Ok so I love/d New Vegas but a lot of my friends said they where disappointed. I wonder if anyone else was to. At Game Stop I asked how much I could get in trade in for it and it was only $8.00. I got 12.80 for L4D 2, granted it was a 50% Extra Trade in. I usually can tell how much a game was liked by how much Game Stop is willing to pay for them. I got 25.60 for Halo:Reach, a game that came out only a month after. So that is my question Is anyone here disappointed with NV? Did it live up to the hype?

Did it live up to its Fallout name? Yes.
Did it dissapoint the F3 sandbox-hungry crowd? Also yes.

Me, I was completely satisfied with it. Granted, it could use some more of the Bethesda exploration, but the writing, characters(companions especially) and general world - lore consistency makes up for it. For me at least.

My feeling is that they could have used more time to finish the game and make it even fuller than it is...and it's big now. It wouldn't be completely accurate to say that I'm disappointed though...maybe a bit of regret for what could have been beyond what I feel about the game. I'm absolutely glad it was made and I look forward to a few more bugfixes that'll make me happier with it. After the fixes, I'll think about DLC too. I've played 6 games now and each one was over 100 hours of a really good time with many differences in each one because the game offers that. I'm getting my money's worth. The stories are great; I love the writing. My favorite thing is the Companions and I look forward to the next installment of Fallout too.

:fallout:

Thats a tough question actually i'd say it only truely lived up to the hype to hardcoe fans of the originals and it's general ratings were lower than fo3 so you're average joe was probably a bit disappointed .Me personally it was what i expeceted if exploration was better it woul have exceeded the hype but thats most people's beef with nv .

Writing and settingwise it is a solid Fallout game and a fine RPG, but I do have some gameplayrelated gripes (I would've liked a more skill/stat driven gameplay and higher challenge, for a couple general examples). Can't say I was disappointed, though, had more fun with this game than with any other in years.

If i had 2 say i was ever so slightly disappointed love how people make out the story is a masterpiece thats my biggest beef with nv.

If i had 2 say i was ever so slightly disappointed love how people make out the story is a masterpiece thats my biggest beef with nv.

Well, it surely isn't. Planescape Torment is still sitting on the throne. :celebrate:
I think it's mostly when it comes to the F3 comparsion.

Great game, only aspect it was lacking in was the exploration element (no random encounters were the real killer for this).

The writing was great, though, and the companions were awesome; definitely better than their FO3 equivalents for the most part.

It looks like the majority here agree with me, I loved it, though it was a great game but there was a certain lack of exploration and encounters. I think it would have been cool to see the TARDIS again.

it was good game in so many areas except for exploration, random events/encounters, factions patrolling the map, static spawns, for me the map is just too barren, there has to be stuff to do, you can't just say oh its in a desert so lets leave it empty, artistic licencse has to be employed in order to make the game as interesting and fun as possible. the entire bottom half of the map is pretty empty except for nipton, mojave outpost and camp searchlight it needed a lot more content overall. more of everything. camp searchlight airport could of been a really cool place to explore and fight enemies in.

If it hadn't been for the glitches and bugs I mostly likely would of liked it more, but first impressions are key. That by itself made me not like it. I still haven't finished the game even once. Mainly because I'd rather just wait till all DLC's are out and do all of those then finish the game.

Because once I finish a game I am done with it and it gets sold for whatever I can get. I am a fan of quality not quantity.

LOL 1st thread everyone completely agrees.

saying its about quality is abitrary, every aspect of the game is not quality, how they did the story was pretty good but the game world has a huge lack of things to explore, no random encounters at all, none of the factions patrol anywhere, the spawns are all static, and the most of the map is just empty, just cause its a desert isn't a reason to leave it empty. so certain aspects of the game were quality, the dialogue, the weapons selection, the reputation system, the skill/perk system, but to say its all quality, not having any random events or encounters is a lack of quality, and having so much of the map barren isn't quality either.

Smert sum it up well, those who expect a "traditional" Fallout RPG and Stories wouldn't be disappointed. But those who expected FO3 sandboxness would. Personally I cannot believe I put a thousand hour in FO3 after I played New Vegas a couple of hours.


It's about all the freedom of choice, and that your decision does make quite an impact at the in game and end game battle (especially Yesman route). The story have enough twist and buildup to keep player pushing forward (with a lot of FO3 sandbox fan pass the point of no return).


Actually, the map is pretty cram compare to say FO2, which have a lot of empty land you only see as the world map.

Random Encounters isn't a strong argument either, as they are poorly done in FO3 at best (so random that a lot of people encounter the Alien Blaster 1st and one shot by Raiders), wastelander in the middle of no where talking about taking refugee at Underworld or other town also seems odd because DC is more dangerous than the rest of Virginia and Maryland. It is also odd that wastelander fighting creatures not in their territory.

Was it worth the ￡20 i paid for it? Yes
Bearing in mind the bugs, was it a good game? No
So without bugs, would it be a good game? Defiantly Yes

I loved it, I thought it was better than FO3. It had a great story and was a fun game.

I was majorly disappointed. Right in the beginning it annoyed me. My first impression of my character is that he was too dumb to outwit a couple of junkies and a guy in a suit. Then I'm all patched up, and supposed to hunt him down. Forget that, my happy ass is going exploring. Bounce, oh look forty thousand invisable walls!!

Didnt live up to fallout 3. But then fallout 3 is the greatest game i have honestly ever played so that might just be me
:celebration:

your arguments are weak, you must not of played FO3 very much, it has lots of random encounters and events, tons of random patrols from all factions in FO3, raiders, mercs, hunters, slavers, outcast, enclave, wastelanders, new vegas doens't have any factions patrolling, and freedom of choice? you can do whatever you want in FO3, blow up megaton, kill everyone at rivet city, not help the slaves etc, so i'm not so sure what you're talking about, and the new vegas map is empty with almost no action at all, most people who bought NV it when it came out are already done with it cause they're bored, it doesn't even have very many good places to hide or stalk enemies, most of the factions live in tents..ncr, ceasers legion, the great khans, just sticking a load of tents all over the map isn't quality. the same 3 bark scorpions spawn in hidden valley if if you go by the area 100 times.

the story wasn't great. what was great about it ? that is was really short ? even though there were different ways to play the main quest, it all played out the same no matter who's side you were on, the only difference was after the game was over at the end game slides, so even though you could side with ncr or ceasers legion or yes man etc, it doens't change anything in the game, the game still plays out exactly the same no matter how you do the quests, you might be able to make the arugment that for big fans of end game slides the slides are different, but big deal the game is over by then.

You either lie or haven't really played the game all that much. There are plenty of factions patrolling around the Mojave.


But does that really affect anything. You can kill or help almost everyone in New Vegas too, and it has consequences. :shurg:



Yeah, right. And most people have already sold their Fallout 3's two years ago or used it as firewood because they got even more bored and thirsty and they needed something to light the fireplace with because they were out of McDonalds cupongs. This is a fact, as much as your claim.

This game completely shattered FO3 in every single way except for exploration.

I loved NV! It's 10x better than FO3 and I think it was even a little better than Fallout 1 but Fallout 2 is my favorite. I feel this way mostly because the story svcked in fallout 3, they took so much good out of the originals, and pretty much stole everybit of the game except the characters and setting from the first two. In my opinion fallout new Vegas should be fallout 3 and what we know as fallout 3 never existed. New Vegas is more a sequel to fo2 and is just a better game.

@westofrockies: you can do anything in FO3 how is that even an arguement? Doing whatever you want is a much more prominent quality in FONV you can kill anybody! In FO3 there are like 20 restricted NPCs barely any named NPCs.

The games are extremely similar and I the only reason I didn't love it was that I'd put so much time into Fallout 3. You could argue the micro-differences until the sun explodes, but they are extremely similar. New Vegas added some mechanics like factions and gambling, but they were poorly done in my opinion. I think most people's gripes with this game boil down to a simple disinterest in playing the same game twice. Now I know the games have differing story-lines and quests, but the delivery system is exactly the same and it gets repetitive. Both games don't fare well in the story department, but Fallout 3 was new and exciting with a new engine and VATS, New Vegas is just more Fallout 3 and it's the main reason I am disappointed with this game.