It all comes tumbling down, tumbling down.

[Crni Vuk]

Hasn't Steam also removed some of the negative Fallout 4 reviews ... I could swear someone here posted something like that.

 

[TheVaultKeeper]

It happens on meta-critic as well that reviews get removed. It's pretty easy to report a review which you don't like for things like minor spoilers, language... you can even select "other strong reason" lol.

But maybe steam is more diligent in removing bad reviews, they do want to sell games after all. But even as it is now the steam reviews are pretty negative I would say, people are certainly calling out the emperor.

 

[SaucyLad]

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).

Yeah it's an imperfect game with some bad design choices made for it. 20% or more negative reviews is to be expected. I guess Fallout 3's last DLC should've clued people in to where Bethesda was heading with the series but it didn't for some reason. Hell some even praised that "gem".

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.

These reviews are a bit different than your 5.9's. Not saying the game deserves 4/5 stars because IMO it doesn't but still there's always data around that contrasts yours.

But hey, keep championing a site that once again lets anyone review a game as many times as they like whether they own it or not.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

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).

Yeah it's an imperfect game with some bad design choices made for it. 20% or more negative reviews is to be expected. I guess Fallout 3's last DLC should've clued people in to where Bethesda was heading with the series but it didn't for some reason. Hell some even praised that "gem".

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.

View attachment 2420

These reviews are a bit different than your 5.9's. Not saying the game deserves 4/5 stars because IMO it doesn't but still there's always data around that contrasts yours.

But hey, keep championing a site that once again lets anyone review a game as many times as they like whether they own it or not.

I can see that you are dead set on ignoring the fact that all you do is claim metacritic allows anyone to write a review whether or not they own the game and that is somehow making the website illegitimate, but you have no examples of a good game getting a bad score because of such a phenomenon. Your only example of an alleged "attack" on metacritic was Diablo 3, a notoriously bad game.

If you want to champion the argument used by fanboys to dismiss negative reviews on metacritic that's your business.

Companies often give product discounts in exchange for reviews on Amazon, are you now going to renounce Amazon? Any website review can be manipulated, it's not just metacritic, and making it sound like metacritic is "raided" to make good games have bad scores without any evidence that definitely proves that an accepted great game was given a bad user score just for "teh lulz" just makes you sound like a broken record with no backing to your claims.

I'm done. Good day.

 

[SaucyLad]

Your only example of an alleged "attack" on metacritic was Diablo 3, a notoriously bad game.

I'm done. Good day.

Yeah and you failed to get my point even there. While Diablo 3 sucked ass, its review score got further lowered by the fact of people spamming negative reviews for it over some China/Korea server crap.

If you're gonna review something review it for your own experiences. If you can't see that a site like Metacritic is flawed then have fun sailing with your boat made of card board.

 

[Hardboiled Android]

Pretty hilarious that Fallout 4 is only one point above New Vegas

 

[RangerBoo]

Pretty hilarious that Fallout 4 is only one point above New Vegas

It would have been at the same score if a troll "critic" didn't give it a 100/100 just to troll gamers who would DARE give this masterpiece a low score.

 

[SaucyLad]

If you want to champion the argument used by fanboys to dismiss negative reviews on metacritic that's your business.

I dismiss Metacritic for reasons stated elsewhere.

Fun fact: Even if Metacritics reviews were counted on top of Steam's reviews/Amazon's/everywhere else (which would be the fairest thing to do) there'd be no change in %'s for the negative. It might even rise because Amazon's are rather positive.

The whole argument is really pointless. You're just trying really hard to shove an opinion down peoples throats because you vehemently hate something.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Everyone here knows that Metacritic is not some kind of hard science.

But if a game is scoring relatively low while many others games don't, than it is fair to raise an eyebrow over it, and thinking about. No one here ever claimed that it's the most accurate source out there when it comes to quality, popularity or what ever.

But aparantly a company like Bethesda at least gives it enough of a value to use it for their contracts - see New Vegas.

 

[Dr Fallout]

Your only example of an alleged "attack" on metacritic was Diablo 3, a notoriously bad game.

I'm done. Good day.

Yeah and you failed to get my point even there. While Diablo 3 sucked ass, its review score got further lowered by the fact of people spamming negative reviews for it over some China/Korea server crap.

If you're gonna review something review it for your own experiences. If you can't see that a site like Metacritic is flawed then have fun sailing with your boat made of card board.

Maybe give an example of a good game getting lower reviews... perhaps that would change some minds?

 

[SaucyLad]

But if a game is scoring relatively low while many others games don't, than it is fair to raise an eyebrow over it, and thinking about. No one here ever claimed that it's the most accurate source out there when it comes to quality, popularity or what ever.

No one said it doesn't have problems. On the contrary it has lots. Suspecting people here got it in there head that I think it's a "perfect game!111" when I never said that.

