Metascore
84

Generally favorable reviews - based on 39 Critics What's this?

User Score
8.4

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1915 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Summary: The latest game in the post-nuclear RPG series is being developed by many members of the Fallout 1 and 2 team at Obsidian Entertainment using the Fallout 3 engine.
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 36 out of 39
  2. Negative: 0 out of 39
  1. Oct 22, 2010
    95
    Fallout: New Vegas, looks and plays exactly the same as Fallout 3. But the additions that Obsidian have made push the survival angle even further to provide a much more immersive and authentic experience, and just like its predecessor New Vegas proves to be a role-playing masterpiece.
  2. Oct 20, 2010
    90
    In New Vegas, the fun Fallout 3 formula is intact, with more polished combat, high-quality side missions, and the exciting setting of the Vegas strip. Unfortunately, the bugs also tagged along for the ride.
  3. Jan 11, 2011
    90
    Fallout: New Vegas marries the best of Bethesda's open world tradition with Obsidian's excellent storytelling, writing and quest design. This is a huge and addictive role-playing game with an enormous amount of content and options for the player.
  4. Oct 21, 2010
    85
    Those accustomed to investing hours examining endless story arcs, or searching vast environments for details will certainly appreciate Obsidian's efforts, even if newcomers may struggle to see what all the fuss is about.
  5. Oct 20, 2010
    84
    A huge world to explore, lots of quests and decisions, tons of items and great replay value are reason enough to pick up this fine roleplaying sequel. Sadly, there are some noticeable technical problems, controls could have been better and the graphics look a little outdated. Still, if you enjoyed Fallout 3 for what it is, you will have a great time with New Vegas.
  6. 80
    Very few changes appeared since Fallout 3 but a strong storyline and partial improvements make New Vegas great to play. Take it as an alternative to Fallout 3 and you won't be disappointed. [Issue#197]
  7. Dec 17, 2010
    65
    This game got released too early. Had it been released around the holidays, and with the collection of bugs and broken quests eliminated, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it as a great gift for gamers. As it is, I can only say that it's beautiful but tragically flawed.

See all 39 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Negative: 55 out of 456
  1. Feb 15, 2015
    10
    I loved Fallout 3, but it was pretty dark and relentless, limiting its replay ability for me. Not so with Fallout: New Vegas! I don't knowI loved Fallout 3, but it was pretty dark and relentless, limiting its replay ability for me. Not so with Fallout: New Vegas! I don't know why this game isn't ranked in the 90s - five years after its release its still my favorite game EVER. So much fun to play, so clever, and so FUNNY. The quests are (mostly) so well-written that they are a pleasure every time you go through them. The wide-open (not linear) world gives you a great sense of freedom and choices of how to play. There are so many crazy/fun characters. After five years, New Vegas feels like a chapter from my life ("remember a few years ago when you spent a few months in New Vegas making all those cool friends, killing all those bad guys, and saving everyone from Caesar's Legion?"). It's like a vacation spot I can't wait to return to. So I often do. Expand
  2. Jan 4, 2015
    10
    Great game. I don't like it more than I like Fo3, or even as much, but I do like it.

    The only big letdown really was the Vegas Strip
    Great game. I don't like it more than I like Fo3, or even as much, but I do like it.

    The only big letdown really was the Vegas Strip itself. I remember feeling, "So that's it?" when I first reached it upon release. Needing a high amount of Caps just to get into a small 2-instanced area was.... I dunno, but I'm surprised more people aren't peeved at how weak the gem of the game actually felt. Also, choosing who gets control over it (Ceaser, House, You) offers very littler difference. If you choose yourself, you will not notice anything particularly special about "owning" the Strip. No incentives/bonuses, you still have to check your weapons at the casino's, etc.

    The voice acting is another thing I'd like to reflect on. Fallout 3's was pretty consistent, but NV's is a mixed bag. VA's like Laura Bailey deliver their lines effectively enough, but others, like Chanadler Bong's (Matthew Perry) feel rushed and phoned in.

    One other thing- the writing. I've seen people say, "I like NV better because the writing was better". Huh? I'm not saying FO3's was better, but I'm saying it's pretty much the same in both games. There are actual deep missions in FO3, same as NV. One does not seem better than the other to me.

    Other than that, it's everything you loved about FO3- but more, more or less. More ammo, perks, quests than FO3. The only other gripe I have is the map- it's kind of small and barren. In FO3, you have towns and metro systems. In NV, you have the Strip, some military camps, some refugee camps, and a few (small) towns. I found NV to mostly be sand, whereas in FO3 you have towns and the Capitol Hill to traipse through.

