YOU DON'T OWN ME YOU CAN'T STOP ME

I CANT ??

Here's IGN's review of the Xbox 360 version, pretty glowing apart from a few complaints (mainly about some graphical aspects).

http://uk.xbox360.ign.com/articles/112/1128811p1.html

Come ooooooooooooooooooon amazon.

Bit-tech review, actually a PC version this time:

www.bit-tech.net/gaming/pc/2010/10/19/fallout-new-vegas-review/

Okay, they complained about the aging GUI and graphics, but I'm mystified as to what they thought was wrong with the characters\dialogue. That point isn't really expanded on enough in my honest opinion.

I don't blame reviews for bashing the ancient Gamebryo engine implementation for New Vegas... they should have done that for Fallout 3, and arguably should be doing it even more now as I see many reviews not mentioning or it not letting it effect the score.

And this comes from a dedicated Fallout, Bethesda and Obsidian fan who will LOVE this game, so I'm just being honest. It's a negative to the experience that it uses such a shitty engine.

So this is just like a big DLC for Fallout 3? With some new perks here and there.

By that reasoning, every sequel is nothing but a big DLC.

70 hours of gameplay can hardly be called a DLC or even an expansion pack.

I really don't understand why the reviews are choosing now to bash the game for using the Gambryo engine. New Vegas was never meant to be Fallout 4 and Bethesda never promoted it as such. It's a brand new story using the same engine with refinements to to certain areas like weapon mods, iron sights, companion control etc. New Vegas seems to be exactly what they promised with a much better script than Fallout 3 and yet every reviewer seems to be acting shocked by this.

No, a sequel can be done with newer technology, and is it no way compatible with the older game's data. Did they just employ the GECK from Fallout 3 to make this?

An updated GECK yes. They said that.

So what KOTOR2 wasn't a sequel to KOTOR it was DLC?

The Gamebryo engine has sucked for a long time now, of course it makes sense that reviewers point that out. The problem is not pointing it out now, the problem is they didn't point it out before.

That's my point. Why bring it up now just to take a few marks off the score when Bethesda have never tried to hide the fact the graphics have only marginally been improved? Anyone following this knew it already.

Well, if a graphics engine is your standard, then tons games never really get sequels, they get 'DLC.'

Here's what I'm seeing: a totally new setting, new characters, new quests (more than the first one) new perks, traits, new method of aiming, customizable weapons, and hardcore mode. That's a sequel man.