i personnaly believe. if it aint broke dont fix it. fallout 3 had a good formula and obsidian has fine tuned enough to make it even better. i hope its not reviewed badly

First of all, what you are saying is a gross misrepresentation of the first law of engineering; if it isn't broken, don't break it.

A more accurate representation of the notion you are expressing would instead be; "If it isn't broken, don't ever try to improve upon it!".

If nobody ever took any steps to improve considerably upon something, we'd all be stuck in the stone age.

Now, if it turns out New Vegas is simply more of the same, then it will get alot of flak for it, and that is how it should be. In that case, Obsidian would be doing exactly what they did with KotOR 2, that is capitalize on the success of another studio without adding anything new whatsoever, resulting in a game that was [censored].

I think they'll give it a 9.5 simply because of how incredibly powerful the New Vegas presence will be once it's released. Inevitably the mildly outdated graphics will be subject to some criticism, but I'm hoping the architecture and colorful NPCs will be impressive enough that most review sites will be willing to look past them.

Good game, hype, past-gen, streamlined, consolized, visceral, fast-paced, arrpeejee, grimdark, no romance, Obsidian, epic, I gotsta get paid, good game.

They will all go something like that. They will also all read like forum posts and be inconsistent with the rest of the reviewer's reviews.

Please note: This does not have any bearing on the actual quality of the game, just the quality of the reviews.

I think it will get a 8.5.

The good-
Good writing, good quests, new guns, companion wheel.

The bad-
Outdated graphics. Semi-decent animations. To much like Fallout 3.

i didnt mean it to come out that way. i meant that the reviewers shouldnt be like "this game didnt improve ENOUGH" if they liked fallout 3. and this game is an improvement sense fallout 3 it should be reviewed

Yeah. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/420-Fallout-3




If I had to rate it I would have to count a new term to describe the awful.




Mine said "The future is hazy". Or something like that.



No need to go elitist on him over it. He probably never heard of it before playing 3. I was the same way. I had never even known this series existed before I saw a copy at Walmart for 25 bucks. Picked it up and haven't looked back. Even got the first two games just to try them out(I found the controls and combat too clunky to play).

So, wait just a minute, you wanted to puke because a friend of yours had never heard of a pair of obscure 90's titles that were only ever played by genuine geeks?

excuse me? I was half way between a hippie and a rivethead when I first played the old fallouts. And I know very few "genuine geeks".

... I take it this is the first time you hear the expression "if it ain't broke don't fix it" ... it's an American expression that isn't related to engineering.

Two hours on TV Tropes. You bastard.

I don't know how it happened, but I went from that link, to http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BigNameFan, to Harry Potter fanfiction, to http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/crowner.php/CrowningMomentOfFunny/Glee, and somehow circled back to http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Fallout.

No, it's not the first time I've heard it, and it was just as stupid the first time as it is now.

See, when things aren't improved upon, they stagnate. Stagnation is not a good thing, things must advance. Saying that one shouldn't try improving something just because it supposedly works is a terrible idea, and the reviewers know this. That's why they mark down games that are just more of the same.

God no! Don't get me started on that site! I'll never stop!

its gonna score high,mabey even a few G.O.T.Y. awards,but some people will probly call it FO3 in a different town and give it between mid 8's and low 9's.

no. the fact that he thought "FALLOUT 3" (i wish there were capital numbers) was the first fallout. i was being over dramatic when i said i was about to puke. but i was like.

"Ryan really..... really."

This. Settling for mediocre is terrible.

I can't believe some people would think that. The first thing I did after I got Fallout 3 (and played the hell out of it) was search for the previous two, which I then promptly played the hell out of as well.

In fact, I might fire up Fallout 2 right now.

This. Based on the interviewers I've seen, I expect to a see an unusually large number of medium-to-bad scores, based on reasons like "OMG it suXXorz, u don't get to fly a UFO!" and "How come we didn't meet the mandatory Harold sapling?"

Not to mention...

Low scores since it isn't a brand-new engine with tons of flashy eye candy, thus it's "automatic fail."

Any number of variants on "[name of 3-6 other games] all have [insert stock "way cool junior" fad feature that "all the kEwL games have"] and this doesn't, so it fails because [it doesn't keep up with the Joneses]."

Of course there should be no shortage of "It doesn't have multiplayer, so it fails" along with "What's all this RPG-wannabe crap, Fallout game are supposed to be FPS!"

:banghead:

I don't think you understand the usage of the phrase. It is not about not trying to improve things...

I get the feeling that it will have the same reception as bioshock 2 (minus the multiplayer debacle), meaning it will get an average around 8 or 8.5 because it is that "more of the same, well not really but it still is because there isn't a graphics update" :sadvaultboy: Doesn't mean I wont buy it and love it :fallout: just means I will be doing this :banghead: after reading the reviews.

I could easily say 'I don't care what reviewers say', but I'd be lying. I do care. And when it's a series close to me like Fallout, I am hurt when critics give it bad ratings (or lower the overall) due to silly things. I think this will be the case with New Vegas.

If the game isn't a buggy mess (or is similar to FO3 in that regard) I think NV will get 8.5s - 9.0.

Positives -- Great game world; gripping story; Hollywood level voice acting; mountain of weapons; vast variety of factions; combat significantly improved

Negatives -- Graphics the same as FO3... they didn't even try! (they don't know Obsidian had no choice, likely) Animations are robotic. (Maybe a few other things we can't predict yet.

Now, if you look at the +s, that'd usually merit a 9.5+ rating, right? No. Why? Because graphics aren't there. I know graphics are a very important part of most games, but with NV, I don't think it's fair to slate it on that due to 2 reasons: they had no choice but to use that engine; they were focused on actually improving GAMEPLAY.

I suppose it's a harsh generalisation to say every game reviewer is like this, because that's not true. But it does seem like a fair few are. I just hope people see NV for what it's meant to be, without worrying about visuals... this is an RPG after all.