The problem with something like metacritic is you can have a group of people, say that belong to the same f orum or who follow the same youtuber that all encourage each other to give a specific type of review. Whether this happened or not I have no idea, but it can happen and that makes it difficult to use as a way to decide if a game is good or not. You would need a random poll done from a pool of people who played the game, even if that pool was smaller than the ones on metacritic, to give a better idea of what gamers think of FO4. Those who dislike something are also more likely to go out of their way to tell it as well. Thats not a complaint, it's just common sense. If I get a coffee pot and it does it's job, I probably won't say much about it. However if it does something not expected and I don't like, even if it's considered a feature, I will be more likely to complain about it and perhaps go to the manufacture to give feedback.

I'm not personally invested one way or another about the dialogue, (not that I find it perfect either) but if I was trying to figure out if I liked a feature I would most likely not base my choice on metacritic reviews. If i was concerned enough that it was going to effect whether or not I purchased it, I would be better off either watching some video's on that aspect of the game or going to a forum, if I could find one, with like minded people.

The more polarized the culture around a game series, the more the scores will gravitate towards the middle. It is simple statistical logic:

If you have three equally decent games, where one receives 1000 fans scoring it 10, 1000 balanced reviews scoring it 8 and 1000 haters scoring it 0, it will have an average of 6. The second game being less controversial, receives 500 fans scores of 10, 2000 balanced reviews of 8 and 500 haters of 0, resulting in an average of 7. The last game is entirely uncontroversial and receives 3000 balanced reviews of 8. Despite being equal in quality, the three games end up with very different averages.

CDPR are flying under the radar because their game series is not controversial enough to piss off some fanbase or chan-culture, resulting in more balanced reviews and less polarization. Anything related to big businesses such as EA or Bethesda, and highly beloved game series such as Fallout, is much more susceptible to brigading and polarization, resulting in more mediocre scores.

Internet polling cannot be taken as face value, if we did, Ron Paul should have been president. This is why proper statistical polling uses sampling to achieve more reliable data.

So basically you are saying that you can't bother/don't have time to read a lot of dialog and you didn't like the fact that AOD is dialog-rich so you just skimmed through it. And since you only care about the gameplay and the story is just a backdrop, you probably just want to get into action right away, shoot some things, right?

Because there are a lot of us who care much about an engaging story, elaborate dialog and choices - but it seems that for some, getting into that power armor and pewpewing enemies, is all they need from fallout. I can understand that, I guess.

This is the problem of the never-ending discussion. Some people argue that nothing is wrong with FO4 for the simple reason that they don't care about dialog, story or anything relevant. But hey, can you let us, the rpg fans - "the vocal minority" voice our problems with the game among your huge majority FPS crowd without calling the things we say a plague?

Hater culture? Every time, since many years ago, someone in denial, desperate to justify a bad review etc invokes the "hate culture".

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/release-date/new-releases/pc/metascore

The game is the 22th GOTY. Why aren't all these other games, or previous fallouts, "victims" of this so-called "hate culture"?

You can't really simplify it as games don't need a good story. That truly depends on the game. A game like peggle or bejeweled does not need a good story. You play them simply as the puzzle game they are intended. A game like minecraft, also does not need a story. You play for creative building. However, a game like Bioshock would not be very appealing to play without the story line.

Bethesda games tend to be exploratory sandbox games. Having many stories within the game, as well as a main story line. Its fair to say t hat the story is important to many of the players. Though for those that are just exploring and killing stuff, perhaps not so important, so they don't really have the need to even bother with any of the quests. To say that the story is not needed though, is only for those few that find that so. I would expect most players enjoy a good story.

As far as dialogue is concerned, things I would like to see may not coincide with others views. I like there to be other ways of telling stories, not directly through the npcs. I'd like to find hidden notes, information on computers ect to fill in background/history ect of the many stories that can be within a game. Open world games can have very robust stories due to being able to have rather lengthy information given through means other than the npcs. This can make those who want a lot of lore happy and those who would rather quickly be on with their game just ignore the text type information. I prefer the npc's to be not too long winded, though I would not protest to them reacting more to our choices of response.

I only personally disagree on the NPC part (I even like long-winded npcs with a lot to say, besides you can just skip them or shoot them in the head (if they are not immortal)). But in general, very well said.

