not everyone is getting computer version. :facepalm:

Vendetta by someone who thought he should get a review copy and didn't? While he may have gotten his hands on an early sold copy on xbox or he may have just watched some leaked streaming or he may have somehow gotten it illegally...who knows, it's obvious he can't write, doesn't know what's important and is grinding some imaginary ax.

And even if he believes what he wrote...he writes worse than I do.

I would tend to agree, this looks like a vague and confused fan review, and that's if he's even played the game at all.

dude seems like if i saw him on the street my first instinct would be to jumpkick him in the face...

Oblivion with guns.... [censored] them.
Doesn't even look like he has the game yet. And I thought you couldn't review it till Tuesday?
Screams fake to me.
Edit: He even thinks its the sequel... and again, their complaining about graphics.

I'll just leave this here...



I'm not surprised that critics are going to be whining about graphics. And I just don't care if they are reusing Fallout 3 assets. I will be enjoying the hell out of this game, and some guy who can't get past graphics and loves shallow shooters like MW2 is not gonna stop me.

Those reviewers who got an early review copy are under embargo until Tuesday. He obviously did not get a review copy so has signed no agreement.

Agreed on the final sentiment.

However, the comparison to other franchises having similiar sequels may not hold if one is looking at how well the general design has aged and what he thinks of it. Clearly the ones holding F:NV as an expansion or whatever and feel disappointed by it, do not hold the Fallout 3 general design in high regard (at least anymore), otherwise - instead of focusing on picking on it - they would concentrate more on other stuff and would not highlight it so much. And while I don't agree with it (completely), I can see where it is coming from.

I stopped reading when he called Fallout 3 "the first game".

Seriously, how dumb do you have to be?

Alright...take a damn good look on why he did this.

That would be my comment to his entire pile of garbage btw.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a345/ALECCLARAVALL/Untitled-1.png

He could just have his own opinion. :shrug:

The only problem is there's absolutely nothing in the review to prove he actually played the game. He also said he got it on Friday night and he posted this review at 3:26 AM this morning. So he played it for, what, one day? That's assuming he did play it.


@Slan: That was probably sarcasm. He might just be upset over the comments.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. If you weren't a huge fan of Fallout 3, chances are, you probably won't be a huge fan of New Vegas.

I'm not too worried. It's not like anyone important like IGN, Gamespot, GameTrailers, or GameInformer gave it a bad review. We'll all see the reviews that New Vegas deserves when the real reviewers are allowed to release them on Tuesday.

Uh yes, yes you can be, In my opinion, Fallout 3 was good, was it a good fallout game? No. It had a bad story, It had two dimensional characters, and the voice acting was shall we say, "sub-par" They've fixed those problems (At least from what we've seen) So this would probably be a good time to give it another shot

I agree people have been so spoiled with their DLC/Expansions that now whenever they see a game that has some obvious similarities/differences between itself and another game in the series they automatically assume that it "Must be a DLC! or thats a cool Expansion!" :facepalm:

I hate sinking to their level and having to explain simple logic to morons who believe New Vegas to be a "DLC/Expansion" of FO3.

You are kidding right? These people who gave Civilization a 9 or a 9.5 as a score? These guys do not know how to review games anymore. They either get paid to give good reviews, or give good reviews to svck up to the companies. No you can not a get a reliable review from these guys anymore. Civilization V is proof enough they do not know how to give a truthfull review.

thanks for posting this, most of the problems that they mentioned wont really be big problems for me personally

Yeah, I mean look how similar AC2 is to AC1(besides the villa thing)! I'm surprised nobody called that a "big expansion!"

To be fair there's actually a good chunk of differences between AC2 and AC1. That's why people generally liked it more

Yeah, the differences in gameplay, mechanics, options, graphics tweaks, controls, etc. was a pretty huge leap from AC1 to AC2. I almost can't go back to playing AC1 after the improvements of AC2. It justs seems so barbaric in comparison.

You mean they released Alpah Centauri 2? I never herd it even being made.

Assassin's Creed.

I don't think they have a villa in Alpha Centauri 2. Not sure though

http://twitter.com/Andrew_Reiner, Game Informer executive editor

'Same graphics as Fallout 3' - Oh no, the same graphics, oh how the world will end now because graphics hogs won't get all new super duper shiny graphics, gameplay must not exist in their fantasy world.

'Just like Fallout 3' - Is it? Well I. Don't. Care. if it is, as long as it's as good as Fallout 3, better even, then that's perfectly fine with me.

Honestly what about games like Fifa, Halo and COD and the constant amount of FPS war time shooters? Those are pratically the same game year after year, yet people go mad for them and there are never any complaints about that in reviews, instead of all worship and the usual 'Greatest Game Ever!' nonsense.
Quite frankly I would have rather have New Vegas even if it is like Fallout 3 in some ways, than yet another Fifa/Halo/COD. At least I'll get more out of a game like New Vegas, hopefully it's going to be a really good game, than I ever do out of the usual Fifa/Halo/COD games.

Until I've played New Vegas in full and not just a few hours, then I'll be holding back all my opinions of the game until I've seen the end.