Fallout: New Vegas super review

Back to Article


  • JosefMotley - October 23, 2010 7:10 a.m.

    oh and seeing as a lot of people seem to think its perfectly fine we do the game testing for fallout ourselves for free, i suggest it's only fair that we all download it for free off a torrent site and only pay for it when it actually works, seems a reasonable business arrangement to me
  • JosefMotley - October 23, 2010 6:51 a.m.

    totally agree with kit07 here, fallout 3 was a bugged mess that eventually corrupted my savegame file to the point where i couldn't carry on after the ending without ending up trapped facing a ceiling pressing E to wheeze forever (a known game ruining glitch they never bothered to patch or sort out) and NO-ONE really mentioned at the time how glitchy it was cause bethesda have made the gaming press its prison bitch. this time people are actually mentioning the bugs (though a few sites and magazines have pulled their unfavourable reviews already) so i can't imagine how bad it is this time. i'm expecting totally unplayable for another good week, it's ridiculous they're already having to patch a game within ten minutes of it being released!
  • Eliath - October 23, 2010 6:41 a.m.

    @TheVoid My understanding is they didn't get their copy until last Friday. Due to the size of the game, a week after they receive it is fair timing for the review. I think I read the Friday thing in one of the other FO articles. Maybe the snow globe one.
  • TheVoid - October 23, 2010 5:17 a.m.

    @kit07 - Learn a thing or two about running a business. How do you expect Gamesradar to exist without advertising dollars? I'm fucking sick of bozos like you thinking everyone on the site is on the "take". And if you haven't noticed, shit-for-brains, that sponsorship extends across the entire site. It's not like this review in particular is being sponsored by the product itself. Let me guess: You think Tyler is somehow being biased in his review. Is that it? How about this: Instead of crying foul play, why not come back with a throughly well thought out business model that will allow Gamesradar to do what it does while sidestepping advertising altogether. If you can figure that one out, you will become a very wealthy man because just about every website out there would pay out the ass to learn that secret. Do enlighten us Mr. Oh I Know So Much. Until then, go piss on your gag-inducing face. @CandiedJester - I dug your own mini-review but must accuse you of being stark raving mad if you feel that technical difficulties should be left out of a score completely. They may not have intended for the game to be buggy, but they didn't seem to kill themselves testing/fixing it before taking our money either. That's like saying that BP shouldn't be held responsible for the oil spill because they never intended for that explosion to occur, or Toyota shouldn't be accountable for their safety oversights simply because they didn't realize what was happening. If I buy a game I expect it to work and not force me to save every few steps for fear of it crashing and losing my progress. Personally I think games should be docked HARD for this sort of thing because it is unfortunately becoming more and more common. That's why I love PC Gamer - their policy is to review the game directly out of the box, patch promises and the like be damned! Just because it's easier to patch a game up after the fact these days doesn't mean we should all reduce ourselves to doormats. Long story short, publishers like this are basically sidestepping the extensive beta testing that they would normally have to pay for by making us - the buyers - that group instead. And not only do they not have to pay us for the *cough* priviledge, but we're actually tucking money in their pockets the whole while. It's a pretty shoddy business practice when it comes down to it - why not just keep the game for a bit longer to apply that final coat of polish and then release it when it is good and ready? Gamers remember and appreciate that sort thing. Hell, any customer of any product would. Anyway, for what it is worth it would appear that Tyler's "9" took said technical difficulties with a massive grain of salt, especially considering the splash this game's bugs have already made on the scene. If you ask me it sounds like Tyler was being quite generous in this regard, which is likely a testament to the game itself. Or maybe it is because Tyler was paid to give it a 9, right Kit07? @Tyler - All of this aside, I must ask: Why the long wait for the review? All week I was frantically checking the site, looking for the review, which made me realize how hopelessly addicted I am to all things Gamesradar. Was it an embargo? Perhaps Bethesda amd/or Obsidian were aware of the game's overly buggy nature and feared early poor reviews would maim coveted launch day sales? Or was it simply that long of a game and you wanted to give it the time it deserved before settling on a final score/review? If it is the former but you can't go there, I understand. Just don't expect Kit07 to.
  • pka4lif - October 23, 2010 5:11 a.m.

    OMG i hate thiz the same way a base head hates meth. This game is the new crack. ugh.
  • SilentRecon2 - October 23, 2010 5:07 a.m.

    Hey GamesRadar I found something wrong on the first page. You mentioned being able to have only one companion with you at a time. Right now I have Boone and ED-E with me and they are working together just fine. I hope it's not a glitch and that I will lose one of them. P.S. And I would only agree with thinking FO3 was better if it included Iron Sights.
  • Yeager1122 - October 23, 2010 3:50 a.m.

    Even though i bought this day one i was still looking foward to this review and have yet to experience any of these bugs hopefully i never do.
  • Higgins - October 23, 2010 3:48 a.m.

    Sooo...You're saying that Fallout 3 is better than Fallout 1 & 2? Oops : controversy!
  • Eliath - October 23, 2010 3:23 a.m.

    sid440, by Internet standards you're grammar was probably in the top 10%. I see a comma at least once after all! Anyway, to perpetuate the stereotype of PC gamers being arrogant (reference, I went over to 3Dmark Vantage for a quick benchmark. If you go to the following and hover your mouse over the nice little arrow on the top right of the graph you can see my PC's score relative to the 75% trend line. New Vegas generally runs between 60-80 fps outside and 70-100 fps inside. However, the constant crashing and corrupted save files are still present. Hopefully they are patched soon.
  • sid440 - October 23, 2010 2:44 a.m.

    Also i would like to add that my grammar in my last post was fairly bad even for internet standards and i apologize.
  • sid440 - October 23, 2010 2:43 a.m.

    Given the track record of Obsidian produced sequels (Yes kotor2 im looking at you) to be extremely glitchy during the release i took a break from my 360 and picked up on PC and im happy to say Ive experienced no problems and minimal and fast loading screens, i feel i made the right choice...though i still do noticeably worse at games while playing PC :(
  • Eliath - October 23, 2010 2:43 a.m.

    @ventanger I'm curious what brand of video card you are running. My rig has nVidia cards with the latest drivers, and there are quite a large number of people with high end nVidia cards having the issues. Since I don't have ATI cards, I haven't looked to see if the issues are prevalent on ATI cards. The complaints are all over the place if you cared to check (nVidia forums, Bethseda forums, EVGA forums). You have folks with custom rigs running the latest 400 series cards and having issues. It's an old engine with a lot of bugs, and it doesn't get along with a lot of nVidia drivers. Fallout 3 was the same way. nVidia was kind enough to help out folks on Fallout 3, but we'll see what happens this time. On a side note, I just did a quick search, and it seems ATI cards are having issues, too. What it boils down to is there is a ton of different hardware out there in the PC world. A little more testing on the development team's part would have been appreciated. Video games are a form of entertainment. When buggy software detracts from the entertainment value of the game it's a shame. My degree is actually in computer engineering, so poor quality software annoys me. The review is great, and I'm loving the game. The level of quality is just lacking.
  • AGENTJORRRG - October 23, 2010 2:25 a.m.

    This game should've got a 1/10 because it's not a game, its a crash. Fist mission i tried, crash, restarted, crash, restarted, crash over and over. Its a peice of shit. It's been returned now and I'm glad to have my $60 back. At least that works. It should be unacceptable for any game to be released with ANY bugs or glitches.
  • Smeggs - October 23, 2010 2:10 a.m.

    Sorry for double post, but just wanted to make it clear how pointless it is to compare New Vegas with Fallout's 1 and 2 considering they're a different genre and game style.
  • Smeggs - October 23, 2010 2:07 a.m.

    Considering by the time I'm able to buy this by Christmas there'll probably already be like 5 patches or something I'm not that worried. I mean it couldn't have as many problems as Far Cry 2, right? I'm still gonna try and rent in within the next week or so.
  • michaelizzo - October 23, 2010 1:44 a.m.

    Yall really need to back off. So what if yall dont agree wiht him? I myself think that NV is better because it gos back to the first games, and because in NV you get a companion in the first few hours of the game but in FO3 it took me like 2 days. But this is his opinion so shut the hell up. And btw, the first ones werent as good because it was turn based.
  • urwifemykids - October 23, 2010 1:27 a.m.

    what better than halo reach!!!! lol im just kidding i need this game my pipboy says im addicted
  • ventanger - October 23, 2010 1:13 a.m.

    Wow. I've never run in to any of those issues and I'm running the PC version. Haven't had to edit any files. No offense kiddo but maybe the people who get those wackass problems is less the games fault and more because your computer just isn't made to run it.
  • Eliath - October 23, 2010 12:24 a.m.

    @ventanger 3 crashes and one major bug is ok. However, when the game crashes every 10 minutes without modifying .ini files and the quick save and auto save features don't work people have the right to be upset. Many PC users still have their first ever quick save and auto save they ever made due to bugs that erase all but the very first save files every time the game exits or crashes. Combine the lack of functioning quick and auto save features and constant crashing and you never progress in the game. I have to save through the command console if I want to avoid saving via pressing escape and navigating the menus. Having a game that truly is unplayable due to crashing and save file corruption for a large number of users truly is deplorable. Unless the user knows their way around computers or knows to look for fixes on the Internet, they can't play their game until the developer gets a patch out. You're actually lucky in the lack of issues that you've had. Just because you've had a good experience, doesn't mean everyone else has. So, kindly get over yourself. It's an apples to oranges comparison, but if software crashes on a large piece of machinery, then you could be talking about someone losing a life. That isn't acceptable. Why should we have lower standards for video games, which are almost entirely software? It's just not professional.
  • Denrok - October 23, 2010 12:04 a.m.


Showing 41-60 of 91 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000

More Info

Available Platforms: Xbox 360, PC, PS3
Genre: Role Playing
Published by: Bethesda
Developed by: Obsidian
ESRB Rating:
Mature: Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language, Use of Drugs, Sexual Content
PEGI Rating: