I like Ben Yahtzee's review.

Hopefully its the last time we see a game from Obsolete (sorry Obsidian) and the franchise goes to a developer that can handle it and treats its consumers with more respect. :brokencomputer:

I like the review from 'Vince', but I don't think we can link to that Fallout forum here, or the Codex. He makes good points, and he's not as harsh and mocking it as in his infamous Oblivion review. Then again Fallout 3 and New Vegas are nothing like Oblivion.

Oh, he did one? Was it positive or negative? I don't like his videos anymore.

Bethesda is known for sales and popularity (no bugginess taken into account),

Spend the first minute saying its an expansion of Fallout 3. Yahtzee than proceeded to roleplay in such a hilarious matter until the game froze when he enter New Vegas. He mention along the line that it does not make sense as to how soda dehydrate ya because how the hardcoe bar has with the +/- sign on it make its a bit confusing.

That's how the industry works. A big name cannot do any mistakes that cannot be overlooked by the internal "quality". Bethesda is known for sales and popularity (no bugginess taken into account), Obsidian is know for buggy games so those are the ones that are looked for (though some reviews have been smart and looked past those and seen the actual game).

Besides the Xbox magazine who is giving Fallout: New Vegas high score reviews? From what I have been reading, they have been scathed for the buggy products and were getting 7.5s. I haven't seen one 9 score. So I can't see how people were bought off, because they said the scores would have been higher if there were no bugs. They metnioned the bugs and scathed Obsicidian for it. Now if you want to talk about reviewers being paid off, just look at the Civ V reviews. There is no way on earth that Civ V could be 9s and 9.5s. At least with F:NV I belive the reviews are to be fair, at least on the xbox because that is what I am playing it on.

I thought Bethesda was know for putting out very buggy games. Bethesda is known for making huge open world games. That is why most people say they are the buggies games. I guess we all know that when TES V comes out, it will be one very buggy product. It will take 3 or 4 patches to make it playable without major bugs. But what else do we expect from a company we all know and love?

I find it inexcusable for any company to do this, but I guess I love Bethesda so much, they are the exception. but still it is pretty shamefull. I would love to be at a show and have Todd Howard up front and someone ask, how buggy TES V is going to be. Hell I would ask him that and see if he can say with a straight face what his answer will be. Well all know TES V is going to be buggy. If TES V isn't buggy we will think something is wrong.

*edit* An idea for a new poll

So I thought was too. But then again, a game made in Bethesdas care and with Beths QA (not to mention the game is almost perfectly the same as its predecessor) that is generally a better game,

is suddenly given 6's and 4's is, apart from it sound completely ridiculous, completely riculous when comparing the number FO3 got. The same thing not being good anymore?

Bear in mind, it 'generally being a better game' is an opinion, and not one all reviewers share.

I'm getting conflicting views here, is it a better game, or pretty much the same game? Either way, maybe you're on to something. Maybe the same assets in the same crickity old engine, containing both very familiar and tired bugs with a new breed of bugs tossed in isn't actually good anymore ... at least as far as some people's opinions are concerned.

Sorry, I can't hear all of you over the sound of my Burnout treatment. Please start complaining some more when I get in the mood to play this game again and spend another 90 hours on it.

http://i54.tinypic.com/fazzur.png

Now if you excuse me I must put this on my recommendation list and then go onto play Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines.

How can a sequel to a 10/10 game get 6's and 4's if it is considered to be better?

I like the combination of the NMA and GameBanshee reviews. They clearly show the flaws and merits of the game.

Maybe because they are written by folks of like minds.

Finally a review thats pretty much nailed it on the head comes from Edge Magazine. They gave it 6 out of 10, marking it down because of the flaws which still havent been addressed. And they gave it that mark without finding out about the gamebreaking DLC save issue, imagine what it would have got if they encountered that little pearl.

The unfortunate thing is there is a great game lurking in there somewhere that we simply cannot enjoy due to a total lack of pre-release testing. I know around 30 people who have attempted to play this game and every one (yes, that is everyone) has come up against the DLC save corruption bug resulting in them either abandoning the game, completing the game in a way they didnt want to or residing not play until the patch comes out, and the lack of information regarding the patch is extremely disrespectful to say the least and will impact future sales.The game should have been delayed a couple of months to properly play-test it and iron out the bugs, but whoever is in charge of releasing the game, be it Bethesda or Obsidian, took the entirely monetary reason and made sure they got the pre-christmas rush, which might seem a good business plan in the short-term will surely hurt them in the long, and they only have themselves to blame. I for one will never buy a game made by these two games developers on release day ever again and will wait a couple of months at least before purchasing, and that being the case it would make sense to buy a second-hand copy as its cheaper, thus no money going to the companies involved. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me, and that is not going to happen.

After the Sonic Unleashed review of IGN, i stopped to read reviews of any magazine or webpages, then again, i find this rather illogical, how is it possible that a sequel of a 10/10 game have only 6, or 4, but some of us consider it better than FO3 itself, also, how is it possible that some reviews put a 10/10 to FO3,