If it was so bad, why are its reviews so great?

If it was so bad, why are its reviews so great?

Bethesda paid the reviewers

Thank you user. Please consider some mods while you're playing.

Some reviewers gave this game a perfect score despite the voiced main character being unarguably the worst decision ever made. "Reviewers" are retards.

>Reviews indicate a game's quality
Reviews are subjective and can easily be wrong.
That and Bethesda usually pays off all the big names to ensure a good review.

>T-THEY PAID THE REVIEWS

Because reviewers are casual retards. This is common knowledge.

Its not bad. Its just not what people expected.

The reviewers are all Todd.

And so you are, OP

Bethesda games all seem great at first and then the shiny veneer wears off after you play if for a while and realize how shallow and repetitive the games really are.

Because fallout 4 is one of those games that is great for critics who have to get through the game quickly because of their review deadlines. They will mostly just blast through the main story and a handful of side quests but don't really have the time or patience for anything that doesn't follow the same formula of talk to character, go to place and shoot up stuff then return with whatever item they wanted you to get.

FO4 also climaxes way too early, the main story has you fighting against a deathclaw in power armour within the first 30 minutes. It's great for reviewers because they can be like "the power armour system feels really satisfying to use" but they don't take into account that there isn't really anything to make the top-tier armour feel earned in the late-game.

There's also a sense of reviews having to live up to the hype, Fallout 4 was healily marketed and had a lot of hype, there's a subconscious pressure on reviewers to give good scores to games with bigger and flashier marketing campaigns because a) They want to keep goodwill with the developer/publisher so they can have things like access to press events and early release copies for review and b) because most "gamers" don't read reviews at all, and those that do are only really interested in reaffirming that the game they're thinking of getting and looking forward to is in deed the best game ever.

>play game for 4 hours, the very beginning of a big RPG
>"wow it's great!"
>people actually take this seriously
>especially considering Bethesda RPGs do everything they can to make the first few hours as fun/interesting as possible

>there's a subconscious pressure on reviewers to give good scores to games with bigger and flashier marketing campaigns because a) They want to keep goodwill with the developer/publisher so they can have things like access to press events and early release copies for review
>subconscious

>Walk into a ruined town not 5 minutes from your suburb
>Oh shit, Bandits
>Go into town hall
>Oh shit, more Bandits
>Oh shit, Minutemen
>Oh shit, motherfuckken Power Armor!
>Oh shit, Deathclaw!
>Oh.. nothing
>Nothing
>Nothing
>Nothing
>Oh hey, I beat the game
It's quite sad, honestly.

Remember how everyone loved it for the first week? That's because no one could play hundreds of hours and realize how little content there actually is compared to what was promised. A reviewer is just a tourist in the game, rushing through the big sights to get an impression. They don't get down and dirty with it like someone who plays for months.

Yes, as in they're not literally going into word thinking "shit, I've got to give this a good score". They industry is corrupt, but in a way that makes reviewers think they're not doing anything wrong.

The user reviews are all that matters and they scored very low

Except that's incorrect.

>78% good
>implying that's good
C+? you fucking kidding me? maybe if you were a nigger that'd be a good grade

Normies.

You know, your attitude is also one of the reasons vidya review scores are so inflated. If people could just accept that you're allowed to enjoy a game and that it IS good even if it only scored a 7 then there wouldn't be this massive need to have every new AAA release be a minimum score of 8.9/10.

On Steam, anything blue is good. Cause you need to mouse over the thing to see the actual rating and most retards are retards. They see blue, they think good. They see tan, they think meh. They see red, they think bad.

Critics' reviews are paid for since it's easy to get publicity that way

User reviews are mostly for the keks and should not be taken seriously, also very subjective, what people hate it for may be the quality you've been looking for

well of course they did you faggot look at the vague ambiguous phrasing theyre using "an intoxicating experience" "thrills and excites" what the fuck does that even mean? "best game ever" jesus christ , the "reviewers" getting paid for this shit give so little fucks about videogames that they will call this abomination "the best game ever" they couldnt even come up with a review that made sense , they just declared this THE BEST GAME EVER even though most of the people who play it dont even like it , much less consider it the best fuckign game ever

That's fucking awful for a high profile AAA title.

Ever heard of conflicts of interest my man?

Depends on which country your from and how grading works there. Where I am a 50% is a C- because it's the straight average and therefore only just on the mark. Since Steam is international you can't use school grades from your country.

>Fallout 4, Skyrim and many others universally loved games are shit games with paid reviews
>Zelda is great game with great reviews

Sup Forums really makes you think

they're all shit games with paid reviews

Reviewers are plebian

The game is a pretty good open-world shooting gallery with horrid game engine and overall bad from a lore or comparative to older games point of view. It's not as bad as NMA faggots make it to be, but that doesn't make it good as a whole.

It's good for a few hours (about the time a reviewer takes before writing their review) before you hit the point where you realize the factions are shallow, roleplaying possibilities are limited, there isn't a single memorable quest, the characters are mostly bland, the settlement system is barebones with zero impact on the overall world...I could go on about this disappointment all day.

B R I B E S
R
I
B
E
S

Because it's really good for couple hours until you reach the wall where you're doing the same thing all over again, doesn't challenge you, and it's really shallow the whole time.

Unfortunately, critics rarely hit that wall.

state of vee

we are all todds

I have played it over 900 hours until now

Oh fuck off. Yes they paid the reviewers but to say the majority of people didn't like it is fucking retarded. Just because you and the rest of your autist friends can't stand change in a series doesn't mean the millions of others didn't enjoy it.

Its a Bethesda Game, you don´t have to expect a great story

Given that these scores are based off retarded and entitled dipshits that should probably have nothing to do with society as a whole, doesn't mean much.

>One person is having massively contradicting viewpoints
>This isn't me just trying viewpoints I can't refute to viewpoints that oppose them to try and defeat something I can't argue against, honest!
Fuck off summerfag.

When 95% of all locations are either some super mutant/ghoul/raider (or fancy raiders called gunners)/synth camp for you to shoot up or a shitty settlement for you to build up it gets boring fast.

What's the point of these """mercenary""" companies like talon company and gunners that are essentially just raiders with better gear? Why bother making a distinction between them and other raider groups when you can't do anything with them other than kill them like any other raider? Just make different raider groups if you want some to have better drops.

at least we're not Anthony Burch

In all realism. Critis rate games baced on certain criteria, grafics, gameplay, immersion. Players just rate games on if it fits there own personal preference. Half the player reviews are 0/10 because of some dumb shit.

If you dident like fall out 4 thats fine it is in no way a bad game.

>if you give our game a glowing review, we'll give you money
>and the female staff will suck on your benis

normies actual name is normalfags.
Are you a homophobephobe?