Ugh, you should see some people.

I remember looking in the comments of Zero Punctuation videos of video games Yahtzee would tear apart. They would be great games too, but the mindless sheeple who watch his videos all go "OH WELL I GUESS I WON'T BE PLAYING THAT GAME." or "I KNEW THAT GAME WOULD svck" it is kind of sad, honestly.

Very true. The authenticity of any review must be called into question and people need to stop being mindless sheep that believe the first thing someone tells them, half the time it seems they take the editor who hates the "open-world, non-linear, western RPGs" or whatever game genre isn't in that person's "Comfort Zone" and have them write a review for a game of a category that he or she doesn't even particularly like. (All that is needed is an unbiased opinion, I prefer to play the games myself and see what all the fuss is all about. I've had many a time where reviewers absolutely despise a game I completely adore.) :tops:

Just saw that sig there, you like Punisher I'm guessing.

Oh yeah you like guns too, I can see also.

All in all reviewers are people too and they make mistakes or they just have different opinions.

I never really see much of a difference between a 9.5 out of 10
or a 4.5 out of 5
From the way I hear it, still sounds like a good score from my perspective.
To be completely honest, I really do think that New Vegas will get a Game of the Year award no matter the score.
I mean, has a .5 difference ever really affected your view on a game?
It never did for me, but I'm curious as to what others might say.

I would pay attention to a review if it was of.. I dunno, some new 3D thing that I'd never heard of. But this is Fallout - they only need to show a screenshot and 90% of gamers know whether they want to buy it or not.

IMO, New Vegas appears to be an equivalent of Fallout 2 in many ways. When I bought FO 2 it came with what I thought was the demo disk as well, but was actually FO1. FO 1 had all of the nuts and bolts of the game engine and social interaction, but it also was extremely short and the impression it left me with was "That's all? What was the hype about?" Then I played FO2 and saw a fully realized game world with a deep history and so options for the protagonist that I doubt anyone has ever seen all of the possible content.

FO 3 gave me the same impression as FO 1. It had the engine and interaction devices, but did not use them to their potential. New Vegas will likely take those nuts and bolts and turn them into a true masterpiece (Or it will fail horribly and I will have to resort to ritual suicide in order to save face for buying it).

Its already the # 3 game for Xbox. Fallout 3 is the # 1 and Red Dead is # 2.

I understand what youre saying but this thread is about rating it so sorry dude but please think before posting oh and i think itll be in th 8.5-9.0 range even though i will probably think it deserves a 10.

I disagree, the chief complaint will be without a doubt the fact that the game engine has not been changed beside minor tweaks.

It'll most probably be between 85 and 90%, as an average score. But I think that the reviews will vary (very much), depending on whether reviewer has ever played Fallout 1 & 2, or just Fallout 3.
Personally it'll probably be my GOTY, regardless of critics.

If they dock it points for that it's pretty silly. Any game reviewer that has a decent amount of experience knows that game engines are re-used all the time.

Example:
Grand Theft Auto III - metascore 97%
Grand Theft Auto: Vice City: metascore 95%
Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas: metascore 95%

The game engines for all three were so similar that they nearly looked like identical games. All they really changed in-between was content and gameplay.

I never understood this mentality. It's like you're waiting for someone to tell you what to like and what to dislike. Like you have no opinion of your own. I never let other people influence my decision to buy a game, see a movie, or whatever. What others may love, I may hate. And what others may hate, I may love. Just because John Q. Critic says a game is the best thing to come out since ever doesn't mean I'll want it any more. Conversely, just because John Q. Critic says its the worse thing he's ever played doesn't mean I will want it any less than I did before. I read what info I can while avoiding as many spoilers as possible and decide if I want to get a game or not.

hmm yeah, I've played a few games that had dire reviews, but I really really enjoyed them. The only "review" that matters is yours. Play it in store, round a friends house, rent it from Blockbuster. If you don't like it, don't buy it. If you like it, buy it. Simples.

And not to mention people are going by what someone else likes, so if someone were so 'THIS MARIO GAME IS THE WORST EVER' and you like Super Mario, it could possibly be the best Mario game ever, but because you take another person who hates Mario over your own love of Mario, then you missed out.

When I came across Fall Out 3, it had been out for awhile, I judge a game by 2 things: 1- The Cover! It really has to catch my eye and look interesting!! 2-The story/info on the back telling me about the game!! When I picked it up i thought it would be O K , but once i got into it I was BLOWN away, and i had no idea what it was rated at by critics or anyone, I purchased it based on how i purchase all my games, i NEVER listen to critics, Who are they to tell me a game is awesome/great/OK/crap.. They dont have my tastes or likes, everyone is individual, and i wont go by them, most times i find that games they say are crap are actually pretty good, makes me wonder if they were playing it right!! lol...
Ok that was kind on and off topic

So my answer if you will is No I wouldnt listen to a critic judge the game for yourself. :fallout: :goodjob:

You know, I completely expect critics to do the same thing they did when F3 came out in regards to Oblivion. That is, seeing the new game favourably and now, and not in their review back then, acknowledging the faults of the previous one. Always reminds me of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpYEJx7PkWE.

I honestly think F:NV will recieve a higher score overall than F3 did, mainly because it has a stronger link to the original 2 fallout games and because it builds further upon the whole survival/tactical aspect with Harcore Mode and the Companion Wheel.
De facto, critics are and will always be critics and their job is to point out flaws if there are any, so they will most likely focus on cons and neglect the pros in their reviews. But the playerbase will praise the game to the skies.

But as you may know many reviewers haven't played the first 2 Fallout games so just because it closer to the first two they won't have that feeling that the first 2 had. Honestly I may look at a review to say "Hmmm did this game really deserve this score." Look at what other people say and judge it from there. That's only if I'm not planning to buy that game. If It's a series I've come to enjoy or a game that I want but never heard of, I'm going to give my own rating...