I am a massive Fallout fan and I am severly dissapointed and angry with Fallout: New Vegas... I had hopes for this game to be one of the best of all time but sadly its probably the worst game i have ever played.
there are a lot of questions that Obsidian needs answering and Im sure i am not alone with how pathetic this game has turned out.

Was there any testing carried on this game?
Why was this game released when there is so many problems with it?
Why is there NO play on feature!!??!!
Why can you only have 1 campanion at 1 time?
Why do you have to take sides with every faction?
Why is there so many factions?
Why is the map smaller than Fallout 3?
How comes the Super Mutants are now peaceful?
Why do get a stupid number of quests at one time? I try to be methodical but you cant do that in this game!!!

I was expecting a game in this day and age to fail and i honestly didn't think it would be this game. I think even if updates was released and DLC i probably wouldnt be interested.

Obsidian has proven that you can ruin a franchise very easily. Please can someone at Bethesda sort this out sooner rather than later. I am also a huge Eder scrolls fan so please dont let Obsidian touch it!!!!

Been playing three days straight nearly. Not had a single problem. Perhaps the testers were also lucky in this reguard or not very though.



Because the game has a definitive ending.



Considering how powerful some companions are, thats probably for the best.



Because you can't side with every faction when some of them are at odds with each other. Y'know like real life.




Choice, atmosphere, makes it seem like New Vegas actually is the important area the games background claims it is.



Hadn't noticed.



Different breed to the DC ones. More intelligent and with intelligence comes a desire for alternates to giving someones nogging a flogging.




Because you keep talking to quest givers.



Sounds like it wasn't you're kind of game to begin with.



Funny. I think -and I know a lot of people do too- that New Vegas is a better game than Fallout 3.

can i have proper answers not some stupid tard... cheers

I agree that new vegas CAN be a better game than fallout 3...but honestly, I have never had so many problems with a game before. Fallout 3 was one of my favorites, and honestly, after i finish this out, id rather startup an old fallout 3 save before replaying new vegas.

Probably not much, other than the devs playing through it. Obsidian are known for releasing buggy games, Gamebryo is known to be a buggy engine and Fallout has a history of being a buggy franchise.


They had set the deadlines too tight, or they felt that all the game-breaking bugs that most people have encountered were small enough for people to not notice, maybe? Who knows.


They had wanted to do this, but they had set their deadlines too tight and the amount of work to add that feature would have been too great, considering the short time until release and the impact of your choices at the end of the game. Alternatively, they could have lessened the impact of your choices to reduce development costs at the price of neutering the story, which wasn't a tradeoff they were willing to make.


Balance. And it's two, one humanoid and one non-humanoid (most likely because two humanoid would have meant writing interactions for every single companion combination).


You don't, depending on how you play the game. Obviously you will towards the end o the game, even if it is a "kill 'em all" attitude, but then seeing as the game is all about factions, it wouldn't be much of a story otherwise, would it?


To make the game fun and believable.


It's not. It's actually bigger, just not by much.


>"i am massive Fallout fan"
>Has never played Fallout 2


Are you seriously complaining about having too much gameplay? Maybe a game like backgammon is more your speed.


New Vegas was better than Fallout 3, imo. Obsidian's issues were mainly technical, they improved the game in nearly every other way possible (and let's not forget, whilst not as bad as Obsidian, Bethesda were no saints in the bug department when F3 first released).

And please let those last two sentences be a troll. Obsidian have been developing Fallout games long before Bethesda, you have to be joking about ruining Fallout.

[quote name='C4MB5' date='25 October 2010 - 09:28 AM' timestamp='1288013336' post='16560748']
[quote]Was there any testing carried on this game?
Why was this game released when there is so many problems with it?[/quote]Quality assurance is in the hand of the publisher, so releasing FO:New Vegas in this state is Bethesda responsible.
[quote]Why can you only have 1 campanion at 1 time?[/quote]Wasn't much diffrent in F3? You can order a additional companion (like a ranger or soldier) when you get the radio from NCR.
[quote]How comes the Super Mutants are now peaceful?[/quote]Not the ones i met yet. ^^ But peaceful Supermutants can be found in all earlier Fallouts even in FO:Tactics, as a "massive Fallout fan" you should have known that....

pip pip hairs on a bobbin righty-o. lorry. vegimite. ta.

Anyway.

The guys at Obsidian are great and innovative, but they have a history of being forced to release games too early. They need to be able to pull a Bungie "when it's done, guys" instead of publisher after publisher making them meet a deadline with a game not fully tested.

My turn


The level of testing is very low in this game. Only obvious things have been tested. You can say this game is in beta-state, because it really is.
Maybe we are the testers, and in a month or so we get a refund, or free DLC's!


I too do not understand why this game was released. They probable reached their deadline and didn't want to delay the release of this game.
Or they just didn't care because Fallout New Vegas was a game everyone was looking forward to, and were only thinking about the $$$


Well they did the same for F3, and I didn't like this as well but it fitted well in the story. I haven't reached the end of NV yet because I can't (I have that great Black Screen of Death when I enter The Strip and I can't fix it by wearing that stupid hat), but I think it will be kinda the same thing as in F3. Still, they shouldn't have done this because a lot of people who played F3 were pissed because you couldn't play on.


Companion. You can have 2 companions, but the 2nd can only be the bot or the dog. The reason is quite simple; the game would be very very easy if you would have 2 or more humanoid companions. My companion is curently wearing Power Armor and a special Gatling Gun and she's like insta-killing everything. I don't even have the change to hit something cause she obliterates everything in a second. And the fact that companions have infinite ammo and infinite armor durability.
So yeah, that's probably why.


I find this a bit frustrating as well. But it is realistic. In Fallout NV there is no good, only bad. It's up to you to choose which one is the lesser evil (if you wanna play good). Each faction opposes every other faction. I was annoyed by the fact that I had to wipe out The Brotherhood of Steel... I joined them and liked them as a small faction, but I had to wipe them out to continue to main story line (or kill Mr. House, but I didn't want to do that as well). It's ok that you have to make choices, but almost every faction wants to wipe out the rest and that's really stupid. I think I'm going to wipe out everyone and everything on my 2nd playthrough. Pay back time.


This is a new implementation in Fallout NV. Factions were already present in F3, even in Oblivion (and Morrowind), but this time it really forms a group which is present for the player. I don't really understand why you have a problem with that. Again, it is realistic and makes the game a lot more fun because you have so many different groups and ideologies.


I thought the same. And I think it is indeed smaller than F3. But there are twice as many locations as in F3, so that kinda compensates.


When I first got to Jacobstown, I thought the game was (again) glitched, because they didn't attack me xD
I find it nice that they implemented a faction of Super Mutants which aren't going all-out rampaging on everything they see.
There is also a faction of Nightkin which are friendly (if you threat them right)

I agree with some on this thread that FO: NV COULD be a much better game than FO 3. But in its present state, it is not yet at that status. I could see letting some bugs get through in order to satisfy deadlines, even a couple of major ones that might cause a crash. But to let bugs, reported by countless people, that will corrupt your save files after putting hours into them is inexcusable. I liked Elder Scrolls, I liked FO 3, and I like this game. But I never had the trouble with any of the older games that I've been having with this one, as are many other people.

The game should have been better but the state it is in, hurts it, a lot. I was one of those people having no issues at all, but with all the issues I saw people having, I held my breathe. All the issues weren't the fault of the persons playing, so something just told me my time is coming, and slowly but surely, came the glitches. I personally hate when games rotate developers. I didn't know much about Obsidian and in other forums I pretty much heard they are a second rate team, not an A list team. Most dev teams dont make A list games, so Fallout 3 being an A list game, and having another team make the sequel.. uh, dont like the sound of that at all. Its just like COD4, IW making that and its so popular, let Treyarch use that engine and build off it. It wasn't Treyarch's idea, engine, etc.. blah blah..

as long as they can fix the corrupt save games glitch, the missing DLC errors, and the problems not being able to enter/exit the strip,

then i can forgive the small glitches like character clipping..


they REALLY have to move fast and patch the serious stuff SOON or they are pretty much done making games in the future,

i mean, who would trust them again after this?

All they have to do to save face is FIX IT, and SOON!!!

This argment seems really weak for me. Blaming it on the publisher for giving them a date to finish by is no reason to release an inferior product.
I work in a restaurant and when an order goes in you have a certain amout of time to finish it, if you don't finish it within that reasonable amout of time then your a bad chef as simple as that it doesn't matter if you could make a wonderful dish with more time part of the job is time managment and the same applys to anyone making a product.

I go here with Atomicandy. Yes, Obsidian have some decent designers with good stories/dialogue writers but there isn't a single Obsidian game which isn’t a technical mess in one way or another on release.

A delicious copypasta (with slightly profanity edit out) from a user named "racofer" at RPGCodex, it was posted two months ago....

Don't worry guys, with NWN2 Obsidian will have the proper time to polish the game and deliver what they're capable off unlike KotOR2 which LucasArts basically forced them to release unfinished.
Don't worry guys, with Alpha Protocol Obsidian will have the proper time to polish the game and deliver what they're capable off unlike NWN2 which Atari basically forced them to release unfinished.
Don't worry guys, with New Vegas Obsidian will have the proper time to polish the game and deliver what they're capable off unlike Alpha Protocol which Sega forced them to release unfinished.
Don't worry guys, with Dungeon Siege 3 Obsidian will have the proper time to polish the game and deliver what they're capable off unlike New Vegas which Bethesda forced them to release unfinished.

I liked and enjoyed all of their games, yes even Alpha Protocol. I played about 15 hours into FO:NV and I’m mostly pleased (besides some of the horrible bugs/frame rate issues), but I’m not impressed though (neither was I with F3).