Anyone think new vegas will receive a lot of really good scores but not excellent like 9.5 on ign/gamespot? I think the game will be a huge success and very well received by the fans but the critics will not give it 9.5 or higher. I see a lot of scores in the 8.5 range.

Wouldn't surprise me, if only because the chief complaint everybody will latch onto is that "It's too much like FO3" - which would be ironic because the chief complaint that had everybody frothing at the mouth in opposition to FO3 even being developed is that it was nothing like the first two. :shrug:

How about we wait to play the game before we try and score it?

That is irony at its finest!

I fully expect it to get the same kind of scores that FO3 got... 9-9.5... Review scores won't have any affect on my own buying though, as it rarely does.

I wouldn't call it irony, personally. The same people that complained that it wasn't enough like the first two will probably say the same thing about NV...not enough like the first two, just like Fallout 3. I personally hope it will be a combination of what was good from the first two, what was good from FO3, and some new stuff...good stuff.

Obsidian has made enough improvements that, if the story arcs are good and the game isn't too buggy, they should be able to pull down good scores from any reviewers that liked Fallout 3. I mean, if you liked Fallout 3 and they don't manage to royally screw something up in NV I don't see how the game could be anything but better.

I agree with this, and hope for the same.

Ehhh, I don't care what critics say, unless the game has a massive flaw that makes me give it a 9, it's currently holding a 10 in my book. :shrug:

There are some people that do care what critics say?

(And by care I mean: reading the review and if it's bad then not buying the game solely because of that review. Or vice versa = great review (9.5) then instant buy)

Why? Is that bad? Should I not do that? :unsure:

:P

Softnerd I know its off topic but your sig reminds me of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIHZWT4nnhk :laugh:

On topic, I pre-ordered the game so it doesn't really matter but I'll check out gamesites and gamer reviews anyway.

I just don't see why you would care what a critic thinks. :mellow:
I do research on the games I plan to purchase, maybe reading a review is part of your research I dunno.
To each their own.

But what I meant is: Are there people that buy the games depending on critics average score?
(Meaning, if it's 7 then they won't even bother looking at the gameplay videos)

I personally will be careful if a game only gets a 7 by critics scores but on the other hand I will do a lot of reading around also looking at gamers opinions and then decide.

I'm taking a chance with F:NV cause I've pre-ordered anyway so I hope I don't regret it.
I didn't have a problem with Obsidian's Kotor 2 but I did regret purchasing NWN 2 and Alpha Protocol.
Hopefully this one will turn out better and if it doesn't then I'm keeping my hands off Obsidian games in the future.

I loved fallout 3 and i'm going to love this one too. I mean as far as i can see they took fallout 3 and put in some better graphics, better gameplay, stuff from 1 and 2, gambling, reputation and factions, and a new area.

I really don't see what could be bad about that.

Bugs? Lots of bugs?

Nothing bad meant but always a possibility.

dude, why are you 15 days away from NV, its out in 10 days

1. Haven't updated it yet.
2. Lives in Europe and pre-ordered but maybe mail doesn't come on Saturdays/Sundays. (Doesn't in Sweden)

Are obsidian's games really buggy?

I was just kidding...making a joke about thinking for one's self by asking you what I should think. Get it?

Anyway, it really depends on the review. If the review is obviously intended to shove the reviewer's opinion down my throat then I'll pay no attention, because only I can form my opinion. A good review, however, should be mostly a presentation of basic information, an objective breakdown of pro's, cons, bugs found, quality of individual aspects of the game, etc., and then the author can inject their opinion at the end. That way if my gaming taste doesn't match that of the reviewer I was still given some useful information about the game to help me decide whether or not I should try it out.

Unfortunately, far too many reviewers are arrogant children that use their review columns as a forum to promote their personal opinions rather than actually inform their readers. :shrug: I couldn't care less what those guys think. I'm on my third play-through of Alpha Protocol...I think it's actually a good game...flawed, but good.

I think I and many of you on the forums know more than the so called critics(most anyways) about NV than to care what their opinion is.

Many of us have been looking up info each day and meticulously dissecting every gram of info and come up with many many speculations.


Also those 1 out of 10 reviews and their entire concept of numbered reviews is well stupid.

Well it's definately going to lose atelast 1 point for graphics.

Personally I think graphics are just fine but I guaran-friggen-tee that every critic will have a problem with it.

I'm guessing the meta score will be 87/100.

If any reviewer will give it a 10/10 it will be whoever writes it for IGN.

Listen, I'm not saying its a bad company but their games aren't always bug free if you catch my drift

Who else builds games of the same scope that are bug free?

There are games that are?

One of the things they might say to keep the review score under 9 might be, "the game has improved on a lot of aspects compared to Fallout 3 but the graphics engine is getting outdated".



No but if you played other Obsidian games you should know.