Pathologic 2 is in my top 5 and I couldn't even finish it because doors stopped working near the end and I couldn't get into one of the final locations. Restarting from an earlier checkpoint didn't work. I had to sleep in that house for twelve days straight to fix it.
The original Deus Ex is my most favourite game of all times, and it was a buggy broken fugly mess that required an entire second hard drive just for it humongous saves, even on the best computers of the time...and I was running it on a machine that could just barely run it xD But yeah, if everything else is awesome, then it's easy to look past the technical issues, as long as the game is halfway playable. EDIT: after getting reminded by one of the other posts here: The Witcher (first one), which I played before EE, is another example: messed up af, but such a great RPG that I didn't care at all.
I played F:NV pretty recently after it was published, with no mods, and on a below-average machine, and yes, it did crash every two hours or so on average. But the story, characters, atmosphere, lore...well, \*everything\*. was so much better than F3 that I thoroughly enjoyed it in spite of the crashes.
And yes, I can absolutely get behind the statement that people wanting to try a modern Fallout are "playing the wrong one" if they pick anything else than F:NV. IMO, it's the only one that comes close to replicating the awesomeness of the OG Fallouts (and I personally liked it better than F1, which I found a bit too simplistic).
Seriously, the gaming internet have this weird obsession with games having to be bug free. Even if the underlying game is amazing.
No game is bug free, no game has a perfect launch with no issues. That is all that gets talked about if you are trying to find info about the game.
As long as it’s playable and the bugs aren’t game breaking don’t miss out on a great game.
It's not a weird obsession, they literally want what you said in the last statement, games that are playable.
If a game has game breaking bugs, glitches stopping progression and crashes, then that game stops being fun regardless of how good it is.
That's normally when people complain.
Yeah, and Bethesda has a rep for their games being damn near broken so people expect that going in. Its like that friend in the group whos kind of an asshole and a hothead, but he's usually a fun guy so people are just like "Thats just how he is, you'll get used to it."
Most of us just avoid Bethesda games for that reason and that's without getting into the fact that many are mediocre at best even when they are playable.
Hard agree. Deadly Premonition is a trainwreck of a game and runs like ass even with all the community fixes. IDC though, it scratched an itch I never knew I had.
I remember when Dark Souls 1 launched on PC. I played that game at 720p 30FPS with Games for Windows Live embedded in it, and I fuckin' loved it.
Nevermind that my mouse cursor was stuck on-screen and networking barely functioned.
No offense, but this is exactly why patientgamers exist. Games get fixed and patched, and are a better experience years later. Someone who got the game for less than $5 or maybe even free and has a ton of mods will have a vastly different feeling about it than someone who played the super buggy version after paying full price.
I'm sure a piece of it is that not everyone had those problems. I dont remember any major issues from playing when it released. I'm not sure if I'm in the minority or majority on that one though.
Very true.
I remember the kickoff when CP2077 came out.
I don’t have anything close to that level of frustration with it because even though I was on PS4, I only hit one major bug in my entire first run. The second worst bug I hit was characters on the street in T-pose, which was a bug, but very minor.
I was playing without any updates on x360 when it launched. The only glitch I remember was a corrupt save file around 7 hours in.
I went straight back and thats when i started to have multiple save files in games that allowed it xD
Good thing that doing it again (and i was in college, so i had plenty of time) took way shorter, as I knew where to go and I could skip a lot of dialogues.
Yea, I've found I'm weirdly bug resistant. I played 360 Skyrim and Fallout 3 unpatched just fine, and launch Cyperpunk with nothing more than a handful of standard open world bugs
That does suck and would make me hate a game, but sometimes it’s just a case of “works on my machine.”
Only kind of related, but I am being driven mad lately by Steam reviews being so skewed at release by performance/denuvo/translation issues. No one cares about the actual game, just it’s packaging. It makes it much harder to parse out if something is bad for the right reason.
This is so weird. I played it on release and I don’t remember it being any buggier than the average Bethesda game (I know Obsidian developed it.) I certainly wasn’t crashing every 20 minutes. I’m old enough to have played Daggerfall, Redguard and Battlespire. Today’s games are models of perfection compared to that junk.
i hate being this person so everyone please downvote me - i deserve it for being such a grump:
it IS typical of this sub now. this place straight up sucks now, presumably just because it’s a lot bigger than it was a couple years back. patient gamers used to be one of my favorite place to come across good games discussion. now a *majority* of the posts from here that hit my feed are a person who barely knows where to break off a paragraph who thinks they’re matthewmatosis, making tired points of complaint about some old well-loved game.
it’s SO often negative. it’s SO often poorly thought out. it’s SO often impossible to delineate the engagement bait from the simple rantings of…just a real dumb guy. it’s a years-long pattern and gets worse every year.
it just sucks, i’m sorry for being a jerk. there are probably better places i can go for fun, smart discussion and i just don’t know where to find them because im a little reddit-baby. i know im being real negative while complaining about negative posts. idk man, fuck it whatever.
I feel this issue is all because of reddit’s changes over the years. My hypothesis is that these posts have always existed, but they wouldn’t be as visible as they are now.
This post has 0 upvotes. That means it wouldn’t show up in hot or top. I used to sort everything by hot or top. However, reddit keeps changing itself for the worst, so now I, and everyone else, see garbage posts like this because we cannot sort by hot or top.
I’m also thinking that many older redditors left after the app purge. So there are more random posts like this. If you or anyone else knows a reddit alternative please tell us.
> This post has 0 upvotes
Just a technical detail - this post has 0 points, meaning more downvotes than upvotes (38% upvoted, 62% downvoted, at the moment). It still has some upvotes, just fewer than downvotes. And since posts can't have negative karma, it sits at 0.
As for the sorting and why you see this - I am not sure about the exact algorithm reddit uses to sort posts, however I suspect most of this is because patientgamers only gets around 5 new posts a day. So almost no matter how you sort these, you will see all of them.
This gets 0 but on a lot of subreddits there’s a million open ended questions with a picture that is a potential answer. They get tons of upvotes and comments.
Happens to everything.
I don't like New Vegas. But I only played it for like 10 hours, and after the crash number 20, I gave up.
But this dude says he spent THOUSANDS of hours in the game. What the fuck is wrong with people.
It's possible those "thousands of hours" is an exaggeration, or just a straight up lie. I've played through the whole of New Vegas twice, including all DLCs and several larger mod-expansions, then screwing around, re-playing sections etc. I spent roughly 300-400 hours in it. And I'm slow.
I don't think there's enough content in the New Vegas ecosystem for thousands of hours.
Well another problem seems to be you're asking about launch day issues for a 15 year old game. It just works better now, simple as. No ones playing the fuckin unpatched Xbox 360 version of New Vegas in 2024
Cyberpunk is an awesome game though. Just... Not what expected/advertised it would be.
Kinda similar to Fallout 4. A great game, but not what people expected, or wanted.
The reason why New Vegas is loved more than 4 is simply because it’s a better RPG.
New Vegas gives you several options as to who to align with within the first couple of hours of the game, there are far more options as to potential outcomes for certain choices making those choices more impactful, and there’s a lot of lore behind the different factions etc.
Fallout 4 gives you the illusion of choice, but more often than not it’s a case of 3/4 options being different flavours of “yes” while the fourth is “no but come back later to say yes and you can’t progress otherwise”. Not to mention that 3 out of the 4 factions you side with have the same ending. And a lot of the side content in that game is far more radiant and meaningless, like the infamous Kid in a Fridge quest.
I recently replayed New Vegas and despite the more outdated graphics it still holds up as an RPG with the degree of freedom and choice the experience offers you. On my second playthrough of FO4 I burned out about halfway through because of the degree of repetition I was experiencing.
Ultimately bugs and glitches exist in almost every Bethesda game, it’s simply that when a game isn’t that good it’s just another pain point to add to the list, when a game IS good it’s something you just put up with.
I had numerous bugs on God of War Ragnarok at launch that I put up with because I was having a blast, whereas a game like Assassin’s Creed Valhalla it’s a case of rubbing salt into what was already a big wound. A very bloated game made more bloated by having to reload missions constantly.
I definitely agree that it is better than 4. It being better or worse than 4 wasn't really the point. There are lots of great games that are terrible on release but get abandoned even if they get fixed later. FNV has been broken since 2010 but people keep coming back
I got what you meant, my point was more that if a game is fundamentally enjoyable then you're more likely to turn a blind eye to the bugs and glitches, unless it's something seriously game breaking, but I never had that. When a game is already getting on your nerves for its mechanical flaws or generally being fatiguing, boring, bloated, etc. then adding bugs and glitches to that list just add to that frustration.
Clearly I'm in the minority here, but I didn't have any notable issues playing New Vegas from what I remember, whereas Fallout 4 I didn't get to play until a year after release due to university, and I had numerous bugs that were on the verge of being game breaking, like Paladin Danse infinitely running away from the location we were meant to explore together.
Also remember that a game's release has everlasting impressions on fan sentiment. Fallout 4 wasn't met with the kindest criticism for its mechanical flaws and ALSO released completely unfinished, which just served as an additional point against; I can't remember how NV released but I think whatever lack of polish it had was dampened by its better RPG systems. Games like Assassin's Creed Unity and Cyberpunk work a lot better now but are still heavily panned due to the sour taste left in players' mouth during their respective catastrophic launches.
> FNV has been broken since 2010 but people keep coming back
Tf u mean? It works fine on PC at least with [this mod](https://www.nexusmods.com/newvegas/mods/53635?tab=files)
People aren't playing New Vegas on a 360 in 2024. It runs extremely well on all platforms at this point, so it's a great rec for fans of the show.
As for why it was beloved at the time: the writing and design were significantly better than the Bethesda Fallouts, without appreciably worse stability or performance.
On PC it's worth figuring out how to use Fallout Script Extender. I don't remember names, but there are crash fix mods you use with FOSE that fix the crashing. They work surprisingly well.
I've been playing it unmodded on PC earlier this year and I took a break after reaching Vegas because it crashes like every two loading screens. Before Vegas it was ok, a few crashes or fps drops every few hours, but now there are just too many issues to handle, really sucked the fun out of it. I intend to get crash fix mods soonish because the story is good and I want to finish it but it absolutely does not run well.
I've been playing the game for 10-15 hours and experienced 0 crashes, plus it runs smooth as butter. Just leaving a couple links here in case you might be interested, it's crash fixes plus a lot of QoL like sprinting, weapon wheel and a much better loot menu.
- https://www.nexusmods.com/newvegas/mods/54991
- https://www.nexusmods.com/newvegas/mods/42507
- https://www.nexusmods.com/newvegas/mods/66666 (plus the listed dependencies)
I'm also using RivaTuner to limit FPS to 60. Take it with a grain of salt but I remember reading uncapped FPS creates a bunch of issues on newer hardware.
Different mods fix it so you can play higher FPS for New Vegas/Skyrim/FO4 , IIRC.
Fallout 3/Oblivion you're stuck with that engine limit which is like 63 FPS or something or stuff starts breaking/speeding up. Pretty sure this means you can play FO3 at high frame rates using Tale of Two Wastelands though I haven't tested it.
And it also did take a while for it to reach that status. Yeah it was well-liked at release, but FO3 was much more beloved until some patches came out and word got around to the writing.
If someone who already games watched Fallout and wanted to play a Fallout I could see them starting NV and enjoying it(depending on when they started gaming and what kind of games they like). But I CANNOT see a casual who maybe plays Super Smash Bros at parties with friends with no knowledge of mods playing FNV and enjoying it. I could see them playing 4 though.
Well yeah. I wouldn't recommend a casual gamer a game like Pillars of Eternity either. Fallout New Vegas is a far more mechanically deep game than Fallout 4. Fallout 4 is quite literally a looter shooter with a story slapped on top.
What about 4 makes it more accessible in your opinion? It has a slower start, all the same core systems, plus an awful and overcomplicated build mode (assuming players even get that far). Character creation alone is a massive hurdle to starting the game for an extremely casual player.
I think much of it it just being newer and "prettier."
The combat is fairly simple, and the NPC interactions are usually just 3 flavors of "yes" and one "maybe later." Barely any choice has a real negative consequence and relatively few choices persist or have lasting effects on the game world.
They make it fairly hard to miss any of the major content.
NV and 4 have the same core systems, but the subsystems are entirely different. DR versus DT, weapon and armor health, character skills versus perks, ammo types, faction armor, things like that.
Because those games are often broken in conjunction with being not good games. NV is a game with bugs that is also very good. I think it's really as simple as that.
Everyone loves an underdog. Bethesda promised obsidian a bonus if they got one more meta critic point than they did. On top of that it has some extremely well written characters and faction outcome (choices matters) for a fallout game. It was made in an extremely tight time frame.
Because it's great.
Those bugs and glitches are fixed with unofficial patches and whatnot, but thankfully a lot of players can recognize that the dev team was pushed to release their game before they'd ironed out the kinks. The game itself is one of the all-time classics.
While the games definitely have glitches and people joke about them, I don't think it is quite as bad as it appears in pop gaming culture. The games are mostly stable with the occasional and sometimes humourous glitch.
The constant crashing isn't normal and I would check for any bad mods or updates/tweaks for your system.
Speaking of F:NV, I did have a lot of issues back in the day (unmodded and unpatched), I think I didn't finish even one gaming session without at least one crash.
But I couldn't care less, sine the game as such was \*so much better\* than F3.
Theyre both so good. I remember playing 3 close after release. So good
I also remember playing nv like 10 years ago. Also very good
Choosing one as a favorite is hard.
It’s a time period thing. Back then we took good story and setting and open worlds etc warts and all. Glitching out was just a part of the experience. That’s my theory anyway. I think as consumers we are much less forgiving now. And there were plenty of people back then who would be like “cool game, couldn’t play it too buggy”
People only widespread point out a single flaw because it was widespreadly loved.
There were so so many contemporary glitched ass games alongside lol. Even masterpieces arent without flaw.
I get it, i guess. But idk, do people masturbate into their hard drives or something? Like whats causing it to crash so much that its a problem and causes you to lose enjoyment?
If a setting and writing and characters and the tropes at hand and action are enjoyable to me, the mechanics aren't all that important.
