Zero Punctuation: Fallout: New Vegas

Recommended Videos

Madshaw

New member
Jun 18, 2008
670
0
0
oooo a video based lets play, the escapist should do more of these (spoiler warning)
 

Milanezi

New member
Mar 2, 2009
619
0
0
Roofstone said:
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?
It TRIES to be immersive, it's cool in some minor aspects, since food and drinks finally make sense, and it makes things abit harder cause stimpacks and broken limbs will work out differently, don't worry, as soon as the game asks if you want hardcore mode on, it'll also tell you all the details. Mind you that playing with Hardcore Mode on does not keep you from setting the DIFFICULTY on easy,normal, etc. They are completly different aspects of gameplay. I'm 50 hours intomthe game, I stopped for now because the game is freezing too much and I'll rather wait for the next patch, Hardcore
Mode, however, does NOT make things overly difficult.
 

Trull

New member
Nov 12, 2010
190
0
0
I'm playing, incredibly loving it.
But this review touches on a lot of good parts, but I think it doesn't touch too much on the story, but that's okay, because the story is rather complex (and hard to find at the start).
This review was different from the others, because of the whole 'day' thing. More of a story than a review, but it's still technically a review.

Onto the game itself;
thousands of bugs, but most of them are mutants.
 

samaugsch

New member
Oct 13, 2010
595
0
0
sumguitardude said:
Caradinist said:
sumguitardude said:
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?
Why i think it`s shit :

I bought fallout 3 when i got out becouse i thought i t looked good and it seemed like it was oblivion with guns in it.But after playing it for about an hour i traded it inn for another game.
Why you ask, becouse i thought the game was tedius, repetitive and just boring.
The fact you had to always empty ur items after collecting to much was an umberable chore.
And most of the characters in the game looked the same, the infinite traveling to one place to the other with no means of transportation and the horrible, horrible glitches also ruined it for me.
I liked the lock on system but that`s the only thing i liked about it.
Now if you like the game then good on ya mate, but me i rather eat sho polish then play it again.

And Las vegas is just the same as fallout 3, i mean come on they didn`t even bother by making the graphics better or sum other major improvement`s inn the game.
I feel the same as Yahtzee on this, it shud have been a DLC and not a full bloody retail game.
I hated the weight limit thing, too. Thankfully, I had it for the PC so I could use console commands to increase my pack by a ridiculous amount lol. Character design wasn't a concern to me at all, and I thought the fast travel helped with exploration. I didn't get too many glitches until I lvled up my guy a whole lot and had over 100000 lbs of junk in my pack, but I guess that's what I get for cheating :p. Though I will admit that it does get boring as soon as you explore every area. I also got New Vegas and was surprised by the differences from Fallout 3, as I also assumed it was going to be just like an expansion pack for Fallout 3 with a different campaign. Still, if you didn't like Fallout 3, you probably won't like Fallout New Vegas much, either.
 

WhiteTigerShiro

New member
Sep 26, 2008
2,366
0
0
Sansha said:
Whoa, chill it out. Who's e-peening? I'm saying Cazadors take huge damage when you nail them in the wings. Sometimes they even flip onto their backs when crippled. Like I said, they're more irritating than an actual threat. More of a waste of shotshells.

Anything's easy when you know how to deal with it... but really, get Dinner Bell and pretty much everything becomes trivial to kill.
You may not be actively e-peening, but disregarding an enemy that's a threat in the early game just because it's easy to kill a little later comes-off as very pompous. My post wasn't meant to say that the Cazador was the end-all be-all of New Vegas, I was simply pointing out that:

A) They are NOT just Bloatflies (which you seemed to think he was referring to).
B) They hit like a truck (which again, is based on Very Hard only experience, they might be wimps otherwise).
C) They require a pretty specific strategy (taking out the wings) to make them manageable.

I can certainly agree that they become easier later in the game, but later in the game wasn't the topic of discussion, thus it comes-off as pompous when you start going-on like you killed 50 of them in your sleep, at Level 1. With your bare fists.
 

Quorothorn

New member
Apr 9, 2010
112
0
0
solidstatemind said:
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.
That is definitely true.

(Though I suppose it doesn't truly shock me because, well, this is the Internet and all. ^_^)
 

cybran

New member
Jun 15, 2010
208
0
0
UberNoodle said:
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.
I totally agree, the humor and atmosphere in the game is really wakky and pretty damn good :)
 

Jorias

New member
Dec 10, 2008
223
0
0
sorry if this has been said already, but i am not about to read thru 400+ posts. Anyway, I just wanted to say that i am actually glad that Ben's game froze, this shows just shitty Obsidian did, proving to all those assholes on different forums that i was right, the game is a piece of shit....Thanks Obsidian, for taking a cult hit (the 90's games tho) turning it into cold shit!
 

killswell

New member
Aug 26, 2010
6
0
0
i'd like to comment on yahtzee's utter comical genius, despite lack of game review.. Gotta love those brits.
 

Roninraver

New member
Dec 2, 2009
11
0
0
DarkRikku18 said:
Not going to lie, I definitely lost some respect for Yahtzee when he got annoyed over pop making him dehydrated. Since, you know, it really does dehydrate people.
This is false. Caffeine is a diuretic, yes. But you are not less hydrated after drinking coffee, tea, or cola than you were before having said drink; owing to the simple fact that there is water in all of those things and your body now has more water in it than before, even after processing the additives.

