com/showthre...umbling-down&p=4097833&viewfull=1#post4097833

Or is it that only paid Metacritic "professional critic" reviews are legitimate but everyone else can go F*** themselves with their opinions.

It's not that way at all. I even listed more credible sites. Metacritic is often raided by 4channer's with bad reviews and it's easily done by them because all you need to do is make an account. Steam for example is less susceptible to that kind of behavior and therefore more credible as a source.

If you believe a place like Metacritic is credible for opinions/review you might as well visit some random hobo that lives under a bridge and ask him how good Fallout 4 is.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

Metacritic is often raided by 4channer's with bad reviews and it's easily done by them because all you need to do is make an account. Steam for example is less susceptible to that kind of behavior and therefore more credible as a source.

If you believe a place like Metacritic is credible for opinions/review you might as well visit some random hobo that lives under a bridge and ask him how good Fallout 4 is.

There you go again with your Metacritic Illuminati conspiracy. Too bad Fallout 4 is the only game that is having this conspiracy. Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas, all Witcher games, I can go on and on. None of them were part of this conspiracy of yours.

If the user score is bad for Fallout 4 it must be a conspiracy of people raiding metacritic because it's impossible that people just don't like Fallout 4.

Random hobos have more credibility than paid videogame critics, many of whom do not even have any background in journalism or critiquing anyway.

 

[AgentBJ09]

Do you mistake me for a Bethesda fanboy or something? I only enjoyed Fallout 4. Doesn't mean I like the company.Anyway, yeah even that is worthless. Look at some of the sites that scored New Vegas badly (which made them miss out on that bonus pay.) I don't recognize a lot of them and the ones I do would not be a place I would go to determine whether or not a game is good. (GameShark/Cheat Code Central/1Up aka ex-EGM shills)

http://www.nma-fallout.com/showthre...umbling-down&p=4097833&viewfull=1#post4097833

Or is it that only paid Metacritic "professional critic" reviews are legitimate but everyone else can go F*** themselves with their opinions.

It's not that way at all. I even listed more credible sites. Metacritic is often raided by 4channer's with bad reviews and it's easily done by them because all you need to do is make an account. Steam for example is less susceptible to that kind of behavior and therefore more credible as a source.If you believe a place like Metacritic is credible for opinions/review you might as well visit some random hobo that lives under a bridge and ask him how good Fallout 4 is.

Steam may be less susceptible, but it also limits user reviews to PC owners. What's more, it's very easy for devs and other users to flag keywords and reviews as "abusive" and to tie them up in Steam's reapproval processes.Regardless, try reading the mixed/negative reviews of Metacritic and count how many detail their views versus the positive ones. Quite a disparity, so its nowhere near being a "chan raid", another excuse to write off an open review site.

 

[SaucyLad]

There you go again with your Metacritic Illuminati conspiracy. Too bad Fallout 4 is the only game that is having this conspiracy. Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas, all Witcher games, I can go on and on. None of them were part of this conspiracy of yours.

If the user score is bad for Fallout 4 it must be a conspiracy of people raiding metacritic because it's impossible that people just don't like Fallout 4.

There's no conspiracy. If a system is flawed then why trust it? If I were so inclined, right now I could make 100's of accounts on that site and spam nothing but positive reviews. Would you then still regard Metacritic as a credible source?

 

[Irwin John Finster]

There you go again with your Metacritic Illuminati conspiracy. Too bad Fallout 4 is the only game that is having this conspiracy. Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas, all Witcher games, I can go on and on. None of them were part of this conspiracy of yours.

If the user score is bad for Fallout 4 it must be a conspiracy of people raiding metacritic because it's impossible that people just don't like Fallout 4.

There's no conspiracy. If a system is flawed then why trust it? If I were so inclined, right now I could make 100's of accounts on that site and spam nothing but positive reviews. Would you then still regard Metacritic as a credible source?

Why not? Bethesda thinks Metacritic is credible enough with New Vegas.
So you admit there is no conspiracy. Good. Then the User Scores show Fallout 4 is mediocre at best with 5.3 to 6.4 scores across all platforms. Thanks bye.

 

[SaucyLad]

Why not? Bethesda thinks Metacritic is credible enough with New Vegas.

So you admit there is no conspiracy. Good. Then the User Scores show Fallout 4 is mediocre at best with 5.3 to 6.4 scores across all platforms. Thanks bye.

Not really child. It's got roughly an 80% score on Steam and that's a bit higher than your 5.3/6.4. And 8.0 is about where I'd rate the game too.

Thanks for constantly missing the point. Have a good day.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

And 8.0 is about where I'd rate the game too.

You could have saved all of us the time and effort of this discussion by just admitting that you're one of the 8-10 user reviews rambling about trolls and 4chan illuminati.

 

[RangerBoo]

Why not? Bethesda thinks Metacritic is credible enough with New Vegas.

So you admit there is no conspiracy. Good. Then the User Scores show Fallout 4 is mediocre at best with 5.3 to 6.4 scores across all platforms. Thanks bye.

Not really child. It's got roughly an 80% score on Steam and that's a bit higher than your 5.3/6.4. And 8.0 is about where I'd rate the game too.

Thanks for constantly missing the point. Have a good day.

You do know that Bethesda and Steam were deleting and flagging negative scores right? Also if you refunded the game, like I did, you can't give a review of the game be it negative or positive. So yeah I don't take Steam scores seriously. Have a good day!

