Oh, but you forgot the critical part that the latter game doesn't have the number 4 in the title, but has the words "New Vegas" instead, which obviously means that it is an expansion and can't possibly be a new game on it's own, despite the fact that everything other than a lot of the game play mechanics are completely different!

I hope it gets good review, since there are people out there still swayed by game reviews. I personally won't care what it gets I and I'm sure many of you here have already felt in you're heart of hearts that this game is going to be something special.

Dang, then the Ratchet & Clank series is actually the longest game ever!

If people think reviews are the almighty god of judgment whether a game is good or not, then the people who miss out on a game because they read a review that the game was "bad" are missing out on the expireience and lack the intellect to judge a game by themselves.
I dont really care if reviewers give FNV a bad review, cus people who read it and not play the game are just missing out on all the Fallout goodness. I, myself already give FNV a good rating, even without playing it because FO3 was very good, but had some flaws, so i somehow know that FNV wont disappoint.

I think you're right about that. New Vegas isn't exactly the first example of a game in the series that's marketed as a new game but that uses the same engine and very similar mechanics. I mean, just look at GTA: Vice City and San Andreas. Their core engine and gameplay mechanics were pretty close to GTA 3, but they also added lots of new things. There were new gameplay mechanics, new vehicles (including new types of vehicles.) A completely new setting, entirely new storylines and missions, new radio stations and music, and so on, and I don't think anyone in their right mind ever called them expanions. Now, reviews probably will point out that the game is fairly close to Fallout 3, but that wouldn't even necessarily be treated as a bad thing. After all, they might say something along the lines of "If you liked Fallout 3, then New Vegas is for you." or something like that, for most critics, probably being similar to Fallout 3 will only be uswd as a point of criticism if they did not like the game.



I highly doubt most mainstream critics are concerned with how faithful it is to Fallout 1 and 2, in fact, I'd imagine many of them haven't even played the games and wouldn't know the difference. And I think it's a little early to say they'll praise the story for how good it is when we don't even know if the story is actually good or not.



Except it doesn't have a 3 in the tital either, if it was an expansion to Fallout 3, it would have been called Fallout 3: New Vegas.



But how else are they going to know a game they haven't played is worth playing? After all, not everyone has infinite money so they can't just buy every game that could possibly appeal to them and decide which ones are good themselves...

Granted, I already plan to play New Vegas because I already know a fair amount about the game, have already played Fallout 3, enjoyed it, and expect to enjoy this as well, but for someone who does not know much about the game and who has not played Fallout 3, they'd probably just pass it by if it did not get good reviews.

I know, but MOH did get a very bad review, it should have gotten a little better. And everyone knows about MW2 online.......

I guess since Fallout is now a well renound brand, it might get good scores from the major websites.

A little social experiment I've been wanting to do for a long time.
What do fans who say "I don't care about reviews, and you shouldn't either" say after the reviews come out (and are positive, of course)?

OT: I recall a few games in which being similar to its predecessor wasn't considered a bad thing, and Fallout 3 was one of them.

I don't really care what reviewers say, fallout 3 apparently was "Oblivion with guns" for the first several weeks of its release. That didn't work out too well. And i never listen to reviewers anyhow, i don't care about somebody's opinion on the game.

No I haven't, I'll have to check that one out :tops:

The only reviewers I pay attention to and respect is Angry Joe, Spoony, Angry Video Game Nerd, and Nostalgia Critic... Angry Joe is the only one on that list who would probably review this and I can already guess what he'll say.

*cough cough add http://www.youtube.com/user/GamingJesters?feature=mhum to that list cough cough*

The only reviewer I've seen make a statement at all said there is a review embargo in effect until Tues. but said to take his word now and buy it. His post has now been removed or I'd post a link. So, I imagine reviews will start hitting the same day we all start getting our games.

If they agree with me: Smart people :goodjob:
If not: YOU'RE WRONG!!! :swear:

But you knew that, right?

On topic, what do i care about reviews, i've already paid for it And what do i care if it's called an expansion or spinoff, it's the game itself that matters.

The only reviews i watch is Zero Punctuation, very entertaining, and he makes good points abbout the games too. Pretty much worthless as an opinion to base your buying decision on though. Here's http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/420-Fallout-3 for example :lmao:

I don't think they'll stoop so low as to call it an expansion, but I have a horrible feeling that they're going to give it a score below 9.0 because of the graphics. It deserves 9.5 or above.

Kinda like how "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2" was nearly identical to its predecessor?

Hmmm...

i have preordered it..so doesnt make any difference to me how the reviews are

I was willing to bet you were a newbie just by reading the title.
I was right.

1. Grand Theft Auto III - Metascore: 97%
2. Grand Theft Auto: Vice City - Metascore: 95%
3. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas - Metascore: 95%

Nearly identical games built using the same engine...the only differences were content and gameplay enhancements. Sound familiar?

I'm sure some reviewers will criticize NV for being similar-looking and similar-playing to Fallout 3. Those reviewers are forgetting that games companies have always re-used game engines and aren't likely to stop anytime soon. An experienced reviewer wouldn't blast a game for being built on an engine that's been used for another game provided enough new content has been added to justify it. Engine tech is VERY expensive to license, tweak, and familiarize your programmers with. It makes absolutely no sense to start over every time you make a new game.

Yes: every game with a sequel, ever.

Man I don't even care. Fallout 3 was a great game. As long as it has more to offer and a good story I could care less about the graphics and such. I bet Gamespot's review won't be out until late Tuesday.

Why can't people just get this? It's so frustrating.... :facepalm:

I'm not saying graphics and pretty engine tech aren't nice. In fact, a really shiny game engine can turn a mediocre game into a decent game. Content and gameplay are what make a great game, though. No amount of flashy graphics can do that. Besides, the FO3 engine really isn't that bad. If the content is good and the gameplay is fun I don't understand why anyone would be put off by seeing the same game engine for, OMG, a whole 2 times! *gasp*

Oh well. Haters gonna hate, I guess. I'll be over here hunting gekos.

I for one would rather a company spend time on the story and quests and land and whatever new buildings rather than build a whole new game from scratch each sequel. Sure, tweak a few things here and there like Obsidian did. However Fallout 3 was a great game, no need to throw it all out for the next sequel. Heck, I could see them doing one or two more games just the same way. Wouldn't that be great, a whole new Fallout Story and Game every 18 to 24 months? Much better than the 4 to 6 year development cycle when doing a new engine.

I know Bethesda is making a new engine for the next TES, perhaps this story can be played on that engine too. However that is lots of development time. In the meantime, give us some more Fallout on this engine after New Vegas.

I don't know why it should be, everyone knew the same engine was going to be used..and many of the same mechanics were going to be used.

I do not need reviews. I trust in Obsidian to deliver a great experience, and I don't care about how well they polished the game. I stopped after KotOR 2.

Other than that it would really be failure to call it just an expansion. Even one of my favourite German magazines lowered their expectations miraculously in the latest preview (from "extraordinary" to "very good"), for the reason that textures and model are re-used and the quest they played was kind of dull.
Seriously, what the hell...