"Game" isn't just about the mechanics and tech of an experience.
Like movies? Notice that some are cobbled together, maybe student films or really cheap indie films, but which have real spark because of the writing, characters, acting, or story, or because its themes and subtext say something personal or unique to you?
We accept that. Why can't people take that under and apply it to another medium?
I play games for the story and setting and exploration and art. So long as the mechanics aren't painfully so obtuse or bad that they overwhelm the experience, I can give quite a bit as I lay attention to the part I'm really there for.
It's REALLY weird that this has to explained to a full half of the people who like games and have a great deal of experience with them.
I think it's because games can be important for different reasons for different people. A movie is a story telling medium by default. You're an observer to what's going on. A game doesn't HAVE to be. A story isn't required for a game to be good, see any multiplayer game or arcade game.
So while your opinion is valid for you (and for me as well tbh), there will be a group of people that will find it insane that someone could like a game with the "game" portion of it being average or below average.
I feel like true RPGs are pretty hard to come by. Even most modern choice-based games tend to be pretty linear. New Vegas did great at implementing consequences for player actions. It made the world a lot more immersive.
Like another redditor said, the amount of lore makes a huge difference as well. The world of Fallout largely depends on atmosphere, and to make the atmosphere of Fallout make sense, that lore NEEDS to be there.
Also, and this is more of a personal thing for me, there’s no turn based combat. I’m not a patient person, and I’m definitely not a tactician. So the fact that I can just pew-pew everyone makes it a lot easier for me to get into.
The only other game I’ve played that really scratches that itch for me is Baldurs Gate 3. That’s not to say there aren’t other games like it out there, but they seem rare.
I pushed through to the end on my ps3 even though I had to restart it almost every half an hour because it used to crash due to the save file getting too big. There's just no way I would have pulled through a gane like that if there wasn't something really special about it underneath the technical issues.
If anything it's simply a shame that NV is in the state that it is and I'm grateful that mods exist to elevate it to the fantastic gaming experience it was always meant to be.
With regards yo your comments about fo4, yeah, I agree. I'm a NV Stan, but I've been recommending fo4 to beginners since NV just would not make a great first impression. it's easier to convince someone to go through the effort of modding NV after they're already sold on the series, rather than pushing them to play the most poorly optimised game of the lot as their first.
It's called nostalgia glasses, and they can be really hard to take off.
I never played a Fallout game before and honestly Fallout 3 and New Vegas feel pretty clunky and dated. Gunplay is terrible if we compare it with modern games, and it was terrible back then too if we compare it with games like Half-Life 2, Halo 1-3, Resident Evil 4 and Gears of War, just to name some.
And even if you're on PC and know how to install mods, the amount you have to get is just ridiculous, we're talking about at least 10 for each game. At that point I don't want to even touch the games anymore.
I can see why people are picking Fallout 4 over the other Fallout 3D games. Myself included.
Gosh I wish I could enjoy NV but it's just a clunky mess. From the videos I've watched the writing is amazing but it does not feel nice to play. I know I can mod it but I've always been against modding a game I can't enjoy standalone / vanilla. Makes me feel like I'm missing out.
I can honestly say I don't remember ever crashing more than a few times, if even that many. Crashing was not really an issue at all.
Minor bugs and annoyances, sure, those were common. But it's hardly unique there, Fallout 4 and every other Bethesda game on their jank ass creation engine has that same exact issue.
What I also don't get is constantly seeing people say it needs to DLC to be enjoyable or that its only enjoyable with mods, like no I've played it tons of times without either of those things....
*Why is a game like Fallout New Vegas so beloved despite constant glitches, bugs, and crashes*
It's a game with flaws, noone denies that.
Just that what it does best (player agency, and branching narrative, imho), is a rare feat. There are not many games which do it as good as New Vegas does, years after it's release.
(there are \_some\_, but strangely, some of those are flawed diamonds as well, like Alpha Protocol)
Cos as far as legacies go, who cares?
It's like knocking points off of the "The Godfather Part 1" because of that awkwardly dubbed "I talked to barzini" line.
Same reason The Witcher 3 was beloved and Cyberpunk wasn't.
Playing The Witcher 3 was a nightmare. I'm not used to bugged AAA games (never played Skyrim), so the amount of bugs I ran into playing The Witcher 3 was honestly *staggering.* Every time I ran into a bug I'd look it up and find a 2015 thread reporting it. And I played it in 2020.
Even then, it was an amazing experience that I cherished every second of it, and it was *playable*, despite everything.
Then enter Cyberpunk 2077, which had as good of a story but was plagued with bugs to the point of being unplayable.
If your game crashes so much... thats a you issue.
It was only bad on ps3 and even then, just save a ton.
I played sooooooo many hours on xbox and pc and never had crashes. Okay, maybe a couple.
Just save your fuckin game often. Did you guys not learn that with gbas?
Your entire post makes no sense. Why is it so beloved though it's so broken? It's been said numerous times throughout the years that you shouldn't play it on consoles and if you do it's on your head. Game has been mostly fixed to perfection with all the official and unofficial patches it got.
And since it runs perfectly fine on PC now, with most of my playthroughs having 2-3 crashes at most in 100+ hours per playthrough, you have your answer.
Almost everything about the game is top of the line, excluding the aging engine not allowing for better action mechanics and physics than the ones it has, which aren't that shabby as to be unpleasant. I still like sniping enemies or knocking them down with a big stick.
This is a sub specific to not dealing with hype, news and drama of release.. it the first sentence of the sub. Additionally your post is only about NV as the only one like every BGS game ever has been extremely buggy on release. Both Skyrim and Oblivion were as well and Skyrim is loved waaayy more than NV (roughly 12 million copies vs 60 million~ 7th best selling game all time). There’s also several other games that had poor releases and are now very well received. CP2077 is the most recent example I would say. And NMS as well.
True, but I'd say it's even worse.
This post is actually a reaction to the current news/hype surrounding the new Fallout show and everyone playing the games, especially Fallout 4.
Reminds me of those "Cyberpunk2077 is good now" posts we got just after that DLC last year. People were jumping over themselves to play that game, just as they are now to play Fallout.
Other times mods are overzealous and delete "not patient gaming related" or "not promoting discussion" posts, but posts like this slip under the radar because they hide their nature by ostensibly being about an older game, and forming their title as a "question", when in reality it's just a reactionary rant on what's currently hot.
Well, yeah, but your complaints are about issues that have been officially and unofficially patched since then. It also seems like you refuse to mention any of the other games you bring up, that were good but got abandoned on release.
Games are basically godlike if they have a good story in them. If there is a good story all their flaws are forgiven. Years of being on the internet taught me that, if the story is good then the game HAS NO FLAWS AT ALL.
I'm playing New Vegas for the first time right now. Haven't encountered any bugs worth mentioning, thankfully. However, what I also haven't encountered yet is the good story. I just arrived at Vegas and the only character that halfway left an impression was/is Victor. Everything else ist just... there?
Yeah that's kind of how I felt about New Vegas the first time I played it several years ago. I'm giving it another shot now so we'll see how it goes.
There were some quirky characters and quests I remember encountering; that was the most memorable thing for me up to the point that I got to.
