Why did Fallout: New Vegas fail to impress me?

['Foretold' Joker]

You know sometimes I look back through my gaming history (Xbox Achievement menu is so useful for this) and wonder why some games I own got discarded or are not completed.

Ninja Gaiden 2 - Was very difficult.
Quantum of Solace - was phenomenally bad.
Bulletstorm - was very bland.
Warhammer Battle March - Deosn't work on a console.

Yet one game I have which I didn't do very much with is Fallout: New Vegas, which got me wondering why?

Why is it barely played? Because I loved Fallout 3 absorbed the whole thing, ate my share of iguanas ona stick, played through the game as a good, evil and even had a neutral guy on the go. Got all the expansions played them to death even started trying to get all three of my guys up to Lvl 30 for the achievements (and I don't usually bother with achievements.)

So it made sense that I would love Fallout: New Vegas when it arrived yet that adoration, that hook never came. So what was different? For a while I couldn't really give a sensible reason, maybe I didn't like the story, there was no cool cheesy radio station like John Henry Eden or I was put off by turning left out the doctors house at the start and getting killed by overpowered monstrous dragonflies. It is only recently playing Skyrim (Same game company I know) that I have figured out why I had little interest in Fallout:New Vegas.

Fallout: New Vegas in the end is not a sequel (The clue is the lack of 4 ) it is a glorified add-on. The graphcs haven't changed, the characters, weapons, creatures are the same as before soundeffects and voice acting almost sound reused. The gameplay isn't any different and the story could be a continuation of the same lone wanderer from Washington. Having spent days investing my time in fallout 3 doing the very same thing again in the same setting is not what I expect from a sequel, sure it has factions but in the end that's just a mildly irritating karma system.

You see in contrast Oblivion was a game I enjoyed, not as much as Fallout 3 but still it was plenty of fun yet now Skyrim has come out I have become hooked almost like Fallout 3 all over again. The difference between the two is as President Eden would say simple, "A need to make it better", Skyrim takes everything Oblivion had an improved on it a great deal. The graphics are far superior, the magic looks and acts magical, the npcs aren't one voiced and one dimensional, the clunky menu system has been made easy to navigate and the story is basic yet open ended and most of all the settign is completely different. Skyrim is a sequel it improves on the previous game by the bucketload with added Sweetroll, something Fallout: New Vegas didn't do.

This is why it drifted to the back of my game library unloved. From Fallout: New Vegas I was expecting Super Mario 64 to my Super Mario 3 instead I got FIFA 11 to my FIFA 10, nothing really changed.

[The Ichi]

I wasn't feeling it the same way I did with 3 either. Although I will attribute a lot of it to be 3 being the first Fallout game I ever played, and the way the game builds up going into the Wasteland, which you don't even see until that point, is one of the most epic moments in a video game. You're literally being pushed into the World after it has ended.

New Vegas doesn't have that. You're told what the Mojave is like by Ron Pearlman and there's no build up going into it.

Oh, and it's one of the buggiest f***ing games I have ever played. To the point that I've sent the game back after the 30th game freeze.

[The Tank]

Seems like a lot of people have this problem with New Vegas.

And usually, there's a common thing through most of them.

Have you played the old games, Joker?

...and I honestly don't know where New Vegas got this rep as glitchy. The game has literally never crashed on me once.

['Foretold' Joker]

Nope, I don't plan to either as I'm not a PC gamer.

It's not the setting/style I have a problem with, it's the fact that Fallout New Vegas is the same game as Fallout 3. There is no significant progression to warrant this being a sequel. It's a glorified Add On.

[lockedontarget]

Oblivion was a severely flawed game, Skyrim needed to be a big step up. Fallout 3 on the other hand already established a great base for a game, and all New Vegas needed to do was build on that. And it did. New Vegas is Fallout 3 with better writing, plot, acting, setting, quest design, etc.

Not every sequel needs to reinvent the wheel. It is perfectly valid to take what works and simply make more of it, tweaking in improvements along the way.

