... Most of them are extremely biased.


While reading some reviews for this game I see the major complaints being graphics and bugs. Well, do we forget about all the other games that have those same problems? Look at games like Modern Warfare 2. There are no way the graphics in that game were remotely good. On top of that the game was extremely glitchy. Look at Gears of War 2 and 1. Those games had so many bugs that you were bound to run into one every time you played them. How about the fable games? There's no way in hell you can say that Fable 2 wasn't buggy and had crap graphics (Though I love them).

Graphics shouldn't deter you from enjoying a game experience, and the bugs WILL be fixed. The gameplay is great, better than FO3 I feel, and it seems like the game is huge so far. I personally prefer they focus on gameplay over creating a better graphics engine.

I feel like the reasons to dislike the game are extremely stupid, and might even mask the fact that this is one of the few decently difficult game as of late.

Does anyone feel the same about the reviews for NV?

If you think MW2 doesnt even have "remotely good" graphics then you should of been stricken blind the second you turned on Fallout.

Here is a secret you give them money and they'll give a good review. If you catch my drift. :whisper:

I love the game. I think gamespot's review was a little low though. Give it a 8.0 and if they patch it and make it right then its a 9.0 for me.

I take all reviews with a grain of ~sand, and try to filter through the double talk.
(Though I did buy Painkiller directly due to a Yahtzee review, and was quite pleased).

the fact that on gamestop The Darksiders got a 8.0 review and fallout new vegas got a 7.5. really tells alot about how much they svck

You kidding me? MW1 and Fable 2 had amazing graphics, esp for the year they came out. Also, I never experienced a single bug on MW1 or GoW2 that I can recall. But the game reviewers aren't there to be the final word that is written in stone anyways; they're just an example of a general experience you may have with the game. I personally feel that the mention of bugs in every review is fair, since everyone has experienced bugs in NV to some extent or another.

The best reason is in my sig. ^_^

The sage does not expect that others use his criteria as their own.~Lao Tzu

Well said summer.

I dunno. I haven't read any 'complaints' in the reviews. The more objective a review strikes me the more I'm inclined to carry on reading/watching it. I've watched a half dozen video reviews, and read about twenty or more written reviews. None have really said they 'disliked' NV. It's a solid, massively anticipated game that won't disappoint its expecting audience, and then the 'however' rears it head... graphics compared to 2010s AAA titles, elements compared to its 2008 older sibling, and of course the bugs, path finding, animations... :shrug:

They mentioned good gameplay, exploration, skill building and side-quests positively. Pointed out some of the quests are your standard fetch quests, others lead to great surprises... etc.

Maybe you should elaborate on what you think the good reasons are to 'dislike' a game. Or the good ways to point out its negatives? Or maybe post some links to the ones you feel are particularly harsh. ^_^

Dide dude just say MW2 had bad graphics? What the hell is wrong with you?

Have you even...played....MW2..?

What?!! Darksiders 8.0, New vegas 7.5? Darksiders was so bad my brother played it only to get the horse. I can tell you how to be the game in one word
Square. Thats how deep that game was. You didn't aim you didn't do combos, nope you hit square.
You hit Square again.....and again http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VDvgL58h_Y (skip to 4:27)

I'm sorry guys but I don't think MW2 has good graphics either. Maybe it's because I play so many PS3 exclusive games with amazing graphics :shrug:

MW2 didnt have great graphics but they weren't terrible.

i would have given fallout new Vegas a 9/10 taking .5 off for technical issues

I totally agree that games really shouldn't be judged by their graphics. Most of the games that I enjoy the most tend to have pretty bad graphics, but I think that it's not necessarily the reviewers fault that they're judged this way. Not everybody obviously, but a lot of people these days want all the shiny trinkets and buzzwords and won't buy a game if it doesn't have them. Reviewers are just playing to what the readers want and many of them want to know about the graphics above all else. That said though, Reviewers like IGN, gamespot, and a lot more (most) places will take bribes, and they have fired people in the past who refused to take the bribes. I don't really trust reviewers much, but I do read the reviews to see if there's anything major that I couldn't have thought of. I was a little worried about FO:NV after reading IGN's review about it though, but I haven't seen any of the things that were complained about, so I might stop doing even that. My gut instinct has rarely let me down.

Let the businessmen do their thing.As for us, we either want to play the game or not.I will sink serious time into this game, regardless of what a guy in a suit that ive never met does.The whole internet is just one big frustration vent.People make up stories or sometimes post real ones.You and I have no idea what is true.Now go play the damn game or trade it in.

I for one have a passion for gaming, not business or marketing.I am only interested in the part I can experience myself.All of this conspiracy theory is conjecture at the moment.Which is why we should not post about it.Reviews are the opinion of the individual writing it.For example, I was told I would not find Trailer Park Boys funny...but the show pulls tears of laughter out of my face.:shrug:

I think scouring as many reviews as possible gives you a good idea as to what the game is like. S'a Meta-review type thing.

But watching the video reviews of New Vegas and listening to the reviewer say "Dated graphics..." I struggle to see the bad in Vegas, and FO3, they look awesome to me. But when the reviewers mention the animations and path finding, s'all true. Foolish to deny it. It took me a short while to get over the stiff Fallout 3 characters when I first played it, because I'd gone straight over from playing BioShock and Assassin's Creed. The enemies in BioShock are uber fluent in their movements compared to FO3, and Assassin's Creed, controlling Altair was just dream-like. The controls svcked and didn't ask anything of me, but the mo-cap/animation is truly something to behold. Seamless.

Screw graphics, just fix these bugs.

Not everyone. Nothing wrong with my game.

This game feels like a cheap expansion... nothing new or groundbreaking just tweaks to an existing model. Drop Fallout 3 in the middle of the desert... They need to take a page from Blizzard and release a game when its done. The reviews that I have read never touched on any of the bugs that have been reported. Its sad when you have to wait 2 months to actually play a game you shell out $50 for when its first released.

:thumbsup: I don't mind waiting, and the graphics are already superb enough.

[quote]nothing new or groundbreaking just tweaks to an existing model.[/quote]It is a tweaked revision of the existing model, and that was made clear from the outset; but I don't agree that its not new or groundbreaking. In many (many) ways its how FO3 should have been from the start. I would have greatly preferred that these companies had done a joint venture for the original Fallout 3 instead of two separate games; and had that FO3 game be strongly tempered by both. (and hopefully had avoided DC altogether.)

so true.

gamespot like many review companies reviews based on hype and casual gamer tastes. games like darkside that look pretty and can be beaten in about 3 hours get rave reviews even though we all know that was just another one of those slapped together quick money makers. anything with pretty graphics get's a good review no matter how tedious or horrible the gamplay is.

I've never seen an expansion that has more content than the game it's supposed to be expanding.

I totally agree with you but.... Modern Warfare 2 and Fable 2's graphics were great. :wacko: