Fallout: New Vegas PC

User Score
8.4

Generally favorable reviews- based on 2097 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. Nov 21, 2010
    7
    Fallout New Vegas is obviously a game which has had a lot of care and attention put into its development. Unfortunately it is hampered massively by an out-dated and unforgivably buggy engine.
    The characters and factions retain that old Fallout charm they are witty, unique and well voiced however it is very hard to form any kind of attachment to any of the characters. This, I believe, is
    Fallout New Vegas is obviously a game which has had a lot of care and attention put into its development. Unfortunately it is hampered massively by an out-dated and unforgivably buggy engine.
    The characters and factions retain that old Fallout charm they are witty, unique and well voiced however it is very hard to form any kind of attachment to any of the characters. This, I believe, is mostly down to the engine, very little emotion appears on their faces as they speak, it would be the real life equivilant of going to watch a play where none of the actors have read the script before and no indication of how they should feel is given. The story was somthing of a dissapointment in my opinion; I have always been a fan of narrative diven play whereas the open ended nature of New Vegas leaves very little space for detailed narrative. The weapons available to the player, remain as satisfying as ever, whether it is driving (a large number of) rifle rounds through the head of a Deathclaw or firing mini nukes into crowds of gambling innocents. While on the subject of crowds this, as with Fallout 3 is a dropping points. In the so called epic battles of the game, it is rare to see more than a dozen people in your area. This gives rise to a laughable occasion in the game when a particular character gives a speech.... to a crowd of around 5. What else is there to blame for this than the engine again, which unfortunately will hamper an otherwise great game all the way. Whether its the poor lip synching, to poor walking animations (walk diagonally and you can ice skate) or the rather imbessilic enemy AI, or the main issue which remains a large base of bugs and performance issues. Hopefully light will have finally dawned and this will be the last we see of this engine in any future game (TES V, anyone?)
    Expand
  2. Feb 11, 2012
    7
    By looking at all these reviews im guessing a lot of the reviewers are Skyrim/oblivion fanboys. Fallout 3 was an amazing game and is considered one of the best of all time so people cant say **** about it. Everyones entitled to an opinion but calling the game the worst piece of **** you've ever played just makes you look like a butt hurt fanboy of what ever game you prefer. Anyway back toBy looking at all these reviews im guessing a lot of the reviewers are Skyrim/oblivion fanboys. Fallout 3 was an amazing game and is considered one of the best of all time so people cant say **** about it. Everyones entitled to an opinion but calling the game the worst piece of **** you've ever played just makes you look like a butt hurt fanboy of what ever game you prefer. Anyway back to the review.

    Fallout new vegas is a great game that will entertain you for hours how ever it is not much of an upgrade from fallout 3 which was released 2 years prior to this game. The graphics are pretty much identicle, along with gameplay. How ever there is nothing wrong with that if you loved fallout 3. Your more or less getting the same thing except with a brand new map, and over 100 hours of gameplay. And i know what your thinking "That's not the same thing! Your whole statement is bull" but hear me out. Yes bethesda has given us 100 new hours of gameplay but it feels too much alike fallout 3. guns, graphics, enemies, and some quests are exactly like ones ive already played in fallout 3. It does have its upsides though. Overall Fallout new vegas is a great game. However if you were looking for something new this is not the game for you. I give Fallout new vegas a 7.5 out of 10
    Expand
  3. Jan 5, 2011
    7
    If you liked Fallout 3, then you will like New Vegas. The games are remarkably similar in their gameplay. These games are not for people who want to button mash or kill lots of people online. They are both expansive worlds with lots of places to discover, challenges to overcome and an interesting main storyline. I actually enjoy wandering around the map discovering things and seeingIf you liked Fallout 3, then you will like New Vegas. The games are remarkably similar in their gameplay. These games are not for people who want to button mash or kill lots of people online. They are both expansive worlds with lots of places to discover, challenges to overcome and an interesting main storyline. I actually enjoy wandering around the map discovering things and seeing what I can find. Most games like this restrict where you can and cannot go; other than the outside borders, you can explore this whole world. Fallout 3 was a 10 for me. New Vegas is not as good, mostly because of how glitchy the game is. You can lose hours of game play just because it freezes. You can lose "companions" that fall places. You can utterly screw up your entire game by going out a door you cannot re-enter. It would have been a great deal better if they had waited to put this game out and fixed the glitches. One of my good friends told me how glitchy it was and I thought it must be something she was doing or her system. Nope. At times, you cannot get totally into the game because you need to think about whether its going to freeze on you. That makes a 10 a 7 to me. Expand
  4. Oct 26, 2010
    7
    Fallout: New Vegas is a very fun and immersive game. It scratches that itch I have for in-game exploration oh so well. The only major downside is the bugs, ooooohhhh the bugs. For example, I can't finish a certain quest without it corrupting my saves. Also, the frame rate slows down significantly when multiple NPCs show up on screen. Another minor downside is some of the quests are veryFallout: New Vegas is a very fun and immersive game. It scratches that itch I have for in-game exploration oh so well. The only major downside is the bugs, ooooohhhh the bugs. For example, I can't finish a certain quest without it corrupting my saves. Also, the frame rate slows down significantly when multiple NPCs show up on screen. Another minor downside is some of the quests are very dry and lack variety, kind of like just go here and kill these people/creatures or go here get this thing. That's not to say there isn't a lot of creativity on display here, its just that sometimes quests can be kind of meh. Overall, if you loved Fallout 3 you will love this, provided you don't run into game-killing bugs. Expand
  5. Jan 29, 2011
    7
    This is an enjoyable game. Its focus on the wasteland, rather than on the player's character's daddy issues make it very true to the originals. The wasteland also is built in a way to direct not so obsessive players in the right directions, minimizing random deaths. There are tech issues, but with a few hacks they never took away from my experience (thanks to the brains of community). WhatThis is an enjoyable game. Its focus on the wasteland, rather than on the player's character's daddy issues make it very true to the originals. The wasteland also is built in a way to direct not so obsessive players in the right directions, minimizing random deaths. There are tech issues, but with a few hacks they never took away from my experience (thanks to the brains of community). What I'd like to see next time is more mysteries being revealed, as for now some of the plot elements are very strong at start, but feel like could have been expanded into epic side-quests, such as the solar power station could have added a bit more juice to the plot. In overall, worth one hell of a play-through. Expand
  6. Oct 20, 2010
    7
    I don't know why the professional reviewers are whining about the game engine so much. It's been announced since day one that the Fallout 3 engine was going to be used, so give it up and just review the damn game, wouldja?

    Anyone who has played a Fallout game knows it's all about the story, the game mechanics, the NPC interaction, etc. Even with that, the graphics (especially the
    I don't know why the professional reviewers are whining about the game engine so much. It's been announced since day one that the Fallout 3 engine was going to be used, so give it up and just review the damn game, wouldja?

    Anyone who has played a Fallout game knows it's all about the story, the game mechanics, the NPC interaction, etc. Even with that, the graphics (especially the detail) are completely acceptable in today's gaming.

    At any rate, hard to put together a review with only 6 hours of game play, but this is another great Fallout offering by Bethesda. Plenty of new nuances to the game, combined with the comfortable layout of the Fallout 3 GUI. Storytelling is terrific. Loving the new radio music and broadcasts.

    In a nutshell, if you're a Fallout fan at all, than this is a must have. If you're a RPG fan, this is a must have. If you're interested in trying an RPG for the first time this is a must have. Just buy the game and get on with it. ;-)
    Expand
  7. Oct 26, 2010
    7
    Short and simple. If you loved Fallout 3, and don't mind more of the same, then yes, you will love New Vegas.

    This isn't a step forward or step backward per se, but there aren't many huge improvements that make this feel like an entirely new game. It feels more like DLC despite what previews had said.. How do I feel paying $50 for it? I'm okay with it, but I will be reluctant to buy
    Short and simple. If you loved Fallout 3, and don't mind more of the same, then yes, you will love New Vegas.

    This isn't a step forward or step backward per se, but there aren't many huge improvements that make this feel like an entirely new game. It feels more like DLC despite what previews had said.. How do I feel paying $50 for it? I'm okay with it, but I will be reluctant to buy Fallout: New Something using the same outdated graphics, gameplay, and glitches/bugs. This is a vast game, trust me, as with Fallout 3, there is ALOT of game here. So bugs are understandable. But you will encounter them often just because of how open and non linear this game is. And unfortunately, frequent bugs CAN ruin the game and makes this for a frustrating unpolished product. Just because it's unpolished doesn't mean it's not fun, it just means for a little disappointment for the gamer. And I think alot of people feel a bit offended that they would release this product the way it is. But what I love about this game is still the same. I can spend hours and hours playing this. So far, I'm LOVING this game as much as Fallout 3. Hardcore mode is a nice touch but hasn't gotten me into tons of trouble yet. So when you have a formula, it's good to stick with it. But the players won't stick with it as long as you may think.... For the next game, they will have to reinvent the engine, reinvent the gameplay, and figure out a way to better debug this game. They cannot continue the series this way, it will not last. Given those words, not everyone will like this game. It deserves a higher score, really, it does. But it's been done before, and is more or less on the same level as Fallout 3.
    Expand
  8. Oct 20, 2010
    7
    Feels like a Fallout 3 expansion with a few new superficial bells and whistles, and a lot of new bugs-specifically its frustrating habit of losing save files. Also the VATS system is painfully slow on this one compared to Fallout 3 (played on the same computer).
  9. Oct 26, 2010
    7
    First of all, I'll agree that the game "seems" like it could have just been an expansion (a very large one) on fallout 3. It does use the same buggy engine, much of the same resources (textures, even buildings are reused in a cut & paste fashion from FO3 in some places) and has many of the same mechanics. However, there are also a number of new mechanics, and features that weren't inFirst of all, I'll agree that the game "seems" like it could have just been an expansion (a very large one) on fallout 3. It does use the same buggy engine, much of the same resources (textures, even buildings are reused in a cut & paste fashion from FO3 in some places) and has many of the same mechanics. However, there are also a number of new mechanics, and features that weren't in FO3, many that have come back from FO1 & 2 (traits, etc).

    I'm going to start with the criticisms first, then move on to the good parts, as I like reviews that end happy...

    My harshest criticisms come from two main areas: 1. They've had 2 years to update the textures... the modding community updated them within the first couple months. Sure, the character models on the PC have better detail, but overall the textures are the same quality as FO3. Don't get me wrong, New Vegas is pretty, but they SHOULD have upgraded the textures that are used throughout most of the game. If it was done this way to accommodate the 360/PS3, then they should have had the option for the PC crowd (like Civ5 asking to run in DX9 vs. DX10, or Eve Online & LotRO's high res packs). Thankfully, I got the game for the PC via Steam and can count on the modding community to update the textures for me. Console players will have no such luck.

