Irwin John Finster
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
The difference in user scores between New Vegas and Fallout 4 on Metacritic leads us to the same conclusion as the difference in user scores on Steam.
It all comes tumbling down, tumbling down.
- Thread starter Akratus
- Start date
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
SaucyLad
Stuck in a Fridge
You don't get it. Metacritic doesn't matter to me.
Several years ago, after I saw people Reddit/4Chan organizing raids on it to negatively review Diablo 3 over reasons not related to the game sucking ass for them but rather over some BS controversy that was related to the Korean/Chinese servers. At that point I stopped taking the site seriously. It showed me that the scores on there could be flawed and the site itself shouldn't be trusted.
IMO you should review a game according to your own personal experience with it. What happened there was a call to the idiot masses to go to that site and completely trash a games review score by spamming it with the lowest possible score.
If you wanna trust it, fine. I'm not though.
Irwin John Finster
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
From what I understand Diablo 3 was a huge disappointment and generally bad for trying to appeal to a wider audience and dumbing down its content, so again I see the Metacritic score and reviews verifying this regardless of whether or not there was an illuminati conspiracy against the game.
Last edited:
Dr Fallout
Centurion
You can usually tell if a reviewer is trolling or not.
SaucyLad
Stuck in a Fridge
As an owner of that game, that's right. I don't like Reaper of Souls, either. Thing is you can't deny if people go and spam bad reviews that it only further worsens a games score on there.
If you wanna pretend that people organizing others to spam bad reviews on something at Metacritic or any other site doesn't have an effect or is "fair", go for it.
That is true yes. However that's just on a review to review basis. The %'s of negatives/positives are completely trashed still yet and I doubt anyone would sit there and take all the time to figure what the real %'s would be without spam reviews.
In short, why bother? Why not use something.. to dredge up old crap here, that makes sure you at least own the game to review it?
Last edited:
Irwin John Finster
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
I'll just leave it with this:
You keep ignoring the fact that in all these examples the scores and reviews are still pointing me in the right direction.
So far the only illuminati conspiracies I see you refer to are for bad games to begin with.
When Witcher 3 has 4,000 negative reviews to match its positives or something similar I will admit Metacritic failed.
SaucyLad
Stuck in a Fridge
Ignoring the point again I see and continuing on with this "Illuminati" stuff. If you wanna believe an exploitable site, suit yourself. I'll just continue using this old and shoddy site called Steam I download most of my games from.
Irwin John Finster
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Cheers.
Dr Fallout
Centurion
Yeah but honestly, all the games you have shown for getting bad reviews are bad.
SaucyLad
Stuck in a Fridge
Yeah I know Diablo 3 sucked so does Fallout 4 as a Fallout. Thing is though, you can't deny when people organize a raid or something to poorly review a game to trash its score that it doesn't effect it. Diablo 3 could go from a shitty 60% positive to a 40% or lower for instance. Do you believe that is fair?
Dr Fallout
Centurion
The exact percentages aren't important. 40-60 are still pretty bad. As long as it tells you that the game is bad it's fine.
SaucyLad
Stuck in a Fridge
That's true. But it could make a "maybe I'll buy this when it's on sale" type of game to a never buy. It also still shows that the site is flawed. I think it's odd myself that Steam - a site that ensures you gotta own it - has a higher average than Metacritic.
It's possible a lot of console gamers dislike it but most XBOne/PS4 reviews of Fallout 4 are overly positive. Even more positive than the PC version is getting.
It all seems mighty suspicious to me. Hence, I don't trust that site. But again if people wanna trust the site that Bethesda used to gauge the goodness of New Vegas and whether or not it deserved bonus pay, be my guest.
Saucy, the 'illuminati' thing Irwin is referring to is the topics on steam and reddit that popped up in regards to all the negative reviews. The topics in particular described it as a massive NMA and RPG Codex 'conspiracy' to review bomb, which isn't true... there is no massive effort on the part of these communities (which usually have an unfiltered opinion) to write all those reviews on metacritic, steam, or amazon. Certainly there are people here that have admitted buying the game and may have written negative reviews, but they certainly have every right to since they bought it. Me, I haven't bought it, so I won't be writing any reviews for it anywhere. There was even a dumb post suggesting CD Projekt was behind it (fairly lol - maybe kids should concentrate on actual conspiracies in the real world, like the purposeful lies that got the U.S. involved in Iraq, Corporate corruption, or the political Oligarchy circus)
Anyways - Steam and Amazon, in particular, require one to have actually purchased it. Metacritic user reviews are usually fairly accurate, but certainly not definitive. It is true that more people this time in fact are up to here with Bethesda's dumbing down of their games. And that's just how it is.
