I did not like F:NV. It was buggy, and had far too much of a southern feel for me. I had said for a long time, "I hope this wont be Red Dead Fallout." Sadly, that fear came to pass. From the uninteresting radio stations to the buggy heart of New Vegas, I was bored. So bored in fact I played maybe, maybe, 8 hours. Now, I did enjoy the weapon upgrades. But that was about it. The dialogue system was terrible. Not even giving me a slim chance to succeed? Pass. And talk about breaking the immersion. I guess.......I guess I don't see what all the fuss is about. If Obsidian is involved with F:4, count me out. 184.108.40.206 16:33, November 5, 2011 (UTC)S2H
So because of the speech challenge mechanic (which by the way did not break the immersion like F3's one did. Fail? Load up a save and try again), the whole dialogue system was poor? Besides the addition of numerous other speech checks related to other skills, it is the same as F3's, meaning it inherited the flaws of F3's dialogue system. The bugs are also Bethesda's fault for the most part because F:NV uses an improved Fallout 3 engine. Just so you know, the engine itself, Gamebryo, is way past its time and is known to have bug problems among other flaws. Also, "Red Dead Fallout"? Red Dead Redemption is set in the Hollywood interpretation of the "wild" west which is ot, if at all, similar to the setting of the Fallout series Finally, playing the game doesn't give your opinion of the game much merit, especially if it sets my BS detector off like this post has. Good day. -- Almighty Higgey (talk page) 02:05, November 5, 2011 (UTC)
F:NV bug problem has to do with the developers, not the engine. Obsidian is known for their buggy games, and they have time to squash them before releasing the game. Most of the DLC's were buggy as heck, by all accounts. And my opinion is invalid because it sets off your 'BS detector'? Well I'm sorry m'lord, a mere peasant shouldn't speak in your presence. What was I thinking? I think 'Red Dead Fallout' is perfect way to describe this game. It was way more western-y than it was Fallout-y. F:NV was an incredible disappointment. The game felt wrong, felt like Red Dead. I wouldn't recommend this game to anyone. Especially if they love Fallout. 220.127.116.11 16:33, November 5, 2011 (UTC) S2H
Then obviously you have no comprehension of what Fallout is, sorry to say. F:NV was more true to the Fallout franchise (and common sense) than Fallout 3 ever was. Also, I never stated that your opinion was invalid. I merely said that it didn't sit right with me, setting off my hypothetical BS detector, so I challenged it, as you do. Also, bugs CAN be blamed on the engine, especially if it is, as I said, outdated and based on the engine of a game that was not without its own abundance of bugs. -- Almighty Higgey (talk page) 02:53, November 5, 2011 (UTC)
Higgey is right, this game is more Fallout than 3 could ever try to be. Just because 3 was more "Grimdark" and "Bleak" than Fallout doesn't make it a fallout game, it just makes it a solid played (And Poorly written) Post apoc FPS with RPG elements. Also, Buggyness was always to user. Different people experienced different levels of stability. On 2 PC's I have had mixed stability for different parts, but that can be attributed to Fallout 3. That and the fallout games have always been buggy. Its called "Proper multiple endings" not this "Will I choose to put FEV in the Purifier or not, but either way I'm going to die" bullshit
And have you not heard? Fallout 3 was as buggy if not more than NV (I think of F3:GOTY PS3...). Its just most of the people who played it played it sometime after release, but it also had a lot more time to work out things. Obsidian always get the short end of the stick with publishers, as NV was an attempt to get in before Fable 3 by bethesda, causing their already unstable engine to have various stability problems for different users.
Also, S2H, Sign your posts correctly (4 ~'s) it was a bitch to figure out who was talking. I thought higsy had a case of the nightkin crazies for a second there. 5t3v0 11:37, November 5, 2011 (UTC)
After Fallout 3 I went back and bought the older Fallouts. And got a few of the mods as well. And the spirit of Fallout does not live in New Vegas. Basically from what I can gather, Obsidian's good works are their own, but the bad in the game is either from Bethesda's engine or from the risk of taking a gaming franchise in a new direction. That does not seem fair. Obsidian owns the bad and the good. And again I'm saying they have time to fix bugs. Yet they are still buggy as all get out. The end all and be all is simply this: Obsidian made a buggy, (remember the DLC) semi-interesting Western game and slapped Fallout on the front and it sold. Sold very well. But to me slapping Nuka-Cola in a game DOES NOT make it a Fallout game. (Also, I'm new to wiki's. Sorry about the signing thing.) 18.104.22.168 16:33, November 5, 2011 (UTC)S2H
If they made Van Buren would you play it?22.214.171.124 02:18, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
I should probably remember you all that Bethesda was responsible for bug-testing. Rootmars 02:20, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
"Slapped on fallout..." "But to me, Slapping Nuka-Cola in a game DOES NOT make it a fallout game".
You know what this actually sounds like? Another Fallout game, FALLOUT 3. I could say the same thing about How Slapping the BoS in the east coast does not make it a fallout game, and reviving the enclave for no proper good reason is another thing. There are Fucktons of reasons why New Vegas has more fallout soul to it than Fallout 3, for instance.
The NCR, which is lil' ol' Shady sands All Growd up!, The fact that the super mutants acknowledge the master, and some still worship him, references to towns back west. Fallout 3 was a new Direction, or more going back in the old direction Far too hard. New Vegas is just continuing off the direction that Black Isle were taking. Its been 200 fucking years. Its gone western because things are slowly stablising. Why the fuck is everyone suprised by this? Fallout 3 actually had that part in canon wrong, with their expectation that everything is still destablitzed.5t3v0 02:54, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
There is a reason things are still destabilized in the Capital Wasteland by the time of Fallout 3; Vault 87 Super Mutants. People managed to make small communities, Rivet City being the largest, but before the BoS came along people had to fend for themselves against these monstrous things, as well as raiders, and no large fighting force rose up from the sands to build a nation or whatever. If you remember, every Vault in the region was a failure because everyone died, the exceptions being Vaults 101 and 112, but people in 112 were trapped in a VR anyway, and no ex-military force survived the apocalypse like the BoS did, so there was no way for the small communities to band together. To answer the point of this thread, I enjoyed F:NV, but I agree it was inexcusably buggy, way buggier than F3, and this is coming from someone who played F3 GOTY edition on PS3. F3 GOTY got hard to play at 10MB file size, but after I download the 4 DLCs for F:NV (didn't bother buying Courier Stash or GRA), I started having serious issues at 6MB. By the time I completed everything and got to a file size of 14MB, trying to play the Second Battle of Hoover Dam was near impossible, requiring a system restart literally every 5 minutes. However, other than the lag and bugs, I thoroughly enjoyed F:NV, maybe more so than F3. 03:30, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the creator of this topic, FO NV is way overrated, the fanboyism of it is really irritating because anybody with a valid point against it gets slammed all because the team who made it worked on the first two? big deal! The dialogue was terrible! how is it the courier magically knows everybody's name? Sunny Smiles for example never tells you her name yet you somehow know she is the one doc mitchel told you to go see? there are many examples where you actually use an NPCs name when they never even tell you it! so much for the solid writing.
The bugs are the worst I have seen on a console game ever. Every inch of the map has gaps and invisible walls and floors, freezing is worse than ever especially in VATS and god help us on the game breaking moments. seems for all the hype the original team got they sure did not put half the effort of the FO3 team when creating the Mojave. The story is solid but not to the point where it blows FO3 out of the water...
The combat system is much better but with VATS broken and the game prone to freezing in big battles I would say that is a moot point.
The quests are badly glitched and broken, nearly every single one has a massive bug list. look at the powder gangers quest line, they can not even give you the pro NCR ending. utterly broken.
Why are you people blindly hyping up this team who half arsed this game to the point where a great concept and improvement over FO£ became a massive let down.
oh and the atmosphere is over hyped... it is not all that fun unless you take wild wasteland so the point against the decimated capitol wastes having too serious an atmosphere (uh aliens? naughty nightwear and ant wars? superheros?) is just silly... it is like FO3 but the mad stuff is optional.
--TH1RTE3N 02:12, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
I don't like being the guy that goes around correcting grammar, but it's "moot point." Moot means "of little or no practical value; purely academic" in this case. Also, as has already been discussed, gameplay problems and bugs aren't experienced by everyone. Some people try to play on old hardware and things don't work like they should, so they blame it on the game instead of on the hardware that actually caused the problem. Software is extremely complex and development time is finite. Bugs happen because not literally every possible test case can be evaluated before a product ships. That's made even worse when you're developing & compiling for multiple platforms that all handle things differently and using a game engine that's on its last legs, functionality-wise. If you don't like the story, that's fine. Some people won't. But don't describe a story that intimately and repeatedly ties back into the stories of the first two Fallout' games as "slapped-on Fallout."
Instead of partaking in this arguefest, I just leave this here: "Fallout New Vegas is a Fallout-themed Fallout 3." Rootmars 02:48, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I wrote that at 2am LOL I was in no mood to proof read. :P I fail to see this "themed" point though it feels ALOT like FO3 only the game has a more western feel... I played both FO1 and FO2 and while they do have an old school feel to them I do not see why people would slam FO3 for being the odd ball in the group... FO1 and 2 are similar while 3 and NV are different yet similar to each other excluding the latters cowboy gimmick.
Also there are other large games such as GTA that do not have half the bugs. even 10% of them and if they did they would be slammed for it. FO should not escape criticism nobody wins by ignoring them... they will only half arse testing next time around. --TH1RTE3N 09:35, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
Except its NOT ignored. What happened was a lot of political stuff on Bethesdas part as well as an already inconsistant engine. Just because we say its not happening to us again doesn't mean problems don't exist, and vice versa of course. Sometimes, as Rootmars said its beyond the control of a freelance developer such as obsidian.
Basically what he is saying is that New Vegas is a proper Fallout game with heavier references to the previous games, and since is based on fallout 3, Its like its "Fallout 3: Back to original Story arc Edition".
Also, did you know what else was ignored that was on the gamebryo engine? Thats right, Fallout 3. Many have reported on this wiki of the instability of Fallout 3, But no one on the mainstream media EVER talks about that. So is that fair? Does fallout New Vegas deserve treatment that another game that suffered similarly with different users? I would think not. That goes into your point of "Just because it didn't happen to you, doesn't mean it doesnt happen". 5t3v0 09:49, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
Well I think the main problem here is I feel (take a second, re-read that, I FEEL) that this wiki is totally in love with F:NV. Ive lurked this wiki for a long time and finally, enough is enough. All I read are excuses made for the negative aspects of F:NV, and woefully undeserved praise for the 'positive' aspects. Can anyone name one game that was this buggy at launch? Many, many people had game breaking glitches day 1. And before you say 'beth did the bug testing' you put your name on something, (obsidian) its yours. This game was just a big disappointment. It just felt wrong. I like my post-apocalypse with a little.... post-apocalypse. 126.96.36.199 22:55, November 8, 2011 (UTC) S2H
^THIS. I thoroughly enjoyed NV (except for the rampant bugs, which in my opinion, should have been fixed instead of releasing new DLCs), but I gotta agree with you on the "post-apocalypse".
- There was no real reason for the Gieger counter on your PIP-Boy: no real irradiated areas to steer clear of. -Hardcore was a joke. Some meters that barely had an effect on the game, and my companions could die now. Sweet, if they could do that in the regular game the immersion wouldn't have been broken. -Why so many Wild West references? I mean, goddamn. Ever hear the old saying, "At the first joke I laughed, the second I grimaced, and the third I punched him in the face." Enough is enough.--188.8.131.52 03:22, November 9, 2011 (UTC)
Lets see, the First Two games in the STALKER series (which is one of my favouirte series to this day, might I add), Fallout 2 had stability problems, FEAR 1 had to be patched on release, Alone in the Dark 5 had clipping issues, Crysis 1 had crashes in the last level if you didn't have more than 2gbs of RAM (iirc), I know there are other titles that had problems too, but at this instance I cannot recall.
So, just because YOU didn't like it, this game is shit and all our opinions are now invalid? Undeserved praise because you were unlucky enough to fall under the group that found problems at every corridor? It was a BIG dissappointment because you didn't like it? Well I see the problem here, you are stating opinion as fact and have differing opinions. Thats the problem. While I do Hold New Vegas as my personal game of june last year to june this year I know that what I think is good is just opinion, and large places will share that, and others wont. If you're so butthurt about it here, and must ignore the BLATANT canononical links that hold truer than Fallout 3 and base all of your Fallout Conotations on Gore and grimdark then I guess this discussion would be met with more praise on say IGN or some other site. Yes, I know this can be taken as Condescension but I am sick of this bullshit about Fallout New Vegas not being a fallout game from people who obviously don't know what they are talking about.
And Positive aspects? Sure, the ending is done in slides, but how many other games actually offer this level of Multiple endings? That shit is hard to Code for, and they pulled it off (relatively) well for current gen games. Why must EVERYONE be cynical about their favourite games, anyway? Whats wrong with being passionate about a game you Love? Its not like Obsidian went up to this forum and said, "Hey guys, we would like it very much if you always sang praise all the time for this game for no reason". If people praise it, then they must enjoy it. Its as simple as that. Therefore, how would that praise be undeserved if people actually live it? 5t3v0 02:21, November 9, 2011 (UTC)
I think you may be confused on my opinion here. I love FALLOUT. Not Fallout 3. There is a big difference bud. The point of this whole discussion is merely to point out the fact I think that The Vault here has fanboy syndrome in regards to F:NV. I have lurked the Vault for gosh......6 months? 8? Either way, I see tons and tons of praise for F:NV and then instant dismissal for anyone who thinks differently. (Above poster who said 'butthurt') Its sad i think because the older Fallouts were much much better. I think its because F:NV was too much of a western. Less western more radiation. Take notice Obsidian. 184.108.40.206 21:24, November 9, 2011 (UTC) S2H
uh , hello , new poster here , anyways , to the point ... i recently started playing Fallout new vegas (installed it about 2 hours ago ) well , lets see , ok, the shooting is pretty decent and i like the addition of iron sights , the dialouge is basicly the same as fallout 3s with a few more choices but i didnt have a problem with fallout 3s dialouge anyways i quite enjoyed it in fact , now bugs , well I have only been playing for around 2 hours and have already found an insane amount of bugs , and also a A LOT of invisible walls which seriously affect my sneakyness whilst in fallout 3 , i began the game and encountered around 4 noticable ( but not necassarily annoying , in fact , most were entertaining ) which were a flying protectron , a shishkebab with a burning lead pipe instead of a blade , a flying head , aand something else i cant remember .. my point is there were an incredibly large amount of bugs in new vegas whilst fallout 3 barely had any (with me at least ) and i most definetly wont blame the bugs on bethesda , bethesda for the bugs of new vegas , as i did not encouter any of these in fallout 3 , whilst when obsidian makes it , there were a ton , so blaming bethesda just isnt fair to them
You know what else isn't fair? Being given a short period of time to work on a game. Sure, Fallout 3 had "Less" bugs but they also had 3 or 4 years or so to work on the game. Obsidian had 2 at max, and had to work with little support from the Beth crew other than just the post build testing. Not only that, but Obsidians writing staff probably were on over time. Also, as I have said before (not sure if in this thread though) addition of complex features can cause problems, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be included and the game should be bland.
Also, back to S2H, well ook at it this way: Around the time of Fallout 3 The vault got bombarded with tons of people who didn't even know the basic story to Fallout posting dumb ideas or speculations that made no sense in context, and now that we finally have people who actually worked on the first 2 games that made new Vegas is provided a much needed sigh of relief. Its not exactly the same as the first two, but compared to 3 it fares much better as a fallout game, whereas 3 was just a mishmash of things that sounded "Fallouty" by a company that seemingly almost knows nothing about the series. 5t3v0 01:57, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
well , from what ive seen and read (but never played :P , and i dont plan on it either) Fallout 1 was a [post apocalyptic role playing game] and i think it got that right in the first 2 , but new vegas just doesnt feel like a post apocalyptic role playing game anymore , you can say as much as you want that new vegas is more fallouty , but that post apocalyptic feel has been lost now , and its more of a cowboy/western thing now .. and thats why i liked fallout 3 , despite the fact that the timespan is unrealistic , i thought (repeat , I , thats ME , thought! ok? just an opinion)it was more fallouty
(by the way, sign your posts with 4 ~'s)
well, then I think that New Vegas is a post post apocalyptic game then... 5t3v0 09:42, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
I hate to make a internet social faux pas, but you're helping my point 5t3v0.
"You know what else isn't fair? Being given a short period of time to work on a game. Sure, Fallout 3 had "Less" bugs but they also had 3 or 4 years or so to work on the game. Obsidian had 2 at max, and had to work with little support from the Beth crew other than just the post build testing. Not only that, but Obsidians writing staff probably were on over time."
That is exactly what I'm talking about! People making excuses for them! If say Pepsi put out a really crappy soda, would you say 'Well......I like MTN DEW......and the last MTN DEW they put out was terrible......And this new flavor is terrible too.....but I'm going to buy it anyway. They probably worked real hard on it.' See? Makes no sense. Its crazy talk! 220.127.116.11 13:03, November 13, 2011 (UTC) S2H
Well both of us missed the part where it was to my taste, so therefore it was still good. There are problems, I can admit that, but saying it was crap to a bunch of people who do not believe it so is not exactly very logical. I can relate though, I still mouth off at CoD fans for paying for the exact same game again and how their favourite game is stagnating, but its not exacatly time well spent.
You're making assumptions there that we all think its crap but we like obsidian, so Good job guys! Actually, Fallout New Vegas is the reason why I like obsidian.
In short, It's well received by people here because the people here receive it well. Doesn't make us right and you wrong, but thats the fact of the matter. 5t3v0 05:40, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem with people digging a game, regardless of what I think about it. My problem lies with the rampant fanboyism. People around the Vault get just destroyed when.....well saying that F:NV sucked or they didn't like it. By all means if you like a game, say so. But dont make excuses for the creators. They are big people, with big interviews and the like. They can defend themselves. 18.104.22.168 12:07, November 15, 2011 (UTC) S2H
I don't exactly hate FO:NV, but it could have been better. The graphics haven't improved much (corn stalks have strange black moving lines on them and alot of the gun sights are hard to look through); the game slows down, hangs up, and crashes frequently; and the Mohave is incredibly monotonous.