Fallout 4 negative review excuses. Take your pick: http://i.imgur.com/FFYRGNS.png

Yes. Almost all of those can be found in this thread.

I just wanted to mention something.

Unlike what many people believe today due to the way the "journalism" for popular entertainment has shifted over the past couple of decades, reviews are not supposed to be opinions. No one cares what some stranger thinks of something. Heck, most people don't really care what people they know, even significant others, friends, and family members, think about something. Reviews are supposed to inform people of the actual content, details, facts, etc of whatever is being reviewed. Nothing more, nothing less. A review (a real one, something that is pretty much never seen today and hasn't been for some time now) might end with a paragraph of the reviewer offering their own opinion as well as their own personal preferences to explain their viewpoint. That would be "extra" though, not really part of the actual review.

As an example, a game review should inform the audience of the actual content, technical details, mechanics, etc. A game review would NOT include a reviewer claiming that characters were boring, mechanics were not fun, etc. because such statements are purely subjective preference, not what such content actually IS. A genuine game review would say something like "you meet [insert certain character(s)] and have various interactions with them, including being able to recruit certain characters to be part of your party" but not "you meet boring characters who have no personality" or anything of that nature. The former is WHAT the content actually is and that is what a review must offer the audience. The latter is the subjective OPINION or PREFERENCE of the reviewer which no one cares about and no one needs to know as far as reviewing the game is concerned. People need to know WHAT is in the game, not what the reviewer thinks of the content.

It's the same with any other media, of course. As I said, though, the shift in so-called "journalism" has given rise to at least an entire generation of people, maybe more, who think that reviews are opinions rather than simply stating what is there, not what some reviewer thinks about what is there. Such people include various so-called "reviewers" who sometimes do not realize that they are failing to write an actual review and are merely writing an opinion piece, an editorial, if you will.

Am I wrong? We've seen almost all of these excuses in this thread alone.

I'm not as confident as everyone else that Fallout 4 will be getting widespread stellar reviews. A lot has changed in gaming over the last 5-7 years, indie innovation (whether you believe there is much real innovation there or not) is a huge thing, more of what you might call "art" games, all these small story heavy games that are highly praised, a general trend towards being more critical of AAA games especially when it comes to the "same old" factor.

I'm not expecting bad reviews, I'm just not so sure it's going to be 9s and 10s and GOTYs. I think it will take a bit of a hit in the "same old" department. I also think the voiced protagonist might give it a little boost for things like "emotional beats" and such, but overall in today's climate the story might be knocked down as too cliche, too obvious, and just not good enough. The story might get some praise for taking on a social issue, but probably not much, or not enough to overcome the cliche/obvious factor.

The building settlements is of course the standout newest element. If a reviewer thinks it's good then hey it's new and fresh and all that. If they think it's mediocre or bad, then maybe it gets called tacked on, disjointed, immersion breaking, whatever.

I highly disagree, and personalities like Jim Sterling, Angry Joe, Nostalgia Critic, Cinema Snob, Super Bunnyhop, and many others would beg to differ.

The most popular reviewers are popular because people identify with their opinions and respect their views. They may not always agree, but at the very least they'll leave the video thinking "Okay so that's what HE thinks about the game, knowing this person, and knowing what he likes, I can probably figure out if I'd like the game".

Reviewers are popular because they're not objective, because we get to know them, because we learn what their preferences are and how they relate to our own.

It suggests that any claim of poor review is just blind Beth fandom.

I think a big reason why you see less of that now is the basic issue of people not wanting to read much or even watch a video for more than 5 or so minutes, which to be fair isn't really something new, it's just that gaming is so much bigger now. The audience for reviews is now a much more general slice of average people who of course buy and play games but just aren't that into gaming. Many people looking at reviews now are probably mostly just looking for a number score. Going into that much detail will lead to a much longer piece and the big sites know that means less readers/viewers.

I think most of us can agree on that, even if we can't all agree on the more detailed argument about how personal opinions should be handled in reviews. Yes? No?

Oh no I wasn't trying to make that claim, not seriously anyway.

It's just that, as I said earlier, I feel like this site is going into the opposite extreme as some other sites. While other sites have become incredibly cynical and negative about the game, it seems like this forum is shutting down anyone who genuinely didn't like it and coming up with any excuse to discredit them. It's a shame really. We CAN disagree on things.

the reason that review has bee trashed on isnt because we are [censored] defending beths, its literally cause the review in question was bad, without detail, all he did was complain about the pacing of the game saying its "to slow" and the guy has never played a beths game, and apperantly, he isnt even into shooters/open world games, from what i heard in this thread he is more into racing games or somthing, given his twitter feed, so his review is already biased.

