1) AJ is awesome. I would be friends with that dude in rl.

2) I feel embarrassed for anyone who's taken in by that dopey CDPR vs Bethesda "comparison" meme.

8/10 is a fair score. Its a fun game that is worth paying for, but it does not live up to its past titles at all. I could clock countless hours into fallout 3, new Vegas, oblivion, skyrim, and morrowind and not even have all the side quests finished, or all the buildings cleared.

This game however? 60 hours and I almost have it platinumed. This game is by no means bad, but it is by no means game of the year material.

As far as the witcher? I am not a fan of the series, but I overly enjoyed it a lot more.

My big gripe with the witcher and fallout 4, is the lack of meaningful side quests. Tons of radiant objectives don't make up for a lack well written side quests like the many side story quests present in elder scrolls, like the dark brotherhood, fighters guilds, and MANY more, present in previous titles.

This game is great, I really enjoyed playing what was present, and what was in the game was most definitely worth what I payed for, however I really hope they add a lot more in the future. 60 hours to nearly platinum a Bethesda title? That doesn't feel right.

Welll that is your and your opinion since Witcher 3 is missing it for me. Is good u like repetitive stories, bc that is what the main story of Witcher 3 is. And lets be real is the only strong point on the game. That and graphics. Bc combat is horrible. Item optimization is super unbalance and allow u to become god with Witcher gear. Potion crafting was simplifie from preview games and now after u unlock it u can make it for free with just alcohol. Lets not forgot 0 replay-ability. And the strong point for me, HUGE MAPS with nothing to explore bc away from points of interested there are 0 cool stuff to find just forest after forest after forest or water after water after warter or house after house after house......

And be blind if u want bc u can go and google full videos on youtube about Witcher 3 bugs and glitch.

its like someone more interested in a car with a nice paint job than the drivetrain, its like they put the paint job as the most important part

This.

It would be upsetting if Bethesda thought that Fallout 4's biggest problems were graphical.

That image doesn't really sum up anything outside of take a sentence out of context from the paragraph it belongs to. Drumming up drama where there is none.

Nice try, though.

This is also patently false.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/02/12/and-heres-obsidians-idea-for-fallout-new-vegas-2/

No one at Bethesda or Obsidian consider the failing to meet the 85 review score a deal breaker on possible future Obsidian made Fallout titles.

yeah he did give MGSV a 9, that why AJ reviews are just his opinion, i mean i got MGSV and i hate every minute of that game. And then i find out all the problem that AJ since to miss on his review.

For the Fallout one i agree in part, there are other that just his opinion only. I dont know really want to expect for a review anymore this day most are just opinion on the person writing it.

For me Fallout 4 is 10 time more fun to play that Witcher 3 that i cant get to keep playing the game. Fallout 4 feel alot better that NV or 3 so that make me happy ( yeah yeah Dialogue is worst but i hope Bethesda learn from this)

I thought his review for DAI was fair and I agreed with most of it even if I disagree on calling it GOTY.

It is almost like it was his opinion! Objective reviews do not exist, unfornately. We can objectively look at things with a game, but it all comes down to your opinion in the end anyway.

This. A lot of people hated The Order 1886 but I think it's a good game.

When I agree with him, he's being objective!

When I don't, he's a paid shill!!

Awesome having a hypothesis that you can't ever falsify.

Jim Sterling did a pretty good skit on objective reviews. It basically boils down to just pointing out the features of a game and saying things like: "you can jump, there are guns, you can talk to people, there are colors in the game."

*Face Palm*

You've got to be kidding me. People need to face up to Bethesda's prehistoric engine and expect more. I say that as an avowed shallow aesthete.

I am an avowed shallow aesthete, too. I care about graphics. I have a gaming PC because I love nice graphics. I tolerate FO4 graphics because I enjoy the gameplay and I know that the ENB presets, lighting, weather, and textures mods will follow. However, BGS better spend some of this money they're making on something better for TES VI.

I think 8/10 is a fair review for a game on an old engine.

I haven't seen the video yet and have only skimmed through this topic, but I get the impression that for some 8 out of 10 is somehow a bad score. I don't understand that.

Assuming a 1 through 10 score system, with 1 being the absolute worst ever with no fun at all to be had, and 10 being total and unsurpassable perfection and devoid of any flaws of any kind, and thus 5 being average. Isn't 8, or anything above 5 really, pretty good and thus something to be pleased with?

What am I missing?

I love fallout 4 but as far as better than the witcher 3 I don't know about that. They are both great games. Witcher 3 took RPGs to a whole new level for me. On the other hand witcher 3 didn't have that mystery I love about fallout in general.

You'd think that, but that's not how most review scales work. Most review scores take a more school-grading like system where 70% is just barely passable, 30-60 is just "Fail", and 0-30 is "So bad it hurts". Some reviewers do use a more evened scale, with 50% being average (nothing special, but nothing particularly bad either, so you may enjoy it if it's you're thing), but not all.

That's kind of the problem with review scores in general. It's bad enough to distill everything about a game down to a single number, but when that number means different things to different people? It's far better to take what's actually said in a review, and realize when what's being talked about is subjective (so may or may not apply to you in the same way or to the same degree) or objective.

You're not missing anything, the metric varies from critic to critic. The better reviewers don't really label a score and just go over the pros and cons. In angry joe's case, a score of 5 is average. It's not good but it's not bad.

Sounds about right.

1. Witcher got 10/10 at many places and has a higher average than FO4.

2. Giving a game like 8/10, which is in line with its average, is not attention seeking. That is called being normal. If he gave it a 4/10 then you'd be right.

I love how this story just keeps on mutating. Very Fallout-ish!

I wonder how many of those negative reviews are because people had to download through steam with the physical copy. I've got both The Witcher 3 and Fallout 4.. I've played Witcher about 11 hours since it came out, I'm at 85 hours currently on Fallout 4. They're both great games... Witcher just seems very awkward to me though.