Shame, because it was at least well-written and cogent, whether or not you agree with it.

Just because it was well-written does not mean it was accurate in the slightest. That just means that they managed to convince you with their writing skills, which is what most, if not all, reviewers do. I remember when I was younger that I was easily going back and forth between my opinions on some games because reviews on both sides of the fence were written so well that I couldn't make up my mind if I liked or hated the game.

I'm glad I grew up and learned to not be swayed by fancy penmanship. I now only use reviews as sort of a reference to go by, not how the game is. And even that is very iffy now considering most well known reviewers are complete sell outs.

Uh, care to point out to me the glaring factual innaccuracies in the review? 'Cause otherwise, you're just using accurate to mean "tallies with my opinion". A review is one person's opinion on a game, nothing more, nothing less. The fact that I should disagree with a review doesn't invalidate it or render it "inaccurate". Why would you only want to hear the opinions of those you agree with? How dull.



lol I had made up my own mind about NV long before reading any reviews thank you. This is where I find reviews interesting; not as a guide before I've bought a game but as a reference after I've reached my own conclusion. I'm interested in seeing how my own impressions compare to other people's. Reviewers, forumites, whichever. And especially those with differing opinions.

If you can't be bothered to even read a short review, don't expect anyone to take your protestations on the score seriously or think your opinion has any value. It's your perogative to only seek out reviews you agree with, it's also your perogative to cynically accuse all reviewers (except GiantBomb) of being just paid shills ... but being deliberately ignorant devalues your opinion severely, don't you think?

I'm not saying this review on its own is inaccurate, I'm just saying just because a review is written well doesn't mean that it's 100% accurate. True you can't render reviews as being fully inaccurate, but you also can't render them as being fully accurate as well. That's like saying that someone who said that Fallout started on the East Coast is accurate, whenever you very well know it isn't.

And the funny thing is, I actually saw someone post a line like that in one of the good number of negative reviews I've read. :laugh:


That's great. I do the same. I read reviews beforehand and after I've purchased the game. I've read some negative opinions on here and some of them do have some decent points. But most I've seen on here are just idiotic and they're basically just hating on the game because it isn't Fallout 3, which is damn right because it's not supposed to be. Or because their game crashed ONCE.


Do you really think I care if it does? It's my flipping opinion. I don't care if people scoff at me for it or worship me as if I'm Jesus for it.

Opinions are just what they are, opinions. It's up to the person reading them if they want to take them seriously or not.

Also, if you read on, you should know that I don't only seek out the positive reviews. I read almost all reviews I come across (unless they're in a language I don't understand or seem to be written by some whiny 12 year old). So yeah, speaking of being ignorant... :rolleyes:

I think there are two things you're conflating here: factual accuracy, and critical judgement. Someone making that claim about the East Coast would be making a factually inaccurate judgement. That's not the same thing as someone saying the story's great/svcks!, or the map is amazing/boring! That's a judgement call. As long as a review avoids factual inaccuracies and has a reasoned argument that accompanies the arbitrary-in-isolation score at the bottom, then I'll think it fair whether or not I agree with its conclusion. It's not really a question of achieving '100% accuracy'.

Actually, you've given the impression that you hold your own opinion in terribly high regard, so yes, I did think you cared.



My fault, I think I may have missed where in your original post you said you "read almost all reviews you come across", it was probably buried somewhere between stating you didn't bother to read this review and all the insults you're throwing out at people that review games, calling them nothing but paid mouth-pieces (except GiantBomb!). Look, if you want to play with semantics and think that I was supposed to infer that you read almost all reviews just because you didn't say that you don't ... then I hope you'll accept my clarification: I didn't say you only seek out reviews you agree with, I simply stated it is your perogative to do so.

There, all better now.

Then tell me, how do I give the impression that I really don't care about what people think of my opinion and I don't hold it in high regard? Because that is what I'm trying to convey here because I really don't care.

Anyways, this topic is starting to get a bit out of hand. I think I'll just sit back for now until it finds its bearings again.

There are many ways, but one good way is to not call people sellouts and paid shills because their informed and arguably professional opinion might diverge from yours, especially when you find it too much trouble to even read the particular one that is the subject of this thread.



I wouldn't say out of hand. We're still on topic about game reviews and we're still talking about this particular review. I don't believe either of us has any desire or intention to escalate the discussion in the wrong direction, so I think everything is a-ok.

Blah blah blah

Either that or maybe he knows what the heck he's talking about. What a concept.

So, has this topic been covered enough?

Consumers have the right to, and WILL, play the "blame game" any time they feel they didn't get what they paid for.

In addition to the aforementioned blame game, some will respond by voting with their wallets (speaking in general terms, I'm having little problem with FONV).

Depends on the sort of bugs. We're talking literal game-breakers in some cases.

DLC bug? Strip bug?

I'm confused as to how anyone with functioning neurons can expect pr outlets like "magazines" published by vested interests as somehow not marketing efforts. Most of these sources have a significant financial stake in the outcome. That used to be called a "conflict of interest" back in the day, so if you're relying on Microsoft or Sony to give you a real "scoop" you probably need to learn a lot more about how stealth marketing works.

Good lord, but we're a gullible people. I think for this game 5 or 6 is fair depending on the experience of the reviewers. You can grade up on potential on the assumption of a patch (I don't agree that reviewers should do that, but it's somewhat reasonable) or grade down based on what came out of the box/digital download. A theater critic doesn't grade a play based on what it's not, but what it is. Games should be no different.

I agree with the above poster about Civ 5. Not a bad game, but to give that thing a 9 is basically just trading favors for ad cash.

Only reviews i watch are Yahtzee's. Worthless as reviews, but usually have few good points and unparalleled comedy value :rofl:

Exactly, that goes along with what I said. It won't matter who is to blame, folks will respond how they respond regardless of if it is Bethesda's fault, Obsidian's fault, Both of their faults or my fault. It really won't matter. You took what I said way out of context.

But we can hope that whoever is to blame regardless of who or the little details that they will learn from it.

I would give the developer's effort to make a worthy addition to the series 9.
I would give the publishers effort to make a profit at the sacrifice of quality and future sales a 3.
Average them out and you get a 6.


I really enjoyed the game, but there are just way too many bugs. I would still give it a higher score than FO3 because FO3 froze my computer every time I left the vault until the outdoors VATS memory leak and other bugs were fixed.

Has anyone given it higher than a 8.5/10? I know this is GotY worthy, it's just as worthy as 3.

All we can do is hope that they do learn, but we aren't getting positive feedback from Bethesda in the form of keeping us updated in whats going on with the patch. All this does is add to the annoyance of the consumer. The way its going I could of spent my money on a game like Fable 3, enjoyed for a couple of months and wait for good ol santa to give me Fallout:NV for christmas.

Gstaff has posted almost daily to let folks know they are working on it and expect it soon. He didn't post today but he did yesterday and every other day this work week. Since he can't promise when there is not much more he can do.

A very generous review...I wonder what they would have said if the game had crashed 5 times on day one, as it did for me.

They're complaining about bugs (among other things) on the Fable 3 forums too (I've personally experienced all of one bug in that game).

It's just what gamers do.

I knew all this time it was you.

I'd give it a 9.5 or higher because I believe it should be scored on the game content not the issues and yes I've had plenty of issues with the game.