Bethesda is forcing websites to pull unfavorable reviews of Fallout: New Vegas - Games

[QUOTE=edja007;25555757]gta4 and sr2 WAS a bad port. If it runs on a console better than my computer which is almost 2 times better, it's a shitty port[/QUOTE] Truth.

[QUOTE=edja007;25555757]gta4 and sr2 WAS a bad port. If it runs on a console better than my computer which is almost 2 times better, it's a shitty port[/QUOTE] consoles don't work that way there's a huge reason for better performance, the reason why Valve could squeeze a moderately good version of Half-Life 2 out of the Xbox.

[QUOTE=thisispain;25555964]consoles don't work that way there's a huge reason for better performance, the reason why Valve could squeeze a moderately good version of Half-Life 2 out of the Xbox.[/QUOTE] They still didn't optimise it very well.

[QUOTE=Legend286;25556049]They still didn't optimise it very well.[/QUOTE] unforeseeable consequences when porting things always pop-up, i'm just saying "OH THE CONSOLES RAN IT FINE, WHY DOESN'T MY COMPUTER RUN IT FINE" isn't a good rational for anything. If Red Dead Redemption came out for the PC, i'm pretty sure you couldn't play it with a X1000 card because it was abandoned by ATI for Windows 7. Completely different set of rules apply.

Bethesda needs to come out with a newer engine. If it wasn't for the shit ton of bugs and lackluster visuals the game wouldn't have gotten decent to lower then expected reviews.

[QUOTE=thisispain;25556138]unforeseeable consequences when porting things always pop-up, i'm just saying "OH THE CONSOLES RAN IT FINE, WHY DOESN'T MY COMPUTER RUN IT FINE" isn't a good rational for anything. If Red Dead Redemption came out for the PC, i'm pretty sure you couldn't play it with a X1000 card because it was abandoned by ATI for Windows 7. Completely different set of rules apply.[/QUOTE] Sure, but if you can't play it on a core2 quad at 3ghz and a 4870 1GB with 4GB ram then something isn't right on R*'s part.

People have their opinions.

[QUOTE=ItchyBarracuda;25554531]This is what is so wrong with the industry as it currently stands. You release a buggy, imperfect product, you want the PUBLIC critics to recall their reviews until you get your shit together? How about fucking fixing the issues before releasing it to the public at large, and then everyone would be happy, hm?[/QUOTE] They are forced by publishers to release by a set date, and I think it's 2-3 weeks BEFORE that date they have to give what they have to the printing place to get it all up for shipping. So first day and shortly after patches should be expected until publishers can stop shitting dates out their ass on developers.

Bethesda wont be ditching Gamebryo, from what people are saying on their forums they just upgraded it so it looks next gen for their next game. so now it will run even worse :sigh:

Any actual proof been dug up yet other then someone's twitter?

[QUOTE=Uberman77883;25554330]Gameplay has COMPLETELY changed. There is a crafting system, setting up your own campsite, general survival, weapon modifications, different ammo types, different animations. The storyline is of Black Isle quality, hundreds of new voice actors, better map, more of that classic fallout humor and pop culture references. Also the game is much harder. I never had to run from enemies, or avoid enemies before in FO3. In New Vegas, I had to be smart to survive.[/QUOTE] There [I]was[/I] crafting in FO3, and for everything else you listed there's a free mod for. I would consider all of those changes very minor for a full-priced sequel. also: hundreds of of new voice actors? think you might be exaggerating. On topic: There's nothing wrong with withdrawing advertising from a website bashing your product, the ethical problems lie with websites who willingly alter reviews for ad contracts.

[QUOTE=Capn'Underpants;25556495]They are forced by publishers to release by a set date, and I think it's 2-3 weeks BEFORE that date they have to give what they have to the printing place to get it all up for shipping. So first day and shortly after patches should be expected until publishers can stop shitting dates out their ass on developers.[/QUOTE] It's still a sick business tactic that has gone on for far too long and needs to be stopped and frowned upon by gamers, critics, and the public at large. If they were so concerned about the reviews they're receiving, they should have taken into account what was wrong with the project before releasing it. They want to have their cake and eat it too. You really have to have a lot of guile and nerve to think you can dictate that to the media.

It's stupid to ask for reviews to be pulled, nothing ever good can come of that (i.e. kane and lynch fiasco). But as someone said earlier, giving a game a bad review because of bugs is just as dumb. Almost every little complaint they have can be fixed with some patches here and there. I remember fallout 3 fucking up a few times here and there, most noticeably the time I got stuck on a jump loop and had to hop across the wasteland for an hour before I restarted the game.

Bethesda went to shit after Elder Scrolls 3

How would Bethesda go about [I]forcing[/I] websites to pull reviews? Just asking.

gamebyro is more like HDR:the engine

[QUOTE=Synelor;25550986]They just need more advanced engine, and that's it. Probably TES:V has it.[/QUOTE] hahahaha [editline]21st October 2010[/editline] hahahaha.

[QUOTE=RaxaHax;25559740]How would Bethesda go about [I]forcing[/I] websites to pull reviews? Just asking.[/QUOTE] Probably pull some legal shit outta their asses to scare the websites.

When the ad campaign is over and the reviews are reposted I hope the scores magically get lower.

Bethesda needs to REALLY change the Engine for Fallout 4.

I expected New Vegas to be Meh. This is why I opted to wait and play my beloved Fallout 3 and the thousands of User Made Content mods to change it, even completely in some cases, have it customized to how I want to play, rather than a Buggy ass game with the same bland mechanics that got old fast in Fallout 3 Give it a year, then get on board with New Vegas

[QUOTE=RaxaHax;25559740]How would Bethesda go about [I]forcing[/I] websites to pull reviews? Just asking.[/QUOTE] gaming websites rely a great deal on developers. They need devs to give them access to sneak peeks at games and to buy ad space. While developers will rarely abuse their power to alter reviews, websites usually won't anger devs more than necessary, which is why you rarely see big titles with any score below 6 regardless of suckage.

Bethesda are great, fallout new vegas is fucking ace. Reviewers like to bash on games.

Why is Gamebyro bad?

[QUOTE=Wootman;25560845]Why is Gamebyro bad?[/QUOTE] Bad animations, bugs everywhere, etc.

[QUOTE=Wootman;25560845]Why is Gamebyro bad?[/QUOTE] It's outdated, poorly optimized, is awful at handling animations. The physics engine is wonky, movement and jumping is clunky. It's just in general very buggy. New Vegas is still brilliant though, if you can overlook the technical flaws it has.

[QUOTE=sa2fan;25560680]Bethesda needs to REALLY [b]not do Fallout 4.[/b][/QUOTE] Fixed.

But it's some of the bugs that make us laugh. IE: [url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?1015875-Fallout-Series-Thread-V2-Launch-day-furry-mods&p=25561008&viewfull=1#post25561008[/url]

Guys, do you know why FO3 didn't have ladders? Because it was impossible to make ladders without the loading screen. Nice engine!

While this sort of thing is dangerous, I don't see it as a complete abuse of power. The thing is, reviews are integral to the sales of one's game. If a big reviewer is irresponsible and gives a review that's unfair (drastically dropping the score for minor flaws, or bugs that are soon to be fixed), I can see how it might be not-so-bad for the developer/publisher to attempt to mitigate losses.