Fallout New Turds - the final veredict.

[racofer]

To business, comrades.

Now that NV has been out for a while, received all its glorious DLCs (which you all paid for), numerous patches and all the nude mods you've been patiently waiting for, how do you rate the game?

I personally can't stand it, because Gamebryo and me are totally incompatible. I hate Bethesda's implementation of that engine which is worse than any shooter engine I can think off in the last 15 years. This has prevented me from even getting to play the game further than 5 hours.

What about you?

 

[Admiral jimbob]

It's as good a game as they could have made while having to stick to Fallout 3's utterly atrocious gameplay.

Not that I think a home-made engine of their own would have come out much better, but there you have it. I played it to completion quite happily, and I'll actually buy and run through a fully-modded all-DLCs GotY edition when it comes out cheap. It's pretty much the definition of "good for what it is".

 

[EvilSatan]

The game is really saved by the modding community. Without mods like increased wasteland spawns, the game is boring and there is no sense of urgency or seriousness.

In Vanilla FONV I think there is like one scripted event where Legion scouts ambush some NCR soldiers when you go to Novac and I think that's it. Not really a big sense of "CONSTANT WAR FOR HOVER DAMN!"

 

[King Crispy]

It's a good game. It gave me what I had hoped for with it, which was a hiking sim with guns and Van Buren's writing come into the light of day.

Definitely sucked in many ways, but beggers can't be choosers in today's derp market.

 

[EvilSatan]

It's a good game. Fucking Cazadors SO OP [/console /click cazadore /type kill].

 

[Marobug]

Better than I expected.

 

[CrunchyHemorrhoids]

Good game but it is New Reno on steroids and as such should be the final nail in west coast fallout's coffin. If you're gonna call NV's setting post-apoc then you might as well call real life post-diluvian.

I don't want to see any more chronological west coast fallout sequels, let it rest in peace.

 

[Excidium]

Fallout: New Vegas is good for what it is.

 

[Forest Dweller]

It's the best in the Fallout series. Yes I mean that.

 

[Jaesun]

No.

 

[Surf Solar]

If the game would be in the same engine as Fo1/2, I'd rate it higher than the turd that is FO2. Also, New Vegas spawned Dead Money, which is really good.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

It's like Fallout 2, but slightly more coherent/serious and with more skillchecks/options saddled with the most godawful combat you'll ever see as well as too many glorified fetch quests. Fun, and certainly a worthy Fallout game, just seriously flawed. Leagues better than the trainwreck that was Fallout 3.

 

[MMXI]

Action RPGs are an abomination and so this poll gets a skyway vote from me.

 

[Serious_Business]

It's the best in the Fallout series. Yes I mean that.

Agreed. Not because I think it's that great though, mostly because I was never that much of a Fallout fan.

I don't really think it's worth getting excited about the supposedly shit gameplay either, because it's not like Fallout 1 & 2 had fantastic gameplay to begin with

Hint : rpgs are shitty games

 

[Multi-headed Cow]

It's glorious. GLORIOUS! (claps hands like a fag while voting this option).

Was torn between glorious and good. Went with glorious because I mostly love the shit out of it. Definitely has problems, but overall I thought it was a pretty fine Fallout game, and the first Obsidian game that didn't really piss me off in some way.

Or to put it another way, I pretty rarely replay games with campaigns. I've replayed Fallout 1 a fair number of times, Fallout 2 never, and I've gone through FNV once as NCR, once as Legion, and plan to go through again at some point for a House/independent combo run. FNV is my Mass Effect 2.

 

[HanoverF]

It was p. good for being saddled with that shit Fallout 3 engine.

 

[halflingbarbarian]

Went with 'good'. I like the game and its DLCs thoroughly but its flaws are quite distracting without some mods to correct them (for me, the shit textures, some mechanics, bugs etc. - in b4 gfx whore). Many will say it's good for what it is, 'beggars can't choose', and such which I completely agree with in the context of the offerings in crpgs we get nowadays; but I can't help but imagine if this piece came out alongside controversial classics (don't spit on me please) like Fallout 2 or Baldur's Gate 2, how superior it will seem in comparison. I tend to take away considerations of 'oh man we are in 20XX and they are still giving us this shit engine' and judge a game on its own merits and my own enjoyment of it as a gamer.

So, there it is.

 

[corvus]

I'm with the "decent game shit engine" crowd. I generally enjoy the time I spend playing it, but I rarely play for longer than 20-30 minutes before I quit and fix some bug from a mod or go and play a game with better gameplay. That, and after spending over a week looking over mods, downloading them, installing them, playing a bit, breaking the game due to one mod or a combination of them, getting pissed off and deleting the whole game, then installing it again and giving it another chance, and now I've finally found a satisfactory level of modness and I'm at Freeside now. The writing is consistent so far, and nothing really screams "DUMBFUCKERY" like Fallout 3 did. Even that cattle rancher in Novac only had 3 brahmin, but it could be explained by the nightkin shooting his herd up. Obsidian seems to cover their bases with Gamebryo's shortcomings.

It's the definition of a "good for what it is" game to me. I enjoy it more than Witcher 2 at least.

 

[Mister Arkham]

Option two. Good game shackled to an aging, crummy engine. Even at that I'm still impressed with some of the visual stuff that Obsidian managed to crank out of ol' Gamebryo. Maybe the second best Fallout title on the whole. Also the first game where I felt that the DLC was really, truly worth the price.

Looking at it from the standpoint of judging Obsidian as a developer, it's easily their most complete and competent game. I'm not sure that MotB isn't still a better product, but I don't know if I'd count it as "complete" since it requires you to own the tedious yawn-fest that was NWN2.

 

[Metro]

In keeping with the title: you can't polish a turd. Obsidian did what they could with the horrible FO3 baseline. That said, I played it for about forty or so hours and just rushed to the end as I was starting to lose interest. Don't see myself playing it again and doubt I'll ever buy the DLC.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

It was okay... I guess. Somewhere between faggot without an opinion and find me something else to play.

 

[Jaesun]

When a group finally mods New Vegas into the Fallout 2 engine, it will be the 2nd best Fallout.

 

[commie]

Good so far, edging towards glorious as I've stopped after 30 hours in vanilla in order to wait for a GOTY version so I can play everything at once.

 

[sea]

I think it's about as good as we could have expected from Obsidian given a) the developer's history, b) the limitations imposed by the game engine and prequel's design, and c) the timeframe given for development. It's a bigger, better game than Fallout 3, made all the more apparent if you ever try to go back to Fallout 3 to draw comparisons. It could have, and should have been better, but considering what Obsidian had to work with, I think they did more or less about as well as they could have.

That said, there are definitely some design ideas I don't like. The Legion is a great idea in theory, but was executed in a pretty silly way. The Boomers don't really make all that much sense. A lot of quests feel rushed and underdeveloped, and the world should have been a lot more reactive than it actually is in many cases (especially with regards to the deaths of Caesar and House). The game world is too busy, resources are too plentiful and combat is too easy - all these bounce off each other in a way that kills off a lot of the post-apocalyptic feel. Some of this is personal preference, some of it is the realities of game development not always working out, so I'm willing to forgive a lot of these problems - and besides, it's not as if Fallout as a franchise is known for being flawless. If anything, flaws in a game like this make it more interesting to discuss.

 

[Shannow]

Decent game, shit engine, shit character system, many shitty small game mechanics.
Had fun for about 30 hours. Played for 40, didn't finish. Was torn between "decent" and "it kinda sucks". Went with "decent" simply because I have no intention of ever playing it again ("but I still play it from time to time" = no).