I might have just lived a very sheltered life but TBH I don't think either games companies or reviewers have the balls to pull this sort of stuff. If hard evidence of either party got out that they were engaging in review manipulation their rep would be ruined, especially in the case of the reviewer. These rumours get out every time a game that any group thinks is overrated is released (look at GTA4 for instance). I'm not saying it's impossible, just extemely unlikely.

I hate to say it, because I like the games Bethesda and Obisidion make, but if a game is released and has enough bugs to warrant them being mentioned in a review, then the review should be published with the negative points made. I'm not a beta tester, when I shell out $69.99 for a CE game, I expect a finished product. As a software developer, I know its not possible to be 100% bug free, but some of these issues are very glaring. I've had save games overwritten, multiple crashes to desktop, and for some reason this game is noticeable slower than Fallout 3, and I play both on the same system. And I have seen review sites publish updates to reviews if a patch comes out that fixes the major problems mentioned in the review.

If game review sites start publishing honest reviews of games, maybe developers and publishers won't push unfinished products out onto unwilling beta testers.

That said, I'm loving the game since I'm used to the fact that Bethesda-engine games are usually pretty buggy at release time, probably due to the scope size of their games. However, I really wish they'd improve on that aspect. Its been like this since Daggerfall.

Did anyone catch the Gamespy article on the PC Page this morning? It bluntly said the game was a buggy mess in the summary, but the link went to a 404. It has since been changed to something more publisher friendly which highlights the work done to release a patch. The page is also plastered with NV adverts. I wish I had screen capped it, but I had to get some work done.

Here is the new article. http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/fallout-new-vegas/1129573c.html



NVM: No longer 404; it's back. Gamespot and Gamespy both had server issues today, I'll bet.

http://xbox360.gamespy.com/xbox-360/fallout-new-vegas/1129259p1.html

For those of you who are having issues with the video, here's a transcript I wrote down for it:

"Hi, I'm Kevin! The game is really buggy. The game is really good fun. It's not as good as Fallout 3. The game is really buggy. The game is really buggy. It's not as good as Fallout 3. The game is really buggy. The game is really good fun. The game is really buggy. It's not as good as Fallout 3. The game is really buggy. The game is really buggy. Did I mention that it is really buggy, or that it isn't as goof as Fallout 3? It's still really good fun though. And it's really buggy. And not as good as Fallout 3. And they pay me to do this [censored]. CAN YOU BELIEVE I'M THE EDITOR OF THIS SITE? Oh... and by the way.... it's really buggy, not as good as Fallout 3, but still really good fun."

None, and they've officially denied it to the person publicising the claim.

I have no doubts as to his integrity, really. That doesn't mean his sources are correct. I haven't found any hard evidence of sites pulling down reviews; the two that have been mentioned in this thread have been shown to just be server troubles, and there's certainly no proof of them buying reviews before the reviews go up.

That's not exactly saying much. It's pretty obvious that advertising budgets as much as anything else contribute to review scores when you see crap games all over the place getting great scores. I dunno why Beth doing it would be some big surprise or shocking revelation. Anyone really think Blizzard and Bioware and Rockstar and etc., etc. don't do the same things? Really?

I want you all http://gamesauce.org/news/2010/10/19/bethesda%E2%80%99s-pete-hines-on-his-pr-philosophies-finding-the-right-people-and-how-sincerity-sells/ that Gstaff tweeted earlier about Bethesda's PR & Marketing head, Pete Hines and ask yourselves (after reading this article) if Bethesda would do such a thing.

This is not Activision or EA or some large corporate giant we're talking about. This is our very own, Bethesda Game Studios. They make and publish great games.

What bugs me the most (no pun) is the fact that they're getting the blame for New Vegas being as buggy as it is, when in fact Obsidian developed the game.Its hard to work with someone else's technology and the bugs are being addressed as fast as they can!

I would like to ask the reviewer just what the heck was compelling or memorable about F3 story? I played that game 4 times through and 3 times I was never interested enough to complete it.

Publishers are more responsible for QA than the actual developers. This is especially true in the game business.

This happens all the time. Game sites rely on ads from game companies to make money. The fame companies essentially control what game sites do and don't say. Game site reviews are nothing but commercials for games. Anyone that trusts "professional" reviews is a complete and total idiot and deserves whatever they get. The only trustworthy reviews are independent player reviews.

What I don't understand is how so many reviewers could be saying that FO3's story is better than NV's. It's like they haven't played FO1 and 2, and didn't even pay attention during NV.

But Gamespot put the review back up...

I would like to request a thread lock. We have definitively answered this as a technical problem with GameSpot earlier in the day. For a time it did look like the review was pulled, but then all of the reviews started to fail and the entire site bounced or reset. It has since been put back up in original form.

Better to discuss reviews in a thread devoted to it IMHO, the continuation of this one into more pages will just make people think its still real.

Thanks!

Miax

Please don't link to sites that have language that is censored on there forums please.

Closed per op request