Fallout New Vegas: Why all the hate?

[AMMO Kid]

In Fallout 3 I could go wherever I wanted, do whatever I wanted, and do whatever mission I wanted. I was king of the wasteland, until new Vegas came out... I did not enjoy the so called "freedom" of New Vegas. I literally had to choose a faction right near the beginning and it was a linear story from that point onward. Why can't I play both sides for my own gain? Why do I have to help Yes Man to play my own side? Why can't I do all the missions in one play through? I want to do everything on one account thank you very much Obsidian! They kind of pulled the same thing that BioWare pulls in their sequels: They remove good things from their game and replace these things with crappy things. However, despite the fact that everyone I know holds this opinion, there are still people out there that praise this game, so I suppose I should just tag on at the end here that this is just my opinion...

 

[ChupathingyX]

It's so sad seeing people judge these games based solely on bugs encountered.

Seriously why are bugs encountered the main points I'm seeing in reasons here?

Both games had a horrible list og bugs, it all comes down to which you encounter yourself, it's a trivial thing to judge two games using the same engine on. Personally I encountered more bugs in F3 than NV but I never use that as a reviewing point, I never use that as a point for any game.

In Fallout 3 I could go wherever I wanted, do whatever I wanted, and do whatever mission I wanted. I was king of the wasteland, until new Vegas came out... I did not enjoy the so called "freedom" of New Vegas. I literally had to choose a faction right near the beginning and it was a linear story from that point onward. Why can't I play both sides for my own gain? Why do I have to help Yes Man to play my own side? Why can't I do all the missions in one play through? I want to do everything on one account thank you very much Obsidian! They kind of pulled the same thing that BioWare pulls in their sequels: They remove good things from their game and replace these things with crappy things. However, despite the fact that everyone I know holds this opinion, there are still people out there that praise this game, so I suppose I should just tag on at the end here that this is just my opinion...

Oh god, are you serious? At least in New Vegas you can choose your faction, in F3 you're forced to fight for the BoS, even if you do insert the FEV virus in the purifier it does barely anything.

Why would you play both sides?

The reason why they're on different sides is because they have different ideals.

That's like saying why can't you be a Nazi and fight for the Allies in WWII.

Oh and the reason you need to help Yes Man is because you need him to help hack the various securitrons under the Fort and hack into Hoover Dam, which you can't normally do yourself.

Plus without Yes Man then you wouldn't be able to throw General Oliver off the dam.

*sigh* You're post gave me a headache, I'm going to bed.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

I'm asking because recently I was on a website and every other comment after "When does Old World Blues come out?" was "FNV sucks!" or "F3 was so much better!" which got me wondering, why? It is, when u get down to it, a F3 expansion pack. Same engine, same character creator, even some of the same enemies. Personally, I love both games and will enjoy playing them until they get off their asses about Fallout Online. So, my fellow Escapist, can anyone tell me why FNV gathered some much ire from people?

I love and hate Fallout New Vegas. Why do I like FO3 better? One word...Over and over.

BUGS BUGS BUGS BUGS BUGS BUGS BUGS BUGS BUGS BUGS BUGS BUGS BUGS BUGS BUGS BUGS BUGS BUGS BUGS BUGS BUGS BUGS BUGS BUGS BUGS BUGS BUGS BUGS BUGS BUGS BUGS BUGS BUGS BUGS NUGS BUGS!!!!

Also the story felt more personal in FO3, and in New Vegas our character had memories but her/she just almost never talked about it. It only came up at planned moments, and through out the game it just felt strange to not know who I was.

I do like the combat better in NV, but most of the rest was done better in FO3.

 

[Chelsea O'shea]

I've never seen anyone who liked it better than Fallout 3.

Than allow me to be the first.

New Vegas rocked FO3.

My main beef with New Vegas (besides the occasional crashes) was that the 'normal' mode was actually 'easy' mode and 'harcore' was 'normal'. The second largest problem was the too tied-down final plotline. Why couldn't I become the ruler of the Strip, while having excellent relations with the NCR and let them deal with everything not directly within the walls of Vegas? It was either NCR takes over everything, Legion takes over everything, or you let Yes-man take over everything (in your name).

Otherwise, I loved it. Loved the humour, the quests, the wacky pieces of dialoque and funny items and movie/book references found all over the place. Whereas FO3 was good, but it wasn't Fallout - it was more Wasteland Survival. It didn't have the magnetism.

to answer you why not both question,the NCR wanted to annex vegas,they wanted control of it,you taking that from them pissed them off.

 

[Kahunaburger]

New Vegas is glitchy and has less emphasis on exploration, but in every other aspect is a far superior game.

 

[The Rockerfly]

Because getting shot in the head is ridiculous

It felt linear due to the high difficulty, everywhere was inaccessible (at least initially)because of this. If I went north, stupidly overpowered bugs, south, missiled, west I can't even remember but I died. East was the only way so what is the point of an open world?

Massive bugs and some major ones do still exist. I've lost my save twice, game crashed a couple of times and noticed graphical bugs to this day about a million times.

More engaging combat made it better but I felt having the extra characters and the bullet types ruined the necessity of being nice to anyone who would be. Plus the bullet types felt unnecessary but I think that's a personal preference.

But I didn't get to play it long because the game kept breaking so maybe I'm being unfair... oh wait

 

[Hamish Durie]

well im no expert on the subject but i can speculate very well.
fallout new vegas just doesnt feel like a newvegas game i don;t feel like im playing in a post apocalypstic world(also i can't spell)
If the game had however called itself something other then fallout i think many people would have been much kinder to it<------ short version

 

[AlternatePFG]

Yeah I heard the console versions of the game were a mess. Personally, I had an equal amount of large bugs between the two games, Fallout 3 with more of the constant CTD variety, and New Vegas with more of the bugged dialogue lines or weird NPC spawning. Also had a large amount in Oblivion. The Gamebyro engine is shit, I'm glad Bethesda is finally dropping it.

 

[AlternatePFG]

well im no expert on the subject but i can speculate very well.
fallout new vegas just doesnt feel like a newvegas game i don;t feel like im playing in a post apocalypstic world(also i can't spell)
If the game had however called itself something other then fallout i think many people would have been much kinder to it<------ short version

Huh, have you played the first two games? Because that's pretty much what many fans of the first two games say about 3.

 

[Vern5]

New Vegas improved a lot of the gameplay elements that Fallout 3 needed work on. However, aesthetically, Fallout 3 had more going for it. I will always remember the first time I stepped out of Vault 101 but FNV never gave me anything equivalent to the awe and twisted majesty of that moment. However, FNV also had a more realized world with more diverse characters, a complex faction system that does not rely on Karma, the Bear Grylls mode, and a personally compelling goal.

Frankly, my only complaint about FNV was how the world was less of an open world within the first hour as compared to Fallout 3, which was all open all the time. FNV forced you into a set path up until you reach Vegas with assured death instead of invisible walls. Also, design-wise, Vegas was the only truly impressive construction within the entire game. I was mostly in awe of Vegas when I first got there. I just wish the Strip had been a little bigger or that there was more of the city left beyond Freeside.

 

[Hoplon]

New Vegas felt way more cohesive and coherent.

I never really felt there was a driving force to head out in three.

 

[spartandude]

While i do think of NV as being an expansion. i still think its alot better, dont get me wrong fallout 3 is amazing but i like new vegas more because it just feels like theres more of it

people dont like it because of the bugs but i didnt encounter that many (i was lucky) and the ones i did find werent game breaking

 

[Imp_Emissary]

It's so sad seeing people judge these games based solely on bugs encountered.

Seriously why are bugs encountered the main points I'm seeing in reasons here?

Both games had a horrible list og bugs, it all comes down to which you encounter yourself, it's a trivial thing to judge two games using the same engine on. Personally I encountered more bugs in F3 than NV but I never use that as a reviewing point, I never use that as a point for any game.

