Let me start out by saying that I absolutely love Fallout 3. I know it glitches on rare occasion and some of the characters are pretty dorky. Sure, I'd rather pull my own fingernails out than navigate it again . . . but the game itself is funny, entertaining, challenging and simple enough to keep me from over thinking when I am trying to accomplish something.
That being said, Fallout New Vegas is simply awful.
I am very disappointed because it locks up so often I am afraid for my Playstation 3.
The robots voices are what I would imagine a cheese grater would sound like if it could talk. Why did they change the voices of the robots? Mr Gutsy in Fallout 3 was funny, and the other robots had unique and distinctive qualities that made them worth fighting.
Why on earth are the super mutants intelligent? Who was the genius that decided to make them look like Shrek? Why does one of them sound like he should have a PHD and a Pulitzer? Why on earth should I care if some of them are Schizophrenic?
What is up with making it so difficult to keep my character fed and hydrated? I'm not shy to a challenge, but it sure is annoying when you have to stop every ten minutes to feed the person. Also, I hate that ninety percent of the stuff i carry has to be food and ammunition that weighs so much i can't carry a variety of guns and attire.
The music svcks. In Fallout 3, only one or two songs were less than desirable. In this one, I don't like one of them and keep the radio off.
The people don't look human. Need I say more?
Once again, the people narrating the characters you encounter don't know how to say normal, everyday things. They pause when there should be no pause, they place emphasis on words that shouldn't be spoken with such weight.
But my biggest issue with this game, that makes me mad I ever wasted money on it, is that all you have to do to get things done is talk to people. I doubt quite sincerely that anyone is interested in playing a talk show with guns. I paid for an adventure game.
I'm trying to think of something nice to say, but I'm having a hard time coming up with anything.
I think I'll just play Fallout 3 until you all come out with the next Fallout game.

In the original games the supermutants had a wide range of intelligence, some were pretty dense and some were extremely intelligent.

The East Coast supermutants seem to be a different strain, they are rarely intelligent (Tabitha believes this is because the Master wasn't involved in their developement, he was involved in the West Coast supermutants) and they continue to grow as they age.

Nevada has West Coast supermutants which is why they look a bit different, there are no overlords or behemoths, and some are quite intelligent and sociable.


hardcoe mode is an option, it's not required. I didn't like the food/drink/sleep requirement either so after finishing in hardcoe with my first character I've kept it disabled.


It is an RPG, not an FPS; even Fallout 3 had a fair bit of dialogue. Yes FONV puts more emphasis on character interaction, some RPGs do, but this also means that quests are more likely to have multiple paths to support more types of characters.

ok 1st off the mutant that I think you are referring to, Marcus I think is his name, is from the original game...or was it 2...any way he was a companion from one of them, I think 2, and it was cool to see that they furthered his story in this game. You dont have to care if the super mutants have schizophrenia it's just part of the story and lends depth to the bio of the nightkin, and I thought it was pretty funny, namely Tabitha lol

2nd if you dont want to have to drink and feed your toon all the time.....just turn off the hardcoe mode and you wont have to deal with it anymore, its that easy man.

You don't HAVE to have long discussions with most interactions.

Personally, I like the dialog options. Oh, and just a note - this isn't an "adventure" game, it's an RPG - and an integral part of RPGs - is dialog. (At least for me it is. I'm pretty sure it is for many others also.)

As for caring about schizophrenic mutants - that's called backstory. You don't HAVE to care, or even get involved in any way. That quest line is 100% optional.

As for your complaints about the ammo weight and needing to eat ect - simple answer to that - turn hardcoe mode off.


Seriously, I am pretty open minded when it comes to complaints. Yours tho, are pretty hard to find any common ground with.

It doesn't matter if you put it in the story line or not. What matters is that these elements are vastly disappointing. RPG or no, it is an adventure game. I shouldn't have to make the game easy so that I am not constantly interrupted. My opinion is just that, an opinion. And yes, I am aware that there was some conversation involved with the last game, no problem. What bothers me most about it is that, more often than not, in Fallout 3 you would often have to DO something other than talk to people to solve an issue. Like finding the Soil Stradivarius, for instance, or finding Arglye. Though I have no issue with doing the talking sometimes, I would like to have more quests where you help a bunch of Ghouls take flight, etc. In my *opinion* the game reeks, and no argument is going to change my mind.

This game is an RPG - not an adventure game.

Perhaps this is the point that you can't get past.

Changing hardcoe mode in NO way affects the difficulty of the game, other than removing the "constant interruptions".

As for doing something other than talking to people - we must be playing different games.

I really liked the speech I made a character that was based purely on that (RPG)
and the people don't look realistic, really what is that based on, it is almost a direct port from Fallout 3 to NV

Well, it's an RPG. I haven't played it yet, but I'm very exited at the prospect of intelligent Super-muties and better dialog options to branch out from. It might make my speech skill worth a damn.

As for glitches...I'm not looking forward to that at all, and I hope you're exaggerating (I'm on a 360).

according to the definition of RPG game on more than one site:

A role-playing game is a broad family of games in which players assume the roles of characters, or take control of one or more avatars, in a fictional setting. Actions taken within the game succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.

K, I get that . .
In which way does that implicate that an RPG cannot be an adventure game?

According to Wikipedia at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventure_game Adventure Games are:

"Combat and action challenges are limited or absent in adventure games,[1] thus distinguishing them from action games.[7] In the book Andrew Rollings and Ernest Adams on Game Design, the authors state that "this [reduced emphasis on combat] doesn't mean that there is no conflict in adventure games ... only that combat is not the primary activity."[5] Some adventure games will include a minigame from another video game genre, which are not always appreciated by adventure game purists.[1] Of course, there are some games that blend action and adventure throughout the game experience.[14] These hybrid action-adventure games involve more physical challenges than pure adventure games, as well as a faster pace. This definition is hard to apply, however, with some debate among designers about which games are action games and which involve enough non-physical challenges to be considered action-adventures.[1]"

I know what FPSs are, I play them. FPSs are greatly battle based.

I'm not sure how the game will handle on a 360, I hope it's not as bad. I have had to reset my system as much as four times in an hour because it jams, sometimes while I am only walking. It's a huge game, lots of exploration space, so some is alright, but there is so much on the PS3 version that I found myself exasperated.

I'm not sure exactly how your repost of the Wiki description of adventure game supports your belief that FONV is an adventure game. In fact, I don't see that it does at all.

There are almost no physical challenges in FONV. ( And I'm pretty sure playing caravan and pulling a one armed bandit don't count as physical challenges.)
Combat is pretty important in FONV so - again, not sure how it fits into your argument.


EDIT: In fact, I went to your link (although I'll be honest - I do not feel that Wiki is a credible source a good deal of the time). Your linked article says:

"The genre's focus on story allows it to draw heavily from other narrative-based media such as literature and film, encompassing a wide variety of literary genres. Nearly all adventure games are designed for a single player, since this emphasis on story and character makes multi-player design difficult"


I'm thinking that pretty much sums up the importance of dialog, back story, etc in an "adventure" OR RPG.

Your edit says the story leans on narrative based media, such as literature and film. Though this game is not specifically based on a movie or book, that does not exclude it from the genre. However, both games rip off the Incredible Hulk and The Princess Bride. How does your quote denounce my statement?
I want more intellectual puzzles. You know, things you have to try to figure out. Those are not necessarily physical in nature. It's not a challenge at all to determine what to do in this game, where to go, or why. It is so easy to find most quest related items that there is almost no need to do anything but jump from one area to another, pick it up or buy it, and take it back. In FO3 the violin, music sheet book, the bobble heads and NC quantums are all physical searches, but are not what the game is about and you can complete the game without ever having done them. It is a game where you take control of an avatar, follow a story line, figure some puzzles out, get into some adventures, and see the way it ends.
That was the point I was trying to make. That is where my annoyance comes in. It is lopsided, as there are far-far fewer actual puzzles and way too much talking.
In other words,FONV is an RPG/Adventure game blend. It is both . . . at the same time. It is possible. This is not a purist game. Or, perhaps the genre Action-Adventure/RPG would be more suitable?

This game constantly uses references to popular culture, history, film, music, and literature to develop it's story - but that wasn't the point. The quote:"Nearly all adventure games are designed for a single player, since this emphasis on story and character makes multi-player design difficult"

Basically, imo, there's two main ways to provide story/character details, either interactively via the relationships the character has with other characters (developed via dialog), or by books/notes etc (which games like Oblivion and Dragon Age rely heavily on.) Both FO3 and FONV rely heavily on interpersonal relationships as a means of character development. FOVN perhaps more so than FO3 (in the heavy faction reliance).






Wiki's definition of adventure notes the emphasis of story and character. FONV, I'm pretty certain, is known as a RPG first and foremost. In RPGS there is even MORE emphasis on story and character. I don't believe puzzles are an emphasis in RPGS at all - (at least not a genre defining emphasis,)

I played FO3 (admittedly some time ago). I don't recall an emphasis on puzzles. I recall the same lockpicking and computer hacking that is also in FONV. I also don't recall any emphasis on puzzles when FONV was released. (Meaning I could understand your beef if puzzles had been advertised as a significant part of the game. But they weren't.)

You are certainly entitled to want more puzzle solving. However, I am not sure that's a fair critique (especially at the cost of the main elements of the RPG - the character and story development). And honestly, I don't really recall any real "intellectual puzzles" (your words) in FO3 (other than maybe the alternate reality one in Tranquility Lane maybe), although I certainly could have missed them.

As for the bobble heads, document collecting etc not being essential to completing the story - the exact same can be said about the Super Mutant backstory. You don't need to complete it in order to finish the main story.

If you want an emphasis on puzzle solving - I'd direct you to games that are known as adventure games- ie Assassin's Creed, Uncharted etc.

I will agree with you on one point though - as games become more comprehensive in scope labels like "action adventure/RPG/FPS" will become more and more obsolete. I just think it's very unfair of you to fault FONV for a lack of puzzles (which I don't ever recall being a huge part of the game other than as presented in FO3 ie hacking/lockpicking etc) and hold the (imo excellent dialog/back story options) at fault for this lack. I also think it's an unrealistic expectation to expect that puzzle solving be more important than story line and character development in a game of this nature.


That isn't to say that there isn't plenty to find fault with - there is. But imo you're complaining about the game's strengths, not it's weaknesses.

Hey artemisoflight,


To troll is a art!



I read through this thread and if you played Fallout 3, then you knew what you were in for with this game. It seems to me that your more trying to "stir the pot" rather than make a real point. You have some circular logic going on.

I personally happy with calling FO:NV an "Action-RPG". It has RPG elements , but does have more of a focus on keeping the pacing up rather than having to waste a bunch of time with inventory management.

But with the more in-depth crafting/survival system, you can also do that too.

If I was on facebook i would "like" your answer.
Since I'm on a technical issues forum, I'll just say that I totally agree with you.

I am really surprised that people are shocked, that Fallout New Vegas is a "Dogs Dinner" I assume that those people didn't buy "Neverwinter Nights 2" If you did then you would have realised,
what a complete mess Obsidian made of that.

When I heard that they had got involved in The Fallout franchise I feared the worse. Alas those fears have come to fruition.

First off, hitting enter between your thoughts helps people read it easier. Just saying.

Anyway...

1) Freezing on PS3. Yeah, it happens...not much you can do, I'm afraid. I've noticed it has as much to do with the console as it does the game, I feel. There are some heavily animated moments, and if for some reason you try to do too much at the same time as the game is loading the textures, animations, etc, the console locks up.

2) You really don't run into too many robots, I feel. They exist as enemies in some locations, sure, but for the most part, they're nothing more than neutral NPCs.

3) The super mutants you meet on the West Coast (since Fallout 1) were created by the Master. The East Coast mutants were created by accident. As for the super-intelligent super mutant, I'm assuming you're talking about Marcus, who was one of the main characters in Fallout 2...

4) It's hardcoe mode. Why should it be easy to keep your character hydrated and fed? You do realize that in real life, it's pretty hard to do those things while running around in the desert carrying a couple hundred pounds of stuff, right? Plus, 10 minutes (what I assume are RL minutes) is a couple hours in game, if not more (I think in game time is like 2-3 RL seconds = 1 game minute?). So yeah, in real life you'd need to eat and drink water every few hours in the same situation.

5) The music fits the game, which is a bit of a Western and a bit of a 50s theme. If you don't like it, well, that's too bad for you. Had you griped that the number of songs available were laughable, I might have agreed with you. But liking or not liking the songs is a personal preference.

6) Yes? I don't understand what you wanted to change from a video game running an older engine.

7) Actually, you paid for a role-playing game. And in a role-playing game, you're telling a story, in which the player is a character. In stories, there is dialogue and there are conversations. You can use the various speech or barter skills to defuse, escalate or otherwise influence important events. What did you expect from an RPG?

Please don't tell me that you're suggesting that the PS3 is responsible for the crashes, and- I MUST be reading this wrong, because of "heavily animated moments"???????

The graphics in this game are pretty much antiquated by today's standards. I really don't think the PS3 is incapable of handling them.

I've pretty much refrained from mentioning this in my other posts, as I'm not looking to pick an argument, but I have to say that I've personally seen a difference in playability on different PS3s.
When I first came to these forums, it was because I was suffering massive freezing/crashing issues. As I related many times in many threads, I tried everything possible to get the game to play on my launch date 60GB system. I just about drove myself bonkers.

I was just about ready to sell this game to Gamestop and take my losses when my b/f brought home a shiny new 160GB Slim. We were planning on getting another PS3 anyway, so that we can play against eachother in on-line games, so he went ahead and got it as an early Christmas present.

Anyway, for whatever reason, NV plays significantly better on the new system. Actually, even after reformatting the HDD, it won't play at all on the old one, so anything has to be an improvement. LOL!

To be sure, we still suffer occasional freezing and periodic weird crashes to the XMB but it is at least playable. I have to be fair and admit that there is a clear difference. :shrug:


Still, I happen to think that any degree of freezing/crashing in a console game is unacceptable.

My system is not brand spanking new - but is less than 4 mos old. I have only two other games saved- FO3 and Dragon's Age.

I am wondering if perhaps your problems were simple due to the capricious nature of the errors, as illustrated by the many different experiences here on the forums.

I have a very hard time believing it's because of the system itself. Especially since the XBOX and PC seems to be having all sorts of problems also.