Terrible user reviews for fallout 4?

The reviews on Metacritic are ridiculous. I actually signed up on their just so I could put my own honest review on there. I gave it a 9 out of 10. I loved Fallout 3 and this does everything that game did with some awesome additions. I can't give it a perfect score because there are some quirks and glitches but there are no other games that I find are better than this game.

I find that the user reviews are generally crap. Most of the 0-5 ratings are from kids who just hate the franchise or feel that graphics are the only thing that matter in a game. The 10 out of 10 ratings are mostly just from fanboys and they give it that rating just because. The only ratings I find justifiable for Fallout 4 are 7 to 9. Anything below 7 and above 9 is just crap and they don't know what they are talking about.

@Chatch09 You really don't think that Fallout 4 has added anything to Fallout 3? You may be the only person that I've seen that says the AI is dumb. The enemies are much smarter and harder to fight. If you think it's just Fallout 3 again I don't know what you are expecting. I know that if they made major changes to the game the same idiots would complain that it doesn't feel like Fallout. Here are some other improvements:

Making settlements was a huge addition allowing people to spends hours building and not actually following the story.

The new crafting system is a great addition and finally gives a reason to have all that junk laying around in the game. Was worthless in Fallout 3.

Being able to cook food finally made it worth while to pick up the meat from animals you kill.

The VATS system has been improved.

The graphics are not the best in the world but they are better. Who doesn't love looking out over the wasteland from a high position. You can even seem enemies far away.

There are loads of companions now and if you don't like using them you don't have to. Such a pain having the option, right? (sarcasm)

Not everyone has agreed on liking the story but from all the reviews of credible people I've read it's been considered much improved over Fallout 3.

The leveling up system has changed and makes it so you actually notice that you leveled up because of the perks you gain. Some don't like it I suppose.

HUGE map

@Byshop: I find it super hard to believe this is a new engine at all. I like the game, but it feels like a higher rez version of a PS3 game. Then engine feels identical to past games and it looks like a PS3 game.

The game takes super long for anything interesting to happen after the intro, which is why people are upset. Once they get further in they'll calm down.

They game has a clunky UI, but it handles just fine with an Xbox controller for windows.

Ugh, no.

People who don't see the superiority/differences of New Vegas over FO3 can't see past the superficial (same engine, ect..) nor recognize things like writing, quest design, world-building, role-playing options, reactivity, choice and consequence or the overall structure of the game, the linear rollercoaster ride of FO3 versus the nonlinear New Vegas consisting of dozens of moving parts that interact with each other in various ways. New Vegas has some truly outstanding aspects, yet both the casual gamer that thinks FO3/4 is the best thing ever have no understanding of anything else that's going on.

When Obsidian got their hands on Fallout they decided to focus much more heavily on focused quests (like in Fallout 1 & 2) rather than just wandering around. Yes, you were exploring but everywhere you went there was a quest that you were prompted to do and the setting was carefully crafted so that it would be accomplished the way they wanted it to and the side quests tied into big picture, so to speak. That's why there are far more quests using dialogue and detective skills as opposed to just combat like in Bethesda's games and there's not all this nonsensical stuff just thrown in there for the COOL factor.

Ever hear ppl refer to Beth games as a 'theme park' type designed games ? They actually makes more world simulators than RPGs, really.

@bussinrounds: Okay sorry, you're right. New Vegas did have some pretty cool writing and quest consequences and how they influence the whole of the story with 17 different endings and what happened when you were part of Caesar's Legion vs NPR vs Brotherhood of Steel, etc. I guess if 4 had more of that going on, where every single quest you do has consequences on the overall of the story and how each faction likes/dislikes you would have been unique.

Personally though, it sounds shallow of me to say this, but I like the way Bethesda handled 3 and 4 over how Obsidian handled New Vegas. I still love New Vegas, but when it comes time to choose between all those different factions, I ended up siding with Yes Man because that seemed like the happiest ending. All others wanted power over everyone else and for people to submit to their ways, although Caesar's Legion was clearly the worst one, with its way of crucifying people on crosses and being downright evil. I'm still glad that New Vegas happened, but all of those choices between all the different factions makes it sooooo overwhelming for me. If I make this decision then the Legion questline fails and I will never be able to go through it until a new playthrough. I like with 3 and 4 that I can just do MOST, if not all, of the quests with no worries of any of them failing, to my knowledge anyway, because I made a decision prior to that that ruins the faction's trust of me.

