Because the user reviews too often don't reflect the reviewers actual opinion. Users have the luxury of anonymity and don't have a reputation to protect, so they often try to 'meta' the score by giving preposterously inappropriate scores to change the average. Anyone with a shred of intellectual honestly will concede that Fallout 4 is an impressive achievement with massive amounts of content. Even it's harshest critics, disappointed that it wasn't what they wanted it to be, will still concede it wasn't a bad game, just not the game they thought it should have been.

"Fallout 4 is a good game, it's just not a good Fallout game." is a common observation among the disappointed. An honest critic who dislikes the game is still going to give it at least a six out of ten for the sheer scope of the thing. But disappointed users and haters are prone try to hurt it's overall score by gaming the system and rating it with dishonestly low scores like 0, 1 or 2 in an attempt to bring down the average. Those aren't reviews, they are attacks and should be dismissed as such.

that moment when you can make a post that surpasses the 200 post limit because the thread is about to, but hasnt been shut down.

Eh. In the grand scheme of things, there a bunch of good games. Only one can win. The others remain good games. Not winning the Spike awards isn't some grand occurrence that will "shock Beth to their senses" so they make a game that caters to your particular complaints.

And then there are "devotees" who give 10s here and there. It evens out.

But obviously Steam user reviews are a much better system.

Yeah, especially since they care about profits, not about critical acclaim

Just look at previus page

Post limit has been reached.