Negatives: Its still Oblivion (LOLblivion) with guns. New environment and (slight) movement forward in terms of the Fallout canon. Positives: Obsidian does a MUCH better job of writing story lines and quests than Bethesda did.
New Vegas was rushed to market before it was ready much like Fallout 3. I always thought it would be fun to have a 1st person perspective while playing Fallout 1, 2 and Tactics, but Bethesda simply does a poor job of it. I've played each Fallout game since the first and I have to say I'm as disappointed with Fallout: New Vegas as I was with Fallout 3. Oh, that's right, it's Obsidian and not BethSoft so we MUST get all pissy at Obsidian for having bugs while Fallout 3 NEVER had any.I've played each Fallout game since the first and I have to say I'm as disappointed with Fallout: New Vegas as I was with Fallout 3. Just be patient people, it'll be patched just like F3 was. I guess I'm just lucky, but with 15 hours already into it, only common bugs were found by me. Also, Knights of the Old Republic II, Neverwinter Nights 2, etc.)Īnd I'm very much happy that my game isn't freezing up on me.
Sorry, but Obsidian is talented, but the presentation has NEVER been their forte (see: Fallout and Fallout 2 when they were Black Isle. I felt I liked it much better than I did the first Mass Effect. The PRESENTATION was bad, but the gameplay was much better. Most gamers didn't play the games as indicated by the number of sales and rentals that've been shown. People should start giving credit where credit is due.įor instance, Alpha Protocol. *end sarcasm* Bethesda had 3 or 4 years, Obsidian had 2. *sarcasm* Yeah, because Obsidian had SOOO much more time to work on New Vegas than Beth Soft did.
0 kommentar(er)
