It all comes tumbling down, tumbling down.

[Crni Vuk]

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?

In other words, only the positive news and critics against Bethesdas Fallout count, if it's not supporting that idea of a perfect game, than it certainly must be a scheme.

We have no clue what happens behind those websites, be it Metacritic OR Steam. The problem I have is that none of them seems to be about honest and transparent reviews. Criticism, professional criticism, is a touchy topic in every medium, be it with movies, books or music. Simply because everyone has an opinion about those mediums and that makes it difficult for professionals to get their voice out. With games it is even worse because you can't even say that there is any serious journalism out there. At least with books and movies you will have some critics out there that have some degree in journalism, or even the medium they write about, like writing or literature.

However, even if I don't give much about Metacritic the fact alone that a lot of games get decent reviews, including Fallout 3, while Fallout 4 get's a lot of mediocre user scores should make you raise your eybrows. It seems that Bethesda is getting a bit more criticism this time, for a lot of reasons, the fact that their game contains less role playing and less dialog even compared to Fallout 3, that they still release buggy games even after working for years with the same game engine, and the fact that Fallout 4 is a bit dissapointing on the visual side, if you consider that they worked on this game for a very long time. Doesn't mean that people hate the game, I am sure most of the people that bought F4 enjoy it for what it is, but I am sure that a lot of players have become a bit more critical about it as well, and simply ask them self why the game isn't better.

 

[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.

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.

Why was KOTOR II unfinished? Was it because of Obsidian? Or was it because the publisher placed a strict deadline on Obsidian as they likely did with New Vegas? I highly doubt Obsidian, based on their Pillars of Eternity masterpiece, would consider releasing an unfinished game on their own.

 

[Askorti]

Fallout 4 is down to 84 points in critic reviews on Metacritic!

 

[RangerBoo]

Fallout 4 is down to 84 points in critic reviews on Metacritic!

Looks like no bonus for Bethesda!

 

[Irwin John Finster]

Fallout 4 is down to 84 points in critic reviews on Metacritic!

Only on account of a vast Reddit/4 chan conspiracy.

 

[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.

Why was KOTOR II unfinished? Was it because of Obsidian? Or was it because the publisher placed a strict deadline on Obsidian as they likely did with New Vegas? I highly doubt Obsidian, based on their Pillars of Eternity masterpiece, would consider releasing an unfinished game on their own.

I think they have a tendency to not negotiate for enough time, or they're too conservative in deciding on how much time they need to make the games they want. So, it's a bit of both.

And Pillars backs up that theory, because it was bug-lite compared to past games of theirs.

 

[SaucyLad]

In other words, only the positive news and critics against Bethesdas Fallout count, if it's not supporting that idea of a perfect game, than it certainly must be a scheme.

Stop trying to twist things, here. I myself rated the game an 8 which is far from perfect.

And I've already went over the Metacritic thing a lot here. Going over it again is basically beating a dead horse but whatever. It simply comes down to why trust a site that is easily exploitable?

If you were on the fence for purchasing a new game and wanted user opinions for it to help you determine whether or not you should make your purchase, would you trust Metacritic with everything I've said about it in mind? I most certainly would not and it has never been a factor in my game purchases.

 

[AgentBJ09]

In other words, only the positive news and critics against Bethesdas Fallout count, if it's not supporting that idea of a perfect game, than it certainly must be a scheme.

Stop trying to twist things, here. I myself rated the game an 8 which is far from perfect.

And I've already went over the Metacritic thing a lot here. Going over it again is basically beating a dead horse but whatever. It simply comes down to why trust a site that is easily exploitable?

If you were on the fence for purchasing a new game and wanted user opinions for it to help you determine whether or not you should make your purchase, would you trust Metacritic with everything I've said about it in mind? I most certainly would not and it has never been a factor in my game purchases.

Problem is Metacritic is the go-to gauge for how much user opinion differs from "professional critics." And continuing to write them off as 'useless' goes nowhere.

And let's not forget what a sequel is supposed to do: Improve on the systems/mechanics of the games before, not regress them. Fallout 4 does the latter, and players of New Vegas/past Fallouts can see that. (EDIT: Plus, Bethesda hid a LOT from us pre-launch, which made the Twitch/vid leaks very useful and helpful.)

If Bethesda is ignoring New Vegas, they still have Fallout 1, 2 and 3 to be compared against, and if they're not, this game regresses in enough spots to warrant a 4/10, the score I gave it.

 

[MercenarySnake]

Fallout 4 is down to 84 points in critic reviews on Metacritic!

Looks like no bonus for Bethesda!

Wait so they don't get a bonus now?
Haha that's too funny.

 

[RangerBoo]

Fallout 4 is down to 84 points in critic reviews on Metacritic!

Looks like no bonus for Bethesda!

Wait so they don't get a bonus now?
Haha that's too funny.

Bethesda didn't give a bonus to Obsidian because they only scored a 84 and missed the bonus mark by one. Karma is a bitch.

 

[Severite]

Seems fair to me, as they seem to put high emphasis on it, to judge them based on it

 

[Irwin John Finster]

In other words, only the positive news and critics against Bethesdas Fallout count, if it's not supporting that idea of a perfect game, than it certainly must be a scheme.

Stop trying to twist things, here. I myself rated the game an 8 which is far from perfect.

And I've already went over the Metacritic thing a lot here. Going over it again is basically beating a dead horse but whatever. It simply comes down to why trust a site that is easily exploitable?

If you were on the fence for purchasing a new game and wanted user opinions for it to help you determine whether or not you should make your purchase, would you trust Metacritic with everything I've said about it in mind? I most certainly would not and it has never been a factor in my game purchases.