As explained, because there isn't the same level of polarization around other titles. Polarization causes the average to drift towards 5, since so many reviews will be either 10 or 0, outnumbering those balanced reviews in the 6-9 range where most decent games would be. Metacritic averages have also declined steadily since 2006 and since 2011 the average score on Metacritic have become about 0,5 points lower. Fallout 3 have only been rated 3000 times in total since release, Fallout 4 already have over 5000 ratings, more ratings in total with a polarized critic base, will cause a much more mediocre score.

You just need to know more about how statistics work to accurately evaluate the data.

Ingame the characters ARE mute and delusional... or telepathic and just refusing to use their voice.

What you are saying, is that you in that particular setup, can abstract from the lacking voice and fill in the gaps yourself, so it works for you.

Other people are different. Some can do the exact same thing, with voice characters and less amount "said". Others have their immersion broken by the design of a robot, a gun or that their character never speaks out loud.

There is no right and wrong there... It's just subjective tastes of where to draw the line between having to use your own imagination and where to let others take over and tell you a story or stories.

If people feel like most people in that regard, there is a high chance the market will satisfy the needs of the majority, of which they will be part. If people want something truely specific, they'll have to have it specially ordered (and pay extra) or make it themselves.

I would suggest to disregard people giving reviews of 10 or 0, on account of them being... well morons. At the last count I came to the conclusion that 89,7 percent of the human population (playing and reviewing videogames on metacritic) are that. Why? Because to give a 10 suggests perfection and a 0 suggesting literally broken and by far most games are neither.

This, and its another issue with the idiot wheel.

Gone are the information npc. Think Alvor or Moria who gives a lot of information about places settings and conflicts.

You get an list of subjects and you can ask if you want, used dialogue is markes. playing an second time you might not want to bother.
Yes its some of it in FO4 to, but far less and your question is shortened so much its hard to know that you are asking about.

I tend to do that sometimes, when I feel that the dialogue/writing isn't worth my time (radiant quests). If it's interesting or meaningful, then I'll spend as much time as it takes to carefully read/listen through it, and I'll enjoy every second of it. The Glow in Fallout 1 had game changing information. Interesting NPCs mod for Skyrim had great characters with great dialogue.

Fallout 4 is more straightforward. Easy to digest, but seems to lack subtlety.

TL;DR if you find yourself skipping dialogue, it might mean the dialogue is poor or meaningless. Or not.

You'll get few chances to ask about ghouls and synths, but when someone mentions FEV, your character doesn't seem to bother to even ask about it. I mean, really?

The dialogue isn't very good. And before anyone asks if I can do better, yes maybe I can. I'm a senior copywriter at a pretty big ad agency (which I would rather not name).

The problem with the dialogue is that none of it matches the premise - you're supposed to be a parent who just saw his/her spouse get executed and your child kidnapped. That is a premise with a lot of emotional charge.

Instead, there is really genial and insipid banter between your character and every single npc in the game. Once in a while, someone may bring up your son and there's this spot of outrage and bam. Back to the "hi how can I be of service to you?" "I'll help you fetch this item for your benefit which has nothing to do with my still missing son" etc. It doesn't make sense. No parent with a kidnapped child behaves this way.

Fo4's premise would be great for a story about "a vengeful father, a helpless husband, a journey to find your kid" kinda story. A story on rails like the last of us.

The premise is not suitable for a sandbox rpg. Compare it to fo3's premise - your father is missing. You have to findhim. Fo3nv - you are a postman who got shot. Skyrim - you are nobody. You were in the wrong place and the wrong time and got captured with a horse thief and the stormcloaks.

All those premises give you the opportunity to role play your own character. In fo4, you start as a grieving husband/wife with a kidnapped son. There's just too much baggage for a gameplay that involves exploring the world to your heart's content. And trying to save the commonwealth before saving your son.

As a parent, how are you supposed to give a [censored] about Preston and his minutemen, the Bos, the railway etc? You have your son to search for. Oh you really want to save the commonwealth? Good for you buddy. Have you seen a bald guy. Scarred face. Carrying a baby? No? Good luck with your commonwealth saving. I'm off to deal with my.own problems. Your character should be running helter skelter around the commonwealth bellowing your son's name from every rooftop. Not run out of the vault, hold a perfectly genial and calm conversation with your robot butler, ask if he's ok and whatnot.