 

[Severite]

Why not? Bethesda thinks Metacritic is credible enough with New Vegas.

So you admit there is no conspiracy. Good. Then the User Scores show Fallout 4 is mediocre at best with 5.3 to 6.4 scores across all platforms. Thanks bye.

Not really child. It's got roughly an 80% score on Steam and that's a bit higher than your 5.3/6.4. And 8.0 is about where I'd rate the game too.

Thanks for constantly missing the point. Have a good day.

What exactly was the requirement for Obsidian to get paid?

 

[Irwin John Finster]

Why not? Bethesda thinks Metacritic is credible enough with New Vegas.

So you admit there is no conspiracy. Good. Then the User Scores show Fallout 4 is mediocre at best with 5.3 to 6.4 scores across all platforms. Thanks bye.

Not really child. It's got roughly an 80% score on Steam and that's a bit higher than your 5.3/6.4. And 8.0 is about where I'd rate the game too.

Thanks for constantly missing the point. Have a good day.

What exactly was the requirement for Obsidian to get paid?

There was a minimum Metacritic Score that New Vegas had to achieve to receive some kind of royalty bonus from Bethesda. They missed that score by 1 point. I don't know further details but someone here probably does.

 

[SaucyLad]

You do know that Bethesda and Steam were deleting and flagging negative scores right?

I'd like to see proof of this rather than just taking someones word for it.

Also if you refunded the game, like I did, you can't give a review of the game be it negative or positive. So yeah I don't take Steam scores seriously. Have a good day!

You could've reviewed it before you returned it. And anyway isn't the Steam refund policy set up so you have to return it within 2 hours of playing the game for the first time? I wouldn't expect an accurate review of something from someone that's invested such little time in to a game myself.

 

[Severite]

Why not? Bethesda thinks Metacritic is credible enough with New Vegas.

So you admit there is no conspiracy. Good. Then the User Scores show Fallout 4 is mediocre at best with 5.3 to 6.4 scores across all platforms. Thanks bye.

Not really child. It's got roughly an 80% score on Steam and that's a bit higher than your 5.3/6.4. And 8.0 is about where I'd rate the game too.

Thanks for constantly missing the point. Have a good day.

That was my question, really. So, it was the "official" metacritic score that counted, not the user base? Either way, it seems like a shitty criteria to be held against.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

Why not? Bethesda thinks Metacritic is credible enough with New Vegas.

So you admit there is no conspiracy. Good. Then the User Scores show Fallout 4 is mediocre at best with 5.3 to 6.4 scores across all platforms. Thanks bye.

Not really child. It's got roughly an 80% score on Steam and that's a bit higher than your 5.3/6.4. And 8.0 is about where I'd rate the game too.

Thanks for constantly missing the point. Have a good day.

That was my question, really. So, it was the "official" metacritic score that counted, not the user base? Either way, it seems like a shitty criteria to be held against.

The official metacritic score is more unreliable than the user score. Don't believe me? Look at Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3.

Companies have people to court YouTubers and professional critics. It's not illegal. They just go out and provide review copies and other things and if the reviewer wants to maintain this kind of access they keep providing reviews in the 80 to 100 range and always give a thumbs up. Sometimes they find a truly bad game like Colonial Marines to go off on so as to maintain the appearance of legitimacy. Even Colonial Marines had some 100/100 reviews.

 

[AgentBJ09]

Why not? Bethesda thinks Metacritic is credible enough with New Vegas.

So you admit there is no conspiracy. Good. Then the User Scores show Fallout 4 is mediocre at best with 5.3 to 6.4 scores across all platforms. Thanks bye.

Not really child. It's got roughly an 80% score on Steam and that's a bit higher than your 5.3/6.4. And 8.0 is about where I'd rate the game too.

Thanks for constantly missing the point. Have a good day.

What exactly was the requirement for Obsidian to get paid?

There was a minimum Metacritic Score that New Vegas had to achieve to receive some kind of royalty bonus from Bethesda. They missed that score by 1 point. I don't know further details but someone here probably does.

85 was the minimum Metacritic score. It settled on 84. The game had a shit-ton of bugs at launch, no question, but then you wonder, as we always do, why Obsidian got marked down for it while Fallout 3, Bethesda's first PC Fallout, does not run stable on any system with more than two cores unless .ini tweaked to force single/dual CPU affinity.

It being a sequel, and therefor susceptible to higher expectations is a possibility, and this does follow KOTOR II, which is famously unfinished to varying degrees.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

this does follow KOTOR II, which is famously unfinished to varying degrees.

And KOTOR II is still one of the greatest games ever made IMO.

 

[SaucyLad]

That was my question, really. So, it was the "official" metacritic score that counted, not the user base? Either way, it seems like a shitty criteria to be held against.

No. I honestly dislike "official" scores too. I rather user reviews myself when they're credible. Which Metacritic is not for reasons stated above.

My usual way of determining whether a game is good or not if I don't buy it at launch is:

Checking Steam user reviews.
Reading the games forums for feedback.
Watching Twitch streams/Youtube videos of the game.

 

[AgentBJ09]

this does follow KOTOR II, which is famously unfinished to varying degrees.

And KOTOR II is still one of the greatest games ever made IMO.

No doubt, but it was unfinished, and no company should be spared if that happens.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, Skyrim was also bugged and unfinishable early on. No scores docked it for that.