Game Skyrim Forum

You're looking at reviewer scores and he is looking at user scores.

Tell that to PS3 owners who still have buggy games to this day..

Yeah I realized that after. Which I'm sure you also realize that users are judging the ENTIRE post patched, post DLC game at this point. And I'd expect 6 years after launch that with all the improvements it would be higher than it was at launch. Too bad we don't have that data to compare.

I disagree. You should judge a game in a series based on all of the other games in the series.

That being said, I think we can all agree that Brotherhood of Steel is still the worst Fallout game. Though I suspect that many of you newer fans have no idea what that game is or that it even exists.

Looking at some of the 0 ratings for both games it's hard to take that seriously. I've never really looked at metacritic. " while not as good s fallout 3 new vegas is defiantly a great game.… " that review gave a 0 rating lol I'd hardly say that those are what to base a games worth off of. I was merely commenting on those not netting Obsidian a bonus haha

Yeah, I don't really believe New Vegas's dialog system is "objectively" more complex. For one, it's a completely different system - Fallout 4 is modeled to be more conversational, like any other RPG with a voiced protagonist, where most of the options filling out dialog lists in New Vegas are expository questions - which Fallout 4 includes by replacing topics with new ones after you ask questions, or a handful of scenarios when they can fill the dialog menu with questions, like the end of our first conversations with Lancer-Captain Kells or Father. And the conversations can change plenty depending on various conditions, including SPECIAL stats like intelligence - the game just doesn't point them out (similar to the original Fallouts). All in all I still think New Vegas has the better dialog, and it has a lot of aspects I wish Fallout 4's dialog had, but it's not objectively better. That's like saying Morrowind's wiki-style dialog is better, despite it almost never being conversational and the only time you could role-play instead of just accept quests or ask questions was talking to Dagoth Ur.

You mean prostrating... right? At any rate, I'm in the "aggregate reviews and sales numbers are meaningless" camp.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on Fallout 3 being a better game than New Vegas. New Vegas is by far the better Fallout game (There is a difference between a game and a Fallout game).

But yeah, never take Metacritic seriously. There are very few games that deserve a 0 rating and none of the Fallout games (Besides Brotherhood of Steel arguably) deserve a 0 rating.

What the majority of those reviews are way before Fallout 4.

You're acting like those same people didn't do the same at Fallout New Vegas when comparing it to Fallout 3...

People try to meta the user review scores. If they think the game is an 8, but it got a 9 they will give it a 2 to attempt to bring it down. They've been known to be garbage http://www.examiner.com/article/why-metacritic-s-user-ratings-are-useless Fallout 4 came out.

There are 34,715 people playing Fallout 4 at this very moment* (writing this), six months after it's release. If anyone wants to pretend that a game bad enough to legitimately warranted those preposterous user scores would still have that many players or that Fallout 4 hasn't been well received that's their prerogative. While they are at it they might as well pretend they are game designers and imagine themselves a better game to play.

*That is, Steam users playing with Steam in "Online" mode. Users who keep Steam offline and console players not counted, of course, so the actual number is much higher.

I agree that the metacritic scores are completely stupid, but as far as the game being well received......idk. Gaming sites aside (Because let's be honest, nobody should take sites like IGN seriously anymore), the critical reception has been very mixed compared to Fallout 3.

Fallout 4 has the fanbase split it seems.

What I hate about bringing up review scores in these threads is that the discussion always shifts towards "these numbers mean something!" and "no they don't!"...

To be fair the review giving it 10s isn't much better. That said the average user score seem to be around a 6 or 7 that seem like a fair review.

Games get overhyped all the time. Those trolls that lower the score are a minority. Most are honest.

I really don't think it is that the Fallout Fanbase is split, it is that the internet in different than it was, what, 12 years ago when Fallout 3 was released.

Nope it never has. You get really devoted fan fighting from both sides while the rest of us try to debate the points. Then someone tries to debate a really devoted fan and it just spirals downward from there.

For those who keep track though and are actually interested, these threads do have value.

Absolutely. I agree on every point (more below)

Here's the thing. Complex does not equal better.

New Vegas's dialog system (and Fallout 3's) are objectively more complex. For the definition of "objectively" from Websters "based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings"

The "old" dialogue system had the option to use both character ability scores, perks, and skill levels to drive the direction of dialogue. The "new" dialogue system relies on decision points where you make a single choice and are forced onto the next point, or can use charisma boosted by a perk to unlock certain dialogue options. That last part is something that the old system had as well. The new system is lacking the option of a skill or ability score system. As a result the options available when WRITING dialogue trees are more limited. Writers cannot rely on more complex combinations of character stats in their design. That's what we mean by less "complex". Different, not better. And by no means is it objectively better.

As for intelligence being used to define dialogue options, I've never seen any evidence of that in the game. And as far as i recall, Bethesda pointed out that low intelligence wouldn't impact the dialogue options as it did in past games. So you couldn't play an "idiot caveman" play through. Have you read otherwise? If so I would legitimately appreciate if if you could let me know. It won't change the game but it would raise some interesting possibilities for mods once the creation kit comes out.

The actual argument is, as you put it, the flow of the conversations in the game. Personally, I think that the conversational system does significantly shift the style of the game's dialogue and not in a way that I really like, but not in a way I hate. I do feel that the dialogue options and responses have been shortened somewhat. I'm not sure how that's changed anything but it's an odd difference.

There is 2 intelligence skill checks in the BoS storyline but that's all I ever really seen.

The Fallout community is very split, and not just on Fallout 4.

Yea Fallout is split with the majority favoring games like Fallout New Vegas over 3 and 4.

I wouldn't say the majority only because nobody here has access to those numbers tbh.

To me it seems more like a 50/50 split.

That will teach me not to post while distracted.

That wasn't so much my point. It is that the flow of information is much easier and wide spread now. In other words, it is much more noticeable and easy to find opposition on any topic.

Ah, okay.

lol i dont want to be the voice of reason but why bring this topic back to life. Really is like the op was looking for a conflict post

Fallout 4 is just a different kind of RPG. RP is a big denominator.

If i go with the old definition of RP. Witcher 3 isnt a rpg. Hell only game like Pillars are true RPGs.

Is true there is a different tone between Fallout 4 and NV.