You know people aren't stupid. They remember GTA IV and other such cases. If review sites aren't trusted it's because they well deserved it with review scores in the past.

we'll see if its true when the bad reviews come out. But i think its well possible, since New Vegas is just a Big Fallout DLC that runs on its own (can be taken as good statement for fans), but it sure has Bugs it shouldnt have, not after F3 was out about 2 Years ago and they had the time to fix engine Problems, so i believe there sure are Scores under 8/10 to come.

Dan Hsu is by far the last guy you should doubt really. EGM wasn't getting review copies from multiple major game publishers because he refused to play this kind of game with reviews. I don't even know why you are arguing against it though. Even the good reviews have mentioned the bugs which means there is cause for bad reviews without blind bias.

Really no one here is even claiming anything about the game, or the reviews currently listed. By all accounts from my friends (who loved FO3 at least) the game is amazing once you get past the many bugs. Hell the auto-save doesn't even work right now for some reason, but apparently Obsidian is working on that one. Really though, how do you miss auto-save not working? Probably only PC version though.

I'm not sure I get the GTA IV reference sorry =/

I support Bethesda and New Vegas deserves to get plus 90% review scores. Bugs are no big problem and shouldn't be held against a great game too much.

To be honest he seems like a decent bloke and advertisers do this all the time so I would be more surprised if Bethesda didn't do it. My concern (well maybe 'annoyance' =P ) is that for some reason a hardcore group of people seem to just hate Bethesda (particularly after the 360 timed expansion deal) and scream bloody murder at things like this and blow it completely out of proportion.

Would some who agrees with Bethesda here please elaborate your position? How can you defend developers bullying reviewers into removing/delaying low review scores? 

If true, this is all tired horse shit and shame on Bethesda for trying to strong-arm reviewers.

I'm glad that GamrReview doens't kowtow to that petty bullshit.

I just want to go on record saying that this is still hearsay for the most part and that I do dislike the practice.

But I also have to say that if a developer is funding the website via an ad campaign or some other means, the website is no longer unbiased as, lets be honest, it wants the developer's money and future funding. We can all dream of unbiased websites free from developer funding, but I think it's best to accept that they will realistically continue accepting developer funding and just try to avoid reviews from websites that run adverts from said game. It's not like the internet stops when a developer runs an ad campaign, there are dozens of other review sites (if not hundreds) out there :P

It shows both pettiness and cowardice on Bethesda's part. Pettiness that they should even condone such practices, and cowardice that they don't trust their own product enough to stand up to some non-glowing reviews

What exactly are they afraid of? If they think their game is good despite the bugs, then let the reviews stand. If they think reviewers shouldn't review it until the bugs are resolved, then why the hell did they release it in the first place?