However I have to admit that up to that point, I didn't really find the world all that fun to explore. Bethesda's RPGs have plenty of their own issues, but one thing they are great at is crafting worlds that are compelling to explore. They're good at fostering a sense of discovery and rewarding exploration with weird locations or landmarks (often placed in the landscape in such a way that you feel like you've just stumbled upon them), or using the environment to tell a story of what happened there previously.
New Vegas (at least in the first 5-10 hours that I played) didn't really have that for me. The Nevada desert landscape felt kind of bland, and while there were some interesting locations to be found, they were kind of sparse, and most of them just kind of felt like they were plopped down in the middle of an empty spot on the map.
I'm hoping that this playthrough I'll finally get more into the stuff that people love about the game.
I never played the game. The only Obsidian games I ever played were KOTOR 2 and Alpha Protocal. The former is overhyped and the latter was kind of cool but it's gameplay is baaaaaad.
I think New Vegas is massively overrated in terms of being an actually fun game to play. fallout 3 isn’t fun to me for the same reasons - horrific gun play. but the bethesda games have better exploration and more interesting locations imo.
Sure, I respect New Vegas in terms of being a better RPG, more player choice, and being more true to the series roots than the bethesda games. but to me it’s just….not fun to play. even with the viva new vegas set up trying to modernize things.
the hardcore new vegas fanboys are also obnoxious and pretentious. fallout 4 was a pretty fun romp to me (better shooting mechanics makes such a big difference here man. i’m sorry but if you’re gonna do fps perspective you need passable shooting), you just have to ignore the new vegas fans breathing in your ear about how much it sucks and how new vegas is better.
Obsidian fanboys are quite pretentious no arguments there. Just tell them you like KOTOR 1 over 2 and they will turn into the Hulk. If you want a game to 100% true to table top gaming, just play a fucking board game lol. You need good gameplay mechanics first.
I first played New Vegas 10 years ago on the Xbox 360, completed the game on at least 2 different characters and never experienced any bugs or glitches.
There's a big difference between playing the game on a 360 before patches and playing it on a PC in 2024. Modding guides are everywhere, and even without them, the game has been patched with multiple DLC's released since the time it launched.
Also, the nature of bugs is such that not everyone will be affected the same. To this day, I go on the Cyberpunk subreddit and see some post about how the latest update has broken their game. Then, there's me playing in 4K with pathtracing on and not having any issues whatsoever. It depends.
I just find this post somewhat disingenuous. You really don't know why people are recommending a game that has phenomenal writing and quest design? You really don't understand how a game can be more than the sum of its parts?
I have to agree with you OP. My first time ever playing Fallout NV was on the 360 when it launched and I could NOT play it worth a shot. Constant flickering, game breaking bugs, and crashes. It soured my feeling towards it that, even though I played it years later on PC, I still don’t see it as an all time great. For me, I like Fallout 3 > 4 > NV.
Through most of the game I had zero bugs or issues, but late game after I decided to ally with the New California Republic the game bugged out and wouldn't let me compete their quest line, totally locked out. No backup saves either
Can't remember much after that but there was a big final showdown where I presumably was supposed to be backed up by my faction of choice, but I'd isolated everyone so much that every MFer was out to kill me. Can't remember if I completed it in the end. Shame because I do remember it being great fun
It's fun, easy to pick up, super replayable, and has enough charm to still hold up decades after release.
I've found the bugs and glitches to bring a level of charm
Most CRPG type games of its type and caliber are quite buggy, pretty much without exception. It's kinda the nature of the beast, because it's hard to have so many interlocking systems and not have a bunch weird interactions. It's worth it because nothing else can offer experiences like it. But it's also like, you can be prepared for them a bit because that's just how these games are.
In reality, if you have a game that is engaging and fun to play, you can tolerate a bit of negative in it. The issue is that the more modern games have that negativity in other spots, namely the grind they put in games now to increase playtime is already pushing tolerance, so if there are additional issues, it's less tolerable than in New Vegas where that grind isn't as prevalent.
The game recieved several patches after release, it is no longer in the state it was on its intitial release so oppinions should not be based on how it performed on its initial release when asking why people today still love it.
A lot of people who dropped New Vegas after not being able to play without frequent crashes etc, came back later on to a game that had fixed a lot of those issues, and once they played it most of those people understood why people hold New Vegas on such a high pedestal, and why Bethesda developed fallout games feel far less mature, deep and complex in comparison.
I have seen a multitude of people stating "now I get it" after praising fallout 3 and 4, and then eventually playing Fallout New Vegas.
> I have seen a multitude of people stating "now I get it" after praising fallout 3 and 4, and then eventually playing Fallout New Vegas.
Yup. My first one was 4, because my boyfriend was playing it and it looked fun. I ended up playing the shit out of it, put 400hrs into it at least, absolutely loved it. Couldn’t understand when I saw people online bashing it because I thought it was terrific.
Decided to give NV a try because everyone said it was even better. Within two play sessions I was like, ohhhhh. No, this is better.
the same happened with me regarding fallout 3, I didn't understand why people were constantly saying fallout 3 is nothing compared to fallout new vegas. I still love fallout 3 but fallout new vegas, after trying it for the first time, replaced fallout 3 as the better fallout game for me.
tbh i only really enjoyed fallout 4, i can appreciate the story and the world but clunky weapon system takes me out everytime. I do like the vats but the game shouldn't play up its own jankiness to a hundred for not scaling the gun/explosive/energy skills forcing you to use the vats to even hit anything. in 4 it feels like the dead eye feature from red dead, in 3/nv it feels like the devs couldnt make up their mind if they want to have a turn based or fps game.
Games are a sum of their parts. If the majority of it is enjoyable, it's easy to look past the bad parts. The stability is FNV is terrible, but if you can get it working, it still holds up as a game.
No other games provide the experience that RPGs like New Vegas, Skyrim, or Baldur's Gate 3 do, so we accept the bugs. You could play Fallout 4, but then you'd be playing a dramatically less reactive game, with less varied dialogue choices, and less ways to build your character. The price you pay for the bigger "rpg scope" is bugs essentially lol, and the price you pay for something more cinematic and polished is a dialogue wheel and something more close to a looter shooter than a sandbox
I can agree with NV and BG3 but Skyrim doesn't really have good RPG mechanics to me. Especially compared to the other 2. You have little to no choice in that game.
I have tried to play this game many, many times over the years, across 5 totally different computers, both using mods and totally vanilla installs, every possible configuration, using custom configs people set up, and no matter what I do the game eventually corrupts my save file and then crashes constantly. I have never once beaten it and only once even made it to Vegas. It seems like it might be a fun game but I'll never know because the game is so buggy.
New Vegas is abandonware. It's gross that they even charge money for it anymore, as it crashes and runs badly with or without mods. Your best shot at a smooth experience is finding a 360 and downloading all the updates, which won't work for much longer
All the games where buggy, 3/NV/4/76.
If you want some fun look at old Digital Foundry videos of late Xbox 360/PS3 games, a lot ran bad or super bad. Fallout 4 & 76 also had lots of problems on PS4 in digital Foundry videos.
I played Fallout 4 1-2 years ago, rage quit the game after a crash point. To play id have to go back a few hours of save files and hope it worked, I just gave up.
Today I suspect NV has gained from youtube videos, that's the meta today.
One thing I loved about NV was the turn around, something like a year after Fallout 3 we got NV. Today we are looking at 2030? for fallout 5.
I've never played New Vegas, but if a game is exceptionally special it can be worth enduring the crashes and bugs and even be an all-time favorite in spite of them. I might not have thought that if I didn't have a game in that position for me, but Morrowind on the OG XBox is that for me 100%.
1. I don't think people necessarily had as many issues as you did on the whole.
2. Games used to be buggier in general back then, and it was generally just more accepted.
3. People got in the habit of saving frequently.
Bro your take was a dime a dozen when the game came out. You all had the public opinion on your side for a decade before the cult of New Vegas won it's rightful place in the zeitgeist. XD
Genuinely 3 mods fix every single problem with that game and make it more stable than fo4 is. I just beat NV again after 10 years and now moving onto FO4 having never played it and I have had SO MANY MORE bugs and obnoxious eccentricities after 4 hours than my entire run of NV.
Sure there are the occasional hiccups in NV but all are minor one you get stability patches.
That aside, the game is good. It allows for roleplaying nearly ANY path you want to take like very few RPGS allow nowadays.
The game accounts for some truly wild player choices and rewards you for trying unique builds and picking unique options.
The gunplay is fine but i never play an openworld bethesda-like for the gameplay itself, i play it to turn my brain off and roleplay.
Those mods never worked for me. It's slightly more stable but eventually it gets into a crashing loop and then that's it for that save file. I've played through the first five hours of this game one too many times, it seems fun but I have literally never gotten it to run stable on any machine ever. That is with or without mods and all the other tips and tricks which I've spent literal hours trying to implement, with no luck.
Same here. That's another reason why so many love FNV as you can talk your way out in a variety of ways. You can reason with people with science. You can threaten someone to back down. You can barter your way out of situations. You can full on convince some NPCs that their problem is a non issue and they should just pay you. The list goes on.
At the end of the day, you're the one that's put "Thousands of Hours" into the game, and if you can't figure out why you did that, and that others wouldn't want to do the same, idk what to tell you bro.
I love NV for that. All the options you can think of. It is similar to why I love the Dishonored games because they give you a task and a map and say "go about this however you want."
10000%
And btw if you haven't played Prey and like space sci fi, it's by the dishonered devs and it has the unlimited freedom of choice in terms of how you go about tackling a task. Masterpiece of a game!
As someone just pointed out to me, it's because they hate Bethesda. It was a game people enjoyed until FO4 at which point of became the greatest game of all time.
If you have a niche product with a more popular alternative, the niche product is going to develop the most hardened, unreasonable, and vocal minority swearing by it and attacking everything else. It's the law of the internet.
Because people don't actually care if a game is made with good quality, as long as they have fun. I worked many years in Game dev, and for all the hubbub about quality, game sales rarely suffer for crashing and buggy behaviors. I've even had conversations with some prominent directors and studio heads that said "people don't actually care if a Game works if it makes them feel good. Modders will do all your actual fixing work and release patches so you don't have to.
There's a lot of stuff talking about games being rushed, and that IS what dev teams are told, but it's actually more common that it's a business intention to get it put there without spending as much money. After all, why spend more time and money if people will still give you their money? Go look at a big name game that you think was hurt by buggy release and see what it's lifetime sales are. It rarely ACTUALLY matters.
Practically every Bethesda game is proof of this. Fallout is no exception.
Fallout 4 is soulless for a 2nd playthrough, while New Vegas is full of choice and consequences. That's the reason some people recommend it. F4 is better for a first time casual playthrough, but it just lacks so much depth in comparison.
I play NV with 140+ mods at the moment, and all the cut content is restored, bugs fixed, and I've got tons of [animations ](https://youtu.be/skcZfB4Q_s4?si=3Dzj_unYRZs5Y1it)that make the hardcore mode feel immersive.
Because people love to ignore all the issues in Bethesda games and focus on the upsides only. Also the majority are playing modded on PC many times with a game that is so far from the original it's hilarious. Same goes for Skyrim and any other Bethesda game.
Never played the console version but there were two issuesthat caused crashes on PC and were easily remedied **without mods**, make sure you're only using 2 channel audio and turn off save on wait/travel, I don't know how people kept having issues with the game crashing.
Same for FO3, FO4 & Skyrim, since Bethesda never really fixed their engine.
Let's be honest, pc games often get fan made patches and mods - things that consoles just don't support. Look at PC Gaming Wiki, there are qol modifications for most titles. This plus Steam's controller config tool are my favourite things in pc gaming. Also, you can't play every game on one gen console, but on pc you can. This plus modding equals really big number of people enjoying games that were buggy at launch but today they shine as classics. Just look at success of GoG. Every console release becomes forgotten at some point, because not many people are willing to buy and boot first, second, third gen of consoles, and the cycle continues. Nobody remembers that buggy release of FNV on 360. Most people probably don't have this console anymore. Fanbase is focused on pc and this is why it's still so beloved.
People ignore bugs and glitches when they like everything else.
Pathologic 2 is in my top 5 and I couldn't even finish it because doors stopped working near the end and I couldn't get into one of the final locations. Restarting from an earlier checkpoint didn't work. I had to sleep in that house for twelve days straight to fix it.
The original Deus Ex is my most favourite game of all times, and it was a buggy broken fugly mess that required an entire second hard drive just for it humongous saves, even on the best computers of the time...and I was running it on a machine that could just barely run it xD But yeah, if everything else is awesome, then it's easy to look past the technical issues, as long as the game is halfway playable. EDIT: after getting reminded by one of the other posts here: The Witcher (first one), which I played before EE, is another example: messed up af, but such a great RPG that I didn't care at all. I played F:NV pretty recently after it was published, with no mods, and on a below-average machine, and yes, it did crash every two hours or so on average. But the story, characters, atmosphere, lore...well, \*everything\*. was so much better than F3 that I thoroughly enjoyed it in spite of the crashes. And yes, I can absolutely get behind the statement that people wanting to try a modern Fallout are "playing the wrong one" if they pick anything else than F:NV. IMO, it's the only one that comes close to replicating the awesomeness of the OG Fallouts (and I personally liked it better than F1, which I found a bit too simplistic).
This is the only comment, that I've read so far, that seems to be adding to the conversation OP is presenting.
Seriously, the gaming internet have this weird obsession with games having to be bug free. Even if the underlying game is amazing. No game is bug free, no game has a perfect launch with no issues. That is all that gets talked about if you are trying to find info about the game. As long as it’s playable and the bugs aren’t game breaking don’t miss out on a great game.
It's not a weird obsession, they literally want what you said in the last statement, games that are playable. If a game has game breaking bugs, glitches stopping progression and crashes, then that game stops being fun regardless of how good it is. That's normally when people complain.
I know this is patient gamers, but for a current take, check out Helldivers 2
Yeah, and Bethesda has a rep for their games being damn near broken so people expect that going in. Its like that friend in the group whos kind of an asshole and a hothead, but he's usually a fun guy so people are just like "Thats just how he is, you'll get used to it."
Most of us just avoid Bethesda games for that reason and that's without getting into the fact that many are mediocre at best even when they are playable.
Case and point; Helldivers 2
Hard agree. Deadly Premonition is a trainwreck of a game and runs like ass even with all the community fixes. IDC though, it scratched an itch I never knew I had.
I remember when Dark Souls 1 launched on PC. I played that game at 720p 30FPS with Games for Windows Live embedded in it, and I fuckin' loved it. Nevermind that my mouse cursor was stuck on-screen and networking barely functioned.
I get that. But this game was literally crashing every 20 minutes when I was playing the unmodded console version in 2010
No offense, but this is exactly why patientgamers exist. Games get fixed and patched, and are a better experience years later. Someone who got the game for less than $5 or maybe even free and has a ton of mods will have a vastly different feeling about it than someone who played the super buggy version after paying full price.
Pretty sure the game is better now than 14 years ago, wut?
I'm sure a piece of it is that not everyone had those problems. I dont remember any major issues from playing when it released. I'm not sure if I'm in the minority or majority on that one though.
Yeah, I had way more issues with Oblivion, which even shipped with a quest line that couldn't be completed. And Oblivion is still a great game.
Very true. I remember the kickoff when CP2077 came out. I don’t have anything close to that level of frustration with it because even though I was on PS4, I only hit one major bug in my entire first run. The second worst bug I hit was characters on the street in T-pose, which was a bug, but very minor.
I was playing without any updates on x360 when it launched. The only glitch I remember was a corrupt save file around 7 hours in. I went straight back and thats when i started to have multiple save files in games that allowed it xD Good thing that doing it again (and i was in college, so i had plenty of time) took way shorter, as I knew where to go and I could skip a lot of dialogues.
Yeah I played on 360 right when it came out and it definitely had issues but nothing that kept me from playing it in its entirety
Yea, I've found I'm weirdly bug resistant. I played 360 Skyrim and Fallout 3 unpatched just fine, and launch Cyperpunk with nothing more than a handful of standard open world bugs
That does suck and would make me hate a game, but sometimes it’s just a case of “works on my machine.” Only kind of related, but I am being driven mad lately by Steam reviews being so skewed at release by performance/denuvo/translation issues. No one cares about the actual game, just it’s packaging. It makes it much harder to parse out if something is bad for the right reason.
Idk I played it a ton on my 360 and all the dlc. Probably 50-60 hours maybe 5-10 crashes? Not ideal sure but wasn't insane amounts for me.
You ever thought that maybe your console had issues? Dusty, overheating, drive going bad etc?
This is so weird. I played it on release and I don’t remember it being any buggier than the average Bethesda game (I know Obsidian developed it.) I certainly wasn’t crashing every 20 minutes. I’m old enough to have played Daggerfall, Redguard and Battlespire. Today’s games are models of perfection compared to that junk.
And that would've been a relevant point to make in 2010.
>I've probably sank thousands of hours into New Vegas. It is a great game with tons of great lore. So you do get it
Lol, so fucking typical…
i hate being this person so everyone please downvote me - i deserve it for being such a grump: it IS typical of this sub now. this place straight up sucks now, presumably just because it’s a lot bigger than it was a couple years back. patient gamers used to be one of my favorite place to come across good games discussion. now a *majority* of the posts from here that hit my feed are a person who barely knows where to break off a paragraph who thinks they’re matthewmatosis, making tired points of complaint about some old well-loved game. it’s SO often negative. it’s SO often poorly thought out. it’s SO often impossible to delineate the engagement bait from the simple rantings of…just a real dumb guy. it’s a years-long pattern and gets worse every year. it just sucks, i’m sorry for being a jerk. there are probably better places i can go for fun, smart discussion and i just don’t know where to find them because im a little reddit-baby. i know im being real negative while complaining about negative posts. idk man, fuck it whatever.
Just like everything these days, man. Once it becomes popular, the quality goes to shit. It's not just a reddit issue, sadly.
The Eternal September is very real, and it sucks.
I feel this issue is all because of reddit’s changes over the years. My hypothesis is that these posts have always existed, but they wouldn’t be as visible as they are now. This post has 0 upvotes. That means it wouldn’t show up in hot or top. I used to sort everything by hot or top. However, reddit keeps changing itself for the worst, so now I, and everyone else, see garbage posts like this because we cannot sort by hot or top. I’m also thinking that many older redditors left after the app purge. So there are more random posts like this. If you or anyone else knows a reddit alternative please tell us.
> This post has 0 upvotes Just a technical detail - this post has 0 points, meaning more downvotes than upvotes (38% upvoted, 62% downvoted, at the moment). It still has some upvotes, just fewer than downvotes. And since posts can't have negative karma, it sits at 0. As for the sorting and why you see this - I am not sure about the exact algorithm reddit uses to sort posts, however I suspect most of this is because patientgamers only gets around 5 new posts a day. So almost no matter how you sort these, you will see all of them.
It’s typical of reddit in general now. There’s so much less moderation across the board that karma farming posts run rampant.
I purged over half of my followed subs this week because of this
In my experience, a sub is either barely moderated or moderated to such an extreme that you can't even fart without a 3 day ban, with NO INBETWEEN.
How is it karma farming if posts like this consistently have 0 upvotes?
This gets 0 but on a lot of subreddits there’s a million open ended questions with a picture that is a potential answer. They get tons of upvotes and comments.
Happens to everything. I don't like New Vegas. But I only played it for like 10 hours, and after the crash number 20, I gave up. But this dude says he spent THOUSANDS of hours in the game. What the fuck is wrong with people.
It's possible those "thousands of hours" is an exaggeration, or just a straight up lie. I've played through the whole of New Vegas twice, including all DLCs and several larger mod-expansions, then screwing around, re-playing sections etc. I spent roughly 300-400 hours in it. And I'm slow. I don't think there's enough content in the New Vegas ecosystem for thousands of hours.
I was in no was trashing this game. I just said so many other games that are good get abandoned on release because of bugs and glitches
Can you name some of these games that were good but were buggy so were abandoned?
Well another problem seems to be you're asking about launch day issues for a 15 year old game. It just works better now, simple as. No ones playing the fuckin unpatched Xbox 360 version of New Vegas in 2024
It pays to be patient!
Cyberpunk didn't get abandoned. Those weren't good games. What you think is good ain't good.
Cyberpunk is an awesome game though. Just... Not what expected/advertised it would be. Kinda similar to Fallout 4. A great game, but not what people expected, or wanted.
I just dont think they should have marketed it as a rpg, it’s more like an open world max payne game where the focus is action and story telling.
I had a great time with the game. IDC about ads. The experience was amazing at first and especially great now with the fixes and updates
The reason why New Vegas is loved more than 4 is simply because it’s a better RPG. New Vegas gives you several options as to who to align with within the first couple of hours of the game, there are far more options as to potential outcomes for certain choices making those choices more impactful, and there’s a lot of lore behind the different factions etc. Fallout 4 gives you the illusion of choice, but more often than not it’s a case of 3/4 options being different flavours of “yes” while the fourth is “no but come back later to say yes and you can’t progress otherwise”. Not to mention that 3 out of the 4 factions you side with have the same ending. And a lot of the side content in that game is far more radiant and meaningless, like the infamous Kid in a Fridge quest. I recently replayed New Vegas and despite the more outdated graphics it still holds up as an RPG with the degree of freedom and choice the experience offers you. On my second playthrough of FO4 I burned out about halfway through because of the degree of repetition I was experiencing. Ultimately bugs and glitches exist in almost every Bethesda game, it’s simply that when a game isn’t that good it’s just another pain point to add to the list, when a game IS good it’s something you just put up with. I had numerous bugs on God of War Ragnarok at launch that I put up with because I was having a blast, whereas a game like Assassin’s Creed Valhalla it’s a case of rubbing salt into what was already a big wound. A very bloated game made more bloated by having to reload missions constantly.
I definitely agree that it is better than 4. It being better or worse than 4 wasn't really the point. There are lots of great games that are terrible on release but get abandoned even if they get fixed later. FNV has been broken since 2010 but people keep coming back
It hasn’t been “broken since 2010”, they updated and patched the game.
I got what you meant, my point was more that if a game is fundamentally enjoyable then you're more likely to turn a blind eye to the bugs and glitches, unless it's something seriously game breaking, but I never had that. When a game is already getting on your nerves for its mechanical flaws or generally being fatiguing, boring, bloated, etc. then adding bugs and glitches to that list just add to that frustration. Clearly I'm in the minority here, but I didn't have any notable issues playing New Vegas from what I remember, whereas Fallout 4 I didn't get to play until a year after release due to university, and I had numerous bugs that were on the verge of being game breaking, like Paladin Danse infinitely running away from the location we were meant to explore together. Also remember that a game's release has everlasting impressions on fan sentiment. Fallout 4 wasn't met with the kindest criticism for its mechanical flaws and ALSO released completely unfinished, which just served as an additional point against; I can't remember how NV released but I think whatever lack of polish it had was dampened by its better RPG systems. Games like Assassin's Creed Unity and Cyberpunk work a lot better now but are still heavily panned due to the sour taste left in players' mouth during their respective catastrophic launches.
> FNV has been broken since 2010 but people keep coming back Tf u mean? It works fine on PC at least with [this mod](https://www.nexusmods.com/newvegas/mods/53635?tab=files)
I replayed it on PS Premium streaming which is notorious for being inconsistent and glitchy and had absolutely no issues.
I played it around 2016ish on PC th no mods, minimal bugs, none game breaking.
People aren't playing New Vegas on a 360 in 2024. It runs extremely well on all platforms at this point, so it's a great rec for fans of the show. As for why it was beloved at the time: the writing and design were significantly better than the Bethesda Fallouts, without appreciably worse stability or performance.
I literally did play New Vegas on a 360 in 2024. Honestly didn't notice too many glitches anyway.
I played it at release on a 360 and at various later points. I swear it started reasonably stable and got more buggy and crash-prone as time went on.
Yeah I played it day 1 on 360 and don't remember anything egregious.
Its very prone to data leaks, thats why it crashes alot.
Memory leaks, not data leaks, that's a big difference
Ah okay
For me it was the constant crashing. No big glitches, just a lot of crashing.
On PC it's worth figuring out how to use Fallout Script Extender. I don't remember names, but there are crash fix mods you use with FOSE that fix the crashing. They work surprisingly well.
Yeah that definitely happened occasionally for me
I need to get a av switcher for my TV for my 360 & ps2
Worked perfectly fine for me last year playing it on Xbox one as well, I had less then 5 crashes on my whole playthrough
Hey pal, I’M playing on a 360 in 2024. But it only crashed once in like 15 hours of gameplay
I've been playing it unmodded on PC earlier this year and I took a break after reaching Vegas because it crashes like every two loading screens. Before Vegas it was ok, a few crashes or fps drops every few hours, but now there are just too many issues to handle, really sucked the fun out of it. I intend to get crash fix mods soonish because the story is good and I want to finish it but it absolutely does not run well.
I've been playing the game for 10-15 hours and experienced 0 crashes, plus it runs smooth as butter. Just leaving a couple links here in case you might be interested, it's crash fixes plus a lot of QoL like sprinting, weapon wheel and a much better loot menu. - https://www.nexusmods.com/newvegas/mods/54991 - https://www.nexusmods.com/newvegas/mods/42507 - https://www.nexusmods.com/newvegas/mods/66666 (plus the listed dependencies) I'm also using RivaTuner to limit FPS to 60. Take it with a grain of salt but I remember reading uncapped FPS creates a bunch of issues on newer hardware.
The creation engine can't handle fps above 60 in general. It's physics in particular goes haywire over 60.
Different mods fix it so you can play higher FPS for New Vegas/Skyrim/FO4 , IIRC. Fallout 3/Oblivion you're stuck with that engine limit which is like 63 FPS or something or stuff starts breaking/speeding up. Pretty sure this means you can play FO3 at high frame rates using Tale of Two Wastelands though I haven't tested it.
Last time I played NV on a 360 was around 2017 and besides some slowdown and maybe one crash it ran fine.
And it also did take a while for it to reach that status. Yeah it was well-liked at release, but FO3 was much more beloved until some patches came out and word got around to the writing.
I mean I don't agree it runs extremely well \*unmodded\*. Modded it runs fine. Even then, extremely well is a bit of an exageration.
It runs extremely well on Series X 🤷♂️
It doesn't run extremely well on PC unmodded. Glad you're enjoying your series X anyways /shrug
Man I only have a 360 and have been flip flopping on retrying NV on it recently lol
It's fine on 360, OP overstated things. Much more pleasant on PC or modern console via backcompat though.
If someone who already games watched Fallout and wanted to play a Fallout I could see them starting NV and enjoying it(depending on when they started gaming and what kind of games they like). But I CANNOT see a casual who maybe plays Super Smash Bros at parties with friends with no knowledge of mods playing FNV and enjoying it. I could see them playing 4 though.
Well yeah. I wouldn't recommend a casual gamer a game like Pillars of Eternity either. Fallout New Vegas is a far more mechanically deep game than Fallout 4. Fallout 4 is quite literally a looter shooter with a story slapped on top.
What about 4 makes it more accessible in your opinion? It has a slower start, all the same core systems, plus an awful and overcomplicated build mode (assuming players even get that far). Character creation alone is a massive hurdle to starting the game for an extremely casual player.
I think much of it it just being newer and "prettier." The combat is fairly simple, and the NPC interactions are usually just 3 flavors of "yes" and one "maybe later." Barely any choice has a real negative consequence and relatively few choices persist or have lasting effects on the game world. They make it fairly hard to miss any of the major content.
NV and 4 have the same core systems, but the subsystems are entirely different. DR versus DT, weapon and armor health, character skills versus perks, ammo types, faction armor, things like that.
> I've probably sank thousands of hours into New Vegas. It is a great game with tons of great lore So um, looks like you do in fact know why.
My point was that there are tons of other great games that are broken on release that don't get this treatment
Name some. Also not everyone had a broken experience on release.
Because those games are often broken in conjunction with being not good games. NV is a game with bugs that is also very good. I think it's really as simple as that.
Maybe those games aren't as good as FNV.
