Review: Fallout: New Vegas

[thenamelessloser]

Fair review, it seems there's more to it than I expected.

I expected a stand-alone DLC, but it seems it's bigger than that. Very well, you got me interested, I'll see when it'll be available in my country to buy it.

Play some older sequels and they have similar graphics and engines sometimes. I think just all the DLC and higher emphasis on graphics nowadays makes people's expectations different.
I think of Fallout New Vegas to Fallout 3 somewhat like how Fallout 2 was to Fallout 1 from what I read of reviews. Fallout 2 used the same engine and had almost the same graphics as fallout 1 but was a vastly different game experience due to different locations. Also, seems to be that way with the humor as well. Also, it sometime said Obsidian has some people who worked on Fallout 1 and 2 BUT it seems like more people who worked on Fallout 2.

 

[Fr]anc[is]

Does stuff still randomly fall through tables when you pick stuff up? Lol who am I kidding, of course it does

 

[Meggiepants]

"Skeleton of a man in a refrigerator with a hat."

Indiana Jones?!

I immediately thought the same thing. I'll have to see the hat, but I'm pretty sure that's a jokey reference to the movie. Which is awesome.

 

[Flamezdudes]

UGHHHH. I want this game so badly now, I can't wait for Friday. However, I am quite worried about the bugs though, the game I heard is even buggier/glitchier than Fallout 3 was.

 

[Wolcik]

I still don't like the idea of Greyish Oblivion with guns, so I'll keep on waiting till Fallout try to return to its original form I loved

 

[nipsen]

Your position seems to be that because the bugs existed in a previous title, they should be excused in New Vegas. My position is exactly the opposite.

No, no. Far from it. It's inexcusable that the bugs are still there. I agree with that.

I think it also was inexcusable that the few (and truly few and very, very uncomplicated) quests in the original Fallout3 actually had logical scripting errors. In addition to the game-engine faults that happened randomly, and locked up the game.

I'm saying that you're on the right track with this one, if you are saying that game-breaking bugs in a game isn't a good thing, and should be reflected in the score.

But if the idea is that the bugs in the original Fallout3 game (that still are there in multitudes after the patch) should be excused because the game was new - then I don't agree.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

well, i kind of expected this of Obsidian.

they make a GREAT game, just never as influential or amazing as the one they're asked to make a sequel to.

they did the same thing with KOTOR 2.

if ever there was a studio i would turn to to make a sequel of an amazing game that everyone still talks about after years of it being out and the original studio wont do it... Obsidian is a great choice! they may not make a game that's "more of the same... but slightly better", but, hey, that's good enough for me!

 

[Soveru]

Excellent writing and tons of bugs from Obsidian

Is anyone surprised?

 

[Russ Pitts]

Play some older sequels and they have similar graphics and engines sometimes. I think just all the DLC and higher emphasis on graphics nowadays makes people's expectations different.
I think of Fallout New Vegas to Fallout 3 somewhat like how Fallout 2 was to Fallout 1 from what I read of reviews. Fallout 2 used the same engine and had almost the same graphics as fallout 1 but was a vastly different game experience due to different locations. Also, seems to be that way with the humor as well. Also, it sometime said Obsidian has some people who worked on Fallout 1 and 2 BUT it seems like more people who worked on Fallout 2.

Fallout 2 is bigger than Fallout, even if it's the same engine, it overshadows the first for a lot, of course, this is my personal taste.

I was expecting the worst with FO:NV, because the Bethesda RPGs, are getting shorter and shorter. Side quest asides, Morrowind is larger than Oblivion, Oblivion is larger than Fallout 3 and I was expecting NV to be shorter than Fallout 3. If you play the campaign of Fallout 3 is barely larger if not equal to Shivering Island expansion, and that was a big let down for me, not counting DLCs and playing only the campaign.

But like I said, it seems there's more to it that I expected, that's a good thing.

 

[SmilingKitsune]

I put up with bugs and glitches in Oblvion and Fallout 3, I do of course wish there weren't any, but it's far from enough to put me off what I have no doubt will be my favourite game of the year.
The wait here in England in unbearable, made worse by my jealousy of you Americans who already have the game in your hands.
Great review, still feels wierd seeing the Escapist give out scores.

 

[fgdfgdgd]

Man with the hat is an obvious nod to that Indiana Jones rip-off film that came out a couple of years ago... can't remember what it was called though, utterly forgettable. So the comparison of leaving it to die in a fridge in the desert is apt!

As for the game, it sounds like finally a Fallout game I can enjoy. I can't describe the ways I hated Oblivion in Brown (or Fallout 3 for the rest of the world). Good thing that the development of this was given to folks that had been at Black Isle in the good old times.

Also: Hardcore Mode will totally consume my attention for days.

