Proof that Critic Reviews mean nothing

Jogre

Jogre

So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
So, whenever you argue that Fallout 4 is a bad game, the fans always say "User Reviews don't mean anything, Critic Reviews are written by people who actually care."

My question is, do Critics actually care?, I went on IGN, and selected the 6 reviews of Fallout 4 shown on the homepage. Looking through them 2 of them make references to Roleplaying, both of which were just describing the Genre. So critics who are supposed to be rating a Roleplaying Game, don't even reference what the game is supposed to be about? Still think Critic Reviews mean anything?

Just to further prove my point, I looked at reviews of Fallout 3. Most reviews had been deleted or were just a few sentences long, however I was able to end up picking 6 reviews(again), out of those, 1 compared it to the originals. A game called "Fallout 3", and you don't think for a second "How is this compared to 1 and 2?". Even worse yet, it was heavily implied that 4 of those critics actually started with 3. So somebody with no knowledge of the previous games can fully judge a game can they?

And if all these reviewers were willing to play Fallout 3, why not 1 and 2?, Do these critics not want to play an isometric turn based game?, So someone who makes money off of gaming isn't even willing to try a whole range of games?, That would be like a food critic only ever going to seafood restaurants.

And that ladies and gentlemen, is why Critic reviews of Fallout games, mean absolutely f*** all.
 
I mean I agree, but I didn't need any proof to know that people who own microphones and post YouTube videos or write articles for blogs/"news" websites aren't actually qualified journalists.
 
One of the things I think I was best taught in school and is actually useful is to look at any author's personal biases. We all have biases and it's a great way to look at reviews. This reviewer doesn't share the similar thoughts to me, so his opinion won't weigh as much to me. If a reviewer hasn't played Fallout 1 or 2, but has 3, then if I liked 1 and 2, but not 3... then I won't like his opinion as much as someone who has. This also allows us to take User Reviews seriously, because it's not about if they are paid for it, it's if their opinion is meaningful. That is where we, as readers have to decide that for ourselves. But, for some people when faced with opinions against their own in heavy amounts just can't accept some things.
 
I think anyone with half a brain knows that professional game reviews are meaningless. Who has creative control over reviews? The publication. How does the publication make money? Ads. Who buys ad space in gaming publications? The same people who make the products being reviewed. Spot the conflict of interest.
 
I never care about critics reviews, I care about user ones, I make sure to always read the negative reviews first and see if they are written by people who make reviews like this: "This game suuuuuuuuucks" or like this: "Game is bad because graphics look from 10 years ago" or even like this: "Stupid game because it has too much text", of if the reviews are written by people like this: "This game has some good things but mostly bad things, I will start with the pros:..." or people like this: "I bought this game having great expectations but it left me disappointed after a while...".

Depending on what kind of user gives a bad review, I will be closer to know if I will like a game or not, then I read a few good reviews and check for the same kind of reviewer (short reviews using dubious grammar and or spelling, or long reviews using nice grammar and spelling and pointing good and bad things).

I never read critic reviews because who cares what one person paid to rush play that game has to say? If it is a AAA game they will almost never say much bad about it anyway, I don't know if they are paid to not say bad things or are just scared of those big companies that make or distribute the game stops liking them or something...
 
Critic reviews do matter insofar as much more attention is paid to what they say than to what regular customers say. Bethesda isn't going to be daunted by the mixed user rating on Metacritic when they got 9/10s across the board from all the professional reviewers. Personally, I'd like to see more reviewers do what Kotaku has done and just get rid of the numerical score altogether. Explain what the game does well, what it doesn't do well, and sum it up with whether or not they recommend it. Trying to quantify a game's flaws as a matter of how many points to take off a numerical score is too subjective to be anything but contentious.
 
Tom Bishop said:
Bethesda isn't going to be daunted by the mixed user rating on Metacritic when they got 9/10s across the board from all the professional reviewers.
Click to expand...
"Professional" video game reviewers don't exist. Usually they're just marketing the game. Case in point: Fallout 4's myriad of 90 and 100 "professional" scores. At this point if anyone takes professional scores as anything more than advertisements then they need some serious education. And youtube reviewers are usually no different. That lord of the rings game (Mordor whatever) is now infamous for reviewers being courted to market the game in a positive light.

In any case, I trust the overall metacritic user score a lot more than the overall "professional" score. Never once have I played a game where the user score did not reflect serious issues with the game. Doesn't mean I don't buy a game if it has a bad user score, but it does make me have a more realistic expectation than people calling FO4 the "deepest, greatest RPG in history."

This is my favorite "professional" review: "The graphics won’t blow you away, the side quests will."

Anyone who played FO4 knows why this statement is ridiculous and I don't need to explain why.
 
Last edited:
Well when it comes to Fallout 4's Meta score it's still too high, no way in hell is it an 84. I still tend not to care very much about these so called "professional" critics when they can be paid under the table to advertise and give a game high scores even if it's shit.
 
