Well, New Vegas has received its first review, courtesy of the fine folks at Attack of the really devoted fan. http://attackofthefanboy.com/news/fallout-vegas-review/

Can't say it seems all that positive, but I wouldn't ever base my sale off of a review, especially not one like this. I get the feeling the journalist didn't really do much research on as to why Obsidian couldn't really change the mechanics, and he/she did not appreciate the new world. Oh, well.

Anyway, discuss.

Thanks to NMA for providing the link.

EDIT: Hmm, seems fan-boy is censored. Heh heh.

Pretty sure it's fake. Not a single mention of anything outside of the most basic of game mechanics. Pretty sure he just wrote up a quick review that would hit most of the bases, and threw it out there to be "First".

I agree. Its a pretty sparse "review".

I think its a good true review.

I would wait untill the big sites come rolling in. ( Gamespot , IGN etc)

Fake or not, you're going to have to prepare yourselves for a ton of reviews saying the exact same thing as this.
As hardcoe Fallout fans, you guys are going to focus on the smaller improvements and obsess over the storyline. The reviewers are going to look at the larger picture that the average gamer is going to notice. And the fact is, F:NV is not going to be much of an improvement over FO3 to the uninformed/casual gamer.

True.

"But, everything else looks pretty much the same. It is almost as if the developers just used the assets from Fallout 3 made a few new areas to turn the capital wasteland into the Mojave wasteland and called it a game."

Have to agree with that. Saw some leaked videos and this is actually true. I'll just have to play the game now.

Well, seems the assumptions from the other thread came totally true in this case. Second banana with additions that make it an actually challenging game? I think not.

There's no author, no specifics, outright contradictions and language so vague that it reads like a 'cliff notes' essay on a book someone didn't want to read. This is not a review in any professional sense of the word. :/

I don't care Fallout: NV surpassed Fallout 3 and that's all I care about.

Honest and sad truth here. Though this fail review seems to have missed the point of lore and value of sidequesting. As well as overall gameplay, just simply comparing it to FO3 and saying it's the same is really not fair, what of the new changes to Stats, Perks, Traits, and so on? Those words don't even come up in the entire review, I'm very well sure that stats and character builds do matter way more than they did now.

My Opinion: Fail Review.

Yeah um.... I was going to add my input but you pretty well said what I was thinking!

Anyone knowing the basics could have written that a couple months ago. And I couldn't believe the contradictions... I LOL'd

I agree with one of the people above who said that we should expect several more reviews like this. Of course for people like ourselves who are hardcoe Fallout fans more Fallout is always good. I am sure that this game will give me hundreds of hours of gameplay like FO3 did and at some stage I will probably be playing both games side by side switching from one to the other depending on the quality of available mods. However, I do not expect the press and the general public to feel the same way.

When I completed Fallout3, I wished it wasn't over. I had 5 DLCs to play and was happy. I've heard enough about FNV to know that it's similar but a lot different and has more of what I wanted. I got 300 hours out of Fallout3 and didn't do or see everything. I expect to find more of what I loved playing in FNV. It doesn't matter to me if a reviewer doesn't find what he's looking for...I already know that I will.

It's going to be quite a challenge to maneuver my way around the factions. The only thing I'm concerned about is the game freezing and crashing. Stability is going to be key for me...it just has to be more stable.

This, he didn't mention anything that led me to believe he actually played the game. And even if he did the only negatives he mentioned we already knew, so I don't think anybody's going to cancel their preorder over this

it SHOULD be as stable as the 1.7 GOTY version, since that is what it is based on. Whether they have introduced any new bugs/glitches that went un-noticed remains to be seen.

No review is going to change my mind.

Wow reading that made me pretty mad.
That guys is an *sshole!

he never talked about things in the game. just the mechanics.

it also bugged me how in his (Loves) he put "if it aint broke dont fix it" and for his hated he put "the mechanics and graphics haven't improved enough

I'm on a PS3 so I hope this isn't true. I loaded some of my early and late saves (GOTY) to get in a little practice before the release and they kept freezing and crashing. I'll try again today. So...that's my only worry really...the stability. My fingers are crossed.

I think they have taken that into account, and any PS3 gameplay issues have been addressed, don't worry. If not...

as are mine. it would kill me if i had to return new vegas to the store.

But you probably can't return it since you have to register it on steam.

Seemed to me that he gave the overall rating "meh" because of the graphics.
In that case, maybe he should just run off to some JRPG's if he only cares about graphics.
To say he liked Fallout 3 then say New Vegas is "meh" because of the graphics makes no sense.
Who cares if the graphics are the same?
If you liked Fallout 3 you are bound to love New Vegas because it's just more of it only improved.
If all he cares about are graphics then why did he even review the game?
He knew he was going to be biased going in to it.
And a biased review is not a good review.

For example.
If I were a reviewer I would not review RE5 or FFXIII because I know I'd just write a hate-speech and rant about the good old days.