    2. Bugs... OMG are there a lot of bugs and really bad ones. There's nothing that stops you from technically competing the game (that I've seen) but there are a number of quest related bugs where people/object just disappear, etc. In the PC version which is what I'm playing, it is very common to experience CTDs (Crash to Desktop). I've experienced well over a dozen in 15+ hours of play. Even after the recent patches this has not improved (though some quests are now playable). There are also little glitches like NPCs freezing (becoming immobile and immortal) in the middle of a gun fight.. This is easily fixed by entering a new area such as a building then re-entering. But it SHOULD have been caught in QA. Many of the present bugs are those that existed in FO3, so IMO there is little excuseâ
    Expand
  10. Oct 28, 2010
    7
    Its a decent game, not as good as fallout 3

    HOWEVER to all of you bashing Bethesda for this, you are wrong to do so. Reason being? BETHESDA DID NOT MAKE THIS GAME OBSIDIAN DID.
  11. Nov 1, 2010
    7
    The problem with F:NV isn't that there's not enough "new", there's plenty. The problem is that it's just not as polished as the original, at least where the PC version is concerned. It seems strange to me that I was able to run the original on full settings without a hiccup out of the box on older hardware, while this version never ceased to give me difficulties (on new hardware),The problem with F:NV isn't that there's not enough "new", there's plenty. The problem is that it's just not as polished as the original, at least where the PC version is concerned. It seems strange to me that I was able to run the original on full settings without a hiccup out of the box on older hardware, while this version never ceased to give me difficulties (on new hardware), exacerbated by having to exit out of the game entirely in order to tweak settings. The game play itself hasn't really changed (the new companion option is pretty sweet, but nothing really dramatic), and the story and quests are both phenomenal, so if you liked the last installment, you owe it to yourself to at least give this one a chance. Just be warned that as far as the PC goes, this one is a much rougher model than the last. Hopefully it'll be fixed up in a patch or two. Expand
  12. byF
    Nov 2, 2010
    7
    In comparison with Fallout 3, Fallout: New Vegas offers completely different experience. Despite the overall "ugliness" its atmosphere drags you in. The game design itself doesn't lack logic and dialogues are pretty fine and meaningful (voice acting contributes to that). It really reminds me of lovely grandpas, Fallout 1 and 2 (and it's full of references; especially with Wild WastelanderIn comparison with Fallout 3, Fallout: New Vegas offers completely different experience. Despite the overall "ugliness" its atmosphere drags you in. The game design itself doesn't lack logic and dialogues are pretty fine and meaningful (voice acting contributes to that). It really reminds me of lovely grandpas, Fallout 1 and 2 (and it's full of references; especially with Wild Wastelander trait - must-have for any player who is familiar with Fallout before FO3) Expand
  13. Dec 24, 2010
    7
    A good game in of itself, but alas, it can't live up to its predecessor. Fallout: New Vegas itself comes off as a sheer ploy in an attempt to spur user interest and the recreation of Vegas itself screams to me that they are trying to spur user interest by shouting "Vegas! Vegas!" rather than offer anything groundbreaking in terms of story. Sure the war between the NCR and the Legion isA good game in of itself, but alas, it can't live up to its predecessor. Fallout: New Vegas itself comes off as a sheer ploy in an attempt to spur user interest and the recreation of Vegas itself screams to me that they are trying to spur user interest by shouting "Vegas! Vegas!" rather than offer anything groundbreaking in terms of story. Sure the war between the NCR and the Legion is rather interesting, and the reputation system is a good little addition, the game just lacks any memorable characters or experiences and just feels like an overly done Fallout 3 DLC. Even though this is my sentiment towards the game, the overall gameplay, doing whatever you want, and just going and shooting something is its saving grace. Not as memorable as Fallout 3, but would be worth it when the price drops. Expand
  14. 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 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 theTime 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
  15. Dec 30, 2010
    7
    Another massive Fallout game. Massive amount of content, side quests (and ways to complete them), weapons, perks and other junk. I have wasted 180 hours on this one and not sorry for any of them.
    On the down side game is pretty buggy. Bugs with scripting, bugs with graphics, quests, world physics... I wish they'd already pick a new engine for the series.
  16. Mar 23, 2011
    7
    Proof that you can neglect a triple-A title and still get by with good reviews. If this had been the work of an indie studio, it'd have a cult following praising the writing while everyone else points out the obvious -- that New Vegas is often a broken, cludgy mess. Scarcely anything has amounted to quality of life improvements from Fallout 3 -- and we even take a few steps back with lotsProof that you can neglect a triple-A title and still get by with good reviews. If this had been the work of an indie studio, it'd have a cult following praising the writing while everyone else points out the obvious -- that New Vegas is often a broken, cludgy mess. Scarcely anything has amounted to quality of life improvements from Fallout 3 -- and we even take a few steps back with lots of invisible walls blocking some areas and lots of glitchy graphics that make the predecessor look polished.

    Obsidian brings their trademark strong writing to the table, but it's not really on par with the otherworldly horror of Planescape or the ambitious branching plot of Alpha Protocol. One can't help but get the feeling they were held back by Bethesda. Feel like playing the competing factions of New Vegas against each other? You can, and it's a thrilling ride for a while, until it becomes just another way to beat the game, complete with hand-holding NPCs railroading you through the motions.

    New Vegas isn't by any means bad. Truly inspired writing shines through the cracks once in a while, and the size and cool factor of the post-apocalyptic Mojave Desert tends to distract from the many, many spots where the engine is showing its age. But it's hard to forgive Bethesda for doing jack-all in the interim to improve their engine, user interface, or address other quality of life issues.
    Expand
  17. Jan 9, 2011
    7
    Fallout new Vegas works for some people more than it does for others. Less so for me. The mojave technically has as many things in it as the Capital wasteland, but they seem less interesting. Quests although there are more of them, can be pointlessly short, unlike in Fallout 3. Equally, people will point to its four different endings as giving the player great freedom, but actually theyFallout new Vegas works for some people more than it does for others. Less so for me. The mojave technically has as many things in it as the Capital wasteland, but they seem less interesting. Quests although there are more of them, can be pointlessly short, unlike in Fallout 3. Equally, people will point to its four different endings as giving the player great freedom, but actually they all boil down to much the same thing, especially as you don't get to carry on the game after you finish the main quest and there isn't yet DLC to change this. The urban environment of Fallout 3 also works better, seems to communicate better the post-apocalyptic vision. Having said that, there are good additions to new vegas such as the faction system, better voice acting, etc. It is still a very good game, with a good story, good character, graphics, etc. Most criticisms that can be made of it, asides from the ridiculous number of bugs, only tell us that fallout new vegas is not quite as great as Fallout 3. Expand
  18. Feb 22, 2011
    7
    Sadly, this game doesn't introduce anything new. It's just basically more Fallout 3, except with a few annoying features. For exapmle, you can't see anything in detail past 50 yards away from you. This gets annoying when you're being shot at from long range, and you can't see your enemies unless you get closer to them. The graphics are the same. The only differences are the story, theSadly, this game doesn't introduce anything new. It's just basically more Fallout 3, except with a few annoying features. For exapmle, you can't see anything in detail past 50 yards away from you. This gets annoying when you're being shot at from long range, and you can't see your enemies unless you get closer to them. The graphics are the same. The only differences are the story, the location, the people, and a few new enemies and weapons. I would recommend this to people, but the fallout 3 fans might be offended. Expand
  19. Feb 4, 2011
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Very good game but with some terrible crashes. Numerous crashes to desktop that force you to save far more than the actual difficulty of the game requires.

    By far the worst bug is one that prevents me from completing the game the way I want to because an NPC will not trigger despite repeatedly reloading and restarting the quest. This is happening after the major patch that was released too.

    For fans of the original Fallout games this has some areas that have a similar feel to New Reno which is never a bad thing. There are a lot of decent quests that feel a lot darker than FA3, which is quite frankly how a fallout game should feel.

    Also I have had Boone say he will not fight NCR troops then proceed to headshot them when I am not even attacking(I was wearing the Brotherhood of Steel power armour) Although it is not as bad as the Brotherhood troops that ran into a car and died or despawned before entering the building with you in Fallout 3.

    I would give this a 9 if it wasn't for a bug that has wasted 40 hours of my play time but making the game unfinishable. Things like this are just not acceptable Bethesda - I always use the latest system drivers and windows updates for windows 7. This will make me seriously question buying another Fallout game.
    Expand
  20. Oct 21, 2011
    7
    The only way this game improves upon Fallout 3 is that the main storyline is disappointing rather than ridiculous. The rest of the game can largely be described as same old same old. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing but the gane does try to impose quite a bit of linearity on the player which is annoying and the best fun I had out of this game was trying to get to the casinos asThe only way this game improves upon Fallout 3 is that the main storyline is disappointing rather than ridiculous. The rest of the game can largely be described as same old same old. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing but the gane does try to impose quite a bit of linearity on the player which is annoying and the best fun I had out of this game was trying to get to the casinos as early as possible. The factions are uninspiring, the majority of the quests dull, the casinos are way too big for travel by foot and I ceased caring about who took over Vegas long before the end. But still, if you liked Fallout 3 you will probably get some good mileage out of this one. I didn't try hardcore mode simply because after 2 playthroughs I couldn't be bothered and I can't imagine any reason why I'd play it again. Expand
  21. Sep 10, 2011
    7
    Fallout 3.1?
    Fallout New Vegas is a decent and very entertaining game from Bethesda. To say that it, "follows in the footsteps of Fallout 3," wouldn't be completely wrong. Fallout NV steps in every footstep made by Fallout 3. Don't expect Fallout 4 (it isn't) but expect Fallout in a new location with a new story and a new set of challenged (and some old ones). Graphic: Are exactly, or
    Fallout 3.1?
    Fallout New Vegas is a decent and very entertaining game from Bethesda. To say that it, "follows in the footsteps of Fallout 3," wouldn't be completely wrong. Fallout NV steps in every footstep made by Fallout 3. Don't expect Fallout 4 (it isn't) but expect Fallout in a new location with a new story and a new set of challenged (and some old ones). Graphic: Are exactly, or near exact, to Fallout 3. A number of buildings within NV are copy and pasted for Fallout 3. It's slightly sad to come across the same building two, three, or four times. However, other mechanics have been improved like aiming down the ironsights of gun. Very satisfying. Gameplay: If you liked Fallout 3, you'll like Fallout New Vegas. It's practically the same gameplay but with much added features (like improved aiming of guns). It's a smooth game and exploring the mohave will have you entertained for hours. Story: The story is adequate and entertaining. It will definitely keep you progressing throughout the game but, like Fallout 3, the "meat" of this dish is in the side quests. Hours, upon hours of questing to be had. Mods can help add a few more hours (if you run out things to do) which have been made with love and care by the modding community. Overall: In conclusion, if you liked Fallout 3 then you'll like Fallout New Vegas. If you haven't played either and like open world games then this is a must play. There is always something to do in this game and will not disappoint.
    Expand
  22. Mar 3, 2012
    7
    First off, this game is not bethesda, it's obsidian. The game lacks what fallout 3 had (time spent crafting the landscape amoung other things). It's as if someone at obsidian said "Hey, how can we make a game without putting that much effort into it?" and another designer said "Make it a desert! nothings in a desert, we can just copy and paste until we fill a map!" Obsidian is known forFirst off, this game is not bethesda, it's obsidian. The game lacks what fallout 3 had (time spent crafting the landscape amoung other things). It's as if someone at obsidian said "Hey, how can we make a game without putting that much effort into it?" and another designer said "Make it a desert! nothings in a desert, we can just copy and paste until we fill a map!" Obsidian is known for their beautiful work of taking a good game engine, throwing some stem cells at it and creating some half retarded red headed step sister of a game as a sequel. If I need to prove myself check out the sequel to knights of the old republic (and kudos to the online community that took it upon themselves to work on finishing it for free). This isn't to say that the story is bad, but the world that it's placed in seems kind of like a group of kids with some elmers glue and safety scissors took a field trip to a game design craft summer camp. Now I know that bethesda games are notorius for bugs, but this game is pretty old now, and it still has many glitches. Some people I know actually consider the bugs part of fallout new vegas's charm. It's fun to play, but they should've fixed it up a little bit more before putting out a bunch of dlc. Expand
  23. Jul 19, 2011
    7
    Not as fun if compared to F3. F3 seem to have more substance in terms of the storyline and its sub quests. But FNV is not all bad. I would give it a solid 9 if it wasn't for the horrible in-game bugs. Some of these bugs even render certain side & unmarked quests not completable.
  24. Jul 27, 2011
    7
    It's a bit dull having to run from place to place in order to discover a "new location". It's a bit slow but i enjoy it overall. It does crash but I think it might just be my PC; i had the same issue with both Bioshock games.
  25. Jan 18, 2015
    7
    Excellent game that can be played forever. Lots of fan based mods that extend its playability and life. Download the free game editor and make your own mods. It's all great fun.

    The game itself falls short of Fallout 3 by quite a bit in both the quality of missions and the detailed of the levels. Fallout New Vegas takes part in the Mojave Desert whereas Fallout 3 takes place in
    Excellent game that can be played forever. Lots of fan based mods that extend its playability and life. Download the free game editor and make your own mods. It's all great fun.

    The game itself falls short of Fallout 3 by quite a bit in both the quality of missions and the detailed of the levels. Fallout New Vegas takes part in the Mojave Desert whereas Fallout 3 takes place in Washington DC, a much more interesting, feature rich and complicated area.

    Both games crash a lot, usually when you don't want it to crash. Thankfully, there's a mod (CASM) that will automatically save the game periodically so the player doesn't have to replay too much to recover, but it's still annoying. Why can't the developer fix it? Bad points for the developer - you know who you are.

    Steam deeply discounts this game from time to time with all the DLCs. Wait for the sale then scoop it up.
    Expand
  26. Sep 17, 2011
    7
    I don't see improvements since time Fallout 3, but it's not bad - new Vegas is whole beach you can spend 100 + hours. It's not emotionally engaging as few others RPG's, but might give you interesting story if you let for this.
  27. Nov 10, 2011
    7
    This was a fun game. After finishing Fallout 3's campaign I was looking forward to another game similar to it. Fallout New Vegas is very similar to it's predecessor in both good and bad ways. Good: Lots of hours worth of gameplay, the gameplay is solid, the graphics are alright for such a large game and the story is quite good. Bad: It's pretty glitchy, you can't keep playing once youThis was a fun game. After finishing Fallout 3's campaign I was looking forward to another game similar to it. Fallout New Vegas is very similar to it's predecessor in both good and bad ways. Good: Lots of hours worth of gameplay, the gameplay is solid, the graphics are alright for such a large game and the story is quite good. Bad: It's pretty glitchy, you can't keep playing once you finish the main quest and the facial expressions and animations could use some de-robotizing. Overall it was an enjoyable, yet glitchy, experience. I recommend you try the game out before buying it. Expand
  28. Apr 30, 2013
    7
    This game has really grown on me. The more i played it, the more i liked it. Being able to shape your story how you see fit is a great time, whether you want to save Las Vegas and make it autonomous, or swiftly conquer it and murder the population with the Legion, you can do whatever you wish. My only complaints are the graphics, pc performance, and the combat. The game slugs at time andThis game has really grown on me. The more i played it, the more i liked it. Being able to shape your story how you see fit is a great time, whether you want to save Las Vegas and make it autonomous, or swiftly conquer it and murder the population with the Legion, you can do whatever you wish. My only complaints are the graphics, pc performance, and the combat. The game slugs at time and the controls feel wonky, probably due to a poor port job. The combat is just bad, luckily you have a "VATS" system which will help you get out of many tight spots. Expand
  29. Mar 6, 2013
    7
    It was good, just not as good as Fall Out 3. Graphics are decent, gameplay mechanics are good, FPS RPG, just felt like an expansion to Fall Out 3. Which, by no means is a terrible thing, just felt lacking in substance at times, but overall a good experience.
  30. Jun 27, 2013
    7
    It's a solid 7, imo. Although still pretty good, the art direction got worse from Fallout 3. I doubt anyone wants to see a poorly textured cartoon cowboy face on a robot, but New Vegas has that and much more. The amount of cringe-worthy moments in the game detract from the experience.

    Some enemies are poorly done and look more like mediocre mods than core parts of the vanilla game. I'm
    It's a solid 7, imo. Although still pretty good, the art direction got worse from Fallout 3. I doubt anyone wants to see a poorly textured cartoon cowboy face on a robot, but New Vegas has that and much more. The amount of cringe-worthy moments in the game detract from the experience.

    Some enemies are poorly done and look more like mediocre mods than core parts of the vanilla game. I'm looking at you, tiny mantis enemies and purple super mutants. *glare*

    The lighting and general graphics have gotten worse from Fallout 3. HDR lighting is arguably better, but texture resolutions are unchanged, and Obsidian's texture artists are not nearly as skilled as Bethesda's. As usual for games on the Gamebryo Engine, physics and shadows are almost nonexistent. Most other games today use various combinations of hair physics, cloth physics, destruction physics, and sometimes even skin physics. New Vegas has none of those. Many items are laughably low-poly, and the orange tint to the screen turns blues and greens into muddy shades of aqua. I haven't seen a game with worse colors in a long time.

    It's a very poor port. Graphics options are mostly accessible only from the main menu, and the game is optimized horribly. Even with a GTX 660 TI, which overkills the recommended settings, the framerate drops into the 15-20 range at times. This is unacceptable, considering I run Crysis 3 much better than that, and New Vegas looks awful by comparison. Fallout 3 looks better and runs better. Archive invalidation is still required for texture mods, which is archaic and unreliable. I'm not exaggerating when I say that the PC port of New Vegas is similar in quality to the reviled port of Dark Souls. The difference is, Dark Souls is actually a great game, and New Vegas doesn't even have that to soften the blow of a terrible port.

    That's not to say the game is all bad. The approach to sexuality is more mature in New Vegas than it was in Fallout 3, and more work went into making ghouls 'real' characters, despite the fact that there are fewer of them. In addition, the companions in the game are much better and characters have more developed personalities. Character skin is more detailed and realistic than in Fallout 3, and settings are typically more original.

    New Vegas is larger than Fallout 3, and weapon mods and hardcore mode are great additions.

    Some things improved from Fallout 3, while other things got worse. It's an average game which will no doubt be mildly entertaining for just about everyone, but I doubt many people will love it.
    Expand
  31. Feb 5, 2012
    7
    It is enjoyable if you can get it to work..
    Constant issues comes by as I play it, it lags sometimes when I walk around trying to load up areas, even if I lower the detail it does it, it's something wrong with the game, and since I own an ATI Radeon graphic card, there is no fix as I know of to fix it. (Don't say I have a bad computer, since I can play Skyrim fine on Medium settings, and
    It is enjoyable if you can get it to work..
    Constant issues comes by as I play it, it lags sometimes when I walk around trying to load up areas, even if I lower the detail it does it, it's something wrong with the game, and since I own an ATI Radeon graphic card, there is no fix as I know of to fix it. (Don't say I have a bad computer, since I can play Skyrim fine on Medium settings, and Fallout 3 fine on High settings.) I own it both for Xbox and PC and it is really enjoyable when it works for PC. Good game, but with bugs.
    Expand
  32. Dec 24, 2012
    7
    I'm a veteran of all the real Fallout games; in other words, Fallouts 1-3. New Vegas, built with the engine of Fallout 3 and recycling a massive amount of themes and elements from all the previous games (almost all the music from Fallout 1 and 2 are reused) and almost every significant faction makes a reappearance. The amount of content is simply staggering; since the game salvages theI'm a veteran of all the real Fallout games; in other words, Fallouts 1-3. New Vegas, built with the engine of Fallout 3 and recycling a massive amount of themes and elements from all the previous games (almost all the music from Fallout 1 and 2 are reused) and almost every significant faction makes a reappearance. The amount of content is simply staggering; since the game salvages the cancelled Van Buren's (what was to be the original Fallout 3 prior to Bethesda's involvement) ideas and elements.

    The gameplay is extremely similar to Fallout 3 due to technical reasons, but the game has been improved and changed in several ways: VATS has been greatly reduced in efficiency (it's harder to hit opponents with it and the 90% damage reduction is now 25%) and many quests grant alternate solutions to those with the correct skills. Even though speech is still the most important skill for easier quest completion, other skills are also factored in, unlike with Fallout 3.

    One excellent addition to the Fallout 3 formula is the fact that you must choose a side. You are allowed to defect and betray factions, but in the end, you must pick a side. This gives the game replay value, something that was lacking in Fallout 3 as every quest pretty much had the same goal regardless of your playstyle; only the means to reach the end changed.

    But, the negative. The horridly poor animation that plagues all of Bethesda's releases haunts even this Obsidian release. Characters are lifeless robots, animals move in awkward ways and your 3rd person character still cannot strafe - he or she begins a sort of reverse moonwalk if you want to strafe.

    I really would want to grade this game a 7 or 9, because all the elements are there. But I can't, and no one should by any means rate this game above 8 for a singular good reason: it is one of the buggiest games in existence. Missing textures, quest glitches, music playing when it shouldn't, sounds missing, constant crashing, rampant save game corruption and so on. Fallout 3 was not a perfect game but at least you could play it (post-patch) without fear of losing your progress forever. Fallout: New Vegas remains in a permanent alpha-state and is a horrifying testament of Obsidian's technical inadequacies. Fallout fans will love New Vegas even with its flaws. As for the rest... better just buy Fallout 3, because it is nearly as good, and without all that ugliness that the rampaging horde of bugs bring along to the party.
    Expand
  33. Sep 2, 2012
    7
    Fallout New Vegas feels a lot like Fallout 3 which is a bit disappointing if you were expecting something vastly different.The graphics look sightly outdated though that isn't really that major. During the majority of the New Vegas, the gameplay was engaging as I was always looking forward to finding new weapons, exploring and leveling up, though that level of fun starts to wear down whenFallout New Vegas feels a lot like Fallout 3 which is a bit disappointing if you were expecting something vastly different.The graphics look sightly outdated though that isn't really that major. During the majority of the New Vegas, the gameplay was engaging as I was always looking forward to finding new weapons, exploring and leveling up, though that level of fun starts to wear down when every enemy you meet can die from a single shot from your gun and when you reach the level cap which isn't hard to reach at all. Expand
  34. Sep 28, 2012
    7
    I knew this wouldn't live up to it's predecessors and it shows, If Bethesda actually cared, this would have been a masterpiece like bioshock was, they didn't try and it blatantly shows. Don't get me wrong, I personally enjoyed new vegas and all it brought to the table, it's just that it didn't inspire the feelings of awe I got from fallout 3, it was just too familiar.
  35. Oct 22, 2013
    7
    I have to apologize for my previous review of 0

    When I reviewed this game previously I was quite upset at the lack of difference between it and Fallout 3.
    this still stands

    In comparison to F3 this game has a smaller map, less interesting story and worse atmosphere but it does have a lot to make up for it especially if you get mods
  36. Apr 25, 2012
    7
    First; I've never played any Fallout-game before Fallout 3. I really LOVED Fallout 3, and finished it multiple times - both on the PlayStation 3 and on the computer. I bought Fallout: New Vegas at 75% discount on Steam, and for that price it's a fantastic game. I probably played it around 30-35 hours, and when I got closer to the end I just wanted to finish the game. I probably won't everFirst; I've never played any Fallout-game before Fallout 3. I really LOVED Fallout 3, and finished it multiple times - both on the PlayStation 3 and on the computer. I bought Fallout: New Vegas at 75% discount on Steam, and for that price it's a fantastic game. I probably played it around 30-35 hours, and when I got closer to the end I just wanted to finish the game. I probably won't ever pick the game up again, and I have to say it's a much bigger chance that I'll replay Fallout 3 than New Vegas. But still, it's a really polished and enjoyable game. I'd probably give it a 7,5/10, but since it's not possible here on Metacritic I decided to bump it up to 8/10. Expand
  37. Jul 12, 2012
    7
    This is Fallout done right in terms of story, characters and quests. Generally an improvement over Fallout 3, however some aspects still fall frustratingly short: the difficulty is rather imbalanced, the game engine is unstable, and there's a heavy emphasis on dialogue over gameplay this time around. Lots to nitpick about, and sadly there will be no more official updates. This is somethingThis is Fallout done right in terms of story, characters and quests. Generally an improvement over Fallout 3, however some aspects still fall frustratingly short: the difficulty is rather imbalanced, the game engine is unstable, and there's a heavy emphasis on dialogue over gameplay this time around. Lots to nitpick about, and sadly there will be no more official updates. This is something of a 'do-it-yourself' experience, as it's hard to imagine anyone getting an optimal experience without mods, or house rules on their gameplay. A diamond in the rough, but it can be a 9/10 if you persist in finding mods to fit your playstyle. Expand
  38. Aug 6, 2012
    7
    3+/5 (Kinda good) So, you've played Fallout 3 with all its DLCs, and now you try Fallout: New Vegas. You notice there is nothing "really" new about it, except it's kinda different. It's good, but the game feels like a big DLC for Fallout 3, so it's KINDA good.
  39. Dec 29, 2012
    7
    This game wasn't what I expected, it didn't feel post-apocalyptic like Fallout 3, all F:NV was honestly was just a desert with nothing around but the main quest places. I did enjoy it though for the companions and guns, also gambling in the casinos were fun. There was also alot of bugs, for me, and from what I've found it was because there were to many things happening like being able toThis game wasn't what I expected, it didn't feel post-apocalyptic like Fallout 3, all F:NV was honestly was just a desert with nothing around but the main quest places. I did enjoy it though for the companions and guns, also gambling in the casinos were fun. There was also alot of bugs, for me, and from what I've found it was because there were to many things happening like being able to choose from four sides, when I went in to see what was wrong I think it was because of this. If it were like Fallout 3 where you were sided with the BoS or just one group there wouldn't be as many bugs. Either way it was some what enjoyable. Expand
  40. Oct 12, 2012
    7
    I bought the Ultimate Edition in the Steam special,about £7.99,and there is one hell of a lot of game for that price.These days I play about an hour max each time on a game as Ive played so many over the years I'm sort of hard to please.I cant even have an hour on NV because it crashes before I get there,slowdowns and crashes on a real high end PC shouldn't happen these days.I haveI bought the Ultimate Edition in the Steam special,about £7.99,and there is one hell of a lot of game for that price.These days I play about an hour max each time on a game as Ive played so many over the years I'm sort of hard to please.I cant even have an hour on NV because it crashes before I get there,slowdowns and crashes on a real high end PC shouldn't happen these days.I have done all the tweaks and configs for multi core to no avail.An amazing game behind the scenes spoiled by sloppy delivery as far as I'm concerned.On a positive note,besides the bugs its a great game to explore and have fun.I loved the B52 at the bottom of the lake and the various little secrets,and there is a lot that the game offers in scope and enjoyment,and its definitely worth picking up if you are after a truly open world and detailed environment.I would have gone higher than a 7 if it wasn't for the endless restarts and nuances that you have to put up with. Expand
  41. Sep 2, 2012
    7
    I absolutely loved Fallout 3, but Fallout New Vegas didn't have the same feel for me. Don't get me wrong, it was still an ok game, just not on Fallout 3's level, and I will tell you why. A lot of people who started New Vegas felt lost at first. I understand it is an open world game and you can choose your own path, but they were almost too lenient with the path in this game. It has theI absolutely loved Fallout 3, but Fallout New Vegas didn't have the same feel for me. Don't get me wrong, it was still an ok game, just not on Fallout 3's level, and I will tell you why. A lot of people who started New Vegas felt lost at first. I understand it is an open world game and you can choose your own path, but they were almost too lenient with the path in this game. It has the same great mechanics as Fallout 3, killing and collecting, but at times you don't really know what to do next. Once I got to downtown Vegas I think the story actually further suffered and got more confusing. I felt at times that this game should have been an expansion to 3, it just didn't feel like a whole new game. I also have to mention that the one DLC I tried sent me into some weird world where my choices were limited and I was walking around killing ghosts, it was actually terrible and made me stop playing the game. I know this game is not terrible and would like to give it another shot someday, but probably won't have time with so many good titles out. Expand
  42. May 13, 2013
    7
    A Solid follow up to Fallout 3 however due to such a similar feeling and setting the game really fails to quite re-create that feeling when first playing Fallout 3.
  43. Dec 6, 2012
    7
    I think it would be wise to summarize Fallout New Vegas in the following way;

    The graphics are not an improvement over Fallout 3 at all. The voice acting and dialogue scripts are so hideous they will make you want to exit the game. The Quests are quite well done, especially the DLC content which breathes some fresh life into the stale game. The atmosphere is well done and you
    I think it would be wise to summarize Fallout New Vegas in the following way;

    The graphics are not an improvement over Fallout 3 at all.

    The voice acting and dialogue scripts are so hideous they will make you want to exit the game.

    The Quests are quite well done, especially the DLC content which breathes some fresh life into the stale game.

    The atmosphere is well done and you can tell that there was a good effort made at trying to immerse the player in the game world.

    What I really want to say though, is that this game is quite unspectacular for a Fallout title. What does Fallout mean? It means witty dialogue, Role playing elements, with just the right sprinkle of FPS gameplay that so many of our Asperger's suffering Call of Duty brothers need so badly. However, in Fallout 3 and New Vegas, the RPG, atmospheric, and witty dialogue elements have been completely eliminated. Stale voiceovers from people that you can tell don't give a damn about their roles ruin the sense of immersion. One of the most touted new features, the gun mods, really add nothing to the overall grand scheme of things, except allowing the younger audience to feel cool somehow. I mean... really? Patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter? Come on now, what is this kind of dialogue? It gets so stale so very fast.

    Moving on, the quests are actually well done, giving your character CHOICE for the first time since Fallout 2. It was a BADLY NEEDED element from previous games and left a smile on my face. I loved the quests even if they were very watered down because of the three pathways you could take in the game. This is probably as politically incorrect as American companies will ever get in this generation of sterile mass gaming, so its nice to see a slaver faction like Ceasar's Legion. I liked the Old World Blues setting as well, with clever dialogue and good quests overall. I feel like the DLC's had better quality quests than the main game.

    The graphics are unfortunately hideous. This is sadly due to the fact that XBOX 360 graphics are quite old and the system can not handle many characters on the screen at the same time along with so many textures. They really did have to strip down so many areas to make the game Xbox compatible. Freeside had to be divided into two areas, which is pathetic. I mean, Vegas itself had to be divided into two areas, which is even more disturbing. There is an inexplicable fence that completely and utterly breaks all immersion once you see it. Another thing which irked me so much was this focus on the city of New Vegas itself. I mean, you've got this itch to go and see the place that everyone touts as the last untouched city on earth, and you can see it from a long distance as well. It shines in the night time and it is very alluring to wary travelers in the Mojave. However, once you do get to the city, words can not describe how underwhelming it is. The architecture is very bland, there are limited characters and NPC's. It feels so rushed and it is very disapointing. I would describe it kind of like how the Imperial City felt when I was playing Oblivion so many years ago, but I digress.

    The guns, as expected, are really well done and with the help of the modding community this game has a larger arsenal than any of the biggest FPS titles out there, rivaled only by battlefield 3, which really doesn't mean anything at all for a so called Role Playing Game. This doesn't mean that there are no RPG elements here, there are many many more than in Fallout 3 and the system I do appreciate. I mean, they really did a good job integrating perks and traits to make your character feel more unique than the generic Caucasian male that most folks will be playing as. Overall, I would give this game a fair 7.0 on the scale. I wish I could give it more because it is a Fallout title, and I know that Obsidian gave it their all to produce something that is interesting on such a terrible gaming engine and for such a terrible piece of hardware like the 360, but you still cannot be excused because it is what it is. This is a good game that gets rather stale, feels stale compared to Fallout 3 (You will not notice many graphical differences, even the useless clutter items are mostly the same), but has many of the beloved classical rpg elements like traits, perks, gun mods (if they are rpg traits), CHOICE in which side to take on many matters, which enemies to make, which friends to make. But again and again, the horrific dialogue will have you turning the volume down and looking around to make sure no one is watching you listen to such cheesy dialogue as this game has. It is that shamefully written.

    Overall, once again, a 7.0 worth checking out for one play through.
    Expand
  44. Jan 6, 2013
    7
    Fallout 3 was one of my favorite games to date. its atmosphere and open world made the game believable and very re-playable, I must have played through fallout 3 at least 5 times. fallout new Vegas however while still having the same atmosphere and gameplay has been a bit of a disappointment. the world is not as open as fallout 3. by placing deathclaws and other advanced enemys in certainFallout 3 was one of my favorite games to date. its atmosphere and open world made the game believable and very re-playable, I must have played through fallout 3 at least 5 times. fallout new Vegas however while still having the same atmosphere and gameplay has been a bit of a disappointment. the world is not as open as fallout 3. by placing deathclaws and other advanced enemys in certain spots of the world, the game FORCES you to take a linear path taking the longest route to get to new Vegas. making every discovery of the world not nearly as satisfying as in a huge open world where every direction is a new adventure. and the world looks the same size as FO3 but most of the map is inaccessible from cliffs and invisible walls. the quest lines are mostly all the same and make the game a lot less re playable and you cant continue to play your character at the end of the game, a HUGE mistake they made in FO3 they had to fix in a DLC why make the same mistake twice?!?!?!

    That being said, the game still has some great features. the iron sights are a welcome change, the new weapons and weapon upgrades are very nice and the conflict of the story really make the game very interesting, this game is still a fallout game in my eyes and true fans to the series will defiantly want to play it, I'm just hoping they make the next fallout game more like fallout 3
    Expand
  45. Aug 28, 2013
    7
    Fun on the first and second play through, but it get's a little boring after that, not as many locations like F3, mainly because F:NV is mostly desert areas. But the companions, weapons, and stories make up for that, and also the modding community. This is probably best if you have a higher-end computer, I have a decent computer and I still face many issues, I went in and I think it wasFun on the first and second play through, but it get's a little boring after that, not as many locations like F3, mainly because F:NV is mostly desert areas. But the companions, weapons, and stories make up for that, and also the modding community. This is probably best if you have a higher-end computer, I have a decent computer and I still face many issues, I went in and I think it was mostly because of all the scripts and actions due to the four different sides you can choose. Expand
  46. i0n
    Sep 4, 2013
    7
    Great fun for Fallout fans. Although held back from a higher rating by some annoying bugs and technical flaws, the game is still both playable and enjoyable throughout. Worth a look.
  47. Oct 6, 2014
    7
    This is a very good game overall, especially if you like large open-world RPG. I have spent about 70 hours on it, finishing the main story, all the DLCs and reaching max level. I started and finished the game in 2014 (4 years after release). I have done my playthrough on hardcore mode on a normal difficulty. Here are my pros and cons:

    Pros: - Atmosphere: the post-apocalyptic feeling
    This is a very good game overall, especially if you like large open-world RPG. I have spent about 70 hours on it, finishing the main story, all the DLCs and reaching max level. I started and finished the game in 2014 (4 years after release). I have done my playthrough on hardcore mode on a normal difficulty. Here are my pros and cons:

    Pros:

    - Atmosphere: the post-apocalyptic feeling is well done. The world actually feels coherent. To be continued in cons.
    - "Cast": I wouldn't go as far as saying that the game characters have deep personalities, but you do get attached to some of your side kicks. For instance, I really couldn't part with E-DE, a robot that just "talks" to you through bips (a bit like R2-D2).
    - Graphics: provided you tweaked them with available mods, the graphics are ok for a game that came out 4 years ago. Yeah, it's not like you are going to be mind blown either, but your eyes won't melt when you start playing.
    - Gameplay: this is standard Fallout 3 gameplay. I do appreciate a few things though:
    - The VATS system that was overpowered in the previous installment has been recalibrated and is useful but not so much that you can just go out and uniquely use that to destroy mobs.
    - The leveling is much more balanced, you only get a perk every 2 levels and a lot less skills point per level. Overall that is a good thing. To a certain extent, you need to make choices. You can still max out all the skills if you want to (using books) but with all DLCs installed, I am pretty sure you will have a hard time finding what perks you want.
    - The addition of the hardcore mode is interesting. I like that your character needs to eat, sleep and drink. Sure it is a wee bit annoying to carry food around, but you can actually deactivate it if you don't feel like micromanaging your inventory.

    Cons:

    - Bugs: the engine is not very good, every couple of hours your loading screen will crash. Then there are a lot of issues with quests and order. Even if I installed unofficial bug fix mods for the main game and DLC (which is a long process, took me about 2 hours maybe).
    - Atmosphere: although I really enjoyed walking around the Mojave desert with my scoped hunting rifle, head shooting things as they came, some part of it were not that great. One of the weirdest thing for me is Caesar legion. I mean what the hell??? I am all for the disruptive scenario (which is great, especially with all the available endings), but having pseudo legionnaires walking around with guns and sunglasses feels broken to me. I am fine with the transvestite super mutant or the cyborg dog, that's typical Fallout humor. But I wish that the "mean" faction looked and felt a bit more scary and dangerous.

    In conclusion, I did enjoy the game very much. I wouldn't replay it though. Overall, and that is a similar comment I would write about Fallout 3, I don't feel these games capture that well the spirit of Fallout. I don't have the same sensations that I had when I came out of Vault 13 in a cave full of rats with my 10mm pistol. In addition to that, even though the open world is big, it doesn't feel as such. I long for a game that makes me feel the immensity of nuclear wasteland, where radiations kill and need to be avoided. In the end, I wish Bethesda/Obsidian would just drop the Fallout franchise and provide us with a fresh new post-apocalyptic world that would work with an "Elder Scroll" type game.
    Expand
  48. Jan 19, 2015
    7
    For it’s flaws, it really is a great game. Even if I wouldn’t want to play it again, it brings some really neat features to the franchise that I hope will continue on into future games. I would really like to see Hardcore mode, special ammunition, weapon modding and Challenges come back for the next Fallout game, but a lot of the other design choices really took away from what I feel aFor it’s flaws, it really is a great game. Even if I wouldn’t want to play it again, it brings some really neat features to the franchise that I hope will continue on into future games. I would really like to see Hardcore mode, special ammunition, weapon modding and Challenges come back for the next Fallout game, but a lot of the other design choices really took away from what I feel a Fallout game is, and this made it not as much fun as it could have been for me. However with over 150 hours of playtime for the completionist, the game is definitely worth the current price point, especially if you catch it on sale. It is worth looking at for anyone who loves Fallout, and post apocalyptic settings in general. Expand
  49. Oct 2, 2014
    7
    This game is one step under a masterpiece,I love this game,I have put many many hours into it,The only bad thing about it is it's bugs and Kinda silly AI ,I love the fallout games (Fallout 3 being my favorite),So I give This game a 7/10
  50. Oct 26, 2010
    6
    I enjoyed Fallout 3 a lot, and hoped the same would be the case with New Vegas, but.., it doesnt have the same openness, feels more linear, and the bugs seem even more apparent. One thing is having a foe stuck in a rock, I can accept that once in a while. But there is huge flaws in the game mechanics when it comes to factions when you can simply walk into a camp and set free a captive,I enjoyed Fallout 3 a lot, and hoped the same would be the case with New Vegas, but.., it doesnt have the same openness, feels more linear, and the bugs seem even more apparent. One thing is having a foe stuck in a rock, I can accept that once in a while. But there is huge flaws in the game mechanics when it comes to factions when you can simply walk into a camp and set free a captive, without any reaction whatsoever, seeing how you are friendly aligned with both factions involved. (The captured and the captures). Such elements really break down the game world reality and make it far less fun to play. As for the state the game is in atm, I find 60 to be what it deserves, with hope that it can improve into the 70-80 with a few patches.â Expand
  51. Oct 21, 2010
    6
    New Vegas is an example of a company that relies on brand recognition to sell an inferior product. Over 2 years ago, Fallout 3 was successful and profitable game. With Fallout: New Vegas, Bethesda decided to squeeze every last dollar out of the franchise by creating a game that should have been an expansion pack or downloadable content. The storyline is nearly identical to the previousNew Vegas is an example of a company that relies on brand recognition to sell an inferior product. Over 2 years ago, Fallout 3 was successful and profitable game. With Fallout: New Vegas, Bethesda decided to squeeze every last dollar out of the franchise by creating a game that should have been an expansion pack or downloadable content. The storyline is nearly identical to the previous game. The mechanics, combat, and interface have not changed. Even the graphics engine is the same one as Fallout 3. Bethesda did not even bother adding modern graphical effects with DirectX 10 or 11. The bugs are so incredibly obvious on the PC that anyone who was testing the game would have a list pages long after a couple hours of gameplay. This game should have been $19.99 as a downloadable expansion for Fallout 3. The PC version is clearly an afterthought, and it shows. New Vegas was written for a console, probably as a minor release, but at some point it was decided to make it a major, full priced release.