MercenarySnake said:
Well when it comes to Fallout 4's Meta score it's still too high, no way in hell is it an 84. I still tend not to care very much about these so called "professional" critics when they can be paid under the table to advertise and give a game high scores even if it's shit.
Click to expand...
Both Fallout 4 and Fallout: New Vegas have metacritic "professional" scores of 84. However, the user scores (on PC):

New Vegas Overall User Score: 8.5
Positive - 2039
Mixed: 284
Negative: 135

Fallout 4 Overall User Score: 5.4
Positive: 2819
Mixed: 877
Negative: 2780

This pretty much says it all regarding advertisements that masquerade as professional critic reviews. Rest assured, there is no depth too low for marketing people to stoop to when it comes to them trying to sell you shit.
 
Last edited:
I hate it when people say user reviews are worthless, when that means their review of the game is worthless, not to forget that users are just that, the users of the game. They buy it and play it, so they have the right to judge the game that Bethesda markets to them!
 
Dr Fallout said:
I hate it when people say user reviews are worthless, when that means their review of the game is worthless, not to forget that users are just that, the users of the game. They buy it and play it, so they have the right to judge the game that Bethesda markets to them!
Click to expand...

Yeah, this. They don't matter as opinion because they're usually crap as opinion pieces. But they do matter to the common consumer that goes "oh, IGN gave a 9/10" without reading the review, and buys the game based on that, giving Bethesda more money to make more trash.
 
It also mattered for Bethesda's bonus when it came to Fallout 4, man it must piss Todd and company off that they won't be getting that extra bonus to their paychecks. :lol:
 
Someone remind me how much that Metacritic bonus was again so I can shake my head at its absurdity?
 
Usually looking at the vast consumer based score will give you an idea of weather something is shit or not; given enough time has passed. Consumer based scores tend to be realistic. Hard to pay off a few thousand, or hundred thousand, people to suck up to your product.
 
Why would anybody think that critic reviews meant something? A review is ultimately nothing more than "one person gives their opinion on a thing they spent time with, and attempts to justify and explore that opinion."

That people have different (and often irreconcilable) opinions on books, movies, music, sandwiches, etc. should not be surprising to anybody. So that people have different (and often irreconcilable) opinions on games should be likewise obvious.

The value that one gets out of reading a review is basically limited to -
1) Recognizing when a critic seems to like the same sorts of things you like, so maybe their opinion is usefully predictive of yours.
2) Being exposed to a different perspective on something that you might not have come up with on your own, which may enhance your enjoyment of the work.
3) The actual pleasure you derive from reading the prose (or watching the video or whatever) as a work unto itself.

So that someone played Fallout 4 and had fun with it isn't really surprising, nor is that they played it without a particular interest in roleplaying or the game's predecessors in any way surprising; but this also doesn't really mean anything to me.

That "other people's opinions need not have any bearing on mine" doesn't seem like the sort of thing that needs proving; it's more or less axiomatic. No part of the critic's job is to predict what you, or any other unspecified person, will think of the game, merely to state what they thought about it and explain why.
 
Last edited:
Scipio the Elder said:
Usually looking at the vast consumer based score will give you an idea of weather something is shit or not; given enough time has passed. Consumer based scores tend to be realistic. Hard to pay off a few thousand, or hundred thousand, people to suck up to your product.
Click to expand...
The fun thing is that due to "brand loyalty" (some) devs don't need to pay anyone. Their hardcore fanbase will love and defend whatever they churn out.
But it appears that Bethesda's hardcore fanbase is becoming smaller than the group of people fed up with their overhyped games.
 
I sincerely doubt that any video game publisher engages in any sort of bribery of anybody for positive impressions from the press. The potential damage from the fallout if that sort of thing if it came to light would far outweigh any sort of potential gain you would get from the good scores or whatever.

That's not to say that the entire publisher/media relationship is above reproach, since things like "wining and dining the press at events" or "offering exclusive coverage in exchange for being guaranteed to be a cover feature," or "blacklisting the people who say what we don't like" happens all the time, but the ethical lapses don't stoop so low as "bribery." I mean, a 9.8/10 from IGN just isn't worth that much to a video game publisher, as most of the people who contribute to a game's profitability will have decided to buy it before the game was even finished.

I mean, Bethesda couldn't even keep the Pip-Boy edition of Fallout 4 in stock people were so thirsty for this. There was absolutely no reason for them to try to compromise the impartiality of the press (and little benefit for them doing so.)
 
PossibleCabbage said:
I sincerely doubt that any video game publisher engages in any sort of bribery of anybody for positive impressions from the press.
Click to expand...
http://kotaku.com/the-messy-story-behind-youtubers-taking-money-for-game-1644092214

Youtubers are doing the advertising for them. Who needs legitimate "press" when you have YouTubers doing your marketing in exchange for review copies.

Fallout 4 is a "near perfect video game" said one youtuber in a video posted November 9, day before release.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top