It would make more sense if Fallout: NV weighed hydration on a sliding scale. For example, a bottle of water gives +5 hydration, a soda gives you +3. But having soda actually cause a net LOSS in hydration is silly. It doesn't work that way.
 

mr_rubino

New member
Sep 19, 2010
719
0
0
Watching it again, I can now speak to something that slipped by me:

I'm no athlete, but even I have always been told that drinking soda when dehydrated is only slightly better than drinking table salt. Yes it's water at its base, but there's a whole lot of stuff in it that makes it just about the worst thing you can drink if you need water, and can even make the effects worse. So a negative makes sense.

Roninraver said:
It doesn't work that way.
Nnnnnope. It works exactly that way.

EDIT: Are the Under-10-Posters (double meanings ftw) done making the same complaints seen weekly here at The Escapist yet?
 

Xianthos

New member
Oct 28, 2010
6
0
0
Roninraver said:
DarkRikku18 said:
Not going to lie, I definitely lost some respect for Yahtzee when he got annoyed over pop making him dehydrated. Since, you know, it really does dehydrate people.
This is false. Caffeine is a diuretic, yes. But you are not less hydrated after drinking coffee, tea, or cola than you were before having said drink; owing to the simple fact that there is water in all of those things and your body now has more water in it than before, even after processing the additives.

It would make more sense if Fallout: NV weighed hydration on a sliding scale. For example, a bottle of water gives +5 hydration, a soda gives you +3. But having soda actually cause a net LOSS in hydration is silly. It doesn't work that way.
I agree on the post.

Did you know that your body adapts to drinking coffee / tea / cola and doesnt dehydrate as some people want you believe to?

A lot of people lack the ability to see the diference between marketing of a company and real facts :p
 

HEXYDEZiMAL

New member
Aug 11, 2009
44
0
0
For the record and all of those who are asking, Fallout: New Vegas is in fact amazing. Outside of the crashes (which always suck, and were thankfully *mostly* fixed by the most recent patch), I've been most places in it and seen enough of it to comment. (PROTIP: Save often.)

So this is one of those games that's really worth playing, despite its technical flaws.

Even given that it's the same engine and such, Fallout 3 doesn't hold a flame to it.
 

Isi Jonsson

New member
Nov 15, 2010
1
0
0
don't waste so many caps on doctors healing arms and that, rather keep saving outside while you can trust on the autosave when inside, and just don't cripple any limbs while in hardcore mode, if they're about to get crippled, just sleep and they'll have full health again.
 

Roninraver

New member
Dec 2, 2009
11
0
0
mr_rubino said:
Watching it again, I can now speak to something that slipped by me:

I'm no athlete, but even I have always been told that drinking soda when dehydrated is only slightly better than drinking table salt. Yes it's water at its base, but there's a whole lot of stuff in it that makes it just about the worst thing you can drink if you need water, and can even make the effects worse. So a negative makes sense.

Roninraver said:
It doesn't work that way.
Nnnnnope. It works exactly that way.

EDIT: Are the Under-10-Posters (double meanings ftw) done making the same complaints seen weekly here at The Escapist yet?
No, it does NOT work that way. A basic high school chemistry course would tell you this. Actually you don't even need the chem course, you just need a little common sense.

The reason that soda, tea and coffee are worse for hydrating than water, is because the substances in the beverage require water (among other things, like calcium from your bones in the case of soda) to be processed and broken down by the body. That and a slightly elevated rate of urination. But there is a net gain in the amount of water present in the body after consuming the beverage. You do not magically end up with less water in you than before, simply because what you are drinking has things other than water in it.

If you drink a 20oz bottle of soda, it does not cost your body 21oz of water to process the additives. It costs less, leading to a net gain in water present in your body, therefore you are better hydrated than you were before. This is common sense, and I do not know how or why people seem to have trouble understanding.

Let's try this. Say you're stranded in the desert, you've been walking through the heat of the day for 10 hours, during which time you've had nothing to drink. You come across a bottle of soda lying along a dune. Do you drink the soda? Or do you think to yourself "No, that would be silly. It would dehydrate me more than I am already!"

If you chose the second answer, you have failed the Darwin test and deserve your fate.

Drinking water is better than drinking soda. But drinking NOTHING is so much worse. The fact that Fallout: NV actually has soda cause a DECREASE in your hydration level is ridiculous, and Yahtzee was right to point it out.
 

Udyrfrykte

New member
Jun 16, 2008
161
0
0
mr_rubino said:
Watching it again, I can now speak to something that slipped by me:

I'm no athlete, but even I have always been told that drinking soda when dehydrated is only slightly better than drinking table salt. Yes it's water at its base, but there's a whole lot of stuff in it that makes it just about the worst thing you can drink if you need water, and can even make the effects worse. So a negative makes sense.

Roninraver said:
It doesn't work that way.
Nnnnnope. It works exactly that way.

EDIT: Are the Under-10-Posters (double meanings ftw) done making the same complaints seen weekly here at The Escapist yet?
I'm an athlete and I took biology in college. Hell, I have common sense.

Drinking soda does not dehydrate you that way.