Don't go there. Fallout 3 had a load of bugs pre patch.

I've had tons of fun with NV, even more than with 3, so yes, they deserve it.

I wonder what the users in FO3 general discussion says about NV

Consdiering that most of those folks ended up at a little company called "Obsidian", I'd love to know how the heck you can justify that.

Someone needs to take a little walk through the forum Archives.

Sorry, I mean a better Fallout 3, not a better New Vegas

Its obvious, they dropped the ball with FNV. These things happen. I still think the right company is working on the game and would rather they do then say Electronic Arts. Look at what EA did to to Ultima series! Even Bioware lately has become a real mess. My honest opinion is that Bethesda got lazy and cocky with FNV after the success with Fallout 3. I remember watching a promo for FNV where some of the dev's were showing someone (I think it was IGN) the game and the bug where you lost your guns when exiting the casino happened. The dev's had to load a save game to get their guns back and looked embarrassed. How could you miss something like that in testing? If you are a month away from release, are showing the game off and encounter a serious bug like that, don't you think it would be a top priority to have a patch ready for release day? I understand by that point the game was probably getting printed and ready to ship but they had at least a month to get a patch in order for people to download the day the game came out to fix the issue. Its not like they didn't know about it, it happened to them when showing off the game! There is NO excuse, they can't lie and say they did not know.

Again, I still stand behind Bethesda and think they are the right company for the Fallout franchise but they seriously need to get their [censored] together and work harder next time when releasing a game. Bugs are inevitable, especially as these games become more advanced, but the level of bugs in FNV is unacceptable. Furthermore, the fact several months have passed and we still don't have a patch (at least on the 360) that fixes 80% of the problems is sickening. It just goes to show the priority is DLC. I want DLC as much as everyone else, but I want a stable game first.

My vote for the GOTY is Red Dead Redemption. I have owned several Rock Star games and never been able to finish them as the story always got boring but RDR kept me going till the end, leaving me wanting more. FNV did not even come close. Fallout 3 had a much better plot IMO. FNV had some amazing innovations to the series, like hardcoe mode, something that should be a part of EVERY new Fallout game. As long as there is a hardcoe mode, I will not play Fallout any other way, hardcoe is the only way to play the game! The card games are fun too. Caravan is amazing, it's great you can play with a real world deck of cards. I was disappointed that they did not add poker to the game but honestly, the casinos were a small part of FNV. I was very disappointed in the strip in general. We got all this build up in previews as well in game while trying to get there, and once I hit New Vegas, I was just disappointed.

Also, the level of game technology that went into this game was disappointing. The sand storm by the brotherhood was cool, but besides that it lacked a dynamic environment. Not only did we have weather in Red Dead Redemption, but it was truly dynamic. You could watch the clouds roll in and know a storm was on its way, actually seeing the rain storm come across the terrain. When it was snowing, the snow actually piled up on bodies after you killed someone. The lighting was very well done, with some really advanced HDR light and shadow from torches and other light sources. The game actually made you feel like you were there, especially in Mexico. I did not get that feel from FNV. Fallout 3 had a little of the feel (especially when going into the museums, or the metro system in Washington), but still lacked the amazing dynamic environmental effects found in RDR. RDR came out after Fallout 3 by over a year but before FNV by almost six months. In the end it comes down to one thing, FNV dod not give me the feeling that Fallout 3 or other newer games gave me of realism. RDR had an amazing free roam multi-player mode that allows you to take a Fallout style open world and play with a bunch of people online. FNV would be great if it had this multi-player option, especially with the casinos, card games, etc. Rock Star proved you could take a single player open world and add a multi-player component that works. I would hope the next Fallout game has the same. I never play games online with other people, but really enjoy the open roam in RDR. The best part is they made a solid, long story plot line, amazing single player game first and then added the multi-player component after not sacrificing the single player game for multi-player. Multi-player in RDR only enhanced the game it was not trying to replace a solid single player game like so many other games that are released today seem to do. It added more value to the game but did not detract from the purpose which was a well done single player game.

One thing you can say about FNV was they tried to keep true to the series. For those of us who are old enough to have played Fallout 1&2 when they came out oh so long ago, it was kind of emotional to hear the references to the oil rig battle. I want to thank Bethesda for that, it was very cool to be taken back to my childhood and remember playing Fallout on the PC.

Sometimes you drop the ball. Thats what Bethesda did with FNV. These things happen. Its not a bad game, its just not up to the level of expectation I have come to expect from their games. That in itself should say something about them as a company, especially in a world of a lot of $hitty game companies. I still highly respect Bethesda and think they are one of the "goog guys" in an industry that is becoming more about profit and less about quality gaming. As far as FNV goes with all of the problems, I am going to let this one go. [censored] happens. If the trend continues, I amy change my opinion but for now, I still support Bethesda as a company and will continue to buy their games. I just hope they learn from their mistakes.

Oh, for crying out loud...

Nobody "dropped the ball" with FNV. It's an excellent game. The reason there seems like there's more bugs than FO3 is because there's more game to have bugs in. There's something like four times as many quests, twice as many factions, probably three times as many settlements, and an order of magnitude more endings.

Bethesda had a particular dev cycle that they needed to fit this game into. That's business. There's no way all the bugs could be squashed with the amount of time and resources they had, and if you think that there's significantly fewer bugs in proportion to the amount of gameplay between this and FO3, you would be mistaken.

Expecting for there to be dramatic engine upgrades is unreasonable as well. Bethesda handed their engine over to Obsidian and said, "Okay, you want to make a Fallout game, we want you to make a Fallout game, go make a Fallout game. We'll be back here working on our next big project." Obsidian has never been the company for major engine upgrades. You'll also notice that this is Fallout: New Vegas and not Fallout 4. Did we get a lot of engine upgrades from Grand Theft Auto 3 to Grand Theft Auto: Vice City? No. It was mostly detail and gameplay improvement.

While I don't really care if Bethesda keeps the licence to Fallout as long as Obsidian (or equally franchise-devoted and skilled developers) gets to continue to make games for it, I do think that they're operating in good faith to the franchise. They're legitimately fans looking to continue a series they enjoy.

I'm getting pretty tired of people bagging on Bethesda, because, without their intervention, we'd probably never have had more Fallout in the first place. Interplay is the real ones who dropped the ball in sacking Black Isle and, before that, forcing them to churn out quick cash-in dungeon crawls like Icewind Dale* instead of Van Buren.

* = Don't get me wrong, the Icewind Dale games were really solid games that I enjoyed, but they weren't what the fans wanted. Heck, the lead dev on FNV, Bishop Sawyer, joined Black Isle specifically to do Fallout 3, but they had him stuck doing IWD2 before Interplay sacked BIS.

The Oil Rig refference? I dont know if i want to thank Bethesda only, i should thank both Companies, since that Obsidian have some former members of Black Isle (Fallout 2, Baldur s Gate 1 and 2( along with Bioware) )

Technically Black Isle only distributed the Baldur's Gate games, as I recall. But they did make Planescape: Torment and the Icewind Dale games as well as FO2.

Black isle never distrubuted anything, They were a development brand within interplay.


Although I'm with you on the rest of the argument, this is wrong. Bethesda was the highest bidder, not the only one.

the game was rushed by BETHESDA. They rushed the game for the holidays.

Bethesda: How far are you?
Obsidian: Oh we got some side quests to do, some bugs to fix, and stupid dialogue to add it'll take us a good 6 mo--
Bethesda: You got 3.

It happens to Obsidian every time they do a game.




He's actually right. They only did distribution on the Baldur's Gate games.

It happens to *everyone* at this time of year. Its what Marketing like.

Releasing in the wrong month can effect your sales.

I understand why everyone who is sore about New Vegas apparently being so buggy being sore, but threads like this are just ridiculous and extreme. Yes, New Vegas has so many and such serious glitches that you are at risk of losing a lot of data gained only with a ton of hours(and thus in a way making it un-playable), but to anyone who bought it-you could have waited. You could have read how almost every reviewer warned us that it was a scary trash heap of bugs, even ones who stated they adored the game otherwise. And then you could have waited for the game to be patched a number of times until you felt it wouldn't actually be so flawed. I read people saying they would have been willing to wait so that New Vegas could have been better done, and that probably SHOULD have happened-I agree, but in technicality you could have waited even with it's official release, unless you just HAD to have pre-order. Which is somewhat understandable, but it didn't have so many perks that its worth paying for a game you're going to be so frustrated with(and possibly paying more than necessary) until patch version ___ comes out.

Bugs SHOULD be complained about, but in a way that explains what's wrong, not in a way like this-in which someone goes so far as to say "please sell the rights to fallout." This is because it isn't going to be happening(at least not because of a request by an angry customer on the forums), isn't really productive and ends up being a "raeg" thread(again, the anger is understandable, but this whole selling idea and ranting about it like it should be taken seriously is absurd), and because(as I've already stated before) it's extreme and absurd enough to where few are going to take it seriously. And even less staff will be taking it seriously than forum members, most likely. You might bring about a new surge of anger over some of the readers by whipping up this thread, for whatever reason they become angry, but that's about it.

I don't think, in any case, Bethesda should be selling the rights to Fallout-at least not on the basis that Vegas came out buggy. Especially since more than likely we'll have a newer, less glitchy engine for the next Fallout game. The game's flaws, when developed or published by Bethesda, are not really so much the bugs. Though they were ridiculously bad this time, I heard they were pretty bad with Fallout 3 when it first came out too, and there will be future patches to fix it. My problem with Fallout games developed directly by Bethesda is that they aren't the writers, unless they're holding back on us, they need to be to have a good Fallout game based on past criteria. The RPG aspects are far more severely toned down in Fallout 3, especially in storyline and that sort of gameplay, than in Fallout 1 or 2(and note that I did NOT play either first, I'm currently sixteen....and my dad never played them when I was a kid, so I didn't either.)

Except Valve, but that might have something to do with them being always late.

Isn t Fallout 2 rushed for holidays?

I've learned that big-time companies (Bethesda, Blizzard, etc.) can never fail. Fallout 3 got 10/10, even though it was uber buggy. Fallout New Vegas got 6/10, even though the storyline, dialogue, and stuff was better. F:NV was even marked down for the plot not being 'epic' enough and the BoS and Enclave not being 'gewdheroeguyz!!!' and 'EVILDEMONZSHOOTZTHEMZ!' And the lack of them.

Bethesda can do no wrong, Obsidian can't go to the bathroom without being slammed by critics.

Obsidian Dev in Bathroom...

"OMG! YOU'RE TAKING A LEAK INSTEAD OF PROGRAMMING! 1/10 for your piece of crap game!"

Sorry guys, but I think Bethesda should've pushed the release date. Obsidian is primarily B.I. Studios. They're the original folks of Fallout, and I think they should continue being the devs.

Kalarn, I have to disagree with you there. Bethesda got a 10/10 on Fallout 3 because it was a good game that too a step up from it's predecessors. In graphics, dialogue, game play, etc. Not because it was from a big company, though that usually helps because they usually have a bigger budget. Every game has bugs in it, so no surprise that Fallout 3 had some, but in my 200+ hours, I only encountered two that prevented my enjoyment of the game.

Fallout NV got a lower score because it didn't take that step forward. A lot of it was the same old thing, it felt just like a Fallout 3 expansion to me. The targeting has been improved slightly with the use of iron sights, but even with a high gun skill and associated perks, I still fall to V.A.T.S if I want my shot to count. The Wasteland is fun to explore and all but lacks the sense of charm that Fallout 3 gave me. The people I found could be from crying kids,to highwaymen, to scavengers with Yao Gui. What I find mostly now is "prospectors" that mutter "hellos" and nothing else. As for the story, I don't think they were trying to say 'epic', it doesn't have to be, but it should make an impact. At the end of Fallout 3 you start the purifier and selflessly sacrifice your life for it. With the broken steel add-on, you end up by calling an air strike on the Enclave mobile base(or not).

