Nergal01: That's what Logan's Loophole was for. Besides, Fallout 3 wasn't any better in that regard, either.
Siannah: I'm not claiming F3 being better at all. I'm claiming the same guys bashing F3 and Skyrim over this, failing to see it in Obsidian's NV.
NoNewTaleToTell: That's an odd way to spell Blood On The Ice.
Siannah: If you see Blood on the Ice as buggier than Beyond the Beef, compare the bugs section on uesp vs NVwiki.
NoNewTaleToTell: And no, I'm not a fanboy of Fallout 1/2 who must defend them for the honor of nostalgia, Fallout 3 was my introduction to the Fallout series. You can dislike Fallout 3 without being the dreaded fan of the first two Fallouts or Obsidian.
Siannah: Absolutely. And I have no problem with it. NV was for a large part better than F3. Not on the world design, at least for me, but this is personal preference and I have no problem accepting other opinions.
But take all the criticism against F3 in this thread alone and compare it with NV - how many fail on facts or, at the very least, disregard any viable criticism against NV / Obsidian? Objectivity, what's that again?
I'm familiar with both of those wikis, I suppose my statement was based on the fact that Blood On The Ice has been broken for me (in one way or another) more often than not for me, I don't think it even triggered at all on my last playthrough despite spending a large amount of time in Windhelm. Beyond The Beef worked fine for me, besides requiring me to noclip through the detective's room due to crashing whenever I stepped foot in it.
Oh I won't disagree that Bethesda at times catches too much flack for Fallout 3, but Fallout 3 is (for whatever reason) considered by the general gaming community as one of the best games of its era, while New Vegas isn't, and it's treated as such in most corners of the internet. Even here some people are trying to downplay criticisms of Fallout 3 by attributing any criticism to nostalgia glasses or fanboy-ism, so I'm gonna submit that it (clearly biased arguments) happens on both sides.