Author Topic: Fallout: New Vegas  (Read 9717 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline kraken613

  • tinyurl.com/2lrx46
  • Score: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout: New Vegas
« Reply #25 on: November 02, 2010, 04:27:26 PM »
Fallout 3 on PC has issues but nowhere close to the amount on consoles.

Yeah no. PC version was far, FAR worse. Last I checked neither of the consoles had a freezing bug where after dealing with it freezing every couple hours or so, it gradually increased to every five steps you took.

Played Fallout 3 for 50 or so hours never once had that issue.
~David~
3DS: 5214-9250-6646 - David
Playing Now: Animal Crossing: New Leaf

Offline noname2200

  • Not a douche. Seriously.
  • Score: 21
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout: New Vegas
« Reply #26 on: November 02, 2010, 05:28:42 PM »
Fallout 3 on PC has issues but nowhere close to the amount on consoles.

Yeah no. PC version was far, FAR worse. Last I checked neither of the consoles had a freezing bug where after dealing with it freezing every couple hours or so, it gradually increased to every five steps you took.

Played Fallout 3 for 50 or so hours never once had that issue.

Nor did I after over 100, but that doesn't mean anything per se; PCs have so much hardware variety that a game may run smooth as silk on one machine and constantly crash on another, "comparable" PC.

Offline greybrick

  • Up the Irons!
  • Score: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout: New Vegas
« Reply #27 on: November 02, 2010, 06:40:11 PM »
Fallout 3 on PC has issues but nowhere close to the amount on consoles.

Yeah no. PC version was far, FAR worse. Last I checked neither of the consoles had a freezing bug where after dealing with it freezing every couple hours or so, it gradually increased to every five steps you took.

That may have just been for certain hardware configurations, because I never ran into those problems. That doesn't excuse the freezing, though, because many people obviously did have that issue.

I am enjoying New Vegas so far, though it has many of the problems that Fallout 3 had, because they are so similar. 
Bless you, my child.
Please turn the power OFF.

And Jonny, you don't ride the giant Cheep-Cheep

Offline Dirk Temporo

  • Score: -1
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout: New Vegas
« Reply #28 on: November 03, 2010, 02:13:05 PM »
I know that it didn't happen for everybody or anything. But it happened for enough people that it became a noticeable problem. A problem that Bethesda steadfastly refused to fix. And that wasn't the only game-breaking bug that was hardware-dependent either. Many different configurations suffered from several different issues that all caused the game to be completely unplayable, and it wasn't a small issue either. There were a lot of people who bought Fallout 3 and then were SOL because Bethesda sucks at everything.
"You've had your dream old man. It's time to wake up!"
-Travis Touchdown

Offline greybrick

  • Up the Irons!
  • Score: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout: New Vegas
« Reply #29 on: November 04, 2010, 01:42:23 AM »
I know that it didn't happen for everybody or anything. But it happened for enough people that it became a noticeable problem.

Quote from: Greybrick

That doesn't excuse the freezing though, because many people obviously did have that issue.


I know
« Last Edit: November 04, 2010, 01:45:08 AM by greybrick »
Bless you, my child.
Please turn the power OFF.

And Jonny, you don't ride the giant Cheep-Cheep

Offline noname2200

  • Not a douche. Seriously.
  • Score: 21
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout: New Vegas
« Reply #30 on: November 06, 2010, 11:29:55 AM »
I know that it didn't happen for everybody or anything. But it happened for enough people that it became a noticeable problem. A problem that Bethesda steadfastly refused to fix. And that wasn't the only game-breaking bug that was hardware-dependent either. Many different configurations suffered from several different issues that all caused the game to be completely unplayable, and it wasn't a small issue either. There were a lot of people who bought Fallout 3 and then were SOL because Bethesda sucks at everything.

And of course there are the many perk-related bugs, most of which apparently carried over to New Vegas.  I don't understand why they didn't at least remove those perks...

Offline noname2200

  • Not a douche. Seriously.
  • Score: 21
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout: New Vegas
« Reply #31 on: December 08, 2010, 05:52:29 PM »
So I finally got a chance to play it, and I totally loved it.  It's certainly got its flaws, but I consider it a marked improvement over Fallout 3, which I thought was also a good game.  It's nice to have so many options regarding just about everything, although I was unpleasantly surprised to see just how sucky energy weapons generally are.

Offline broodwars

  • Hunting for a Pineapple Salad
  • Score: -1011
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout: New Vegas
« Reply #32 on: January 07, 2011, 02:45:40 AM »
I picked up the PS3 version of New Vegas over the holidays, and I've spent the last couple of days playing it.  I just reached Novak, and honestly I'm pretty mixed about the game.  On the one hand, the gameplay is markedly improved.  Using the iron sights on your guns feels a lot better now, and fights are just faster overall.  There also doesn't seem to be the endless barrage of office buildings, factories, and subway tunnels that really killed Fallout 3 for me.  Your character feels a lot more balanced now, with many perks having distinct drawbacks and some perks not even being available till you complete little in-game achievements first.  The new faction idea is cool, though it feels less like charting your own story through the Desert than it does achievement baiting (cute of Obsidian to put in trophies for getting each of the 4 endings): of the two main factions so far, I've seen no reason whatsoever to side with Ceasar's Legion.

On the other hand, I didn't think it was possible but the desert is even more spectacularly bland a place to explore than the Capital Wasteland.  Granted, I've mostly been following the roads and exploring areas near them, but this really feels like even more of an empty world than Fallout 3.  Quests seem unusually scarce, and there really doesn't seem to be much to do until you reach New Vegas itself, which is a lot later into the game than you would expect.  It's also pretty annoying that you can't get a home base to dump all your stuff in until you reach Novak, which incidentally is right before you reach New Vegas.  Wayne Newton makes for a fine new radio commentator as a constant companion through the game, but he and his songs repeat even more frequently than Three Dog did, and I've long since shut him off out of lack of anything new.  The world just feels very small, which is disconcerting considering how huge this game's predecessor was.

