Why all the hate for "Fallout: New Vegas"?

[Draco Aleksander]

To start off, I love Fallout, and you will not change my opinion of this game or the franchise. Everyone has that series they absolutely love to death, and this one is it for me. Yes, that includes every game in the series (I'm looking at you, "Fallout Tactics").

Now, that being said, I know none of the games are perfect. The older Interplay titles for Windows and PS2 can be difficult for modern gamers to get into either because of the density of their systems, somewhat archaic gameplay styles, or occasional non-functionality. On the other hand, some of the old Fallout lovers I know won't touch "Fallout 3" or "New Vegas" simply on principle because Bethesda made them, not Interplay. I'm just thrilled every time I get to continue exploring the universe, though, and that will remain a fact.

The reason I bring up this discussion is that I'm genuinely confused by the hatred I see for "New Vegas" amongst both groups. In my opinion, the game is a much more polished experience than "Fallout 3" was. Additionally, most of it is based on the "Van Buren" project, which is the game that most older Fallout players wanted "Fallout 3" to be (and what started them complaining about departures from the story).

Finally, I am aware of the problems it had when it first came out. A reputation for widespread glitchs and save file corruption will stick with a game to a certain extent, no matter what fixes you apply ("Dead Island" is learning this lesson now). However, it feels like everyone forgot this was made by Bethesda, a company notorious for releasing buggy games ("Fallout 3" and the Elder Scrolls titles were the same, and I live in fear of the first week "Skyrim" is out).

Ultimately, I am legitimately baffled. I know this is asking a lot of the internet, but will some of you please let me know why you hold the opinion you do of "Fallout: New Vegas" in a reasonable manner?

 

[7ru7h]

Honestly, I think you hit the nail on the head: people just don't like that Interplay didn't make them.

That or they tend to be the asshole gamer who hates any game that wasn't custom built for their enjoyment

 

[StarCecil]

Well, story-wise New Vegas was great. I think the only old timers that won't touch it are allowing themselves to succumb to fanboyism (these being the same people willing to argue that not being able to kill children is ruining their gameplay experience). I don't know that Bethesda is notorious for releasing buggy games. I've owned several copies of Morrowind and its expansions, Oblivion, and Fallout 3 and I know the games weren't as bad as New Vegas.

I mean, Bethesda's bugs are the same kind of bugs you expect from a game this large - oversights, conflicts, trigger issues - basic stuff. New Vegas takes it to a new level and actually makes the game near unplayable with how bad it can get sometimes. In a thread about it I said that I play a game within the game where I take bets on whether or not the game will freeze at certain points.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

New Vegas is brillaint, I'm still playing it nearly a year after release.

Currently doing a playthrough with my female Western Samurai (the Gun Runner's Arsenal DLC added new weapons, including a katana).

It's awesome.

I tried playing the original Fallout and I just couldn't past how utterly fucking boring the combat was, and the world wasn't interesting enough to keep me playing.

Planescape Torment is another CRPG with bad combat, but the world and characters were good enough to keep me playing.

 

[Legion]

Opinions.
The internet.
Trolling.

Look them up please, it's tiresome people always asking "Why do people not see things the same way as I do?"

Personally I love New Vegas, for the most part. It made a lot of improvements over Fallout 3.

My dislikes are:

How buggy it was. It was a joke upon release, a lot of quests simply could not be completed due to them. The game frequently crashed, and it corrupted game saves. Not something we should be experiencing this far into gaming.

The story lacked the personal touch. I didn't feel my character had any real relevance to what was going on, or any stake in the events taking place. I didn't really give a damn about either the NCR or the Legion, and yet I am forced to take part in their fights, and pick a side. Granted you could choose to take your "own" side, but this really isn't the case. You still end up fighting one or the other, the only difference is the aftermath of the battle.

The world isn't that interesting to explore. I just don't think the setting/design is anywhere near as enjoyable to wander around as Fallout 3, the locations are not particular interesting to me.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

My personal problems is that it only improved on Fallout 3, and actually lost quite a bit that made Fallout 3 special. Fallout 3 immersed me in it's world with starting me from literal birth and putting me on a clear journey for my character. Somehow knowing their was a strong and clear story that directly effected my character actually made the side tracking more interesting. Fallout 3 wasn't constrained by the stories or events of the last game, it was free to go and explore places where we have not gone.

New Vegas didn't invest me in the main characters plight by A. not telling me anything about him at all B. dropping amnesia on me so I CAN'T know until the most recent (and the worst) DLC pack. My only goal was a vague notion of revenge or a chip I don't really care about. All the problems but a tiny few were even still in New Vegas, and made worse by the couple year gap in release dates, which made the "it looks good enough to keep me immersed" Fallout 3 just look ugly today.

