Top
290°
8.0

G4TV: Fallout: New Vegas Review

G4TV writes: "As the saying goes, war never changes, and if the newest entry in the post-apocalypic series is any example, neither does Fallout.

Fallout: New Vegas isn’t so much a sequel to Fallout 3 as it is an elaborate piece of DLC. It looks and plays the same as its praiseworthy predecessor, but fans looking for a wholly new, leveled-up experience will instead find a very familiar, if somewhat redressed, adventure. And it begins, as many great stories do, with a death…your own."

The Pros

* More great fallout-style gameplay
* Dozens of hours of content
* A useful and robust companion system
* Captivating faction dynamics

The Cons

* Incredibly, inexcusably glitchy
* Slowly paced, underwhelming side-quests
* Lacks an emotionally gripping single-player story

The story is too old to be commented.
Cyrus3652617d ago

* Incredibly, inexcusably glitchy, how can a game get a good score with that kind of bugs, it's one of the things that turned me off on Fallout 3.

TheHater2617d ago

I will answer your question. It's G4TV. These "journalist" are afraid of giving these games the "correct" score they deserve because they fear backlash from the dev/pub when it comes to marketing and coverage of upcoming games.

You rarely see any of these hight profile media outlets sound off on any games developer or publish by any high profile developers or publishers. Just look at most of the stuff games like Call of Duty and Fallout get away with, but get criticize in lower profile games made by lower profile developers.

Cyrus3652617d ago

Not sure about, I'm thinking a game like GT5 will get extra scrutiny, if GT5 had game breaking bugs, and other things that are excusable, I doubt it'd get 8's, 9's and 10's...

TheHater2617d ago

Everyone knows the reason why GT will get extra scrutinize. Fanboy's will not admit it

Back to my point...Just look at Fallout 3 for example. Look at all the 9's and 10's it got from all the high profile sites. Not one ever mention the performance issues that can make the game unplayable for a lot of players. Gears of War 2 online was basically unplayable, but that didn't stop reviewers from giving it 10's.

Fred-G-Sanford2617d ago

"Everyone knows the reason why GT will get extra scrutinize."

Any game that takes 5+ years and 60+ million dollars to make is going to be put under the microscope.

GT5 will be under even more pressure to perform because of the endless hyping that PS3 fanboys have been doing for the last few years.

The game pretty much has to look like 100% real life, at this point. lol

Fred-G-Sanford2617d ago

Just did a little poking around the internets and found that some people are suggesting that GT5's total budget is actually closer to the 100 million dollar mark at this point.

Holy smokes.

strotee2617d ago

"Any game that takes 5+ years and 60+ million dollars to make is going to be put under the microscope."

I don't necessarily buy that argument but I realize that is the mindset a reviewer goes into when grading a game. However, as a consumer, if two games come out both costing me $60 then they deserve equal criticism. Even if one game required 5+ years of development versus the other game that got pumped out 3 years sooner (assuming they both started development at the same time).

Why should a developer latch onto the excuse "but we took 3 years less to push out a similar game as our competitor" and expect a reviewer to give free passes to glitches but still demand $60? That's bullshit. Charge $40-50 and then we'll talk about allowing a few glitches to go unnoticed.

rockleex2617d ago (Edited 2617d ago )

And is crap, it should get lots of free passes because it took less time to make?

I mean come on, they both cost you $60... yet you'd rather let the lazier developers get a free pass while the ones who worked extra hard for 5+ years get slammed because of ONE LITTLE THING?

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2617d ago
Megaton2617d ago (Edited 2617d ago )

I agree that no game should get a free pass if it's a technical disaster of Fallout 3/New Vegas proportions, but I also think some games are worth the trouble. I'm not saying this is one of them since I really don't know how good New Vegas is, but I do think Fallout 3 was one of those games.

I thought Fallout 3 looked terrible pre-launch and it took a friend's unrelenting nagging for me to even give it a chance. What I found was a pile of bugs, glitches and crashes that rivaled every beta I've ever played put together, but I also couldn't pull myself away from it once I started. I've put somewhere around 500 hours into Fallout 3 on both the 360 and the PS3, earning 1550G and what would amount to more than 4 platinum trophies. Some playthroughs were worse than others (like crashing every 30 minutes kinda bad), but they were all rewarding in their own way. You even learn to spot and avoid crash triggers when you spend enough time with it.

Sometimes the overall package outweighs the bad parts within.

SilverSlug2617d ago

Sometimes a game can be damn fun even with glitches. Fallout 3 for example.

PrimordialSoupBase2617d ago (Edited 2617d ago )

"an elaborate piece of DLC" I really hate that these are the same reviewers who will fellate Black Ops as a full fledged sequel. That phrase doesn't mean anything.

Dysmorphic2617d ago

I find it quite hilarious that everyone who has bashed Black Ops for its familiarity (aka copy/paste) is now praising New Vegas which has done the exact same thing. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, (although in New Vegas it is when compared to something like GOW3 which at least had graphical upgrades) I'm just pointing out the level of hypocrisy shown by far too many people here.

TheHater2617d ago

have problems with the length of games like Medal of Honor, Call of Duty, etc single player campaign but don't have a problem with Vanquish length.

Dysmorphic2617d ago

Yes, thank-you. Someone who actually gets it. If you plan on being overly critical at least apply that criticism to all games, not just to one.

All_4_One2617d ago

"Incredibly, inexcusably glitchy" = 4/5?

Seriously, could there be a bigger downfall? How could a game receive a 4/5 with inexcusable glitches? They should either change the score, or change the wording, because that doesn`t add up at all.

Brian52472617d ago (Edited 2617d ago )

Really G4? Game's don't need to be "emotionally gripping" in order to be great. Did Mario Galaxy or LittleBigPlanet have an "Emotionally gripping" story? Fuck no! Listing that as a negative for your review is an embarrassment.

Unicron2617d ago

I disagree, specifically for a game like Fallout.

Lucreto2617d ago

I agree

I don't remember the first game being emotionally gripping either.

Show all comments (22)