i wish more people would realize that Fallout 3 WAS NOT THE FIRST FALLOUT. my freind thought that fallout 3 was kinda like star wars 4. where its the first in the series and the past is revealed through prequals. it made me puke

Unfairly positive for the most part
(despite it deserving it. )

i got lucky. it was my second nuke ever. im not that great. ps. i used an Uzi

Man, that pisses me off to end :swear:

It makes sense that good graphics can greatly boost the enjoyment of a game, but basing your entire taste of games on pure graphics bothers me so much.

i know i will love this game. but i know alot of people are going to be sure some people are going to hate on this for stupid reasons. or to be edgy and a minority

High 80s to low 90s

I don't think critics can be unbiased.
Graphics should not hold anything towards the end score unless they are REALLY crap.
But since some of them will have played other new games with really good graphic they will surely be hatin' on Vegas for it's graphics.
I'm sure they will hate on the gameplay because all of the sudden you have to actually think before you do in the game.
And I'm sure they will nitpick any kind of bug and mention it just cause of Alpha Protocol. (What the hell were they on? I never found a noticeable bug in it)

So I'm expecting something around 7.
I don't care though.
The reviewers can write whatever they want, ain't gonna change my opinion of the game.

Only really the alcatraz part was. And that wasn't story, it was more setting.

That was a decent review. Although what he said about the ammo was weird, 20 hours and hes struggling with ammo? Hell im 12 hours into my latest playthrough and i could open an ammo store.

I will be checking his review of New Vegas after i have awoken from the coma i will have no doubt played my way into.

I really got spoiled when I first played GTA VC. So, now it's very hard for me to enjoy linear games with barely any freedom. With MW2, I would really take three points off for being an "average linear FPS", and then two points for its short singleplayer campaign. That would be a 5/10. Very low score, but I'm just that critical on that type of game when most of my games are now sandbox games.

I do agree with DarkxWater24 though. It's more of what you think, and big reviewers usually rate games depending on how much advertising they get (it seems).

For Yahtzee's Fallout 3 review, it seemed quite positive compared to almost everything else he reviews. The only one I watched that seemed very positive was for Saints Row 2.

For me, that means http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZDG4dlU5uY & http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0-oDSD-o1M

(but even that's not that bad IMO :shrug:)

**:laugh:

[IMO] Since the point of an RPG lies outside of the visuals... graphics should never affect an RPG's score.

my bet is on 8.5 hopefully im wrong. i wish i could review games. i would try my best to be unbiased. ( i would probably give new vegas a 10/10. just to raise the chances of obsidian of making another fallout game)

I'd say in the ballpark of 9.5. GameInformer's only problem with 3 was the clunky real-time controls and stiff animations, so I guess they don't have much to complain about this time around.

I imagine others would complain "this shoulda been DLC" or "the graphics are the same"

Anyway, I KNOW it'll get a good review from GI, and probably OXM, but maybe not from everyone else.

The "shoulda been a DLC" crowd are just whiny babies who don't want to pay for a new game. They're the same whiners who boycotted Left 4 Dead 2 (While they secretly bought it anyway).

There will proberbly be a lot of, wutz? still noz mUltIPlayaz?? No vEchelez? aNd wherez da uzis n sheEeeeT?!?!

I however will be buying the game straight off the bat, some games I am not sure about and so, I rent not buy. I am confidant however this game shall be a massive hit, I am impressed with what I have seen so far, and where the engine is old, I feel it will be like slipping on your favourite jeans.

Hopes: 10/10

Predicting: 9/10 or 8.5/10 due to no (or little) improvement in graphics and no multiplayer (even though its not supposed to have multiplayer)

i sure hope the reviewers arent that freakin stupid. but i know that they are

Story 9.5 Graphics 7 Sound 9 Gameplay 9.25 Overall 9 thats what i think.

Hmmm it depends as always, game specific websites and magazines based on early previews are mixed.
However most seemed more intrested in instant fixes on a game version that was set up to not reveal to many spoilers, but I would say 7 to 9 out of ten barring any problems on release.

The reveiws I like most based on small snipets in daily / weekly papers tv shows, which tend to talk about the best and hotest releases mixed with hardware and media reviews.
Will most likely give it a fairer review based on content over looks, so again barring it being complete plop 3 to 4 on a good day, 5 on a great.

Another factor is the current trend for westerns, and 50's kisch in fashion, tv, and gaming this summer / fall so that may work in its favour.
But this seriously is just my opinion not based on any hard evidence.

I predict an 8 out of 10 average. The gamesites are already lining up their criticisms in the previews, and the overtones seem to be kinda petty.

I just wanna be clear, I don't think the scores will have anything to do with it being good or bad.

Yup, I'm definately seeing that style this year. Red Dead Redemption, Mafia 2, and Fallout: New Vegas seem to be following those trends. I guess people got tired of the trend with every game taking place modern day for the last couple of years. Early to mid 20th century is this year's trend it seems (even though Fallout is futuristic with a 50s feel).

See What Yahtzee Says about it Otherwise the big Reviewers will just play the access game if Gameinformer dosen't give A game 10/10 they wont get the Preview of the next installment Oh Noes XD

It will pretty positive reviews but the frequent loading and old engine will surely be pointed out and marked for it.

From what I've seen so far, reviewers are criticising it for the same things they either praised or ignored (for example, load screens, which have been in every game, ever, since the cartridge/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jazz_Jackrabbit_%281994_video_game%29 became obsolete) in Fallout 3.

So even though it seems to be a superior game to Fallout 3 (not dissing Bethesda's baby by any means, just that Obsidian has clearly fine-tuned it, and adhered to the lore of the series a little more), it'll probably have worse reviews.

i doubt they will complain about the improvments. but they are likely to say something along the lines of it hasnt been changed enough

Critics will most likely either give it high ratings, or rather average to low ratings if they think its http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitlezx89c5u5txaj.