My Fallout: New Vegas review

K

keithburgun

First time out of the vault
The original Fallout games are widely considered to be the peak of RPG design. Does Fallout: New Vegas live up to its heritage?

The answer is, of course, no. The main problem with New Vegas is that despite huge improvements from the abysmal Fallout 3, it just simply takes too long to play for the payoff it gives (which isn't much).

Let me know what you guys think of the review.

http://www.brighthub.com/video-games/pc/reviews/101969.aspx

Edit: and yes, this is a new account, but I am not a spammer or anything. I've loved this site for a very long time, just haven't been active on the forums.
 
It's a decent enough review, though I question your points association in several areas. First, you give the sound a 3/5, but your description describes it as being good. Immediately following, you have the story as being "forgettable", but gave it a 3/5, as well.

I do believe the Powder Gangers quest is broken, so that's the reason the town is still trying to kill them. It has nothing to do with the game wanting you to do something one way or another, but is a bug that they have not yet fixed.

I'm curious on what your thoughts are for Mass Effect. Also, I own Wizardry 8, but I only played about 2 minutes of it. It seemed a lot like the old Might and Magic games, wherein it was the same game no matter who was in your party. If that's the case, then there's no real world-changing events or role-playing, so I don't understand how this is better than New Vegas.
 
Don't like Mass Effect - far too canned and constrained. I weigh gameplay VERY heavily in RPGS - combat, and character creation. Wizardry 8 gives HUGE flexibility in this area, and actually is quite non-linear. True, Wiz8 isn't about "role-playing"; it's very much about the gameplay itself, but this is very very good. Also, the writing is really charming and fun - Sir-Tech has a great sense of humor and hires great voice actors. Or, they did, anyway.

Interesting about the Powder Gangers, although if that is indeed a bug, they should have fixed it by now. That bug is sending the signal that, like so many other CRPGs these days (Risen comes to mind), the game claims to be nonlinear but is actually linear.
 
Any game could be completed by a bot, maybe with the exception of this one, due to the horrible multi floored system which gives no indication as to where the arrow lies, and the fact you have to manually make them active quests for the arrow to be present, and that a bot would probably be less dextrous and die more than a human player. But I diagress. 1/5 is harsh on gameplay.

Also, the NCR facility gangers are not explicity related to Joe Cobbs gang, these groups work semi indipendantly from one another, as even with idolized status, some will attack you, yet others wont. You failed to understand somthing you say is simple, then attack it.
 
I don't like it very much. Feels very condensed and superficial.

You give Graphics a 4/5 even though NV graphics aren't that great.
You give Sound a 3/5 even though going by the description it seems good.
You give Story a 3/5 but don't give any comment on the setting and the picture given by the quests.
You say that VATS breaks the game even though with the nerfs it was given isn't anymore the obscenity it was in FO3.
You say that the world isn't dynamic even though a lot of quests are intertwined and there are choiches and consequences.
There are no comments on the implementation of SPECIAL, balance of skills and so on.
There are no comments on the combat itself.

I don't like it. :|
 
I shouldn't have given graphics 4/5, that was a mistake. 3/5 is more correct. Sound is decent, which 3/5 reflects. Not memorable, just OK.

Just because VATS isn't the "obscenity it was in FO3" does not mean it is a good mechanic. It's improved but it's still absolute horseshit, it's not fun to use, it makes the game way too easy (even on hard) and bleh.

My review didn't mention SPECIAL and STATS and all that because I know everyone else talks about that and I wanted to discuss the game as a whole.

There are TOO comments on the combat itself, VATS. Horrible.

I think, even if you don't like my review, you hopefully thought it was bringing up some points that hadn't been brought up before. Basically my thesis is, who has the time for such a slow and mediocre game?
 
keithburgun said:
Just because VATS isn't the "obscenity it was in FO3" does not mean it is a good mechanic. It's improved but it's still absolute horseshit, it's not fun to use, it makes the game way too easy (even on hard) and bleh.
Click to expand...

How? You take 75% damage instead of 100% but since you can't move and avoid attacks you aren't really avoiding that much damage.

My review didn't mention SPECIAL and STATS and all that because I know everyone else talks about that and I wanted to discuss the game as a whole.
Click to expand...

Doesn't make any sense. How can you discuss the game as a whole if you don't discuss important things like that? What would think of your review someone that doesn't know exactly what NV is and how it plays?

"It's an RPG but I won't talk of its RPG elements because everyone does that".

The hell? :|

There are TOO comments on the combat itself, VATS. Horrible.
Click to expand...

I don't see comments on the combat, only on VATS.

Also in my eyes your analysys of it is flawed. You say that Beth's solution for the fact that you can't move while using it was to reduce damage by 90% (not 75%) and this made it broken. Ok, correct.
But then you say that Obsidian decided to reduce it to 25% (not 10%) which brings up again the problem that you can't move. And somehow you say that VATS still breaks the game? I don't follow.

The critical chanche bonus is 5%, by the way, not exactly huge.

I think, even if you don't like my review, you hopefully thought it was bringing up some points that hadn't been brought up before.
Click to expand...

Sadly not.

Basically my thesis is, who has the time for such a slow and mediocre game?
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't know...ME for example? I'm currently towards the end of my third playthrough.
 
You didn't reply to my post, and as your using this site as free advertising I think you atleast owe the community something.

Basically my thesis is, who has the time for such a slow and mediocre game?
Click to expand...

Ever actually played Fallout 1?

it makes the game way too easy (even on hard)
Click to expand...

