Fallout New Vegas: Why all the hate?

[AlternatePFG]

FO3's wasteland didn't paint everything in Boring Brown, and yet still captured the post-apocolyptic feel just as well.

No, Fallout 3's wasteland was boring brown tinted green. New Vegas was in a desert, and even then there were some areas with contrast (The Strip, Jacobstown). There were freaking trees in New Vegas, why wasn't there trees in 3?

Edit: And yes, I'm aware of Oasis, but still there is no reason for there not to be natural growing trees.

 

[Dark Prophet]

It was lazy and inferior to FO3 in almost every aspect. By now though not a bad game I suspect ,suspect because I didn't finish it because of the many many bugs and sold the shit before I could brake the disc out of frustration. It managed to keep almost every single bug that FO3 had and had some new nice ones as well. How the fuck is that possible.

and wtf??

 

[The Great Purtabo]

The general feeling, the atmosphere was not there... in NV it felt like i was playing a game, for FO3 it felt like i was truly immersed... radio was better in FO3, less bugs in FO3, better dialogue, better character design, new ideas in FO3; Obsidian just stole things that werent integrated right from the other games, and threw it into NV....

Overall a very disappointing game, no replay value....

 

[DustyDrB]

Bugs! People hate all the bugs! Who can blame them? I didn't have a rough experience with the game, but many did. Obsidian deserves every bit of criticism they get towards their QA department. Some people are so jaded because of the bugs that they bash the game as a whole. And, again, I can't really blame them if they had a horrible technical experience while playing the game.

I hated Fallout 3 and love New Vegas, but I certainly understand people who feel the other way.

 

[5t3v0]

It was lazy and inferior to FO3 in almost every aspect. By now though not a bad game I suspect ,suspect because I didn't finish it because of the many many bugs and sold the shit before I could brake the disc out of frustration. It managed to keep almost every single bug that FO3 had and had some new nice ones as well. How the fuck is that possible.

It was No Way lazy at all. They had a lot to work with, and Bethesda's engine at this point is just plain shitty nowadays. When you try new things something is bound to get broken along the way, especially when Bethesda give you probably less than a days worth of QA testing.

Fallout New Vegas also did one thing majorly right: CANON CANON CANON CANON CANON.
The Fallout 3 writing sounded like they spent half an hour on the Fallout 2 wiki Page and didn't even reach the end where it turns out the enclave were almost entirely wiped out. So much ret-conning was done, and they even implied in Mother ship Zeta that ALIENS started the war.

One reason though, why New Vegas seems less post apocalyptic than Fallout 3 is because of its continuity. Its carrying on from the already established setting. Fallout 3 was understandable because its on the other side of the country.

I truly feel for Obsidian. They suffer from the fact they are small compared to everyone else, and their work is written off as lazy and is generally under-appreciated by the masses due to them thinking that they are unoriginal, except for the fact that Many on the Obsidian Team came from Black Isle studios and Interplay, who Made Fallout 1 and 2.

edit: this is what I'm talking about:

The general feeling, the atmosphere was not there... in NV it felt like i was playing a game, for FO3 it felt like i was truly immersed... radio was better in FO3, less bugs in FO3, better dialogue, better character design, new ideas in FO3; Obsidian just stole things that werent integrated right from the other games, and threw it into NV....

Overall a very disappointing game, no replay value....

Also, I do not see why people think that the Fallout 3 story was more immersive, when too much is given to you at the start to truly make your own experience. Its Easier to play a ROLE PLAYING game when you can make up a lot of it, not when you are forced to have emotions for a character who is almost obviously going to die that its pretty much written from the start.

 

[Snipestorm]

I really hate Bethesda Softworks for releasing New Vegas so full of bugs that people who bought New Vegas when it came out now have to buy it again for the DLC. When you go to download Honest Hearts you need a copy of Falout:NV that has a product code of BLUS 30500 or it won't work. Even the new copy with the patches preloaded in them are still buggy as hell. That and Bethesda really didn't care about NV they were just working on Skyrim instead.

 

[monkey_man]

The Charm was gone. The game was allright, I suppose, but the crushing escape, and quest for survival you were forced to make in the destroyed cities of the Wasteland were much more immersive than the strolls in F NV. At least, that's what I think

 

[The Great Purtabo]

FO3's wasteland didn't paint everything in Boring Brown, and yet still captured the post-apocolyptic feel just as well.

No, Fallout 3's wasteland was boring brown tinted green. New Vegas was in a desert, and even then there were some areas with contrast (The Strip, Jacobstown). There were freaking trees in New Vegas, why wasn't there trees in 3?

Edit: And yes, I'm aware of Oasis, but still there is no reason for there not to be natural growing trees.

wow. just wow. No. 1... post apocalypse much? it is almost impossible for non-hardy plant-life to grow so soon after a nuclear holocaust, and even if there were trees, they would have to be manipulated to be able to stand the radiation; hence the FEV/Harold/GECK...

oh... and also, how does a desert feel apocalyptic exactly; (if there isnt any elements that would suggest so) raiders, etc,etc, there isnt much life in the mojave, and even so, the life IMO isnt integrated very well, they dont feel like they would actually fit in that environment.

 

[AlternatePFG]

The general feeling, the atmosphere was not there... in NV it felt like i was playing a game, for FO3 it felt like i was truly immersed... radio was better in FO3, less bugs in FO3, better dialogue, better character design, new ideas in FO3; Obsidian just stole things that werent integrated right from the other games, and threw it into NV....

