User blog comment:Airos/Rant: Why I dislike PC gaming/@comment-2249418-20110608112623/@comment-164376-20110608124744

According to Wikipedia the worst score it got was 6/10 from Edge. I'm seeing one "7.5/10", three "8.5/10", one "8.6/10", five "9/10", one "9.5/10", one "3.5/5", two "4/5", two "4/5", two "4.5/5", one "5/5",  one "84%" and one "B" from the other reviewers.

It goes on to state that as of 11/08/2010 it had shipped 5 million copies worldwide.

Which is my point. Fallout 3 was a buggy, glitchy mess. New Vegas used the exact same engine as FO3, and suffered the exact same problems. Where in those review scores did the critics mark it down for doing nothing to fix the issues? Looking at the overall scores of FO3, (also on Wikipedia), New Vegas scored a whopping .5 to 1 point less on average. That'll teach 'em!

Now, I'm guilty of purchasing New Vegas. I honestly expected that BethSoft would have listened to their customers and fixed the problems. They didn't. With reviews averaging around 8 to 9/10 they probably all think they did a good job, and will continue to put out exactly the same quality of product in the future. I'm personally holding off on Skyrim until at least a week after launch, probably even until Christmas, so I can see who's complaining on the message boards about bugs and glitches.

And Fallout is a game I had in mind when I brought up the community "fixing" the game for the developer. Just pop over to Fallout 3 Nexus and search for "fix". There's hundreds of files dealing with glitches. Why should they bother to fix the game when the fans will do it for them, and for free?