Busted!

I have to say that I don't know how any game can even be rated if it is unstable during the review game. Sure, talking about its problems is one thing, but to then give it a relative rating against other games is nothing short of disenguous (dodgy)....

Surely, if a game fails to perform on the basis of programming issues, then to give it a highish rating must mean that game stability and playability aren't considered in the rating system, and that is likely to provide a misleading perception of the game, causing people to potentially buy an underperforming product?

I am yet to see a review of a new model car that says "Well, I rated it 8/10 even though the wheels fell off on the first corner, and the pistons seized when we turned the engine off. But, it has a really good paint job, the seats are comfortable, and it's a joy to drive...if it actually starts. But none of that matters, because I got given an envelope of money at the free lunch for the reviewers".

Perhaps if a few critics actually considered the stability of games, and actually were more pragmatic in their reviews, the industry might clean up its act and start giving us games that are up to the standard that their costs actually reflect.

This game cannot kill you so your example does not work. My phone freezes but I like it. If I reviewed it I'd talk about what I liked and then say but it does freeze. Your job as a reviewer is not to bring your own baggage or your own opinion, it's supposed to be unbiased. I think bugs shouldn't be in the score at all. It should be mentioned yes but what matters is the story. With your logic fo3 is better just because it didn't have as many bugs. Is that what you believe?

Sorry, but I disagree. If you are reviewing a game you should review all of the attributes of the game. The people reading the reveiws want a comprehensive anolysis of the game, not just one feature of it.

I lol'd at the anology. But really, I couldn't agree more. Well said.

6 of 10? Ridiculous, especially now. They have patched it several times and I haven't seen a bug since launch day (or at least not a serious one, clipping issues don't bother me much). The game has a well written story that you can take in multiple directions, great world design, a much larger variety of things to kill, and dialogue that is actually believable* and entertaining.

*Completely off topic, but I can't believe Bethesda can possibly get dialogue so very, very wrong twice in a row. Oblivion and Fallout 3 both have writing so awful you'd fail a middle schooler for writing that [censored] in a remedial English class.

Ehhh? Are you serious?

Maybe im crazy, but after the last patch, i dont have crashes anymore, still bugs and glitches, maybe Obsidian is infamous for their buggy games (staring at NW2) but i think their did a better job in term of storyline and handwriting, on the other hand, Bethesda did a excelent job removing most of the bugs and glitch in FO3, but the story is,,,, not bad, neither good, its ok.

In a word, yes. In more than a word, I personally found the story in FO3 to be as good as FO:NV. They use the same game engine and graphics, so no difference there and I wasn't expecting the story or graphics to be better as they are on the same system. So the only difference I found was the addition of the gamebreaking bugs (and i'm not talking about the freezes and graphical gliches, I can live with them as I did in FO3) that are so prevelent in FO:NV, therefore its not as good as I can't play the game the way I want to. To play the game at all I have to do workarounds, missing out huge chunks of the game, which shouldn't be the case, especially on a console game where every console has the same specs.

Just throwing it out there but could it be (and i'm no techie) the different chipsets in the various 360's that are causing some to have problems and others not, do gamestesters test the games on the latest 360's with the latest chipsets onboard? My 360 is around 2 years old (my 7th due to RROD's) and obviously does not have the same chipset as the shiny new 360 slims.

Yes, I'm serious. Haven't seen a bug since before the first patch.



Well, taste is personal and you're entitled to your opinion.

Objectively, however, the story of New Vegas is far better. Mainly because you don't have massive, gaping plot holes and poorly written characters like you do in Fallout 3.

But you wouldn't have had a bug before the first update as that was implemented before release. :shakehead:

Coincidentally, most of the bugs in FNV came up in F3 post BS...but that's a side issue.

I didn't suggest anything about personal perception or baggage, I actually stated that I can't understand how something that has playability bugs, or breakdowns if you prefer, can even be rated.

Under my logic, your post would be deleted because it didn't address the main point of my post, and drew an even more obtuse example than I used...

This is probably the first review where the game has actually been played. It's called money friends and thats what you get for giving a positive review before the game's even on the shelve's.

"Issues" with a game are part of its content. A review has to take them into account or it's not doing its job properly. Otherwise all you're doing is evaluating ambition without evaluating execution. Yes, by all means a review should praise those elements that are noteworthy -- in NV's case that would include the story and writing, no doubt -- but it also has to highlight areas in which a game falls short. NV falls short technically, and the rampant bugs are just the worst manifestation of that.

*facepalm* You know what I meant. I got New Vegas on launch day, plenty of bugs (though only one broke the game for me and forced me to restart from a previous save). A day or two later the first patch arrived, steam installed it for me... no more bugs since.

While I have no doubt it's common in the industry for money to change hands in order to secure a positive review, I don't think having the review out prior to release is evidence of that. Big game companies send games to major reviewers prior to release because some gamers want to have a review to read immediately, so they can decide quickly on whether or not to buy a game.

Also, a lot of the reviews of NV I've seen have been fairly low, 8-9, I don't think a publisher would pay money for a fairly low review.

How is 8-9/10 a low score? In any sensible marking system 5 is average, 8 is very good and 9 is excellent.

Most rating systems I see (Game Informer, for example) uses 7-10 as the passing grades, and everything below that is a failure. The 1-6 just tells you how much the game fails.

I guess on a scale with 5 as average and not fail, it would be a high score. Though I'm still skeptical of the claim that a company would shell out money for an 8. If a company is going to pay, I'd expect 9.5-10.

It has crashed 5 times in 5 minutes for me, and I give it a 9.5/10

Then they are worthless, there's no point having a ten-point scale if you only use half of it. An 8 -- or four stars, or eighty percent, or however else you want to formulate it -- should be a more than respectable score.

gimme patch.. i wanna play this fun game without all the gamebreaking bugs

You're not alone. I've had next to no problems from day one. (Xbox)

Great post, thanks for bringing this to light.