At least it's a different engine so those problems wouldn't stick around with NV... (apart from instant death headshots, which isn't unexpected with a hit point based game)

Hmm. Then there's hope. I've come to find that my collection consists more of middle-of-the-road score earners than high score earners. I guess that goes to show my personal tastes...Besides the fact that Fools Gold is amongst my film collection.

This is the only point you made that doesn't also apply to Fallout 3.

Just saying...

Kinda like in Mass Effect, where you would see one character model, and then models on that model would load, and then more models. I always wanted to play the Transformers transforming noise when I saw that.

That's because it also used the Unreal engine. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Gamebryo engine seems to not have a problem with texture popping. Of course, this might just be because Bethesda was the one using it.

Speaking to me of game engines is like speaking to me of Gear Score in World of Warcraft...you may as well try and describe color to a man struck blind. I play games, but I know nothing of the technology.

YMMV; I found the enemies in FO3 to be ridiculously durable for what they were wearing.

Then again, I'd just come from STALKER when I got FO3, where even a small number of bullets of any sort is very fatal, so my view is probably skewed.

Making transitions usually do make for skewed perceptions. Like playing Half Life 2, and then playing Vampires The Masquerade: Bloodlines, going "Bull[censored], I totally headshot that guy."

Actually, on my PC it's true. Geforce 7300 le, FTL.

I read game reviews like I read movie reviews, with a large chunk of salt.

I like a hell of a lot of movies that were panned by reviewers. My suggestion, don't bother with reviewers unless it's a decent computer hardware reviewer like Hardware Secrets. For movies and games, make up your own mind.

The problem with that approach is that the only way to really make up your own mind is if you shell out money for the game. If you find out the game is terrible, you're basically out ~$50. You kinda have to have some sort of review, unless you go entirely on previews and word of mouth and such.

Not that word of mouth is a bad thing. That's why I bought ME2, and it turned out to be some of the best sixty bucks I ever spent.

This is why we invented rental stores. $2-$6 is basically spare change.

Well, that's helpful if you own a console. If you're on the PC like I am, you're out of luck.

Point.

I just wouldn't go for "official" critics. This is why I only use Metacritic. Because of user reviews.

I like reviews for a general outlook but as said by everyone else here. Do not take them as the gospel truth for yourself.
I rarely buy games, Even more so ones I have not heard by word of mouth. RPG's like FO I will for the sake I like the series.
A few years ago I would swap games for use on the Pc and all the ones I liked I gave back ASAP and bought my own copy, Hard to do these days though.

The gameplay will be safe because it is essentially a copy of fallout 3. Weapons, well i mean as long as they shoot bullets/ lasers were good. Plus the entire universe is pretty much set up, so alot of what is happening is builiding around whats already beeen established

Read the reviews, but look for the points they present rather than the spin they're trying to give the article. If a reviewer says the game has trite, uninteresting characters and gives only 2 as an example, something is up. Even if they're not trying to be biased, it's hard to be fair to a game that you really like/dislike, but another person might really enjoy. If a reviewer ever says "no one would enjoy this game", they're basically pulling stuff out of their ass.

Have a little faith... they made KOTOR and that was a great game.

They made Kotor2. Bioware made Kotor 1.

Mind, Kotor 2 was really good as well, except for all that content that had to be cut.

Dont even sweat, a diffent team is working on NV, not to mention Fallout has a base already, its going to be a great game.

As much as I think reviews for movies and games are pointless, I would hope that if a movie/game svcked so bad that there was at least some warning from reviewers. I usually go what users say about the game, not the magazines or the main article.

When I bought Terminator3: War of the Machines I really should have read the reviews first... Worst [censored] game I've ever played. Then the [censored] at gamestop said "OH you can return it if you don't like it for full price" I go and return it "Oh we'll we can only give you a 1/4 of what its worth".

Sometimes its a good idea to go by what the review says other times maybe not.


But I wouldn't go by a review of another game a company published to judge one that hasn't come out yet.

Seeing as Bethesda has been pretty much been watching over Obsidian, no, I'm not worried. Bethesda has published quite it's share of crappy games (WET & Rogue Warrior to say the least), but one thing that they will not let turn crappy is their cash cows. They won't let an Elder Scrolls game become crappy, and seeing as they bought the rights to the Fallout universe I don't see why they'd let a version of it turn out crappy.

I've got a lot of hope for New Vegas and I'm willing to take the risk of it somehow turning out as crap. The only reviews I ever read are from people just like me; the consumer. We are the ones buying it and we know how we will like it best.

One reviewer gave 4/5 to Fable II, after reading that I'm not going to listen any reviewer ever again.
So I'm not worried at all.

Several posts have been deleted for cross site trolling:



Please don't do that. :nono:

I don't know the details, but the fact that it was pushed back doesn't mean it didn't have anything to do with pressure from the publisher. Companies like Valve and Blizzard that are in a position to take a, "it's done when it's done" position on time lines tend to have much, much longer development cycles than those that aren't. What does that tell us? Software projects can very easily blow their time line projections. As a developer, what do you do when you simply don't have enough time and resources to produce what you're being asked to? Without knowing more about what happened we have no idea where the failures were.


That's what I thought, too.


Actually, our dev shop refers to it as scope creep as well, as did the last one I worked in. Feature creep is a form of scope creep (in our lexicon, anyway).


I hadn't heard that, but those types of things will definitely slow down your project.


Are you talking about Alpha Protocol or Fallout 3?