You know this how? many times its the publisher who has full control on when it gets released, and often releases it even knowing of said bugs from the developer. Knowing it can be patched. bethesda has a long history of buggy games going back to Daggerfall. I'd say the crap engine and bethesda have a lot of the blame.

Actually, so far I have not encountered a single bug or glitch on the xbox 360. The only minor thing I have spotted is when I stop walking and try to talk to someone my character kind of teleports a tiny bit forward, but that's it. I guess I am just lucky that I haven't had any problems with it.

Try buying a better 360. A 360 that old is gonna have a really worn reading arm and laser. Which is why you freeze on loading, it cant read the data properly.

Im on my 6th 360.

Bethesda could have stopped release if they had wanted to so really both are at fault for the bugs that have been reported.

You just helped someone else get the best game of 2010 on the cheap.

New Vegas is way more bugged than Oblivion or Fallout 3. Why do you think Bethesda only releases an RPG every 4 or 5 years? Because they test the [censored] out of it. Obviously NV needed to be tested more before it was released. Obsidian has a far worse track record than Beth when it comes to bugged games. I'll agree that Daggerfall was terribly bugged. Then again Daggerfall was one of the first open world RPG with that much scope and Beth was fairly new at the time. Whats Obsidian's excuse? Does Beth have some blame? I don't know, maybe, but Obsidian needs to test better. With their track record and knowing how deep a Bethesda RPG can be, they should of known that they would need a whole quarter or more to test it. The same problems in the Best Buy live feed are present in our copies. If Beth would of made NV, with Obsidian consulting, it wouldn't have released for another year or so. I believe Beth is currently working on a new engine for TES V though. So they couldn't be bothered with more Fallout.

This. If Bethesda hadn't set such an early release date, then Obsidian would've had more time to bug test. In fact, I imagine why most of their games are buggy as hell is because the publishers for the games wanted the game out at a certain time and Obsidian wasn't necessarily finished with the game or didn't have that much time after finishing it to test it. I know that's definitely true for Alpha Protocol, because the publisher for that game, SEGA, is stingy as hell.

If New Vegas didn't have a set in stone release date to abide by, by the time it did release, it would be relatively bug free I imagine. True it probably wouldn't be out by the 19th, but we'd at least have a somewhat bug free experience.

Damn publishers and their time constraints... :flame:


Because during at least 2 of those years, they're planning out the game (pre-production) and then they're developing the game for another 2-3 years after that. At most, Bethesda probably has about 2-4 months to bug test before releasing the product shortly afterward.

I've seen game companies delay releases, I've also seen game companies with round-the-clock beta testing - and targetted testing at that.

FNV has been one of the most unstable releases I've seen for a long time, and it's only going to hurt Obsidian and Beth in the long run, because it was really anticipated.

No issue from me it's a great game, but as a program it svcks.

I'm a consumer, and I have basic expectations of what a product should be.

Edit:

Basically, pre-DLC games were rarely released in this state. It's simply industry laziness or greed that has allowed the habit to creep in.

You can blame it on El Cucuy if you want. The fact still remains that Obsidian releases bugged games period. With your logic every game that has a release date is doomed to fail. With a release date or not, every Obsidian game has been a bug fest. If you cant make a game on time, then stop making games. Beth knows how deep their games are, I doubt Beth was breathing down Obsidian's necks as if they were EA. LOL at people trying to portray Beth as an Evil, or greedy company. Their the only good RPG makers left.


Well then Beth is just better at testing than Obsidian. Never has their been a game this bugged in the Beth catalogue since Daggerfall.

This is a good point, and valid, however, Beth has the luxury of creating the engine and everything for the game from the ground up. In this case, Obsidian was handed an engine and told to get a game ready in a year, with a holiday 2010 date already confirmed. So really, it may very well come down to the parent company of Zenimax, who wanted another game out in the meantime to bring in some more money. Personally, I play on the 360, and the only bug I've encountered in any of these 3 games is the Pitt DLC release, and that ended up having to do with the fact that MS released the DLC before the update, which corrupted the DLC. My point is, Obsidian didn't get any input on when the game would be coming out, they were given a date to finish by, and I'm sure nothing short of a bug that makes every single copy of the game absolutely break would have caused a delay.

Not every game with a release date is doomed to fail, only those with a smaller team at the helm. The team Obsidian had for creating Fallout: New Vegas was a bit smaller than the team for Fallout 3, and since they basically spent most of their time planning out an amazing story, the production of the game itself suffered. If Obsidian had more than 2 years to create New Vegas, then the game would probably be along the same lines in quality as Fallout 3, if not more so.

Also, I'm pretty sure Obsidian knows how deep Fallout is, seeing as most of Obsidian is comprised of former developers of Black Isle (the original creators of Fallout)

Oh. And Bethesda THE PUBLISHER does not equal Bethesda THE GAME DEVELOPER.



Again. Bethesda had more time than Obsidian had. Bethesda usually has about 2-4 months, Obsidian probably had less than a month before having to ship the game. You can't expect to find a good majority of the bugs in a month of testing, let alone even two.

Am I the only one who would rather play the game early, deal with bugs for a couple of weeks, and then download patches, instead of waiting two or three more months to play the game at all (and still have to deal with bugs, even if they're smaller ones)?

You may say that we shouldn't be paying to beta test a game, but let's face it, they were never going to get all the bugs before release, and the best group of beta testers are the entire community of players.

Oh well, back to playing NV. In conclusion I cant and will not blame Beth for NV's shortcomings. Obsidian is known for bugs and they didn't disappoint. This is coming from someone that actually liked Alpha Protocol.

As a data point, I've played both Oblivion and Fallout 3 when released without patches (as I recall). I never had major bugs with either.

Just not Fallout New Vegas in the mail. Given Steam and all the bugs mentioned I may wait until installing or playing it, at least until patches stabilize. I'm concerned and following the bugs, but I don't intend to return. I figure I'd eventually want it, and with patches it should become stable.

Disappointing about all the reported bugs though. Also disappointing about needing Steam.

The idea that we as consumers should have to put up with buggy releases is a crock, sorry to say. The only reason it happens is because governments don't have the knowledge or the will to pass effective consumer protection laws for programmable material. E-law and IT-law are still in their infancy, and the end result is that the consumer is the one paying the price.

The excuse of 'all programs/games are released with bugs' is not an argument in itself, because it does not follow cause and effect, nor does it involve reasoning.

It'll only change when a few companies go to the wall.

What are these bugs everyone keeps screaming about? Yet again, I ask that and state that I am playing the PS3 version. How am I NOT experiencing the problems a 360 player is experiencing? The game has run flawlessly for me, aside from one minor crash. The 360 is Bethesda's lead console, so what is going on?

You PC guys can blame Steam, who do we 360 guys get to blame? Bill Gates wife?