[BigBadZ]

I had my fair share of glitches when I played New Vegas. I do love New Vegas but it was nothing compared to Fallout 3 (maybe because Fallout 3 was the first time I've played a game like that but I don't know). But the biggest let down (for me) of New Vegas was that the commercials made The Strip look so massive and monumental and it was a fairly empty street with three casinos.

[Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!!]

I loved both games. going to play through them both again multiple times.

though I will say that I, too miss Malcolm MacDowell. he's one of the reasons I loved Fallout 3 so much.

[Spankymac is sick of the swiss]

I have the exact opposite feeling. I love New Vegas, but could never make it through Fallout 3. New Vegas just feels.....better. More engaging plot, characters, cooler looking locations, and the faction system just made me way more interested. Yeah, the game's fairly glitchy, and that's a pain in the ass, but I can overlook that for the quality of the game.

[coleminor]

Nov 30, 2011 12:52:13 GMT -5 BigBadZ said:

I had my fair share of glitches when I played New Vegas. I do love New Vegas but it was nothing compared to Fallout 3 (maybe because Fallout 3 was the first time I've played a game like that but I don't know). But the biggest let down (for me) of New Vegas was that the commercials made The Strip look so massive and monumental and it was a fairly empty street with three casinos.

Completely agree, I've played Fallout 3 beyond death - keep meaning to go back to Las Vegas to play it differently but just not as bothered.

Also, I found the music in 3 to be far superior and I'm a regular listener of GNR in my car - although I will say that Vegas did introduce me to Marty Robbins, which I'm forever grateful for...

[rapidfire187]

New Vegas hooked me. Part of that is because I bought New Vegas the same week that I finished Fallout 3 for the second time. I've still got a ton of stuff in 3 that I haven't done yet, but New Vegas gave me a way to keep playing what is essentially the same great game, but on a new map and with all new characters/quests.

Yea it's not a sequel but I don't think it's supposed to be. Like you said, there's a big lack of the number 4 in the title.

I do feel like New Vegas is worse than Fallout 3 though. In several aspects. The most obvious one is the bugs, as I find myself repeatedly saving to avoid the game screwing me out of my progress by freezing. I also feel like it takes longer to get decent weapons, and some of the more awesome ones from Fallout 3 are missing (or just hard to find). For instance, I never came across a Fat Man.

But I also prefer New Vegas in a couple of ways. For one, I don't miss traveling through the subway system at all. Those parts of Fallout 3 were very boring to me. New Vegas doesn't really have any parts between finding areas on the map where you feel like you're just wandering forever. Generally, getting to where you need to go seems to be more fun.

Also, New Vegas has all those different factions that you can appease or oppose which changes your ending. So in that way, it has more replay value. Plus, the tutorial level at the beginning isn't long and unskippable like in Fallout 3. Sure, you still have to set up your character, but you can skip the tutorial stuff with Sunny if you don't mind missing out on the XP.

[YAKMAN is ICHIBAN]

I wouldn't be surprised if I've spent a full calendar year playing Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 3 and New Vegas. They're all amazing, in my book.

RE: Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas, each is slightly different enough that I find them both very interesting. The pros and cons probably balance out for me. New Vegas seems more in the spirit of the old games, but frankly I didn't play those until AFTER I played New Vegas.

Personally Fallout 3 froze way more for me than New Vegas, and I didn't miss any of the weaponry. Fallout 3 had a way better soundtrack though.

Old World Blues is probably the best DLC content for any game, ever.

[Oh Cry Me a Screwball]

I find the Mojave Wasteland to be extremely boring compared to the subway systems and wrecked monuments of DC. Maybe it's the fact that I live in the real Mojave or something, but I just found F3 to be more interesting in general.

[The Ichi]

I will say that Matthew Perry was a suprisingly brilliant choice for one of the villians. He did a great job, even if it's hard not to imagine Chandler talking to you.

[YAKMAN is ICHIBAN]

Who was he?

[Spankymac is sick of the swiss]

Nov 30, 2011 15:03:06 GMT -5 The Ichi said:

I will say that Matthew Perry was a suprisingly brilliant choice for one of the villians. He did a great job, even if it's hard not to imagine Chandler talking to you.

Actually, Perry was the one big gripe I have with New Vegas. For a guy who's supposedly a fan of the Fallout games, or at least 3, the dude could not have sounded more bored to me during his voice acting.

[The Ichi]

Nov 30, 2011 15:11:17 GMT -5 YAKMAN is ICHIBAN said:

Who was he?

Benny.

[YAKMAN is ICHIBAN]

Nov 30, 2011 15:12:19 GMT -5 The Ichi said:

Nov 30, 2011 15:11:17 GMT -5 YAKMAN is ICHIBAN said:

Who was he?

Benny.

I slept with/murdered Chandler!?

[Deleted]

Nov 30, 2011 15:11:30 GMT -5 Spankymac is sick of the swiss said:

Nov 30, 2011 15:03:06 GMT -5 The Ichi said:

I will say that Matthew Perry was a suprisingly brilliant choice for one of the villians. He did a great job, even if it's hard not to imagine Chandler talking to you.

Actually, Perry was the one big gripe I have with New Vegas. For a guy who's supposedly a fan of the Fallout games, or at least 3, the dude could not have sounded more bored to me during his voice acting.

That's kind of Matthew Perry's style, though. He became famous for being the deadpan snarker of one of the most famous TV series of the past 20 years, so he's going to sound pretty deadpan in most things that he does.

My problem with New Vegas was Vegas itself. I didn't mind the glitches. I didn't mind the endless Mojave desert and its emptiness. I didn't mind the painful choice of music. Those things wouldn't have mattered at all if New Vegas was anything that it had been advertised as. The vibe that I had gotten in the ads was that it was a late 60's/early 70's take on the regional culture, instead of being as backwards as DC was, and that it was a heavily-populated metropolis of green and and many jam-packed casinos battling looming urban decay.

It was nothing like that impression. It was empty and dull and void of anything. It was already decayed. Like every damn thing in the series.

That's why I like Skyrim so much more. Not only is it a superb game all-around but it creates a balanced environment. There are big, pristine cities with infrastructure and normal people, but the wilds are still wild and the land is covered with monsters and hostile ruins and caves can be found pretty much anywhere you throw a stone.

[Spankymac is sick of the swiss]

Nov 30, 2011 15:25:55 GMT -5 @mightykretzler said:

Nov 30, 2011 15:11:30 GMT -5 Spankymac is sick of the swiss said:

Actually, Perry was the one big gripe I have with New Vegas. For a guy who's supposedly a fan of the Fallout games, or at least 3, the dude could not have sounded more bored to me during his voice acting.

That's kind of Matthew Perry's style, though. He became famous for being the deadpan snarker of one of the most famous TV series of the past 20 years, so he's going to sound pretty deadpan in most things that he does.

My problem with New Vegas was Vegas itself. I didn't mind the glitches. I didn't mind the endless Mojave desert and its emptiness. I didn't mind the painful choice of music. Those things wouldn't have mattered at all if New Vegas was anything that it had been advertised as. The vibe that I had gotten in the ads was that it was a late 60's/early 70's take on the regional culture, instead of being as backwards as DC was, and that it was a heavily-populated metropolis of green and and many jam-packed casinos battling looming urban decay.

It was nothing like that impression. It was empty and dull and void of anything. It was already decayed. Like every damn thing in the series.

That's why I like Skyrim so much more. Not only is it a superb game all-around but it creates a balanced environment. There are big, pristine cities with infrastructure and normal people, but the wilds are still wild and the land is covered with monsters and hostile ruins and caves can be found pretty much anywhere you throw a stone.

Well, yeah, but you can't be deadpan AND surprised, or any other emotion other than...deadpan, really. And that's what Perry tried to do in the game, and it just came off as him sounding bored, and reading lines off a sheet of paper. I've never heard a Rat Pack wannabe sound so bored.

[Deleted]

New Vegas is imo the true sequel to Fallout 2... I mean 3 took place on the other side of the continent with hardly any recurring characters for crying out loud.