Fallout: New Vegas Review on PC (gamespot)

Review is up for PC version, Kevin gave the console versions 7.5 and the PC version 8.5.

Having played both 360 and PC versions I have to agree that th PC version is alot better.

And although I would give this game a 9/10 personally, a 8.5 is pretty much the same thing.

Glad to see all the versions where played and not just toss the same score on each version, because from what ive played on xbox and PC, the PC vversion destroys the xbox one.

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/falloutnewvegas/review.html

Ofcourse the PC version owns the console version. Its a Bethesda/Obsidian game. Pc has mods, the consoles are stuck with the basic game.

Ofcourse the PC version owns the console version. Its a Bethesda/Obsidian game. Pc has mods, the consoles are stuck with the basic game.

I was starting to thing I had a godly perfect copy of the game, but I guess the console versions are that much more effed than the PC version. Not surprised. Obsidian's fanbase is on PC.

It's nice that they actually reviewed the PC game separately. The score seems pretty fair too - I'd probably give the game an 8 or so from what I've played thus far. By comparison I rated FO:3 a 5 so I am obviously liking NV a lot more. It's not my dream Fallout sequel (sadly, that game was cancelled) but, for what it is and what gets passed off as a RPG lately, it's pretty good.

I think it deserves atleast a 9.0 if not 9.5 :P But oh well, can't complain with 8.5 either :D Awesome game

It's nice that they actually reviewed the PC game separately. The score seems pretty fair too - I'd probably give the game an 8 or so from what I've played thus far. By comparison I rated FO:3 a 5 so I am obviously liking NV a lot more. It's not my dream Fallout sequel (sadly, that game was cancelled) but, for what it is and what gets passed off as a RPG lately, it's pretty good.

-wildflower-

:?............:| I dont even know why you would give NV a try.

Because it's made by Obsidian, it's Fallout, and, unlike Bethesda, Obsidian actually tries to make, you know, RPGs.

Great news! 7.5 for the consoles and 8.5 for the PC is quite the difference.

Because it's made by Obsidian, it's Fallout, and, unlike Bethesda, Obsidian actually tries to make, you know, RPGs.

-wildflower-

Because it's made by Obsidian, it's Fallout, and, unlike Bethesda, Obsidian actually tries to make, you know, RPGs.

Hes a known Bethesda hater. It dosen't get much more "RPG" then a Bethesda game but this guy is hellbent on saying they make some sort of Action games or something.Prexxus

Ahh, yes, the "hater" remark how very trite and here I was thinking that I was a Blizzard hater. Oh, and I'm hardly the only person who considers Bethesda games more action-adventure games than role-playing games but whatever...that's not what this thread is about. I gave a simple comparison of two game and how I'd personally rate them and then I answered an "off topic" question (which I now regret) but believe what you want I honestly couldn't care less.

If you think, "it doesn't get much more 'RPG' than a Bethesda game," bully for you. I simply happen to disagree. If you want to create another thread to discuss it, fine, but as I said earlier this isn't the thread for it.

[QUOTE="Prexxus"] Hes a known Bethesda hater. It dosen't get much more "RPG" then a Bethesda game but this guy is hellbent on saying they make some sort of Action games or something.-wildflower-

Ahh, yes, the "hater" remark how very trite and here I was thinking that I was a Blizzard hater. Oh, and I'm hardly the only person who considers Bethesda games more action-adventure games than role-playing games but whatever...that's not what this thread is about. I gave a simple comparison of two game and how I'd personally rate them and then I answered an "off topic" question (which I now regret) but believe what you want I honestly couldn't care less.

If you think, "it doesn't get much more 'RPG' than a Bethesda game," bully for you. I simply happen to disagree. If you want to create another thread to discuss it, fine, but as I said earlier this isn't the thread for it.

[QUOTE="Prexxus"] Hes a known Bethesda hater. It dosen't get much more "RPG" then a Bethesda game but this guy is hellbent on saying they make some sort of Action games or something.-wildflower-

Ahh, yes, the "hater" remark how very trite and here I was thinking that I was a Blizzard hater. Oh, and I'm hardly the only person who considers Bethesda games more action-adventure games than role-playing games but whatever...that's not what this thread is about. I gave a simple comparison of two game and how I'd personally rate them and then I answered an "off topic" question (which I now regret) but believe what you want I honestly couldn't care less.

If you think, "it doesn't get much more 'RPG' than a Bethesda game," bully for you. I simply happen to disagree. If you want to create another thread to discuss it, fine, but as I said earlier this isn't the thread for it.

From the videos I've seen it seems like a reskin of Fallout 3 with a different story. Are the mechanics really that different? If you are just going by the change in storytelling, well I can't see how bethesda makes bad stories. Morrowind and Oblivian have a crapload of story lore if you delve deeper into the game. I do hate the levelling system of TES and how enemies scale in the 4th game, (and Fallout 3 had some quirks such as the lockpicking skill) but mods can fix those core elements that for me are flawed.

You never anwsered the question, how is NV more of a rpg then FO3? So far they seem the same to me, new things as using outfits as disguises or choosing which side to take, which seems to be bad guy good guy. I fail to see this being more of a rpg then FO3 already was.Advid-Gamer

I never said NV was more of a RPG than FO:3 (although I think it is) what I said was, Obsidian tries to make RPGs, unlike Bethesda. I've hardly scratched the surface of this game but here's a few things I've noticed so far (spoiler free of course):

- Dialogue choices aren't nearly as black and white. Sometimes you are forced to choose between two equally gray choices.

- There are consequences for your choices. What you do and don't do actually have an impact.

- You don't get as many skill points so you have to decide exactly how to build your character - you can't be a jack of all trades.

- Skills in general have more of an impact and there aren't nearly as many useless skills (they all seem to have some bearing on what you can and cannot do)

- I'm playing in Hardcore mode so I am having to really try and simply survive the wasteland and not just live through fire fights. The actual environment can and will kill me if I'm not careful. I also have to carefully manage my inventory. Hardcore mode really adds to the whole struggling for survival feel of the game.

- The writing is MUCH better

- There seem to be many more skill checks (although, I'm not a fan of how some of these are spelled out for you - I prefer trial and error)

- Enemies aren't leveled so, if you're not careful, it's fairly easy to get in over your head.

- The game also captures the "vibe" of the Fallout 1 & 2 much better than FO:3 did

Those are a few things off the top of my head but, like I said, I feel like I've barely scratched the surface of the game. As I get deeper into it I'm sure I'll be able to come up with a few more but for now, that's how I'm seeing things.

[QUOTE="Advid-Gamer"] You never anwsered the question, how is NV more of a rpg then FO3? So far they seem the same to me, new things as using outfits as disguises or choosing which side to take, which seems to be bad guy good guy. I fail to see this being more of a rpg then FO3 already was.-wildflower-

I never said NV was more of a RPG than FO:3 (although I think it is) what I said was, Obsidian tries to make RPGs, unlike Bethesda. I've hardly scratched the surface of this game but here's a few things I've noticed so far (spoiler free of course):

- Dialogue choices aren't nearly as black and white. Sometimes you are forced to choose between two equally gray choices.

- There are consequences for your choices. What you do and don't do actually have an impact.

- You don't get as many skill points so you have to decide exactly how to build your character - you can't be a jack of all trades.

- Skills in general have more of an impact and there aren't nearly as many useless skills (they all seem to have some bearing on what you can and cannot do)

- I'm playing in Hardcore mode so I am having to really try and simply survive the wasteland and not just live through fire fights. The actual environment can and will kill me if I'm not careful. I also have to carefully manage my inventory. Hardcore mode really adds to the whole struggling for survival feel of the game.

- The writing is MUCH better

- There seem to be many more skill checks (although, I'm not a fan of how some of these are spelled out for you - I prefer trial and error)

- Enemies aren't leveled so, if you're not careful, it's fairly easy to get in over your head.

- The game also captures the "vibe" of the Fallout 1 & 2 much better than FO:3 did

Those are a few things off the top of my head but, like I said, I feel like I've barely scratched the surface of the game. As I get deeper into it I'm sure I'll be able to come up with a few more but for now, that's how I'm seeing things.

Just a guess, but I think it's to show how NV is superior to FO3 in terms of RPG mechanics.

Just a guess, but I think it's to show how NV is superior to FO3 in terms of RPG mechanics.

Gooeykat

Is it just me or why does Bethesda get a free pass on bugs and writing?

"Main story isn't compelling" :lol:

I don't need to play F:NV to know it has much better writing the F3's not to mention F3's story was horrible, cliched, in addition to that F3 crash lots of times for me. Just wow. GS credibility is going further down by the minute.

Is it just me or why does Bethesda get a free pass on bugs and writing?

"Main story isn't compelling" :lol:

I don't need to play F:NV to know it has much better writing the F3's not to mention F3's story was horrible, cliched, in addition to that F3 crash lots of times for me. Just wow. GS credibility is going further down by the minute.

Gamerz1569

I agree. All of NV's negatives apply to F3 as well, and yet NV got a lower score...despite improving on F3 in just about every way (even the bugs aren't anywhere near as bad - I haven't crashed once, unlike that crapfest that was F3).

I guess that's the power of hype, though.

I am really enjoying NV but lets be real here, 90% of the game was already done for them, all they had to do was make a new story and improve the gameplay/rpg elements, and it was still released with a ass ton of bugs. Advid-Gamer

That's a bit of a silly thing to say. I guess we should pile on Black Isle because they used the Infinity engine? Planescape Torment wasn't great because, well, 90% of the work was done for them. The same goes for Icewind Dale and I guess any game that uses the Unreal engine. So, the only way a company can get credit for making a deep and compelling game is if they design the engine and game from the ground up?

Also, the PC version does not have, "an ass ton of bugs," the console versions may but, then, I really couldn't care less about those versions.

And the point to listing all of these things is?Prexxus

Uhm, maybe because I was asked to?

[QUOTE="-wildflower-"]

Because it's made by Obsidian, it's Fallout, and, unlike Bethesda, Obsidian actually tries to make, you know, RPGs.

Advid-Gamer

Well for starters their is a much heavier emphasis on non-combat skills in New Vegas then there ever was in Fallout 3, which was far to combat focused.

I dont even see why SPECIAL was used for Fallout 3. you couldnt play the game unless you were an action-centric character anyway.

[QUOTE="Advid-Gamer"][QUOTE="-wildflower-"]

Because it's made by Obsidian, it's Fallout, and, unlike Bethesda, Obsidian actually tries to make, you know, RPGs.

Well for starters their is a much heavier emphasis on non-combat skills in New Vegas then there ever was in Fallout 3, which was far to combat focused.

I dont even see why SPECIAL was used for Fallout 3. you couldnt play the game unless you were an action-centric character anyway.

A game is "more RPG" than another when its RPG elements actually work compared to the other one.

Fallout is "more RPG" than Fallout 3 because the latter's RPG elements are simply broken.

[QUOTE="cobrax25"]

[QUOTE="Advid-Gamer"] So far, I dont see how NV is any more of a rpg then FO3, am I missing something?Prexxus

Well for starters their is a much heavier emphasis on non-combat skills in New Vegas then there ever was in Fallout 3, which was far to combat focused.

I dont even see why SPECIAL was used for Fallout 3. you couldnt play the game unless you were an action-centric character anyway.

I was talking about it from a series standpoint. The Fallout series was always known for the vast variety of ways in which it could be played, and Fallout 3 had none of that. Not only that, buts its mechanics were broken. They threw in SPECIAL to make it seem more like Fallout, but SPECIAL was never designed for action games, and so many skills were outright useless. Not to mention the game was fairly shallow.

And thats just the Mechanics. There are also a lot of issues with the writing and story of Fallout 3. You wouldnt have ever known it was a Fallout game if the name hadent been slapped on. The story was very 1 demensional and lacked any sort of morality. It was a very hollywood take on the Fallout series. New Vegas has far more resemblence to the older Fallout games.

I never said NV was more of a RPG than FO:3 (although I think it is) what I said was, Obsidian tries to make RPGs, unlike Bethesda. I've hardly scratched the surface of this game but here's a few things I've noticed so far (spoiler free of course):

- Dialogue choices aren't nearly as black and white. Sometimes you are forced to choose between two equally gray choices.

- There are consequences for your choices. What you do and don't do actually have an impact.

- You don't get as many skill points so you have to decide exactly how to build your character - you can't be a jack of all trades.

- Skills in general have more of an impact and there aren't nearly as many useless skills (they all seem to have some bearing on what you can and cannot do)

- I'm playing in Hardcore mode so I am having to really try and simply survive the wasteland and not just live through fire fights. The actual environment can and will kill me if I'm not careful. I also have to carefully manage my inventory. Hardcore mode really adds to the whole struggling for survival feel of the game.

- The writing is MUCH better

- There seem to be many more skill checks (although, I'm not a fan of how some of these are spelled out for you - I prefer trial and error)

- Enemies aren't leveled so, if you're not careful, it's fairly easy to get in over your head.

- The game also captures the "vibe" of the Fallout 1 & 2 much better than FO:3 did

Those are a few things off the top of my head but, like I said, I feel like I've barely scratched the surface of the game. As I get deeper into it I'm sure I'll be able to come up with a few more but for now, that's how I'm seeing things.

-wildflower-

- In New Vegas u get side quests that are not tracked on the map...so u have to use ur brain and really listen to what NPC's are saying , in order to complete this kind of quests...Not only to follow the the quest tracker on ur map like in FO3

- Also the guns and everything that means gunplay is more balanced in NV...

- Better AI and better quest environment settings,thus giving the player more choices on how to approach a quest...for example(at least for me) the player has the option to choose for a tactical approach as well...

For me both FO3 and NV are great RPG's...

But if...someone would have a gun to my head right now,swearing that he will blow my brains out if iam not going to answer to his simple question:"Which is more of an rpg?FO3 or NV?" I would answer in the 1st second without any hesitation "Fallout New Vegas sir!Please dont shoot me!"

yeah good to see PC game is more stable.

LP2 also got higher rating on PC :)

Another good review from VanOrd. The haters who said "Fallout fail" based on the console score jumped the gun a bit.

I must be getting soft in my advanced age but I actually see Wildflowers point. Not because one game can be "more RPG" then another but because there are differences. While these differences may not be valid or important to someone else is irrelevant. The fact that they are should be respected. I personally say let a thousand candles burn and bring on these differences and enjoy them but I see no reason to force these differences on someone else who does not desire them.

I like some things more then others but I'm not going to allow the not so good to be the enemy of the good and have that difference destroy my enjoyment of a game. Life's too short to be overly critical and dogmatic.

And the point to listing all of these things is? The fact is no game can be "more RPG" then another. It's a genre. If the game is a RPG it's a RPG. Bethesda makes RPG games. You may not like there style but they are RPG's.

Prexxus

Most genre's have a clear definition to itself for example, a first person shooter is "a shooter in first peron" and Real Time strategy is "strategy in Real time". Yet the name "Role Playing Game" doesn't just mean "role playing a character". Instead we associate the term RPG's to come other factors which could be different for anyone really, which is why the current RPG's have sparked so much debate on how we classify them. RPG's have begun to resemble Action Adventures so much, that it's obvious that people would start considering some games to be more RPG than another.

edit: I may want to add that any wikipedia or dev blog on how they feel their game should be labled is plain ridicilous. Everyone has their own definition of what a game should contain to be a RPG, which is ingrained in them since playing their first RPG since childhood. It's impossible to convince otherwise.

m surprised, they usually dont do this. There are so many games much better on pc too. Console games this gen almost always have performance issues and are full of bugs.

m surprised, they usually dont do this. There are so many games much better on pc too. Console games this gen almost always have performance issues and are full of bugs.

TerrorRizzing

[QUOTE="TerrorRizzing"]

m surprised, they usually dont do this. There are so many games much better on pc too. Console games this gen almost always have performance issues and are full of bugs.

Prexxus

The most buggy game ive played this gen is a console game.. Red Dead Redemption. Still love it, but nearly everytime i turn the game on I see a women turn into a horse, a flying cougar or women replacing the wheels of the train,etc...

Console games can be buggy and so bad PC games. I hoenstly dont think either is WAY more buggy then the other.

Strange , where is dakan ? I guess every point he made is now mute , becaus such a disaster how he made it to be couldnt get 8.5 , especialy from GS :P

[QUOTE="TerrorRizzing"]

m surprised, they usually dont do this. There are so many games much better on pc too. Console games this gen almost always have performance issues and are full of bugs.

Prexxus

[QUOTE="Prexxus"][QUOTE="TerrorRizzing"]

m surprised, they usually dont do this. There are so many games much better on pc too. Console games this gen almost always have performance issues and are full of bugs.

[QUOTE="Gooeykat"]

Just a guess, but I think it's to show how NV is superior to FO3 in terms of RPG mechanics.

Advid-Gamer

Ya, thats all they had to do, they didnt have to create an whole new world or anything, i mean look at NV, entire mapos just a reskin of FO3....oh wait, this is noi different than when a company uses someone elses engine, they still have to do stuff.

You people make it sound like all they had to do was write some story and toss in a few mechanics and the games done, obviousley have no clue how games are made.

[QUOTE="Prexxus"][QUOTE="TerrorRizzing"]

m surprised, they usually dont do this. There are so many games much better on pc too. Console games this gen almost always have performance issues and are full of bugs.

kozzy1234

The most buggy game ive played this gen is a console game.. Red Dead Redemption. Still love it, but nearly everytime i turn the game on I see a women turn into a horse, a flying cougar or women replacing the wheels of the train,etc...

Console games can be buggy and so bad PC games. I hoenstly dont think either is WAY more buggy then the other.

[QUOTE="Advid-Gamer"][QUOTE="Gooeykat"]

Just a guess, but I think it's to show how NV is superior to FO3 in terms of RPG mechanics.

warmaster670

Ya, thats all they had to do, they didnt have to create an whole new world or anything, i mean look at NV, entire mapos just a reskin of FO3....oh wait, this is noi different than when a company uses someone elses engine, they still have to do stuff.

You people make it sound like all they had to do was write some story and toss in a few mechanics and the games done, obviousley have no clue how games are made.

[QUOTE="warmaster670"]

[QUOTE="Advid-Gamer"] Why wouldnt it be better? They took bethesda's already made game and improved on it. I would be shocked if the rpg mechanics were not better seeing how they were already there, and all they had to do was improve on them. I am really enjoying NV but lets be real here, 90% of the game was already done for them, all they had to do was make a new story and improve the gameplay/rpg elements, and it was still released with a ass ton of bugs. Prexxus

Ya, thats all they had to do, they didnt have to create an whole new world or anything, i mean look at NV, entire mapos just a reskin of FO3....oh wait, this is noi different than when a company uses someone elses engine, they still have to do stuff.

You people make it sound like all they had to do was write some story and toss in a few mechanics and the games done, obviousley have no clue how games are made.

[QUOTE="Prexxus"]

[QUOTE="warmaster670"]

Ya, thats all they had to do, they didnt have to create an whole new world or anything, i mean look at NV, entire mapos just a reskin of FO3....oh wait, this is noi different than when a company uses someone elses engine, they still have to do stuff.

You people make it sound like all they had to do was write some story and toss in a few mechanics and the games done, obviousley have no clue how games are made.

warmaster670

[QUOTE="TerrorRizzing"]

[QUOTE="Prexxus"] You mean the other way arround? Console games this gen rarely ever have performance issues and bugs lol. I own a PS3 and Xbox for exclusives and entertainment for people who come over and ive never seen any games with any performance issues or any game breaking bugs. Prexxus

There are a good number of console games that run at 30 FPS, first that comes to mind is TEAM FORTRESS2

[QUOTE="Prexxus"][QUOTE="TerrorRizzing"] Really? I find it almost impossible to find a game on console with good frame rates. A perfect example of a broken console game is fable 2, full of game breaking bugs, long load times, and cant keep a framerate of even 30 fps. If you cant notice the issues in console games, I bet you would never notice them in pc games if you didnt try to raise the settings past your specs, didnt have fraps telling you the framerate was low or didnt come on forums. Its to the point now where I pop in a console game and expect the worse, and for it to never be fixed.

There are a good number of console games that run at 30 FPS, first that comes to mind is TEAM FORTRESS2

[QUOTE="kozzy1234"]

[QUOTE="Prexxus"] You mean the other way arround? Console games this gen rarely ever have performance issues and bugs lol. I own a PS3 and Xbox for exclusives and entertainment for people who come over and ive never seen any games with any performance issues or any game breaking bugs. mo0ksi

The most buggy game ive played this gen is a console game.. Red Dead Redemption. Still love it, but nearly everytime i turn the game on I see a women turn into a horse, a flying cougar or women replacing the wheels of the train,etc...

Console games can be buggy and so bad PC games. I hoenstly dont think either is WAY more buggy then the other.

I am gonna have to dissagree with ya and I own both games.

Red Dead is the much much much better game, but has TONS of bugs, most I have seen this gen.

Saints Row2 didnt have as many bugs, but it had piss poor performance when driving in cars.

I woudl say those are the two buggiest games this gen (and one of em is one of my favs lol, RDR).

[QUOTE="kozzy1234"]

[QUOTE="Prexxus"] Frames on consoles also depend on the tv you're using. I would check your console if it's that bad because I know what 30 FPS feels like and my PS3 and Xbox don't run at 30. The only games ive seen causing slow downs is Dynasty Warriors when 2 players are using mushou at the same time and theres like hundreds of ennemies on the screen. I also beat Fable 2 on my Xbox and never ran into any bugs at all. =/ I love my PC better then any of my systems for sure but when it comes to reliability consoles have the upper hand. No console games are ever released like Elemental was lets say. Though I still played Elemental day 1 somehow and loved it :P Prexxus

There are a good number of console games that run at 30 FPS, first that comes to mind is TEAM FORTRESS2

Yeah I have it on PC and 360.. the difference is like night and day... PC version I get anywhere frmo 60-100 FPS and 360 stays at 30 FPS. Usually I dont mind 30 FPS in some games, but in TF2 you can really tell as its suppose to be a fast paced game, it feels like its behind on the 360 because its so slow, feels like diffent game lol.