All NMA did was provide an alternative view to the publisher's marketing and the pandering previews that the general gaming media feels so compelled to write. The PCWorld complaint is merely another example of how much access is valued over honest opinion and criticism.

I personally did not find much new info that hadn't been covered by others already but the impressions and opinions were new.

NMA (having been generally ignored by Bethesda) is simply trying to serve its constituents who want an unvarnished look at the game in comparison to the ones they love. Even they admit that the game will probably be very successful (sales and reviews wise) but that is not the measure they using. Will it hold up to the originals in terms of gameplay and atmosphere? Should fans of the originals (both diehard and more casual) expect a similar experience or something very different? It appears that Bethesda might be straying a bit from the important things (to NMA-type Fallout fans), but everyone including NMA recognizes that the game is long way off. The point is everyone can read all the opinions and decide for themselves if this is a game they are interested in following.

As a NMA and Fallout fan, I understand where they are coming from. Bethesda has plenty of time to address the issues they raised, many of which might just be a result of the early state of the game, but some of which, might have just been things overlooked. If so, then it is better that Bethesda should hear about them now than have everyone be disappointed when release time comes around. Nobody is expecting isometrics or turn based battles anymore but the fear of Oblivion with guns, radiation, and rubble is a real one and shouldn't be ignored if Bethesda is honestly trying to serve all Fallout fans and not just cash in on the name.

Frankly the name change idea was a very good one in this context. It implies a rebirth rather than continuation, which clearly this isn't even if they do get it right.