What we can learn from New Vegas and Civ V?

[May Day 10]

New Vegas is great. If there is a lesson for Civ, its that they took a very good, successful GOTY, didnt change much, remade an awesome new world, expanded on a lot of the already popular, working game elements. I love it and will sink another 200+ hours into it, as I did Fallout 3. I am happy they didnt change too much, however there are those not pleased with that.

The bugs I have seen arent game-breaking at all. In fact, through Fallout 3 I come to appreciate the glitches as humerous. Fighting a Deathclaw and he just launches into space until he is out of site, getting stuck in a rock formation not meant to be reached by a player, etc... The only people I see go off the deepend about the bugs are those who forget to save or only save in one slot.

I feel like New Vegas is in condition for release. If I had a choice between the game in its state now, and a game in 2 months with no glitches, Id take it now.

 

[afa2000]

What tip? I don't see anyone that has posted in this thread that has actually PLAYED FNV and experienced game breaking bugs.

I own it, have been playing, and have seen NO ISSUES thus far on the PC version.

I did. Wasted my money again, I guess I"ll never learn.

Edit: Actually, the new features sounds cool to me, seems that the history has been improved too. But there are a lot of bugs, it crashes a lot.

 

[Jharii]

But there are a lot of bugs, it crashes a lot.

For everyone, or just for you? Because I have had zero issues whatsoever. Runs like silk at the highest settings.

 

[afa2000]

I highly recommend Planescape: Torment.
Fantastic game.

Me too, but Fallout 2 is the best RPG I've ever played.

For everyone, or just for you? Because I have had zero issues whatsoever. Runs like silk at the highest settings.

I've seen a lot of people complaining at forums too. There are a few updates available, game is smoother now, but it's still crashing. I have no problems with any other game.

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

4 years I probably would have agreed with you.

However, 4 years ago Nintendo released the Wii with that ridiculous little remote from a controller and totally spiraled into the realm of crappy, gimmicky games. Twilight Princess and Galaxies 1/2 are the only saving graces on that dusty waste of money sitting next to my TV. Compare that to the eras of the NES, SNES and N64 and you see how far Nintendo has fallen.

Regardless, I'm enjoying playing Civ5 so I don't even know why I'm participating in this discussion.

 

[Jharii]

4 years I probably would have agreed with you.

However, 4 years ago Nintendo released the Wii with that ridiculous little remote from a controller and totally spiraled into the realm of crappy, gimmicky games. Twilight Princess and Galaxies 1/2 are the only saving graces on that dusty waste of money sitting next to my TV. Compare that to the eras of the NES, SNES and N64 and you see how far Nintendo has fallen.

Regardless, I'm enjoying playing Civ5 so I don't even know why I'm participating in this discussion.

Console RPG's are the benchmark of what an RPG should never aspire to.

 

[Disgustipated]

OK I have to jump in on the open world rpg depbate.

For the record I liked fallout3, but I did get a little bored of it. One problem is combat is too repetitive. But this is to be expected in a world with guns and relatively realistic physics (ie no magic). So that turns it into more of a shooter, and shooting things get old after a while. The story was decent, but a bit constricting. I don't like the choice of following the Brotherhood of Steel or the Enclave. I want that water for myself hahaha. Fallout: New Vegas appears to deliver on this kind of ending (haven't finished yet however). So FNV does have better rpg choices. The storytelling is about the same (there really was no story in either game).

I agree that Morrowind and Oblivion did have better background story, but it suffers from repetitive combat problems as well. This is a problem with the Bethesda game engine and all their games have this problem. There is no strategy involved. It's just an action game pretty much. Compare this to a game like Baldur's Gate or Dragon Age to a lesser extent where strategy and tactics can turn a seemingly impossible battle possible.

This thread does make me want to play Planescape- the story was amazing, but I remember so little it seems. The combat in that game was a little dry too, however. That's the bad part of that game.

Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 had the best mix of combat and storytelling imho. Dragon Age was good too- although the game world was a little too small and constricted for my tastes.

So the real question is how do you define an rpg? Is it an open game world where you can do anything? Or is it a game where you have a variety of choices that affect the gameworld you are in? Or is it a game with a deep history and great story telling elements?

For the record Morrowind >>> Oblivion. Oblivion was an overrated piece of crap. I never even got 1/4 of the way through that game. It's soooo boring.

 

[Anthropoid]

Oblivion came out originally in what? 2006? By virtue of waiting till this last summer, buying it all in one swoop package, immediately installing any patches I wanted, as well as anticipating the mods I'd want and immediately getting into that: I had a great summer of binging on Oblivion, I think it was about 600 hours of play? Might even go back to it eventually . . .

Very disappointed that both Civ5 and FONV are using Steam My bad experience with Steam and my read of the continued gripes and snipes about Steam by current users convinces me it just simply is not worth the risk of the trouble at this stage. Decided I'll wait.

Paradox on the other hand . . . yes, they release games that are not fully-cooked and I often only get to play them for a couple weeks before I encounter the imbalances and turn it off to wait for a patch (e.g., Arsenal of Democracy; Vicky2). However, they do eventually fix it, and they are not blockbuster company so I'll keep going with them in buying new releases. Ageod won themselves back into my "buy a new release" happy spot too. WWI really was problematic, but BoA, and Rise of Prussia redeemed them.

So in sum: unless you just really like a particular companies offerings the lesson I've learned is: wait a year or two until the original release is patched, expanded and ideally being packaged as a "Complete" version. Then you get really good games in general.

 

[Yarb]

Old Nintendo games were Sooooo simple to program, the complexity of a modern game dwarfs those old titles by orders of magnitude. This is like someone criticizing Tolkien because they can write a first grade primer perfectly.

The fact is that games have become so complex that, if you want a solid, reliable game, you simply have to wait a few months to buy it. I know, they should have the game in better shape when it is released but the fact is that in house and beta testing are still insignificant to placing a title on a million machines.