I absolutely use Metacritic User Reviews when researching a game purchase. It has always been accurate. I purchased SOMA, the new Frictional Games product, and it is fantastic as reflected in the user reviews. I did not purchase Amnesia: A Machine for Pigs, the previous title in the series made by a different developer, because it was bad and the reviews explained why. This goes for indie titles as well as AAA titles. I certainly won't be buying Star Wars Battlefront in part because it has low user scores and the reviews make sense. The only people claiming otherwise are quite simply, fanboys. In short: get over it, it's a mediocre game and the users have spoken.

​

 

[SaucyLad]

I absolutely use Metacritic User Reviews when researching a game purchase. It has always been accurate. ​

Yeah it's always accurate when it's easily exploitable amirite. It'd be too easy to make you eat your own words but I'm not in the mood for writing up a bunch of false reviews to do it.

Like I said if you wanna use the worst possible places for opinion on things be my guest. I bet you're the type of person that would expect accurate and real answers from a site like Yahoo! Answers, too.

 

[Crni Vuk]

In other words, only the positive news and critics against Bethesdas Fallout count, if it's not supporting that idea of a perfect game, than it certainly must be a scheme.

Stop trying to twist things, here. I myself rated the game an 8 which is far from perfect.

And I've already went over the Metacritic thing a lot here. Going over it again is basically beating a dead horse but whatever. It simply comes down to why trust a site that is easily exploitable?

If you were on the fence for purchasing a new game and wanted user opinions for it to help you determine whether or not you should make your purchase, would you trust Metacritic with everything I've said about it in mind? I most certainly would not and it has never been a factor in my game purchases.

I am just curious why there is such a huge difference between the user scores from Fallout 3 to Fallout 4.

Something must have changed along the way.

 

[fakeangel]

#Butthurt

 

[Irwin John Finster]

I absolutely use Metacritic User Reviews when researching a game purchase. It has always been accurate. ​

Yeah it's always accurate when it's easily exploitable amirite. It'd be too easy to make you eat your own words but I'm not in the mood for writing up a bunch of false reviews to do it.

Like I said if you wanna use the worst possible places for opinion on things be my guest. I bet you're the type of person that would expect accurate and real answers from a site like Yahoo! Answers, too.

You gave Fallout 4 8/10 and call that "far from a perfect score" so nothing I say to you can possibly be reasonable in your mind.

This is a true fanboy - writes off criticism as a conspiracy whenever it is about the corporation they love, but as soon as the tables are turned it's a valid website (as when Bethesda held Obsidian to a Metacritic Score).

As for Yahoo! Answers, haven't you ever wondered "why won't my parakeet eat my diarrhea?"

And the Steam "Not Recommended" reviews also confirm my feelings. You see I read both sides and make a conclusion. In this case, it's that people giving the game 8-10 are either fanboys or just plan ignorant of what a role playing game is. People giving the game 5 to 7 out of 10 are reasonable. People giving the game 0-5 often have reasonable reviews with lots of information and explanation.

 

[SaucyLad]

I am just curious why there is such a huge difference between the user scores from Fallout 3 to Fallout 4.

Something must have changed along the way.

They're relatively the same on Steam.

 

[SaucyLad]

This is a true fanboy - writes off criticism as a conspiracy whenever it is about the corporation they love, but as soon as the tables are turned it's a valid website (as when Bethesda held Obsidian to a Metacritic Score).

As for Yahoo! Answers, haven't you ever wondered "why won't my parakeet eat my diarrhea?"

I don't love Bethesda though. I'm not a fanboy. I just enjoyed the game. You've got a whole lot of wrong shit going on in your head there which is even more proven by the parakeet/diarrhea comment.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

This is a true fanboy - writes off criticism as a conspiracy whenever it is about the corporation they love, but as soon as the tables are turned it's a valid website (as when Bethesda held Obsidian to a Metacritic Score).

As for Yahoo! Answers, haven't you ever wondered "why won't my parakeet eat my diarrhea?"

I don't love Bethesda though. I'm not a fanboy. I just enjoyed the game. You've got a whole lot of wrong shit going on in your head there which is even more proven by the parakeet/diarrhea comment.

Great. You enjoyed the game. Many Metacritic users did not, and you're writing them off as a conspiracy of 4 channers, saying metacritic is no longer valid despite Bethesda themselves saying it IS a valid metric to Obsidian. So on and so forth.

As for you not knowing the parakeet reference, not my problem. You're crying that users are posting negative reviews of a game that you like, trying to say that it is impossible that its true. It is the very essence of a fanboy.

 

[PossibleCabbage]

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.

I think "averaging review scores" from either users or professionals is a silly way to gauge the quality of anything. To me, what's much more important than "do most people like/dislike this" is what people who value what I value feel about it. Like if there's a game with a multiplayer component, if people are writing really glowing reviews of it because the multiplayer is awesome, or they're writing really negative reviews about it because the multiplayer is terrible, neither of those mean anything to me since I don't enjoy multiplayer modes (and thus don't play them.)

This sort of thing is what you can't really boil down to a number, but it shouldn't be surprising that some people just don't like certain games regardless of their quality, since they're simply trying to do something that doesn't connect with that person. This happens in movies, TV, music, books, etc. so it shouldn't be surprising that it happens in games too. The weird thing is that games reviews (both user and professional) generally seem to be written by someone predisposed to like whatever it is (in the case of a pro, someone who requested that review assignment and in the case of a player, someone who bought that game expecting to like it.) So we get this weird unanimity of opinion either positively or negatively.

If we were honestly interested in coming up with aggregated numerical game ratings that were helpful to people, you'd be better off taking an "online dating" approach, where we try to match users with reviews by people who have similar values and opinions. I don't see anybody trying to do that though.