Because its a major multiplatform release by a well-known developer. If any PS3 exclusive was this buggy, it would be getting ripped by reviewers. If it was an IP by a small, unknown developer, it would be getting ripped. But because it has the name "Fallout" in the title and comes from Bethesda/Obsidian, it gets 8s and 9s.
This is why you can't trust professional reviews. The only reviews I trust are the ones that come from gamers after release.
The graphics are terrible and the engine actually runs worse than Fallout 3. That doesn't mean the game is broken or unplayable, but no way does this deserve a 9.5 or something like that.
"Fallout: New Vegas uses the same engine as Fallout 3 and comes with the same technical issues. Animations have no weight to them, lip synching ranges from good to non-existent and the artificial intelligence is dumber than a rock. More often than not you'll run across an enemy or ally who just can't seem to figure out how to get around that corner. These flubs are certainly humorous, but the choppy framerate and terrible load times are no laughing matter. Load times on consoles ...
"Despite Obsidian’s fan-service, Fallout: New Vegas is a heaping pile of bugs. Common sights are characters falling through the world, single-digit framerates, frozen enemies, sound effects cutting out, and characters that change voices mid-conversation. I’ve had reputations reversed and weapons disappear from my inventory, only to go back to normal an hour later, and my two companions are currently stuck inside a room in New Vegas. The latter might be for the best anyway, as they kept s...
The author of the review experienced more than just "a few bugs." At least for him, the game was semi-broken. It would be dishonest for the reviewer to overlook that.
Just a slight amount of trolling there.
It crashed twice in six hours and that's BETTER than what you were expecting? Dear God.
What would the game have to have done to be worse than expected? Burst into flames and burn your house down?
This is definitely not a game that anybody's buying for the graphics anyway.
"The fact that the many issues with glitches and bugs weren’t ironed out of this release would be unforgivable if the core game wasn’t so tirelessly compulsive and complex. As it is, we have to warn our readers that there are some serious problems here. Your enjoyment of the game will largely depend on how much you’re willing to forgive the issues. If you don’t mind working around them then this could be a game of the year contender, otherwise, you might just think it’s broken." <...
This isn't the sort of game that anybody's going to buy for the graphics, so I'm not sure what the point of this article is supposed to be.
You're right. That does sound really stupid.
This sounds like one of those games where we can set aside the poor graphics and ancient engine in favor of high-quality writing and gameplay. I hope these reviews are right.
A multiplayer demo would be nice. I don't need a demo for the SP campaign.
All gamers should be hoping that Kinect fails, because I don't think any of us want to see the industry go down this road. But 360 gamers should especially be rooting against this, unless they want to be completely abandoned.
For whatever reason, Microsoft made the decision to rely on third party developers. It sucks for 360-only gamers, but hey, it worked out for Microsoft financially.
And of course Kinect is getting a huge marketing push. This is very similar to launching a new console. Kinect may not be the XBox 720, but it's at least the XBox 540. They're reaching out to the casual market, and breaking into a new market means a lot of money in advertising.
I'm still getting this for the PS3 and I don't really care. I never played any of the DLC for Fallout 3, and I can't see myself playing any DLC for this one either. Once Q1 2011 hits, I'll be way too busy playing new games.
That's all he was looking for, obviously. The comment section was a great read through, LOL.
GOW3 (PS3) didn't look better than GOW2 (PS2) to you? Really?
If GOW3 had used the exact same engine and looked exactly the same as GOW2, it would have ripped by critics, and rightly so.
I'm not buying Fallout for the graphics so it isnt that big a deal to me, but it's absolutey fair game to note that it looks more or less the same as Oblivion, which is a pretty old engine in video game terms.
I actually feel kind of the same way. I'm looking forward to Fallout New Vegas, but the other fall games just don't do it for me. No doubt GT5 will be awesome for those who like that sort of thing, but I'm just not into racing simulators. No interest in Black Ops either.
2011, on the other hand . . . well, that's a much different story. There are a year's worth of games for me coming out in just the first quarter.
Thanks for releasing an unfinished game.