Fallout: New Vegas Review
Exactly what Beam said Arnold, game companies get away w/ making half assed console versions of games because they know that they can just go back at a later date and clean up their messes once they have US, the consumers, do THEIR QA work... PC games have been doing this for years, and it's now become common place in console games. And I for one am sick of it, I want to buy a damn game that is COMPLETE, that means full games that are relatively free of bugs and glitches, and yes, I know there will never be completely free of them but they can be cut way down from how they are now.
This answer pretty much goes for both parts of post. And once again, this is NOT an extensive expansion or follow-up (just saw that dumb ass commercial once again) to Fallout 3, the only relation it has to Fallout 3 (which I love as well and put in over 500 hours on just 1 of my characters) is the engine used and the copied/pasted items.
Oh, I'm not saying this game is perfect, it's far far from that and that is very disappointing, it's pretty much on par w/ my experience in Fallout 3 (which I picked up @ the midnight launch and played about 6 hours that first night, had to wait until Tuesday afternoon to pick up New Vegas) and close to my experinces w/ older Fallout games. I guess what I'm saying is either Fallout 3 scores needed to be a bit lower or the scores for New Vegas should be a bit higher. Oh and yes, I do feel New Vegas was a bit more polished than Fallout 3, maybe not 2 years worth of polish but still.
I bought this and Borderlands GotY at the same time yesterday, and played Fallout first. After about 1 hour i came to the conclusion that I payed an extra $89 AUD for the same game I bought 3 years ago. I cracked open Borderlands ($64 AUD) and haven't stopped playing it since. Well done to whomever made that game, and shame on the lazy game developers at Bethesda.
The problem with this review is that it is way too technically focused. If this was a site for games programmers then it would make sense. But to the general public we simply do not count frames when playing, neither do we count load seconds. On the other hand, we are interested in the atmosphere, the journey the game offer to us, we enjoy the games as gamers and not technicians.
This is a problem with a lot of reviews, especially from semi-pro and hobby sites. The reviews tend to have a very unbalanced content.
This would be as if a review of a Hollywood movie got totally lost in discussing some frames being out of focus, the audio balance of the ambience sounds or the cut techniques in a certain scene, and what camera model were used to shoot the outdoor scenes. Do you read movie reviews like that? Nope. Why not? Cause it has no place in a movie review.
Do I say that technical issues is irrelevant for a game? No, of course not. But in the total picture technical issues count maybe as 1/5th of the totality, and a good review should not spend more than 1/5th on technical issues, and that's only when there are issues worth mentioning at all.
And this goes the other way too, this is why certain other games gets an irrational *high* score, cause it impress from a pure technical point of view, even though the game itself may be boring as hell or at least not such an unforgettable experience a character of 90%+ would suggest.
Last edited by Beamboom on 10/24/2010 1235 PM
Agreed Jawknee. The technical bugs in Fallout 3 should be gone for New Vegas, and they are not. I understand the complaints in regards to that.
Pushing the glitches aside, Fallout New Vegas is a much deeper game than Fallout 3 ever was.
To many reviews are failing to recognize the improvements and depth offered in this game.
Fallout Vegas does something different that Fallout 3 never offered, and that's Hardcore mode. That changes the game quite a bit, and adds a severe danger to every step you take.
The simple fact that you have maintain water, food, and sleep levels is a detail that I honestly believe you would have appreciated, yet there is not one mention of it in your review.
The companion system is highly refined when compared to Fallout 3 with a wheel system. I actually don't mind using a companion at all. What were your thoughts on this as well? For it wasn't covered in this review.
Disagree with the score, and this comment. Fallout New Vegas is almost identical to Fallout 3. The graphics, gameplay, and gliches are all all comparable.
Now while I can see the justification for giving the game a lower score due to the technical bugs, New Vegas still retains the amazing atmosphere and player choice mechanic.
To many reviews, including this one are to focused on the expansion feel of this game and it's a shame really. It's really an amazing experience that mirror's Fallout 3 in several regards, and even surpasses in other areas.
I can see where you're coming from but to the average gamer load times and frame rates do matter.
If every time anything happens on screen, the camera stutters and stops, that's a major issue and we need to know.
If every time you go in or out of a room you can make a cup of tea while the next area loads... we want to know.
These things CAN take away the enjoyment and influence a purchase decision.
I played both Fallout 3 and New Vegas liked them both. It was almost comical in New Vegas to see the exact same city that Fallout 2 had overrun by Deathclaws. This game needs vehicles or a run button. All that walking is boring. I played New Vegas on PC and used the unlock all maps cheat it made the pacing consistent compared to walking 15 minutes get in fight then walk another 15 minutes.
The PC version of Fallout 3 had a mod that added hardcore mode to it so this is nothing new for the PC gaming crowd, and it's just as fun now as it was then. It's nice that the console gamers have the opportunity to try it. Adds a whole new level to the game in my opinion.