Fallout: New Vegas reviews round-up #9

WorstUsernameEver

But best title ever!
And some more reviews!

Resolution Magazine, 9/10.<blockquote>Fallout New Vegas is an excellent game with only a few nits to pick. The visuals are looking a little dated now and the occasional bug can completely ruin the immersion, such as characters heads rolling off their necks and enemies getting stuck in the environment, but there’s nothing major getting in the way of all the fun.</blockquote>Square Go, 5/5.<blockquote>Fallout New Vegas manages to keep all that was great about Fallout 3 and blow it away with even more depth and gameplay modes to enjoy.</blockquote>Wired provides no score.<blockquote>You can beat the entire main story of Fallout: New Vegas in less than 20 hours, but that would be giving the game short shrift. It is really about savoring every little detail and side quest until you’ve seen everything there is to see. It’s about customizing your character in order to tackle quests in new ways. And it’s about diving into a world that allows for complete, unadulterated immersion.</blockquote>TenTonHammer, A.<blockquote>With its wide open world and multiple possible outcomes, this is as close to a ‘choose your own adventure’ book as there is. Will you be a people’s champion or a walking nightmare? Will you ally with a brutal dictator, an egotistical autocrat or a harsh military regime? Will you subvert all the players and install yourself as the leader of a (relatively) free New Vegas? All of these choices and tons more are available to you and with hundreds of locations to explore and a bevy of quests and tasks to undertake, no two players will ever have exactly the same experience </blockquote>Bits 'n' Bytes, 9/10. <blockquote>Fallout: New Vegas is just about everything that fans expected, and then some. It seems like there is a little bit more freedom this time around with how the player decides their fate. While the world may not as be as immense as the Capital Wasteland, there are more locations, which means more quests and more chances to make your character stronger. Combat is more fun and challenging and exploration of the wasteland is less strenuous this time due to the closeness of each area to another because of the electricity provided by the Hoover Dam.</blockquote>Extreme Gamer, 8.3/10.<blockquote>Fallout: New Vegas is an epic journey that matches the magnitude of Fallout 3. New Vegas will take away your social life and breed a new game addicted wasteland crawling creature. While it might not be the prettiest game on the market, you can't deny the substance and bang for your buck. Sure, I would have liked New Vegas to be more like what I expect out of Fallout 4. However, Obsidian did a good job improving the core mechanics while deepening both the RPG and FPS elements. Fallout: New Vegas will appeal to anyone who loves blowing heads off a super-mutant and exploring strange new lands. This is adventure on the grandest scale and we love it.</blockquote>GameSlave, 8.0/10. <blockquote>So, to throw the dice one last time, Fallout: New Vegas, is a slightly enhanced Fallout 3 set in a new location with a more succinct plot, more weapons, perks, ammo, enemies and bad decisions waiting to be made. If you loved Fallout 3, you'll love this, but be prepared to overlook the numerous bugs if you want to make it big in Sin City. Viva New Vegas. </blockquote>PS3 MMGN, 9.0/10.<blockquote>Fallout New Vegas is another sequel that is marginally better than its predecessor, and yet not quite deserving of the same accolades. Fallout 3 revolutionized the series and was a true unique experience. New Vegas expands that with much better writing and improved quests. The Mojave Wasteland is a joy to explore and the improved RPG elements take Fallout closer to its roots. It’s the true re-boot of the Fallout series, but wouldn’t be here without the groundwork of Fallout 3. The aging technology and ridiculous amount of glitches hold it back to an extent; however, the recent patch has fixed most of the pressing issues in what is a highly immersive action RPG. </blockquote>GameFocus, 7.9/10.<blockquote>From the new crafting and weapon options to the massive amount of quests, the game turned into a Jack of all Trades, but master of none. There’s a lot within the package, but none of it was done particularly well. The story was a bit lackluster, the environments, while somewhat new, had a ‘been there, done that’ feel to them. And the glitches were difficult to turn a blind eye to because of it. Is New Vegas bad? No, not really. It just doesn’t reach the same heights as it’s predecessor. If you loved Fallout 3 and are looking for more 23rd century action, then New Vegas should satisfy you to no end. If not, then you might want to pass since the new variances implemented here are not enough to change anyone’s mind.</blockquote>PS3 Vault, 7/10. <blockquote>New Vegas never forces choices on you, it only gives you all the options and advice you need to take whatever moral stance you feel will best fit your game play. And hey, if you get completely bored of all the fighting going on around you, why not just go to the Vegas strip and gamble your caps away in the casinos! If you’re ready to commit to the epic undertaking of this task, Fallout: New Vegas is definitely worth your time and effort. Though many bugs still crop up now and then, I can guarantee that fans of the series will not be disappointed with it.</blockquote>Thumbpad, 9/10. <blockquote>Overall, this game was a joy to play, and I found it to be more deserving the title of Fallout 3 than the actual Fallout 3 was. Outdated engine and bugs aside, I'd love to see Obsidian develop further Fallout games, they know exactly how to handle the franchise and do it perfect justice.</blockquote>BadassPanda, 8.5/10. <blockquote>Obsidian Entertainments have done a great job with not only keeping up with the standard of Fallout 3, but also bringing back some of the sparkle from the classic Fallout games. The game is very enjoyable, but it is still very buggy, but that is something that can be fixed in time. Despite its problems, New Vegas is a brilliant return to the world of Fallout.</blockquote>The Register, 75%. <blockquote>Fallout New Vegas was lots of fun, but isn’t really the major step up from Fallout 3 that I was expecting. I did like the fact that I couldn’t predict where the game was leading me, and to all intents and purposes I was free to wander at will. Plenty of players have moaned that they liked various earlier installments of the game better than this one, for a variety of reasons, but I think their main disappointment was that this didn’t seem like a standalone game. Has over-familiarity bred contempt?</blockquote>FZ.se, 5/5. <blockquote>Fallout: New Vegas hasn't changed the winning concept very much, but plays out roughly the same as Fallout 3.
Early on you meet strange, charming, dumb, bright, mean and most of all believable characters. Sure, you still need to put up with the "Dead-eyes-syndrome" all modern 3D-RPG's have. But if you can look past that you find characters that make the world come alive, a world full of adventure to discover and details to stumble upon.</blockquote>

Thanks GameBanshee, mettle and kuzma.
 
Oh it was definitely something you don't quickly forget.

The incredible disappointment, the awful design, the annoying Bethesda fans for that matter.
 
The Dutch Ghost said:
Oh it was definitely something you don't quickly forget.

The incredible disappointment, the awful design, the annoying Bethesda fans for that matter.
Seriously, what the hell? It was a great enjoyment for me, I thought the first person design was even better than isometric (although admittedly, the engine could have been better), and I am a Bethesda fan. I guess that means I am a lesser person or something? Honestly, where is all of this hostility coming from?

Also to the first reply, where is the Canard PC link? Where'd you get that?
 
I meant more the insulting types I keep running into whenever I post my opinion outside NMA.

It basically comes down to that I would never be satisfied with something other than Fallout 1 or 2, that any change is good, that Fallout would never sell as it was made before, that Fallout 3 is the first good Fallout, that I am a closed minded caveman, and so on.

So yeah, I call them annoying.

As for isometric, to me it made it clear that the game is an RPG and not an FPS game disguised as a RPG, the perspective is great as it gives you a bigger picture of the world around you.
 
The Dutch Ghost said:
I meant more the insulting types I keep running into whenever I post my opinion outside NMA.
Well, it seems to be a two way street to me. But their lane does look a lot more obnoxious I guess.

It basically comes down to that I would never be satisfied with something other than Fallout 1 or 2, that any change is good, that Fallout would never sell as it was made before, that Fallout 3 is the first good Fallout, that I am a closed minded caveman, and so on.
If you've played it, did you enjoy New Vegas? I honestly think it is as close to a perfect Fallout game for me. It could be a little more RPG, but Fallout 1 and 2 could have been a little more action.

As for isometric, to me it made it clear that the game is an RPG and not an FPS game disguised as a RPG, the perspective is great as it gives you a bigger picture of the world around you.
I suppose that is a matter of taste. I prefer 1st person, it feels more immersive to play it, and I enjoy combat more.
 
Well, it seems to be a two way street to me. But their lane does look a lot more obnoxious I guess.

Well you do start loosing your patience with people when you are polite to them but get insults back like GTFO.

If you've played it, did you enjoy New Vegas? I honestly think it is as close to a perfect Fallout game for me. It could be a little more RPG, but Fallout 1 and 2 could have been a little more action.

Yes, I have played FNV as I have played FO3.
I liked FNV enough that I got the Collectors Edition and the Collectors Edition of the guide.

It is an enjoyable game, but it is not the Fallout I still would like to see released even though I know the storyline; Van Buren.

I treat FNV as a spin off that could have been set between FO2 and Van Buren.

Fallout 1 and 2 were CRPGs, not those hybrids that are called CRPGS these days, if I want action I play an action game or a FPS.
It did not need more action as graphic violence was not the focus of the game, but rather giving the player a PA world in which they can interact with NPCs, critters and the environment and perform quests while following a storyline.

I suppose that is a matter of taste. I prefer 1st person, it feels more immersive to play it, and I enjoy combat more.

By those definitions, wouldn't you enjoy FPS games far more than action adventure-stat games?

In FPS games you are generally not limited by low stats that still make guns jam or not aim precise at the target you want to hit.
 
Well, I prefer a hybrid-type game. A lot of action put into Fallout 1 and 2 would have ruined the games, but a little bit more action would have been beneficial. I feel like New Vegas just slightly overshot the action amount I am looking. But hey, everything has some faults, and I can't dwell on them.

I do enjoy some FPS games, because it is the player skill, not the PC skill, that is the major determinant. However, a mix of those two aspects is the best in my opinion. So a game like New Vegas, being Action RPG, is perfect for me. Not that Fallout or Call of Duty aren't.
 
Alright guys, enough with the fan-back-and-forth. This isn't the thread to have another one of these discussions. Or snipe at communities, Dutch Ghost.

NiRv4n4 said:
Also to the first reply, where is the Canard PC link? Where'd you get that?

Magazine. One of NMA's favourites. Been waiting for someone to send in some translations.
 
Still outside the while First Person perspective things I find that there are many flaws with Fallout 3 that not even FNV can fix.

But this is turning into a discussion between the two of us, and not the topic's subject.
 
sampson70 said:
Lexx said:
Well, they rated Fallout 3 pretty bad.
I know..that was my point.
Yeah, lots of people are complaining about how akin the two games are, and how little the differences are. I mean, sure, there's a better story, voice acting, et cetera, but little else. If they rated Fallout 3 very low, this game shouldn't have been much higher.
 
NiRv4n4 said:
sampson70 said:
Lexx said:
Well, they rated Fallout 3 pretty bad.
I know..that was my point.
Yeah, lots of people are complaining about how akin the two games are, and how little the differences are. I mean, sure, there's a better story, voice acting, et cetera, but little else. If they rated Fallout 3 very low, this game shouldn't have been much higher.

In that case I would like to rant how similiar 3rd and 1st person shooters are since the beginning (I mean sure there are better AI, better graphics and improved physics. But really?) or new generation "cinematic games" in general.
 
Back
Top