Agreed. There is something lacking in the combat for sure. I continue to play FNV, but I think FO# will always be my favorite.

It's not that they didn't spot a single bug, it's that they didn't have time between the game being finalized for testing and it being shipped for release to fix the bugs that they could find in that narrow window. As both Softnerd and I have declared time and time again it seems, the state of the released product was more a fault of Bethesda not pushing back release to allow for more testing, and less to none Obsidian being incompetent devs who knew there were bugs but left then in anyway. So people blaming Obsidian are just barking up the wrong tree.

I would like to wrap up this discussion by saying that if we all know what the game is like it ultimately reflects future sales. If it's good we will buy it and play it. If it's weak we rip on it and they hear it. How the game is now will effect how many copies we'll buy of the next Fallout game. Whats kind of sad to me about Fallout is that it's only one of a few good games to play. I buy too many games and I often lower my exPectations just to break the monotony of playing the same 2/3 games. I just get a hard on thinking about how great Fallout would be if it looked and played as well as CoD. Some games are so seamless and look so good, I dream of a day when you can talk to an NPC and they don't look like a last gen robot, and for the FPS to be in the same league.
There is no defending Fallout for it's problems. There is only encouraging Devs to make this Franchise better.

Did I, nay, everyone else reading this topic need to know this little tidbit of info? :blink:

Also, why should the devs focus on making it play like CoD? Fallout is an RPG, not an FPS. If you want a game that plays like CoD, then go play CoD.

If the devs were to do something like this, I'm sure almost all of the current Fallout fans, old and new, would abandon the franchise.

Edge Magazine's totally subjective opinion rates New Vegas a 6/10

My totally subjective opinion rates it a 9/10 but I didn't create a goram thread about it.

I don't know if you noticed but it's an Rpg/FPS. Fallout isn't winning any awards for it's combat mechanics. You can do both and make a smoother shooter and still keep the pathology of the game grounded in Rpg. I do play CoD and a ton of other games, and one distinction that polarized many gamers from consoles versus pc platforms has a lot to do with what types of games are played on each. Typically RTS and RPG are pc where as consoles tend to have more platformers and action titles. That said, the reason I believe Fallout has been so popular on the 360 (and we are on the 360 forum) is because it is a melding of two game types. I for one was tired of the antiquated turn based mechanic of FF style RPGs, and Fallout gave you a playable FPS with a streamlined turn based mechanic with VATS.
I don't know why dropping the CoD reference would piss you off, but I don't think anyone is going to drop the franchise if it looked and played better.

If the game was made more like CoD, then most fans would leave it.

If the game was improved in its RPG aspects, being both gameplay and story wise, then fans would hold onto it even more.

While Fallout 3 and New Vegas are RPG/FPS hybrids, you have to remember that they are RPGs first and FPSs second. I would rather have a Fallout game that played sub par but had superb writing and role playing mechanics, than a game that had fluid controls with a crap story, and severely lacking mechanics. And while a perfect mesh between the two would be ideal, it's close to impossible for it to happen, as devs tend to focus on one area of their game more than another, and if they were to spread their focus across all sides of the fence, the game as a whole would tend to be mediocre at best as none of the elements would get the full "treatment" so to say.

I disagree. Fallout is not the most original story to begin with (how many post apocalyptic games are there?) and the quest lines are more fun than the typical Rpg. Wanting an ideal is not crazy. Games like CoD have MP, zombies, campaign, combat training, arcade top down shooter, and even zork, where as Fallout is just the open world. Even games like Red Dead Redemption (and most rock star games) have multiplayer and alternative games on the same disc. I'm not suggesting fallout have MP, (though many of my friends have had some MMO fantasies about the game) but Fallout could be a big, working world with better rendering and an improved shooting mechanic. Mass Effect does this with a linear map progression, embedded story/dialog trees, and a cleaned up turn based combat wheel similar to vats. They improved it for ME2 and it only earned praise. I know the difference between styles of games, but no one wants to play video games to perpetuate antiquated mechanics or to buy the same game again and again.
I love how the world of fallout looks. I don't always love how it's inhabitants look. There is a future for Fallout that includes cleaner FPS mechanics, improved character animation, and a rendered world that stays in a decent framerate. Expecting less and you're just asking the Devs to keep this engine for another installment or worse remaking derivative versions of Fallout 3.
It's a very diverse audience that identifies with this game. It seems that many are from the old school camp of RPGs. I am too but not because I want to play clunky games. Even the dialog chains are clunky always having to scroll down through dialog that's already been discussed to get to new dialog.
Improvements aren't diversions. They only make the experience more immersive and set a standard for developers to raise with each entry in thei portfolio.

And just as an additional note about CoD: their QA teams were well over 200 people. Just saying that kind of commitment shows in the final product.

Did I say the devs should keep the engine? Hell no. I absolutely despise the Gamebryo engine with a passion.

But I believe the game should be improved where it counts, and that is making the RPG elements better and better. If it means that shooting isn't as fluid as CoD, then so be it. I'm willing to take that slight negative for a much larger positive.

Would I like for the shooting mechanics to be somewhat better? Sure. But in most cases with game development on games like this, it's one or the other. So if you'd rather have better shooting mechanics, prepare to be utterly disappointed by everything else.

Also, the QA teams for New Vegas were around the same size (about 300+), but as you see, that did not matter because the QA teams had barely enough time to work the kinks out.

And if the teams for CoD are really committed to their games, then why don't they try something different instead of constantly svcking off the teets of Modern Warfare like they have been for the past couple of years? Why don't they ensure exploits like the javelin glitch and such are resolved as soon as possible instead of like 5 months after release? Why don't they focus on making the game balanced the first time, instead of having us do the work for them? New Vegas at least has an excuse in this regard, but games like MW2 and Black Ops do not, since their QA cycles last for months upon months.

On a sidenote, you know 2010 was a sad year for FPSs when Halo: Reach was the best and most original FPS of the year, seeing as mostly everything else has just been CoD or CoD ripoffs. :rolleyes:

If he was on the QA team he deserved it. That, and probably should have been whipped out of the building.

I've been gaming a loooooong time, and this is easily a 9.5 game, truly wonderful. It's immersive, satisfying, and above all else, really, really fun... but some of the bugs are truly stupefying. McCaffery's hat? There's only 2 outcomes for this quest, and one of them breaks the strip!

Cliffs: great game, has issues.

Edit: Disclaimer. Score of 9.5 represents viewers personal opinion. Opinions are like armpits. Everyone's got 'em, and a lot of them stink.

Oh my opinion is just fine. It's not my fault people can't read my mind, it's theirs. See, this is what happens when you deal with someone that speaks faster than they can type or write(about 2-3 sentences in my case).

Happy thoughts, but don't hurt your brain too much.

I would give New Vegas a 9.8

I have been fortunate only to encounter very minor glitches that really didn't hinder my enjoyment of the game. I realize many others have had severe problems and I would certainly feel ripped off if that were my experience as well.

The level of depth in the story elements and the sheer number of interesting characters in this game dwarf any other game I have played, including Oblivion (if you compare it to Oblivion without any DLC or mods).



"just the open world"?

IMHO, the open world aspect of FNV is what makes it such a great game.

I've logged over 160 very enjoyable hours on my first playthrough and I am just starting to get into the big events of the main quest. I have never even set foot inside the Lucky 38. It is evident that a massive amount of work went into writing and developing all the story elements in FNV and I'm grateful to the team who put it all together.

There are many excellent games out there that are simply designed to be completed in 15-20 hours of gameplay. FNV is massive and a very different sort of game. I have played some great games such as CoD World at War , ME1, ME2, Bioshock1, Bioshock2, and finished them over the course of a weekend or two and haven't had any inclination to play them again. I imagine I will probably reach 200 hours before completing my first play through of FNV and I'm sure I will enjoy replaying the game several times and making different faction choices and different character builds.

IMO I agree with what Bootysweat says. It's the open world that adds replay value. Because an open world has no set path on what you *have* to do. ME 1/2, Bioshock 1/2, COD are all very linear games that set you down a path to an ending, with small side adventures. Open world games? You don't even have to start the main quest, you don't have to do the side quests. You can walk out of the starting area and do whatever you want. A true open world game doesn't put artificial blocks in your way, and is fundamentally different from a sandbox game.

I think in morrowind my longest time played was nearly 350hrs. Oblivion was close at nearly 250(I've only ever finished the main questline once, and never started shivering isle). My first quick playthrough of Fo3 and NV were both around 60hrs. I figure I should get around 120-150hrs on my second playthrough of NV. I easily hit 150hrs in FO3, and hadn't really even started the main quest.

Bugs should not shave 4 points off of a review. Thats terrible. :rolleyes:

Excatly it should only shave 1 point at max off the score.

I think a 6 is a fair score. Other magazines gave it 8 or higher, pointed out those bugs, but still gave it a good score. The game just killed my 60 gig fat launch PS3. I love the game and series, but now I'm without a system. Luckily I still have a PS2. Playing Okami for the first time and enjoying it thouroughly.

If the game crashes five times during the review and is riddled with well-documented problems it should still get a nearly perfect score? Why? What is the point of a review if it isn't reflective of the experience the reviewer had? If the guy had a 6 experience, he does a disservice to the readers by saying he really had a 9 experience. As I mentioned a bit back in this thread, this is a minority opinion, I don't think anyone here had their ego damaged by Edge giving it a bad review.

I already own the game, I'm enjoying it, it seems to be selling really well too... I don't really care that a few random reviews give it a low score. It's not going to have any noticable impact on anything, especially if the majority still hand out high scores.

Reviews are pretty meanlingless anyway. 10's and 9's are given out everywhere, even for games with obvious flaws.

I wonder how many people in this thread actually read the review and how many just looked at the score...

(You shouldn't get too upset about Edge, they've always been idiosyncratic; I still haven't forgotten the sixes for Doom and Chrono Trigger. Though I'm in full agreement with them on this occasion.)

If you want to get upset about a game look at GTA IV, it's a huge downgrade from GTA: San Andreas ( Less vehicles, less weapons, less areas) not to mention it was the buggiest game i have ever owned. All things considered it did have the best story line amongst all the GTA games but that isnt really saying much, most people played it for open world.

New Vegas while buggy wasn't as buggy as GTA IV (at least for me) and actually was an improvement in most areas instead of a downgrade for some sparkly new graphics. Keep in mind this game was [censored]ting out 9's and 10's from all kinds of reviewers.

That depends on what kind of bugs there are left in the game. Are they minor ones which doesn't happen often, then yes one point subtraction is justified.

However, if a game contains far too many bugs and happens far too often even on multiple platforms, then a four point subtraction is considered mild in my opinion . . .

I'd give it a 9.5 and I've been assaulted by glitches, locked vegas door, and even...yes...save corruption.

I'm enjoying the game, playing it loads and I agree with the review and think it deserves no higher. Will I play the game less becasue of the score or becasue of the countless issues/bugs in the game..... no I will still play it and work around the issues the best I can and most importnatly I will enjoy it! When I'm done I'll go back and carry on with FO3 which I never get tired of playing.

Yes, yes indeed.

I didn't really bother to read it because I'd rather state my own opinions on here. That, and I really don't trust most reviewers anymore. GiantBomb is probably the only place with some honesty in their reviews. As for the rest, they are either just praising the hell out of it because they're getting a fair chunk of money to do so, or bashing it because they aren't. And most of the negative reviews are so ridiculous anyway, that you can't help but not take them seriously. It's good reading material if you don't mind laughing and/or raging a bit. :laugh: