Review Epic Fallout: New Vegas Review Extravaganza

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Tags: Fallout: New Vegas; Obsidian Entertainment

<p>Some people think it sucks, some people think it rocks. So it's business as usual, but let's take a closer look at some opinions though:</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Gameroni <a href="http://www.gameroni.com/posts/298.html" target="_blank">gives it grade F</a> for being unplayable:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>But I can't review that game, because it not the one I experienced. So this review, and the letter grade that follows, are based on my experience, over the course of forty hours, with a game so broken I literally cannot finish it. A game where a quarter of my time has been spent dealing with crashes, including one final fatal freeze. The game has slammed shut with a recurring black screen that may as well read "You shall not pass".</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Edge <a href="http://www.next-gen.biz/features/fallout-new-vegas-review" target="_blank">base their score of 6/10</a> on the bugs, or on the "myth" of bugs (amirite Obsidian?) :</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Creatively, <em>New Vegas</em> gets almost everything right. Mechanically and technically, it&rsquo;s a tragedy. So, it&rsquo;s a simultaneously rewarding and frustrating game, the gulf between what it is and what it could be a sizeable stretch indeed. Few games have built up a world like <em>New Vegas</em>, and even fewer have squandered such opportunities like this.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/112/1128839p2.html" target="_blank">IGN are excited</a>, calling New Vegas unmatched in scope and maturity: 9.0/10:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Fallout: New Vegas is the game that many wanted Fallout 3 to be. It's harder, more ruthless, better written and more morally ambiguous. It's a game we&rsquo;ve been wanting to play for more than a decade, a real modern re-imagining of the Fallout series, complete with that deliciously black humour. But it's also more of the same, aesthetically and technically identical to Fallout 3, wonky facial animation and all. The ever-so-slightly ageing technology only marginally detracts from what is otherwise an expansive, fulfilling and ambitious game, unmatched in scope and maturity. If Obsidian were to make another Fallout game, we certainly wouldn't say no.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Hooked Gamers <a href="http://www.hookedgamers.com/pc/fallout_new_vegas/review/article-608.html" target="_blank">found out</a> that <em>your weapon is choice</em> in Fallout: New Vegas, 9.0/10:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I think the best way to describe <em>Fallout: New Vegas</em> is to say it's <em>Fallout 3</em> with a bit of <em>Alpha Protocol</em>, which makes sense. But even with that extra little bit, <em>New Vegas</em> is most definitely a Fallout game. More specifically, it's a <em>Fallout 3</em> game. So regardless of what I or anyone else says, you should already know if you'd enjoy it. If you don't, then you haven't played <em>Fallout 3</em>, in which case, shame on you. I enjoyed <em>Fallout 3</em> and I certainly enjoyed <em>New Vegas</em>.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Filefront <a href="http://news.filefront.com/fallout-new-vegas-review/" target="_blank">call New Vegas a triumph</a> for Obsidian, 91/100:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>All in all, Fallout: New Vegas is a triumph for Obsidian. Once again, they&rsquo;ve taken on a beloved franchise and managed to do it justice in the sequel. From a purely technical standpoint, New Vegas does have some issues, but a game isn&rsquo;t all about the technical side of things. It&rsquo;s about the experience of playing the game, and on that front, New Vegas delivers in spades. It&rsquo;s easily one of my favorite games of the year to date, despite all of the technical glitches. If you liked Fallout 3, you owe it to yourself to play this one all the way through. It&rsquo;s a most worthy successor.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>StrategyInformer <a href="http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/falloutnewvegas/1249/review.html" target="_blank">rate the game</a> 8.5/10 despite having their gripes with the technical flaws too:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Despite minor disappointments however, this is a very engaging title. Those who missed some of the more trademark Fallout elements in Fallout 3 should be somewhat satiated in this game, as Obsidian really bring that flair to the franchise once again. The glitches, whilst highly annoying, will hopefully be patched soon after launch, but again we can't help but feel that as time goes on there's less and less of an excuse for shipping games in such a state. Perhaps they're paying the QA testers in Caps? This could have been a great game, so it's a shame certain things are holding it back - still, it's addictive, interesting, highly enjoyable, and so credit where credit's due. A great addition to a great franchise, and a must have for fans and new comers alike.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The reason 1UP <a href="http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3182065&amp;p=1" target="_blank">doesn't rate the game</a> higher than B is, you've guessed it, the bugs:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><span class="articleText">If only it was a stable product and didn't ship with so many bugs, I would've given New Vegas a higher score. As it is, this review reflects the game shortly after launch. Future patches will no doubt fix a number of issues, but these problems shouldn't keep you from trying the game out...eventually. If you do start playing now, you know what to expect, but despite all of the bugs and tech issues, I still loved my experience in New Vegas. I even look forward to booting up the game and playing through from the beginning again someday. </span></p>
</blockquote>
<p><span class="articleText">RealGamer calls New Vegas a <a href="http://www.realgamer.net/pc/reviews/Fallout-New-Vegas.html" target="_blank">role-playing masterpiece</a>, 9.5/10:</span></p>
<blockquote>
<p>Fallout: New Vegas, looks and plays exactly the same as Fallout 3. But the additions that Obsidian have made push the survival angle even further to provide a much more immersive and authentic experience, and just like its predecessor New Vegas proves to be a role-playing masterpiece.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Spotted at: <a href="http://www.rpgwatch.com/#16046">RPGWatch</a></p>

 

[DalekFlay]

I hear the 360 version is the most broken, which is odd when you consider it was the lead platform without question. I know the "Gameroni" and "Edge" reviews both were based on the 360 version.

36 hours and no serious bugs on the PC here.

 

[MicoSelva]

Looks like Obsidian is getting some serious love from reviewers. A situation is a bit similar to what happened after KoTOR 2 and NWN 2 releases - reviews are good but not quite as good as the previous game got.

 

[DalekFlay]

Looks like Obsidian is getting some serious love from reviewers. A situation is a bit similar to what happened after KoTOR 2 and NWN 2 releases - reviews are good but not quite as good as the previous game got.

With both KotOR 2 and New Vegas though they were quick sequels to relatively new concepts (Fallout being new to consoles and most of the people who bought Fallout 3). Of course reviewers are going to treat a quickie sequel worse than the original, that makes sense.

What doesn't is acting like the gamebryo engine is suddenly buggy and worked great before.

 

[SuicideBunny]

I hear the 360 version is the most broken, which is odd when you consider it was the lead platform without question. I know the "Gameroni" and "Edge" reviews both were based on the 360 version.

36 hours and no serious bugs on the PC here.

it has a memleak which is kinda worse than the memleak the pc version of fo3 had.
it tends to cause severe stuttering whenever npc move around after two to three hours of playing and it gets progressively worse. gui ceases loading altogether, the stuttering becomes minute long standstills and there's also the crashing.

so basically they did on xbox what bethesda did on pc.

 

[Hirato]

I still think RPS has the funniest review of the lot!
Though I suspect it was unintentionally so...

 

[muds_animal_friend]

I've logged at least thirty hours on my WretchBox and haven't encountered any problems that weren't already in FO 3. The few lock-ups I did suffer were after extended play-sessions, which is something that occurs in most games regardless of platform.

Maybe I've simply been lucky, but "a [technical] tragedy" and "unplayable" don't describe the game I'm playing. Then again, neither do "role-playing masterpiece" or "a triumph". NV is to FO 3 what Nehrim is to Oblivion: a total-conversion mod that adds some minor gameplay improvements and a sense of coherence to the game world

 

[Forest Dweller]

All in all, Fallout: New Vegas is a triumph for Obsidian. Once again, they’ve taken on a beloved franchise and managed to do it justice in the sequel.

 

[racofer]

You guys still talking about NV? That's like two weeks old FFS!

 

[Lyric Suite]

All in all, Fallout: New Vegas is a triumph for Obsidian. Once again, they’ve taken on a beloved franchise and managed to do it justice in the sequel.

I don't see the objection here. It is true that they take a franchise and manage to do it justice. The problem is that those franchises are shit to begin with.

 

[Darth Roxor]

I'm sure it's a very worthy successor to Fallout 3

 

[bhlaab]

I've always had a problem with giving games bad reviews based on bugs. I mean, I can see why it happens but it seems a bit like giving a movie a bad review because the DVD was scratched.

 

[Rhalle]

About 25 hours for me and bugs:

Monsters spawning fucked up and stuck in the world and stretching out to infinity a few times

Come Fly With Me quest buggy but complete-able.

We Will All Go Together quest buggy but complete-able.

Shitty FPS without the D3D hack

One CTD.

Not surprisingly, mostly technical-side shortcomings apparently brought to the table by Obsidian.

 

[Yeesh]

I've always had a problem with giving games bad reviews based on bugs. I mean, I can see why it happens but it seems a bit like giving a movie a bad review because the DVD was scratched.

No, giving a game a bad review because the DVD was scratched is what would be like giving a movie a bad review because the DVD was scratched. I think most would agree that bugs are much less forgiveable.

Having said that, I don't like bugs to impact the score too much either. The fact is, I do read and give weight to reviews, but I also wait a while before playing a game. Thus if a review is spending too much time complaining about bugs and crashes that have been fixed by the time I get around to playing the game, then the review is less useful to me if it would just concentrate on reviewing the gameplay and just warn about bugs in a separate section that doesn't affect the score.

But I understand not everyone would like this, and of course some buggy games never, ever get patched to a very playable state. I'm looking at you, just-about-anything-made-east-of-Germany.

 

[Xor]

I think a more apt analogy would be giving a movie a bad review because you could see the boom mike in one shot or something. It's a technical detail that may or may not detract from the overall experience depending on the person.

 

[janjetina]

Bugs can be fixed, but shitty design is forever. Game reviewers should etch those words, which have repeatedly been proven, into their minds. Think of almost every good (goes for bad RPGs as well) RPG ever made. The chances are it had a high number of bugs on release. These bugs have been patched by official and unofficial patches and those game remain good now, just as they were good then. On the other hand, Oblivion, Alpha Protocol and Mass Effect with no bugs are polished turds, but a polished turd is still a turd.

F:NV, is not buggier than Fallout, Fallout 2, PS:T, BG, Arcanum, Oblivion or Fallout 3 were on release.

 

[Carlos' Bitch1]

Bugs should be included in a review. Polish and reliability are an important factor to consider with anything. If you don't, prepare for even more developer laziness in the future, and have fun with your Alpha copy rather than a Beta.

 

[Carlos' Bitch1]

Bugs can be fixed, but shitty design is forever. Game reviewers should etch those words, which have repeatedly been proven, into their minds. Think of almost every good (goes for bad RPGs as well) RPG ever made. The chances are it had a high number of bugs on release. These bugs have been patched by official and unofficial patches and those game remain good now, just as they were good then. On the other hand, Oblivion, Alpha Protocol and Mass Effect with no bugs are polished turds, but a polished turd is still a turd.

F:NV, is not buggier than Fallout, Fallout 2, PS:T, BG, Arcanum, Oblivion or Fallout 3 were on release.

I hear what you are saying, but there is no excuse for expecting people to pay for an unfinished product either. Release it a month later if everything isn't ready. If you tried this stunt on before the internet was around, it would have been fatal for any game...and it was for the few that tried it.

 

[Sceptic]

Bugs should be included in a review.

Yes. The problem with gaming journalists is that they're very selective about which game reviews mention bugs and which ones don't. Do you remember any Oblivion review talking about some quests being uncompleteable, vampirism and its cure being completely broken (never fixed by Bethesda), the hordes of physics bugs (still there), the CTD's (still there)... for that matter, why did no FO3 review mention any of these? Why didn't the ME reviews mention the game was an unplayable mess until the patch? Why did all DAO reviews completely ignore the memory leak that made loading take SEVERAL MINUTES?

None of this excuses bugs in an Obsidian product, but the double-standard is plain to see. Giving an "F unplayable" to NV after having given a "10/10 GOTY" to FO3, even though FO3 was also a crashfest on the Xbox is just noe excusable.

Ideally, every bug that a reviewer sees should be mentioned, and there should be mini-"reviews" (or notes) when a patch comes out saying "this game is now playable, score goes from 7 to 8" or whatever.

Of course, everyone's favorite game was a bugfest when it was released anyway. Arcanum, FO/FO2/FO3, ToEE, VtmB, KOTOR 2, Dark Sun, DAO, ME, NWN (this one's for you Volly), every TES game, Anachronox, Arx Fatalis... need I go on?

 

[Lyric Suite]

The thing about the double standard is that the reviewers seem to be going out of their way to criticize the game. Its like they are trying to compensate for their obvious sell out to the larger companies by being extra scrupulous to the smaller ones, which is even shittier. Its like the weaker kid who starts terrorizing those weaker then himself after being beat up by a larger bully. They are venting their frustrations on the less powerful companies after being sodomized by the industry giants. How noble of them.

 

[DalekFlay]

Its like they are trying to compensate for their obvious sell out to the larger companies by being extra scrupulous to the smaller ones, which is even shittier.

I honestly think that is it. They can't pick on Infinity Ward or Bethesda, but they can pick on Obsidian, so then they are extra harsh because finally they can be critical.

 

[Shannow]

First of all: It's not all reviewers, it's some. And unless the same ones rated similarly buggy games, in this case FO3 far better while glossing over the bugs, I don't see the problem.
Secondly, Obsidian obviously hasn't figured out yet, that professional reviewers are really cheap to get, if you take them out to go partying and have a good time.

 

[Kz3r0]

What doesn't is acting like the gamebryo engine is suddenly buggy and worked great before.

They can't bash the big dogs and their brands, so they bash external studios on technical issues, AKA Obsidian doesn't pay enough.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

First of all: It's not all reviewers, it's some. And unless the same ones rated similarly buggy games, in this case FO3 far better while glossing over the bugs, I don't see the problem.
Secondly, Obsidian obviously hasn't figured out yet, that professional reviewers are really cheap to get, if you take them out to go partying and have a good time.

MCA is OURS!!!

 

[Forest Dweller]

All in all, Fallout: New Vegas is a triumph for Obsidian. Once again, they’ve taken on a beloved franchise and managed to do it justice in the sequel.

I don't see the objection here. It is true that they take a franchise and manage to do it justice. The problem is that those franchises are shit to begin with.

Are you dense? They are referring to Obsidian doing a sequel to Fallout 3, while neglecting to mention Fallout 3 was a sequel to the real Fallouts which the people at Obsidian worked on. Talk about lack of understanding.