User reviews carry exactly the same weight as critic reviews.

Critics just get paid to express their opinions.

I can honestly trust user reviews more these days than critic reviews. Especially on Steam.

I really don't get why is ok for fallout 4 to have bugs, why is bethesda above these types of complaints. Why everyone is fine with it while they would bash another with less bugs? Oh when Bethesda does it its funny and we love bethesda but when some else does its because the publishers are greedy and evil! Its fine because its not EA or Ubisoft, because we like Bethesda?! Instead of doing what we must, complain and stop throwing them money so they might someday release a game that is actually polished, we just laugh it off. Its not fine, its not ok. Fallout 4 is broken and everyone acts like its how it should.

It's not ok. I think a lot of people are expressing that, so I'm not sure why you're saying 'everyone'. But if it's not broken enough, some people can look through or ignore the bugs. And those are the people who pay money for this game and enjoy it. I don't think you can blame anyone for spending money on having genuine fun. The fun outweighs the bugs in some cases and that's how developers get away with making a buggy game. It's simply not buggy enough, I guess. Of course, for some people it is, but I'm assuming those people haven't bought the game, because they should/could have known it was going to be a bumpy release, given Bethesda's track record.

It also depends on your experience. I have experienced a few glitches, but that's it (playing on pc and 55 hours in). So far it's been a similar experience to a lot of other open world games. That's just me, though, and I realize that the console versions seem generally worse off. But still, if a lot of people only experience a few glitches or don't mind a certain level of bugginess because the game is still so much fun, then you shouldn't expect them to join the fight against buggy releases.

@PETERAKO: I honestly don't favor any developers. I just don't care. All I want is a fun game and after playing Fallout 3 and some of New Vegas I knew that I loved this type of game. When they announced Fallout 4 and I read the details about it I knew that I had to buy it. I haven't been let down and feel that the negative Nancy's out there are missing out.

As for the bugs, I don't give Bethesda a pass just because of who they are. There are a couple reason why I think this game is great regardless of bugs. The big reason for me is because the amount of fun and feeling of adventure far trumps and bugs this game has. Another reason is because I understand that a game this massive is just impossible to be bug free. A development team can not recreate what a million gamers are going to do while playing. The only way to find out all the bugs is to have it out there and patch them as soon as you can. Bethesda has already announced a patch coming out in the next week based on player feedback.

I don't know about you but I have never played a game that didn't have bugs. It's bothers me when a ball passes through my defenders body only for the receiver to catch the ball in Madden but it happens and yet Madden gets great reviews every year. Why, because the game a whole is better than the little bugs found.

@loafofgame: I've been hearing the opposite. I think people playing on PC have been having more issues than people playing on consoles. The reason being that not everyone's PC build is the same and doesn't work as well with the game yet. Plus, a lot of people are not happy with the UI on PC. Consoles systems are consistent and I think that's why there have been fewer problems. I really haven't heard of any major issues on consoles other than some people saying that frame rate drops too far. I haven't seen my frame rate really drop at all but I haven't gone into the city yet. Maybe it will happen there with more buildings and things going on.

@snatchypooh: Well, this is just what I've generally read. I didn't really dive into the subject matter, so my assumption might very well be incomplete. It was my impression that the framerate and the graphics (especially the lighting) are generally significantly better on pc and that the framerate issues on consoles are more severe. Combine that with my own pretty much problem free experience on pc and I assumed the consoles had a rougher deal. But maybe I'm just lucky, having experienced few problems so far. Or maybe, based on the graphics, a lot of pc people expected this to run well on medium rigs and were disappointed that it didn't. Or maybe it's an AMD vs. Nvidia thing. I don't know.

Well, I just realised that fallout 4 is the game equivalent of Alfa Romeo.

lol good analogy

The problem with user reviews are most of them are just too extreme, a lot of gamers have stubborn viewpoints for Fallout there will be fans of the original games who will always hate on the new games. There are gamers who hate publishers like EA so will down rate every game created by them.

But yeah you got to dig down and find the good reviews, there are always plenty to be read, but yes some of these extreme views affect meta critic and doesn't always give a fair opinion of what fans really think of the game.

Despite the generic Gamespot user who is trying to tell me I'm suppose to hate this game and I should play nothing but Chrono Trigger for the rest of my life, I'm frigging loving it.