Here are some meta critic examples in particular:
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/aliens-colonial-marines (A:CM is shit)
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/total-war-rome-ii (Another example of a series getting 'streamlined' and becoming mediocre, I would know since I've played TW games, the steam reviews reflect the decline in positive user reviews as well and unfortunately it repeated with Rome 2 Atilla) As an analogy Fallout's decline as a quality RPG with FO4 is to what TW's decline with Rome 2 is compared to its predecessors.
I've seen this happen with plenty of games before in long running franchises. Quality decreases, mechanics are thrown out, questionable design decisions are made, etc. Mass Effect and Dragon Age come to mind.
Last edited:
SaucyLad
Stuck in a Fridge
So that's where he's coming off with that stuff. I didn't ever suspect NMA/Codex of doing it. Like I said, my "bad" experience with Metacritic was long ago with Diablo 3.
Either way, I just don't trust that site. And although I use user reviews I'll use them from a place that's less exploitable. It's all personal preference, really.
Last edited:
AgentBJ09
Vault Dweller
That wasn't the only reason Diablo 3 got so many so mad. Always-Online DRM, anyone?
In the case of Diablo 3 it is true though, you should have seen the game on release, it was mediocre garbage. No clue how it is now with the expansion, I stoped playing it a long time ago. It's sad really. Because the game had some neat ideas thrown in here and there, but at the end of the day ... it was simply mediocre. But just like With F3 and F4, it had an extremly succesfull marketing campaign behind it. What made D3 a lot worse for me, was this hidden micro-transactions/pay-to-win model. I don't know what else to call it. But the moment you have a game that is pretty much focused around progression with items and items only, and you get real money in ... it becomes that. The "dual wielding credit card" build was not just joking ...
TheVaultKeeper
Deliciously Demented
This is by far the best video I've found which explains what is wrong with Diablo 3 from my point of view. This guy really nails it IMHO.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fallout 4 everyone, a game about nothing. A game that claims you can do anything you want, but anything you try to do sucks.
The quests are dreadful, probably written by 7-year olds. There are no choices, or consequences to any of your actions, it all feels very, meh.
Super mutants are super easy. Not at all the threat they were in Fallout 1 or 2.
First time you meet a death claw you can punch him to death, in your power armour.
Building a settlement was fun, for about an hour. Could be funnier if it had more variation. Now it's just doing the same thing over and over in a different location.
Also fuck you Bethesda.
EDIT: Spelling, though meat a death claw was a fun pun. CUZ COOKING AND CRAFTING!!1
The quests are dreadful, probably written by 7-year olds. There are no choices, or consequences to any of your actions, it all feels very, meh.
Super mutants are super easy. Not at all the threat they were in Fallout 1 or 2.
First time you meet a death claw you can punch him to death, in your power armour.
Building a settlement was fun, for about an hour. Could be funnier if it had more variation. Now it's just doing the same thing over and over in a different location.
Also fuck you Bethesda.
EDIT: Spelling, though meat a death claw was a fun pun. CUZ COOKING AND CRAFTING!!1
Last edited:
Hot Coldman
First time out of the vault
It was okay. As a whole, I'll agree that the game can be fun if you zone out and let your brain wander off and trigger into automatic mode. Getting high as fuck on deppresants would be passable, too.
Irwin John Finster
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Steam has a higher absolute value for the rating than does metacritic, but for Steam reviews and Fallout, 20% Not Recommended reviews is abnormally high (compare to 3% for the previous Fallout game).
Same with metacritic console reviews - they are not overly positive because console reviews on metacritic are usually much more positive than what Fallout 4 is getting. Fallout 4 has user scores of 5.9 and 6.4 on Xbox and PS4, respectively. Those are extremely low for console releases for metacritic. And the actual number of negative and mixed reviews is also high for console games on metacritic.
Thus, any way you slice it, metacritic has not failed to reflect the quality of the game and Steam reviews also show that Fallout 4 is an unusually negatively reviewed game. Both sites show that Fallout 4 is an unusually negatively reviewed game, and both sites point me in the right direction.
Last edited: