Fallout: New Vegas
Has the King left the building?
Review Ever wanted to tangle with mutated creatures - and I'm not talking about the strippers - in a post-apocalyptic Las Vegas? The new Fallout installment now comes with added factions and pimped-out weapons, allowing you to wander the Mojave Desert in style before taking your rightful title as King of New Vegas.
Got a gun? Join the club!
This isn’t the kind of town in which to make enemies. It‘s obvious I’ve upset someone badly as the game starts, showing a view of the Las Vegas strip which pulls out to encompass the Mojave desert, right before I get shot, JMFL. But its OK, that’s just the intro. I’m left already feeling like I have walked into a The Road/Book of Eli mash up. Welcome to 2281!
I wake up with Doc Mitchell tending to my wounds and, after a few minutes of character-customisation - I was tempted to be good natured, but of course ended up with 'wild wasteland' as my character trait - it’s off out into surprisingly familiar territory.
After Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey, Death found Hollywood could be a cruel place
Obsidian, the developer in charge of Fallout New Vegas has taken everything that made the Fallout 3 nuclear wasteland hot and kept it intact. New Vegas has the same technology and basic functions as Fallout 3: for example, you still wear a Pip-Boy on your arm with displays for your quest, inventory, map and stats. The same surreal 1950s cheeriness crossed with post-apocalyptical grunge is evident. The basic structure is still there but has been built and improved upon.
Next page: A man's best friend
COMMENTS
Sir, sir
Lucy said a bad word.
Grow up. You're reading a review of a game about killing zombies and you're upset because you read the word 'shit'.
So, you didnt actually play the game, then?
did you take a poll of friends that played, read a press packet, maybe ran around the starting area and make your verdict? I find it amusing that you list only one robotic companion, and not even the one you come across first, as your only choice.
you didnt play on hardcore. good job. you missed out on a major texture layer to the game. did you play it on easy, too? wait. probably doesnt matter. you never left the starting area.
FO:NV is, and always was pitched as FA3.5. it uses the same engine, heavily modified, and is rebranded by obsidian. fans of the genre/series are not and never were expecting FO4. what we were expecting was killer writing ; we got it. greater scope for moralist conclusions : got it in spades, I no longer have to be Praised Saint of All or Antichrist Incarnate, also back is the ability to play, and successfully finish the game from a diplomatic point of view, putting the combat, more fun as it is, in a minor role.
Im sorry the graphics of a 3 year old engine didnt match the high expectations of a PS3 gonk. but then seeing as your review basically consists of press-pack screenshots and glib references to wasteland-cliche characters (ZOMG WHERES MAD MAX) rather than talking about actual play mechanics that you used (rather than ignoring, like hardcore mode), or specific storylines you enjoyed (no mention) it feels like you didnt play the game at all, gave it an ambivalently non-controversially positive review and then gouged it with a 75%.
If you're going to review something, Play the fucking game, Lucy. I dont care if you end up hating it, just do the job you're paid for, eh?
based on the forums
The few quirks of the pc version, usually caused by conflicts with specific setups, are nothing compared to some of the bugs in the console version.
Unfortunately, once consoles rolled out the ability to update games at a later date, they lost the "stick it in and it works" reputation, and replaced it with "ship it anyway, we'll fix it later"
What's wrong with 75%?
75% is halfway between average and perfect, which sounds pretty good to me. I hope you're not part of the Review Score Inflation Posse, which seems to think that anything less than 90% is "bad" somehow, which makes percentage ratings nearly useless.
Fanciful expectations versus realistic ones
“Fallout New Vegas was lots of fun, but isn’t really the major step up from Fallout 3 that I was expecting….but I think their main disappointment was that this didn’t seem like a standalone game. Has over-familiarity bred contempt?”
The answer to your question is no. The real problem is that although that the developers made it clear that this would not be Fallout 4, but a game that uses the same system as Fallout 3 but with some neat, but minor enhancements (making it, at best, Fallout 3.5), people still seem to be expecting a major overhaul.
By all means, people can want more from a game, but when it was perfectly clear from the many, many previews that this was going to be F3 with a few more bells and whistles, if they have sense they will temper their expectations for the game.
“I would also like to add that I am gutted that all the DLC has been snapped up by Microsoft, leaving this Sony fan hot and bothered. Ah well, must be time for some cactus juice... “
But this is exactly what happened with Fallout 3, why would you think it was different? Can’t say I’m happy to wait for the DLC because I don’t have the 360, but I can’t see them not porting it over to the other versions.
“Some of you will make the point that this game is all about hardcore mode - which is all about food, water and sleep. I admit I didn’t play hardcore - I can imagine it being realistic but too long. It’s a fine line between stimulating realism and a grind. I would like to know what it unlocks, though.”
This is one of the much trumpeted features, so yes, I would say that’s a fair point – especially as it doesn’t actually add that much.
