Let's see...

Website about game up a year in advance of release... check.
Worldwide pre-orders, including Europe, Asia, Australia... check.
One of the 3 most-anticipated of games of 2010... check.

.. yep, mainstream...

Oddly not so many years ago there was a lot of fear that cRPGs would disappear. There weren't many of us and it was quite a small group of people who played them. What has happened with games like Fallout:3 and FO:NV is that RPG's have managed to maintain the best parts of what makes a game an RPG while tweeking a few things to make it attractive to folks who mostly enjoy FPS. Since it attracts both sets of gamers, it sells more and thus more goes into the next one and the one after that and games just keep getting better.

Being mainstream is not a bad thing. It means many people agree it's good. It's popular. It sells well. It generally takes something very good to do that. I've no shame in being part of the mainstream now. I mean 10 years ago I felt all alone playing these RPGs. There weren't many of us. I say welcome to my world.

Besides, one must be careful not to use others criteria as their own.

I am predicting good reviews from game informer and ign. The thing that bothers me with IGN is that they are sell outs, they give games good scores if they get their hands on it early, or they get paid. I can trust game informer a little better.

I do hope FNV sells and gets good honest reviews, becuase fallout 4 may get a bigger budget so extra things could be included, making an awesome game!

I'd have been so pissed if I had actually paid $60 for it. I was so glad I ignored the hype and went with my gut and Game-Flyed MW2 instead of buying it like I did COD4.....between the ridiculous plot and being betrayed and murdered every other mission by my own commander the game was full of meh.

Why would you trust Game Informer? They're far worse than IGN. While IGN is a pretty horrible media site, at least they aren't wholly owned by the largest monopolizing chain of videogame stores in the country. Game Informer is owned by and widely distributed at Gamestop. It's pretty much their sales catalouge. The biggest games always, without fail, get the most overhyped reviews possible to spur games. Of particular note was the somewhat hilarious Starcraft 2 review where, if I remember correctly, the reviewer could barely describe what they liked so much about the game, so they just kept mentioning how much they loved it and couldn't stop playing. Very professional.

Game Informer is a rag. Only worthwhile for the previews.

Thankyou Obsidian for making us yet another exhilarating game!

The man speaks the truth. Heed Leventa viewers! Although i have always found out of the ign staff, Hilary Goldstein is usually pretty much on par with my taste in games, plus i feel bad for the dude having to grow up with a female name.

Read my post you quoted again. I did not say AP was a bug free game. It is in fact not.
Want an example of a reviewer lying? One video review (forgot which and can't be bothered to look it up) showcassed the 'bad' combat by standing in the open, firing widly with a pistol against an enemy and when he was shot down proclaimed gleefully "See how bad this game is?!". Anyone who played the game will know that the only thing this showed was that the reviewer apparently didn't bother reading the tutorial pop ups.
Want an example of bug mentioning? Look up reviews for Empire Total War, for example. That game was a unplayable mess at release and after numerous patches you still need to sacrifice a goat and offer up your first born if you want to get past the main screen. If those bugs were mentioned at all, they were downplayed as insignificant.

I believe it was said in a joystiq podcast in response to their own Nier review that in 2010 there are way too many great games coming out to waste time on a good but flawed game. Something like that. You know what that means? I will tell you: "We the gaming press have decided that you should spent your money on game X, so we will praise every virtue of game X and highlight every flaw in game Y." Is that good objective journalism? Something which the gaming journalism claim it is. No, it isn't. Is it a clear sign of lack of integrity and 'svckiness'? Yes, it is.

Reminds me of a friend of mine. During E3 he was going on and on about Portal 2. We both enjoyed Portal, and 2 looks awesome. Better graphics, new gameplay mechanics...it looks pretty solid.
I mentioned to him that the most exciting stuff I saw at E3 was New Vegas. He knows I was a huge 3 fan, and he was as well, but he thinks the idea of New Vegas is stupid.
He complained it was the same game, no graphics change, no (major) gameplay change.
Can someone explain to me, besides Portal 2 being slightly more polished graphics-wise than 1, is the situation with Portal 2 THAT MUCH DIFFERENT from 3 to New Vegas?

Yep, Obsidian did such a great job with their rollout that people are thanking them for a great game before they have even played it