You know, I hear that a lot, but I didn't have any problems with KoTOR 2 (had more trouble with the first KoTOR...it had some major OpenGL driver issues with ATI cards), NWN2, or Alpha Protocol. Am I just lucky?

Played Alpha Protocol a couple of months ago.
As far as I can remember I didn't really find any bug.
I'm sure that if I looked for bugs then I'd find them.
But I weren't looking for bugs, I was playing the game, and it was rather clean IMO.
Don't see the big fuzz about it.

Like I said I didn't have probs either with Kotor 2 nor with Kotor 1 (not made by them I know).

Maybe you were lucky.

Its rare that I have probs with games cause I know my way around on computers, its just striking that probs occur often with games delivered by the same companies.

PS: Don't get me wrong fellas, not here to bring Obsidian in discredit as I am really looking forward to F:NV, just being careful when it comes down to games released by them.
Maybe so many people had probs with Alpha Protocol i.e. because they were already focusing too much at the time on F:NV and most of their resources went to that one.
Don't find that an excuse to let the other one, which was as far as I know their own title, down but I don't know the whole proces behind it.
Maybe Sega had a lot of influence on that as well.



Not making a fuzz about it, just saying and being careful that's all

"Frankly my dear...I don't give a damn.."

Same...I almost never have problems running games, but I configure my gaming PCs carefully and keep things pretty clean. What bugs did you run into with AP? I'm on my third play-through and I haven't noticed anything except some minor glitches with the cover system and some graphical clipping issues. Nothing major.

Thank you let's move on



Gotta log now cause its getting late over here but feel free to PM me and I'll let you know.
We would take this even more off topic then it is and I don't think the mods would appreciate that

No matter what the reviewers say there will be those who agree with them, those who don't and those who are angry because the scores were too high or too low dependent upon their own personal opinion of the game.

I am just hoping for a good game. I'll do my own personal rating.

edit: My sig sums it up nicely for me, "The sage does not expect that others use his criteria as their own.~Lao Tzu"

I don't update it every day, usually I update it every 5 days. So tommorow it's going to go down to 10. xD

I think that this game has enough changes so that most reviewers will say something along the lines of...."At first glance New Vegas just looks like the Fallout equivalent of ODST, but after an hour or so of game play you will quickly realize that is more along the lines of REACH. Fallout New Vegas takes what was great about Fallout 3, Fallout 2, and Fallout 1, and it condenses those qualities in one massive package. It fixes hardcoe fans' disputes about F3, and improves in almost every aspect."
Please god, let my hype not be wrong.
If i'm right, this will be my favorite game of all time.

You know we Don't tolerate Playing games before we speculate. XD seriously though Its not even OUT YET

I think this game will do well enough with the critics, not that it matters--review scores mean nothing with a game I've been following as closely as this one.

Review scores can make the difference in buying a game I'm on the fence about, though. A few years ago Alone in the Dark came out. I had looked at some of the previews, and I thought it might be interesting, graphics looked good, etc. It came out, and I think IGN gave it a 3/10. *just checked, 3.5*

Now, the score alone didn't disuade me, the fact that it was a terrible game did. It's just a quick check, for a game that you haven't been following, that you aren't considering purchasing a steaming pile of crap.

If I'm looking forward to a game and I've done my research, a 7/10 doesn't bother me--that's within the realm of differing tastes between me and the reviewer. I'll look at what his reasons were for deducting points, and I'll decide whether it's something that's likely to be an issue for me.

The great thing is that many reviewers are also 'fans' I think if the fan side of them really loves this game, the scores will be good.

Luckily for me, I couldn't care less about what those folks who review videogames say. I mean, I wouldn't mind hearing what they have to say, but the published article they write is of no interest to me, since it targets a certain audience (people who read reviews to know if they should get a game).

Yeah I can see the closing comments for the ign review now! "If your really aching for more fallout 3 , then this is the game for you"

There has always been a gap in critics reviews and fan's opinions, I think it's because critics go through about 10 games per week, so they have a very defined opinion of what a good game is.

Thats basically my feelings. Alot of reviewers of Fallout seem to fall into 2 main categories, Stuck wearing their rose tinted nostalgia glasses, or they hate it because 'It's to big' and doesnt push you on a mine cart and say 'dont worry, you dont have to think at all'

we all know that its going to get a pretty good score, but if they mark it down because its alot like fallout 3 or something like that, or something about the graphics, that will piss me of more than anything.
because reviewers never, NEVER mark down a call of duty game when they come out , and the cods games are all the same thing but with a couple of new tweeks, few new guns, there getting worse since cod 4, but they dont mark it down.
i think beside from xplay, which will give a 5/5, i think gamespot will give a high review , GT will give it the lowest score, IGN will be somewhere in the middle, thats what happened with fallout 3 and a lot of other games

Yahtzee is one of the only reviewers I listen too. But no matter what anyone says, Im buying this game.

Im pretty sure IGN will mark it down because the graphics are not as good as some other games out there and say its too similar to Fallout 3.

I foresee reviewers complaining about Fallout New Vegas being to similar to Fallout 3. (Probably because its using the same engine/is a re-envisioning of a sequel for the West Coast of the United States (Fallout 1/2 games) I hate when reviewers have to find something to hate about a game when Fallout New Vegas looks to have built upon and improved every aspect of Fallout 3's gameplay. :tops:

P.S. Alpha Protocol has been an awesome, bug-free game *knocks on wood* for me and I'm more then 3/4th of the way through the game, apparently I'm just lucky?

I completed Alpha protocol twice and never encountered one bug.

Yeah, http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation is pretty hilarious. Speaking of which, I think I'll go catch up on some of his reviews.

Its not only that he is funny, he reviews games better then anyone else I know.

Some of the popular reviewers have lost all credibility, they may give goodgames good scores, but in many cases they give good games average scores. People like IGN really only give good scores to hyped games like MW2 and halo, and new IP's usually get bad scores like enslaved....

I thought IGN just gave any game that isn't Halo a 4 or lower? :facepalm:

The Enslaved demo was horrible.

Or any game with call of duty in the title.

Oh and if Marios in the game is pretty much going to be 9.5 or over.