Fallout 4 is better than Fallout: Shit Vegas and here is proof!

[Bigg Boss]

The Metacritic score is pretty fucking relevant when Obsidian got fucked out of a bonus over one point. Why shouldn't Fallout 4 be judged in the same manner?

 

[Doktor Best]

The worst is they didnt even get fucked over the user score but the critic rating. I wouldnt be too surprised if Bethesda put some pressure on reviewers to push it below the 85 mark so they save money.

 

[Multiple Sarcasm]

I wouldnt be too surprised if Bethesda put some pressure on reviewers to push it below the 85 mark so they save money.

In a society of rampant beta faggotry, they don't need to: every Professional Game Journalist™ already wants to gently suck major publisher balls for an opportunity to get and keep getting ad revenue involved. Which is why when you're peddling a shit-tier product to the unwashed peasant swine, the key is to make them feel good about giving away money, not provide quality overview or - god forbid - make them think the practice of pre-ordering is not the ultimate expression for excitement. It's a win-win for everyone involved.

 

[Bradylama]

Here's an unbiased Fallout 4 review for Mastermind .

 

[Innsmouth Dweller]

No.

Yo mama

 

[Jasede]

i always thought roleplaying games were about, you know, roleplaying? more than... killing and looting. TIL

Roleplaying games are about numbers going up so you can kill bigger numbers so numbers get even bigger.

If you're a moron you think that's a bad thing.
Fuck everything without numbers. Choices can go fuck themselves if there's no combat to back it up. Combat has always been what RPGs used to be about.
You make some numbers, you send them against other numbers, and you go home with loot so you can kill bigger things. Kind of like an MMORPG except good.

See, people like you are why we have modern Bioware, Bethesda and even our poor very own Vault Dweller who confused CYOA games with RPGs. Poor soul.

 

[Dim]

Here's an unbiased Fallout 4 review for Mastermind .

Are those complaints serious? Like 15 minutes to get across the map?

 

[Bradylama]

Are those complaints serious? Like 15 minutes to get across the map?

Compared to other Open World games it's pretty small.

 

[astateofmind]

even if it had been good (IE: butthurt obshitian fo1/2 fans).

Oh, so you agree it is not good. Thanks.

 

[buzz]

Mastermind is right, the Metacritic user score is absolutely useless. The only indication it gives is on the general mood on the Internet, that some random-ass nerds are being pissy about the games rather than highly extactic.

Metacritic users are just monkeys with computers who aren't able to rate a game anything than either 10/10 or 0/10 and they rate shit based entirely on boycotting crap and so on.

Like, if you look at Skyrim's latest negative reviews, you'll see tens and hundreds of them from late April giving 0/10 to the game just because of the paid mods debacle.

The journo/critic score is also a huge embarassment, but at least critics most often are able to proofread their reviews and not go on a 5 page tangent butthurt about how the devs nerfed their favorite gun/ability/hero in multiplayer.

 

[Eadan]

Mastermind is right, the Metacritic user score is absolutely useless. The only indication it gives is on the general mood on the Internet, that some random-ass nerds are being pissy about the games rather than highly extactic.

Metacritic users are just monkeys with computers who aren't able to rate a game anything than either 10/10 or 0/10 and they rate shit based entirely on boycotting crap and so on.

Like, if you look at Skyrim's latest negative reviews, you'll see tens and hundreds of them from late April giving 0/10 to the game just because of the paid mods debacle.

The journo/critic score is also a huge embarassment, but at least critics most often are able to proofread their reviews and not go on a 5 page tangent butthurt about how the devs nerfed their favorite gun/ability/hero in multiplayer.

As far as I am concerned if "random-ass nerds" are pissed enough at game developers' practices to give a bad score to the game, their scores are justified. Games should be punished for objectively bad practices.

As for people who rate 0/10 because their favorite gun/skill/etc. was nerfed, there will always be people who give 10/10 because for them the nerf was justified.

Just don't look at individual user scores but the average, and in almost all games you will get a better representation of the game's quality than looking at pro. review scores. How or why individual users score the game becomes irrelevant as the number of user reviewers increase.

 

[Dim]

Iirc oblivion critic reviews never mentioned mods. Users did quite bit better there.

 

[Lhynn]

Mastermind is right, the Metacritic user score is absolutely useless. The only indication it gives is on the general mood on the Internet, that some random-ass nerds are being pissy about the games rather than highly extactic.

Metacritic users are just monkeys with computers who aren't able to rate a game anything than either 10/10 or 0/10 and they rate shit based entirely on boycotting crap and so on.

Like, if you look at Skyrim's latest negative reviews, you'll see tens and hundreds of them from late April giving 0/10 to the game just because of the paid mods debacle.

The journo/critic score is also a huge embarassment, but at least critics most often are able to proofread their reviews and not go on a 5 page tangent butthurt about how the devs nerfed their favorite gun/ability/hero in multiplayer.

That may be the case, but average user score is still a lot more accurate that average critic score for mayor releases. Anyone that has a clue knows that fallout 4 isnt good enough to be a 5/10.

 

[Gerrard]

the Metacritic user score is absolutely useless.

Like, if you look at Skyrim's latest negative reviews, you'll see tens and hundreds of them from late April giving 0/10 to the game just because of the paid mods debacle.

How is this useless again?

Oh wait, it isn't.

Mastermind is right,

Who?

 

[buzz]

Like I said, it's good if you want to predict a general audience trend. Like, you see an average or shit score and you think "oh, this has to be a shitty port or some super buggy piece of crap or the devs fucked-up really bad with the gameplay".

That's really what the average user score reflects, notoriety. So it's not really accurate, unless you agree that these user scores are fine:

Morrowind 8.9
Fallout 3 8.0
Fallout New Vegas 8.5
Oblivion 8.0
Skyrim 8.1
Witcher 3 9.1

Neverwinter Nights 8.1
Mass Effect 2 8.7
Dragon Age Origins 8.6

Fallout 2 9.1
Fallout 1 8.9
Planescape Torment 9.4

The fact that it's less shit than journo scores isn't relevant, it's like winning in the special olympics.

The only truly accurate source for rating games is yourself followed by other people who share your tastes and hobbies, like the Codex.

 

[Monad]

How long do you think it will take for games criticism to really be taken seriously? 50 years?

 

[Immortal]

Like I said, it's good if you want to predict a general audience trend. Like, you see an average or shit score and you think "oh, this has to be a shitty port or some super buggy piece of crap or the devs fucked-up really bad with the gameplay".

That's really what the average user score reflects, notoriety. So it's not really accurate, unless you agree that these user scores are fine:

Morrowind 8.9
Fallout 3 8.0
Fallout New Vegas 8.5
Oblivion 8.0
Skyrim 8.1
Witcher 3 9.1

Neverwinter Nights 8.1
Mass Effect 2 8.7
Dragon Age Origins 8.6

Fallout 2 9.1
Fallout 1 8.9
Planescape Torment 9.4

The fact that it's less shit than journo scores isn't relevant, it's like winning in the special olympics.

The only truly accurate source for rating games is yourself followed by other people who share your tastes and hobbies, like the Codex.

Doesn't matter because for some weird reason Game Developers do give a shit about Meta critic as admitted by several companies indirectly and directly. If metacritic wasn't important, there wouldn't be bonuses tied to it and game developers wouldn't bring it up all the time.

Is it a circle jerk for fanboys and entitled cry babies? Oh absolutely.
It's still important though as long as game devs are sitting on the pages of their games jamming refresh.

 

[Dim]

Is it a circle jerk for fanboys and entitled cry babies? Oh absolutely.

Pent up cynicism paranoia and regular schadenfreude, not entitlement.

 

[Eadan]

Like I said, it's good if you want to predict a general audience trend. Like, you see an average or shit score and you think "oh, this has to be a shitty port or some super buggy piece of crap or the devs fucked-up really bad with the gameplay".

That's really what the average user score reflects, notoriety. So it's not really accurate, unless you agree that these user scores are fine:

Morrowind 8.9
Fallout 3 8.0
Fallout New Vegas 8.5
Oblivion 8.0
Skyrim 8.1
Witcher 3 9.1

Neverwinter Nights 8.1
Mass Effect 2 8.7
Dragon Age Origins 8.6

Fallout 2 9.1
Fallout 1 8.9
Planescape Torment 9.4

The fact that it's less shit than journo scores isn't relevant, it's like winning in the special olympics.

The only truly accurate source for rating games is yourself followed by other people who share your tastes and hobbies, like the Codex.

But there are also these:

DA Inquisition: Critic: 85 User: 5.8
Dragon Age 2: Critic: 82 User: 4.4
Diablo 3 : Critic: 88 User: 4.0
Mass Effect 3: Critic: 89 User: 5.4

Yeah, user scores don't give all the information about the quality of the game, but for most games they give some information, at least for a period of time. Average user scores may get less accurate as the games become less relevant, or if there aren't enough user reviews, but other than that average scores coupled with reading some well written user reviews is enough to decide about the game.

 

[buzz]

You're only proving me right. Those games got bad scores because they were notorious in one way or another, not because the population of Metacritic knows dick squat about tastes.

I mean, Metacritic telling me that Diablo 3 is awful means absolutely nothing to me, because I'm not even close of giving a fuck about that franchise. And who honestly thought it was not going to be a PoS? Diablo 2 was shit, even Diablo 1 was only barely passable and they announced the whole always-online thing and action house bullshit.

Meanwhile, they give pieces of pretentious shit like Spec Ops the Line a 8.2 grade. And then I play it, and it's a piece of shit video game. I care about accuracy in scores and reviews when it counts, when it's stuff that I don't know anything about and might find interesting.

I'm interested if SOMA for example is actually good, not just a generic "interactive movie" crap like recent horror games but more in line with the first Penumbra games. Nuance is very important for me, and Metacritic or Steam reviews or IGN user scores don't give me that.

 

[Bradylama]

Subjectivity in my video game reviews!?

 

[buzz]

Who are you talking to Brady and what exactly are you pointing?

 

[Eadan]

You're only proving me right. Those games got bad scores because they were notorious in one way or another, not because the population of Metacritic knows dick squat about tastes.

I mean, Metacritic telling me that Diablo 3 is awful means absolutely nothing to me, because I'm not even close of giving a fuck about that franchise. And who honestly thought it was not going to be a PoS? Diablo 2 was shit, even Diablo 1 was only barely passable and they announced the whole always-online thing and action house bullshit.

Meanwhile, they give pieces of pretentious shit like Spec Ops the Line a 8.2 grade. And then I play it, and it's a piece of shit video game. I care about accuracy in scores and reviews when it counts, when it's stuff that I don't know anything about and might find interesting.

I'm interested if SOMA for example is actually good, not just a generic "interactive movie" crap like recent horror games but more in line with the first Penumbra games. Nuance is very important for me, and Metacritic or Steam reviews or IGN user scores don't give me that.

You won't know if a game is good from user reviews most likely, but there is a chance that you will know it is shit. Games like SOMA or other interactive movie garbage always get higher user scores than they deserve because few people who like that kind of stuff rate them.

Btw, as someone who bought and later refunded SOMA, if you are really interested in the story I suggest watching a walkthrough. The puzzles in the first 2 hours of game were just time wasters.

 

[Bradylama]

Who are you talking to Brady and what exactly are you pointing?

I'm talking to you. Reviews always reflect the editorial opinion of their authors, and are always subjective to that author's values. User scores are important because they reflect the opinions of the broad masses at the time, and when something as hyped as Fallout 4 gets such a low user score in spite of what its predecessors got, that means something stinks.

 

[buzz]

Okay, but I don't understand why are you telling me that, I said roughly the same thing myself:
"The only indication it gives is on the general mood on the Internet" and that I value my own opinion and the opinion of people with similar tastes and interests much more than a random-ass score.

I'm all about subjectivity baby, even if I consider my opinion to be objectively superior to the majority