It sounds as though you're SO bitter over poor quality-checking that you're incapable of enjoying the game even after it's been patched and 95% of the problems are gone.

The thing about companies leaving bugs in and patching them later is that they're both right and wrong. They're right because bugs are something that CAN be tweaked and fixed later, so releasing a game "pre-maturely" won't actually hurt the quality of the game once all is said and done. They're wrong because it can also be a dike move and the last thing we all want is for buggy releases to be accepted as standard, with devs expecting the community to patch up their games for them.

However what you're failing to note is Obsidian's admittedly limited development time they were handed. The way a company would be "wrong" is if they half-assed bug fixes and released a product prematurely. Obsidian did NOT half-ass quality assurance; they were constrained on time and were running out of options. Bug fixing went to the back of the line of things to do because yes, they CAN stomp bugs later, but they can't exactly add content later. (or if they did, people would cry about that, too) They chose the lesser of two evils, and had no malicious or selfish intent in doing so.

Likewise, if you truly ARE aware of how buggy ALL Bethesda's games are, you'd also recognize that for some odd reason, even though every Bethesda title since Oblivion has been buggy as hell, ONLY Fallout New Vegas received heavy criticism for it, as if everyone simultaneously got amnesia and forgot how buggy Oblivion and Fallout 3 were, and to this day several people refer to New Vegas as buggy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_5qqRwSKbk

My point? Take your bug-stomping agenda elsewhere, New Vegas doesn't need it. It already has more than it's fair share of criticism for it and the lackluster quality assurance was NOT a result of Obsidian's greed; no, it was time constraints. You wanna make a point about "sticking it to the man?" Take your bug-stomping agenda to the Skyrim forums. I promise you they could use it.

Actually, the 'thing' about companies releasing buggy games is completely due to the fact that they can post-release patch, and it has made the industry lazy, and made short development times acceptable.

Let me clarify though, it's not the bugs that are irritating, it's what I consider to be poor questlining and cliche'd factions, and design choices. The bugs and such are simply part and parcel of most games these days anyway. Some people accept them, I'm one of the folk that believe nothing will change unless people actually speak up.

I'm happy to accept that some people see things differently, and see the game as the best game ever (or at least see far more positives in it than I do). Keep in mind, I'm currently on my fifth run-through, so I'm actually giving the game a pretty fair opportunity to impress me...it's not as if I've played 2 hours and then said "Oh @#$% it".

Please explain what factions are cliche or how the questlining is poor, or what the poor design choices are for that matter.

And you decide that the best place to "speak up" and get noticed is on a forum?

BLARAGHHGAG!!!! ( too angry to form sentences).

The only thing better would of been perfection given the circumstances, Fonv is a miracle given the time constraints.

Nope!

I agree:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdwJL7PxjQE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC-H9n6zIfU

Actually I don't agree because I don't think that Skyrim or New Vegas svck. It's interesting how often things are forgotten.

I agree in the sense that a miracle is something that cannot be explained naturally.

Though a 40+ hour(per playthrough) game with multiple ending options, many multiple-path quests, an incredible calibre of writing and a unique story in a long-lived series being developed in less then a year is pretty damn impressive nonetheless!

With obsidian amd inixile,, the future so far for rpgs look very bright.