One of the worst things I’ve seen was when ME came out and people were fragging all the reviews because of their tough stance on DRM. I remember holding off for awhile and then I’m like well is it really a problem to certify online or something?
So I bought the game, played it, was like, hey that was pretty fun, and moved on, end of that.
I’ve stopped going to gaming sites/metacritic/all these things for reviews a long time ago, I’m yay close to disabling youtube comments also and just sort of shutting all this stuff down. The only places where I’ve found interesting and realistic points of view are on social media-y things like game forums, where it’s not quite as anonymous or electronic so you know it isn’t a spam bot just voting 2 a bunch or something, and peole aren’t as like to levy overly dramatic criticisms.
As for the old school Fallout fans ragging on all the new stuff, I’m partially sympathetic because as I’ve been discussing in other areas Baldur’s gate and NWN actually are objectively better than DA/NWN, and it’s the same with Fallout versus Fallout 3, and it seems to be that way with F4.
On the other hand, how great is that difference? Is it just nitpicking? Or is it really so big as to make hay out of it? It depends on the game.
Fallout is actually closer to the latter, the early games were definitely something, but again, played Fallout 3, thought it was pretty fun, but you can’t really treat it like a Fallout game, it’s more like Skyrim in a post-apocalyptic setting.
A lot of the time it's really an issue with the branding and labels, if you call yourself Fallout, then people are likely to consider it in the line of Fallout and be like that, if you called it something else and maybe say it's a spiritual successor, then people would be more likely to treat it as it is.