I said it before but I don't care about awards and reviews. If I like a game I like a game.

But from what I can tell Fallout 4 isn't doing so well when it comes to reviews/scores. I find it funny that some people are trying to say that has something to do with a grand conspiracy, in which people who really hate Bethesda spammed the crap out of the internet in order to make it come off as a bad game.

Because such things never happen, even when you know there actually is such an organised and motivated group.

*I know of loads of people who still hate Bethesda from Elder Scrolls Online also. That game has annoyed many people.

It's still more reliable then metacritic though and if steam feels like you're abusing the refund policy they have the right to ban you. Metacritic on the other hand is just go wild we don't actually care unless you make it painfully obvious with like 10 accounts with the same review made in one or two days.


except 84 from review scores on metacritic is still good. Anything over yellow is generally considered a good score. Sure it's not as high as skyrim or something but it's still a good score. It's not we're trying to make a conspiracy, we're pointing out a site that does next to nothing with content control and you don't need the game to make a review or many reviews. I've seen people post word-for-word the same review for Fallout 4 for each port of the game, I've seen numerous accounts make the same reviews, if you take the time to read through them you'll find this out for yourself.

This isn't the first time a game has been astroturfed on metacritic and it won't be the last, people have a LOT of free time on their hands.

We are talking filling credit card information in order to buy the game each time you make a new steam account and many people have limits on their credit or PayPal which mean that even if you refund the game it may take several days for the bank or whatever to have the money to be returned back to your card. Of course, this is disregarding other factors such as steam verification and emails.

If someone honestly has the time to do all this then sorry that person must be the most pathetic being in existence

Dunno, an 87 rating (open critic) and having the second most GOTY acclaim seems pretty good to me.

Not to mention a 81% on Steam which is the same rating as Fallout 3 is still great too.

and of course this

So can you two prove it? Does it not work in reverse? As in so many people who super love Bethesda go out and spam the crap out of the internet with nothing but 10/10 reviews?

I get the idea of don't trust reviews and such. I don't care about them. But are you guys actually saying there are enough people who hate Bethesda to try and ruin Fallout 4's scores?

In my experience people who hate are always more motivated than people who like.

Yes, yes there actually are. Again, there is no quality control on metacritic when it comes to user reviews lol

If I came in second in a race that is still a good thing. But if the person who came in first beat me by several minutes, I am not going to say I am better than the guy who came in first or that I had a real chance to beat him.

So conspiracy theory it is

Do you ever use such scores to justify that a game is good? I know a lot of people who do.

If it can be rigged to make a game look bad it can be rigged to make a game look good.

That's why I go by my own review.

Lol I saw person complaining about bad PC UI and interface in the user review for PS4 version of Fallout

Most of the 10/10 reviews I've seen are actually people who admit that the game is an 8 or 9 but state that they needed balance out all the unwarranted 0 vitriol which I can't blame them. Meanwhile, I see zeros from people who merely dislike a single part of the game.

Unless it actually happened.

Yes, a 2015 game going back with all the criticisms/improvements from Witcher 2 onwards, to contest a 2011 video game.

Ridiculous statement.

So those people lied then. The game wasn't as good as they thought it was but chose to up their rating because they didn't like that other people didn't like the game as much as them. Yeah there will be jerks out there who lower the score but you can't say everyone who gave it a low score did it because they are a jerk. But you just admitted their are people who up the score.

Awesome, you have proof that it happens. Happens enough that a game is crippled. Please link it for us.

And you have proof that it didn't happen. Please link it for us.

Well, I never said I was better than the first place dude, only that I am better than the rest.

Your point was that Fallout 4 wasn't doing well in reviews and ratings and I disapproved of that.

I am not sure I'm even allowed to link [censored] stuff on here assuming I can find the link.

Okay so user reviews don't count, critic reviews don't count, awards don't count, and polls don't count.

FO4 was super great, BGS don't listen to feedback. Make sure TES6 ends up the same!



(I'm sure George Lucas got that kind of advice).

Wow thats censored.

I guess that confirms I cant lol.

So you want me to prove something in order to prove it doesn't happen. It doesn't work that way. I asked if you believe there is a conspiracy, you seem to agree there is, so the burden of proof is on you.

Until you or anyone else can prove a conspiracy, it just comes of as complaining.

Nobody is saying that. I think people are saying the game wasn't so terrible it shouldn't be a contender for a GOTY award, and that there were some strangely negative reviews from users that turned around even the professional reviewers opinions.

From what I have seen here is that second place is a distant second. Not something to brag about in my opinion.

I don't think there's ever gonna be a TES or FO release that won't be a GOTY contender. As for "strange" reviews influencing professional reviewers all I have to say is lol, the only thing that influences professional reviewers other than themselves is money. (DA2 getting 8+ reviews jesus christ that was a travesty...)

Generally I would agree - though I definitely noticed a trend towards negativity immediately after gamers started hating on FO4...so perhaps either someone from Bethesda forgot to pay the reviewers or paid them less than the Witcher 3 team did, or reviewers thought it best to just roll with public opinion...who knows?

Awards don't count, no. Awards are generally meaningless because they're based on opinions. Critic reviews do matter a bit, yes they can be used to show faults that a company needs to expand on but they're still mostly opinions. User reviews if you can prove said user owns the games count but user reviews on sites with no quality control don't matter.

It's fine to criticize a game, it's fine to make a review to criticize a game, it's fine to pay attention to awards but using it as de facto proof a game svcks or doesn't deserve some pointless award is pretty stupid. Many games don't win awards but are still really good, just because they didn't win an award literally means nothing. For instance take Undertale, Undertale is a fantastic game that appeals to me more then say Witcher 3, I can write a review saying I didn't like witcher 3 but prefer Undertale. That doesn't prove a single thing, it just means in my opinion Undertale is a better game then Witcher 3.

That's what reviews are, opinions. That's what awards are, opinions. That's what criticisms are, opinions. Yes all three can show a problem with a game, again, that's the only part of why they should be looked at but everything else in a all three of those are vastly just opinions.

Or you know, they actually thought TW3 was better....

I doubt any of Bethesda's games even with updated graphics and changes would be able to contest Witcher 3.

Not when they actually gave a thorough review on the game and why it deserves what it they gave it. Nobody care that there people who dislike the game only that there are people who go "badd graphizx 0/10" which is like a dozen times the number of people who gave it anything over a 5.

Well I did play both games, and while I loved TW3, I find FO4 to have more of a lifespan of playabilty. I would not play TW3 again, because "I've done" that world. Plus like I said, it's not a game that invites the female gamer market in very well.

This is a niche opinion of course, as a female gamer who likes world building as well as playing RPGs, and loves fighting. Oh that's something TW3 did poorly - the combat wasn't so exciting and Geralt drives like a sheep truck.