My Fallout: New Vegas review

And? Does that make it a bad game?
Click to expand...

No but the avergae New Vegas player dosen't want to play it.

@Ilosar, I second your last point. FO1 didn't exactly sell alot. It was a very niche game, not 'widley' acclaimed or whatever.
 
Wait, did someone mention Betrayal at Krondor? That game was the shit. This is the first time I've heard of it in... well, 10 years at least. I don't think I ever finished it.
 
Threepwood said:
And? Does that make it a bad game?
Click to expand...

No but the avergae New Vegas player dosen't want to play it.
Click to expand...

And how can you know all the "average New Vegas Players"?
I think you're making it yourself a bit too easy. I have no idea why on earth it should be bad to recommend a nice game regardless of its age.
 
Wow! Lots of replies. Sorry most of you didn't seem to enjoy my review, but here's a few points I'd like to respond to that you have made.

One of you said that 5% crit chance improvement isn't a big deal... well, as an RPG developer myself I can tell you that 5% crit chance improvement is a *MASSIVE* deal. Really though, the issue is, why am I being rewarded so much for using VATS? It's almost as though they *knew* the system sucked hard.

I don't think Arcanum's combat sucks... it's far better than most RPGs with their RTwP bullshit. It's not as good as Fallout or ToEE, but as long as you play in turn-based, I don't see what the problem with it is.

Finally, yes, Fallout 1+2 were also slow, but they were also good - REALLY GOOD - in just about every way. The combat was great, the mechanics were great, the writing was great... New Vegas - I'm sorry, but there's just no getting over the horrible combat system. My point was simply that NV isn't worth your time, despite it having a few good elements. It takes forever to play and it's not like pure bliss like Fallout 1/2.


EDIT: By the way, I kind of thought you guys would be more in agreement with me than most people on most forums are... I often get "GO BACK TO NMA", even though I'm not from here.
 
keithburgun said:
Wow! Lots of replies. Sorry most of you didn't seem to enjoy my review, but here's a few points I'd like to respond to that you have made.

One of you said that 5% crit chance improvement isn't a big deal... well, as an RPG developer myself I can tell you that 5% crit chance improvement is a *MASSIVE* deal. Really though, the issue is, why am I being rewarded so much for using VATS? It's almost as though they *knew* the system sucked hard.

I don't think Arcanum's combat sucks... it's far better than most RPGs with their RTwP bullshit. It's not as good as Fallout or ToEE, but as long as you play in turn-based, I don't see what the problem with it is.

Finally, yes, Fallout 1+2 were also slow, but they were also good - REALLY GOOD - in just about every way. The combat was great, the mechanics were great, the writing was great... New Vegas - I'm sorry, but there's just no getting over the horrible combat system. My point was simply that NV isn't worth your time, despite it having a few good elements. It takes forever to play and it's not like pure bliss like Fallout 1/2.


EDIT: By the way, I kind of thought you guys would be more in agreement with me than most people on most forums are... I often get "GO BACK TO NMA", even though I'm not from here.
Click to expand...

This is the New Vegas discussion board for NMA. You're going to mostly find pro-Vegas people, here. Other sections of the board might've given you a different response.

Do I think VATS sucks? Yes. I never use it, though, so its mechanics don't affect me. The FPS aspect of the game leaves something to be desired in terms of roleplay for my characters, but it doesn't make the game unplayable or unbearable.

I enjoy the story, the factions, the companions and the atmosphere of this game quite a bit, even without comparing it to the shitfests that are out there, currently. The fact that it's long is a bonus for me. Most people bitch about games being too short: "I beat that game in, like, 22 hours! Pathetically short!" To have you complain about the length of this one is surprising.

I agree with others that a more verbose review would've served you better, as well, perhaps, as not giving rankings out of 5 when, clearly, your descriptions contradict the points you assigned. Going out of 10 gives you an easier time to distinguish how you felt about one area vs. another, in terms of gameplay.
 
keithburgun said:
One of you said that 5% crit chance improvement isn't a big deal... well, as an RPG developer myself I can tell you that 5% crit chance improvement is a *MASSIVE* deal.
Click to expand...

Explain why is a massive deal.

Really though, the issue is, why am I being rewarded so much for using VATS? It's almost as though they *knew* the system sucked hard.
Click to expand...

Since you can't move they have to give you some advantage.

You can say the balance is off, but VATS doesn't suck per-se.

Finally, yes, Fallout 1+2 were also slow, but they were also good - REALLY GOOD - in just about every way. The combat was great
Click to expand...

What? The combat was great? It was adequate for what it wanted to be, but great? Holy sheet!

Finally, yes, Fallout 1+2 were also slow, but they were also good - REALLY GOOD - in just about every way. The combat was great, the mechanics were great, the writing was great... New Vegas - I'm sorry, but there's just no getting over the horrible combat system.
Click to expand...

Let's say that the combat sucks as you say. This somehow invalidates everything else the game has to offer, most of which varies between good and excellent. Make sense to me. [/sarcasm]

My point was simply that NV isn't worth your time, despite it having a few good elements. It takes forever to play and it's not like pure bliss like Fallout 1/2.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should explain why it's not worth our time. Oh wait, the other reviews already talked about the actual gameplay therefore you can't tell us what makes it so bad.

:roll:
 
Threepwood said:
@Ilosar, I second your last point. FO1 didn't exactly sell alot. It was a very niche game, not 'widley' acclaimed or whatever.
Click to expand...

What? Are you stupid or something? Fallout received almost universal acclaim *and* was one of Interplay's top selling games at the time.

Sheesh.
 
Tagaziel said:
Threepwood said:
@Ilosar, I second your last point. FO1 didn't exactly sell alot. It was a very niche game, not 'widley' acclaimed or whatever.
Click to expand...

What? Are you stupid or something? Fallout received almost universal acclaim *and* was one of Interplay's top selling games at the time.

Sheesh.
Click to expand...

FO1 sold a couple hundred thousand of copies. Now, it will have sold millions and up, due to re releases, and Fallout 3 and such, but it was hardly the MW2 of it's day.

Most of the accolades have been awarded post 2005, and reviews are nowhere near universally acclaiming, you'll find a few 6/10's and below.
 
It took a while for Fallout to build up its reputation. Some people were true believers since they played the demo before the game was released (loved that demo!), but it was pretty niche in appeal for quite a long time. It was probably one of the best selling +5 year old games several years in the row though as its reputation grew, those Fallout duel jewel discount sets were on the shelf at big box stores forever. Its reputation was well established before Fallout 3 came out though, most of the new fans of that game don't really care much about the older games too much, they seem more into stuff like Oblivion or sandbox games.

I think New Vegas has a chance to build up its reputation over a long period of time as well. It initial reviews weren't as good as Fallout 3, but its a fairly unique game compared to the rest of current market, so I think there will be a lot people who still really care about it in 10 years, but it needs some time gets over its original backlash of bugs and lower reviews.
 
keithburgun said:
New Vegas - I'm sorry, but there's just no getting over the horrible combat system.
Click to expand...
The combat is hardly horrible. A bit easy? Yeah. Vats is more eye candy that gameplay? Yeah, but at least it captures the over top violence in a way similar to F1/2. Is it as good as F1 and 2's? God no and it's not deep at all. But is it satisfying and fun? Oh yes, it is. Real time feels more like a FPS and VATS has some great John Woo meets Kill Bill moments.

My point was simply that NV isn't worth your time, despite it having a few good elements.
Click to expand...
Play some modern RPG's and say that again. It's more worth your time than most rpg's released this or last year for sure.
It has a ton of good quests, main story that has 4 or so endings, a ton of weapons that are fun to use and lots of references for those who played F1 and 2. So, is that what they call "a few good elements but not worth playing" these days? Or are you just that full of shit?
 
For any complaints I’ve heard about New Vegas, I still think it’s the best RPG to have come out in the last 4 or 5 years. It’s the only one to even try integrating classic RPG design into a ‘A’ level product.
Hell, compare it to Dragon Age, the game Bioware said was going to be a throwback to the silver age of RPGs. Vegas comes out a clear winner in terms of design, story, ability to play a role and C&C.
 
Threepwood said:
FO1 sold a couple hundred thousand of copies.
Click to expand...

And the average release then had how many sales? Provide context or shut the fuck up.

Most of the accolades have been awarded post 2005, and reviews are nowhere near universally acclaiming, you'll find a few 6/10's and below.
Click to expand...

Again, proof.
 
Tagaziel said:
Threepwood said:
FO1 sold a couple hundred thousand of copies.
Click to expand...

And the average release then had how many sales? Provide context or shut the fuck up.

Most of the accolades have been awarded post 2005, and reviews are nowhere near universally acclaiming, you'll find a few 6/10's and below.
Click to expand...

Again, proof.
Click to expand...

Fallout had sold 450000 copies excluding OEM revenue in 2000. The 200000 figure showed up as a projection a company made of the sales, that was wrong, according to the internal Iplay numbers. It was game of the year, and the highest sales RPG of Interplay until Baldurs Gate.
 
And the average release then had how many sales? Provide context or shut the fuck up.
Click to expand...


Well, I shall oblige you. Age of Empires I (1997), sold three million copies by 2000.

By 2001 Diablo I, also from 1997, had sold 2.5 million copies.

Crash Bandicoot 2, 1997, sold 800,000 copies by 98, and has sold 5.6Million copies as of today.

Super Mario 64, 1996, sold 11million copies by 2003.

Then there's Dynasty Warriors, Final Fantasy, Doom 64, Monkey Island and many more with similar sales figures.

I should shut the fuck up, for saying FO1 didn't sell as well as these games, when, by your own tacid admission, it only sold a couple of hundred thousand copies.

No wonder NMA has such a bad reputation with admins like you.

Edit: @Briosafreak

450,000 is still relativley low compared to other games at the time.
 
It wasn't a mega hit, but was top ten for a while in the PC charts. It was a surprise hit for Iplay, no one was expecting those sales, so they rushed into producing FO2 and went ahead in the division changes, creating Black isle.

It was good for its time, just that. Baldurs Gate and expansions were the first million copies worldwide hit for Iplay though. FO2 sold a bit less (again, the NPD numbers are wrong), with only 39000 copies sold in the UK, so it took them a while to get to the million Fallout games sold, and only because of the OEM sales. Still for the money they cost they were profitable in ways other PC and console games of the time with bigger sales couldn't be.

I just don't want you to have the impression Fallout was a cult game with critical reviews and poor sales as I've seen written in many mainstream sites, because frankly that was not the case. This misconception was brought by my friend Desslock when he brought the NPD numbers to the surface a few years ago, but those numbers are wrong. The times were indeed different, and the market was smaller at the time, so it was a success, just not a mega hit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top