Zero Punctuation: Fallout: New Vegas

[kittenbot]

Interesting notion: Lots of people say that new Vegas is just a fallout 3 expansion

Interesting notion: Nobody said Gears of War 2 was a Gears of War expansion.

Don't get me wrong, the similarities are there, but there there are a fair few differences in New Vegas when you spend some time with it, more than most sequels have when compared to the original game. I agree that hardcore mode is a bit of a schill though, it's a lot less compelling than I expected (it's very very forgiving).

But back to my initial point: Why do some sequels get called "Just an expansion" while other sequels don't?

Gears did it, CoD did it (Did they change the engine between MW1 and MW2?), Hell, the amount that changed between mass effect 1 and 2 isn't particularly phenomenal, and New vegas has less randomly clicking planets for resources.

Note: The above is partially driven by bias, I really like New Vegas and have seen very few bugs, and no game-breaking bugs, however, I consider it the superior game to Fallout 3 in pretty much every single way.

 

[OceanRunner]

Liked the journal style in this review and how the "bugs" issue was brought up. I'll be sticking into hardcore mode when I've finished my first playthrough.

 

[Meggiepants]

This is now my favorite Yahtzee video.

I had the same problem with the H2O thing the first time I tried to deal with my dehydration level.

And I hate those killer flies.

 

[joes]

best review ever, man.

ditto on "international law of go fuck yourselves" crackin me up.

 

[Gothproxy]

I loved it. Especially the line of keeping stuff from guys who attacked you first with the International Law of Go $&%^ Yourself. Classic (and very true, I might add).

Bravo to you for another good review.

 

[Chris 'Chaos' Voce]

The thing that really got me was the starvation thing even though there's food everywhere its hard to find food with the least amount of RAD so you wont just drop dead out of the blue (moon)especially if you just came back from camp searchlight.

Still this game was alright and a great way of putting it in a nutshell Yahtzee proud of you.

 

[Zach McTechStuff]

I hated the graphics freezes as well (They're much worse on the PC) but thankfully a modder kinda fixed that.

Another great review.

 

[pcload1etter]

People talking about crashing? I didn't have a problem the entire game. Did a lot of side quests too. Get a better computer.

 

[darksider216]

very good but i lurve new vegas and i found a very easy way to get inot the vegas strip,
help the kings and then when they owe you a favour ask to get into the strip and they give you a fake passport

 

[solidstatemind]

Sorry about the delay in response:

It still amazes me that people give Yahtzee's opinion any sort of weight. He's a comedian not a critic, folks. He may point out things that are worth your time to consider, but if you base your purchasing decision solely upon his 'reviews', you're really doing yourself a disservice. You may bleat now. Thank you.

Isn't that a bit contradictory? If he brings up points worthy of consideration, why does it amaze you that people give his opinion "any sort of weight"?

Okay, you got me: I started out with a generalization. I should've said "it continues to shock me that some people take his opinion as being definitive..." I think the rest of my statement got the point I was trying to make across, however.

snip

Actually, he says in his SSBB viewer comment review that he's a critic.

...and once, when a form I filled out asked me what color I was, I put in 'Paisley'. In other words, just because he said it does not necessarily make it so-- and in fact, I would argue that product Yahtzee puts out consistently contradicts that statement. ZP is always at least amusing to me, and is often laugh-out-loud funny-- and that is its strongest trait, not conveying information that would be very useful for making a thoughtful purchasing decision.

Basically, Yahtzee is a critic in that he is 'critical' in the sense of "being marked by a tendency to find and call attention to errors and flaws", not 'critical' in the sense of "characterized by careful evaluation and judgment". Perhaps you may not agree with my assessment, but I think the evidence supports that conclusion.

Regardless, the ultimate point is that I think people who base their purchasing decisions solely upon a ZP episode are foolish. Of course, I think that about anyone who would look to only one source (regardless of who or what it may be) to guide their thoughts and actions, since that basically means they're leaving their critical thinking to someone else rather than gathering as much information as possible and coming to a conclusion themselves.

Not that my comments will change anything. Followers are usually pretty damn stubborn about remaining dependent. I guess I just like tilting windmills.

 

[samaugsch]

Sorry about the delay in response:

It still amazes me that people give Yahtzee's opinion any sort of weight. He's a comedian not a critic, folks. He may point out things that are worth your time to consider, but if you base your purchasing decision solely upon his 'reviews', you're really doing yourself a disservice. You may bleat now. Thank you.

Isn't that a bit contradictory? If he brings up points worthy of consideration, why does it amaze you that people give his opinion "any sort of weight"?

Okay, you got me: I started out with a generalization. I should've said "it continues to shock me that some people take his opinion as being definitive..." I think the rest of my statement got the point I was trying to make across, however.

snip

Actually, he says in his SSBB viewer comment review that he's a critic.

...and once, when a form I filled out asked me what color I was, I put in 'Paisley'. In other words, just because he said it does not necessarily make it so-- and in fact, I would argue that product Yahtzee puts out consistently contradicts that statement. ZP is always at least amusing to me, and is often laugh-out-loud funny-- and that is its strongest trait, not conveying information that would be very useful for making a thoughtful purchasing decision.

Basically, Yahtzee is a critic in that he is 'critical' in the sense of "being marked by a tendency to find and call attention to errors and flaws", not 'critical' in the sense of "characterized by careful evaluation and judgment". Perhaps you may not agree with my assessment, but I think the evidence supports that conclusion.

Regardless, the ultimate point is that I think people who base their purchasing decisions solely upon a ZP episode are foolish. Of course, I think that about anyone who would look to only one source (regardless of who or what it may be) to guide their thoughts and actions, since that basically means they're leaving their critical thinking to someone else rather than gathering as much information as possible and coming to a conclusion themselves.

Not that my comments will change anything. Followers are usually pretty damn stubborn about remaining dependent. I guess I just like tilting windmills.

I don't use Yahtzee as my only source, but I figure that he makes a good one if you interpret his reviews correctly. For instance, if a game is really good, he might say one or two good things about it in the whole review. If it's any worse than that, he'll nitpick it like crazy. At least that's how I look at his reviews. I'm starting to doubt major sources ever since Gamestop's Kane & Lynch 2 review.

 

[sumguitardude]

Fallout 3 was shit and this game is shit, i agree completely with ur review
I mean come on they are using the same fucking graphics engine and it has more bugs inn it then a year old fish.

 

[Hoiguyyami]

Sweet jesus, i dont know if i'm high on morning, but that was funny.

 

[GrinningManiac]

In The Mood!
I will buy this game solely because that music was used in relation to is (I know it's not IN the game)

 

[solidstatemind]

I don't use Yahtzee as my only source, but I figure that he makes a good one if you interpret his reviews correctly. For instance, if a game is really good, he might say one or two good things about it in the whole review. If it's any worse than that, he'll nitpick it like crazy. At least that's how I look at his reviews. I'm starting to doubt major sources ever since Gamestop's Kane & Lynch 2 review.

Nah, that's totally reasonable-- it's basically what I do. I was more referring to the seemingly endless stream of people who say something like "thanks Yahtzee; I was thinking about getting this but now I know to avoid it." I mean, seriously? If they are going to mindlessly follow Yahtzee's opinion regardless, why bother even watching? You could easily argue that if Yahtzee reviews something, nine times out of ten (ninety-nine times out of one-hundred, even?), he 'hates' it, or at least comes off like he does.

 

[UberNoodle]

I know that being negative about pretty much everything is his shtick, but I find myself tiring of it. I prefer AVGN so much more because whenhe rants and raves, the games really deserve it (in hindsight at least), where as ZP seems to massively magnify minor quibbles into problems that they're not. Vegas is so buggy, but there was very little said about this gold mine of comic and sarcastic material.

 

[BigDawgWTF]

So I watch all your videos. I think your sense of humour and insights are downright brilliant. I've been hooked on this game, so I was excited to see your take on it. The review fucking sucked, or lack of a review that is. In fact I had to register just to ***** about it and I never register for anything.

This game lazily recycled 75% of its code from Fallout 3 and somehow is 500% buggier. However, people can't stop playing it. At first I was incredibly disappointed, but then started to see how much better everything was laid out. The plot, the humour, the sub-quests, the back stories are all richer and make the game far more entertaining. You failed to comment on any of these things and wasted my fucking time with Glen Miller and your step by step description of what you decided to do in the game.

Just admit that you didn't have nearly enough time to even scrape the surface of this game and threw this review like a comic throws a set because he doesn't like the audience. Meanwhile, despite your laziness this time round, your patriotic followers praise the review just because it's different than your usual style...which is actually reviewing the game.

Maybe the karma doesn't make a difference, but you failed to mention the introduction of "reputation" with the different factions. This is the closest I've seen to a choice-based game actually having a somewhat realistic impact on the the outcome of the story.

Anyway, I thought you might actually have some interesting and funny things to say about this monumental game and you half assed it like you got hammered the night before and then threw it together at the last minute.

You know I'm right.

 

[batosai33]

would it be too much to ask, if i asked you to do a narration of everything in fallout new vegas? that was more entertaining than the actual game, and i like the game.

 

[Kouen]

I giggled at the freezing ending to his life. Though I wanna ask one thing: Hardcore, is it immersive.. Or just a pain in the royal arse?

Honestly... as Yatzee says not really just adds more factors in it, infact I found "Hardcore Mode" not hardcore enough! The Fatal Flaws being that I Didnt dehydrate fast enough and i couldn't use bottles i own in my inventory to make bottled water (Although I know there is a mod for that)

But ya I Have overplayed that game xD

http://steamcommunity.com/id/Kouen/stats/Fallout:NewVegas

I Quite enjoyed that Tale style review xD although im guessing everyone is waiting for Yatzee to now review COD:BO xD

 

[Caradinist]

Fallout 3 was shit and this game is shit, i agree completely with ur review
I mean come on they are using the same fucking graphics engine and it has more bugs inn it then a year old fish.

Care to explain why they are shit? Other than the bugs in the game that are fixed now?