I honestly prefer Skyrim and Fallout 4 over Witcher 3. Again, this is literally my whole point of comparing games is really pointless and does nothing useful, it's just dike waving opinions to say "X is better than Y because I said so"

No that can't be it. It's the damn Bethesda haters

I have seen countless people who love things simply because the graphics are "super awesome" and or they loved a way a piece of armor looked but couldn't careless about anything else. So stupid things like that go both ways. New Vegas got crapped on for "old graphics" thus they think Fallout 3 is better because it had "new graphics."

Doesn't help that the name of the website itself with those trolls is censored on these forums lol. But I'm sure most of you are intelligent enough to deduce which website that might be.

Considering that still means beating a game from one of the most acclaimed and praised franchises (Metal Gear Solid) I say there is still plenty to brag about.

Well, now you know why nobody should take Metacritic user scores seriously.

I don't see why a game with a larger lifespan is automatically better than a game with a smaller one. A lot of games are created to be one time experiences, does that make them inherently bad?

As for the combat in TW3 I found it decent, nothing groundbreaking but also not something that was a negative point in the game. Geralt drives like a sheep truck because people aren't able to stop or do a 180 turn on a dime Funny thing is CDPR released an alternate movement option for people who had trouble with that.

I think the point he's trying to make is that trolls tend to balance themselves out.

My own experience was that the only two games people gave a crap about were Witcher 3 and Fallout 4 I would say Fallout 4 got crushed.

Just from listening to co-workers, friends, family and even just people around me. When the topic of games came up the hype was just those two games. I only knew one guy who was hyped for the Metal Gear game and try as he might no one cared.

Fallout 4 just didn't live up to people's expectations. I have had Bethesda fans tell me they were hoping Fallout 4 would be like New Vegas. Going about how Fallout 4 isn't much of an RPG and so on. And again these people started playing Fallout with Fallout 3. They played the crap out of Skyrim and go on and on about other Elder Scrolls games. But Fallout 4 let them down.

I don't take them seriously. I just know a lot of people who do. I see it used on these forums all the time to justify why a game is "good." Tables turned to say why a Bethesda game isn't great, is a new one for me.

skyrim won tons of awards and it wasn't revolutionary from oblivion, fallout 4 is a great game and it did come out late in the year and with a lot of complainers who prob didn't play the game whining about it not being a real rpg and the graphics etc, its the best game in the last several years to me, i'm not into a lot of midevil fantasy games unless its ES, so to me there haven't been any good open world games in a long time, fallout 4 is unique, most open world games are midevil type games or games like GTA thats a driving game and its not a combat game really, and dying light is a zombie melee game so its really not a combat game either and so fallout 4 fills a niche and people are playing it, thats easy to find out, on steam, twitch, youtube, it doens't need to be "the goty" witcher had all year to iron out bugs, dlc etc, so the timing prob has a lot to do with things, if not for the witcher fallout 4 would of had most of the awards, no big deal, the witcher isn't as popular as fallout 4 its sales are no where near fallout's, its not because of some deficiency that fallout didn't get it, its more timing than anything and midevil fantasy games are always pretty popular and the witcher is pretty polished and was well made so hats of to the developers, but there is no "great lesson" to be learned here, bethesda has a another great selling and fun game, and its not done, there will be dlc soon and thats gonna even add to the longevity of the game just like with skyrim.

I find that all contributes to me keeping a game on my PC.

A passing game that I play once is never going to be rated as highly by me as a game I keep on my computer for some length of time.

As for combat - that is very important to me - if my character feels slow and stupid, then I rate the combat very low. Good combat means fast reaction time to me...I also dislike turn based games etc. Geralt's problem was more than turning on a dime...someone ought to have modded in an "OOOF!" noise he should utter repeatedly while you drive him through a populated area, for all the people he inelegantly smashed into. It really did feel like driving too, rather than running, quite hilarious actually.

Yo stop this came out late in the year argument. Skyrim came out in november as well, it had no trouble stomping everything.

If your character feels somewhat realistic you mean In any case, let's agree to disagree.

In broad terms I tend to judge a game on what it wants to do well, and if it actually manages to do those things well. I'm not gonna judge Fahrenheit or The Last of Us for not making me spend 400 hours on them for instance, because that's not what they set out to do. But that's just me.

The thing is people tend to put Fallout to a significantly higher standard than TES.

Other than the Morrowind fans who seem to love to proclaim to everyone that Morrowind is better than the rest of TES games in every way, nobody seems to care that Skyrim was shallower than a cereal bowl, barely had any RP. nevermind the horrid combat system and nonsensical and boring storyline. However, as soon as Fallout 4 has a supbar dialogue system everyone rips the game to shreds ignoring that it improves on Bethesda's past games in many ways and then some.

I can understand a New Vegas fan disliking Fallout 4 but if those fans you mentioned are fans of Skyrim, Oblivion and Morrowind and dislike Fallout 4 for what is arguably something a dozen times worse in those games then they are just being hypocritical.

I just see them as more forgettable...fun, but a brief fling. That's rated less than something you actually want to keep. If a game sets out to be quickly disposable that's really a flaw...this is why most singleplayer titles really aren't worth the money they charge - rolling through them then throwing them away after a week or so isn't good value for money.

Value for money is a very subjective matter, for some people an amazing experience that lasts 10 hours can outweigh an average experience that lasts 100.

This is where a reviewer 10 hours in or someone who plays a game for like 20 minutes then flips their table probably shouldn't be saying a word.

And yet here we are, discussing the value of those very people's opinions...

Garbage of the Year award?

Very interesting theory, if this is true that the score was intentionally tanked by a group by making multiple accounts and downvoting, then I think Metacritic should know about this! They can check the database and delete all the votes added by the same IP adress. I'm curious where the user score would settle then, maybe @ 7.5?

Anyway this is a major flaw of metacritic if one user can register multiple accounts.

Apples and oranges.

IKR? How anyone can give FO4 a 10 while only playing for 20 mins or 10 hours is beyond me.

Or a 0. Or say that Witcher 3 is better than Fallout 4 when they're only going to get another few days out of it vs half a year.

I believe that is because Fallout isn't Bethesda's creation. Fallout 2 just won first place on some top 30 RPG of all time games list. (It should be here on the forum somewhere) And New Vegas came 13 place on that same list.

I don't play TES games. I came to these forums for Fallout. But on my time here I have seen that Bethesda has a very different idea of what an RPG is compared to Obsidian. When Bethesda bought the rights to Fallout, they also brought in all the fans of the original Fallouts with them. So very different expectations for what they want in an RPG.

I am not trying come off as an elitist here when I say that.

Well considering Fallout and TES are very different series it isn't hypocritical. Fallout 3 was made by Bethesda so they went into it expecting a Bethesda game and they were happy with it. When they played New Vegas made by Obsidian they got an idea of what people such as myself have been saying for a long time.

When they played Skyrim they were going into it knowing it was made by Bethesda and would be a Bethesda/Elder Scrolls game. Fallout 4 on the other hand, they were hoping Bethesda would learn more from New Vegas. They hoped Bethesda would treat Fallout more like a Fallout, I guess is the best way to put it.

Needless to say they were let down. They have told me that themselves.

Metacritic doesn't really care, they never cared. They're to big to actually care unless people make it obvious. Like most sites they only care about the traffic and money they get.

Nah a 0 sounds pretty accurate.

I always find it funny when people say that Fallout 4 took nothing from NV when most of the game is based on the same [censored] NV was based on.

And with that we can see you're entirely unreasonable. I won't bother responding to you again.

*Your loss, not everyone can handle a discussion.

You were kinda asking for it.