User Score
8.3

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1607 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Oct 21, 2010
    2
    I'm very disappointed with this one, certainly a piss poor PC port. No in-game graphics options, can't even use standard windows shortcuts such as alt-enter, on that basis alone this game wouldn't even pass Games For Windows certification (not that I am a big GFWL fan mind you). Loads of graphical glitches, loads of gameplay glitches, terrible distance LODing. Despite seeing a lot of things that shouldn't be in a shipped game in the first few minutes I gave it more of a chance, after about 40 minutes of gameplay I realized that I had played this game before, except its previous incarnation was a lot less buggy.

    This is the last time i'll buy a game from these clowns (Obsidian/Bethesda) without carefully looking into it first, as a publisher/developer they certainly don't seem to care much for quality (at least for the PC version, I can't comment on PS3/XBox360). Infortunately, this was a day 1 purchase for me. I should have waited and read the reviews.
    Expand
  2. Oct 21, 2010
    4
    Bethesda did it again. Even when I thought my expectations could not have possibly been lower since the mediocre FO3 and it's laughable DLC, they managed to amaze me yet another time by taking this game into a new low. Do not believe the reviews of the press.

    Every aspect of this game has been catered to what we call the 'new generation' of gamers. A poorly thought out, yet incredibly
    simplistic rpg system that effectively kills any sort of difficulty in this game. If you do not roll through the game using the VATS system, or kiting equally fast enemies to death using the laughable shooting mechanics that take any sort of excitement out of this game, then you are sure the game beats itself using the bug fest of a game engine against your enemies.

    How could this engine still be so terrible? Bethesda has been using it since Oblivion. That's at least 5 years of development. Bugs and random crashes break any fun of the game. Enemies getting stuck in objects and bumps of the map.. even scripted events like quest completions tend to break the game. And what is up with the graphics? Did Bethesda stop improving the visuals since Oblivion? It looks like a PS2 game released in 2010. Walking to new locations takes up a considerable time, and adds virtually nothing to the game play, other than a way to sink your time with uninspired environments and enemies.

    The 'plot', is an absolute joke. Whereas Bethesda ruined the concept of the Vault Dweller along FO3's progression, they did not even seem to care to make a game where dialogue and story plays a major role interesting. Conversations are forced and robotic (in both speech and animations, even when it has many voice actors), and embarrassing to any human being that ever wrote anything down. The karma system is, as in FO3, poorly thought out, breaking any game credibility for a decent role playing experience.

    It's a poor port as well. I've seen developers do better in the past when they at least tried to make something out of a muliplat release.
    Expand
  3. Oct 19, 2010
    3
    Buggy POS. This game is very much in the habit of reverting quicksaves and autosaves to the first one you ever make. So let's say you get 4 hours into the game and then crash or restart, guess what? Next time you run the game you lose 4 hours of playtime and start at the beginning. Invisible walls are everywhere, can't hike up a hill without running into one. Also enemies have a habit of of spawning inside walls and crashing the game. There may be some improvements over Fallout 3 in there, but I wouldn't know as I've been replaying the same 4 hours of game over the past 8 hours. Expand
  4. Oct 31, 2010
    3
    Considering this Game is almost exactly like Fallout 3 , one would think it to be more like an expansion. The Game engine is the same and although they did change a few things such as iron sights on guns it does not really feel any newer. If you charge $60 For a full retail game update graphics and game engine after 2 years! Now onto the ultimate crime... this game is so buggy that it crashed on me about 5 times in 10 hours... even after I patched it. the quests are broken and unplayable... if this title was $20 and was stable I would recommend it to hardcore Fallout 3 players only because its a new story and you have additions like gambling now. I bet this will hurt Bethesda/obsidian hard... Expand
  5. Oct 21, 2010
    4
    I've played each Fallout game since the first and I have to say I'm as disappointed with Fallout: New Vegas as I was with Fallout 3. I always thought it would be fun to have a 1st person perspective while playing Fallout 1, 2 and Tactics, but Bethesda simply does a poor job of it. New Vegas was rushed to market before it was ready much like Fallout 3. Wait for the bargain bin on this one.