I rareley used VATS. I didn't use it, because it was less effective than my own twitch skills, which don't translate to sucsess as much as in a typical FPS anyway. I often found myself standing still, for cinematic effect, while being bludgeoned by enemies, and still missing my shots, when in real time I could have dodged, and scored a hit. If anything, VATS makes things harder, especially with say, sniper rifles which are more effective in real time.

The gun degredation is a real pain in the ass, and dieing in VATS is a real possibility.

Try walking north from Sloan to Vegas on hard, at your character (I assume from your lack of knowledge is a low level) and tell me if VATS saves you.

Also. There is a very hard difficulty, so your point is moot.
 
Sorry, but it's not so much a review as a massive amount of snot from a tired rpg fan who is unsatisfied with the current state of the rpg genre. Yeah, role playing games are not as good as they were in the golden age, I get your point and I agree. But it's still not enjoyable to read your "review", that sounds like it's been written by some bitter veteran with a "back in the day things were better" attitude.
 
Generally this review and a lot of others I've seen for this game spend too much time focusing on what is wrong with the game or what they don't like about it, as opposed to what the game does well.

This game has a lot of annoying design decisions and technical issues, but the core of the what it is supposed to do, the roleplaying and the world and characters designed to facilitate that, are the best of any large budget RPG in very a long time, and very little attention seems to be given to that in comparison ultimately fairly minor mechanical issues.

Also, you make a big deal about how don't like the combat and go on to recommend Arcanum, really? Its a great game, but it has the biggest barf sandwich of a combat system I've ever played.
 
problem is as how I see it is that what the game does "right" should be pretty much seen as "standart" in the RPG buisness. I know about a time where that was the case. Now the mediocre has become the exeption and (I have not read the review) I think its ok to mention it and complain about it or be at least be critical. Of course it depends about the tone. If it all just reads like a rant then it might be somewhat not so well.
 
What I find absolutely silly is to recommend old nearly 10 year old games to the ones who want to play New Vegas.

Yeah, those games are very good, sure. But the thing is that a more modern crowd will prefer something in 3D and a bit newer, while old school gamers have already played those games. I mean, christ, broaden your horizon a bit. Play Troika's Vampire bloodlines, that's a recommendation that at least makes sense giving the game you are reviewing.
 
While maybe it should be the standard, but its definitely not, and I don't know know its every really was, there was a little golden age of rpg design from 1996-2001 or so, but that was awful long time time ago at this point, and a whole new generation of gamers have never touched a game like Torment and probably won't anytime soon. Even then there were only a few mass market games that approached the level of role playing possibilities in New Vegas.

Obviously the flaws of this game need to be pointed out and there are plenty of them, but it doesn't give a good complete picture of the game.
 
Vik said:
What I find absolutely silly is to recommend old nearly 10 year old games to the ones who want to play New Vegas.

Yeah, those games are very good, sure. But the thing is that a more modern crowd will prefer something in 3D and a bit newer, while old school gamers have already played those games. I mean, christ, broaden your horizon a bit. Play Troika's Vampire bloodlines, that's a recommendation that at least makes sense giving the game you are reviewing.
Click to expand...

I get your point, but what's wrong recommending good games? Maybe some folks don't knew them and might want to try them out as they liked the writing in New Vegas for example.

Good games stay good, no matter how old they are.
 
Surf Solar said:
Vik said:
What I find absolutely silly is to recommend old nearly 10 year old games to the ones who want to play New Vegas.

Yeah, those games are very good, sure. But the thing is that a more modern crowd will prefer something in 3D and a bit newer, while old school gamers have already played those games. I mean, christ, broaden your horizon a bit. Play Troika's Vampire bloodlines, that's a recommendation that at least makes sense giving the game you are reviewing.
Click to expand...

I get your point, but what's wrong recommending good games? Maybe some folks don't knew them and might want to try them out as they liked the writing in New Vegas for example.

Good games stay good, no matter how old they are.
Click to expand...

Recomending Wolfenstein 3D, or Doom in a COD:Black Ops review wouldn't make alot of sense.

You liked Medal of Honour? Try Duke Nukem!
 
It's a different approach with FPS games where usually the graphics of the respective gaming generation peak and engines/graphics can get old pretty fast, while in RPGs the story and/or atmosphere are timeless.
 
Surf Solar said:
It's a different approach with FPS games where usually the graphics of the respective gaming generation peak and engines/graphics can get old pretty fast, while in RPGs the story and/or atmosphere are timeless.
Click to expand...

Betrayal at Krondor hardly has a mainstream appeal nowadays
 
I find silly to recommend Arcanum in this review, not because its old, but his emphasis on needing a good combat system compared to whats in New Vegas. Combat in Arcanum is an absolute train wreck, its something you put up with along with the severe bugginess and balance issues because the rest of the game is good. In way its like New Vegas, but even worse in those regards.
 
I am sorry, but your review could be summarized to 'it's not Fallout 1, so it sucks'. You comment on what you perceive as not good with the game and completely avoid the rest. I do not mind criticism at all, but saying Arcanum's combat was better is... shaky at best, especially when the review doesn't even mention the core SPECIAL system and how the skills have changed (maybe for the better?) since FO1. Hell, in a game you reviewed sound, but not gameplay? Even if it was covered by others, having a constructive opinion on it would have made the review far better imo.

And even then, your introduction smells of bias anyway. 'Widely considered the peak of RPG design'? By you, maybe, but that's hardly a good definition of 'widely' :|.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top