I understand that game review sites like Gamespot and IGN can get a copy of a game earlier than the average consumer. So it makes sense to me that they would be able to have a fully fleshed out review in which they can legitimately comment on most aspects of a game. But riddle me this. How in the crap can some of these people on this website be giving a game like Fallout 9's and 10's? The game has been out for less than 24 hours, and since the campaign is supposed to take about that, what exactly are they basing the rating on? I honestly can't understand someone playing 4 hours of a game and declaring it soooooo awesome. Give me a break. I have played plenty of games that I thought were amazing at first only to grow bored and the repetitive nature of the game. Or vice versa. I have not liked a game at first, but after getting into the nitty gritty of it, the game really grew on me and became a favorite. To be honest, when I read some of these reviews by people who openly admit that they have only "just begun but the game is amazing," I immediately disregard their score, and I do so for the simple reason that they have NOTHING factual to back their opinion up with. It's like reading a student essay that makes some bold statement without backing it up. Without support and examples, the user review is just not that credible.