You've already had time to sup on our opinions on Fallout: New Vegas, but we imagine you must be hungry for more, like a lost courier in the Mojave who's been attacked and left for dead. Actually, you know what? That's, like, exactly how this game starts. Weird, huh?

Anyway, let's satiate that appetite for words you've got going, shall we?

• Eurogamer (90/100): "Obsidian has created a totally compelling world and its frustrations pale into insignificance compared to the immersive, obsessive experience on offer. Just like the scorched scenery that provides its epic backdrop, New Vegas is huge and sprawling, sometimes gaudy, even downright ugly at times - but always effortlessly, shamelessly entertaining."
• GamePro (90/100): "This laundry list of complaints might seem like a game breaker, but that I could suffer through them repeatedly during my marathon New Vegas weekend and still walk away feeling not only satisfied but hungry for more says something about the power of the formula that Bethesda has crafted."
• IGN (85/100): "In New Vegas, the fun Fallout 3 formula is intact, with more polished combat, high-quality side missions, and the exciting setting of the Vegas strip. Unfortunately, the bugs also tagged along for the ride."
• Game Informer (85/100): "Gamers should expect more of the same from this follow-up. If Fallout 3 holds a place among your top 10 games of this generation like it does for me, another rewarding 200-plus hours of survival awaits you."
• PC Gamer (84/100): "More wasteland to wander. New Vegas is good, but the failure to move the series on makes it feel a tiny bit stale."
• Giant Bomb (80/100): "It's not a surprise that Fallout: New Vegas sticks closely to Fallout 3's structure and style. But if it weren't for the game's way-too-long list of technical issues, New Vegas would actually be better than its predecessor. Instead, it's a well-written game with so many issues that some of you might want to take a pass, at least until some of this nonsense gets fixed."