    All in all, I'd recommend both titles played in no particular order, as they both offer a great Fallout experience, even if each a little varied.
    Expand
  3. Oct 23, 2010
    10
    27 hours in, just getting started. Take fallout 3, expand it, add more diversity, add more interesting locations, triple the amount of27 hours in, just getting started. Take fallout 3, expand it, add more diversity, add more interesting locations, triple the amount of factions, add a better theme, and add more immersion and you have fallout NV. Obsidian has taken a decent game and made it great. Really a lot more depth in the world and just overall better. Of course your on the same engine, so some of the same problems exist. But literally a new mod is released by the hour since they only have to be ported over. Im already using over 10 mods just as longer days, smaller ui, centered raised camera, perk every level etc. Oh and if you get stuttering get the d3d9 file, and if you have ati get the alternative d3d9 file so you can still use transparency mutisampling. If it wasn't for the mods i would have to take off a point or 2. Really though the best way to describe it is it makes the fallout 3 world seem boring. Expand
  4. Nov 12, 2013
    9
    Not quite as great as Fallout 3 but then that's because the setting of New Vegas is less interesting to me personally than the ruins ofNot quite as great as Fallout 3 but then that's because the setting of New Vegas is less interesting to me personally than the ruins of Washington DC. However, it has a fantastic storyline, some interesting refinements and the nice hardcore mode. Expand
  5. Aug 18, 2012
    8
    [First Impressions] I notice that many people giving this game negative reviews all seem to be "bad graphics" this and "poor port" that, but[First Impressions] I notice that many people giving this game negative reviews all seem to be "bad graphics" this and "poor port" that, but let me just give my opinion of the game without referring to such trivial issues. First of all, New Vegas in NOT made my Bethesda, but was developed by Obsidian. From a FI perspective the game isn't much to write home about; the gameplay is virtually unchanged save for new weapons and iron sight aiming and the quests are as fun as ever. The most significant difference is the reputation system which dictates how different factions and settlements will react to you. For example, doing favours for someone will increase your reputation with that settlement or doing vice versa will degrade your reputation. The system does produce interesting scenarios from a role-playing perspective but it means little to me as I'm more interested in the world and the quests. The game has a more distinct vibe to it than Fallout 3 despite the main story being uninteresting in comparison, the colourful Vegas looks quite spectacular from a distance. So from a first-impressions viewpoint, I like New Vegas. It still has plenty of interesting quests and I'll no doubt enjoy what the reputation system can offer but for some reason I can't get that interested in the setting. Expand
  6. Dec 27, 2010
    7
    Time for more Fallout 3. FNV is a good game, but it would have been much better in the absence of the original Fallout 3. There are someTime for more Fallout 3. FNV is a good game, but it would have been much better in the absence of the original Fallout 3. There are some changes, but many of them either have little to no effect on the gameplay, or just make it more annoying. There are some good things that came out of changes like factions and reputation, which helps you define a path and place for yourself in the wasteland. Gun mods are a step in the right direction, but they usually either have very little effect on combat or have an effect that doesn't suit the weapon for which they were designed (10mm pistol extended magazines). Actually, more mods might have been nice, as well as greater effects from mods, and mods that disallow the use of other mods, so that when you modify your arsenal, you can modify to satisfy your gameplay style, rather than make an inconsequential change to a gun (revolver long barrel, +3 damage). I also had a problem with the fact that rather than having a bunch of different types of ammo and guns that you may use based on hte situation, there were too many instances of guns or ammo types being eclipsed and never seing use again (.22LR). Once you have a fair amount of MF cells and .45-70Government ammo, no other ammo will ever be used again, due to the relatively weak guns by which they are used (except for .50MG, which is used by the game's most powerful weapon, the anti-material rifle). The sudden drops in framerate and crashing were annoying, but those can be easily remedied with better hardware and frequent saving. The types of glitches that really get to you are the ones that make quests impossible to finsih, whether that be an event not triggering, or killing a key person without being notified (it usually gives you a "quest failed" message to the side if you kill certain people). I was sneaking are the Fort with a stealth boy, and it ran out in Caesar's tent, which held an objective item for a side quest I was performing. I was spotted and attacked due to my reputation with the Leigon, and just barely managed to escape. Later, as part of the main quest line, I must speak to Caesar to recieve a platinum poker chip, but whenever I see him, he turns hostile, even when I wear Leigon armor. Since all factions require me to speak with him for the main quest line, I cannot advance. A note about side quests: there are far too many, and many of them are miniscule. There are some trademark long side quests with their own little storylines, but you have to weed through too many other miniature side quests to find them. Obsidian bit off more than they can chew there. Gambling is now present, but plays a much more minor role than advertised. At least they got the real world aspect of getting kicked out and banned for winning to much at a casino. One big thing about difficulty: you can save at any time, then reload if things don't go the way you had hoped. This seriously diminishes the consequences of death and losing when gambling; you can simply reload a save before that happened and try again. Hardcore mode is a nice addition and helps to add some realism to the game. Of course, you could always just raise the difficulty too, but that doesn't provide all of the added aspects of hardcore mode, like hunger, thirst, and need for sleep. Mods and many new weapons are great, as well as the addition of gambling, but there are still some problems with the game that need fixing, like accidentally making quests impossible. Only then, can it really become a great game instead of another slightly more involved, yet slightly less polished, Fallout 3. Expand
  7. Feb 3, 2012
    0
    Okay let me first say I came out of the Womb with a Nintendo Controller in my Hand. I know my Stuff I felt so insulted by the Good ConsumerOkay let me first say I came out of the Womb with a Nintendo Controller in my Hand. I know my Stuff I felt so insulted by the Good Consumer Review of this game I had to get my two cents in. I bought this game about waiting 2 years for it. I bought it as a Prerelease on a Special Order with Gamestop. 2. I played the Game and during it's Beta Stages the Game Damaged/Destroyed my Playstation 3 even till this day it freezes on Brand New Games just cause of playing FO3 New Vegas. I know it seems really odd for this to happen but think about how odd it was for me Screaming at the top of my Lungs at gamestop Employees about it...3. I played the game for 6 straight hours I decided I would work my way to this Mirror Device and shut it down so it would kill some mobs well here's the problem. I did that and the quest was bugged game me Infinite EXP and Stimpacks and Doctorbags. The Guy new to Dr. Fantastic or whatever his douchebag name was. So after 6 hours playing my 60 some odd dollar game the damn game was broken the mainquest I needed to beat to progress was bugged. Instant LV30 MAX and since the Doctorbags and Stimpacks was also bugged lets say Infinite Money. Top top it off my little nephew reached Las Vegas killing Mobs of Deathclaws at LV 8. I got through them at just a LV1. The Game needs to be built like on Borderlands Concept certain areas are accessible with a certain level or Quest completed. The Game had a great chance to be a Epic Sequel to FO3. Just like my Recent Experience with another Preorder Game Skyrim. This Game is no different to me than Oblivion, I played Oblivion and Marrowind 2012 on the PC. It's exactly the same thing just a new environment. #%@&*(% man. I don't care if people LOVE Skyrim. I thought the game was too easy and poorly built. EyeCandy was great but loads of Bugs and Awful Lag in large towns and the Mutiable Savegame Engine which was a hugh negative of FO3. FO3 was far better than both of those games combined. Open-Ended Worlds are just plain Terrible so what did I do? I returned Skyrim bought even a Worst Game called Little Big Planet 2. I Also Bought Two Worlds 2 even though the Lag is a major issue with TW2, Two World's 2 is far better of a Game than Skyrim. In just 2 days of playing Skyrim I was a LV25 and had Legendary Blacksmithing Capability and Transfuse and so forth. The Game was terribly Repeative and Boring to play. Marrowind by far was the best Elder Scrolls Game why? Cause you could conquer your own villages and necromancers or mobs didn't respond forcing you to fight again just to get to your things. Also why have a Fishingpole in the game and no fishing mode? You can't even pick it up? It's just there to Mock me. All these Games I mention are Terribly Easy, except Two Worlds 2 is a Genius Game I recommend it to all. And best of all it only cost me 15 dollars. How to make a Bad Game, No Story, DLC Mutiplayer, Bad Bugs, Hackable "Borderlands" Mod Guns. Exactly what I would expect from a Company Named after a Bethesda Beetle which is a Bug, These Gaming Companies and go Shove it! I'm rating this game what it really deserves and BIG FAT O. IDK if the game is 11 dollars which it is at my Gamestop I still won't play this %(!%*! and guess what! I'm one of the Biggest *#%@(% Fallout Fans around I absolutely loved Fallout Tactics and the originals as well as FO3, I bought all the DLCS for FO3 as well. I thought the game was a good value for my money. So why Bethesda! Why did you screw everyone for this Underfinished Glorified DLC of FO3??? Shame on you all! Expand

See all 456 User Reviews