New Vegas isn't a bad game, it just isn't as immersive or as good as Fallout 3.

 

[VincentR]

Well, I don't hate New Vegas, but I really enjoyed Fallout 3 a great deal more. I'm quite sure it's because Fallout 3 was my first experience with the Fallout universe, and stepping out of that vault at the beginning - oh my god. It was such a cool experience. And I really enjoyed the game - I played the hell out of it. I beat it about three times; twice on PC, once on PS3 - and it wasn't until the third time I actually managed to get the ending. The first two times, my PC's hard drive failed me right at the ending. Haha. It was terrible.

But, after that - New Vegas didn't feel like a new experience to me. I didn't find myself caring about the people - there was no cool town like megaton; and I did not care for the Vegas vibe, personally. I also didn't like the music or the DJ's as much as Fallout 3's 3Dog.

And, like you mentioned, New Vegas seemed - to me, at least - far more bug prone. I was making strong progress in the game (despite the hourly freeze on my PS3), and then I started running into the even more major game breaking bugs. Shit like quests that were impossible to complete, and so on.

 

[Blazingdragoon04]

Yeah, for me it was the bugs. I, fortunately or unfortunately depending on your opinion, have only played Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas, so my views on the two games are untainted by nostalgia and I found both to be awesome experiences. Maybe I was spoiled by my copy of Fallout 3, which never bugged out save for one time where I got stuck in a while and had to blow myself up. Fast forward to me trading in my copy of Fallout 3 for the GOTY edition on the PS3, and that POS was a buggy mess. Entire expansions could not be played, and I felt ignored as a customer and felt that Bethesda just didn't give a shit, at least not enough to work out some of these major bugs.

I even pre-ordered New Vegas, still hopeful that the game would not be a buggy mess like my last fallout experience. However I would soon find this to be the opposite. I could not traverse the Mojave in some areas due to the lag, quests failed to start, and just awful amounts of bugs prevented me from enjoying the game. Ultimately it went back to the store when I received a game ending bug after playing for about 20 hours; I had entered a shack and explored, only to find that the left analog stick was not responding. This seems like no big deal, until you realize that I was now stuck in the building that I was in since I could not turn around to open the door, and since I relied on the autosave this meant I could either go back 8 hours prior or... sit there forever. I traded the game in for Demon's Souls and haven't looked back.

They were lovely games, and I want to go back to them some point in the future, but I refuse to pay anyone 60 dollars for a buggy, incoherent mess. I doubt I'll even buy Skyrim due to the amount of distrust I have for products with the Bethesda seal on them.

 

[woodsymoments]

It's ike legion said everyone has opinionsand i have always preferred Te Elder Scrolls to Fallout, i don't know why when they're are basically the same gameplay wise i just always find Fallout really boring and ca never get into it.

 

[DustyDrB]

A good many people will say bugs are the reason, then turn around and praise Fallout 3. That's pretty hypocritical, as Fallout 3 was buggy as hell on release as well. If it's for reasons such as you don't like the atmosphere, story, characters, or anything like that, then fine. There's no right answer that one is better than the other in that department (I prefer New Vegas in all accounts there, but still). But both games have had bug problems. Maybe you didn't experience them in one game or the other (I didn't experience them in New Vegas in 3+ playthroughs or my one quick run through Fallout 3), but enough people have.

Some reasons I have heard why people don't like New Vegas:
-The Courier: They don't like that he/she isn't developed like the Lone Wanderer was in Fallout 3's first Act. Me? I say it is a pretty common thing for an RPG's player character to have an unspecified past, and it's something I like (I can make up the backstory myself, and it helps me get "in character"). New Vegas' DLC did fill in a good bit of backstory, though. One thing that bugs me, though: The Courier doesn't have amnesia [http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Courier#Other_background_information].

-Atmosphere: I've heard various reasons here. The atmosphere in Fallout 3 is what killed the game for me. It was too oppressing and constantly grim. But those things helped others be immersed in that game. New Vegas is much more varied in its atmosphere, maybe to the point of it feeling random to some.

-Story: They don't care about revenge, or about the fate of the Mojave. If you don't care, then this is a major thing that would hurt the game for you. Most side quests tie in to the main story in some way, even tangentially. Again, this is something I like. It bothers me when I take a break from pressing matters to take care of completely unrelated business. But if NCR vs Legion vs House vs Yes Man isn't compelling to you, then you probably won't like New Vegas.

