cost: 80$(went for the whole package)

content: a map thats SUPPOSED to be larger, but as pointed out by another thread, is accually 50% or more smaller than it is elad to believe
a world that prods you to go a certain direction and stops you with hordes of monsters(death claws and the likes) to stop you from going places
a somewhat small story line, though with a decent amount of outcomes
the area that you do have to explore seems a tease, too little content



basically, it just seems to me that we invested alot of waiting, and worse, cash, for a game that is simply not worth it. dont get me wrong, its a fun game and all, but i feel ripped off and mislead that this game would be as good or better than fo3, which in my opinion it isnt. fo3 had a HUGE map, with an INSANE amount of locations to check. it had city ruins and a bunch of secret bunkers. now im not gona point out all the ways fallout 3 is better, but i think im not alone when i say it was, and that obsidian led us all to believe that new vegas would be absolutely huge, and the content is simply skimpy. there are some unique things, but they spent too much trying to make the quality of the few good, and while quality counts, you defiantly need some quantity to it as well.

there were good things, nice work on the casinos, a cool deathray from space(how much more kick ass does it get?) an interesting hardcoe mode. you cant say they didnt do good on what they focused on, only that their veiw was far too narrow.

im honestly not trying to make a big deal but really, it has to be said. im genuinely bummed out, i was expecting much more after fo3 :/

No, I don't.
This is closer to what a Fallout game should be like.
Bethesda should take notes of what Obsidian did for Fallout 4.

No, I don't. I'm sorry you feel that way though.

In my opinion - it is a good game, and better than Fallout 3 actually. That is probably because I am a fan of Fallout 2...

No i dont, i enjoy this game alot. I only feel ripped off with the time i wasted because of a bug...but that comes with obsidian territory and playing a brand new game with new patches. Great added features and what not.. Also according to fallout wikia there is more locations and quests in new vegas(i can't confirm this)

No, this game is leagues better than Fallout 3. In fact, Fo3 is the second worst in the series (BoS on the Xbox being the worst). If you want to make yourself feel better, there's always alcohol.

EDIT: I like Fo3, don't get me wrong.

wow...fo3 was not terrible......if you put fo3 under Tactics you must not have played the same game as me

I have to say I strongly disagree.
My personal experience with both games leaves me feeling like NV is an actual improvement over FO3.I didn't think it would be possible but it is.
Also,I would hate to have an "easy" walk from destination to destination without some deathclaws or other baddies to deal with .(I guess you could turn your game down to EASY)

I've already got my 80 bucks worth so no. and am still finding new stuff every time i turn around

I think you mean Fallout 3. This is the REAL Fallout 3.

Hell, a lot of the story line, is what was going to be in Van Buren.

Series goes back to its roots which i love..im only 8 hrs deep on hardcoe/hard and its already MUCH more of a challenge. Plus the quality of acting and the fact that i know any minute i could get pwned by a swarm of enemies keeps me on my toes..i find this one much more intense.

-Regarding map size..im ASSUMING that Obsidian is doing dlc for the parts of the map left untouched..although it would be nice to see an official response regarding this issue as it comes up time and time again.

-I do see differences between Bethesdas FO3 and Obsidians FONV Most people love New Vegas But Bethesda will always be the master of sandbox worlds..that being said i really think Obsidian still did a great job with the Mojave Waste Land and they are a close 2nd to Bethesdas previous sandbox's (FO3, Oblivion, Morrowind).

As I said, it wasn't terrible. I loved Fo3 (200+ hrs over seven chars). I even loved tactics, honestly. Here, this is easier:

1. Fallout 1
2. New Vegas
3. Fallout 2
4. Tactics
5. Fallout 3
6. Brotherhood of Steel

This is all, of course, IMHO. But to say Fo3 was better than New Vegas? Bugs or no, not by a long shot.

guess im the only one :/

again, not saying its terrible, not by any means, but i guess after having played fo3, this was a bit of a let down to me as a sequel. of course, most of you who say know seem to share the fact that you all are dead set original fallout fans (nothing wrong with that, dont kill me for sayin that XD)

"Also,I would hate to have an "easy" walk from destination to destination without some deathclaws or other baddies to deal with .(I guess you could turn your game down to EASY)"

i dont mean that deathclaws and stuff are hard to kill, i mean that it seems like they try to make some areas off limits for points in the game, making it somewhat less free to move around. a hoard of deathclaws and deathwasps is much different than one or 2 at a time.

Great game, the main quest may send you in a certain direction but I dumped it in Freeside and am having a great deal of fun just wandering, picking up quests here and there and generally getting into all kinds of trouble. So no, I don't feel ripped off.

Care to share a link to this thread?

It looks bigger, it feels bigger and there is definately more locations to explore...

This.

i just wana be clear, bugs have nothing to do with this for me, all new games will have bugs, and this is a large and probly spread out bit of work they had so its a given, not to mention the fact that i dont feel the bugs seemed as bad as the forums lead me to believe.

I respect you opinion, and ill give you the tactics over 3, but not new vegas over fallout 2

I have over 30 hours in one week. And my quest log is still full and I have barely dented (I think?) the main quest.

No, in fact I think this is the best bang for my buck for a single player game of all time.

I think they should give the series to Obsidian forever (obviously still own it, just keep doing what they did in NV) and stick with that they know best : Fantasy RPGs.

Still no link, because im not satisfied until I see the proof.

The proof is in your FNV PipBoy. Take a look at it sometime. At least a third of the map is blocked off by cliffs or invisible walls and a lot of the map markers are redundant.

On topic though I dont feel ripped off at all.

Im a huge fan of the series. in a way i am disapointed with new vegas but only in the same ways i was with fallout 3 when i first played through it. To be perfectly honest NV is an amzing experience deffinatly picked up on some of the themes and plot lines where fallout 2 left off, i also think it kinda bridged the gap between Fallout 2 and 3 it takes both "sides" of the back ground and mashes them together in a way that fallout fans like my self having played the originals and people who just played fallout 3 can understand. I Think its the fact that theres a huge jump in styles of the games people dont like. but thats just my opinion take it or leave it either way not 100% happy but with time it will grow on me.

http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1132344-lack-of-used-space-in-the-game-startling/

soz took me a sec, firefox being weird an all

Umm, no, its just your hundreds of hours of content, improvements across the board, better RPG then 3 ever was. This game makes the next COD or most games seem like a rip.