I've learned to adjust my expectations with BGS releases and appreciate them for the stroll-playing elements, rather than what I wish they were. FO3 went too far into themepark design for me though, and I'm hoping this one isn't as extreme.

I was thinking of holding out for a while too, but ended up shelling out the whole $100 for the game and season pass. I got enough play time out of Skyrim that the price isn't unreasonable, though I did a double take when I saw how much they wanted.

doubt anything is beating Witcher 3. Huge game, tons and tons of content, high quality graphics and animations. some of the rpg elements were weak, but overall amazing game.

its gonna have a high player rating, its easily the best next gen game so far and prob the best game of the last few years, its well worth of a 9 plus rating

fallout 4 is way way more content, the witcher 3 is good for a little over 100 hours and not a lot of reason to replay it, and its not nearly as dynamic of a game as fallout 4, its graphics are better sure, but thats it....it ends there, time is gonna show fallout 4 being the far more complex game with significant more detail when it comes to the gameworld itself and replayability not to mention shear scope and size, amount of quests, over 400 hrs of content for just one playthru, no game matches that.

From my point of view, i am really carefull about reviews and prefer to watch some youtube guy making his mind about the game.

Some of these reviewers still hands out 8's and 9's for CoD, so i can't take them seriously in some cases...

Yeah Rambo style from beginning just to satisfy 90% of "fans" who are spoiled COD brats

Thank god the reviews are in, because i cannot live without the opinions of the mainstream biased media. Its not like i can make up my own mind.

I see alot of reviewers comparing some aspects of the game to TW3 and when that happens the review is instantly lost to me. If they want to scale down grades because of bugs and well just lack of liking the game, that is fine. But comparisons to other games is always a bad sign in a review imo. Means they are going in biased, and TW3 has alot of bias.

The user score on Metacritic shows a less than stellar reception.

Seriously? pfff

Give it time to settle, you can't draw conclusions afeter a mere 80 votes. It's usually the haters and the devouts who vote as soon as voting is open. Skyrim PC has 8000 votes, that';s a more relevant score all right. Some people don't just knee jerk a score 1 minute after the vote is open, they first play the game a few days (weeks) and then vote.

how do you know its 400 hours of content?

it hasn't even been out that long. Great game btw, time will tell if my fears are realized, right now its beyond what I hoped

More does not equal better. I've played Skyrim far more than I did Witcher 3 but I can definitely say that Witcher 3 is a superior game. I'm sure I'll play Fallout 4 quite a lot, but Witcher 3 really has reached a level that I don't see Bethesda doing with Fallout 4. The writing and the quality of side quests in Witcher 3 are way above what Bethesda has done. Side quests have well defined stories, something Bethesda needs to work on.

Except it wasn't, worked flawlessly from day one on PC.

Fallout 4 is just a terrible PC Port, especially in regards to keybinds. And the fact that bethesda did not think 1 sec that not everyone uses an Qwerty Keyboard is just plain stupid in 2015.

This is exactly whats going on right now. (And always does on that site. the majority of. reviews are either the 10/10 best game ever variety or 1 and 0 out of 10 worst game ever troll reviews. For what it's worth the majority of level headed and well thought out reviews are more positive than negative but either way I take Metacritic about as seriously as IGN.

It's not hypocrisy, it's your own ignorance, I've said incessantly that I'm not going to condone or condemn Fallout 4 until I play it, but (insert criticism). If you had cursory glance at my recent posts you would have noticed it.

Just check my recent posts, if not I'll quote them, none of them have been as dogmatic as your proclamation.

Whatever you say thesaurusbot. I dont have to justify myself to you if you want to be salty over people liking this game its your problem not mine. Gonna be hilarious when this game sells beautifully and gets proven to be a critical success just like all Bethesda made games do.

5.9 user reviews and falling rapidly >.<

I would be very surprised if Fallout 4 didn't take GoTY.

well there's a lot of obsidian fans so what do you expect, once more people start playing those numbers will go up

When did I say you had to justify yourself to like the game? I said that the statement you made about Fallout 4 being your definite game of the year without playing it is risible; you're entitled to your opinion but it's about as uninformed as they get (in this specific case).

I've played it, and there's a lot to like; based on that I can see why it's garnering some of its acclaim. That's one of the benefits of playing the game, it allows you to formulate an informed opinion.
You should try it, maybe you won't sound as dense in future conversations.

Wishful thinking. A lot of Obsidian fans? Obsidian games sell in the 1-2-3 million units league (except FNV which is a Bethesda game, advertised and sold by Bethesda, so that shouldn't count) while BGS games sell in the 5-10-15-20 million units league.

So, simple logic, there are way more BGS fans than Obsidian fans on planet Earth. Supposing most of the low metacritics come from Obsidian fans (thats just paranoia if you ask me) then it means BGS fans are lazy and don't care to help their favorite studio make a good impression on metacritic.

Or, who knows, maybe the low scores come from disappointed BGS fans as well. Anyway, about the total score going up as they play... possible, but not high enough to erase the impression that Fallout 4 is a decline from Skyrim concerning fan reception. Skyrim had "green, mostly positive" score from the very beginning except for the ps3 mess of a version.

Why is it only the PC version scoring so low on userscore though?

This is one of the reviews on Metacritic on the PC version - Only rating it 0 because people on /v/ told me so. I have honestly never ever played the game but I'm rating it that way so the game maybe won't win the GOTY award, which it will anyway, but a man can dream.

There is a self proclaimed "elitist" site dedicated to rpg, i won't name it, most people know what I'm talking about. The level of language abuse there is atrocious, very primitive from lack of moderation.

They have a very big community, very active forum. They hate everything made by Bethesda post Morrowind ( and other "modern" rpg makers too, but Bethesda is the main target because they think the original Fallouts are the best rpgs of all time). They think Bethesda ruined Fallout. They also play exclusively on pc and hate consoles, console players, games made primarily for consoles.

They bash Bethesda for sport, their own website motto is anti-Bethesda. In the Fallout 3 launch era they were openly calling people "to arms" to sabotage Fallout 3 on Metacritic and other places. I havent read those forums in a long while so I don't know if they did this for Fallout 4 too, but I have no reason to believe otherwise.

There is your answer, in detail, I hope it helps.

I'm not worried about other users' reviews. If I love the game, that's what matters. I'll never let a rating made by someone else dictate whether or not I play and enjoy a game or any piece of entertainment.

600 votes later it has dropped to 5.2 user score. I don't believe it can recover anymore, the game has really bombed. For a Bethesda-made game it's a real disaster. Hell, even Brink and Hunted: Demon's Forge have higher user scores