My Ultimate Fallout New Vegas Review : Fallout: New Vegas

» Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:55 am

Hey, this is my first ever youtube review so take it easy on me. In the review I showcase a lot of gameplay and talk about the combat mechanics and such. It should be interesting.

Hope you like the review, enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gb-CD0E5Ge0

» Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:53 pm

About to watch, better not be spoilers

ugh narration is too annoying. Think I saw one of the ending scenes in F3 too. Also it compares NV to MW2. Terrible, idiotic review

» Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:09 am

for once "go play modern warfare 2" is appropriate..

» Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:12 am

It includes no spoilers. I paid extra attention to that.

» Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:30 pm

Very bad review. I'm sorry. "It's not like Modern Warfare 2 so it svcks."

» Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:13 am

Very bad review. I'm sorry. "It's not like Modern Warfare 2 so it svcks."

Modern Warfare 2 is the pinnacle of shooter games so it makes perfect sense to compare shooter mechanics to it.

» Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:09 am

Oh my god your voice. Sorry but...sorry

» Mon Jan 25, 2010 8:26 pm

Modern Warfare 2 is the pinnacle of shooter games so it makes perfect sense to compare shooter mechanics to it.

Your only complaints in the entire review were that the shooter mechanics weren't realistic enough and that it was too easy to pick up girls (despite the fact you were talking to hokers) compared to real life.

A good review goes in depth about all aspects of the game and then gives an honest unbiased opinion.

» Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:16 pm

Fallout isn't a first person shooter game though. It's an open world RPG and very different game altogether.

It's not at all logical to compare it to CoD. Fallout is a much larger game, with more to do, and more game play concepts. I like playing FPS games on occasion too, but the review sounds like you either didn't really know what type of game Fallout was or you expected Fallout to be a FPS game, which its not even close.

» Mon Jan 25, 2010 12:23 pm

If the "review" compared New Vegas to a game like s.t.a.l.k.e.r. I might have taken you seriously.

» Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:01 pm

Modern Warfare 2 is the pinnacle of shooter games so it makes perfect sense to compare shooter mechanics to it.

nah, the Battlefield series is the pinnacle of online shooters.

» Mon Jan 25, 2010 12:36 pm

Very bad review. I'm sorry. "It's not like Modern Warfare 2 so it svcks."

This. You also sounded like a kid, no offense.

» Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:58 am

Fallout isn't a first person shooter game though. It's an open world RPG and very different game altogether.

It's not at all logical to compare it to CoD. Fallout is a much larger game, with more to do, and more game play concepts. I like playing FPS games on occasion too, but the review sounds like you either didn't really know what type of game Fallout was or you expected Fallout to be a FPS game, which its not even close.

While I would cut New Vegas some slack for not being a perfect shooter game, it's no excuse for not improving on it at all since Fallout 3 two years ago. It's just what Fallout 2 was to the first one: no improvements in most areas. Makes it a bad game in my book. Fallout 3 on the other hand improved from previous ones by a ton making it a good game.

» Mon Jan 25, 2010 4:48 pm

Modern Warfare 2 is the pinnacle of shooter games

No it isn't. It doesn't even have lean.

» Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:01 pm

While I would cut New Vegas some slack for not being a perfect shooter game, it's no excuse for not improving on it at all since Fallout 3 two years ago. It's just what Fallout 2 was to the first one: no improvements in most areas. Makes it a bad game in my book. Fallout 3 on the other hand improved from previous ones by a ton making it a good game.

How does that make it a bad game? Modern Warfare 2 had almost no improvements on Modern Warfare and yet you call it the pinnacle of shooters.

» Mon Jan 25, 2010 8:50 pm

How does that make it a bad game? Modern Warfare 2 had almost no improvements on Modern Warfare and yet you call it the pinnacle of shooters.

Exactly.......worse review ever. Worse voice ever. Major waste of time.

» Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:42 am

How does that make it a bad game? Modern Warfare 2 had almost no improvements on Modern Warfare and yet you call it the pinnacle of shooters.

Modern Warfare 2 tweaked the bobbing, the speed, the damages and the recoils and improved the graphics. If you play CoD4 and MW2 you'll notice the difference with your eyes closed.

» Mon Jan 25, 2010 8:42 pm

Modern Warfare 2 tweaked the bobbing, the speed, the damages and the recoils and improved the graphics. If you play CoD4 and MW2 you'll notice the difference with your eyes closed.

Fallout New Vegas? They tweaked VATS, the ranged and melee combat, the damage system, and improved the dialogue and story. If you play New Vegas and Fallout 3 you'll notice the difference with your eyes closed.

It seems to me that you're 100% shooter fan. Why did you pick up an RPG and then immediately, in your mind, compare it to what you believe is the epitome of FPSs?

Modern Warfare 2 felt exactly the same to me as Modern Warfare. I know some can make that argument for New Vegas as well.

» Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:00 am

Fallout New Vegas? They tweaked VATS, the ranged and melee combat, the damage system, and improved the dialogue and story. If you play New Vegas and Fallout 3 you'll notice the difference with your eyes closed.

It seems to me that you're 100% shooter fan. Why did you pick up an RPG and then immediately, in your mind, compare it to what you believe is the epitome of FPSs?

Modern Warfare 2 felt exactly the same to me as Modern Warfare. I know some can make that argument for New Vegas as well.

How is VATS changed? You still reload while your opponents do nothing for 5 seconds and continue shooting them. The dialogue is still not on the level of Fallout 2 and the story is worse than Fallout 3. Your argument is invalid.

» Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:45 am

For even trying to compare MW2 and New Vegas.

» Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:45 pm

How is VATS changed? You still reload while your opponents do nothing for 5 seconds and continue shooting them. The dialogue is still not on the level of Fallout 2 and the story is worse than Fallout 3. Your argument is invalid.

VATS has changed. You can now take damage while in VATS and it's harder to get a high % chance to hit. The dialogue is very well written and the story is MUCH better than Fallout 3s. Not to mention all the possible plot paths and choices. The last bit is of course my opinion. Just as what you said is your opinion.

My argument is every bit as valid as yours.

» Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:10 am

Modern Warfare 2 tweaked the bobbing, the speed, the damages and the recoils and improved the graphics. If you play CoD4 and MW2 you'll notice the difference with your eyes closed.

Fallout: New Vegas tweaked dozens of stuff and it just didn't improve on the graphics but I guess this is the only thing you are concerned about.

» Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:08 pm

Modern Warfare 2 is the pinnacle of shooter games so it makes perfect sense to compare shooter mechanics to it.

New Vegas isn't an FPS. Its an open-world RPG. There are going to be differences between it and Modern Warfare. Get over it.

» Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:27 pm

Modern warfare 2 svcked, it has as many errors as Fallout had on its release after several patches, and it is, in my opinion, the devil.
The game is an RPG, and if you want to talk about inrealistic combat, talk about the fact that it takes 12 shots to kill someone, they weren't trying to be realistic.

May Oblivion Take you!

bliviongate:

» Tue Jan 26, 2010 5:18 am

Bad review. You can't compare Fallout: NV to MW2.