Fallout: New Vegas Launch Day Reviews

[Brother None]

There are 75 games for the PS3 alone with a score of 86+ on Metacritic, be sure to hit that "All time" button. There are 21 games for the PS3 with a score of 85. All you really need to look at to see how balanced game reviews are is how metacritic had to shift their scale towards the top due to game publications giving markedly higher scores than reviews for any other media they cover. For everything but games a 61+ indicates generally favorable, with 40-60 being mixed, and 39- being generally unfavorable. With games it's 75+ and 50+.

Fallout: New Vegas currently has an 84 average on Metacritic. I personally don't like Metacritic and its nontransparent methodology, but the game industry values the service highly, and 84 isn't that good (it's listed 10th in current Xbox 360 titles, below such luminaries as NHL 11, Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light and F1 2010).

Fallout 3 averaged in the 93 right off the bat, maybe a bit higher in the first few days, New Vegas doesn't have a shot at that. A shame, but somewhat predictable. 84 isn't terrible, though.

I'm gonna go watch a movie as I wait for the enemies to finish moving... :p Oh I love Wizardry 8 but damn is it slow.

My point was more in how mollycoddled our current gamers are to consider such a basic mechanic "fucking brutal".

If my game didn't let me get a disease because I broke my boots walking and didn't replace them (Realms of Arkania if you're wondering), it's hardly a challenge.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Fallout: New Vegas currently has an 84 average on Metacritic. I personally don't like Metacritic and its nontransparent methodology, but the game industry values the service highly, and 84 isn't that good (it's listed 10th in current Xbox 360 titles, below such luminaries as NHL 11, Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light and F1 2010).

I'm sure it's quite doable to calculate how they weigh different sites and reviewers but it'd be a lot of work (which I might just invest in if I were a publican which published reviews). I agree though, it's garbage that they refuse to at least post their methodology and/or criteria for being mentioned. I would like to see a site that did an average for game review scores and excluded any site which did prerelease reviews and/or had ads for the game. I'm not sure that it'd make a huge difference in the average but it'd be nice to have someone sort out the compromised reviews.

My point was more in how mollycoddled our current gamers are to consider such a basic mechanic "fucking brutal".

If my game didn't let me get a disease because I broke my boots walking and didn't replace them (Realms of Arkania if you're wondering), it's hardly a challenge.

Oh I agree to a certain extent but it all depends on the type of game and whether or not it's well done. It's easy for stuff like eating to turn out to simply be tedious.

 

[yukatan]

I love this game, and I /boggle that some reviews say this feels the same as FO3, or that FO3 writing is better (lol?)

It's what Fallout 3 should have been. It's intangible, but it just feels like something Black Isle would've done. Love the writing and the quests so far.

I had one CTD in the 11-ish hours playing, so it's been very reliable on my end.

 

[KeeperX]

Hi guys,

I saw the callout for those who wrote release-date reviews and figured that I'd throw my hat in the ring. My name is John McCarroll and I've been webmaster for RPGFan for about 7 years now, and I've been writing for the site for over 8.

I don't know what you guys would consider to be an "incomplete" playthrough - is that completing X number of subquests? Reaching the level cap? Getting a legitimate ending in the game? For the intents and purposes for following RPGFan, a 'complete' playthrough is completing the game and seeing the ending. I did just that. I don't get paid for my opinions, and, honestly, there was no deadline for me to get a review on Day 1 - hell, I wasn't even the one originally signed up to review the game. But we got our copy early, and as the one who collects reviewables and distribute them to our editors, who are everywhere in the United States, I had an idea.

I could play through Fallout: New Vegas and write a review for release day. And I did something that I haven't done in years: I powergamed. I got home from work at about 6 on Friday, and I played Fallout: New Vegas. I played it hardcore. I did something I don't usually do on my first playthrough of games: I built my character around guile instead of strength. Sure, I had a 6 DEX and stuck about 3-4 points a level into Guns, but my character had 7 INT and 8 CHA. Now, as someone who works about 50 hours a week, my new definition of 'powergaming' is getting in a game or two of NHL 11 before I have to get to bed.

I have to say, though, that I played the shit out of FNV. I played, adding loss of time due to crashes and deaths, probably 25 hours of FNV over the course of Friday-Saturday. I got an ending - at level 18 - and I did quite a bit of the sidequesting. I'm not an explorer when it comes to these kinds of games, and I will admit that every time. I don't have all the snowglobes (I think I have 4). I only finished out the quest lines for two of the tribes. However, I'm also much faster at playing RPGs than most people. This isn't meant to be an incendiary or braggart statement, either. I just beat games very quickly - my first playthrough of the original Mass Effect was 8 hours. It's been a handy skill to have reviewing RPGs. But I beat FNV before I reviewed it, and I experienced quite a bit of the game. I'm still not level capped, even four days after I wrote the review - I just hit level 21 after playing my obligatory hour a day after getting home from work - but I can say that I've pretty effectively explored the game for a review.

Can I say if any other outlet has played the game more or less extensively than I have? I cannot. I can say that I played the game more than the average consumer would have. Working at a GameStop in college, I don't know how many people that I talked to who played Oblivion or Fallout that never played more than 10 hours of it. Of course, the people reading this forum - and the people who tend to read RPGFan - aren't the average consumer. We're not even the average specialty game retailer customers. We're hardcore gamers. We can tell you who developed a game. Everyone on this forum probably knows who Troika Games is. Even with that audience in mind, I think I did at least an adequate job of exploring as much of the game as I needed to. I can't say that my hours of play since have significantly changed my view of the game.

I'm sure that some will say that I didn't play enough of the game to write an adequate review, and to those I can understand your point. This isn't a JRPG. This isn't an action game. This is a game where, once I finish playing it completely, I could probably still pick up a save and find a dozen places I haven't visited yet. I hear you and I respect your opinion.

I hope that sheds some light on my review setup, even if I can't speak for any other outlet.

Thanks!
-John McCarroll
RPGFan.com

Edit: Also, on another note, Uncanny Garlic, I can understand the ad methodology, but what about writers like me? I did indeed receive a pre-release copy of the title from Bethesda, but I receive no compensation for my reviews, from my outlet or otherwise. I review because it's my passion.

Pre-release titles also in no way guarantee a good score. Hell, the two lowest scores I've ever given games (both JRPGs), Deep Labyrinth and Mana Khemia for PSP, I got at least two months before their release date.

Edit 2: Haha, reading some of the other posts in this thread, Brother None, I completely missed your bag on NHL 11! As someone who's sat and painted miniatures, as someone who has reviewed, previewed, and written news stories for literally hundreds of RPGs over 8 years, I can tell you that on any given day, NHL 11 is probably my game of choice, because EA Vancouver did a really, really good job crafting that game. Of course, I'm a huge hockey fan, too, so my opinion is a little skewed.

 

[Briosafreak]

Nice post Keeper, I see your point.


In Planet Fallout we're going through a different process, we'll do a first impressions piece now, that three of us played 40/50 hours of the game (not me, real life isn't helping), and will each do a different review after we ended one or two playthroughs of the game, minimum 70 hours in game. It's so huge and complex that we think our readers deserve an informed review (the opposite to the Rock Paper Shotgun one). Still your approach seems reasonable, particularly if later on you'll get back to do a review of the review after you crossed the 70/80 hours. Just a suggestion, all the best.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Edit: Also, on another note, Uncanny Garlic, I can understand the ad methodology, but what about writers like me? I did indeed receive a pre-release copy of the title from Bethesda, but I receive no compensation for my reviews, from my outlet or otherwise. I review because it's my passion.

Pre-release titles also in no way guarantee a good score. Hell, the two lowest scores I've ever given games (both JRPGs), Deep Labyrinth and Mana Khemia for PSP, I got at least two months before their release date.

The point is to eliminate any site with a clear conflict of interest, RPGFan doesn't seem to get a lot of invitations to prerelease events, thus doesn't rely on it for hits, and doesn't appear to have any New Vegas ads on the site so the conflict is minimal, the gift of the game. Assuming it's a non-profit site, I'm surprised that you guys got a prerelease copy, especially from Bethesda who seem to play things very close to the chest. The big publications (I use RPGFan for Soundtracks all of the time but I wouldn't call it a major gaming publication) are extremely reliant on publishers for prerelease information, which generate hits, and the resulting ad revenues. You also, forgive me if I'm mistaken, were not allowed to publish the review until the game was released. While it is a competitive advantage to be able to post a release day review it's an even bigger advantage to be included in a privileged group who are allowed to publish their reviews before release, getting the jump on other sites.

Point is, sites like RPGFan might be an exception to the rule.


I have no qualm with incomplete reviews where the reviewer plays to the endgame but I think it's improper for review sites to then not have that reviewer do a 100% completion review. Both reviews have value, the former is probably more indicative of a more casual or average player's experience but you note that you have missed content. 100% completion reviews are necessary in order to rate all of the content which a game offers. This is especially important in games like New Vegas where there are so many optional side quests, some of which are assuredly going to offer a better experience than others.

As a side note, I also find it particularly important in JRPGs in which a large portion of the game is optional content (FFXII and The Last Remnant for example). If you skip all of that content, sometimes up to half of the game, you are ignoring a very large portion of the game which people will experience different parts of.

I think it's pretty ridiculous to praise a game for it's optional content when the reviewer hasn't bothered to experience it. The fallacious argument that tends to pop up in defense of this and bad optional content is, "It's optional, don't use/play it if you don't like it!" which is ridiculous. It's hard to know whether or not something is bad or how bad it is until you've actually experienced it, at which point the damage has already been done. Actually when optional elements are bad it's worse in some ways because the damage to the overall experience could have been prevented with some good editing.

There is also the question of branching paths. Playing through the game and siding with different factions has a major impact on which quests you are offered and which you complete so while the NCR quest line might be excellent, the Ceasar's Legion's could be horrible. Noting which has been done in the review is important information for the reader as it will inform him/her on what exactly is being reviewed. In 100% completion reviews, the reviewer can compare the different playthroughs.

Now I don't think that 100% completion reviews need to necessarily be that, sometimes there is grinding required to unlock some weapon or some such which doesn't need to be done in order to understand the impact. Achievements too are not necessary when they don't unlock content but the quality can be judged by the requirements.

100% completion reviews are also important to me because I have a bad habit of going for them on my first playthrough, especially in games with lost forevers. When most reviews aren't 100% completion reviews it drastically damages their value and usefulness to myself and others like me.


On your review in particular:
I admit I only skimmed it but I see that you lay the blame for bugs and glitches on Obsidian rather than Bethesda. Given that many of these bugs were present in Fallout 3 and never fixed by Bethesda, this seems a bit off. I also hope that one of your reviewers who reviewed Fallout 3 reviews New Vegas for the sake of comparison.

I also have a question about how RPGFan's scoring system works. I notice that you gave New Vegas a 82% in gameplay and an 80% in story and yet you gave the game an 85% overall score (the mean score would be 84.4). How did you calculate the overall score? The discrepancy in the Fallout 3 GOTY is much more curious as it was awarded an 85% in gameplay and 80% in story yet recieved a 95% despite not a single individual category reaching that score (highest was 90% in sound and control).

I'm not trying to beat up on RPGFan (it's not the only site which does this), I just want an explanation on how a game can get a higher overall score than it has in any particular element. Especially so when the overall score is notably higher than what I would consider the two categories with the biggest effect on player experience, gameplay and story.


I don't mean to be super harsh as I appreciate you stopping by, just thought I'd ask some questions that arose as I glanced over some things.

Cheers.

 

[KeeperX]

Hey mate,

Not harsh at all - honestly, your opinion is well-formed and I've got no problem with it, I can respect all of your points.

First things first with the overall score, our overall isn't an average of the other scores. My personal scores usually fall pretty close to the average (.6 off here), but usually what happens is I will start with my overall score and work backwards to rate the individual segments, not vice versa. I actually had my biggest outburst about my review of the original Fable way back when. I started with my overall score - 73%, and worked backwards. I had a game with great graphics, great sound, and good controls, but no depth and a horrid story, but my average score was something like an 82. It comes down to that sometimes there are more weights to certain elements. Again, I can't speak for any other editor on my site, but that's my personal way. In respect to Rob's review for FO3GOTY, I will tell you that it's rare we ask a writer to change their scores. Usually it happens when it doesn't mesh with our grading scale or the text of the review seems to clash with the scores. In the case of this review, there was actually a thread on our staff boards where we discussed the score. It was argued by our writer to be a "more than a sum of its parts" score. We ended up (as the score shows) allowing the writer to go ahead with that score.

I also respect your opinion about a 100% review being useful. I will tell you something about myself that I mentioned earlier - I don't play 100% of games. Even if you gave me the next 10 years with FNV, I won't get all the achievements, I won't play all of the quests. That's not the kind of gamer that I am. So for me, the review that I wrote resonates with the kind of gamer that I am. I wouldn't ever write a review like that. Many of our writers - like Rob - are very much completionists and will review the games from that perspective. I respect those kinds of gamers, but there has never been a game that makes me want to play every single bit of it.

The branching path argument is also a big deal - I have a save before the first major choice I made:

[spoiler:e031512904]Killing Mr. House[/spoiler:e031512904]

and plan to go back at some point to check out some of the branching paths. Some of the game that I've played since then will have changed my ending, as well. It's the same difficulty in reviewing MMORPGs - there's too much content for a single player to really play. I played WoW for four years, and I never played past level 10 in 6 of the classes. I have no idea how fun it was to play as a priest, etc. I think that's a universal difficulty in all game reviewing. I've always been of the opinion that game reviewing is not necessarily reviewing a product, but reviewing an experience. It's an attempt to make the most objective writing you can about a subjective experience, which is difficult.

That leads into the bugs that you mention - the bugs that I found to be so prevalent in FNV, I didn't experience in FO3. To be fair, I played FO3 and FNV on different platforms - FO3 on PC and FNV on 360. In my experience, I never had those bugs in FO3. It's absolutely fair to make that point, though, and I appreciate it.

In regards to reviewables, it's not uncommon for us to receive advance copies of games, though to be completely fair, they are usually of the JRPG variety - as that is what we are best known for. I'd say that we're probably in the top tier of fansites for most companies - as such, games that are targeted toward our target audience we'll receive consideration for. I've never had any of this affect a review score or how I feel about a game, though. While I didn't review Lord of the Rings: The Third Age, I was flown to EA's studio to see it, and it was still horrible.

I'm not out to argue that any one way is right to review a game, especially since, as I mentioned above, I feel like reviewing a game is reviewing an experience with a game, and not everyone is looking for the same kind of experience. I absolutely hear all of your points, though, as there is value to every single one of them.


Cheers,
-John