But what if it's true? Where does credibility go then? Does it remain in the room? Under the bed possibly?

p.s. Cheers *raises glass* to Syd.

I don't understand why the phrase 'dumbed down' gets some people so worked up

First of all, this guy is a known reviewer and harsh/demanding with all games. I like harsh consistent reviewers because they are pretty much the ones who are honest. I don't know about you but I don't want my review to just tell me how awesome the game I love is. I want it to point out its flaws and give me a spherical view of what changed etc. I like to compare games to how their ideal state would be. Besides, a demanding audience leads to better products.

No, developers have better things to do (keep working on the game) than watch stupid reviews on youtube.

Let's tone down the snark in here a bit though, okay?

Well, I agree that the Ferals look worse in Fallout 4 just because of their twitchy wacky movements when running at you. It looks silly

Anyways, going to finish the review and then comment my opinions on what he has to say

because that's what the people who just want a rehash of FO1&2 SAY

it is dumbed down though, how could anyone deny it? It's more of an fps now that it ever has been before.

I'm not really complaining, I can see why they did what they did, although I do miss skills, in-dialogue skill checks etc etc. I also don't like the way you can basically use any gun successfully off the bat without even having to train with it. Overall, though, I don't mind, it works pretty well as an fps with rpg-lite elements. Also the settlement stuff looks fun.

Do you prefer metacritic user scores?

Yes, there is going to be some negative scoring from trolls.

Yes, there is going to be some negative scoring from graphics-above-all people.

...Like all other games. However its score is much lower and this means there's something more to it.

In this case there is a LOT of negative scoring from people who are very disappointed, especially by the lack of dialog/rp elements they were used to. Many even feel like it's more of an fps now.

Yes, technically they shouldn't score it with 3-4s but many were put off by this a lot.

Well I'm sure Todd Howard has already seen the metacritic score and chances are he doesn't give a [censored]. His previous games have also been criticized (not to this extent, of course, but, as you said, everyone knows the metacritic user score has been raided by the "friendly" other Fallout site so it's not very relevant, not more relevant than, say, Steam reviews) but he didn't feel like catering to the complainers like... at all? Skyrim has never been fully fixed although they could have.

I've got the impression the more criticism his ideas get, the more Todd Howard is going his own way... which is why he deliberately wanted to separate Fallout 4 even more than Fallout 3 from the original Fallouts... it's his message to all the haters that this is Fallout now, and he knew very well the sales, the critic scores and the yearly awards will validate his direction. If you or I think the next Fallout (or TES, for thet matter) will drop in sales because of the metacritic bombed the Fallout 4 user score, we're very naive

Taking away the ability of someone to micromanage their stats is dumbed down. Just because all of that micromanagement was directed to other more meaningful parts of the game is irrelevant. People can't get their stats to 100 any more so it's a parody of a proper RPG.

I really don't get how anyone can say it is dumbed down. anymore, i think it's just a troll bait kind of buzz word people like throwing around. I'm a casual gamer. I'm older, have a family and carer so can't do a ton of gaming. I've played FO3 and 4, and how anyone can think 4 is simpler and less complex than 3 is beyond me. 3 is far closer to your basic shooter. sure, had skills, but the whole system was a very basic gradually get stronger as you go along and unlock other stuff kind of system used in about every game I've ever played. 1 skill in something was no different than a 24. a 25 no different than a 49. and you would only have access to certain perks within a range of levels. what you could do or be was pretty limited by what level you were, with lots of stuff being reserved for when you were higher in level. that's not the case in 4. you have 10X the choices as you can unlock any perk you like from the start. and you have to sacrifice others to do so. you also have to decide every time you level up if you want to increase a S.P.E.C.I.A.L, buy a perk, or upgrade a perk you already have. all of which give the game a much bigger RPG aspect than 3 or NV ever did. far deeper than the "you leveled up, use 17 skill points on you skills that go from 0-100 but have no meaning except at 25, 50, 75, and 100 or pick 1 of 7 perks you can currently have.

and then there's the settlements and crafting. to say fallout 3 system of repair, where you simply select an item in your pipboy and push the "R" button is more complex is just laughable for someone to say that is more complex than having to scavenge around for parts, upgrade the right perks, and invest the time to determine what the modifications do and which are best is one of the most idiotic things I've heard in a while.

Nope, that's pretty much the way an emotional child would think. "Getting back to the haters" - that made me chuckle.

I am sure Todd is much cleverer than that. And even a little bad press is a cause for concern. It's a company after all and companies, as it is natural, are after profit.

It also made me and some of my friends and many people on these forums not buy the game yet and we will certainly not preorder the next one, so yes, even if this is not a valid indicator, it surely means it must have made more people out there wait before they buy it.

The most important part of his review is in regards to the dialogue, in my opinion. He is spot on about that and I really, really hope Bethesda somehow incorporates more various options in dialogue in future DLC while also including gender/SPECIAL - related dialogue options that lead to branching choices and responses.

The problem with the dialogue is you get three generic responses to situations which are just slightly different ways of stating the same point. They do not alter the conversation or quest progress in any way.

In regards to the system - It is more streamlined. I disagree with the term ''dumbed down'' for ''casuals, but it is streamlined. Not necessarily in a bad way though. I am still on the fence about it.

EDIT - Oh, and many quests do play like straight FPS games. The Valentine quest in the Vault, the military base, etc. Wave after wave of enemies to the point of becoming tedious at times.

Exactly this.

I almost don't care about the other flaws he presents in this video. Not to mention most of them can be fixed by mods. But the dialog and voice-overs... This was something that Bethesda should have done better, or at least at a level of its previous games.

sales are how they validate their work. Reviews mean little as they know people basically speak with their wallets. You think directors let sites like rotten tomatoes effect their work? Of course not. If they did, we wouldn't have half the movies we do. And they also, in the face of massive sales success, don't worry about the people not buying the game . As everyone knows, you can't please all the people all the time

No. But producers and studios sure do.

no they don't. Some of the best movies out there score horribly on that site. You can't make a game, or movie, or anything that will appeal to everyone. There will always be detractors.

Fallout going its own way? Looks to me its going the way of borderland and farcry. I can say hey lost me of fallout 5 or fallout 4 "something". I dont plan on buying any console ports.

The game is named "Fallout", so it should bloody well please Fallout fans instead of "trying to appeal to broader audience".

The majority of which it does. The only ones it doesn't are the small group stuck on 1 and 2. A group so small the franchise had to be sold and the studio went belly up. You can't cater to the minority

Producers and studios certainly do pay attention to how well the projects they're funding do, both in gross income and critically.

Income is all that matters to a studio. How many transformers movies have we had now? You want to guess what most reviewers think of those movies? But as long as people go see them they'll keep making more

Sure, but I thought we were talking about a flop?

The only thing a review is good for is to give YOU an idea if you will like a game, movie, or whatever. Sure, they probably look at them, maybe even drop a thing or two, and conversely add a thing or two, that shows up repeatedly in reviews. It's why we got mod support like we did. But on balance, they're going to design the product they want. How well it sells will best tell them if they were right or not. Somehow reviews got twisted from a device to give you an idea if you will like it to a condemnation or praise of something. Too much hubris has entered into the process