    But is it fun to play? Well, if you can get past the bugs, and perhaps after a few patches, then yes the game is enjoyable. If you liked Fallout 3, you'll like this game. But wait until it hits the bargain bin.
    Expand
  52. Oct 26, 2010
    6
    Downloaded from steam, missing a d3d9 file in the download, completely broken, took an hour of googling to find it was the same fault from fallout 3 which was not adressed, very buggy and stutters a LOT, gets better after a while, like fallout 3 but differrent setting, no real game changes, its like a huge expansion pack to fallout 3, not actually too bad a game would have been an 8Downloaded from steam, missing a d3d9 file in the download, completely broken, took an hour of googling to find it was the same fault from fallout 3 which was not adressed, very buggy and stutters a LOT, gets better after a while, like fallout 3 but differrent setting, no real game changes, its like a huge expansion pack to fallout 3, not actually too bad a game would have been an 8 without the hours spent trying to fix it myself. Expand
  53. Oct 27, 2010
    6
    All-in-all Fallout: New Vegas is not a bad game, the problem is that itâ
  54. Nov 7, 2010
    6
    While I like the story and playing the game was entertaining, Fallout: New Vegas still suffers from the Bethesda curse of being riddled with bugs and glitches. One thing that is very highly rated by me is character development. Bethesda giving development back to Obsidian was definitely a good move. All of your companion's backgrounds and personality were well made (my personal favoriteWhile I like the story and playing the game was entertaining, Fallout: New Vegas still suffers from the Bethesda curse of being riddled with bugs and glitches. One thing that is very highly rated by me is character development. Bethesda giving development back to Obsidian was definitely a good move. All of your companion's backgrounds and personality were well made (my personal favorite being Veronica). The storyline was also a step up from Fallout 3. In Fallout 3 your decisions for the end were, be a good guy or be a good guy. In New Vegas there were multiple endings, which is something I also like. The game play was just more of the same. Playing the game felt like Fallout 3, but more brown instead of gray. Although I felt that there was some tuning the shooting mechanics. Some, but not a lot. There was also a lot more quests and locations to visit, making the game, I felt, longer and more satisfying than Fallout 3. Now we get to my biggest problem with this game. Bugs. Lots and lots of bugs and glitches. I'm not sure when it became okay to release a game that isn't finished, but Bethesda seems to be able to make all of their games that way. I would understand if there was a bugs here and there, but sadly this isn't the case. There are bugs that make you stuck in one place, bugs that break quests, bugs that remove your companions from the world completely, bugs that will halt the storyline completely and many, many, many more. The fact that Bethesda seems to think this is okay is quite upsetting. In the PC version there is the console, which while can be cool at times, but mostly I find myself quickly reaching for the "~" key because something broke on me. If you don't mind doing quite the amount of debugging then New Vegas is worth picking up. I would wait until Steam puts it on sale though. Expand
  55. Apr 2, 2011
    6
    If you can get past the very slow start and enemies rendering slowly, but still shooting you, then this game is a must own for hardcore fans. But if this is your first RPG you are probably going to get bored and possibly regret your purchase.
  56. Dec 24, 2010
    6
    My first and formost critique of FNV is who are you? You have no history. You are a courier from the area yet you have no home, no one knows you, and you dont have any information on the area you are delivering packages to. In all the other Fallout games you were someone with a history and a purpose. From the start I had a hollow feeling playing the game. From the time you exit the Doc'sMy first and formost critique of FNV is who are you? You have no history. You are a courier from the area yet you have no home, no one knows you, and you dont have any information on the area you are delivering packages to. In all the other Fallout games you were someone with a history and a purpose. From the start I had a hollow feeling playing the game. From the time you exit the Doc's house till you finish the game is one endless errand. I cant express how goofy it is to be the most famous person in the wasteland and the dialog from the lowest bumm to the highest ranking boss is "do you have any work for me?" Apparently Obsidian took the playbook from GTA and made you the guy to micromanage the wasteland.
    I played the entire game in the hardcore mode ..what a joke. The only thing it did was require you to carry less ammo and more stuff to eat and drink. Your inventory is constantly full of parts and pieces of recipes to cook,empty ammo cases, and magazines you may or may not need. They may have given you 4 different paths to take ,but they all have the same objectives, and in the end you always end up at the same place. Only the ending movie changes
    The Campfire crafting and the workbenches are pretty worthless. There is nothing special about cooking food or recycling spent energy weapon ammo. Trying to find enough parts to use the reloader is an adventure in itself. Not that you would ever really need it since there is plenty of ammo to be scavaged or purchased.
    Weapons get an overhaul as do the armor system ,but nothing its nothing to get excited about. Lots of different and new weapons to not make the game better, especially if they dont do anything special. Some of the weapons are completely worthless. Whats the point of haveing a gun that wont even kill an unarmored person with a headshot from concealment. The modding of the weapons is so so at best. The mods are random and set...only a few for each gun and forget about being able to make whatever you want ...Obsidian decided what you need and thats all you get. Some are actually cool and worth it if you can find them.
    The companions and their stories are pretty cool and an improvement over Fallout 3's, but that is probably the biggest highlight of the game. I played Fallout 3 at least 5 times all the way through. I played through FNV in about 100 to 150 hrs. It took alot more days to complete, not because it was so involved, but because I would get bored and fall asleep. After finishing the game I have had no desire to play it again. Well thats my 2 cents. Thanks for the soapbox
    Expand
  57. Dec 30, 2010
    6
    Is it a good game? Yes. Is it a great game? No. Is it worth playing? Yes. Is it worth playing twice? No. I am really kind of torn on this game. The scenery is great. It is MASSIVE and you can play for hours on end. However, it doesn't hit you with a bang. There are some neat differences from FO3 like the weapon modding, but it seems to be done as an after thought and thereIs it a good game? Yes. Is it a great game? No. Is it worth playing? Yes. Is it worth playing twice? No. I am really kind of torn on this game. The scenery is great. It is MASSIVE and you can play for hours on end. However, it doesn't hit you with a bang. There are some neat differences from FO3 like the weapon modding, but it seems to be done as an after thought and there aren't a lot of them. A few weapons you can, and a bunch you can't. They could have taken it to a whole new level with all kinds of crazy stuff making the purchasing and selling of gear more interesting. There is alos a lot of WTF did they put that in there for. If you have played FO3 or FONV finding ammo isn't all that difficult at any setting, even the new hardcore mode. So why have reloading stations for ammo casings you find? Boring and uneeded. If you pick up the casings they just clog up your inventory. I have found more than enough money (caps) to by ammo that I can't find on my own. Also, there aren't near enough things to blow up or creative use of the few that do. One of the things I liked in FO3 was being able to blow up the cars littered about especially if a hostile was nearby. Hardly anything like that in FONV. In games like Crysis and Far Cry part of the fun was shooting stuff and having it blow up. I am disappointed that after FO3, Bethesda didn't add more of that. The other thing I really dislike on NV is that you can't get above level 30, and once you get there, you can't aquire any more skill points. I got to 30 pretty quick being good at these games. Even after you cap out, they should have incorporated some kind of incentive to keep killing stuff. After you reach level 30, you feel more inclined to avoid confrontations where before that you want to shoot everything you see to keep gaining level points. A unique way of getting skills other than finding the odd book here and there would have been a neat addition. All in all I like the game. With nothing better out there right now, I keep playing. However, instead of the 5-6 hour sessions I craved with other games in the past, I find that after 1-2 hours I am fine with walking away, maybe even for a few days, before I feel like coming back.

    All in all, it is basically more of the same. There is nothing else really good out there right now so I keep playing. However, it isn't as fun feeling like I am just playing FO3 again in a new enviornment with very little to make it seem all the much better.
    Expand
  58. Jun 19, 2015
    6
    So many things to see, so little to do. Fallout: New Vegas is more worthy of being called a succesor to Fallout 1 and 2 than Fallout 3 but it is still a dumbed-down game with sub-par FPS controls and an incredible amount of bugs. I had to resolve at least 10 problems using console commands in the Game of the Year edition, ranging from annoying to game-breaking.

    Hardcore mode requires
    So many things to see, so little to do. Fallout: New Vegas is more worthy of being called a succesor to Fallout 1 and 2 than Fallout 3 but it is still a dumbed-down game with sub-par FPS controls and an incredible amount of bugs. I had to resolve at least 10 problems using console commands in the Game of the Year edition, ranging from annoying to game-breaking.

    Hardcore mode requires you to drink, eat and sleep and imposes some more penalties on you that make you feel just a tad more like you're out in the wastes, surviving. Unfortunately, the place is still scattered with all sorts of loot and I rarely get the feeling that there indeed has been a nuclear war. Just like in Fallout 3, it seems like people just "forgot" to loot the Wasteland. 200 years and no one bothered eating the food or scavenging working machines for parts? Riiiight.

    The voice acting is once again atrocious and the graphics are ugly as sin, even with all the settings ramped up to the maximum (and beyond, using a few tweaks). The story line isn't very strong but it's amusing. I managed to sit through it in its entire but I couldn't force myself to finish the DLC, it was just too boring and I felt no connection whatsoever to the stories being told. Sometimes this game takes itself too seriously and other times, it completely misses the mark with its humor. It never seems to find solid ground.

    However, you can easily play this game without ever touching the DLC. If you do play the DLC, play it as soon as you think you're ready for it because whatever it has to offer will be quite useless later on in the game.

    I was amused but got bored towards the end. Had to turn it into a fast-travel grind in order to complete all the objectives before the ending (which it is quite outspoken about, there's no missing it.). I was glad to have it over with. Perhaps my fault was that I tried to complete everything there was to do, I didn't want to bother replaying it. It doesn't seem to have very high replay value unless I'm looking for a walking simulator.

    Fallout 4 is coming out but I'll say the Fallout series goodbye. It's been a nice ride but the direction the game is taking just isn't for me: I miss the turn-based combat, the elaborate dialogue trees, the well-written characters and the feeling that I was actually in a post-nuclear world and not some kind of single-player MMORPG.
    Expand
  59. Aug 7, 2011
    6
    While I love the game for allowing you to 'customize' your character in terms of being a melee/assault/sniper type of character with the weapon customization, as well as the inclusion of the Hard Core mode for added realism, it's still the same Fallout as #3, in that it's not only the exact same game by design, it's extremely buggy and just as crash prone as the original! I can't tell youWhile I love the game for allowing you to 'customize' your character in terms of being a melee/assault/sniper type of character with the weapon customization, as well as the inclusion of the Hard Core mode for added realism, it's still the same Fallout as #3, in that it's not only the exact same game by design, it's extremely buggy and just as crash prone as the original! I can't tell you how many times, regardless of operating system, I was walking along doing my thing when the screen would go black and the 'Fallout:NV has committed an illegal operation' error would come up and screw up everything I was doing! SHAME ON YOU, BETHESDA!!! THIS IS THE VERY REASON I DIDN'T WANT TO BUY THIS GAME IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! My dumb ass fell for the hype... They had FOREVER to solve the problems of Fallout 3 (to which we haven't seen a patch in an eternity), as well as the problems of New Vegas (which they did recently, but introduced new crash issues in the Boomer compound, among other areas), but very little effort was taken to solve any of the glaring issues for both games, and they both suffer the same inherent issue, in that I can't go for so long before my experience is completely crushed because the game decides to crash or do something really stupid. The design of the game is solid in terms of the options it gives the players and the potential immersion it offers, but the bugs and constant crashes will leave you wanting for other games that can hold your attention for longer than when a fly walks across your monitor. Why is it that walking onto a room that has corpses has to have the 'limb splattering' sound when I walk in (not to mention how corpses ragdoll to the ground when you load)? Why is it that when rag doll'd corpses interact with certain areas of the terrain do they suddenly go spastic and start flopping around the screen like sock puppets getting whipped around by an invisible hand? Why do the radio announcers refer to in-game content that hasn't happened yet, like how 3-Dog talks about the re-activated water purifier after I walk out of the vault at the beginning of the game, or how Mr. New Vegas is talking about 'the courier shot in the head that's made a full recovery' mere minutes after seeing the Goodspring's landscape for the first time in a new game?

    This game is plagued with problems that were clearly carried over from Fallout 3's engine. Crash-prone, inconsistent and as destructive to the immersion as a land mine during a walk in the park. The improvements in the game can't make up for a game that's completely broken on a programming level. All I can hope for is that the DLC can fix what extremely few patches couldn't, though given from past experience it'll only compound the issue further and infuriate gamers like me further....
    Expand
  60. Nov 7, 2011
    6
    A pretty good game, but infested with so many glitches that it completely takes away from the experience. The game itself, compared to Fallout 3 is weak. You start off in a very uninteresting way, the storyline completely fails compared to Fallout 3, and the gameplay hasn't improved either. The glitches are completely game breaking, I was suffering from crashes every hour, I fell throughA pretty good game, but infested with so many glitches that it completely takes away from the experience. The game itself, compared to Fallout 3 is weak. You start off in a very uninteresting way, the storyline completely fails compared to Fallout 3, and the gameplay hasn't improved either. The glitches are completely game breaking, I was suffering from crashes every hour, I fell through the map a couple of times. Quests failed to work in some cases and the ending just felt so anti-climatic compared to Fallout 3's epic decision (no spoilers here).

    Good things about the game is still, like always, there's a massive world to explore, tons of content and tons of character customisation. The gameplay is pretty interesting, NPC interaction is still good in most cases. There is tons of character progression with perks, skills and many other ways to build your character.

    But this game has seriously put me off of Bethesda completely. To sum it up in one sentence: Take Fallout 3, put it in a new area, make the storyline worse, change the gameplay in ways that many people will think are worse and then completely infest it with even more glitches, some game breaking.
    Expand
  61. Nov 20, 2011
    6
    I really loved Fallout 3, and had high hopes for this game. I think my experience with Fallout 3 already put NV at a negative standing; it would never live up to it. But NV was decent enough, but the major bugs really let it down. You'd be running like normal, and it would just freeze up. This was consistent for a good few months, however after revisiting it it hasn't happened since, so II really loved Fallout 3, and had high hopes for this game. I think my experience with Fallout 3 already put NV at a negative standing; it would never live up to it. But NV was decent enough, but the major bugs really let it down. You'd be running like normal, and it would just freeze up. This was consistent for a good few months, however after revisiting it it hasn't happened since, so I think they have finally patched it. The multiple paths personally irritated me, you had to play through 4 times to see all endings, especially annoying for a trophy hoarder like me. I give it a 6/10 because I did enjoy it, but the initial bugs really let it down for a few months. Expand
  62. Dec 5, 2011
    6
    I prepare myself and opinion to be cast upon with scorn. Gentle reader please pay attention to what I say and not just my score because I've tried very hard to justify my position in a manner that although you may not agree, you may understand.

    Everything on the outset looked good, this was the unofficial incarnation of the original 3rd installment (google 'project van-buren' FMI). Even
    I prepare myself and opinion to be cast upon with scorn. Gentle reader please pay attention to what I say and not just my score because I've tried very hard to justify my position in a manner that although you may not agree, you may understand.

    Everything on the outset looked good, this was the unofficial incarnation of the original 3rd installment (google 'project van-buren' FMI). Even better to have it so quickly after the excellent fallout 3 and its highly decent add-on packs.

    If you want to save yourself 2 minutes of reading, in brief - I recommend you play this game, it IS a decent game, however keep in mind that if you played the original you perhaps will not like this as a direct comparison -

    Its more of the same, which isn't a bad thing, but not improving upon it makes me wonder why bother at all?

    There's a name for when you take an existing technology and change it enough to call it something else... a cash in.

    The plot is decent, the map is wide and varied, however did i prefer NV to 3?... No, I didn't.

    I found new vegas to be exactly the same as Fallout 3, just not quite as polished.

    This feels more like a BIG add-on pack than a seperate game frankly and thats not a bad thing, but don't expect this to resolve or indeed improve on anything found in fallout 3.

    You should buy it, you may like it, a few may love it... but a classic it will never be.
    Expand
  63. Dec 30, 2011
    6
    As with Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas is a game of extremes. What is good about it is so good it makes revered classics look stupid. But what bad about it is so bad that may prevent you from finishing the game all together (I failed to finish btw because I hit a dead end in the story tree).

    If you play the game, you will be impressed by the vastness and level of detail of this world. You
    As with Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas is a game of extremes. What is good about it is so good it makes revered classics look stupid. But what bad about it is so bad that may prevent you from finishing the game all together (I failed to finish btw because I hit a dead end in the story tree).

    If you play the game, you will be impressed by the vastness and level of detail of this world. You will be impressed by how many story branches interconnect, without failing or dismissing the choices you made. You will be impressed by the freedoms the creators gave you (e.g. every NPC in the game is killable) and how the story doesn't fail to progress.

    All that, if you manage to get past the terrible FPS combat (it looks like a FPS but can't be played as such), the countless bugs and, most importantly, the SINGLE MOST SADISTICALLY IMPRACTICAL INVENTORY I HAVE EVER USED. Really. It's like they hate you and want you to find ways to avoid using your inventory.

    Also, the voice acting is silly and the graphics are stale, but that isn't a big deal in games of this kind.
    Expand
  64. AWG
    Aug 15, 2013
    6
    I couldn't get myself to appreciate this game. Map is ridiculous, Italian localization is atrocious and above all there is no tutorial. I guess long-time Fallout players loved this one but if you're a new one (as I was) you have no idea about what's going on for most of the time. Also, graphics is horrible. That's a shame because the story sounds interesting but there are too much design flaws.
  65. Aug 31, 2013
    6
    Not that this is a bad game, but i didn't like the interface. Thats what shoo'd me away. I like games like this, for example, skyrim. Skyrim, like FNV is open world. I love open world. But, the interface is dodgy, and just didnt hook me.
  66. Sep 2, 2013
    6
    In terms of game enjoyability, I give it an 8.7. It has a great story and gives you a lot of freedom to write your own backstory, and heavily improves on Fallout 3's system by adding more perks and true ironsights.

    As a standalone game, this shouldn't even get a 5. If you're expecting the transition between Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas to be similar to how it was between Oblivion and
    In terms of game enjoyability, I give it an 8.7. It has a great story and gives you a lot of freedom to write your own backstory, and heavily improves on Fallout 3's system by adding more perks and true ironsights.

    As a standalone game, this shouldn't even get a 5. If you're expecting the transition between Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas to be similar to how it was between Oblivion and Skyrim, bury that thought. It frustrated me that New Vegas' weapons, engine, and game mechanics were essentially recycled from Fallout 3. I understand that there were time constraints, but making a shinier version of an already-released game (which is what most of the sports games and CoDs are doing at this point) is not an impressive feat.

    Not to mention, the game is incomplete. There are so many bug fixes that are needed, and luckily, most of those come from mods. With that being said, I reach yet another gigantic problem that no mod will be able to fix. The save issue.

    The reason why I enjoy the new Fallouts so much is because of the open world and the vast amount of things to do besides the story. Therefore, a playthrough can easily swallow dozens (even more than a hundred) hours. The problem with New Vegas is the fact that, in addition to the many bugs that flaw the game, the saves get bigger. It's not noticeable at first, but after a while, quicksaving will freeze up the game for a few moments. For a while, you won't pay it any mind, but after a few hundred saves, you'll know what I'm talking about. The game will become extremely sluggish. It will crash very often. It will take nearly five seconds to open your pip boy. And it keeps getting worse with every save until you give up on the playthrough. Mods tend to speed up this process, unfortunately, by adding more data to the game.

    Overall, I give the game a 65/100. Obsidian should have had more time, so-to make a better product that could have lived up to its predecessor, Fallout 3, but due to time constraints, all they could do was simply build on Fallout 3's system, which is very disappointing for a gamer coming off Fallout 3 and enjoying it a ton.

    Buy Fallout 3 instead. A lot of times, I tend to disagree with game critics, but in terms of these two games, critics are correct. Fallout New Vegas is *okay*, but Fallout 3 is a lot better.
    Expand
  67. Nov 7, 2013
    6
    If we were going on gameplay alone, this would easily get an 8 or even a 9, but there are huge problems.

    Positives 1. The gameplay is spectacular. You feel powerful once you get to levelling up and there are few builds that make it virtually impossible to complete 2. I like the soundtrack selection this time around. A nice mix of what you'd expect from Fallout 3 with a western
    If we were going on gameplay alone, this would easily get an 8 or even a 9, but there are huge problems.

    Positives

    1. The gameplay is spectacular. You feel powerful once you get to levelling up and there are few builds that make it virtually impossible to complete

    2. I like the soundtrack selection this time around. A nice mix of what you'd expect from Fallout 3 with a western tinge. Nice.

    3. Voice acting is mostly good (except Matthew Perry as Benny, who seems to be incapable of emoting)

    4. The story is one of the strongest in a Bethesda published game, bolstered by the undeniable writing talent of the Obsidian team

    Now for negatives

    1. For their writing talent, Obsidian doesn't seem to have good QA. Their games always seem to have major bugs and this game is NO exception. characters randomly disappear, objectives sometimes point the wrong way, saving too much freezes the game (a real problem in an RPG) and the game at times just feels incomplete. It's hard to recommend a game like this when the game is so buggy. And I know there's fan patches and unofficial mods, but I shouldn't have to tell you "You can play this but oh you need to download a mod made by a fan"

    2. Some of the DLC just straight up sucks. Lonesome Road and Old World Blues are awesome, don't get me wrong. Gun Runner's Arsenal just seems like stuff they had to cut at first to meet deadline. Honest Hearts has a good premise but is kind of boring. And Dead Money? F that one. Here's an idea: Take a game series noted for it's open-world and make you go through a linear pseudo-stealth mission to teach you about "the evils of greed".

