Gaming Forums => General Gaming => Topic started by: kraken613 on October 20, 2010, 06:38:22 PM
Title: Fallout: New Vegas
Post by: kraken613 on October 20, 2010, 06:38:22 PM
Anyone gotten around to picking this up yet?
I am playing it on PC currently just played about 40 minutes seemed like Fallout. Which I am very happy with it being more Fallout.
More impressions to come as I play more.
Title: Re: Fallout: New Vegas
Post by: broodwars on October 20, 2010, 06:56:50 PM
Fallout 3 on my PS3 was borderline unplayable due to all the crash bugs, but I still managed to complete it. I'm really not in the mood to go through that again with New Vegas, so I'm waiting on Bethesda/Obsidian to actually do the QA testing they somehow didn't do while the game was in development and issue the necessary patches. From what I've heard, New Vegas is just as buggy as Fallout 3 was and I have no problem waiting for the game I'm supposed to be purchasing to actually be on store shelves. I'm not paying Obsidian to actually have their QA testers/engineers do their job.
And, yes, I know the Obsidian engine is garbage to begin with, but that doesn't excuse the severe technical issues on the Fallout games.
Title: Re: Fallout: New Vegas
Post by: alegoicoe on October 20, 2010, 07:26:45 PM
Fallout 3 on my PS3 was borderline unplayable due to all the crash bugs, but I still managed to complete it. I'm really not in the mood to go through that again with New Vegas, so I'm waiting on Bethesda/Obsidian to actually do the QA testing they somehow didn't do while the game was in development and issue the necessary patches. From what I've heard, New Vegas is just as buggy as Fallout 3 was and I have no problem waiting for the game I'm supposed to be purchasing to actually be on store shelves. I'm not paying Obsidian to actually have their QA testers/engineers do their job.
And, yes, I know the Obsidian engine is garbage to begin with, but that doesn't excuse the severe technical issues on the Fallout games.
same happen to me when i first got fallout 3, the glitches were awfull, and from what i have read in various web sites, this game is super glitchy, even the developers are announcing a patch soon to be released to correct them. am gonna wait on this one for a couple of months until i know for sure that the game is fully playable without any error, the same thing wont happen like with fallout 3.
Title: Re: Fallout: New Vegas
Post by: Caliban on October 20, 2010, 11:51:32 PM
Skipping this one because after watching the video review, and reading the review on IGN, it's just more of the same without any fixes, or improvements.
Title: Re: Fallout: New Vegas
Post by: Shaymin on October 21, 2010, 12:09:14 AM
Between the developer and publisher, I gave my best friend odds that putting the disc in would brick his 360.
Title: Re: Fallout: New Vegas
Post by: Morari on October 21, 2010, 12:16:45 AM
The only issues I ever had with Fallout 3 were from incompatible mods. I never found the game to be buggy in the least bit.
New Vegas is pretty fun thus far. The little improvements are welcome, but don't really change things up too much. The setting is different enough to at least feel new.
Title: Re: Fallout: New Vegas
Post by: greybrick on October 21, 2010, 04:48:25 AM
My official stance on Fallout 3 is that I didn't enjoy it.
The fact that I played 60 hours of it is either a contradiction or an affirmation of my dedication to justifying my opinions... I'm not sure which.
Title: Re: Fallout: New Vegas
Post by: Morari on October 21, 2010, 10:07:35 AM
If you only played 60 hours, then I believe that means that you didn't like it. I have over 300 hours on my main savegame. It still doesn't rank up there with Morrowind in terms of sunk time however.
Title: Re: Fallout: New Vegas
Post by: alegoicoe on October 21, 2010, 01:22:07 PM
i beat the main game and all of the side quest in under 60 hours so the game dosent take too much time really to complete it, plus after like 25 hous or so you level cap its max out and lots of quest to be completed without any real sense of satisfaction unless you spend 10 more dollars which i think its ridiculous, but well thats DLC
Title: Re: Fallout: New Vegas
Post by: Halbred on October 21, 2010, 02:13:54 PM
i beat the main game and all of the side quest in under 60 hours so the game dosent take too much time really to complete it, plus after like 25 hous or so you level cap its max out and lots of quest to be completed without any real sense of satisfaction unless you spend 10 more dollars which i think its ridiculous, but well thats DLC
Yeah, if you have a rough idea where you're going you could probably complete Fallout 3's Critical Path in about 20 hours or so. It appears we have the same problem with the Quests in Fallout 3, though: once your character maxes out their level and you have decent equipment, there's really no reason to do any of the sidequests that aren't linked to achievements/trophies because you can just annihilate anything in your path and it gets old quickly. The Broken Steel DLC helps somewhat by tossing in higher level enemies, even better equipment, and and 10 more Experience levels that are harder to reach, but it's not enough. I never did bother with any of the 4 other DLC packs once I maxed-out on Broken Steel.
And I'm sorry, Morari, but somehow I doubt you had an un-glitched, non-crashing version of Fallout 3 when pretty much everyone else had a bug-infested mess. Mind you, I enjoyed Fallout 3, but that engine is a disaster and should have been condemned and buried with those copies of ET years ago.
Title: Re: Fallout: New Vegas
Post by: kraken613 on October 21, 2010, 04:18:18 PM
Fallout 3 on PC has issues but nowhere close to the amount on consoles. The same goes for New Vegas, I am 5 hours in and no game breaking bugs for me.
Title: Re: Fallout: New Vegas
Post by: broodwars on October 21, 2010, 04:24:36 PM
Fallout 3 on PC has issues but nowhere close to the amount on consoles. The same goes for New Vegas, I am 5 hours in and no game breaking bugs for me.
That's interesting, especially since most of the (more hilarious) bugs I've heard reported and seen documented have been from the PC version (such as this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKIkw3LIoQ&feature=player_embedded) and this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdWq722GkZw&feature=player_embedded)). It just hasn't crashed, then?
Title: Re: Fallout: New Vegas
Post by: alegoicoe on October 21, 2010, 06:05:07 PM
^i did it mostly because of trophies and what bothers me is that the development team had to know that people were going to max out the level cap before beating the whole game it was probably a strategy to force people into buying the dlc. oh and i just read that the pc patch for new vegas was released.
Title: Re: Fallout: New Vegas
Post by: greybrick on October 21, 2010, 07:11:32 PM
My official stance on Fallout 3 is that I didn't enjoy it.
The fact that I played 60 hours of it is either a contradiction or an affirmation of my dedication to justifying my opinions... I'm not sure which.
Or you are, in actuality, James Jones.
*Looks in the mirror, sees no reflection*
NNNNNOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
Title: Re: Fallout: New Vegas
Post by: ymeegod on October 22, 2010, 02:04:01 AM
I'm waiting for it to be fixed. Think I'll grab Fallout 3 GOTY edition since the price will be dropping down to $29 or so.
Yeah, I had to gripe about the level cap in Fallout 3 as well, I placed alot of my points into gaining more exp quicker which is utterwaste in that game because you'll have to trouble hitting the cap. Hell I hit it within 10 hours. Took nearly 80 hours for me to finish it the first time, so a big bulk of the game I didn't level up at all :0. That's like having a FPS with a limit of 3 weapons.
Title: Re: Fallout: New Vegas
Post by: alegoicoe on October 22, 2010, 02:15:51 AM
I'm waiting for it to be fixed. Think I'll grab Fallout 3 GOTY edition since the price will be dropping down to $29 or so.
Yeah, I had to gripe about the level cap in Fallout 3 as well, I placed alot of my points into gaining more exp quicker which is utterwaste in that game because you'll have to trouble hitting the cap. Hell I hit it within 10 hours. Took nearly 80 hours for me to finish it the first time, so a big bulk of the game I didn't level up at all :0. That's like having a FPS with a limit of 3 weapons.
That suks bro, same thing happened to me on my second play through, but i stopped there, i did not finish it.
Title: Re: Fallout: New Vegas
Post by: greybrick on October 22, 2010, 02:55:59 AM
If you only played 60 hours, then I believe that means that you didn't like it.
If I only played 60 hours it means that I had to move on with my life, but I get what you mean; I played more than triple that amount of Oblivion.
Title: Re: Fallout: New Vegas
Post by: NWR_Neal on October 22, 2010, 04:53:14 AM
I enjoyed the crap out of Oblivion, putting something like 80 hours into it I think, and then put 5-10 hours into Fallout 3. It was cool, but I just wasn't interested in getting invested in another game of that length.
Title: Re: Fallout: New Vegas
Post by: Morari on October 22, 2010, 09:50:46 AM
If you only played 60 hours, then I believe that means that you didn't like it.
If I only played 60 hours it means that I had to move on with my life, but I get what you mean; I played more than triple that amount of Oblivion.
There are so few games worth playing nowadays, it makes it hard to move on with your free time. Heh.
I thought that Oblivion was pretty boring, actually. Sadly, the setting was no where as interesting as that of Morrowind. Even still, it was fun enough to play through once I had loaded up the proper mods. You have to get rid of the console-ized interface if nothing else. :P
That's one of the biggest reasons I've played Fallout 3 (and had played Morrowind) so much: the mods. Leveling up and becoming invincible isn't much of a problem with the right add-ons applied.
Title: Re: Fallout: New Vegas
Post by: noname2200 on October 27, 2010, 12:02:43 PM
I enjoyed the crap out of Oblivion, putting something like 80 hours into it I think, and then put 5-10 hours into Fallout 3. It was cool, but I just wasn't interested in getting invested in another game of that length.
Almost exactly the same for me, except I probably went well in excess of 100 hours on Oblivion, including its expansions, and didn't go much further past Megaton City on Fallout 3. The ugliness and long stretches of nothing in Fallout's overworld was just too difficult to abide by for me.
Title: Re: Fallout: New Vegas
Post by: greybrick on November 02, 2010, 01:02:10 AM
Fallout 3 on PC has issues but nowhere close to the amount on consoles. The same goes for New Vegas, I am 5 hours in and no game breaking bugs for me.
Question for you: what are your computer specs? I really, really want to play this game, but the reports of bugs are scaring me off.
I am running it on "Very High Quality" with an Nvidia 8800 gts and a 3.2 ghz dual core processor. Also, I have a crappy hard drive. The game runs just fine- not sure how you computer specs would affect bugs though.
Title: Re: Fallout: New Vegas
Post by: noname2200 on November 02, 2010, 02:22:54 PM
Fallout 3 on PC has issues but nowhere close to the amount on consoles. The same goes for New Vegas, I am 5 hours in and no game breaking bugs for me.
Question for you: what are your computer specs? I really, really want to play this game, but the reports of bugs are scaring me off.
I am running it on "Very High Quality" with an Nvidia 8800 gts and a 3.2 ghz dual core processor. Also, I have a crappy hard drive. The game runs just fine- not sure how you computer specs would affect bugs though.
Excellent: those are basically my specs as well. The plunge will be taken!
Title: Re: Fallout: New Vegas
Post by: Dirk Temporo on November 02, 2010, 04:21:45 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.
Title: Re: Fallout: New Vegas
Post by: kraken613 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.
Title: Re: Fallout: New Vegas
Post by: noname2200 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.
Title: Re: Fallout: New Vegas
Post by: greybrick 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.
Title: Re: Fallout: New Vegas
Post by: Dirk Temporo 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.
Title: Re: Fallout: New Vegas
Post by: greybrick 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. 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...
Title: Re: Fallout: New Vegas
Post by: noname2200 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.
Title: Re: Fallout: New Vegas
Post by: broodwars 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.
Title: Re: Fallout: New Vegas
Post by: Killer_Man_Jaro 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.
Title: Re: Fallout: New Vegas
Post by: KnowsNothing 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.
Title: Re: Fallout: New Vegas
Post by: broodwars 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.
Title: Re: Fallout: New Vegas
Post by: KnowsNothing 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.
Title: Re: Fallout: New Vegas
Post by: Morari 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.
