Fallout 4 is better than Fallout: Shit Vegas and here is proof!

[DraQ]

Like I said, it's good if you want to predict a general audience trend. Like, you see an average or shit score and you think "oh, this has to be a shitty port or some super buggy piece of crap or the devs fucked-up really bad with the gameplay".

That's really what the average user score reflects, notoriety. So it's not really accurate, unless you agree that these user scores are fine:

Morrowind 8.9
Fallout 3 8.0
Fallout New Vegas 8.5
Oblivion 8.0
Skyrim 8.1
Witcher 3 9.1

Neverwinter Nights 8.1
Mass Effect 2 8.7
Dragon Age Origins 8.6

Fallout 2 9.1
Fallout 1 8.9
Planescape Torment 9.4

The fact that it's less shit than journo scores isn't relevant, it's like winning in the special olympics.

The only truly accurate source for rating games is yourself followed by other people who share your tastes and hobbies, like the Codex.

Sooo... Anything above 8.1 is good and anything below is shit, with 8.1 itself being inconclusive?

 

[Bradylama]

Okay, but I don't understand why are you telling me that, I said roughly the same thing myself:
"The only indication it gives is on the general mood on the Internet" and that I value my own opinion and the opinion of people with similar tastes and interests much more than a random-ass score.

I'm all about subjectivity baby, even if I consider my opinion to be objectively superior to the majority

The point is that you have no point, because Mastermind is griping about the user score being illegitimate because it's being "bombed" by HATERS Q_Q, as if the critic reviews are any more objective. There's also no consideration of why Fallout 4 now has such a low user score while Oblivion and Fallout 3 didn't. Perhaps because the design choices are so apparently retarded it even insults a Popamole's intelligence.

 

[buzz]

are you drunk or something? Didn't I address everything you just said already?

Of course it's fucking illegitimate. It's a 2000 people giving it 0/10 or 1/10 scores for one reason or another, while another 2000 people defend it to death and give it 10/10. If you look at some of their user profiles, you'll see many of them never reviewed or rated another game ever.

0/10 is Ride to Hell Retribution or the 2008 Alone in the Dark levels, stuff that it's absolutely broken and irredeemably bad. The score doesn't say anything except it got a divide in the fanbase and lots of people are butthurt because le graphix or le casualisation or something.

A broken clock can be right twice, that's all you are witnessing. And again, giving it credit just because it's not journo scores? It's just like picking the slightly less smelly shit and eating it, but you're still eating crap when you could just not eat any.

 

[Bradylama]

are you drunk or something? Didn't I address everything you just said already?

Of course it's fucking illegitimate. It's a 2000 people giving it 0/10 or 1/10 scores for one reason or another, while another 2000 people defend it to death and give it 10/10. If you look at some of their user profiles, you'll see many of them never reviewed or rated another game ever.

0/10 is Ride to Hell Retribution or the 2008 Alone in the Dark levels, stuff that it's absolutely broken and irredeemably bad. The score doesn't say anything except it got a divide in the fanbase and lots of people are butthurt because le graphix or le casualisation or something.

A broken clock can be right twice, that's all you are witnessing. And again, giving it credit just because it's not journo scores? It's just like picking the slightly less smelly shit and eating it, but you're still eating crap when you could just not eat any.

The point is that Metacritic is only relevant as an aggregate. Nobody is going through each individual user review and weighting it based on its supposed merits. Unless you can somehow prove that there is a deliberate campaign to bomb the user scores like Mastermind is claiming, the user aggregate is just as "legit" as the reviewer aggregate. You're not making any real points.

 

[buzz]

You are entirely deserving of your dumbfuck tag. I seriously still don't understand what you are talking about and what are you trying to say

The point is that Metacritic is only relevant as an aggregate.

Relevant to whom? You? You're an idiot. Devs? Devs only care about it when it's in their favor, no one at Activision has been giving a fuck about constant negative scores on Call of Duty ever since Modern Warfare 2. Neither will Bethesda most likely.

Nobody is going through each individual user review and weighting it based on its supposed merits.

Nobody without a brain and too lazy to quickly skim for 5 minutes. The reason why Metacritic is not relevant is because it doesn't hold absolutely any credibility for anyone who actually gives a shit about gaming. It doesn't hold said credibility because you see a score, you wonder why the audiences gave it that score and then you see the reviews and go .

Unless you can somehow prove that there is a deliberate campaign to bomb the user scores like Mastermind is claiming, the user aggregate is just as "legit" as the reviewer aggregate.

Who in the fuck claims that the reviewer aggregate is legit? Why the fuck do you people keep bringing that shit up? Metacritic is not legit period. It's not extremely popular, it has a shitty neogaf-tier audience and it's not helpful at all to anyone.

Metacritic has a rank of 1500+ on Alexa. That means that Amazon, reddit, 4chan, Facebook, youtube, Steam, imdb, rotten tomatoes, IGN, gamespot, even fucking kotaku and so on are more relevant than it.

Any of those networks and sites have a bigger sway on public opinion than metacritic does. r/Fallout has around 3600 users online right now, and most of those are fanboys who enjoy the game. Those alone are already more than the people who rated FO4 negatively.

Why are we even wasting our times talking about this? What useful is it to any of us that a bullshit-peddling website like Metacritic gets it right sometimes and talk smack about games that are considered notoriously awful in our own community? Let me know when good games are being made in the AAA space because metacritic users told them to, then I'll consider if Metacritic as a whole is "legit" or "relevant"

Seriously, am I missing something here?


Why am I even talking with a

; fuck off back to /gd/ and talk about the plight of black people in america

 

[Morkar Left]

All the butthurt seems to be from pc gamers. I'm sure the console gamer target audience is fine with the game. It's the first 3rd person shooter with building gameplay in it for them. Something that the pc crowd already has for years in different flavors.

 

[Bradylama]

You are entirely deserving of your dumbfuck tag. I seriously still don't understand what you are talking about and what are you trying to say

You're the one saying that Mastermind is right here, not me.

Relevant to whom? You? You're an idiot.

Uh, fuck you too?

It's relevant to people who go to Metacritic. When user scores are so radically diverged from critic reviews it's a big flashing red light that something is wrong with a game. Whatever devs or publishers think of the user aggregate doesn't matter.

Nobody without a brain and too lazy to quickly skim for 5 minutes. The reason why Metacritic is not relevant is because it doesn't hold absolutely any credibility for anyone who actually gives a shit about gaming. It doesn't hold said credibility because you see a score, you wonder why the audiences gave it that score and then you see the reviews and go .

Why don't you provide a sampling of user reviews for us to at, then? Demonstrate that their criticisms are unfounded or unfair.

This game looks like they just took Fallout 3, added new lights and scenery. Maybe its great for players with low pc specs or a big FANS of Fallout, but this can't be sold for 60 BUCKS. I don't see any work. Just routine gameplay.

Ok, let's review this game as it's supposed to be : an open-world solo adventure post-apo RPG.

Graphics (ultra settings) : Props are meh at best. Textures are disgusting (sorry, no other word). Character models are rigid, unexpressive, poorly balanced. Let's be honest, this is not what we can expect from a 60$ solo adventure game in 2015. Don't expect this game to have half the graphic awesomeness "The last of us" had two years ago.
Bad graphics ? Ok at least it will run smoothly ... Guess what ? It doesn't ! Inconsistent framerate etc ..

Gameplay : I won't go into details right here, because this game has been made for console players. Terrible design for keyboard/mouse players. My crosshair is moving faster horizontally than vertically ? No problem, let's get to the settings ! Ok, I can't change that ...
The VATS system looks like a console player tool made to help them aim the body parts they want. It even fails at doing cool micro-cinematic shoot.
Gameplay is driven by general objectives like : go there, kill that, loot this ... boring as hell.
Perks/skills are a letdown. You won't need your brain building your character.

IA : No IA. Not even a try.

UI : Probably one of the worst UI I have ever seen. Completely console oriented. Nothing to discuss ... not pc-friendly.
Loot interface is not intuitive, no drag and drop ...
Character/weapons/skill interface is a nightmare (click / click / click / click and more clicks for a simple task).

Storyline and quests : If you are looking for an immersive game with good interactions between the different characters ... look elsewhere ! Because the story is trash and not well written.
Supposed emotional cutscenes are hilarious ... because there's no emotion at all !
The thing is, even with emotionless faces like this game have, the game should at least try to make you feel something ... well, it doesn't ... why bother ?
As I said before, boring tedious repetitive quests ...

My Fallout 4 experience was like I was playing a F2P korean shooter game but with really bad graphics, bad optimization and an attempt to do some kind of RPG out of it.
It was so painful I wanted to stab my brain with a q-tip ... multiple times.

These aren't illegitimate criticisms. Some people are reflexively giving 1s and 0s because the game doesn't run well on new hardware, or because it's not a real Fallout game, but there are just as many 10/10s who act as if there are no issues in any regard. The PC metascore is at 52 right now, which means that if roughly half of the users hate the damn thing then it's not a good indicator.

Who in the fuck claims that the reviewer aggregate is legit? Why the fuck do you people keep bringing that shit up? Metacritic is not legit period. It's not extremely popular, it has a shitty neogaf-tier audience and it's not helpful at all to anyone.

It's so not helpful and unimportant that developer bonuses are fucking tied to Metacritic thresholds. Get a clue, jackass.

 

[Norfleet]

Sooo... Anything above 8.1 is good and anything below is shit, with 8.1 itself being inconclusive?

You're overthinking it. It's really more basic than than: EVERYTHING IS SHIT.

 

[buzz]

You're the one saying that Mastermind is right here, not me.

You're the one talking who brought-up subjectivity for no reason and I'm still baffled what does that have to do with what I said. Like what was your point, that metacritic is not subjective because it's a mob?

Just to be clear, I don't agree with Mastermind that Fallout 4 is any good. I played it for like, 2 or 3 hours and got extremely bored and pissed about it. I don't like the game at all and I'm not sure I'm even going to try it again any time in the future.

I only agree with him in the sense that Metacritic is useless information and a haven for butthurt ex-fanboys or actual fanboys. As a community they don't inspire confidence and I don't feel they represent my tastes and interests in video games.

It's relevant to people who go to Metacritic. When user scores are so radically diverged from critic reviews it's a big flashing red light that something is wrong with a game.

So, you still agree with me but for some reason you say I'm wrong? That's exactly what I said too, the divergence in score can only tell you the game is notorious in some circles of the Internet. Like mustard races who hate console ports and graphical downgrades, people who were pissed about ME3's ending (and that thing only), people pissed about the paid mods debacle and so on.

Take Pillars of Eternity for example. If you go by Codex opinion, you'll have them say it's a bad, boring, tripe video game and a bad successor to IE titles. On Metacritic, it's one of the best RPGs of all time apparently. It has a better score than Icewind Dale, KOTOR 2, Temple of Elemental Evil, Arx Fatalis, Age of Decadence, Storm of Zehir, Shadowrun Dragonfall, Expeditions Conquistador, Wasteland 2, Dark Souls. But of course, the South Park game is better than all of them and PoE because D'OH And Mass Effect 2 as well!


Metacritic is good for the kind of moron who thinks for example that Call of Duty was a genuinely great franchise up until the latest games. In reality, Call of Duty have been subpar and awful since the second one, some might argue from the very beginning as well.
It's good if you're a PC fanboy who thinks everything on consoles is shit, when in reality console gamers had much more interesting and hardcore shit in the last years like Valkyria Chronicles or SMT Strange Journey back when we literally had to beg veteran developers to come back and do some more good games for us.

Why don't you provide a sampling of user reviews for us to at, then? Demonstrate that their criticisms are unfounded or unfair.

I never said that the criticisms are unfounded or unfair, but rather they are inconsistent, stupid and don't reflect the things that a typical codexer would be much more interested of, like encounter and dungeon design, reactivity, quality of writing, character building and so on. It's practically useless information FROM Metacritic to tell me that a Bethesda game is buggy, has bad UI and bad graphix.

No one said that they're unfair, all I said that they're redundant and very vanilla criticisms. And they're not very consistent either. Fallout 3 and Skyrim also had very awful, consolized UI. And shitty graphics by the standards of the time. And were buggy, barely-working pieces of shit.

I mean, take this quote from one of your samples, when the reviewer reaches the "Gameplay" section of his review:

I won't go into details right here, because this game has been made for console players.

I rest my case. A mustard race faggot/typical TotalBiscuit variety PC gamer.

These aren't illegitimate criticisms. Some people are reflexively giving 1s and 0s because the game doesn't run well on new hardware, or because it's not a real Fallout game, but there are just as many 10/10s who act as if there are no issues in any regard.

And those are just as retarded and emphasizes even more the uselessness of the website . Again, what the fuck are you trying to say rather than agreeing with me on every point?

When a big majority of the scores are given "reflexively" and they're extreme numbers (positive or negative), it invalidates the entire scoring process. It basically says that the users are not actually trying to review and grade the games properly, but doing some ridiculous internet war over getting the number up or down.