That's well and fine for you, but MY experience with both games was almost the compleat opposite. Yes there were bugs that I also hated in FO3, but there were more in NV. Why dose it make a difference? Because these bugs aren't just things like "oh that body is fliping out", or "All of a souden I'm 20 feet in the air". Those are fun, and rare. These bugs ruin quest, lose me items, make other rare items not possible to get, and just break the game. If the game is so broken, that I can't play it properly, or that I have to be taken out of the immersion to deal with a bug every time I do a quest that makes the game experience as a whole much less fun.

The most hated bug I had with FO3 was that NPC's I wanted to live just disappeared at random.



That is happily not really in NV, but there are many more game breakers. If it weren't for the bugs, I would say NV is a lot better (except in story) than FO3, but even when they make a patch for the game the patch breaks it! (THAT HAPPENED. NOT A JOKE!>_<)

 

[Riff Moonraker]

I'm asking because recently I was on a website and every other comment after "When does Old World Blues come out?" was "FNV sucks!" or "F3 was so much better!" which got me wondering, why? It is, when u get down to it, a F3 expansion pack. Same engine, same character creator, even some of the same enemies. Personally, I love both games and will enjoy playing them until they get off their asses about Fallout Online. So, my fellow Escapist, can anyone tell me why FNV gathered some much ire from people?

I have really enjoyed Fallout: New Vegas, so far. I really enjoyed the last DLC, as well. I am like you, I thought the next DLC was supposed to be out by now, and I am just waiting until it hits the shelf and will pick it up immediately.

 

[SinisterGehe]

I've never seen anyone who liked it better than Fallout 3.

Me... I love the theme much more than I love F3's Theme... Also the weapon variety and ammo variety added lot of depth to the game (if you bother to use them) also the hardcore mode is so much fun!

I love and have sunk lot of time on both of them, but F:NW still warms my hart more.

 

[Terminate421]

New Vegas to me had the better:
Weapons
Story
Difficulty

Fallout 3 had the better:
Size
Location
Super Mutants
DLC

 

[GonzoGamer]

You know what I hate? Fallout 3 supporters complaining about things in New Vegas that were present in 3 and complaining about the lack of things in New Vegas that weren't present in 3.

New Vegas improved EVERYTHING that was wrong with 3, had a better story, had more additions and features and was a good Fallout game. 3 was a good game, but a bad Fallout game.

New Vegas did make huge improvements over 3 in terms of story progression, combat, and companion interaction/usefulness. But in my opinion those improvements weren?t able to outweigh all the ways it devolved from Fallout 3.
While they both had a lot of bugs and crashes, New Vegas was a lot more frustrating. It eventually started crashing constantly on me, not to mention disappearing companions, lock quests, and all the other annoying bugs that didn?t come up in Fallout 3. And I felt the DC wasteland was more fun to explore. There were less plottable locations in 3 but those locations were deeper and had interesting spaces in between them where all manner of unique encounters would happen. So while Fallout 3 felt spontaneous, organic, and seemed like a real place, the Mojave felt like a Hollywood backlot where everything was already pre-determined.
But while I think I would?ve still liked Fallout 3 more, I definitely wouldn?t have hated New Vegas if it wasn?t completely broken.
I think this says it all:
http://www.savethezombies.com/node/4
And the pic is really funny.

 

[JPArbiter]

my main problem with Falliut New Vegas is that it keeps crashing on me when IU try to play it normally, the plot setting and visuals are on par with FO3, I can not complain there, and I kinda miss Three Dog

the Ammunition and Armor system bugs me, but it is not to far removed from Fallout 2 so complaining would be off kilter. it just seems though like Obsidian was trying to hard to teach bethesda what fallout was about, and they failed (AGAIN) at the basic coding of games themselves.

in short, if you release a patch to fix a break in a game, and it breaks the game further, you fail as a developer.

 

[Jake0fTrades]

I prefer the atmosphere from F3, but I like the story from NV better.

 

[PunkRex]

Because its the most broken game ive ever played.

I loved Fallout 3 but ill admit it had its issues. New Vegas however actually prevented me from playing it with all the bugs. Character glitchs, freezing, un-ending loading screens... I still loved the story and aesthetics but I dont buy the expansions for at least a month after release.

Patchs... patchs everywhere.