 

[DEAD34345]

Actually it was made by Obsidian, who are even more famous than Bethesda for releasing buggy, half-finished games.

Also yeah, that's pretty much my biggest gripe with it. I think New Vegas is better than Fallout 3, simply because it's actually fun... sometimes... [sub]... when it's not breaking...[/sub]

I still rate it as kind of mediocre overall though, it just feels like I'm playing an Elder Scrolls game with guns instead of magic (and magic has more variety).

 

[Draco Aleksander]

I mean, Bethesda's bugs are the same kind of bugs you expect from a game this large - oversights, conflicts, trigger issues - basic stuff. New Vegas takes it to a new level and actually makes the game near unplayable with how bad it can get sometimes. In a thread about it I said that I play a game within the game where I take bets on whether or not the game will freeze at certain points.

That's true, and I was somewhat unfair in how I worded my original post. Thanks for putting it more clearly. I might turn your freezing sub-game into a drinking game at my apartment, btw.

Opinions.
The internet.
Trolling.

Look them up please, it's tiresome people always asking "Why do people not see things the same way as I do?"

...

My dislikes are:

...

The story lacked the personal touch.

...

The world isn't that interesting to explore.

I'm quite aware of those three things, having been an internet user since BBS was the only way to reasonably talk to people. The reason I started the thread is that usually when I see NV bashed, the speaker doesn't include a reason, so I was simply slaking my curiosity. As for your dislikes, I can certainly see what you mean in retrospect. I don't have a problem with how it was handled, but I'm an odd duck when it comes to writing anyway.

... New Vegas didn't invest me in the main characters plight by A. not telling me anything about him at all B. dropping amnesia on me so I CAN'T know until the most recent (and the worst) DLC pack. My only goal was a vague notion of revenge or a chip I don't really care about. ...

As I stated above, I didn't have the same problem with immersion that you did, but I can see your point. I am interested in why you consider "Lonesome Road" to be the "worst" DLC for the game, though. Was it the short length, the relatively small payoff (story-wise), or something else?


Thanks again to everyone for being so nice and helpful!

 

[Draco Aleksander]

The game was not made by Bethesda but by Obsidian Entertainment. Which is why I personally think it's closer to the original fallouts than 3.

Fair enough, and the same goes to Iunncal for also mentioning this. I should have said that Bethesda published it.

 

[Versuvius]

300 hours into NV. Still love it. Haven't encountered any game breaking or otherwise horrible bugs/crashes people complain about, mods make it endlessly replayable etc etc. I can't fathom as to why people have their hate for it other than they just want to hate Bethesda for their "Oblivion with guns". Bloody hipsters.

Still. Fo1 and 2 had better stories. Beth/Obsidian just fail to match the levels of pure funny the origional two could produce too.

"You just ate your fucking toe!"

 

[Ordinaryundone]

.....people hate New Vegas? When did this happen? Pretty much everyone who liked Fallout 3 likes NV just fine, especially now that most of the bugs have been fixed. And even those crazies that make up the Fallout 1 and 2 diehard fanbase (NMA, etc) seem to like NV for flying a bit closer to Fallout 1 and 2. It did a great job of basically appeasing everyone. The only hate I ever really saw for it was having more bugs than Lepidopterology exhibit, and a good chunk of them have been fixed. The game's been out for nearly a year, after all.

 

[Farther than stars]

Well, story-wise New Vegas was great. I think the only old timers that won't touch it are allowing themselves to succumb to fanboyism

To be honest those guys are greatly divided as well. Some of them don't like any of the 3D versions and some of them just don't like Fallout 3 for being too gloomy and not silly enough for the Fallout franchise, but they utterly love Fallout: New Vegas because it captures that old spirit of goofiness that apparently only the west coast can.

 

[bluepotatosack]

New Vegas is more or less what I was hoping 3 would be. Reputation instead of karma, a more believable world, and your decisions seemed to have far more impact.

I still need to see how it plays out if you let Benny skip town.

 

[JimmyC99]

the game was made by obsidian, who only ever make buggy ass games, that's right i'm looking at you Alpha Protocol. its a superb mix of the new (combat system 3d, first and third person) and the old (story, some of the mechanics, humor) Fallout NV is in my probably unpopular opinion. the best Fallout Game made so far.

also Interplay wasn't the Dev only the publisher and considering that Interplay has like 6 employees and none of them worked on any Fallout Game ever. i dont get why people are backing them to make Fallout 4 or hell even Fallout Online