Link is working for us too now.

Sadly enough..

Either way, the review was unfair. I understand the bugs and their impact on the overall score, but Borderlands got a higher score than New Vegas. Borderlands was one of the most uncompelling games I have ever played. No story, dialogue to speak of, or immersion. Giving borderlands a higher score that New Vegas, even with the bugs, is insane.

As they say, Opinions are like backsides... Everyones got one.

I can see the advert, but hitting 'watch' does nothing but reload the page. Other links just lead to 404 errors.

Guess I'll have to check it out later.

I have to second that! :thumbsup:

How about a patch to get rid of the Steam dependency? My game runs great except for my saves are always missing and it crashes after Steam finishes d/l'ing a patch in the background. If not for Steam I wouldn't be having a single issue.

Another thing that annoys me is the complaining about it being on the same engine. This was not a shock. We, reviewers, and everyone else knew this game would look like F3 and to now lower the scores on the reviews because of it is underhanded and slimey. Every HALO game I have ever seen or played has looked the same and they get 10s from these ADD infested kids and reviewers who can't keep their attention on a game for more than 4 hours. Now, I feel better. Back to work.

Really? If you bought a car based on a 9.0 review, and found out it only starts half the time, the speedometer doesn't work and the windshield wipers go on by themselves, but when it DOES work, it works beautifully.... would you be satisfied with your purchase? Why is a total lack of Quality control so readily accepted in the software industry?

I found the review was Extremely negative on the bugs, far moreso than I felt was justified. Granted I have not played the game as long as the reviewers have; they get to play with it for some time before we do. But the SaveGame bug is the only Wicked/game-breaking bug that I have seen. The game itself is extremely stable on my PC. So either this reviewer went into it with pre-conceived notions, or there are alot of bugs yet to uncover. I tend to believe the former.

He gets some of it right, but I don't feel like I'm listening to a Truely experienced Fallout gamer in that video.

We're working on that exact issue. I hope to have more details soon.

Awesome! :goodjob:

Steam isn't killing me as I use manual saves, but to know that your working on this stuff is comforting.

Though you make a good point, as quality should be both proven and assured for any products purchased by a consumer, the gaming world has a slightly different vantage point. While car dealerships would either charge you for repairs on this, or recall the product for fixes, game can do the changes on the fly with patches and are quite time sensitive on need for return on investment. Though I guess the ROI sensitivity can be just as equal, if not greater, for car production. They reach planned release date and need to start having something to show for their efforts, which means profit, regardless of constant stability of product.

Yes that would be sensible with patches already being sent out. I was a bit surprised to see the GAMESPOT review up so quick. It was balanced and fair pointing out both great and bad points. Great being the game. Bad being technical issues.

Wow, that didn't make sense at all... I'm not talking about cars, I'm talking about a game. You're comparing an airplane to an eggplant. Or a ladder. Or a fish.

Like I said: a future patch will fix whatever it is; so, basing the game on something clearly temporary doesn't make sense. You can include it in the reviews, just don't measure it by that.

link to inappropriate language removed
Bethesda is buying review scores. Not only is this unethical, shameful and disgusting it also tarnishes Bethesda's reputation.

Review scores aren't everything Bethesda. The gaming community never forgets. If you're going to buy scores that are undeserved and then sell a faulty product because of it you're basically going to shoot yourselves in the foot in the long run.

NV is a great game but ask anyone and they'll tell you its a buggy mess. It's your own damn fault for not product testing your damn product before rushing it out onto store shelves for the holiday season. It's also your own fault that you put so much money into a marketing campaign for a buggy game.

Quit crying and let the journalists do their job. Have some damn integrity.

Do you think developers like Blizzard buy their review scores? No, because Blizzard knows how to test, polish and release a final product. Something Bethesda apparently forgot how to do after FO3 came out.

Though I agree with you...

1. Review scores ARE everything, because believe it or not, most people put lots of value into what a gaming portal says on a site (I don't think this is right, but most people are like cattle)
2. Bethesda buying review scores IS its reputation. A company's actions dictate its reputation.
3. The gaming community DOES forget. They can be abused by the dev heavily, and by the next time a game in that series comes out, they will have forgotten all past transgressions.

...just sayin.

Bah all that is smoke and mirrors, what Hard evidence exists that Bethesda is buying game reviews? I should think that this would hurt the reviewers quite alot in the long run (as their views would be consistently biased), it would be found out by Someone and would have been a huge story long ago.

This is pure fantassy.

May I just say how fascinating it is that Twitter is now considered proof that this stuff is going on.

Well, seems to work fine now. Or...THEY FOUND OUT WE CAUGHT THEM RED HANDED AND QUICKLY PUT IT BACK!!!

...Just kidding.

It's a buggy game? I've played the thing 12 hours and haven't had any more bugs than I did playing the Game of the Year edition of Fallout 3.

The only glitch I came across was a bug I was fighting getting stuck in a rock. Twas nothing at all really.

Dan Hsu (AKA: Shoe) was the Editor in Chief of EGM (Electronic Gaming Monthly) for over 15 years. If there was a trust worthy gaming journalist out there it'd defintely be him. He's hands down one of the most respected voices in game journalism.

Wow, that's a negative review.. He make it sound like you can't play for more than five minutes, before the game crashes..

This surprises you? Ever gone to a midnight release of a game (like this one)? It's dork central. I was surprised no one was wearing tin foil hats.

Great link. I feel the same way as thius reviewer the game svcks in a lot of ways but ig great in a lot of ways.

What you may not be familiar with is that PCs are not like consoles. Since consoles all have the same hardware, it is significantly easier to troubleshoot it. And if a console player has an issue, it's easy to repeat on another console.

With PCs, due to our myriad of configurations (literally billions), and because the technology used doesn't necessarily support the same features, 1 PC user can have a significantly different experience than the other. Because PC hardware/software is not developed to standards, the end users suffer.