Ain't this great? http://nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=57165
The ones who hated Fallout 3, loved Fallout New Vegas

Wonderful job Obsidian, you not only satisfied the ones who loved only Fallout 3, but those who loved the classic ones. :foodndrink:
I really wish Bethesda gives you Fallout's right. I would love to see what you would come up with Fallout 4.

Agreed. I would really like if Beth started concetrating on TES5 and let Obsidian do teh Fallouts instead!

That's a good and quite accurate review. And while it is a positive review overall, it isn''t without criticism.

I always love their reviews. Reading a handful of paragraph and I already agree.


If that not the case, I would love it at least if Beth left Obsidian doing the main branches of Fallout while Beth goes back and focus on their own flagship, The Elder Scroll.

Well, looking at the same reviewer's review of Fallout 3 it didn't seem like he hated it. He felt the same way I did about it...that it is a great game that doesn't focus on the same things that fans of previous games in the series would expect from a Fallout game. It's hard to argue that New Vegas doesn't make more of a return to what have been traditionally "tenets" of the series: characters, quest design, choices with consequences, etc. In general I do tend to agree with this reviewer's assessment of both games. Both are good games, but NV is more loyal to the setting and design priorities of the rest of the series.

Decent review a little biased but it was pretty good. I can't complain I love New Vegas its so much fun to play.

I wouldn't quite toss the FO franchise to Obsidian just yet. The game is good, very good, but buggy as hell. Granted, the engine could use an upgrade, I think that Obsidian needs to show more chops before they are handed the keys.

I myself would like to see Beth continue in developing the franchise. FO3 hooked me.

Pretty much, every and I mean every Obsidian game to ever come out was a buggy mess. Other than above average writing Obsidian doesn't really bring much to the table.

Again, Bethesda managed QA and set the release date. If you want to blame someone for the bugs Bethesda carries more liability than Obsidian does.


If they do I really hope they learn a thing or two about RPG mechanics and writing from Obsidian. I liked Fallout 3 quite a bit, but it was missing a lot of the aspects of NV I really enjoyed.


Really? I felt they fixed a lot of the character development/stat issues that FO3 had and introduced some better mechanics to the game. Anyway, I've played all of Obsidian's games, and outside of some companion bugs in NWN2 I didn't find them to be any more buggy than the average game. I feel like this is something the anti-Obsidian crowd likes to exaggerate, personally. I'm not a huge fan of their games. I thought NWN2 was just ok, KotOR 2 had the potential to be great, but Lucasarts changed things on them at the last minute, and Alpha Protocol was pretty cool and ambitious but felt like it was missing something. I do think NV is excellent, though. If anything I think Obsidian either needs more manpower or they need to work with publishers that will allow enough time for games to be finished before release.

This is really going to come down to Bethesda fans vs. non-Bethesda fans, though. I don't think most people are being very objective in these types of conversations. Believe it or not, I'm a Bethesda fan.

Anyway, look at this reviewer's review of Fallout 3. He liked it, so claiming that it's not valid because he's biased really isn't very fair.

Well, if Beth would've made it wrong, I'm sure they would've. However if the game was 1:1 match to what NV is now, I doubt the review would've been much different.

NWN2, one of the last game my computer could actually play well, chalked full of bugs. KOTOR2, chalked full of bugs and inferior to its predecessor. AP, another buggy one with wonky A.I., kind of a ME clone. FNV, chalked full of bugs. Bugs don't bother me until they destroy my game. Every Obsidian game has done this. The only Beth game to give me a game breaking bug was Daggerfall. then again I don't think anyone played Daggerfall without being scathed in one way or another. Obsidian's balancing, added depth etc. would of been included regardless of who made it I feel, I mean were else is a sequel/another entry to the series suppose to go? Like i said their writing is more detailed than Beth's, but to say its superior is opinion. Beth just need to flesh out their stories more.

They brought a more Fallouty Fallout game to the table. Good enough for me.

Every one of those games were super buggy for me and dozens if not hundreds of my friends and people I talked to about those games. Obsidian even has a rep as a buggy company. Take all the bugs away and your left with an average RPG maker with above average writing. Even with all that said though Im glad we have another RPG maker in a time were RPGs are becoming extinct. I would of sacrificed Obsidian to EA before Bioware though.

This review fell short, quite literately, compare to the FO3 one.

Torchlight isn't buggy as hell; I never encounter any bug (that I am aware of) in AP.

Its arguable as to how Beth would handle the story if NV was made by them. Already I can see the Kings as Tunnel Snake, NCR as boyscout for the greater good, and joining Caesar is impossible because they are evil.


Ummm, Beth isn't innocent with the bug either. Before patches were made...

Daggerfall was essentially beta.

Morrowind practically litter with exploits.

Walking around or even exiting the game in Oblivion usually lead to crashes.

GFWL wasn't a good addition to Fallout 3.

There a reason why many PC players would recommend new comers to any game made by Beth with the mod Unofficial [insert game] Patch.

Cross site trolling or nagging will not be tolerated. I will be deleting posts.

I'm sorry, and it's a reasonable enough review, but the way the reviewer keeps talking about how much bigger and more content-packed NV is than Fallout 3 makes me think we must be playing different games.



The quest design is one of the most consistently underwhelming features of NV.

Nah, I'm not accusing you of not playing it. I do find it hard to believe that these games are as riddled with bugs as is being implied given that I didn't have any major problems with them, but it's hearsay vs. hearsay there, so whatever. I'm just saying that when a kid at your school gets a reputation for being a nose-picker it's hard to shake. Chances are half of the times someone says he's picking his nose he's probably just scratching it. When the cool kid picks his nose people tend to be a little more willing to ignore it.

Anyway, regardless, I have a hard time believing that most people around here don't think FO3 and NV are excellent games. I think we all get too caught up in the comparisons and end up in pissing matches that don't fully reflect reality.


Really? I felt the opposite. In what ways did you find FO3's quests to be better? That's not a challenge, I'm just curious.

I had more bugs in the first ten hours of NV than I did in thousands of hours of the ES titles, minus Daggerfall, I already stated that its one of the most bugged games ive ever played. Obsidian gave me more bugs in less content. With tht said I have over 400 hours in NV already.

The only bugs I've had in NV so far have been companions that stop following me, a certain disappearing brahmin quest in Novac being incompletable, and that reloading bug that showed up with the last patch. I personally had a lot more trouble with Oblivion, but again, that's not hard data.

I'm not sure I agree that there's less content. There's less content as far as locations, but more content as far as quests, scripting, factions, dialog, etc. I guess it depends on what you call "content." From a development perspective the content in NV seems like it would require more forethought and design than the content in FO3, which I felt was bigger in quantity and much smaller in complexity.

Sounds like you haven't even played New Vegas if you think it has less content.

I play PC version of New Vegas and the only bug I suffer is in Nellis Air Force Base with being glitch of its outdoor size. Other than that, I was able to play the game smoothly (as this surprise me because I was already expecting bugs that would cause the game to just must by minimizing the game alone).

Heck, its worth mentioning I remember playing Morrowind in the past and have good memory falling into the bottomless abyss, many many times. In term of Oblivion, before patching, walking around Imperial City just lead to CTD. Hell, exiting the game lead to CTD. Same situation with Fallout 3. As say before, GFWL made the game extra slow and the starting menus does not even popup half the time. Daggerfall-wise, there no way in hell I would play it without the patch when I read that being in a bug state, I cannot get to the end of the game.

360, what I'm on, is regarded as the buggiest form of the game. We also have the worst load times.


Is this towards me? I meant Obsidian games have less content than ES games and gave me more bugs than all the ES games combined, minus Daggerfall. If you don't think I played it check my GT. Ive probably put more hours into it than you.

Because it is. That isn't something that can be debated, that's just reality. New Vegas has almost twice as many quests and lots of paths you can take on the (far superior to Fallout 3) main quest.

Maybe by 'content' you mean big, lifeless, empty buildings full of the same three enemies you've already killed a thousand of?



If you say so. The quests offer far more freedom than they did in Fallout 3 and the writing is far better. Maybe you could explain -why- you find the quests underwhelming?

I hope Bethesda learned a thing or two from Obsidian (Factions/ thought out quests/ different main quest paths) for the TES series.

I've had fun with my recent playthroughs and still enjoying and discovering little things I missed b4.