The PC metascore is at 52 right now, which means that if roughly half of the users hate the damn thing then it's not a good indicator.

Yes, 5000 people that may or may not have bought the game and played it, out of the tens of millions buyers. A sample size smaller than 1% of the entire audience, what exactly is it supposed to indicate?

NMA alone has 2200 active members and a total userbase of almost 30000, nevermind the subreddits I've mentioned before.


By comparison, Steam has over 30k reviews of Fallout 4 and over 80% of them are positive. People who can't even post a review if they didn't buy the game. How are them not a better and more relevant indicator?

It's so not helpful and unimportant that developer bonuses are fucking tied to Metacritic thresholds. Get a clue, jackass.

No, you get a clue you moron. Obsidian's bonus was tied to the Critical aggregate score, specifically because no one gives a fuck about the user scores.

 

[Bradylama]

You're the one saying that Mastermind is right here, not me.

You're the one talking who brought-up subjectivity for no reason and I'm still baffled what does that have to do with what I said. Like what was your point, that metacritic is not subjective because it's a mob?

Just to be clear, I don't agree with Mastermind that Fallout 4 is any good. I played it for like, 2 or 3 hours and got extremely bored and pissed about it. I don't like the game at all and I'm not sure I'm even going to try it again any time in the future.

I only agree with him in the sense that Metacritic is useless information and a haven for butthurt ex-fanboys or actual fanboys. As a community they don't inspire confidence and I don't feel they represent my tastes and interests in video games.

Well, that's just like, your opinion man.

The reason I brought up subjectivity is that it doesn't matter what you think of Metacritic or its user base. It's relevant regardless.

I rest my case. A mustard race faggot/typical TotalBiscuit variety PC gamer.

It's a legit criticism considering that there are still multiple effect inputs, like one button for melee attack/grenade tossing, despite the keyboard having multiple buttons. It plays like ass on the PC because it's a straight port of the Console design.

 

[buzz]

Again, how is the Metacritic user score relevant for anyone? Not even the website itself emphasizes it, the Meta score is bigger and it's the one quoted by publishers, journalists and so on. When did something change about a game publisher or developer because a few thousand people bitched about it in Metacritic?

The audiences who actually use Metacritic are actually pretty small like I said, and they're vastly overshadowed by various groups, like Angry Joe fans or the tens of thousand of people who watch twitch streams of the game.

It's a small sign of slacktivism that doesn't serve any purpose than make some noise around the scene. It does absolutely nothing to stop Activision, Ubisoft, EA, Microsoft or Zenimax in this case from exploiting their audiences and churning out more shitty titles.

Call of Duty: Black Ops III generated $550 million in worldwide sales in its first three days. That gives Activision Blizzard the biggest entertainment launch of 2015, beating out the box office from the Jurassic World film opening.

Think about that for a second. It is the 12th game of the franchise in the last 12 years, horrendous user scores on Metacritic for most of the franchise's lifespan (only 1, 2 and Modern Warfare have good scores) and constantly criticized on the Internet for being the same shit all the time, no advancement in graphics, bad community and other awful practices. In spite of all that, Black Ops 3 had a bigger/more profitable launch than the third best-selling fucking movie of all time!

Please, explain to me how is it relevant. Extra points if you can explain how the user score in Metacritic is it relevant to me and you, and the typical old-school crpg fan who wasn't fond of Bethesda shit since Oblivion at least.

 

[belowmecoldhands]

Has anyone satisfactorily explained the difference between the metacritic user score and the score at steam?

For a long time I've used Metacritic to spot games which change dramatically from the past. For example, you can see the upturn in bad reviews for Diablo 3. But this is true for many games. They can still be popular, but they all have the bad reviews!

I know lots of people use the excuse the bad reviews are fake or made by people who don't play the game. Thing is, EVEN IF the bad user reviews are made by people who haven't played the game, these scores STILL tease out the underlyling changes in the game. Everytime I'm finding out about a game which had major changes, I can see the bad reviews at metacritic!

But this discrepency between steam scores and metacritic scores still interests me. Anyone?

I know someone here suggested since you have to purchase FO4 to make a user review at steam that those reviews are more accurate to what people actually experience when they play it. BUT the problem I have with that interepreation is what about those people who read FO4 reviews and watch youtube vids BEFORE purchasing it? And what if htye decide not to purchase BECAUSE of the things they see? Should they NOT have a voice? Metacritic gives them a voice!

 

[Lemming42]

Has anyone satisfactorily explained the difference between the metacritic user score and the score at steam?

For a long time I've used Metacritic to spot games which change dramatically from the past. For example, you can see the upturn in bad reviews for Diablo 3. But this is true for many games. They can still be popular, but they all have the bad reviews!

I know lots of people use the excuse the bad reviews are fake or made by people who don't play the game. Thing is, EVEN IF the bad user reviews are made by people who haven't played the game, these scores STILL tease out the underlyling changes in the game. Everytime I'm finding out about a game which had major changes, I can see the bad reviews at metacritic!

But this discrepency between steam scores and metacritic scores still interests me. Anyone?

You need to have bought the game on Steam in order to review it, so it's possible that a lot of the negative Metacritic reviews are from people who pirated the game.

 

[belowmecoldhands]

You need to have bought the game on Steam in order to review it, so it's possible that a lot of the negative Metacritic reviews are from people who pirated the game.

I think a lot of them didn't even play it because they were unhappy with reviews. My theory is we shouldn't disallow people who're unhappy with reviews from expressing an opinion on a review site. BUT we need to distinguish between paid/unpaid.

I look at metacritic as just one piece of information you can use. It SHOULD NOT be a universal source. Because without including other sites like steam, you'd get a completely wrong impression about its success.

Civilization V is another good example of a game that does well on Steam but STILL angers a large number of its old fans. On Steam you'd not be aware this occurred. It has a 96% score. You'd think it was all peachy picnic with birds and butterflies.
http://store.steampowered.com/app/8930/
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/sid-meiers-civilization-v

But it's not always much different between the two. Here's an example:
http://store.steampowered.com/app/47700/
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/command-conquer-4-tiberian-twilight

The differences is on Steam there're 23% postiive reviews. On metacritic there're maybe 15% positive reviews IF you assume all mixed reviews are positive. If half miaxed are positive, it's 12.9% positive. So maybe it's worse on metacritic.

 

[buzz]

I dunno, the Civ V user score seems fine (7.8).

Again, there's a big misunderstanding with a lot of people, thinking that Metacritic user score reflects a populist sentiment of some kind. But like in this case with Civ V, we're talking about 239 negative scores and 350 mixed scores. And 1445 people who gave it a positive review.
Do less than 600 people really represent the voice of the fanbase? Considering Civ V is five years old by now and it's still one of the games with most players online at any time on Steam, 50k or so.

Now take Beyond Earth for example, you know they really fucked-up with that one. There's less than 4000 players playing it now, and bad/average scores on Metacritic and Steam at the same time.

 

[belowmecoldhands]

I dunno, the Civ V user score seems fine (7.8).

Again, there's a big misunderstanding with a lot of people, thinking that Metacritic user score reflects a populist sentiment of some kind. But like in this case with Civ V, we're talking about 239 negative scores and 350 mixed scores. And 1445 people who gave it a positive review.
Do less than 600 people really represent the voice of the fanbase? Considering Civ V is five years old by now and it's still one of the games with most players online at any time on Steam, 50k or so.

Now take Beyond Earth for example, you know they really fucked-up with that one. There's less than 4000 players playing it now, and bad/average scores on Metacritic and Steam at the same time.

The score on Steam for Civ V is 96% positive. On metacritic it's 79% positive about. The thing about Steam is it doesn't have a "mixed" category, neither does it filter/count reviews by PC or XboxOne or PS4--it lumps them all together.

When Civilization V came out there was a large response from some old fans who didn't like the changes. It's these kinds of fans who're better represented on metacritic, I believe. They're just not seen on Steam as visibly because:
a) they pay more attention to reviews and youtube vids (or play the demo) and never purchase it in the first place

I could make other arguments but I can't honestly make them. For example, I might try to say there're more console gamers on Steam than on metacritic, but I've have no ground to stand on. Evidence doesn't support it.

I think it comes down to having to pay for the game to review it. Maybe the bad reviews on metacritic are autogenerated bots or they're legitimate reviewers who never purchased the game because of what they saw in reviews or videos. There're probably other reasons to explain why having to pay for it to review it might yield what we see occuring.

I've made a grand total of 2 reviews on metacritic. Bought both games. Was mixed, but postive.

