I don't get it. I think this game is great. It's better than fallout 1, and fallout 3 (didn't play fallout 2).

Fallout 1 has a fraction of the weapons, most people don't even talk to you, the graphics are ancient, there are fewer quests, fewer mechanics, etc.
AND PEOPLE ARE STILL SAYING ITS BETTER. Maybe there weren't many bugs but come on that game is tiny comared to these. I understand why people like Fallout 1 - I do too. But I like it in a nostalgic way...

Fallout 3 had some [censored] perks (especially after broken steel) And fewer quests/weapons. There were pleanty of bugs/glitches/crashes in that game as well. There was less overall content and the RPG element was less of a factor.

Now they've gone and added several new and interesting features, made the game much more balanced, and promoted character development... and people are [censored] complaing?

I just read some thread where a guy has already spent 117 hours on this game (ya what a croc) and hes UNHAPPY WITH IT? ???!!!
WHAT THE [censored] DUDE? You spent the equivalent of 3 work weeks since the time it's been released and you think this game isn't good enough? WOW! I barely spent that much time in the year I've owned fallout 3.

WHO ARE YOU PEOPLE?

There is a massive ammount of content in this game with pleanty of realistic replay value and people are wanting apologies? Making unrealistic demands...
Granted the bugs are frustrating, and in all honesty I feel the release date should've been pushed back. However, it's nothing unfixable or even gamebreaking (except for some people I guess)
I'm sure they'll patch it up soon enough, and all the trolls can return to their dismal caves.

Just from me obsidian I think this game is sweet. Good Job!

I fully agree. The content in this game is just great! Interesting quests and characters aplenty with some really difficult choices here and there. And I love the faction system, with all its interactions. I have played for some 20 hours with my main and some 14 on my first, and I am nowhere near finished.

I play on the 360, and while i have encountered some freezing when I played for 5 hours straight (no [censored], not surprised at all with how warm the console got), and some fairly minor stuff here and there. Nothing game-breaking yet.

People complain for complainings sake... Seriously, any sequel will get massive amount of flack no matter how good it is. And when the game has some major bugs (which I haven't seen myself), there is bloot in the water...

The best thing is everybody is hating on Obsidian because of their track record, despite the fact that most the crippling FPS/crash issues people are suffering from are a direct result of the Gamebryo engine being an outdated piece of crap. People complained for months over how empty a lot of the towns felt in FO3 and now we know why; because the engine has an apoplectic fit if it has to render more than ten people in the same area.

Some people have have technical problems, some people expected a Bethesda-style sandbox game.

How is this not sandbox?

Because some people just like to hate and be rude.

Love the game as well.

It's funny how some just love to hate and bash on Bethesda/Obsidian, but still continue to buy their games lol

I love this game, but it's not perfect, and some critiques are valid. However the people demanding their money back or whatever because it didn't match the perfect game in their head does get a little old. But some threads on here discussing what could have been better/changed have been interesting, instead of just flame-y.

Well it is, I think folks forget though that Beth is probably the best out there at making those types of games, and I don't think it is fair to compare what Obsidian did to that standard since sand-box isn't exactly their specialty. That said I think they did an admirable job at, and given a few more months probably could have filled in all the empty space and put in the little details. They did do an exceptional job at the things they are good at, namely story and characters and the setting. I thought it was great.

Unless you are being afflicted by bugs I don't really see the reason for the hate either, just different strokes for different folks I guess. I never understood all the FO3 hate either. I've thoroughly enjoyed NV, maybe not as much as FO3, but still very well done.

Do we truly need another thread like this?

Invisible walls, Dethclaw enforced travel direction and lack of dungeons compared to Fallout 3 and Oblivion. I said "Bethesda-style" sandbox, long-time Bethesda fans have come to expect a large completely open world with huge load of enterable caves/ruins/builidngs.

I love the game to be honest, it has its bugs, with the playing cards, accumulating enough armor/weapons/ammo to start your own army aka dont keep more than you need and have a tiny bit stashed away for repairs/jury rigging, in the bathhouse of the ultra lux and the thorn, along with little script bugs here and there but other than that I have been playing the game as much as I can already played though it three times on my 4th play though game now. almost any bug can be gotten around somehow. I love the game and since I am a pc gamer I am loving the mods from nexus for things that improve/enhance the game visually.

As for people complaining about areas closed off wait for the DLC it will get opened.... as for a smaller map there are a ton of locations to go and explore, but you also have to keep in mind graphics are getting better and better, thus requiring more work, taking up more space, and hitting limits for engines. If anything thier next game needs to be on a new engine... they have ID Software to help them out, its an asset they should be utilizing.


covered invisable walls
Yes deathclaw ai/travel direction is lacking, but thats fixed over at nexus via a mod, go out to your back yard or the streets of vegas and just outside of its limits let me know how many vaults, caves, you find, you will find a fallout shelter in a 40's-50's theme it was a night club for the rich a long time ago i wish I could find the article. But for a large open world limits are being hit on how much they can put into the engine.

For one thing people use these forums as an outlet for venting. They get it off their chest and after calming down a bit
they rethink things. This goes for myself too. I've been playing the game straight since launch. Was at gamestops midnight
opening, collectors edition and CE game guide to boot. Flash forward about five days with me having stupid steam save issues,
not to mention the plethora of bugs and, in my opinion, lack of attention to detail (FPS dropping to crawl when more than
4 npcs in a roon,missing dialogue, wrong dialogue, missing sounds, quests not working as intended, NPCS/critters getting
stuck in scenery, glitched card games, mesh clipping issues, CTD's for who knows what reason, etc....)
and I'm F**KING pissed off that the 100 bucks I just spent for one game feels
completely wasted.