+1. I miss books from Skyrim. Even perk magazines could have some pictures and texts, like in comics.

Plot/writing/characters are unimportant in a RPG?

That is just denial or wishful thinking. Both games have enough votes to get a good idea what people think, even if the number differ you can't really explain away that one has got a metarating of about 8 and the other 5. I don't think it is even the number that is the most important thing to take away, but the fact that so many people are really pissed at the direction they seem to be going with this. Me included, I have over 100 hours in the game so far, and I really enjoy it, but there are things that really worries me about the game and the future of both this series and the ES series. People are showing this very clearly, even most who actually scores the game high. I just hope Bethesda take notice and listens. Like I have said in other threads I feel they really have lost a big part of their integrity with this game. Going from a studio that "did their own thing" and what they really wanted, not just looking at what is popular and aping after other games. I used to put them in the same category of other very integrity strong studios, like Rockstars etc. I feel that part really started to decline with Elder Scrolls Online, even though that was not made by then. But you could see by then that they where not doing their own thing, and instead aping after other popular titles, like Wow. The general public was also dissapointed then. Elder Scrolls Online could also have been amazing fresh flagship in a generic tired genre if they stayed close to the roots and really made a real ES game out of it. Instead they played it safe and more or less made a "reskin" of what already is popular in the genre. Like how a Fallout game should be a real Fallout game, not a mix of Borderlands and Mass Effect.

The problem is that metacritic cannot tell you whether the large amount of negative reviews is because:

a - the game is bad

b - the game includes some social commentary that sets off brigading warriors

c - the game is surrounded by a passionate fanbase that are crying "Han shot first!"

It is statistically unreliable because it doesn't compensate for sampling errors and it creates a huge sampling bias because those most likely to invest their time in providing data are those with strong opinions on both ends of the polarization.

The criticism against the dialogue system that people bring up are strong enough in itself, based on the opinions shared in the thread. Using metacritic as a support for opinions about the quality of different aspects of a game is pointless (and basically becomes a logical fallacy of everyone else thinks so too, therefore I am right). I too find the dialogue problematic, I hate how I apparently say yes to things without even knowing it, it makes me feel like I am being recruited by the church of scientology. Some guy asks me about a job, and by asking for more details I have apparently agreed to commit armed robbery...

...just leave metacritic out of it, it adds nothing of value to the discussion.

I can understand that you, and many others, are upset at the lack of dialogue because you view video games from a completely different perspective than I do. Differences make the world go round after all, as luckily we are not synths (yet).

But, as an avid reader of Mark J.P. Wolf (i.e. The Medium of the Video Game, The Video Game Theory Reader etc...) I understand that the tradition of video games does not stem from reading, narrative or stories. I do welcome change and evolution, but dialogue, narrative, characters and similar "decorative" elements are secondary to me, might I add after 20 or so years of gaming (since the Commodore 16 to be precise).

The video game tradition stems from reflex-based actions. Its communities are born and grew out of fighting games, shooters and sports, and that's how the medium evolved. Reading formed very little part of gaming, it was considered irrelevant from its inception throughout most of its development. You only have to look at the manuals from Commodore 64 games or before, to understand that they were roughly penned together to give some basic meaning behind the medium's iconographies and symbols. But the players did not particularly care.

So, reflex-based actions remain at the very centre of the medium. Even in a turn-based game you need to have at least some coordination to be able to function.

Lastly, I have my convictions that auteurism is only really confined to certain entertainment and cultural mediums. Gaming isn't one of these, as it will never be similar or even remotely comparable to film, theatre or literature.

There is actually a fifth option and that is to walk away. What strikes me about Fallout 4 is that you can back away from conversations and quest prompts if it's not something you want to do.

I agree, though, a dialogue menu would have been infinitely better. It allows for more choices and more variation. Asking deeper questions and taking a great divergent number of paths. I wish that sort of thing was moddable, but considering that the voiced dialogue has been, well, voiced, additional dialogue options would have to be voiceless or taken from other parts of the game.

Yep.

In Bethesda's games "talk is cheap". They have never been about making choices in dialogue, the choices you make are in what you actually do (even if that's usually just to do a quest or not).

For instance, in Fallout 3, in the (ridiculous) decision whether to blow up Megaton or not, you can say what you like to Mr Burke. It's only when when you step up to the bomb that you make your choice.

Other developers handle it differently. In Witcher 2 (not quite comparing to the game everyone loves to compare with), I believe there is a dialogue choice that completely changes the whole second act.

It's a different design philosophy to most other developers, including Obsidian. Personally, I'd be up for more choices through dialogue (generally as much choice as possible), but I understand it's not really the way they do things.

I already explained this, but allow me to reiterate. Games can fall prey to "hate culture" but that does not effect the majority in the slightest. Acting as if it does is pure denial. How? Well, you can simply look at other titles on the website that are also large and attracted attention this year. These games were also not without their own controversy.

Metal Gear Solid V: Cut out the entire last portion of the story and included microtransactions--- 7.8 User score

GTA V: Included microtransations and got brigaded when they held a fake sale on Steam-- 7.8 User score

Witcher 3: Downgraded graphics at the expense of PC gamers in order to help it run on console-- 9.1 User score

And then you have Fallout 4, which is actually controversy free! How does it fare? 5.3 User score

Evidently there is an issue here as those other, also very popular games did not fare as poorly as Fallout 4 did. To further illustrate that point, let's look at the two past Bethesda titles.

Skyrim: Received perhaps the worst review bomb of all time with paid mods- 8.1 User score

Fallout 3: Came with Games for Windows Live and literally does not work on Windows 7 or 8 without mods- 8.1 User score

Of the previous titles, GTA V and Skyrim have sold far more than Fallout 4 (At present). These games have popularity, and they had far more controversy. They still have far higher scores. You can bury your head in the sand and deny empirical evidence, but Fallout 4 having poor scores is NOT down to trolls, and if you do some research this becomes evident.

I think the dialogue wheel and voiced protagonist both highlight the dull, sometimes cringe-worthy dialogue.

well books on Fallout are replace with terminals, that where u find most of the background story.

Actually all that u list there is post release. Metacritic user score is made in the last 2-3 weeks after that ppl dont care anymore, bc or they move on or keep playing.

Isnt the same some hate culture that other.

For example all the hate from the downgrade of Graphics on the PC on Witcher happen after a while, not at the star, bc reviews ignore that since they where reviewing the game on consoles.

Fallout 4 got hate from pre-e3 u just need to go look for the forums, so the hype for hate and hype for good build up at the same time, that what i said u cant trust reviews from Metacritc when u have almost halft of the reviews give 0 and half give 10.

No meter what u aim the final score will gravitated to 5.

I'm having some difficulty understanding what you're trying to say with these different points, but I'll respond based on what I believe you're trying to articulate.

You're saying that most reviews happen in the first 2-3 weeks, and after that the reviews mostly stop. This is true. It's been over two weeks since Fallout 4 came out and it has received tens of thousands of reviews. It will not deviate much from what it currently is, unless it is review bombed for some reason.

As for you dismissing the Witcher 3 graphics downgrade for happening afterwards, that is simply factually incorrect.

http://www.dsogaming.com/screenshot-news/the-witcher-3-gameplay-reveal-2013-trailer-versus-2015-build-comparison-shows-downgraded-visuals/

This widely circulated report came out a week before the game launched, and panned it for the immense visual downgrades. This stirred up quite a bit of anger among the PC community. Keep in mind, I am also only using PC metacritic scores to minimize factors that could influence differences. This means that any discussion of consoles is pointless.

As for your point that any score will gravitate towards 5 because of the 10's and 0's......well, I don't know what to say. Fallout 4 is the only game I've listed so far that does in fact have a 5. The rest prove that your argument is false because of the diverse range of 7's, 8's and the 9 given to the Witcher 3. You're clutching at straws in order to deny that the public perception of this game is not as good as the rest of the Bethesda games that have come out.

lol what? FO4 gfx being from last gen caused a huge crap-storm. The terrible dialogue system did too.

Perhaps FO4 has a lower average everywhere compare dto MGSV and Witcher3 because more critics/audience simply thought it was worse? Not everything is a conspiracy theory.

That's what I'm saying..... I just had to go through gymnastics to prove it because many people are denying that.