I really do hope this isn't true, but I'm getting to the point where I'm inclined to believe it.
http://www.thegamingvault.com/2010/10/bethesda-pulling-poor-fallout-new-vegas-reviews-integrity-is-dead/

There was a review embargo and from my understanding a few people broke it and were asked to withdraw their reviews until the embargo lifted. It's possible this is a separate incident but it wouldn't surprise me if they were one and the same and Hsu was simply mistaken.

It's not uncommon on the forums for us to remove something as inappropriate and be accused of removing it because we don't agree. Generally it's fairly easy to point out similar criticisms that haven't been touched because they were more civilly expressed. I haven't been following the reviews much so I can't point to a site with a negative review that Bethesda is advertising on, and since Hsu isn't naming names there isn't any way to follow up on this.



(disclaimer: I'm not a Bethesda employee, I'm just a volunteer moderator and this is all speculation on my part)

How can it be legal to demand a game reviewer pull a review, isn't that protected under the freedom of speech?

Well they probably offer money for advertising, and if your review is bad, they won't give you the cash. That would be my assumption, just a money thing.

It's certainly legal if said review violates a contracted embargo.

I dont understand this, I can understand not wanting reviews posted until the game hits its gold phase but they actually put out embargoes/contracts not to review games until something else is done? How is this not some kind of false advertising?

I am not a fallout hater but I am somewhat annoyed with the issues my game has, but I find it very odd that a company makes contracts with sites to not post reviews until they have pushed their advertising all the way out? So now people dont get the reviews that say the game has glitches and go out and buy it only to come here frustrated.

Is this the norm theser days? Is this some kind of delaying tactic to give companies a chance to polish their game further before they want an objective review? Honestly I would have gotten F3NV regardless , but if companies actually do this, I thinks a very shady deal. I rely on reviews for games I am fence sitting about and find that the reviewer didnt mention any flaws due to some contract they had is kind of biased.

Yes, It is the norm these days it seems and yes indeed its a shady deal, but its how the businesses work. I'm not about to take a pro-Bethesda/Obsidian stance here, but I see their point. There game isn't the best it could be right now due to the bugs and glitches so they only are trying to get fair reviews of their game by waiting until they've fixed it up. Well that's what I think anyway not saying I'm right.

I don't think I would care so much if all the reviews didn't say 10 out of 10, Game of the year, a masterpiece and all that crap. It's all that hype that will make people new to FO go and buy and wind up severely disappointed. Where are the reviews saying glitchy, unplayable, fans of random freezing will love it.

That's just it I don't think there is any reviews mentioning that...

I looked at the IGN review, which gave a 8.5 and said there were some bugs. They didn't say I wouldn't be able to play after 40 hours without wanting to throw my controller
at the TV. But I guess in order to get advertising money, they have to alter the truth.

Yeah... I'm in the same boat... I m just hoping in the next 3-4 weeks their is a patch so I can enjoy the damn game. It's like there is a great game buried... but you can't dig it out with a spade or a shovel You kinda need a backhoe...