well he is on his third play through. that says something

you are truly a wise woman

In order to stop my hype train from going any further I'm just going to assume he's a very dedicated reviewer who wants to see all the different paths and ways to complete situations

No.

"Fallout: New Vegas" is incredibly improved over its predecessor. You need to revisit the list of additions and upgrades to the game that Obsidian has implemented.

Obviously it says that it is awful. He hates it so much that he can't stop playing. He loves it that much. Wait, love and hate mean the same thing to reviewers, right? I mean, that last review I read for New Vegas seemed to indicate something like that . . . . :whistling:

I see your Andrew Reiner, and I raise you http://twitter.com/JimSterling, Destructoid Reviews Editor.



Keep in mind, this is the same guy who gave Alpha Protocol a 2, Assassin's Creed 2 a 4.5, and Final Fantasy XIII a 4.

Ah, Jim Sterling. The reviewer who you can only trust some of the time. Hope I can trust him with this one.

This is funny because it's true. :rofl:

Loved Dead rising- because killing zombies is so much fun
Hated Dead rising- because there is not much to do except for kiling zombies

thats basicly what his DR2 review said also

@expressate- if i could review all those games, assassins creed would get an 8/10
Alpha Protocol a 7/10
and FF13 a 7/10
oh how i wish i could give reviews

Games like Fallout are wasted on many people. Just watch a random live-stream of Fallout 3. People shoot everything on sight and ignore quests, get lost in buildings, start difficult missions without having stim-packs or ammo etc... Of course you're going to be disappointed if you try to play Fallout like a multiplayer shooter.

You could always start a blog and write reviews, of course you wouldn't get paid but that's how some people started out in the industry.

What a lousy review. He's not even mentioning the comp wheel, and that 'Oblivion with guns'-remark is so old and indifferent.

My father, who has never even played a videogame, could have written something less indistinct.

I think it's a fake.

It would be funny if it weren't true. Some of those pirates playing streams last week were the worst players I've ever seen. They shot ceilings and died multiple times in the same building because they did the exact same thing again . . . higher thinking is just lost on some people. If they don't enjoy the light show and loud noises they are going to take their ball and go home.

I laugh at the complaints I see people make about multiplayer shooters like MW, etc. "Hey, quit camping! All you ever do is snipe people [expletive]." Gosh, I'm sorry. The Marine Corps and 4 years of infantry training must have taught me to kill people the wrong way. That's why I don't generally play online shooters. I have no desire to get sweaty in the mosh pit.

Also, I look forward to Jim Sterling's review and especially to Giant Bomb's review, but their review may take a while to come out.

Exactly. Such people see Fallout 3 and approach the game like it's another COD or Halo or some other multi player focused shooter instead of understanding that it's a slow paced game by it's nature, an RPG with shooter elements.
They then complain that the opening is too slow and once they leave the Vault they whine that they're hand is being held due to the freedom the game offers to just go explore. They try to gun adn run, they try to rush in guns blazing and die quickly without using any clear logical and rational thought about their enviroment in the game, about how to think in more than 'Me have gun, me go booom boom!'

And then they whine that the game doesn't have multi player, that it's too slow and on and on and on. They get more than enough catering to as it is with os many games catered to their gun and run demands, they can't accept and understand that single player is important for games and that not every game needs multi player nor should it be expected to.
It's great that New Vegas hasn't been turned into yet another multi player focused shooter that caters to the impatient, there are more than enough of such games as it is.

The people on NMA think this is a stupid, fail review. WE think this is a stupid fail review, something the two sites can even agree on.
Likely that this is a fail review.

Also, I watched some of the live stream of new vegas. From what I watched, the graphics, gameplay and story all seemed much improved to what fallout 3 was. I doubt this guy put much thought into the review.

Because he thought the story of fallout 3 was better, HELLO! The story for fallout 3 was the WORST part of it! (It's a good game, but the story was weak, admit it.)
Whats better, looking for your dad with the help of the white knight BOS with the Evil canniving Enclave? Or a full on war over a gem of technology and power after the apocolypse?

First off:

Almost stopped reading right there. Anyone who refers to Fallout 3 as the first game gets an automatic ranking of unprofessional in my book.

He then proceeds not to even mention any of the new gameplay mechanics (companion wheel, weapon mods, etc.) except for the crafting system.

Also lists graphics as a negative (typical) and says that all the creators did was just turn the Capital Wasteland into the Mojave Wasteland, implying they put little to no effort in creating a very different and unique looking landscape. He also lists controls as a bad thing because they haven't changed any and uses the old stereotype "Oblivion with Guns". Well what do you expect with the EXACT SAME ENGINE AS OBLIVION/FALLOUT 3.

All in all, I respect his opinions, but I'm not going off of his review at all. To me, it feels like he just played the game for a couple of hours and then decided to review it. Very unprofessional, and will wait for what IGN, Gamespot, and other online reviewers will say about the game.

EDIT: That is, if I can even take IGN and Gamespot's reviews as truth anymore. I guess I'll wait for the over-exaggerated words of Angry Joe or something... :glare:

IGN and Gamespot are the only sites I trust for a review. Getting the game regardlessly of what it gets.

Has Bethesda or Obsidian commented on this yet?

See page 2 of this thread

I don't trust any site when it comes to reviews, after all 10/10 for GTA4? Please, that game doesn't deserve such a score, it's a terrible game, so boring. After reviews like that it's pretty clear that such reviewers wouldn't know a good game if it ripped their heart out and played basketball with it.
If a game is going to be reviewed then it should be played for a good long while until everything in the game is seen before making a review. Pros and cons should be fully noted, instead of blind worship to a brand name and a tidy bribe to make a bad game seem good.

I'm fine with more of the same, as long as the storyline is as good and the quest are as numerous.

That's not necessarily real. Before the guy locked his comments to registered users, you could comment and type any name in that you wanted.

I commented twice, both times with different names. Sadly they were removed with most of the other comments.

Plus, he didn't get a review copy(unless he is breaking the review agreement...). And why is it that people, even people who never heard of the other games in the series before, think that Fallout 3 is the first game? Looks like his review is based on speculation/short hands on demos. I trust some reviewers to an extent(I prefer reading it rather than looking at the score and going from there) in the capacity of "What is it like? What do you think is wrong with it? How is it good?".

if only i had enough money to buy each big budget game that comes out and had time to play them.

also, i dont know how to make a blog

Just register at a site like Wordpress and it's as easy as commenting in a forum thread.

You could ofcourse only review games that you play.