    Positives: Obsidian does a MUCH better job of writing story lines and quests than Bethesda did. Good voice acting. New environment and (slight) movement forward in terms of the Fallout canon. Negatives: Its still Oblivion (LOLblivion) with guns. As others have posted, you think they would've improved the game engine and graphics by now! The VATS system makes the game laughably easy and you can kite any enemy in the game. If you play the game without VATS, the NPCs dodge and weave like a weasel on crack all while maintaining pinpoint accuracy. Although the stories for each quest is better, the execution is still murky at best as one wrong dialogue choice cuts off entire quests. Certain quests are only offered under poorly designed circumstances with NPCs not reacting to successful completions or acting as if you DIDN"T just save their whole city from bad guys. Final analysis: Rushed out to market before true completion in a manner typical of Bethesda. This is essentially DLC for Fallout 3 that they tried (and failed) to pass off as a stand alone game. Although the fan boys, "independent reviewers" and paid Bethesda employees will seek to skew these rating sites, the proof is in the lackluster sales and general negative, poor opinion of Bethesda.
    Expand
  6. Dec 8, 2010
    4
    All I can say is thank God I have this on the PC and can go and get mods from the Nexus!

    I mean really, Fallout 3 was amazing, and compared to that the Mojave Wasteland feels kind of empty. From the rushed Main Quest story lines and the "OMG! You can't be serious" moments, I've really found myself struggling to enjoy this game. The combat IS the one thing that saves the game!

    The Nexus
    is thankfully filled with a LOT of helpful people, who not only improve the visuals (with mods such as Fellout, and one that gives streetlights light!). Another good mod is Real Time Settler, although it is buggy at the moment, this was a great mod for FO3 that let you create your own little village which you had to be with CONSTANTLY otherwise it would fail!.

    Overall, New Vegas is a pretty shoddy sequel for a game that had so much impact on the gaming world.
    Collapse
  7. Nov 28, 2010
    2
    A shame. New Vegas would have been great, but it's ridiculously buggy. Clearly a game rushed out way too soon. I've no idea how it got an average of 86 with such glaring lack of polish and a battery of game breaking bugs. Only worth buying on a discount AND once the game has been sufficiently patched.
  8. Oct 27, 2010
    2
    I'm giving this a 2. FO:NV feels like Elder Scrolls ported into Fallout 3 and given a slap of user forum content feedback veneer and released while in beta.

    A piss poor PC port using a dated engine, bringing nothing new to the table; FTW example of how to milk a franchise without improving the game. If you MUST buy it, expect bugs, crashes, graphic instabilities galore.
  9. Oct 28, 2010
    3
    Bugs galore. Very last gen graphics. Animated characters walking in thin air. How about a decent auto save system? Nope. Random game crashes on high end PC 's that run any game easily? Yep. How does this thing score more highly than Kane and Lynch, which was slammed by many critics. If I had to choose between the 2 games, K&L would win hands down. Do not believe all the hype. This game is mediocre, and that is being generous. Expand
  10. Oct 28, 2010
    1
    This game started well...but since I'm unable to play further I can not rate it higher than 1. Did they even have a QA department? I refuse to believe that this game is "so big that it's impossible to properly test it" excuse given by them. I accepted that it was almost like playing a mod in Fallout 3 (really the graphics are almost identical) but the fact that it stopped working after 14 hours of gameplay (my last four save games refuse to load)...now the only option I have is to lose several hours (4+) of gameplay (which means redo the last four hours of scavening, killing, etc.).

    I've patched, tweaked, etc. and I just can't get those save games to load again (the backups also don't work)...if I'd know this before I could probably have just replayed the same bits over again instead of trying to fix it but now I'm afraid to commit any more time to this with the same problem repeating itself later on. Quite frankly I'm going to try and get my money back for this bug infested excuse of a release.
    Expand
  11. Nov 12, 2010
    4
    I loved fallout 3, but new vegas just seems old, dated, slow and boring. It is pretty much the same game just worse, or maybes fallout 3 wasn't really that good after all and when i was playing it i had nothing better to do. I don't know, all I know is this game is boring, I played it for a week then had no desire to play again. Such a shame.
  12. Oct 29, 2010
    0
    I had heard that there was some alleged improvement in the writing department. This is occasionally evident, but the plot-lines are banal and the NPC's are still robotic and stilted, demonstrated by their oft inconsistent and unlikely behaviour that makes it difficult to become immersed. The best bits still comprise wasteland-wandering, and the hardcore mode is a curious addition. However, the Gamebryo engine is beginning to feel dated; It usually looks fine, but loading screens between doorways, the limited NPC population and the lack of views to underpin context add to a collective impression of unreality. Since NV uses the same graphics as FO3, it surprised me that NV shuns years of modding and DLC content by making this a 'new game', when it should have been implemented as a full expansion; Our FO3 character could easily have been asked to courier the Chip from, say, Rivet City to New Vegas and found ourselves confronted with Benny, allowing for a seamless merge. For those of us who have tweaked FO3 to our liking since '08, being dragged back to a 'Vanilla' world is a stark reminder of the flaws that mods have fixed (unless you are a console-gamer). I could have excused the game for occasional crashes and glitches, and I understand that the emphasis is now on the console-market, but the trigger that turned my mind from "give it a chance" to "this is dull" was the awful immersion. This was achieved by the inane AI, the primitive patchwork world, the poorly/lazily constructed story & narration, and the implausible architecture. My zero score is for balance. My true score would be 3, for its efforts to add 'Hardcore', improve the implementation of skills when dealing with NPC's, and some other beneficial but superficial improvments. NV's increased linearity irks me slightly as well. I hope ID Software graces Bethesda with a better 3D engine for TES V:Skyrim. Expand
  13. Nov 29, 2010
    4
    You really know a game is weak when it's worse in most ways than the one that came before it. In Fallout 3 was a variety of fascinating architecture; here, it's prefab virtual representations of real prefab architecture. What more exciting place for adventure than a open desert? Bethesda must be insane. In Fallout 3, you never quite knew what plot challenge faced you: It was important to think carefully and frequently, or else. Here, I'm on automatic. I don't even bother to think up a tactic, don't even bother to avoid bullets: Just charge in and whack 'em. I've been playing for 5 hours. I doubt I can stand 5 more. But I am thinking of reinstalling Fallout 3, just one more time. For the FUN of it. Expand
  14. Oct 15, 2012
    2
    More of the same. Looks and plays exactly like Fallout 3 with some minor adjustments that are for the better but don't take away the fact that you're playing a re-hash of a game you already bought. I couldn't put up with the uninteresting characters, endless walking around and inane plots any longer and just quit. Why does this title still feature inventory management 90's-style? Why is the combat still horribly broken and about as adrenaline-fueling as watching a grandma cross the road on a quiet sunday afternoon? And what's with the huge amount of pop-ups and equipment I get for installing the DLC? It's a mentality that has become a sickness in the gaming industry. I wish it would stop but it just keeps continuing like a nightmare I can't break out of. Expand
  15. Mar 5, 2011
    3
    I have always enjoyed games from Bethesda. I have bought many of them. I particularly enjoyed Fallout 3 and I looked forward to Fallout 3 New Vegas.

    I fully anticipated that it would be more of the same as Fallout 3 and adding more quests, adventures , etc.

    What I did NOT expect is this new requirement to be part of the Steam community and that I am now dependent on them for updates,
    etc., especially since I am experiencing so many issues with this game for difficulty in starting up to my most recent problem of the game NOW not recognizing keyboard.

    I checked around and there are a few other players also experiencing this problem. This bug makes the game unplayable until such time as someone gets around to fixing this problem and quickly.

    So I give it a low rating, not because I don't enjoy the game, but because I cannot play it until it is fixed. I have never had this experience on any game that I purchased.
    Expand
  16. Jul 23, 2012
    0
    Probably most boring game ever. If we put aside graphics from around 1997. this game is still boring. To play that you don't need any shooting skills at all. If you want a lot of playing hours just to walk and talk around you buy this game.
  17. Jul 29, 2012
    1
    This is the first FALL OUT game I have played and I want my 1.5 hours back. WOW is all I can say. This is the most annoying game I have ever played. Slow, boring, horrible graphics, very slow, annoying and a waste of time and money. Luckily I only paid $8 for it. WAY TOO MUCH! How can anyone rate this high? Apparently those who do have very low expectations and are easily amused. Anyone and I mean anyone who likes this game is either retarded or been in prison the past 25 years and does not know any better. Expand
  18. Mar 10, 2011
    4
    Not worth a complete playthrough, too much brown, exactly the same as FO:3 only a rehash

    I never finished this game because I didnt feel like it was worth it, and for the couple of hours I did play, it wasn't really fun

    FO:3 had an amazing beginning, and being unleashed into the world like that really made that game stand out

    FO:NV attempts to copy that with failed results
  19. Dec 31, 2011
    0
    As most of the other people who know gaming have said this "game" is crap. It is nothing original in any way and honestly is just a way for them to get paid twice for making the engine (ok 3 times if you count skyrim). It is really just a big mod, like someone went balls out with the G.E.C.K. and decided to charge full price for it. Its sad how fast bethesda has gone from a top notch developer brimming with creativity to another whore video game developer who is in it for NO reason but to make $ off ignorant kids who have to be told what games are good and which are crap. Expand
  20. Nov 14, 2011
    3
    Its fallout 3 2: Electric Boogaloo. With an even less deep storyline (Holy **** that's possible), and the setting is worse. It's a wasteland of a wasteland. Yo dawg..
  21. Dec 8, 2011
    3
    If you liked Fallout 3, you'll probably like New Vegas, it's very similar but honestly the ridiculous bugs (mostly introduced by the patches) caused me much annoyance, there were some common bugs which were never solved. The game was felt a bit more compact than Fallout 3 although shorter. I honestly think the game is good but I can't give it a good score because of the outrageous development and updates. Expand
  22. Feb 6, 2012
    0
    Bethesda is now infamous for its laggy, buggy, and glitchy games. Fallout: New Vegas is no exception and continues in the proud tradition of making a mockery of customers by charging $60 for a broken piece of plastic garbage.

    Now, is it fun? I suppose it is some fun in the traditional fallout sense.

    Admittedly most bugs, glitches, and lags aren't quite game-breakers. However, the
    save-game file sizes and the constant need to turn the PS3 on and off just isn't worth the hassle.

    Will Bethesda ever patch up the thing, though? I doubt it. One needs only take a look at Bethesda's record of shoddy patching.

    Bethesda's quality control borders on the criminal.

    Now, I know people vary wildly in personal opinion and expectations of the game, but the fact that this piece of garbage got 7.9 is nothing less than a conspiracy on the part of critics and if not, Bethesda lied to EVERYONE.
    Expand
  23. May 7, 2012
    4
    Remember fallout tree when the surrounding environment was interesting to explore? That's gone. The game is a series of hubs with enemies. The guns are cool, yeah, and some of the game mechanics have been refined, but there is no improvement. The story is pretty cool. There are so many bugs in the release edition that the game was unplayable to me. Fallout three was my favourite game of all time, so my high expectations may have led me in to a massive let-down. Be careful of bugs (even more numerous than FO3) and boring walking. Expand
  24. Jun 24, 2013
    4
    This game has a horrible tutorial. It does not teach you anything you need to know other than "left click to kill this guy". Its map interface is horrible, the entire early game you do not know where to go. It also doesn't teach you thew "lingo" of the game. I guess if you have played the other Fallout games you might have an idea of what is going on but, if you are a new player to this game then you are SOL. You cannot track non quest point which is ridiculous, you are basically forced to play the story mode unless you stumble upon the place. There is also no explanation on what items do or what their acronyms mean. If you are a Fallout fan than this game is probably good for you. As a newcomer, seeing this game makes me not want to play the game from this version. Expand
  25. Feb 10, 2011
    1
    This would be a 9/10 game if it was playable. It has a lot going for it - for one thing, the writing is infinitely better than FO3. It's an interesting story, and a lot of fun... in theory. Even after a few patches, the game is completely unplayable. I beat the game soon after it came out, and put it up. I just got it back out to work on trophies, and within 20 minutes it has frozen twice, and a companion has gone hostile on me and is now out of the game forever, for no apparent reason. This isn't even a beta release. This is a really **** alpha release, from a company that should know better. Extremely disappointed. Expand
  26. Oct 8, 2011
    0
    The mouse acceleration makes the game unplayable, Why do they make it on by default when no one wants it, It's also an obvious console port with errors all over the place.
    If not for the name fallout it would be considered a budget title.
  27. Apr 16, 2011
    0
    Fallout 3. It brings back so many good memories of the Capital Wasteland, of heroism and sacrifice, of a amazingly deep and beautiful world. Needless to say, I pre ordered New Vegas as soon as I could. Worst choice I ever made. I dropped 65$ on this peice of garbage. I gave up after 12 hours of bugs. It literally does not run for me. I was hoping patches would fix the game breaking issues, but instead, they made a DLC instead of fixing the game. I wasted 65$ on a alpha project that will never get updated. It looked like it had potential to be fun, but failed to live up. The weapons looked cool, but since they didn't make any noise... NPCs are bugged, landmine knock you down, and even if you don't die your stuck on the ground until you reload a old save or die. Thats just the start. Getting stuck in the planet, ect ect. I will never buy a product from Bethesda until it is in the 20-30$ price range. I'm just so disapointed. This gamehad sooooo much potential but unfortunently, IMHO, the worst game of all time. This coming from a hardcore F03 fan. If you need me, I'll be hanging with three dog. Expand
  28. Apr 6, 2012
    0
    Bethesda lives up to their reputation for bugs in this one (especially). It's so buggy that it won't even launch on my DX11 system with an i7. I've checked every single fix they've listed online, and nothing has helped; I've even updated my drivers. It opens, and then immediately crashes, and I'm not the only one with this problem. 0/10.
  29. Dec 30, 2011
    2
    This game is nothing more than an over priced expansion of Fallout 3. The gameplay and graphics are exactly the same, and while there are new weapons, the most useful are the weapons also found in Fallout 3.
  30. Nov 17, 2011
    3
    for what was a very creative and fun game series, fallout NV and 3 set an all time low. Sure, fallout 3 and NV pulled the series to 3d and open, and i admit it was kind of fun, but that fun was ruined by the major bugs, freezes, glitches and crashes i experienced on my copy. it happened on my PC,ps3 and 360 copies so its not my system. This is a very crap game that does not deserve a sequel. If 4 gets made, it must not be developed by obsidian and not use that crap gamebryo engine. I cant even tell you how bad the DLC makes it. Its unplayable after 3 hours gameplay. its like it purposly freezes to tick you off! Expand
  31. Mar 15, 2012
    0
    Honestly, it deserves a 0. It's not playable. We preordered the game and picked it up that day. Brought it home and what happens? Can't even play it. Fallout 3 was buggy. Yes, very buggy. But at it's core it was still an enjoyable game. New Vegas was so buggy we never even got past the first mission. We couldn't. Game would freeze, crash, everything. I've heard friends say that the Ps3 version was less buggy than the 360 version (which goes against reports I heard otherwise) but still, it's unplayable and for that reason it gets a 0. Expand
  32. Aug 9, 2012
    1
    Seems to be complete garbage to me... the graphics are horrible, it's like playing half life 1, that is not exaggerating either. The acting is below par and the game is buggy.. I have an i7 560Ti and 8ghz ram.. on ultra settings this game looks like a big greasy something I just dropped in the toilet.

    Don't believe the other reviews. Fallout 3 wasnt any different. Probably were great
    games after playing pac man and asteroids though, I don't doubt that. Expand
  33. Aug 16, 2012
    4
    It had great potential, it really did. But, if you don't like grey, cold vaults and an endless dusty Nevada - this game is not for you. The quests get boring after a while, it mainly seems like the same thing. Had nothing that The Elder Scrolls series had. I'll be honest, The Elder Scrolls: Arena (1994) was a better game than this.
  34. Sep 4, 2013
    4
    Boring, boring, boring. Thats the only thing i can think about this game when i play it. Its combat is slow and clunky, its missions are uninspired, and youll find yourself spending 80% of your time wandering the wasteland doing nothing. I guess im just not a fan of the Fallout series.
  35. Aug 9, 2013
    4
    Fallout 3 did a much better job on this althought it's worth some free time if you are bored and want to waste your life.
    I give this game a bad rating. waste of time
  36. Aug 2, 2013
    0
    Bought this on steam, running on a clean pc, no mods, no nothing. After about 30 hours there are occasional crashes. After about 40 hours, a lot more crashes. Then on top of that it becomes impossible to load my saves, I get stuck at the loading screen loopdeloopdeloop.
  37. Jan 6, 2014
    4
    I’ve played and replayed this game many many times. I keep coming back to it purely because people keep raving about it, and I keep thinking, based on that, that there has to be something I’m missing. There has to be some quality in it I’m just not getting. Now I think I can safely judge why people go out of their way to claim that it’s good: They WANT it to be good. They can see that this is the shell of a great game. But that is the big problem. It’s just a shell, hollow inside when you look inside.

    New Vegas is a complete developmental screwup. Everything that is important to the primary/important content, the factions and New Vegas and the plot, was stupidly deprioritized in favor of stuffing the game with frivolous irrelevant sidequests. It’s hard to process just how bad the content prioritization and presentation is. The making of easily cut content like the Boomers, Thorn, Jacobstown, rocket ghouls, etc, came at the cost of desperately needed faction quests and fleshing out. The entire main questline is padded with these sidequests to stretch it out, only ending up emphasizing how little you connect or get involved with the character and the factions. The Faction “system” is really just deciding which questgiver you want to receive your nearly identical selection of mandatory sidequests from. The reputation system is basically pointless, rarely amounting to anything other then NPC banter.

    People claim the writing is great, I found it dull and uninspired. The dialogue options are bland and soulless, clearly designed for a blank slate character and not one with actual personality. NPC quality varys greatly but tend to suffer from directionless voice acting. I’ve heard characters talk about their squadmates being raped in the same tone they use to complain about patrolling the Mojave. Not even kidding. The writing in the DLCs is pretty weak to boot, with Old World Blues actually being surprisingly involving and funny to boot while Lonesome Road may have the most incompetent, full of crap, and definitionally pretentious writing I’ve even seen in a RPG, outside of a Mass Effect sequel. Pains me to think one of Planescape:Torment’s writers was involved in that dreck.

    The world map is awfully designed, offering no incentive to explore what is ultimately a linear doughnut dotted with invisible walls, uninteresting and unrewarding locations, NO random encounters, and amateurly placed blatant progression Many things that worked fine in the previous game, like the radio and VATS, were and still are broken and glitchy. While I liked how there were more skill/stat checks, most of the other added features like ammo types (which were bugged at launch. Pretty sure they were bugged in the first two Fallouts too. How do you not learn how to program that in twenty years?) are easily forgotten. And I don’t think I need to bring out how buggy it is. Suffice to say the public had made it clear that it is utter unacceptable to ship a game with this amount of game-breaking and save-wiping glitches.

    The sad thing is that it’s clear that this game could have been good, even great, if it had been developed properly. And it’s even sadder that people feel the need to overrate it based on the standard of games this developer made twenty years ago, or worse based on what the game COULD have been like rather then what it IS. It doesn’t hold up to other RPGs. It doesn’t even hold up to other Obsidian games. New Vegas is, sadly, a weak unfulfilling game and a weak unfulfilling RPG.
    Expand
  38. Feb 28, 2014
    0
    Buggy piece of crapp, for example shots through walls, round a corners, pity damage system, controls, accidental crashes etc. It shouldn't be even called PC version, to be honest, because this isn't PC version. Poor console ports are not automatically PC versions. Lack of PC optimisation is the problem, but some idiots still don't get it. Graphics is a **** joke, looks even worse than the one in Fallout 3. Absolutely horrible, abomination to the first two Fallout games. Expand
  39. Jun 15, 2011
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Great game until you come to find that the game doesn't end as Fallout 3 with the DLCs, where you could continue playing the same player after you finish the main game. I really don't get this from the developers, it's just lazy and ridiculous. If you want to play any DLC you have to load a previous save file as if you have never finished the game. Freaking stupid. Expand
  40. Jul 5, 2011
    4
    Im over all disappointed about this game. it is nothing more than a new map and quest-line. an expansion to fallout 3. yet without the same fantastic glow of innovation and freshness. Caesar's Legion the enemies in this game is completely disappointing to me. they seems to be badly created. and never could take them serious through out the main quest. that's why i never replayed the game. which i did 3 times in fallout 3. nothing has changed from the last game except obsidian entertainment made a lot worse. Expand
  41. Jul 14, 2011
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. If you like broken betas and no support from a team that is to busy making DLC to fix the problems with this pile of "bugs", them it is a must have! And do not think that is expansion pack for fallout 3 innovates in any way from its great predecessor. Don´t waste your time and money on this, wait for Deus EX: HR instead. Expand
  42. Dec 23, 2011
    0
    Bought another Bethesda game only to be disappointed once again. If you ever decide to change you graphic settings at all your game will bug out and you will be stuck on the loading screen forever. then you will be forced to reinstall the game to fix it because Bethesda is too **** lazy to patch their PC games.. just like Skyrim (another piece of **** game with bugs they refuse to fix) this game is probably better on the console. So yeah don't waste your money or time on it unless you feel like having a few headaches. Expand
  43. 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 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
  44. Jul 28, 2013
    2
    So many bugs! It's kind of fun but apparently it is common to get MORE BUGS as you get further in the game, as in STOP, CRASH! I like several dialogue heavy games but I can only bother to listen to a handful of these people. They have two actors I recognize from Star Trek which was fun but I realized then that the good actors refer to the leader of the legion as "K-EYE-ZAR" and V.O. they don't care about refer to the legion leader as "CEE-SER".
    Gameplay is fun but the controls could have been MUCH better. Managing stats, inventory, and quests is harder than it needs to be. Tutorial is terrible with little explanation.
    Did I mention buggy?
    Expand
  45. Aug 3, 2013
    4
    Fallout 3 is clearly a superior game to this sh*t. Can't believe Bethesda would make this kind of game.
    I was really disappointed, a complete waste of money.
  46. Jan 12, 2014
    3
    Oh pib-boy. What a mess in gameplay and story-telling.

    Invisible walls everywhere, artificial placed rocks and unclimbable "mountains" followed by places that are bigger than an airport but filled with pure nothing.

    I loved Fallout 3! Although it had its flaws (dated graphics, bugs and way too easy), it was a milestone in gaming (and for all the Fallout-Fans) and the instinct to
    discover and scavenge a large world!

    But somehow Fallout new Vegas managed to feel so dry and empty like beeing stranded in a desert. You will encounter so few gunfights, that you'll wish you could just raid camps and all the enemy stations.
    But you can't.
    I was asking myself all the time:
    "Why the hell am I scavenging all that ammunition and bottlecaps when there are so few enemies you can pump full of led?"

    After 10 hours of time-consuming navigation I caught myself trying to rush through the story, only for the hope of some big scale battles. But after at least 25 Hours arriving and leaving Vegas I gave up.

    Prepare to spent more time walking, and walking and walking instead of meeting interesting places or people.

    Don't get me wrong: You CAN find at least 3 interesting places. They will suck you in with a dark and spooky atmosphere. I won't spoil it, but New Vegas isn't one of them.
    Neither is it a surprise you'll arrive there nor is it a really spectacular place.
    Most People there will tell you some generic gibberish and the quests in there are so ... meaningless.

    Most of the Quests are annoying chores that let you scout empty places for hours only to find out that at least one skill is insufficient to complete it (mostly your speech-skill!).

    Then there are so many illogical design-flaws that pop up randomly and destroy all imersion.
    -Many doors that are just painted textures and can't be opened.
    -The flaw in stealing from bad guys (why does the game randomly punish my karma when I rob the psycho bad guys?!).
    - you meet some high-ranked guys for the faction you work, but they don't have any quest to give you!
    - You don't have any impact on the lazy written "War" of the different factions!
    Noone will say any word to you beside their random gibberish!
    - doors and gates that are closed until you progress the main"story", or more: Keep yourself squeezing the path the game has chosen for you.

    This game only left wasted 40 hours and a sore forehead from all the facepalming.

    This may be an overused sentence in rating games, but this feels really like an overpriced DLC or even mod for Fallout 3.
    Don't buy it and wait for Fallout 4!
    Expand
  47. Feb 25, 2014
    4
    Despite my bad score I had fun playing it! See, on the one side there are the brilliant story, the atmospheric setting and good dialogues. And then there are the completely bad engine, the not smooth gameplay and the same bugs from it's predecessor Fallout 3.

    It just annoys me that the developers obviously haven't spent a single thought on how to correct the faults of Fallout 3! They
    wrote a new story and built a new world(which I liked!) but the fact that the bad gameplay and bad controls in my opinion took a lot of atmosphere from both games. There are just a lot of things about the game that completely don't make sense and which Bethesda could easily have solved! Expand
  48. Dec 8, 2010
    0
    All I can say is thank God I have this on the PC and can go and get mods from the Nexus!

    I mean really, Fallout 3 was amazing, and compared to that the Mojave Wasteland feels kind of empty. From the rushed Main Quest story lines and the "OMG! You can't be serious" moments, I've really found myself struggling to enjoy this game. The combat IS the one thing that saves the game!

    The Nexus
    is thankfully filled with a LOT of helpful people, who not only improve the visuals (with mods such as Fellout, and one that gives streetlights light!). Another good mod is Real Time Settler, although it is buggy at the moment, this was a great mod for FO3 that let you create your own little village which you had to be with CONSTANTLY otherwise it would fail!.

    Overall, New Vegas is a pretty shoddy sequel for a game that had so much impact on the gaming world.
    Collapse
Metascore
84

Generally favorable reviews - based on 39 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 36 out of 39
  2. Negative: 0 out of 39
  1. May 27, 2011
    88
    Quotation forthcoming.
  2. Apr 21, 2011
    65
    Despite Obsidian's fan-service, Fallout: New Vegas is a heaping pile of bugs.
  3. Mar 18, 2011
    82
    Fallout: New Vegas looks like an Add On to Fallout 3, but that should not mean, that it's a copy of its forerunner. It scores with an great atmosphere, nice story and all the typical and awesome Fallout features.