:edited to say: Fallout 3? Depressing? Gloomy? Huh, must have played a completely different game. I mean, it wasn't funny, at least not intentionally, but it certainly wasn't gloomy thanks to the hammy acting, poor script and laughable attempts at dark and mature subjects within the game.

I thought the Indiana Jones thing was pretty obvious, the only thing more they could have done to show it was him would be to put the whip and a crystal skull in there with him.

 

[Solstrana91]

It's coming out Friday in the UK, and I shall be at my girlfriends house ;_;
The beautiful collectors edition shall have to wait in my house for me to burst in early Saturday.
I hope my girlfriend understands what I'm sacrificing

 

[Chainsaws_of_War_2]

Everything Russ said in the first paragraph is exactly how I felt on my way home last night to play this. I had put countless hours of my life into Fallout 3 but something was holding me back from totally enjoying this game.

I think it was the expectation of something completely different and better. It took me a while to realize that no matter how many ways you put it, it's still going to be a post-nuclear wasteland that you eventually become king of .

 

[Russ Pitts]

Your position seems to be that because the bugs existed in a previous title, they should be excused in New Vegas. My position is exactly the opposite.

I'm saying that you're on the right track with this one, if you are saying that game-breaking bugs in a game isn't a good thing, and should be reflected in the score.

But if the idea is that the bugs in the original Fallout3 game (that still are there in multitudes after the patch) should be excused because the game was new - then I don't agree.

Fair enough. As a reviewer, it's easier for me to overlook minor bugs (and in a game with the scope and scale of Fallout 3, yes I think they were minor) if they come with a game that breaks as much ground as Fallout 3. We didn't give scores in 2008, but Fallout 3 would have gotten 5 stars from me, and I stand by that. Those same bugs, however, are harder to excuse in a follow up title.

I understand you wouldn't have excused them in the first place, but we differ on that.

Also, for the record, I don't mind having a conversation, but lay off the sarcasm next time and we'll get off on a better foot.

 

[Sovvolf]

Mmmm, to be honest I'm not that interested in this game. Looks a little too much like Fallout 3 to warrant my purchase. Though my brother will be getting it so I guess I needn't worry. I'll give it a go though I'm not overly interested in the game.

Maybe its because I don't get much money these days so I have to be picky with my games. I don't really like buying games unless they really catch my interest and this one hasn't. That's not to say the game is bad or that it will be horrible, I haven't played it so I can't judge. What I'm saying is that it didn't catch my interest enough to part with money over it. So I'll just borrow my brothers copy on Friday and I'll give it a shot then.

 

[Russ Pitts]

Can you confirm if there is something else as a reward for beating the game on hardcore?

Not yet. I'm 25+ hours in and still haven't finished the main story.

 

[Sovvolf]

Fair enough. As a reviewer, it's easier for me to overlook minor bugs (and in a game with the scope and scale of Fallout 3, yes I think they were minor) if they come with a game that breaks as much ground as Fallout 3. We didn't give scores in 2008, but Fallout 3 would have gotten 5 stars from me, and I stand by that. Those same bugs, however, are harder to excuse in a follow up title.

I think I can see where your coming from here. Though correct my presumptuous arse if I'm wrong on this one. Your saying that, Fallout 3 broke enough new ground that your can forgive a few bugs getting through, no big deal, it happens. However with Fallout New Vegas being a sequel built (more then likely) on the same engine, you can't excuse the same glitches getting through the door twice. These bugs should have been none existent in the sequel.

Again I could be wrong on this however that's the way I'd have looked at it and yes I would have docked a point of for it too.

 

[Svenparty]

Can you confirm if there is something else as a reward for beating the game on hardcore?

Not yet. I'm 25+ hours in and still haven't finished the main story.

This sounds like a GOOOOOD thing!

It seems to me that the glitches are being massively overestimated. I doubt every player will have more bugs than they did in Fallout:3 I personally only ever noticed 5 and they were just graphical issues.

 

[Russ Pitts]

Fair enough. As a reviewer, it's easier for me to overlook minor bugs (and in a game with the scope and scale of Fallout 3, yes I think they were minor) if they come with a game that breaks as much ground as Fallout 3. We didn't give scores in 2008, but Fallout 3 would have gotten 5 stars from me, and I stand by that. Those same bugs, however, are harder to excuse in a follow up title.

I think I can see where your coming from here. Though correct my presumptuous arse if I'm wrong on this one. Your saying that, Fallout 3 broke enough new ground that your can forgive a few bugs getting through, no big deal, it happens. However with Fallout New Vegas being a sequel built (more then likely) on the same engine, you can't excuse the same glitches getting through the door twice. These bugs should have been none existent in the sequel.

Again I could be wrong on this however that's the way I'd have looked at it and yes I would have docked a point of for it too.

That's it.

 

[SomebodyNowhere]

I played for a few hours before going to sleep last night(this morning) and I'm enjoying myself. I did select the Wild Wasteland perk even though I don't really know what to expect to come from it.