And then there are the crashes.  Man, I thought giving this game 2 months to get out of the public Alpha they charged the public to test at launch might have actually led to this game being more playable.  No, on the PS3 at least the game is a technical disaster.  In the 12-15 hours or so of the game I've played, the game has crashed about 6 times.  As a tester myself, I can't imagine how this game got through Sony's certification process without money exchanging hands.  It's completely unacceptable, especially since I recognize these crashes after frequently running into them in Fallout 3 (one crash randomly occurs just walking around, where the game will just crash trying to load new textures, and the other randomly occurs entering V.A.T.S.).  And there have been numerous technical issues besides those, such as the game deciding in one fight that my character simply wasn't going to do anything in V.A.T.S., having him just stand there until an enemy killed him.  This game is a technical abomination and should never have been released.  It's a pity because it's not a bad game, but every time I'm on the verge of enjoying it the game craps out.
There was a Signature here. It's gone now.

Offline Killer_Man_Jaro

  • NWR Staff
  • Score: 22
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout: New Vegas
« Reply #33 on: January 09, 2011, 12:22:42 PM »
I watched my friend's brother play New Vegas on 360 for a while today - don't feel hard done by with the PS3 version, Broodwars, because the glitches were equally prominent in this version. I wasn't focused on the game tightly, as I was working on my laptop at the same time. Anyway, he was complaining a lot about a repeating glitch where his character was stuck aiming down the sights of the gun, and it wouldn't come out of it unless he emptied off a whole clip to auto-reload. There were also two clipping bugs that forced him to load a previous save. Honestly, what happened here? Both Fallout 3 and NV run on the same engine as Elder Scrolls IV, which didn't have anywhere close to the number of problems these two have.

Even if these glitches were't present, what I saw reaffirmed to me that I had no reason to play this. My main issue with Fallout 3 was its overworld, and that was clearly not addressed. It's still tiny settlements interspersed between 10 minute walks through nowt.
Tom Malina
UK Correspondent
-----------------------------
"You'll have to speak up, I'm wearing a towel."

Offline KnowsNothing

  • Babycakes
  • Score: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout: New Vegas
« Reply #34 on: January 09, 2011, 10:19:01 PM »
I've been playing on the PC and it hasn't crashed once.  There have been two clipping issues and a few instances where VATS slowed down to a crawl but other than that it's been much more stable than Fallout 3.  I'm not saying that the game isn't a glitchy mess, just that your results may vary.  For me it's been great.
kka wakka wakka wakka wakka wakka wakka wa

Offline broodwars

  • Hunting for a Pineapple Salad
  • Score: -1011
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout: New Vegas
« Reply #35 on: January 10, 2011, 01:22:19 AM »
Even if these glitches were't present, what I saw reaffirmed to me that I had no reason to play this. My main issue with Fallout 3 was its overworld, and that was clearly not addressed. It's still tiny settlements interspersed between 10 minute walks through nowt.

To be fair, the post-apocalyptic Fallout world does not lend itself to very dense overworlds, though New Vegas' overworld is significantly more spread-out than even Fallout 3's capital wasteland.
There was a Signature here. It's gone now.

Offline KnowsNothing

  • Babycakes
  • Score: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout: New Vegas
« Reply #36 on: January 10, 2011, 11:56:48 AM »
Even if these glitches were't present, what I saw reaffirmed to me that I had no reason to play this. My main issue with Fallout 3 was its overworld, and that was clearly not addressed. It's still tiny settlements interspersed between 10 minute walks through nowt.

To be fair, the post-apocalyptic Fallout world does not lend itself to very dense overworlds, though New Vegas' overworld is significantly more spread-out than even Fallout 3's capital wasteland.

I've noticed that compared to Oblivion I had to be far more focused on my objective in Fallout 3, and even more focused than that in New Vegas.  In Oblivion I spent a lot of time just messing around in the world, while in Fallout 3 I had to have a mission in mind or I would get bored pretty fast.  In New Vegas I don't do much exploring at all, I mostly just go from mission to mission.  It makes for a different experience and I can see why a lot of people might not like that.
kka wakka wakka wakka wakka wakka wakka wa

Offline Morari

  • 46 DC EA D3 17 FE 45 D8 09 23 EB 97 E4 95 64 10 D4 CD B2 C2
  • Score: -7237
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout: New Vegas
« Reply #37 on: January 10, 2011, 01:50:57 PM »
Even if these glitches were't present, what I saw reaffirmed to me that I had no reason to play this. My main issue with Fallout 3 was its overworld, and that was clearly not addressed. It's still tiny settlements interspersed between 10 minute walks through nowt.

To be fair, the post-apocalyptic Fallout world does not lend itself to very dense overworlds, though New Vegas' overworld is significantly more spread-out than even Fallout 3's capital wasteland.

I've noticed that compared to Oblivion I had to be far more focused on my objective in Fallout 3, and even more focused than that in New Vegas.  In Oblivion I spent a lot of time just messing around in the world, while in Fallout 3 I had to have a mission in mind or I would get bored pretty fast.  In New Vegas I don't do much exploring at all, I mostly just go from mission to mission.  It makes for a different experience and I can see why a lot of people might not like that.

I had that same problem in Oblivion, when compared to Morrowind. Oblivion was bland and boring. It felt sterile and generic as far as fantasy worlds go. Fallout 3 may not have as much to idly explore, but it felt a a lot more interesting.
"This post has been censored for your protection."

                                --Bureau of Internet Morality