Ironically, this is the worst game in the franchise.

[bug]

This, unlike many Obsidian fanboys might lead you on to-- is a genuine argument for why this is the worst entry on it's own. We are not accounting for mods, only for the base first release or DLC. I'm going to open this very strongly, and I'm going to use a lot of examples from Fallout 3 to prove my point. Also, it'll make the fanboys angry and that pleases my inner core.

Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel had a more solid release than this game-- Brotherhood of Steel. It only took numerous patches and two years for the game to finally get "noticed" as a competent videogame when Fallout 3 was at least playable. This isn't entirely Obsidian's fault, I understand-- but it was disasterous. Everyone seems to forget how awful this game was when it first was on sale, almost literally unplayable due to it's constant crashes, game breaking bugs which even to this day still require people to mod the game in order for it to work functionally.

It's one huge joint-operation of just a bandwagon of unnessecary bashing, not to mention how people were busy gargling the toes of Obsidian's directors. Just in general, spouting "hurr durr fallout 3 is bad" even though they probably didn't even make another playthrough of the game, despite the fact that New Vegas' has a clear amount of open flaws in it.

1. The map is never courageous enough to let you find areas on your own, and just about every area in the game that isn't just a shack with a box inside of it you can get the location for by a quest and not your own valor.
   
2. There's not enough actual content in the space of the map to occupy enough interesting posts, despite having even more locations than Fallout 3-- there are 11+ locations on the map that are entirely useless or irrelevant with the smallest handfuls of loot.
   
3. There's no incentive for actual difficulty, the game boils down to you playing on Very Hard where enemies become the Juggernaut or any difficulty lower and you could breathe in the general direction of somebody and they drop dead.
   
4. New Vegas is not very subtle on where it wants you to go, and the "linear" argument falls flat on it's face. The Sloan Deathclaws and the Cazadors after heading past Goodsprings' Northern Roads clearly indeciates that it wants the player to go where the game wants.
   
5. Fallout 3 is chastised for not having morally ambigious options, where New Vegas has few and far between. Rarely is there a choice where you can have a moral compass involved without some outside factor.
   
6. Additionally, to follow up on the last point-- the Reputation system is it's own greatest weakness, meaning that you will always do something to appeal your faction in choices-- but not for yourself.
   
7. Fallout 3 is chastised for having the Brotherhood of Steel be "too open to newcomers", despite the fact that their resolution to continue as a faction is to expand or die out. In Fallout 1's canonical ending, the Brotherhood chapter opens up to help the wasteland and settle as an R&D settlement. While in New Vegas, they don't open up at all, in fact-- they remain completely flat about their choice to stay isolated the entire game.
   
8. Fallout 3 has many elaborate mazes and worldbuilding elements that make it's interiors unique for each one, New Vegas fails to compare by having all of their interiors blend together into "go upstairs, shoot bad guys, etc". Nothing is particularly interesting or notable outside of The Strip itself. The Bomb in Megaton, the scale of Tenpenny Towers-- the broken streets of the DC city. Everything is very drab and lifeless in Fallout 3, but it added something to it's horror factor. The feeling of being hopeless or that everything is gone.
   
9. New Vegas sets itself up in a "post-post apocolypse" scenario, meaning that civilization is rebuilding itself, but you do not see the same atmosphere of "the world putting itself back together after destruction"-- all of the major portions seem static and flat. The atmosphere is a discourse from the fact that it's a wasteland and not a glorified desert.
   
10. Continuing the point on morals, in the standoff between the Kahn's and the NCR, there are several ways to resolve it-- but there is one solution that the game gives you fame towards both factions and nobody dies, the perfect resolution. Why would you not pick that? That isn't the "moral choices" other Fallout titles get yelled at for.
    
11. The game suffers from it's lack of proper progression, rarely do rewards grant you more than just a few extra caps, a gun and XP, that's a given, but I felt as there was no real reason to do side missions you can just run to New Vegas and finish the game just as you leave the gate. Again, proceeding itself to the lack of exploration.

I'll give more criticism if needed, but as for now I believe these are valid reasons, of course if you'd like to argue back-- I'm open for the debate.

[Daddy's Little Ashtray]

lol yeah nah

[GroovE]

TO THE TOWN OF AGUA FRIA RODE A STRANGER ONE FINE DAYYYYYY

[MFRigPipe]

You can't objectively say a game "is the worst in the franchise", because other people disagree making it an opinion, making this post subjective. So change the title to say some thing like "I believe FNV is the worst game in the franchise."

[MaximumEffort]

wow, this really picked up!

[cap'n]

Nguyên văn bởi fruity mantis:

This, unlike many Obsidian fanboys might lead you on to-- is a genuine argument for why this is the worst entry on it's own. We are not accounting for mods, only for the base first release or DLC. I'm going to open this very strongly, and I'm going to use a lot of examples from Fallout 3 to prove my point. Also, it'll make the fanboys angry and that pleases my inner core.

Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel had a more solid release than this game-- Brotherhood of Steel. It only took numerous patches and two years for the game to finally get "noticed" as a competent videogame when Fallout 3 was at least playable. This isn't entirely Obsidian's fault, I understand-- but it was disasterous. Everyone seems to forget how awful this game was when it first was on sale, almost literally unplayable due to it's constant crashes, game breaking bugs which even to this day still require people to mod the game in order for it to work functionally.

It's one huge joint-operation of just a bandwagon of unnessecary bashing, not to mention how people were busy gargling the toes of Obsidian's directors. Just in general, spouting "hurr durr fallout 3 is bad" even though they probably didn't even make another playthrough of the game, despite the fact that New Vegas' has a clear amount of open flaws in it.

1. The map is never courageous enough to let you find areas on your own, and just about every area in the game that isn't just a shack with a box inside of it you can get the location for by a quest and not your own valor.
   
2. There's not enough actual content in the space of the map to occupy enough interesting posts, despite having even more locations than Fallout 3-- there are 11+ locations on the map that are entirely useless or irrelevant with the smallest handfuls of loot.
   
3. There's no incentive for actual difficulty, the game boils down to you playing on Very Hard where enemies become the Juggernaut or any difficulty lower and you could breathe in the general direction of somebody and they drop dead.
   
4. New Vegas is not very subtle on where it wants you to go, and the "linear" argument falls flat on it's face. The Sloan Deathclaws and the Cazadors after heading past Goodsprings' Northern Roads clearly indeciates that it wants the player to go where the game wants.
   
5. Fallout 3 is chastised for not having morally ambigious options, where New Vegas has few and far between. Rarely is there a choice where you can have a moral compass involved without some outside factor.
   
6. Additionally, to follow up on the last point-- the Reputation system is it's own greatest weakness, meaning that you will always do something to appeal your faction in choices-- but not for yourself.
   
7. Fallout 3 is chastised for having the Brotherhood of Steel be "too open to newcomers", despite the fact that their resolution to continue as a faction is to expand or die out. In Fallout 1's canonical ending, the Brotherhood chapter opens up to help the wasteland and settle as an R&D settlement. While in New Vegas, they don't open up at all, in fact-- they remain completely flat about their choice to stay isolated the entire game.
   
8. Fallout 3 has many elaborate mazes and worldbuilding elements that make it's interiors unique for each one, New Vegas fails to compare by having all of their interiors blend together into "go upstairs, shoot bad guys, etc". Nothing is particularly interesting or notable outside of The Strip itself. The Bomb in Megaton, the scale of Tenpenny Towers-- the broken streets of the DC city. Everything is very drab and lifeless in Fallout 3, but it added something to it's horror factor. The feeling of being hopeless or that everything is gone.
   
9. New Vegas sets itself up in a "post-post apocolypse" scenario, meaning that civilization is rebuilding itself, but you do not see the same atmosphere of "the world putting itself back together after destruction"-- all of the major portions seem static and flat. The atmosphere is a discourse from the fact that it's a wasteland and not a glorified desert.
   
10. Continuing the point on morals, in the standoff between the Kahn's and the NCR, there are several ways to resolve it-- but there is one solution that the game gives you fame towards both factions and nobody dies, the perfect resolution. Why would you not pick that? That isn't the "moral choices" other Fallout titles get yelled at for.
    
11. The game suffers from it's lack of proper progression, rarely do rewards grant you more than just a few extra caps, a gun and XP, that's a given, but I felt as there was no real reason to do side missions you can just run to New Vegas and finish the game just as you leave the gate. Again, proceeding itself to the lack of exploration.

I'll give more criticism if needed, but as for now I believe these are valid reasons, of course if you'd like to argue back-- I'm open for the debate.

Yet you have 500+ hours played. What has fueled you enough to play the game for 500+ hours if you think it's the worst in the franchise?

[Rippa]

I dislike the crafting filler they put into the game. Mods make the game much better, settlement mods to be exact where you don't have to play as a engineer. I mean come on, you are building a base? Get one of those lazy lay-a-bouts to do it. Thats my only complaint really... I just hate to see where the Fallout online is going to head to, I do believe it will have a lot of crafting/gathering ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ filler added, more than a mcdonalds hotdog in the year 2000.

[Yhwach]

Nguyên văn bởi Cazador:

]
Yet you have 500+ hours played. What has fueled you enough to play the game for 500+ hours if you think it's the worst in the franchise?

You can play a game for any number of hours and still find it to be "the worst" in the franchise, and give criticism towards it instead of being this drone that happily accepts any work by the game, or an obsidrone.

I also personally agree with this entire list and , back when I didn't have many games, guess what?
I played New Vegas and Fallout 3 exclusively on my Xbox 360, I have over 3,000 hours of New Vegas playtime and just around the same as 3 and do agree, that new vegas...maybe not the "weakest" in the series, It's arguably the worst polished, less content filled, and had some of the worst design decisions which even Avellone points out.

If you want a look at how Obsidian really operates, their thought process, and why their management is the reason why Fallout: New Vegas was rushed contrary to belief that Bethesda did so (they had no hand in New Vegas or its release) check out these reviews:

Cringe-Fest interview, where the "interviewer" is an advocate for hating fallout 4 but Avellone keeps side-stepping and believes Obsidian does a worse job
https://sugarbombed.com/threads/sb-exclusive-chris-avellone-interview-pts-1-2.278/

Chris Avellone was treated poorly whilst working at Obsidian and doesn't agree with Obsidian's mismanagement
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/chris-avellone-is-still-pretty-mad-about-obsidian.111813/

Obsidian trying to block Avellone from getting a job on working on other RPG games]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z83Lu2wAIg

Obsidian is unethical
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FisYHeay4HA

Avellone actually praises Bethesda and their design choices, if you look at Pillars of Eternity I & II, Tyranny, or even KOTOR 2 you'll see a pattern of obtuse and poor management of those games at launch, and even after various patches the games have little to no direction, try too hard to railroad the player into what "it" wants the player to do, or coming back to direction there's a severe lack of it to the point where the game either makes no sense or was clearly unfinished in the area that sparked that thought.

New Vegas actually released very broken, even more so than Fallout 3's launch which was perfectly fine; you can blame the engine, but it's more of Obsidian's poor mismanagement gimmicks.
Even without gamebryo they also messed up another title that was mostly made on theri own but we'll get to that in a moment.

Obsidian ,unless working under an AAA developer or publisher like Ubisoft has always released unpolished, unfinished games that have a loss of direction and the writing wasn't any better unless they had someone else (like Avellone) help them along; now, back in the hay-day Tim Cain was a pretty great writer but after working under Obsidian it's where he started to get weaker, and Sawyer's own faults came to the surface.

Have you seen the mess that was Armored Warfare? Ah yes, the title I spoke of before, this is a real doozy.
I was a beta tester and saw just how poorly Obsidian handled (even worse than Bethesda, can you believe that?) their Q/A, their bug fixing, and overral progress on the game.
Bethesda has the excuse of having a smaller studio and even smaller Q/A team, but seeing the inner workings of its development you saw just how bad they were at it, and it has nothing on any Bethesda release to date.

Let's face it, without Avellone the game would've been a lot worse off, and coming from the man that kept the game up and did most of the strong writing in the game (Tim Cain was mostly absent being with their husband) it says a lot about Obsidian's poor practices and why new vegas was left in this unfinished state, and that goes for a majority of their releases, I believe Deadire is their only "real" working game since launch; great job Obsidian only took you, what, 14 years?

[cap'n]

Nguyên văn bởi Yhwach:

Nguyên văn bởi Cazador:

]
Yet you have 500+ hours played. What has fueled you enough to play the game for 500+ hours if you think it's the worst in the franchise?

You can play a game for any number of hours and still find it to be "the worst" in the franchise, and give criticism towards it instead of being this drone that happily accepts any work by the game, or an obsidrone.

I also personally agree with this entire list and , back when I didn't have many games, guess what?
I played New Vegas and Fallout 3 exclusively on my Xbox 360, I have over 3,000 hours of New Vegas playtime and just around the same as 3 and do agree, that new vegas...maybe not the "weakest" in the series, It's arguably the worst polished, less content filled, and had some of the worst design decisions which even Avellone points out.

If you want a look at how Obsidian really operates, their thought process, and why their management is the reason why Fallout: New Vegas was rushed contrary to belief that Bethesda did so (they had no hand in New Vegas or its release) check out these reviews:

Cringe-Fest interview, where the "interviewer" is an advocate for hating fallout 4 but Avellone keeps side-stepping and believes Obsidian does a worse job
https://sugarbombed.com/threads/sb-exclusive-chris-avellone-interview-pts-1-2.278/

Chris Avellone was treated poorly whilst working at Obsidian and doesn't agree with Obsidian's mismanagement
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/chris-avellone-is-still-pretty-mad-about-obsidian.111813/

Obsidian trying to block Avellone from getting a job on working on other RPG games]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z83Lu2wAIg

Obsidian is unethical
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FisYHeay4HA

Avellone actually praises Bethesda and their design choices, if you look at Pillars of Eternity I & II, Tyranny, or even KOTOR 2 you'll see a pattern of obtuse and poor management of those games at launch, and even after various patches the games have little to no direction, try too hard to railroad the player into what "it" wants the player to do, or coming back to direction there's a severe lack of it to the point where the game either makes no sense or was clearly unfinished in the area that sparked that thought.

New Vegas actually released very broken, even more so than Fallout 3's launch which was perfectly fine; you can blame the engine, but it's more of Obsidian's poor mismanagement gimmicks.
Even without gamebryo they also messed up another title that was mostly made on theri own but we'll get to that in a moment.

Obsidian ,unless working under an AAA developer or publisher like Ubisoft has always released unpolished, unfinished games that have a loss of direction and the writing wasn't any better unless they had someone else (like Avellone) help them along; now, back in the hay-day Tim Cain was a pretty great writer but after working under Obsidian it's where he started to get weaker, and Sawyer's own faults came to the surface.

Have you seen the mess that was Armored Warfare? Ah yes, the title I spoke of before, this is a real doozy.
I was a beta tester and saw just how poorly Obsidian handled (even worse than Bethesda, can you believe that?) their Q/A, their bug fixing, and overral progress on the game.
Bethesda has the excuse of having a smaller studio and even smaller Q/A team, but seeing the inner workings of its development you saw just how bad they were at it, and it has nothing on any Bethesda release to date.

Let's face it, without Avellone the game would've been a lot worse off, and coming from the man that kept the game up and did most of the strong writing in the game (Tim Cain was mostly absent being with their husband) it says a lot about Obsidian's poor practices and why new vegas was left in this unfinished state, and that goes for a majority of their releases, I believe Deadire is their only "real" working game since launch; great job Obsidian only took you, what, 14 years?

Of course New Vegas is unpolished, hell Obsidian only had around 1 year and 6 months to develop the game after pitching the idea to Bethesda. If NV would've had the development time of Fallout 3 (roughly 4 years) it probably would've been a near perfect game regarding gameplay and performance, well as perfect as you could get with the ancient Gamebryo engine. I honestly think that Bethesda gave Obsidian such a harsh development deadline, because they wanted to get the game out as soon as possible so they wouldn't have huge competition with games coming out around the same time as New Vegas, such as Black Ops, Bad Company 2, etc. Though the more probable explanation of the short development time woud be that Bethesda knew that Obsidian knew how to make ingaging and immersive rpg's.

Bethesda knew that many of the same people who had wrote and developed the first and second entries into the Fallout franchise were now at Obsidian Entertainment, which intially incouraged them to temporarily hand over the Fallout liscense in the first place. Knowing that Obsidian knew what true Fallout fans wanted frightened Bethesda. Bethesda didn't want to give Obsidian enough time to polish New Vegas simply because, they were worried that the fans of their franchise would begin to enjoy the way Obsidian implements role playing elements and would look at Fallout 3 as a laughable attempt as an entry.

I think Obsidian did a fine job with what they had. The Gamebryo engine as I mentioned before was a big obstacle for Obsidian during development. At one point they wanted to give the player a choice between 3 different playable races, a human, a ghoul, or a super mutant...but the engine proved to be too dated to allow this never seen the light of day. The entire scope of the game (especially the strip and surrounding areas) was held back by the same engine that powered Morrowind. But instead of making the strip large and lively like the real life counterpart it was compacted to four casinos (Lucky 38 included) and other various bland surroundings.

Just think of what New Vegas could've become if it had say a 6 month longer development period, 1 year longer, 2? The creation engine first seen in Skyrim could've been adopted, all of the locations could've been more like what Obsidian had first envisioned, all the content cut due to time restraints could've been restored, the list goes on and on.

[Yhwach]

You're still stuck on "If" rather than what they presented, which is an unpolished mess they willingly released on that date to push for a bonus check; and who made that decision? Obsidian.
You're defending Obsidian a little too much here, they had a "finished" game to work with and it still turned out that way.

[Just Chill]

The initial vanilla version sucked. Hopefully we can agree on that.

Yet... I never played vanilla farer than Primm.
I rather made this game to suit my tastes fine, after I stopped with vanilla back in the non-DLC days.


I even spoilt Fallout 4 by adding too much mods to New Vegas.
Project Nevada, WMX, EVE, IMPACT, Nevada Skies, Interior Lighting Overhaul and many more.
Even though Fallout 4 introduced a nice building system, I still didn't get into it as I missed a lot features.

Furthermore I am not that enthusiastic with modding the Creation Engine, simply as how it handles mods.
You cannot freely add or remove mods during play.
Sure, that can even have bad effects on Gamebryo, but this engine is way more forgiving with adding or removing mods during play, than Creation Engine.


So it's easy to tell that this will be a favorite of the franchise for me.

[Yhwach]

Actually, you "can" add mods during play, you can use the HLP command in Fallout 4 or SSE to load any sort of plugins you want in-game.

[Bankai9212]

Nguyên văn bởi Settorife:

Patrolling this thread almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter.

Stop being immature morons everyone and actually discuss and argue about the topic, instead of saying to the OP: "ohh u no leik nv???? fukx u ♥♥♥♥♥ xDDDDDD" and not giving any reasons as to why he was wrong. I agree with most points but like with Fallout 2, even though there are some problems, I don't think of them as that severe as some people do.

Pretty much this, from 3, nv, to 4 they all have some issues. But haven't threads like this been covered at this point?

[[deleted]]

I agree with the OP

This is the most overloved fallout game. Its fanboys are also a nuisance. Constantly bashing other games.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLJ1gyIzg78

huge circlejerks everywhere

[Yhwach]

Nguyên văn bởi HardLight:

I agree with the OP

This is the most overloved fallout game. Its fanboys are also a nuisance. Constantly bashing other games.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLJ1gyIzg78

huge circlejerks everywhere

You should take a look at the Fallout 1 and 2 fans that shun the 3d titles and jerk off over New Vegas, you can see these sewer dwellers in action over at No Mutants Allowed.

[Bankai9212]

Nguyên văn bởi HardLight:

I agree with the OP

This is the most overloved fallout game. Its fanboys are also a nuisance. Constantly bashing other games.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLJ1gyIzg78

huge circlejerks everywhere

Can be applied to any forum or fanbase not just here. I think Fallout 4 fanbase is far worse but that's just me.