At the end of NV

Though that said, NV does have a lot of good things about. It has a more immersion storyline in which three fractions are fighting over you and you can choose whoever you want or nobody. Every decision you make will effect the other factions and I agree that the dialogue was well written. I actually want to recruit companions in NV which is cool, and the weapons mods or nice also(though I'm an unarmed player). But the only thing that stand really vivid in my mine is when .

So NV isn't without it's charm, but it makes few steps to improve what Bethesda left us and that's why I feel that it was a bit of a let down. But by no means does that mean Bethesda should sell the rights. You can't make an absolute perfect game and every time they make a couple mistakes you don't like doesn't mean they should hang up their coats.

A step up from it's predecessors? Sidestep sure but a step up certainly not unless you believe that first person perspective, real time combat and a dumbed down character system are objectively superior to what the originals had. They aren't. You may prefer them; more people may prefer them; but that does not make them a step up. As for dialogue c'mon. Compare the conversation with Eden to the one with the Master. Or Harold in the first two games to anything in Fallout 3. How about the Lieutenant, Marcus, Decker, Set, Tandi, Gizmo, Morpheus, Sgt. Dornan, etc? That list can keep going for a long time.



There was this game called Fallout 2 once. A lot of it was the same old thing as Fallout 1. I mean the engine was identical, the graphics were identical, even the gameplay was identical outside a few minor UI changes. It didn't feel like anything like an expansion however because it added a ton of entirely new content and was a game that was substantially larger than it's predecessor. Guess it was just an expansion pack though. Amazing how no one picked up on that.



Oh so deciding the fate of the entire Mojave wasteland wasn't making an impact? You're right though. If only there was a water purifier I could activate to decide that fate. Then it would be epic and I would feel like I made an impact.



I do agree. NV didn't take enough steps to improve what Bethesda left us but given the constraints Obsidian was operating under and the fact that Fallout 3 fans were a large part of their intended market I'm hard pressed to fault the incredible amount of improvements they managed.

Fallout 2 was definately rushed. CTD's when using explosives, extensive numbers of quests and locations cut (including Sulik's sister meaning players ran around the game trying to solve an unsolvable quest), disappearing car trunks, cassidy's head.

Indeed. And I'm not saying that NV was a bad game, it was really good and fun. But it felt re hashed, same stuff. And it grows old quicker, but I still expect to play 20+ hours in it. My whole point on the argument though was telling Kalarn that they didn't take that many improvements and that was why it got the score it did.

I had this huge three paragraph response, but I deleted it. I don't want to get an argument over opinions because there is no winner. I respect your ideas, I have mine and you yours, and I'll leave at that. There's plenty arguing over issues like this anyway.

Well NV had 2 years, can't really expect greatness that quickly.

Bethesda and Obsidian should work together

and talking about Fallout 2, the game was rushed, but the game have love of the fans enough just to create a whole fanmade patch to fix most of the bugs and glitches, and recover the cut content

To be fair, a lot of the reviews are absolute hogwash. I'm fairly certain that they didn't actually play through the game, and just relied on some day 1 opinions.

Wow, is that what it was? I did in fact spend sometime trying to find his damn sister. I thought I may have inadvertently killed her when I cleared out the slavers.

Anyway, I'm sure Bethesda aren't going to sell the rights to an IP that is making them money hand over fist. And those of us who aren't completely jaded by F3 not being like F1/F2 and/or don't hate Bethesda for a set of arbitrary reasons would like to see Bethesda hold onto the franchise and do something interesting in Fallout 4.

^
This.

I'm really, really looking forward to a Bethesda-developed FO4.