But the people at No Mutants Allowed pretty much treat Van Buren as canon. They are the die hard FO1 and 2 fans.

Plus Van Buren does really raise expectations. The design documents shows Caesar's Legion as a really cool and powerful faction but then they fail to develop the Legion effectively in New Vegas.

I found that virtually every location in Fallout 3 had a story of some kind to be teased out of it, I certainly did not find them empty in the way that I find many of Vegas' locations to be empty, but I can see you'd think differently if you were expecting substantial quests or npcs or whatever in a majority of locations. I was happy just to pick over the bones of the old world, but obviously YMWV.



I'm on console, so yeah, I can't. More's the pity.



I respectfully disagree. I like New Vegas, admire it, appreciate it... but I don't love it like Fallout 3, which I think is the better game by some margin. But then my priorities are clearly somewhat different from yours.

(Were NV actually finished it would help, too...)

Nicely written. A good critique that doesn't have rampant hate or fantical boyism. Mirrors the NMA a little too close in feel & structure (or vice-versa. DIdn't compare the publishing dates.) but it goes into some pretty impressive depth.




Then this review isn't for you. Some people are patient to wait out the mad pre-order rush and get worldwide feedback from players & reviews. The later reviews tend to be more thoughtful & complete. This, opposed to a lot of the kneejerk ones that were published day 1 release. In truth, there is no real reason to rush purchase a single player game. It's not like you're missing the opportunity to find a competitive game online (like FIFA 11 or CoD: Black Ops) by not playing the multiplayer early. The only thing one opens themself up to by waiting is the chance of some significant spoilers. Easy enough to avoid.

Besides, NMA already had an early release 'http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=56845' review that was careful to explain this was not an official stance, but an informational preview of what was liked/disliked in the early going by some of the seasoned members/moderators there.

That's a good point. I have assumed everyone on these forums owned the game already.

Hmm... If I had read the user name of the author, I would have noticed it was Brother None from NMA - explaining the similar structure. :facepalm:




Oh, these forums for sure! Completely agree!I would hope people who haven't played don't come here looking for a review on the game. The main page alone has about 5 or 6 near-spoilers visible almost constantly.

Was just about to remind you on that.

Anyways, it's a good and indepth review. I don't fully agree with all the criticisms it has, but it's quite largely in line with how I've percieved the game -- and same goes with NMA review by VD.

Well NMA is more the negative side of Fan Boy if you ask me. Theres people that can embrace a series as a whole, or the ones who like to play 'old gen is better cause it was first'. Personally I find all that dross about which is better to be [censored]. I love all the Fallouts (Save F:BoS that game is just aweful)

I've lightly read the documents but not enough to remember much. I dont think New Vegas failed to capture the image of the Legion, but they left so much of it as 'well uh, they're in Arizona, thats why theres so few'. Which is just a lazy move in my mind.

Not to mention Chris' Legion is a whole lot different than Josh's Legion.

Which is which? (As I said, I didnt read the documents to throughly, all I really remember was The Prisoner, The mad scientist, and Hoover Dam and the town on the dam.)

Why can't we just enjoy both games for what they are; I don't understand why everything has to be a competition.

Backpatting get tedious more quickly than fighting and bickering.

Sorry you had problems. I'm amazed that I played all of those games, some more than once, and didn't experience any major bugs outside of an issue with companions disappearing in NWN2, which was fixed in a patch. If they're so universally buggy how did I manage to dodge all of these copious and egregious stability downfalls? Can you name some of the really bad ones for us?

"Known to be buggy" doesn't say anything at all. Oblivion and Fallout 3 are "known to be buggy." Morrowind is "known to be" really "buggy." Besides, again, Bethesda managed QA and controlled the release date. They shouldered the responsibility of making sure the game was tested and fixed before release, so your claims of Obsidian's games being released buggy are pretty much irrelevant. How about we compare the games instead on trying to run a smear campaign against the developers? You can't effectively evaluate a product if you're biased about the manufacturer.

Do any of you guys have problem with the "open" information about how much skill do you need to pass a dialog check?

I love it because it saves me time from reload and checking game guide.

I agree.

I do think it wasn't the best of choices - it would've sufficed to show the background red and even tell what skill was used for the check, but the number kinda ate away some the appeal of the skill dialogs.... [Explosives 40/65] I is boom! It made the check feel more like "just stack enough books below your feet to reach the cookiejar on top of the shelf", than "I wonder how this works out" - so to speak. They didn't make or brake anything, but it would've been better off without them.

It definitely makes sense when the check is against science, medicine, etc. because your character is going to know whether or not they know what they're talking about ahead of time. For speech checks it makes less logical sense, but I'm cool with it. A lot of people are just going to re-load a save if they fail anyway, so it saves them the trouble.