Maybe give an example of a good game getting lower reviews... perhaps that would change some minds?

Diablo 3's the only one I know of. Hundredth time though it's all personal preference and my $.

If I don't wanna use some site I deem exploitable or have even seen others exploit with bad or even good review spam I'm not gonna use it. People may believe that or not if they like.

Further I even said even if those reviews were counted with others there'd be no change in its score percentages so it doesn't even matter if they're counted. Once again, personal preference.

 

[Dr Fallout]

But if a game is scoring relatively low while many others games don't, than it is fair to raise an eyebrow over it, and thinking about. No one here ever claimed that it's the most accurate source out there when it comes to quality, popularity or what ever.

No one said it doesn't have problems. On the contrary it has lots. Suspecting people here got it in there head that I think it's a "perfect game!111" when I never said that.

Maybe give an example of a good game getting lower reviews... perhaps that would change some minds?

Diablo 3's the only one I know of. Hundredth time though it's all personal preference and my $.

If I don't wanna use some site I deem exploitable or have even seen others exploit with bad or even good review spam I'm not gonna use it. People may believe that or not if they like.

Further I even said even if those reviews were counted with others there'd be no change in its score percentages so it doesn't even matter if they're counted. Once again, personal preference.

Fair enough. I can't argue with you on personal preferences.

 

[LiveOnTheEdge]

As far as metacritic and like sites are concerned, while scores can be an indicator, I'd say it would be far better to check a lot of the reviews to see if there's some sort of general consensus about what people liked or hated about the game.

And I'm not saying any of you guys here go off score alone because I don't know if y'all do that or not, but I know there are some people that just use these places for the aggregated scores and nothing else.

 

[Dr Fallout]

As far as metacritic and like sites are concerned, while scores can be an indicator, I'd say it would be far better to check a lot of the reviews to see if there's some sort of general consensus about what people liked or hated about the game.

And I'm not saying any of you guys here go off score alone because I don't know if y'all do that or not, but I know there are some people that just use these places for the aggregated scores and nothing else.

Just read the reviews.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

As far as metacritic and like sites are concerned, while scores can be an indicator, I'd say it would be far better to check a lot of the reviews to see if there's some sort of general consensus about what people liked or hated about the game.

And I'm not saying any of you guys here go off score alone because I don't know if y'all do that or not, but I know there are some people that just use these places for the aggregated scores and nothing else.

If I go to Fallout 4's metacritic page, the first things I notice are:
1) The low user score
2) the incredible disparity between Critic Score and User Score

Then, I go to read all the reviews I can. I read some positive reviews, I read all the mixed reviews I can, and I read a lot of the negative reviews. Then I arrive at a general consensus regarding the game. This has never failed me once.

His argument is that metacritic is easily manipulated so it's not valid. That simply isn't true and is the same dismissive attitude I see fanboys using when people bring up that score and all the 1000s of mixed and negative reviews the game is getting. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone on the internet, and yet it is not a Wasteland of misinformation. Some are even arguing it is now more reliable than Encyclopedia Britannica.

He then points to Amazon reviews. Well companies offer product discounts in exchange for user reviews on Amazon, which allows their product to get the high number of reviews necessary to appear at the top of the product search. So I have just explained how those reviews might be manipulated, but I still use Amazon reviews because they are still useful and still work. Just because something can be maniplated 1) Doesn't mean it was and 2) doesn't matter to me if the outcome is the same - that is, if it's still a bad game.

I do not hate Fallout 4. I dislike Fallout 4. I am forcing myself to enjoy it.

I have no interest in getting into a heated argument about this.

 

[Dr Fallout]

As far as metacritic and like sites are concerned, while scores can be an indicator, I'd say it would be far better to check a lot of the reviews to see if there's some sort of general consensus about what people liked or hated about the game.

And I'm not saying any of you guys here go off score alone because I don't know if y'all do that or not, but I know there are some people that just use these places for the aggregated scores and nothing else.

If I go to Fallout 4's metacritic page, the first things I notice are:
1) The low user score
2) the incredible disparity between Critic Score and User Score

Then, I go to read all the reviews I can. I read some positive reviews, I read all the mixed reviews I can, and I read a lot of the negative reviews. Then I arrive at a general consensus regarding the game. This has never failed me once.

His argument is that metacritic is easily manipulated so it's not valid. That simply isn't true and is the same dismissive attitude I see fanboys using when people bring up that score and all the 1000s of mixed and negative reviews the game is getting. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone on the internet, and yet it is not a Wasteland of misinformation. Some are even arguing it is now more reliable than Encyclopedia Britannica.

He then points to Amazon reviews. Well companies offer product discounts in exchange for user reviews on Amazon, which allows their product to get the high number of reviews necessary to appear at the top of the product search. So I have just explained how those reviews might be manipulated, but I still use Amazon reviews because they are still useful and still work. Just because something can be maniplated 1) Doesn't mean it was and 2) doesn't matter to me if the outcome is the same - that is, if it's still a bad game.

