Every game should be judged in similar standards so the grade can at least indicate something. Because what is the point in a bad game having a 90 because it was evaluated on the "Not-good game standard"?
This for me is one of the reasons we see some games getting a very harsh reviews and being nitpicked while others breeze even though they are bad.
In an ideal world, sure, but that clearly isn't the case. It's why we see indie games getting high 80's and low 90's metascores frequently, if they were being judged by AAA standards they wouldn't review anywhere near that high. Fallout 76 is a AA game if you really break down it's components and think about it, but it was judged as a AAA, judged as if it were a Bethesda Game Studios Maryland game. Admittedly though, Bethesda themselves are partly to blame for that, they marketed this game as if though it was the next mainline Fallout game. If they had been smart, marketed it as Fallout Online instead of as Fallout 76, made it clear that the Maryland studio didn't develop it but rather the new Austin studio, and released it at a AA $40 price instead of a AAA $60 price, the game would be reviewing much higher for sure. Hopefully they learned their lesson, they tried to market it as a AAA mainline in order to boost it's sales, and it bit them in the butt by killing the reviews. The poor reception on release is partially deserved, I just hope people don't let it color their opinion of the game in the future, there is a solid foundation here for a really good Fallout game after a year or 2 of updates and changes. I hope most Fallout fans will give it a chance in a few years, assuming it stays online that long, because this is the only Fallout they're getting until the middle of next-gen at the soonest, Starfield and TES 6 are coming before Fallout 5, I would put my money on Fallout 5 coming in 2024 or later.
Sorry but that is the issue in itself. Then we see people comparing games per score and saying one is better than other. Also neither metacritic nor reviewers say "this is a 8 because it was a free game or 5 USD made by 1 person, if I were to evaluate by regular standard it would get a 2", so when they pretend to use a same standard then they should use it.
Another problem of the most current gens is that reviews and grades aren't made into categories anymore like graphics, performance, music, art, story, gameplay, etc and as many different points you want to give and then have the score. For me it seems much more like "how much did I like this game" type of score and one that is much more biased and affected by preferences.
Also the opening for trolls... like cases where someone would go and give a 4 or 6 to Horizon Zero Dawn and a 9 or 10 to a Barbie game... can we say that was done with any standard at all even if one for AAA and other for Indie? Because when looking for the average of those games the person gave to little to HZD and to much to Barbie.
From what I hear seems like deserved
Came to say pretty much this. Bugthesda strikes again. It may or may not be the engine itself, but Gamebryo / Creation seems to be a shaky foundation for big Bethesda games. Whatever went wrong with FO3 / NV / Oblivion / Skyrim happened again. Bethesda fucked up with FO76. The code is buggy. They should assert(3) more.
Well as far as I know Bethesda do it since the dawn of times so it is more like their philosophy than the engine, they just care more about other things than bug testing.
That’s my most played game of all time, sitting at a beautiful 58 metascore. I can’t fathom what would lead reviewers to give what launched as a perfectly playable and greatly priced for the content game a 58, but I assume it just reviewers reviewing the game who aren’t particular fans of that kind of game.
I see the same happening here, salty reviewers upset that it isn’t Fallout 5.
Haven't played much, but to me it seems like it was more of a 7 game than 58. Still sometimes we like games that reviewers hate and vice-versa and that is no problem as long as review was well done (I find most to not be).
It is more that some people have their heads sticked in Bethesda's ass than anything else as they usually get a lot of leeway on very buggy games.
Yeah, no. It's more that people are enjoying themselves by playing what they want without letting people like you make their decisions for them. If they're having more fun playing a buggy game than a polished game then that is their business. You don't like it? Too bad. It's better than someone who has their head shoved up Metacritic's ass.
Bethesda for ages have sold a lot of copies and got high reviews for games that perform terribly, so nope it isn't me deciding what they should buy (they may like whatever they want)
And seeing 4.9 Meta, 2.9 users on PS4... X1 50 meta 2.4 users... PC 60 Meta 2.9 users seems like players are even more strict than the critics on this one and the ones sticked on Bethesda are defending more.