I'd say the exact opposite. A great many FO3 locations had examples of visual storytelling. I have found very little of that in NV. In fact, the majority of buildings contain nothing but some loot. I found a train station filled with giant ants. Oh boy. Exploration was not the point of NV, as it was in FO3, and it really shows in NV. I found much of the locations uninspiring in NV. And frankly, as good as the quests (most of them anyway) and dialogue, they tend to be one shot content for me. After playing for about 150 hours, I have little desire to start another character because I know the story, have tried a few different builds, and basically, I have a strong feeling of been there done that. Unlike FO3, there isn't much point in exploring NV either. Wasteland mobs are few and far between. Locations are uninteresting.

I can see how many would like NV better, and it comes to no surprise that the NMA review praises the sort of content that their members enjoy, but I'm not one of them. I'm an explorer, and as one, I am a bit disappointed in NV.

Very well said you two. I am still hoping for a mod that removes the hints from the dialogue. :cryvaultboy:

EDIT: http://newvegasnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=37467! :celebration:

I think this is what it comes down to for a lot of people. Some folks were annoyed that Bethesda "streamlined" the RPG mechanics from the originals (this did annoy me quite a bit...I sort of feel like they trivialized the RPG mechanics) and some were annoyed that they messed with the tone of the setting (this annoyed me a little, but I can get over it), but for the most part I do feel like the biggest divide is the quests/writing vs. exploration situation.

I totally get the people that enjoy Bethesda games for the sheer quantity of content and little things to find everywhere. I like that too. My biggest problem with FO3 is that I didn't believe the game world at all. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed FO3, that was just a missing piece that was more important to me than it obviously is to others. The way all of the details, back-stories, dialog, inter-connectivity, etc. hang together to paint a cohesive picture of the game world in NV was a big deal to me. The fact that they took time to make sure that a variety of character builds are viable and character stats are more meaningful was a big deal to me.

I couldn't stomach a full second play-through of FO3 because I knew that all of the things that are most important to me were going to be pretty much exactly the same as they were on my first play-through. As much as I like having a bunch of stuff to find via exploration, it wasn't enough to make up for the things I wasn't ready to do again. That's just where my priorities lie. It's a little messed up for us to sit here and tell each other we're wrong for what we like, don't you think?

I didn't have any big problems with any of Obsidian's previous games either; though admittedly I haven't played Alpha Protocol. Obsidian games are buggy on release no arguments there, but I honestly haven't found them anymore buggy than Bethesda games are on release. I played all of Obsidian's games on PC though, so... :shrug:

Many of their complaints about FO3 are quite reasonable. FO3's plot and setting have a lot of problems and there are many inconsistencies with the first two games. In fact, many NMA members are just as vocal about similar problems in FO2. What is not reasonable is their reaction to these problems. Instead of articulating these problems in a reasonable fashion and presenting them to Bethesda so that the series can be improved, they sulk around and bash everything Bethesda does regardless of whether or not it even has anything to do with Fallout.



But it's not enough to just capture the very basic premise of a faction. That's too simplistic. They still have to create a backstory that makes sense within the logic of the game and give it a purpose that fits with the story they developed for the faction. The problem with the Legion in NV is that the backstory they gave it is inconsistent with what it is capable of. The Legion are a bunch of technophobes who managed to become a significant threat to the NCR. While there is nothing wrong with making the Legion Luddites considering how it was created from superstitious tribals and they don't have access to any of the pre-war tech and knowledge the NCR has, it doesn't make any sense how they're able to fight the NCR to a draw. NCR troopers with heavy weapons should be mowing down the machete wielding Legion soldiers by the hundreds. They don't explain at all how the Legion effectively uses melee weapons to fight against enemies with guns. It made a lot more sense in Van Buren for the Legion to be more civilized so that even though the NCR has a technological advantage, it's not so huge that the Legion would need as many soldiers as the NCR had bullets to beat them.

I think this is on topic because the OP is asking for a review of the review...

That reviewer might make some good points. But he detracts from his reviews (not just this one but in general) by making nasty ad hominem (personal) attacks on others or irrelevant details. Blunt is one thing but rudeness is another and distracts from reviews. I respect others opinions and I respect bluntness, but not irrelevant nastiness. Not something you'd expect from a gaming company executive.

Also he may be looking at games from just one aspect of role playing. For example, with Fallout 3 exploring is a big part that he may be discounting.

So since you ask "Ain't this great?", yes some points may be good and valid but other comments by the reviewer detract from the review for me.



Yes, this and more.

I think the reviewer was pretty much spot-on for both games. Although he forgets that ammo in FO1 and 2 was extremely easy to accumulate by the end as well....

EDIT: they should hire out the STALKER folks to do the AI.

The amount of ammo wasn't so much of an issue in the originals due to how the combat played out. You couldn't just hold the trigger down and fire fiercely in all directions while running in circles.

I do agree about the AI, though.

Really? cause I found the AI was the only thing in STALKER that's not harsh.

At least with the crazy unreasonable AI you can't deal with them with common sense :laugh: