Is Fallout: New Vegas too buggy to be great?
24th Oct 2010 | 20:00
Fallout: New Vegas might have faired well in terms of review scores generally, but it's been bugs from the kookie to the crippling that have been the main point of conversation surrounding Bethesda's latest.
And regardless of how much praise New Vegas has received in terms of its open world and engrossing story, reviewers everywhere have largely agreed that the fact New Vegas doesn't really move that far beyond Fallout 3 is disappointing.
A bag full o' bugs and dated visuals rightly worried some of you. In fact, some of you were put right off the post-apocalyptic idea altogether, saying that the engine is out of date and the cause for both problems.
"They shouldn't be using the same old crappy, buggy engine," said MattyR95, for example, "Seriously, I can't believe they'd still use it after the glitches in Fallout 3 and Oblivion."
On the other side of the fence, though, the Fallout faithful had much more tolerance. For starters, they were delighted that Fallout: New Vegas was so similar to Fallout 3.
"So why is this bad?" said Richy23. "Fallout 3 was an epic game, so why change it?"
He had support from razors edge too: "'Disappointingly similar to Fallout 3' is the king of oxymorons in my eyes."
Bright-Light agreed a bit too much: "Im so excited about this game that I'm gonna s**t myself."
Some of you weren't all that put off by the the bugs and glitches as long as they were dealt with speedily after release, which Obsidian and Bethesda have endeavoured to do.
Now Fallout: New Vegas has been out for a couple of days those of you who picked it up should have had a good solid weekend of radiation and decapitation by now. We want to whether you stick by your Fallout support or whether bugs and glitches have left you disappointed.
And does the same old Fallout formula still feel as exciting as it did in Fallout 3? Does Fallout's less than polished presentation take too much away from the gameplay or is Obsidian right to defend GEK as an "impressive" engine?
If you haven't been out to grab Fallout tell us why by all means, but the division of opinion on New Vegas has left us scratching our beards and pondering the wider gaming issues as well.
With games having such high production values these days is it hard for a title that's rough around the edges to be considered at the top of the AAA bracket? And do bugs bug you enough to leave your copy of a game gathering dust on the shelf?
It's the old question of graphics over gameplay. Fallout has an insanely large open-world to offer in its defence - but where do you stand? Can it be considered a true great?