    It's flawed, so if you don't like your games bugged out, avoid it, but otherwise, I'd still give it a try.
    Expand
  68. Oct 26, 2010
    5
    Nothing new in this big DLC, just a recycled engine, stolen ideas from user's mods, shake it and the New Vegas **** is done.Really disappointing for a Bethesda fan, not the game itself that is still valid for a normal user, but if you used to play Fallout 3 with popular mods it's easy to recognize nothing really new from the software house, this is just a great example of brandNothing new in this big DLC, just a recycled engine, stolen ideas from user's mods, shake it and the New Vegas **** is done.Really disappointing for a Bethesda fan, not the game itself that is still valid for a normal user, but if you used to play Fallout 3 with popular mods it's easy to recognize nothing really new from the software house, this is just a great example of brand exploitation, not worth the full price. Expand
  69. May 17, 2011
    5
    This game didnt surprise me which is a bad thing i half expected it to be as boring as Fallout 3 but no, it took it to the next level . The environment is still excrutiatingly boring( yes it is in a wasteland but thats no excuse). The game has no feeling of progress, you just feel like you stay the same strength throughout the game. The graphics are exactly the same. But we all no thatThis game didnt surprise me which is a bad thing i half expected it to be as boring as Fallout 3 but no, it took it to the next level . The environment is still excrutiatingly boring( yes it is in a wasteland but thats no excuse). The game has no feeling of progress, you just feel like you stay the same strength throughout the game. The graphics are exactly the same. But we all no that this was just a game to keep ourselves with busy before Skyrim comes out where hopefully the real effort will be put in. This game is a weak, mediocre, unimprovement upon a less boring piece of **** and I will never play fallout again. cough cough oblivion is better cough cough. Expand
  70. Oct 22, 2010
    5
    FVegas seams as F3 + many unnecessary things... today 2010 year, but in game mouseaccel, invisible textures, strange hitbox, stupid NPC - it's goddam. SLAPDASH!!!!
    score 5 for music from F1 & F2
  71. Oct 31, 2010
    5
    While the Fallout universe is undeniably fun and compelling, New Vegas is badly let down in the quality department, a criticism levelled at Fallout 3 and Oblivion as well.

    While the game is bug-ridden (creatures spawning inside rocks, the player falling into cracks in the geometry, etc.) the greatest flaw is in the writing. The story is cumbersome and boring; the dialogue is dull, wordy,
    While the Fallout universe is undeniably fun and compelling, New Vegas is badly let down in the quality department, a criticism levelled at Fallout 3 and Oblivion as well.

    While the game is bug-ridden (creatures spawning inside rocks, the player falling into cracks in the geometry, etc.) the greatest flaw is in the writing. The story is cumbersome and boring; the dialogue is dull, wordy, repetitive and uninteresting; the voice acting lacks any real direction - character lines are delivered limply, even by the "big name" actors. Inappropriate casting choices also hamper immersion (the choice of John Doman as Caesar is particularly bizarre).

    Bethesda - get better writers and better voice directors. Your game has once again been sabotaged by a lack of quality.
    Expand
  72. Nov 24, 2010
    5
    You can't release a game in this state. A month later, its still possible to encounter 100's of game breaking bugs. It's bad even for a Bethesda release (though about what you'd expect from Obsidian.

    The game play is essentially the same as Fallout 3. The faction system is really interesting though, and demands multiple play through's. Ignoring the bugs, the game is better than FO3.
    You can't release a game in this state. A month later, its still possible to encounter 100's of game breaking bugs. It's bad even for a Bethesda release (though about what you'd expect from Obsidian.

    The game play is essentially the same as Fallout 3. The faction system is really interesting though, and demands multiple play through's. Ignoring the bugs, the game is better than FO3.

    However, its definitely more of the same, and if you exhausted yourself in FO3, you won't find enough here to keep playing. Also, the Radio playlist is way too short, so you'll need an add on for sure.
    Expand
  73. Nov 26, 2010
    5
    I would give this game a 6.5, unfortunatly we being users cant have that option, anyway. The gameplay and enviroment is basicaly the exact same of fallout 3, with vast role playing element improvements. I noticed many upgrades to it and many problems. Their had been far too many glitches in this game to even believe that it was finished being made. It should have waited another 2 or 3I would give this game a 6.5, unfortunatly we being users cant have that option, anyway. The gameplay and enviroment is basicaly the exact same of fallout 3, with vast role playing element improvements. I noticed many upgrades to it and many problems. Their had been far too many glitches in this game to even believe that it was finished being made. It should have waited another 2 or 3 months before a release. I felt that the companions and impact on the wasteland was very well made, but found the ai dumber but with far too much health. They put too much content in this game wich i think was a good and bad thing, they neglected on the gamplay and major bugs in the game, while focusing soley on weaposn and armor unfortunatly, it should have been better Expand
  74. Dec 6, 2010
    5
    The problem with New Vegas is that It's so buggy. Too buggy to be a finished product. Also the fighting mechanics make the game pretty slow paced at times - shooting someone right in the noggin with a hunting rifle should floor em.
  75. Apr 20, 2011
    5
    Without mods, this game would be terrible. It should only be DLC, not a full game as they try to push it off as. Bethesda is like the rest of the gaming industry - lazy and rushing half - finished games out the door and then wondering why their sales are so lackluster.
  76. Oct 17, 2011
    5
    fun, but absolutely no advancement whatsoever. who waits that many years to release a sequel and doesn't update ANYTHING? Not that I didn't enjoy the game, but aside from a few additions like weapon mods, and a few new enemies, its all secondhand from FO3. This game is supposedly bigger, and supposedly has more locations, but they are shallow locations. You find a location, and the onlyfun, but absolutely no advancement whatsoever. who waits that many years to release a sequel and doesn't update ANYTHING? Not that I didn't enjoy the game, but aside from a few additions like weapon mods, and a few new enemies, its all secondhand from FO3. This game is supposedly bigger, and supposedly has more locations, but they are shallow locations. You find a location, and the only thing inside is some ammo and food. In FO3 there would have been more computers with stories, or NPC's giving insight, or storytelling in some fashion but here its just bland buildings with some random stuff inside them. One addition I like is the factions system, but its horribly balanced in that choosing one factions gives ALOT of quests and stuff to do, choosing the other has like 5 quests and nothing else, so for the sake of FUN you choose the one faction. Just finished all the DLC, only one worth it was OWB, the other were crap. Expand
  77. Aug 18, 2011
    5
    Devoid of the choice and non-linear nature of earlier Fallout games(even 3). Each of the primary factions are omnipresent, hanging on your(and only your) every move. The game derailed for me early on when none of the factions really seemed to have any idea what they wanted, excepting the violent and corrupt Caesar. Each of the main factions had ulterior motives, corruption unending, andDevoid of the choice and non-linear nature of earlier Fallout games(even 3). Each of the primary factions are omnipresent, hanging on your(and only your) every move. The game derailed for me early on when none of the factions really seemed to have any idea what they wanted, excepting the violent and corrupt Caesar. Each of the main factions had ulterior motives, corruption unending, and spies in every corner, watching your every move. I finally had to uninstall when accepting(but not completing, or making any moves regarding) the quest with Yes Man caused all of Caesar's troops to go KOS to me. The game essentially forces you to choose almost unerringly choose a side, and none of the sides were particularly appealing. Additionally, none of the side quests were particularly appealing or rewarding. On the technical side, numerous glitches forced me to neurotically keep a bank of saves throughout the game. An early one caused me to restart, as I was glitched into a piece of terrain with no option for fast travel. An act as simple as opening a door would turn an entire faction KOS to me(though I suspect this may be working "as intended", I am optimistically listing it as a bug). I only had a few handfuls of crashing issues, but they were at critical moments, ofttimes. I was really prepared to give Obsidian the benefit of the doubt, after what they did with KotOR 2, but they have disappointed once again. I hope Bethesda doesn't take any notes from them for Fallout 4. Expand
  78. Sep 2, 2011
    5
    As it's been said before, this "game" is nothing more than a glorified DLC for Fallout 3, and that's being extremely generous. The story is nothing new or exciting, the game is BEYOND buggy (I have owned the game for about two months and I swear it has crashed over 100 times with the latest patch and that is NO exaggeration, it has crashed more than any game I've ever played) the gameAs it's been said before, this "game" is nothing more than a glorified DLC for Fallout 3, and that's being extremely generous. The story is nothing new or exciting, the game is BEYOND buggy (I have owned the game for about two months and I swear it has crashed over 100 times with the latest patch and that is NO exaggeration, it has crashed more than any game I've ever played) the game engine and overall graphics are exactly the same with no improvements whatsoever, glitches and bugs have bin carried over from Fallout 3 to New Vegas(mostly sound glitches), most additions to the game are nothing more than stolen ideas from modders from Fallout 3 (Iron sights, hardcore mode, weapon mods ect.), New Vegas doesn't utilize or even support direct X 10 or 11 which is just pathetic. I could go on and on and on with this but let me break it down for you, when I first bought Fallout 3, I played it for well over 100's of hours in total and was never bored of it. With New Vegas, I played it for about one week and was bored of it. The designers of the game obviously didn't care at all about the game or the buyers of the game because they know that the fanboys with just eat it up and not give a **** about its flaws. Shame on you Bethesda. Expand
  79. Apr 6, 2013
    5
    i really wanted to like the game but for me its only a decent game, decent because of its a big open world other than that shooting feels so bad, the story is boring to follow. even tho i played morrowind oblivion and skyrim i didnt like this as much as them
  80. Jul 29, 2013
    5
    This game is slightly better that Fallout 3 but doesn't come even close to Fallout 2 or 1. The biggest complaint: absurd combat system. It something in the middle between a first-person shooter and a turn-based combat. And it just doesn't work. You will be dying with frustration while fighting with the interface. Another big problem is the long walks. In Fallout 1 or 2 you had a strategicThis game is slightly better that Fallout 3 but doesn't come even close to Fallout 2 or 1. The biggest complaint: absurd combat system. It something in the middle between a first-person shooter and a turn-based combat. And it just doesn't work. You will be dying with frustration while fighting with the interface. Another big problem is the long walks. In Fallout 1 or 2 you had a strategic map where you quickly traveled between locations, but here you walk all the way. What's the point of it? It's no fun to walk miles and fight occasional creatures. Also, there is no fun exploring such a gigantic space with sparsely scattered locations of interest. The crafting system was a good idea but poorly implemented. Dropped the game after 2 days playing. Expand
  81. May 9, 2013
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This should have been a stand alone expansion. The story is inconsistent and filled with plot holes and plot killing moments(why would someone give a pip boy away, how in the world is a neurosurgeon out in the middle of nowhere? then, by incorporating an end to the game, they made modding a little difficult, and prevented modders from adding to the story line like they did for fallout 3. the redeeming aspects are hardcore mode and the crafting system. Buy this game on a steam sale only!!! Expand
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.