coomber

Same here! Easily a GOTY contender for me.

Yep, loving it here too.

Yeah, picked this game up last week brand new at half price. Can't believe the criticism it got. So frustrating reviewers failed to understand what this game was. Best thing Obsidian have put out so far in my opinion.

Yeah, Fallout can be completed in 15 minutes. Fallout 3 in an hour. Speed runs don't tell you much. The fact the embargo for reviews is so close to the release date says more.

A week after Alan Wake. That is a good month for me

I think any delay is a good thing. I'm not sure the game is ready to be released from what we have heard, and the marketing has been practically non-existent. I want this game to do well.

I agree with the idea of a delay if the game needs more polish. But so many good games have been delayed already from this period to early 2010 that AP is going to go up against some big hitters no matter what.

Nice reply Mr Rorie

My comment wasn't aimed at you, as you are no longer arguing the point I made. I have experienced exactly what you suggest happens to journalists - advertising sales staff put pressure on them not to upset their customers. I am a living example that that does happen. My point was, and always has been, that journalists are not paid by developers. Since your initial post you have broadened the definition of what you meant so we are not disagreeing. Oner, if you are not arguing with me about journalists getting paid by developers...I'm not really sure what you are arguing with me about at all lol.

[quote name='H

So wrong in fact, that Gamestop never fired any of their reviewers for dissing Kane&Lynch. And some publisher never threatened to sue some gaming sites for unfavorable reviews for it's new top game with the excuse that they revealed those reviews days before the allowed date. Even though they made them public 2-3 days after it. (This may have been The Witcher, but I can't recall.) The Gamestop reviewer wasn't paid to give the game a good score. How does this back up the suggestion that reviewers are paid? If they had paid him, he'd still be in his job maybe! The other reference you are making is vague and irrelevant. My only point is that journalists have never been paid by developers to talk up a game. Having people from within your own company putting pressure on you to give a good score is very different. Ad reps don't want to piss off someone looking to spend money. I have had to deal with that crap in the past on newspapers.

Yes. If a writer likes the look of a game you think is crap but they love, they will say so. Why is this difficult for you to understand? Not so, my Vulcan friend. I don't know anything about Crysis, but Oblivion is the best game ever created in my opinion. You don't think so but maybe the guy who reviewed it did. I thought Fallout 3 was over-hyped as well, but I don't begrudge someone else thinking it is amazing. Having a good PR team and bribing journalists are two different things (although sometimes the line between the two can be blurred). I agree with you that journalists are more inclined to score up games with big marketing campaigns and the like. But to say they are paid to do it by developers is 100% wrong. I never played Witcher (why did they cancel the console version?! ) but if I played it and thought Oblivion was better, would I be 'wrong'? No. Because it's an opinion and it doesn't have to tally with yours.

I do wish people would stop coming out with this crap that journalists are paid to write positive reviews. I'm a journalist, and trust me - we aren't. Eurogamer is very hit and miss with its reviews. I'm not familiar with the guy who wrote this article. Their RPG reviews are normally done by Kristan Reed who, like the site, is unpredictable but generally there or thereabouts with his scoring.

Very good point. I remember how gutted I was when I got to the end of KOTOR 2 and realised they must have downed tools just to get the game out.