Overall a very disappointing game, no replay value....

No replay value? Are you joking? There's 4 different factions, with a different ending depending on your karma. Not to mention the huge variety of different choices and outcomes for quests. Fallout 3 had three main endings depending on your karma, and that's it. Fallout 3 had better dialogue? That's funny.

Edit: Fallout 3 takes place 200 years after the Great War. There should be trees growing again.

 

[The Great Purtabo]

Also, I do not see why people think that the Fallout 3 story was more immersive, when too much is given to you at the start to truly make your own experience. Its Easier to play a ROLE PLAYING game when you can make up a lot of it, not when you are forced to have emotions for a character who is almost obviously going to die that its pretty much written from the start.

while i do disagree with you in the sence of the story, we are entitled to our opinions; and i do agree that NV did do a better job of starting you off; adn kinda felt more guided.

 

[thetruefallen]

I played, liked and finished both Fo3 and FoNV. New Vegas was a vast improvement over Fallout 3 game play wise but really lacked side quests that didn't stem from one of those faction trees and there just wasn't enough to explore. Fo3's map just felt more complex. that being said i think the Mojave Wasteland had way more character than the Capital Wasteland's dank gray green.

 

[BananaGeekLord]

I think there are a couple of reasons why.

For one I felt like I wasnt as attached to the character as I was in 3. I really had no idea as to who he was. What his life was like. I understand that they wanted to go through and have you really create your own character, give you a clean slate, but this doesnt always work. Yes, they give you information later on, but its basically "this was your job," and even then, I personally felt like it took almost to long. By the time I reached the explanation from Mr. House, I really didnt care as much for my character as I did the rest. I really like the way this video explained it:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2681-Amnesia-and-Story-Structure

Second, I felt the map wasnt as well done. Yes, they are very similar. Yes, they are both waste lands. But 3 had some more in it. You had the dessert type areas, and the cities. And I felt like there were more places to visit. You walk 3 minutes and you have found someplace new.

Third, although I think the whole multiple factions was a great idea, I was disappointed at the end. All it pretty much did was decide who helped you at the end.

So these are basically imo. I thought it had some improvements, but it also had some areas where it just wasnt as good over all.

 

[ChupathingyX]

I've never seen anyone who liked it better than Fallout 3.

Are you kidding me, New Vegas was uperior to F3 in every single way.

There's no way I can explian it without going into tl;dr territory.

 

[The Great Purtabo]

The general feeling, the atmosphere was not there... in NV it felt like i was playing a game, for FO3 it felt like i was truly immersed... radio was better in FO3, less bugs in FO3, better dialogue, better character design, new ideas in FO3; Obsidian just stole things that werent integrated right from the other games, and threw it into NV....

Overall a very disappointing game, no replay value....

No replay value? Are you joking? There's 4 different factions, with a different ending depending on your karma. Not to mention the huge variety of different choices and outcomes for quests. Fallout 3 had three main endings depending on your karma, and that's it. Fallout 3 had better dialogue? That's funny.

Edit: Fallout 3 takes place 200 years after the Great War. There should be trees growing again.

well... I do agree my opinion is a bit biased in the sense that i am kinda judging the games post-dlc, and I would probably say if you were to compare the games on their merits pre-dlc, it is debatable which one is better.

 

[PettingZOOPONY]

It was buggy at first (I mean really FUCKING buggy), but it turned out alright after it was able to get past most of its major bugs.

This seems to be the deciding point for many. Too bad it completely varies from person to person. For example, I never, EVER had a bug or a glitch in my 100 hour New Vegas playthrough.

Well I found that the instability of the game causing it too crash every so often was a bit retarded. Plus the lag due to the game engine only running at 59Hz (when it should have been going at 60Hz) was quite annoying. But I was able to get past that and enjoy it.

Running at 59 is exactly the same as running at 60. And that is all monitor anyways, check to see if your monitor is 59.94 HZ and is reporting correctly. Sometimes it will report as 59 instead of 60 like it should.

 

[Bat Vader]

In my opinion I believe that Fallout: New Vegas is much better than Fallout 3. Yes, Fallout 3 was good but New Vegas is better. I loved how my actions in the game seemed to affect the world around me. When I did jobs for the NCR I actually felt like I was helping their cause.

 

[Elsarild]

Well, I think I can answer this easily:

If you liked the old games, you will like FNV way more since it is so much more intune with the series, while FO3, while a good game, would have faired much better with me had it not tried to connect itself to my beloved fallout series.

 

[devotedsniper]

Well i like both but i prefer 3, the main reason is 3 is ALOT less buggy i never had to update 3 once (other than when i had to so i could install DLC), NV was more or less unplayable for me at some points (basically when there were a fair few npc's on the screen), my computer would lag and my computer aint no couch potatoe it will compete with the best and show good results on maximum settings at 1680*1050 but NV made it crawl, now that it's been updated it's alot more stable and runs perfectly but it still crashes randomly.

 

[natster43]

I like New Vegas more than 3. The only things in three that were better were the main character, and the main city being an actual city. New Vegas was really small for not being hit by the nukes. But besides that New Vegas was overall just better.

 

[BodomBeachChild]

I think it went in a better direction than FO3. The only downside to the game was the mass amounts of bugs and the choices towards the end kinda dicked you over. I had a plan to screw everyone over and take over myself, sorta. Then I found out if you play your cards a certain way the dealer just leaves the table and you're stuck console commanding your mistakes away.