I don't get it, how do you give a 4/5 to a game that you describe as this:
"despite experiencing a list of incredibly annoying bugs that only got worse as I continued playing, I still think you should play it. But when I reflect on the experience, I'll probably think about the times the game locked up on me or broke in a dozen other crazy ways first, before thinking about the great world and the objectives that fill it"
"Less than an hour in, I was staring at a guard, pacing back and forth to guard his post... 20 feet off the ground. Enemies clip into the ground with an alarming frequency, often making them impossible to shoot. The game--a retail disc running on a new-model Xbox 360--crashed on me about a dozen times over the 33 hours I spent playing, often taking a significant amount of progress with it. The load times and frame rate seemed to get randomly worse as I continued to play the game, with some simple scene transitions taking 20 seconds or more. The technical hurdles you'll have to make to stay interested in New Vegas are meaner and more frustrating than any Deathclaw or Nightkin you'll face in the game. If you're the type of person who likes to watch for a patch or two before settling into a game, know this now: you probably don't want to play Fallout: New Vegas right away."
It's suppose to be an immersive RPG right? Well not being able to shoot an enemy because they're stuck in the ground or watching a guard pace as he floats 20' high should deserve a slightly less score then it was dealt.