I do not hate Fallout 4. I dislike Fallout 4. I am forcing myself to enjoy it.

I have no interest in getting into a heated argument about this.

I hate Fallout 4. I don't want to play it anymore.

 

[LiveOnTheEdge]

As far as metacritic and like sites are concerned, while scores can be an indicator, I'd say it would be far better to check a lot of the reviews to see if there's some sort of general consensus about what people liked or hated about the game.

And I'm not saying any of you guys here go off score alone because I don't know if y'all do that or not, but I know there are some people that just use these places for the aggregated scores and nothing else.

If I go to Fallout 4's metacritic page, the first things I notice are:
1) The low user score
2) the incredible disparity between Critic Score and User Score

Then, I go to read all the reviews I can. I read some positive reviews, I read all the mixed reviews I can, and I read a lot of the negative reviews. Then I arrive at a general consensus regarding the game. This has never failed me once.

His argument is that metacritic is easily manipulated so it's not valid. That simply isn't true and is the same dismissive attitude I see fanboys using when people bring up that score and all the 1000s of mixed and negative reviews the game is getting. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone on the internet, and yet it is not a Wasteland of misinformation. Some are even arguing it is now more reliable than Encyclopedia Britannica.

He then points to Amazon reviews. Well companies offer product discounts in exchange for user reviews on Amazon, which allows their product to get the high number of reviews necessary to appear at the top of the product search. So I have just explained how those reviews might be manipulated, but I still use Amazon reviews because they are still useful and still work. Just because something can be maniplated 1) Doesn't mean it was and 2) doesn't matter to me if the outcome is the same - that is, if it's still a bad game.

I do not hate Fallout 4. I dislike Fallout 4. I am forcing myself to enjoy it.

I have no interest in getting into a heated argument about this.

I thought SaucyLad's argument was more since Metacritic is able to be easily influenced or messed with (and sure, it can be) that that led SaucyLad into not putting much or any stock into Metacritic. And not that it's for sure always manipulated for every game. Or that it's always going to be wrong.

And as far as wikipedia is concerned if you delve into the underbelly of it a little bit you might find out that there's a little bit more misinformation than you originally thought. Of course that could still be just a tiny fraction. I don't know how much there is.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

But if a game is scoring relatively low while many others games don't, than it is fair to raise an eyebrow over it, and thinking about. No one here ever claimed that it's the most accurate source out there when it comes to quality, popularity or what ever.

No one said it doesn't have problems. On the contrary it has lots. Suspecting people here got it in there head that I think it's a "perfect game!111" when I never said that.

Maybe give an example of a good game getting lower reviews... perhaps that would change some minds?

Diablo 3's the only one I know of. Hundredth time though it's all personal preference and my $.

If I don't wanna use some site I deem exploitable or have even seen others exploit with bad or even good review spam I'm not gonna use it. People may believe that or not if they like.

Further I even said even if those reviews were counted with others there'd be no change in its score percentages so it doesn't even matter if they're counted. Once again, personal preference.

Not trying to convince you to use metacritic. I'm trying to explain that just because metacritic might be manipulated by trolls doesn't make all the reviews any less valid. Those reviews are by and large well-written, and a lot of people are simply writing off those 1,000 reviews as trolls. A lot of them are NOT troll reviews if you actually read them.

In any case I apologize if I came off in the wrong light. Please accept my apology.

 

[SaucyLad]

As far as metacritic and like sites are concerned, while scores can be an indicator, I'd say it would be far better to check a lot of the reviews to see if there's some sort of general consensus about what people liked or hated about the game.

I normally do this myself. I even use Twitch/Youtube to assist me with determining whether or not something is good.

But with Fallout 4 I rode the hype train and pre-ordered the game. Would I have still bought the game knowing what I know now? Yeah but only when it was on sale and further along with Bethesda/fans releasing patches.

In any case I apologize if I came off in the wrong light. Please accept my apology.

Sure I'm pretty tired arguing over something like Metacritic anyway.

 

[Dr Fallout]

As far as metacritic and like sites are concerned, while scores can be an indicator, I'd say it would be far better to check a lot of the reviews to see if there's some sort of general consensus about what people liked or hated about the game.

I normally do this myself. I even use Twitch/Youtube to assist me with determining whether or not something is good.

But with Fallout 4 I rode the hype train and pre-ordered the game. Would I have still bought the game knowing what I know now? Yeah but only when it was on sale and further along with Bethesda/fans releasing patches.

In any case I apologize if I came off in the wrong light. Please accept my apology.

Sure I'm pretty tired arguing over something like Metacritic anyway.

Hint: Never look at Metacritic scores. Just look at the more well written reviews.