Now I've calmed down a bit, I've learned where some of the quirks are and how to work around them, others I've just
learned to ignore, some of the other stuff I've fixed with mods. I love this game, don't get me wrong but I can not
go through a single playthrough without seeing at least a few things that need work and speak to the fact that
this game could have benefited from a few more months in the testing phase before being released.

Do I believe it'll be fixed in the long run ? Sure, patches and mods will smooth things out.

The frustration is warranted, it's not just in some peoples heads that the game has serious issues. The other side of it is that
now days people want things fixed instantly, and regardless of who the devs are, thats just not possible.

They just took a cue from Bethesda. But I suppose having rubble block off every single major intersection in DC makes much more sense.

Just goes to show that you can't please some people no matter what you do. I have to laugh a little to some folks sometimes. It's not this or that, ______ is better because of _______. It's just peoples opinion's and they are as varied as we all are in the first place. Frankly, I tend NOT to compare one game to another and try to let each stand on their own merits. Sure, there are things I liked better in FO3 over NV, but there are also many, many things I like in NV over FO3.

Look at it like fine wine. Sometimes you want a nice white wine, while other times you might want a nice dark red. it don't mean one is better than the other - they're just different. And each has their place at the right table! As soon as people start just taking things for what they are and trying to get the most out of it, they'll be better off.

BTW, I've literally played over 1000 hours of FO3, and my first character in NV just finished last night with right at 100 hours for that playthrough. I did a "throw away" run to learn the ropes of about 30 hours, and after the one I just finished I started another one who is about 4 or 5 hours in so far. Other than the NPC lag bug (fixed by the dll file floating around) I've experienced VERY few bugs that have plagued others, but I tend to believe they exaggerate just a tiny bit or don't know how to manage their saves. But I have a pretty pimp rig that I meticulously maintain.

I'm lovin' F: NV! But I do hope we get DLC for us PC users that extends the game after the MQ, and hopefully adds more areas to explore just for the sake of exploring and not questing. If I had only one gripe I think that might be it, but I'm not holding my breath.

This game is, to coin a phrase Bethesdaish. It's a lot of bethesda with some obsidain thrown in. It's disconcerting
at first if you were expecting a pretty much go anywhere right off the bat kind of experience. I don't mind how
obsidian layed the areas out, if though a little contrived, it works okay.

I'm on my third playthrough at the moment (hardcoe and energy weapons this time)...first one was 60 hours (I missed out a vault, the Thorn and the bugged rocket quest) and ended with a NCR victory, second one was 62 hours (I missed out a large number of the NCR quests), ended with a Legion victory. I've had a few bugs every time I play, but nothing game breaking and I'm enjoying the game and already planning a couple more playthroughs.......remember save early and save often.

I think the problem is since playing Fallout 3, I expected almost every building to have something inside it, every cave mouth to have a location inside to explore, every major building to have a back story etc........once I got over that disappointment and just enjoyed the new vegas story, backing some factions and betraying others I'm having a great time despite the bugs, of which by the way Fallout 3 had many more off when I first played the game.

It does. The city was nuked, after all. And it makes clear by just looking at it that you won't get over it, unlike an invisible wall blocking a slight slope.

I don't understand the hate either as FONV is easily the best game I've played this year. Everything about New Vegas is better then Fallout 3 the combat is harder, the game is harder, both of those are a good thing as you shouldn't be able to get the best weaponry and armor early on (Which you can if your skilled enough). Every video game has bugs so what, we should all be grateful that Bethesda allowed Obsidian to make FONV.

Gameplay mechanics and storywise it is better (though i like the personal aspect of Fallout 3's story). Also the un-level scaled enemies are a nice touch (there is some level scaling still, but Quarry Junction is always filled with you-know-whats) even thoug i prefer level scaling in open world games.

To what extent?

Opinions.
And I thought Fallout 1 was better as well.
Don't get me wrong.
Fallout New Vegas is one of the best games I've ever played (Even though Energy Weapons svck, the exploration part becomes predictable and Legion not having enough sidequests) but it simply won't match up to Fallout 1 for me.

This was my only gripe with New Vegas, i loved everything else, though as some people said i wish the death claws didnt block that part of the road off, of course not everything can be easy especially when there is an emphasis on survival and "making do with what you've got" , but because there are so many of the darn things it means i cannot explore quarry junction without a stealth boy, actually make that 10 stealth boys. Its still a great game though and is equal in greatness to Fallout 3.

@OP:

Who the @#$% are you?

People are entitled to hold negative views that disagree with you, people are also entitled to not feel happy with a product either through content, glitches or game mechanics.

There's nothing wrong with those of us who may not be happy about the game, for whatever reason, but there is something wrong with someone who prefers to [censored] about how we feel, just so they can progress their own viewpoint.

Edit:

And get some time up on the forums before you refer to us as 'trolls'. A dose of growing up might help you, as well.

If you can go anywhere, it makes sense that enemies scale with you. It keeps the "open world" open. Of course the Oblivion method was stupid, i prefer Fallout 3 method, it still had areas with dangerous enemies straigth from the start (such as Deathclaw Sanctuary). Also having limits with levels the monsters can have in certain areas is a good idea, like Dragon Age does.

New Vegas' system's weakness is that it becomes predictable, always same enemies in same places. From what i've seen, almost "Doom3" predictable.

Same here, New Vegas will probably end up being my second favorite game in the series, second to Fallout 1. Fallout 1 is (in my opinion) the most polished of all of the Fallout games; it doesn't have an awful lot of content, but what is there is superb. Fallout 2, 3 and New Vegas all have a lot more content, but a lot of what's there isn't that great. When it comes to quality and quantity, I'll take quality every time.

New Vegas is great, but I can't say I look forward to having to revisiting some of the content in a future replay.