In my personal opinion, reviews are personal opinions.

There is an objective way of reviewing games in the sense of having a set of standards and comparing them, point by point, to a game. For example, you can judge a game based upon the quality of the graphics, the quality of the sound, the gameplay mechanics, the amount of content in the game, etc. etc.

While many reviewers do this, they also inject their own biases, which invariably leads to diverging and opposing viewpoints.

The only way to get an objective review in the current climate of infotainment journalism is to compare the majority of reviews and pay close attention to the specific praises and complaints that the majority of reviews share.

Much of the problem is that the tool's review went up nearly two days ahead of the embargo...

Otherwise it would be just one of many, either in line with opinion, or an outlier.

Is there a meaningful distinction between what a lot of people think a subjective construct is and what it actually is? If a lot of people thought the earth was flat they'd be objectively wrong but if a lot of people believed that a review is a subjective opinion does that make them wrong? How do you prove they're wrong for believing that?

You're not wrong. Do you think every one of those criticisms of the review are without merit?

Interestingly, the poor quality of the review and the fact that it went up way ahead of the embargo are pretty much related. The reason for review embargoes in the first place is to prevent this kind of nonsense--reviewers putting up useless, shoddy, borderline trollbait reviews (whether positive or negative) just to call FIRST!!1 and get those ad clicks.

Journalists, journalists never change.

It's not even a "bad" review. Just a standard form of text stating things you'd expect from any standard game review. I don't need reviews, they never convinced, or not convinced me, to buy the game. It's a combination of images, game descriptions and particulary hype that convinces me to buy a game. I've buyed so many games with bad reviews I felt where awesome, and others with good reviews that just where crap, it doesn't really matter to me what other players think and write about it.

Buying games for me is a impulsive decision...either I want the game, or I don't.

Even that wanders into the realm of the subjective. Take "quality of graphics" - this is going to be taken as heresy around here, but I absolutely love the art style and graphics of Borderlands 2. Yeah, it's cartoony and cheesy and doesn't even pretend to be "realistic", but it just fits the vibe of the game perfectly, and it still renders some really breathtaking views. But that's my opinion, and I'm sure the majority opinion here is going to be "LOL, u can't be series - those graphix sux!" Go to the Gearbox forums, though, and I'm sure the majority there will agree with me.

Witcher 3, from a technical standpoint, has some of the most advanced graphics you can get, but some people still complain that it looks like crap (me, I think it's stunningly beautiful). So how do you "objectively" judge such a thing?

Hah, I'm saving that!

Ha. That is complete genius, thanks for sharing !

Was that your work or is someone else credited?

I have committed it to text for future reference (certainly will come in handy on Monday)

Fallout 4
Negative Review Excuses

The reviewer or website…

[ ] Had ulterior motives (just trying togged hits}

[ ] Didn’t play enough (hrs)

[ ] Isn’t good enough as a game (esp video reviews)

[ ] Doesn’t like “Bethesda style” games

[ ] Didn’t experience all of story, do side quests

[ ] Main story doesn’t matter anyway

[ ] Not really a games review site anyway

[ ] Never heard of them

[ ] Wrong character build (esp with difficulty)

[ ] Played game in “wrong style”

[ ] Played on “wrong platform”

[ ] Doesn’t know [thing] from FO3/NV

Bonus

[ ] Mod support fixes everything anyway

[ ] User reviews matter more anyway

[ ] Well user reviews are [censored] anyway

[ ] Bethesda games review poorly anyway

its not that big a deal anyway just some poor guy needing attentions opinion

All I've got to say is... that if this dude ranks Dragon Tedium: Borequisition above a Fallout game he must have [censored] taste in games in general... or I really have to start worrying. Somehow I suspect it's the former rather than the latter. If his comparison had been between Fallout 4 and The Witcher 3 it might have had more impact and given me some pause.

A bad review doesn't bother me, if people have criticism about Fallout 4 that's fine. No illusions here that the game is not perfect. But if a reviewer bases criticism on personal preference that doesn't really mean anything to me, because we both might like very different things. So any criticism should be substaniated with proper and relatable arguments, otherwise it's fairly meaningless to anyone who isn't very familiar with that particular critic.

Your right, what the hell was I thinking...game cancelled. Thank God for the early review.