Never said that they deserves nothing, but the sequel, even with the bugs, is an improvement in some things.

Ah. I was under the impression that we weren't allowed to link to NMA anymore for whatever reason but I guess that wasn't true. Or just something to keep the peace for the first weeks after the release. The word 'RPGCodex' is also no longer censored as it was for a while after Oblivion.

Actually I just think they honestly enjoyed the game although it had bugs. They even state that the game in fact IS buggy and is flawed in some ways. As I stated before, Playstation Magazine(Future) gave it a 8/10, but if you read the actual review, they say, "There's one thing holding Vegas back: It's buggy as hell. Slowdown, glitches, and even crashes are common. It's inexcusable in what's supposed to be a finished game". They also state everything that there is to love about this game and a good review tells you what the game really is and I think that reviews like this are quite accurate despite what some roid ragin' people might say. This IS a good game, many people on these forums will say the same thing, but it does have flaws.

And that reason is,........ (Pretending that i dont know what was the reason)

Why does the NMA or the Codex hava to be come up? Why are those sites mentioned? Have they something you do not? Like consistent judgement?

Please discuss the reviews and not other forums. We have always allowed links to NMA except when there have been copyright infringements posted there or to pages with inappropriate content linked.

Now, back to the regularly scheduled discussion unless you want this locked for off topic discussion.

It's Bethesda. They managed QA and, as the publisher, were in charge of setting the release date. Obsidian doesn't self-publish like Bethesda does, so they have no control over things like that. They don't get to wait to release a game until they feel it's done.


Again, you were "disrespected" by Bethesda.


You'd lose that bet. Badly. You're grossly underestimating the amount of work that goes into something like this whether you start off with someone else's engine or not. In fact, depending on the engine that could even be a liability (not saying it was or wasn't in this case).

Sorry you guys are having so much trouble, though. I'm on the PC and have only seen some quest bugs and companions occasionally stop following me. Hopefully they'll get you fixed up with the next patch.

Agree with Expressate - Ridiculous.

This game is Awesome! I'm on my 3rd playthrough and have experienced very few problems I couldn't get around.

I feel sorry for those having bad experiences, but many are also have Great experiences with it. My friends at work play on the 360 and PS/3 (I play on PC), and we all have had crashes now and again, definitely the quest logic bugs, but nothing so bombastic as this would suggest.

I would give it a 9.

Something people easily forgotten.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Tell me about it.

This is the exact way that I see it. It may have some glitches here and there, but it has so much content and so many improvements over Fallout 3 that you can't help but look past them and enjoy the game. Not to mention it does its best to cater to fans of Fallout 3, and fans of the old Fallouts.

On a side note, back in the day, I would've given Fallout 3 a 7/10. Basically, it's a solid RPG that has really strong roots in exploring, but the story is just unoriginal and the choices throughout the game are too black and white. Not to mention the bugs on the unpatched version were also very annoying.

Keep in mind that on my scale, a 7 or an 8 aren't nearly as bad as most reviewers make them. My scale is like Angry Joe's, with 5 being an average game. Most reviewers tend to put their average game rankings at like 7, which is ridiculous.


It seemed to be rather indifferent. He sort of labeled it as a "expansion pack", but not in the way most other whiny people seem to be. And though he seemed to enjoy the role playing aspects of the game, he stated it's already hard enough to do that without the game bugging out on you every so often. So it sounds like that if the game were less buggy, he would've enjoyed it much more.

Some people see New Vegas as " a 2 hours DLC" :cryvaultboy:

Interesting stuff. And sad, really.

I have had very few bug problems (on PC) after the first patch, and I have to say the game is all, or almost all, the RPG/FPS goodness I wanted when I bought it. Story, writing, grafix, surprises, etc. It has a design issue or two I don't agree with, but over all it's really fun. It rules. A great game, and worth the money, no question in my mind.

So basically, Beth/Obsidian have shot themselves in the foot by making a 9.5 game and releasing it under-tested so angry players give it sixes and even zeros out of frustration. My game addict coworker refuses to buy it based on the complaints, and on his annoyance at failing to get FO3 to run on his Playstation for more than 10 minutes without crashing. And he loves this kind of game.

So how much money have they lost through all this? Versus how much they gained by not postponing the release a few weeks? I would never begrudge waiting for technical finishing, even on a preorder, and I don't think very many other gamers would either-- especially after the terrible tech problems on this otherwise very good game.

I hope all these threads and reviews get noticed. I think the smart folks at Obsidian and Bethesda might look at the money end of it and make a better choice next time a release date might need to be postponed. I bet they could come up with a creative, fun way to keep their audience occupied on their blog, maybe even sell a few more preorders, and when it finally gets released everyone will say they hit it out of the park.

That would be money in the bank.

Imagine if I began to care what a reviewer thinks. I don't like these guys think for me. It is kind of sad when I see a pack of mindless sheeple responding to review sites all OH MAN I KNEW I SHOULD'VE NEVER CONSIDERED GETTING THAT GAME.

I just wanted to re-iterate that Obsidian did not set the release date of the game. Publishers typically set release dates, and if something isn't done it's usually kicked out the door anyway and (maybe) patched later. Since Bethesda also managed QA for New Vegas they were in control of both the testing and the release date.

I think everyone got the point.

So I'm guessing you either work for obsidian or were begrudgingly fired by bethesda.

:rolleyes:

You get right on that, and let us know how it's going in 5-6 years k? I'd suggest working with OGL4 and OCL. The real problem at the end of the day with the netimmerse engine is that, the company that developed it, sold it to various companies. Then the effectively closed up shop, except for the marketing team. That left any serious, bugs for engines that require it to work fully to patch all the base code on their own.

Now, if you've never been in the industry in any shape or form. You don't have much of an idea of what that means. A fine example of the engine being the deathblow to a game? DNF, started in 1997. With at least 4 different engines being used. If you don't think that, that slaughters development time you're insane.

:spotted owl:


Neither. I'm actually a big fan of Bethesda despite some recent disappointments. I am a software developer, though, and I just think that if you're going to slam on someone (or give credit, for that matter) you should make sure you're slamming in the right direction. It really stinks when you put a lot of work into a project and end up being blamed for things that weren't your call to make.

Besides, scapegoating Obsidian for this type of thing doesn't help the user base put pressure on Bethesda to avoid doing this again in the future, does it? Even if you could make a case that Obsidian didn't meet their development deadline Bethesda chose to release the game with bugs rather than push back the date. Being in charge of QA they knew where everything was at every step of the way.

So, :rolleyes: back at ya, I guess. :shrug:

This'd need to be said more than once!

I wasn't ripping you for slamming the "proper culprit" so to speak....it's just that I noticed you've done it ad infinitum throughout all the threads I've read(you even did it twice in this thread alone). I'm just saying you don't need to keep driving the point over and over.

And besides that it all starts with coding. Bad code is bad code. The less mistakes made in the first place the less QA needs to find and fix....so don't make it sound like only bethesda is at fault...they both are.

What honestly annoys me is people think that this is still the days of basic, and things are easy to fix with the number of configs out there, hardware and software. Especially with the amount of absolutely [censored] hardware on the market.

Oh well, I won't rant. It doesn't do the blood pressure any good.

I'm surprised by how much push back there is against a single review that places a lot more weight on bugs than gameplay. I mean, really, a post full of rolly-eyed faces? This might come as a shock, but just because you think this game should never be rated below some personal standard you hold, it happens, and when it has happened with FONV, it's been a rarity. Look around, most reviews have done a valiant job of holding their breath past the graveyard when it comes to the vast and horrible array of problems and still rating the game on what it aimed to be, rather than what it actually was to a lot of people. Just because some folks here have had the sublime joy of having only one CTD in 178 hours, that cannot replace the person who has had all of his saves invalidated 67 hours in ... three times due to faulty programming.

I think this minority review, that states it's hard to look past the bugs? Yes, I think even the most die-hard Obsidian/Black Isle fans here can learn to live with it rather than profess it is evidence of some conspiracy against Obsidian ... that they are held to some impossible standard not applied to other developers. Visiting any other game forum will give lie to that.

As for why Fallout 3 received higher scores two years ago by some of the same reviewers, well, it may seem inconsistent, but I don't see it that way personally. Fallout 3 had some fresh things that may be viewed as not quite as fresh when re-packaged in a second game release. Fallout New Vegas has made some amazing strides with this release, but it is still using an older engine and game-play mechanic that is no longer quite so novel as it was the first time around.

In my opinion, Fallout 3 did a lot of things right that I'm very glad Fallout New Vegas built upon while at the same time, addressing some mechanical shortcomings and bringing a more coherent and engaging story to the mix while coming back around to the first and second games. But that is not to say ambition should be prized beyond execution. This isn't art hanging in some studio, it's a product, and as much as we may at times rail against it, certain standards need apply. The more people willfully look past glaring issues and decide to ignore the Deathclaw in the room, the more problematic releases we're going to have to suffer.

In short: let it ride, this review shouldn't be puzzling or upsetting to anyone.

Does it annoy you because people aren't as you please, or because your opinion isn't put through properly?

Yup....some people will just not be able to efficiently run some games, regardless of patches. Too many variables in pc design and configuration to be accounted for across the board...not to mention variance in individual software configuration.

Altho...at the other spectrum...console software products should be able to be produced with as few bugs as possible at launch and is a bit less excusable.