Want to add I'm against blurring consolitis. It's a good purpose, but bad results so far. I don't like how game makers are sloppily making universal UI's, like a speeding locomotive, trying to save money on development. I think it's better just to get PC-only games because they have more care given to the UI. However, sometiems PC/console games are really good and a gamer should get them. I just think when you add it all up the UI in games which play on PCs and consoles tends to be a frankenstein.

EDIT: Want to say also the UI limitations can crossover into gameplay, making it potentially worse.

 

[belowmecoldhands]

Also want to say GOGcom suffers from the "Don't have to buy to review." problem, but in reverse. A lot of old timers will have nostalgic memories of an old game and give it high reviews, even though they haven't played recently and don't represent how well the game has aged since then.

"Don't have to buy to review." is the key to all this, but I don't think I've quite opened hte lock or foudn the right lock yet, so this isn't solved. Another key is the people who don't buy the game because of its reviews (or its demo) are not represnted on Steam. What if they're longtime fans of the series? For these gamers, being not represented can be an important clue for anybody wanting to buy the game. BUT I'm not certain about how far these things can go to explain everything. I lack conviction.

 

[MWaser]

"Shit Vegas"
You could have at least gone with a creative title that fits the abbreviation of the game, like Fallout: Needs Viagra

 

[Bigg Boss]

If New Vegas is shit what does that make Fallout 4?

 

[Mexi]

*derp*

If that was the case steam reviews would reflect metacritic reviews. They don't because you're full of shit. For all the braying many people here do the reality is that you and most of the fact free jackasses commenting here are no different from the average consoletard. Not in taste, not in sophistication and not in intellect. You lie and lie and lie because you're bursting with badfeelz and don't know where to direct them and it's easy to make you pop like a mole because I see right through you.

I won't ever play Fallout: 4, and I don't like Fallout: 3. You're absolutely killing these fucking idiots in this thread, though. Damn, motherfucking Codexers are getting destroyed in their own forum. Guys are reaching now with their conspiracy theories.

I especially love the fucking retard talking about shelling out $60 and then refunding to review a game on Steam. HAHAHAHAHAHH! What a fucking douchebag, idiot.

 

[an Administrator]

If New Vegas is shit what does that make Fallout 4?

Bashing fallout NV to make Fallout4 look better.

 

[Lhynn]

I won't ever play Fallout: 4, and I don't like Fallout: 3. You're absolutely killing these fucking idiots in this thread, though. Damn, motherfucking Codexers are getting destroyed in their own forum. Guys are reaching now with their conspiracy theories.

He was the one with the conspiracy theory you asshat.

 

[Bigg Boss]

If New Vegas is shit what does that make Fallout 4?

Bashing fallout NV to make Fallout4 look better.

NV isn't shit though.

 

[typical user]

New Vegas is shitty because of Gembryo or whatever that shit is called. I first thought it is Fallout 3.5, didn't knew about Obsidian and expected same level of retardness but after giving it second chance and arriving at Nipton in turned out to be nice game. I can play it 3 times differently, as murderous super-sledge bastard who favors Legion, as typical Fallout 1&2 cool-smartass-sniper good guy who goes NCR or Independent or sneaky merc working for Mr. House. Fallout 4 doesn't let me. I can't initiate combat through dialog because everyone doesn't give a shit about me. I can do most quests for all factions and they play the same. In New Vegas there are two versions with bomb in Las Vegas Airport, at least two ways to deal with Omertas, Kings, Khans, Brotherhood of Steel, NCRCF convicts, Boomers, White Gloves, Benny and other places where NCR/Legion camps are located. Nope in Fo4 it's all about fedexing all day every day. You can just say different things but NPC doesn't mind and it doesn't change quest you get only better reward, less enemies to fight or other non-relevant crap. Apart from gameplay style, there isn't much replayability. My verdict? Fallout 4 is bigger shit because I can beat it and then throw it out of window. New Vegas isn't as good as Fallout 2 that has secrets that fans uncover even after 20 years but it does allow to have 3 different playthroughs.

 

[Animal]

When I played FNV I was all hyped and shit because they had PEOPLES FROM TEH ORIGINALS WORKING ON TEH GAME!!1

It was a fuckfest of gameplay because of the engine and the story and humor (or lack of) was a bland disappointment. I did finish it though...

But nothing reaches the heights of catastrophic bullshit as FO4! I seriously don't know how people bear to play that crap for more than 2 hours.