It's not as bad as most people let on.
Even I was weary of the game after reading through this board (got the game later than the Americans), and yet when I played it, I loved it.
I tried going back to FO3, but that just won't do, FO:NV is just a better game.
It seems, that the console players, for once, experience more bugs than us PC gamers... so have at ye. :celebration:

Personally, I think they deserve each and every one of these awards. But that's just me.

Why you mad tho?

Im enjoying the hell out of FONV (PC) waaaaaaaaay more than I did FO3 (also PC) before FO3 got a lot more mods to it. Any game coming out now a days that can give you more than 24 hours of game play in a single play through deserves a nomination, and in the case of FONV it just straight up deserves the award like FO3 and Oblivion. FONV deserves it more than ME2 does, ME2's story was great and all, but I went back and played ME1 after beating ME2 and ME1 just takes a dump all over ME2 when it comes to gameplay. ME2 was gutted waaaaaaaaay too much of most RPG aspects. Also guns taking a leap back in technology and needing to be reloaded as dumb.

Now if you said what you did about something like Halo or some other generic POS FPS clone game like CoD7 and others, I could agree to it.

Mass effect? Nope. If your idea of a great RPG is no tech issues, then you have no idea what an RPG is.

I'd call Mass Effect 2 a CONSOLE RPG: all flash and no bang.

Had the game been released bug free I would agree that it should receive or be nominated for several awards. The issue is simply quality and the future of the game community as a whole. If we as a community just deal with a broken game, no matter how great its predecessor was or how good it could be, and accept the ridiculously slow fixes and poor communication by the developers we are telling the game companies it is ok to use the gaming community as true beta testers of the game. You can go on and on about how there is no way the devs could have caught all the bugs in the game before release, but you are delusional if you think they couldn't have caught the major, game breaking, ones. Maybe you were one of the lucky ones that had no issues with the game and feel that all these posts on the boards are just people whining, good for you. I personally played through the game once and had several major issues that caused me to lose around 20hrs of real time game play by reverting to old saves. On my 2nd playthrough the game is simply broken. When I called customer service they actually told me that they, as an employee of Bathesda, knew better to buy the game when it was released because there were so many bugs associated with it. They also told me they had been inundated with phone calls about issues with the game. This is not an isolated issue, as the customer service at Bathesda told me themselves, the game breaking bugs are a major issue. The "Come Fly with Me" bug was so well known by the customer service rep that they told me exactly what to do to fix it right off the top of their head. They said simply revert to a saved game before you did the final hand in and it should be fine, but you won't be able to do the quest....sorry. There is no way in the state the game was released in they should receive any awards that reflect quality or playability. If you want to award them for the storyline or voices that's fine, but not RPG of the year for sure.

This is the best game I've purchased this year. I even bought Fallout 3 this year. FONV is the best RPG this year. The best game this year. That's all.

I'd rather have a buggy good game than a tech perfect CRAPPY game. The worst is having a buggy crappy game, and there are plenty of those around, especially on consoles.

Besides, in about 175 hours of playing F:NV, it has crashed ONE TIME, and that was due to a mod I installed.

A movie can't win an Oscar if the film stops playing half way through.

Oh yes, great RPG defining god - I defer to your RPG defining greatness.

Seriously - get over yourself.

Kudos.

It's interesting that you mention Mass Effect 2, because it was the first game in years that I had major problems with. I had a crash on startup problem on two different up-to-date and very well-maintained PCs. On Bioware's forums there were a LOT of people having the same issue. After some back-and-forth with some other forum folks (and a couple of days of not being able to play) we figured out that the game didn't install correctly on a lot of machines that have two optical drives, so quite a few people couldn't play the game at all without using our workaround or waiting for a fix for the installation issues. It also had some major LoD texture loading bugs, but they weren't game-breaking...the engine loaded low LoD textures for things that were close-up a lot of the time. Mass Effect 2 is a great game and I enjoyed it quite a bit. It doesn't come anywhere close to NV's level of depth and player choice, though. As good as ME2 is overall I don't think it's as good an example of what an RPG can/should be as NV is. Just my opinion.

I've also been lucky and have only had the game crash twice while playing in over 70 hours with it. I've had some minor quest and companion glitches and the reloading glitch that the last patch introduced (currently working around it with a mod), but overall my experience has been pretty good. I know some others haven't been so lucky, though.

Considering the rest of the games released this year, New Vegas earned the nominations. Its a great game (not my favorite Fallout game), and despite the numerous bugs/glitches (which is something that comes along with every game), it provides a great first-person RPG experience (or third-person).

no no and no


While ME2 wasn't that bad, it was basicly dumbed down from ME1 and made too much a shooter, the exact opposite of what Obsidian wanted to do with New Vegas compared to F3, and succeeded with.

about Pokemon, you can't be serious. We have games like Divinity 2 and Two Worlds 2 around but you would nominate that? atleast try to be serious

I got the feeling you just want to troll

But the RPG functions and mechanics work just as well as writing and voiceacting. The technical issues - which some have and some don't - do not concern them, but the overall (GOTY - which Spike hasn't even nominated this game for) merits. Awards or no, let's put the credit where the credit is due. :shrug:

"Carp carp Mass Effect 2 isn't an RPG carp carp" - who cares? isn't the important thing how good a game it is? Genre distinctions are so last century.

That said, what other rpgs were released this year? Has it been a vintage? I dunno, NV aside I've mostly been playing catch-up on last year's games...

edit: this is in no way directed at softnerd's post which just happens to be above this one, it's more a general lament at the thread as a whole.

another edit: busy thread, this.

This is very true. Regardless of how you communicate it, though (genre or otherwise), I think people play different games for different reasons. I might label something as an "RPG" simply for lack of a better way to define what makes its game mechanics different from a Battlefield game or StarCraft 2. I love ME2 for what it is, but it didn't scratch my itch for the type of gameplay I typically attribute to the "RPG" genre the same way NV does.

With this attitude why not call Doom 3 an RPG, or tetris?



anyway, there were quite a few RPG-s released, examples are Divinity 2, DA: Awakening, Two Worlds 2, Alpha Protocol, Arcania: Gothic, Venetica

and these are just the ones I remembered quickly while typing

I only mention ME2 - because it was nominated, and of the games nominated for best RPG - I felt it deserving.

I agree with you that if we go with old school definitions of what an RPG is - FONV is a better example.

I can't agree though, that ME2 had anywhere near the bugs and problems that FONV does. Not even close.


And please - I'm not saying that games won't have glitches. It's the sheer number and degree to which those glitches limit game play, that should determine it's candidacy for a gaming award.


:)

Sure, and that's largely going to depend on who you ask. In a vacuum (i.e., without any knowledge of problems others are having) if you asked me which game had the more dire technical problems I'd say ME2 since I couldn't play it at all for the first few days I had it. That type of thing is hard to quantify.

I disagree. A simple review of posts would show otherwise. As would a look at the game reviews. FONV is getting a rep as a buggy game release - I'm pretty sure this wasn't the case with ME2.

Which, with a game like New Vegas, has mixed issues with bugs. Some people have come across little to no bugs, while others are being plagued by them. Considering the game hasn't been out too long, it will take time to fix a majority of the bugs.

Backatya. I stand by what I said. If you want to argue about Mass Effect being a true RPG, that's one thing, but arguing that bugs, or lack of them define genre is ridiculous.

I personally thought it was a good game. After all the bugs of course, but a good game non the less.

Using that methodology you'd determine that most games are the "buggiest game evar." :shrug: Trust me. I frequent a lot of game troubleshooting forums. That's not usable data if you're trying to get a factual picture of how buggy a game is.


I'm not saying that more people aren't probably having issues with NV than with ME2. I'm just saying it's hard to quantify the degree with any kind of certainty. I lost count of the number of times I've seen someone talking about how buggy this or that game was in a forum and when asked if they've played the game they were talking about they said something like, "no, but I've heard it's really buggy." Again, not saying that there aren't a lot of people having problems with NV. I'm just saying that reputation isn't a reliable source of good data. Based on my experience with ME2 I could have very easily filled a lot of forum space with claims that ME2 is a steaming buggy pile and I would have been just as justified in saying it as most of the people saying things like that about NV.

Besides, I don't think it's necessarily fair to judge a game based in its "reputation" for being buggy. Some of my favorite games I've played over the past 25 years have a reputation for being buggy. Is it irresponsible to release a game with a ton of bugs? Of course. Are people having major issues justified in being upset? Yes. Heck, I've had my own frustrations with bugs in NV (mostly involving people that are supposed to be following me disappearing). I still think it's an excellent game despite that. Whether or not bugs are a large consideration when deciding if a game is good is going to be up to the individual/web site/publication.

I never argued that. Not once.

What I have argued is that a game should not win a major award - if it's literally unplayable for a good number people who purchased it.

But the massive majority of people have no major problems.