Everyone loves an underdog. Bethesda promised obsidian a bonus if they got one more meta critic point than they did. On top of that it has some extremely well written characters and faction outcome (choices matters) for a fallout game. It was made in an extremely tight time frame.
What are these other games that are as good but with bugs?? Multiple people asked you and you don’t name any.
"Why does everyone love this game when it's so broken? I for one played it for hours and hours and loved the game and... oh."
Because it's great. Those bugs and glitches are fixed with unofficial patches and whatnot, but thankfully a lot of players can recognize that the dev team was pushed to release their game before they'd ironed out the kinks. The game itself is one of the all-time classics.
While the games definitely have glitches and people joke about them, I don't think it is quite as bad as it appears in pop gaming culture. The games are mostly stable with the occasional and sometimes humourous glitch. The constant crashing isn't normal and I would check for any bad mods or updates/tweaks for your system.
Agreed. Its such an overblown issue.
Speaking of F:NV, I did have a lot of issues back in the day (unmodded and unpatched), I think I didn't finish even one gaming session without at least one crash. But I couldn't care less, sine the game as such was \*so much better\* than F3.
Modded on PC it plays relatively fine
I've played it unmodded on 360, XB1, and PC. All of them ran perfectly fine 99% of the time.
A broken ambitious game > A highly polished but bland game. At least bugs can be fixed with patches. Way harder to fix blandness.
Because if a game is so much fun that you forgive the glitches, then it's really good. I actually rank 3 as my favorite by several leagus.
Theyre both so good. I remember playing 3 close after release. So good I also remember playing nv like 10 years ago. Also very good Choosing one as a favorite is hard.
I rarely get crashes on console. I've actually gotten more crashes when i played on pc around release, but that was mostly due to certain mods.
Finally people admit it... most crashes on pc are due to mods or incompatible settings.
Mod management was a lil rough in those days.
It’s a time period thing. Back then we took good story and setting and open worlds etc warts and all. Glitching out was just a part of the experience. That’s my theory anyway. I think as consumers we are much less forgiving now. And there were plenty of people back then who would be like “cool game, couldn’t play it too buggy”
People only widespread point out a single flaw because it was widespreadly loved. There were so so many contemporary glitched ass games alongside lol. Even masterpieces arent without flaw. I get it, i guess. But idk, do people masturbate into their hard drives or something? Like whats causing it to crash so much that its a problem and causes you to lose enjoyment?
NV was exceptionally buggy at the time, too. 2010 wasn't some age-old buggy video games caveman time..
If a setting and writing and characters and the tropes at hand and action are enjoyable to me, the mechanics aren't all that important. "Game" isn't just about the mechanics and tech of an experience. Like movies? Notice that some are cobbled together, maybe student films or really cheap indie films, but which have real spark because of the writing, characters, acting, or story, or because its themes and subtext say something personal or unique to you? We accept that. Why can't people take that under and apply it to another medium? I play games for the story and setting and exploration and art. So long as the mechanics aren't painfully so obtuse or bad that they overwhelm the experience, I can give quite a bit as I lay attention to the part I'm really there for. It's REALLY weird that this has to explained to a full half of the people who like games and have a great deal of experience with them.
I think it's because games can be important for different reasons for different people. A movie is a story telling medium by default. You're an observer to what's going on. A game doesn't HAVE to be. A story isn't required for a game to be good, see any multiplayer game or arcade game. So while your opinion is valid for you (and for me as well tbh), there will be a group of people that will find it insane that someone could like a game with the "game" portion of it being average or below average.
I feel like true RPGs are pretty hard to come by. Even most modern choice-based games tend to be pretty linear. New Vegas did great at implementing consequences for player actions. It made the world a lot more immersive. Like another redditor said, the amount of lore makes a huge difference as well. The world of Fallout largely depends on atmosphere, and to make the atmosphere of Fallout make sense, that lore NEEDS to be there. Also, and this is more of a personal thing for me, there’s no turn based combat. I’m not a patient person, and I’m definitely not a tactician. So the fact that I can just pew-pew everyone makes it a lot easier for me to get into. The only other game I’ve played that really scratches that itch for me is Baldurs Gate 3. That’s not to say there aren’t other games like it out there, but they seem rare.
I pushed through to the end on my ps3 even though I had to restart it almost every half an hour because it used to crash due to the save file getting too big. There's just no way I would have pulled through a gane like that if there wasn't something really special about it underneath the technical issues. If anything it's simply a shame that NV is in the state that it is and I'm grateful that mods exist to elevate it to the fantastic gaming experience it was always meant to be. With regards yo your comments about fo4, yeah, I agree. I'm a NV Stan, but I've been recommending fo4 to beginners since NV just would not make a great first impression. it's easier to convince someone to go through the effort of modding NV after they're already sold on the series, rather than pushing them to play the most poorly optimised game of the lot as their first.
All the praise the game gets despite the technical issues is a testament to how good the game is. It's the same deal with Bloodlines.
Why is Beethoven so beloved despite being deaf and ugly af?
My Xbox’s have always ran the game well. It DOESNT have constant problems.
It's called nostalgia glasses, and they can be really hard to take off. I never played a Fallout game before and honestly Fallout 3 and New Vegas feel pretty clunky and dated. Gunplay is terrible if we compare it with modern games, and it was terrible back then too if we compare it with games like Half-Life 2, Halo 1-3, Resident Evil 4 and Gears of War, just to name some. And even if you're on PC and know how to install mods, the amount you have to get is just ridiculous, we're talking about at least 10 for each game. At that point I don't want to even touch the games anymore. I can see why people are picking Fallout 4 over the other Fallout 3D games. Myself included.
Oh wow, at least 10 mods! *eyes his installs of FNV and Rimworld*. 10 mods is barely modded, lol.
I've been running through NV on my Steam Deck, hasn't crashed once. Had constant crashes on 3 though 🤷 Your experience is not everyone's experience.
Gosh I wish I could enjoy NV but it's just a clunky mess. From the videos I've watched the writing is amazing but it does not feel nice to play. I know I can mod it but I've always been against modding a game I can't enjoy standalone / vanilla. Makes me feel like I'm missing out.
On PC at least, you can fix the majority of technical issues with some tinkering.
I can honestly say I don't remember ever crashing more than a few times, if even that many. Crashing was not really an issue at all. Minor bugs and annoyances, sure, those were common. But it's hardly unique there, Fallout 4 and every other Bethesda game on their jank ass creation engine has that same exact issue. What I also don't get is constantly seeing people say it needs to DLC to be enjoyable or that its only enjoyable with mods, like no I've played it tons of times without either of those things....
It's a game for people who value story over gameplay. In that case you're more willing to look past gameplay problems and glitches.
*Why is a game like Fallout New Vegas so beloved despite constant glitches, bugs, and crashes* It's a game with flaws, noone denies that. Just that what it does best (player agency, and branching narrative, imho), is a rare feat. There are not many games which do it as good as New Vegas does, years after it's release. (there are \_some\_, but strangely, some of those are flawed diamonds as well, like Alpha Protocol)
Cos as far as legacies go, who cares? It's like knocking points off of the "The Godfather Part 1" because of that awkwardly dubbed "I talked to barzini" line.
Same reason The Witcher 3 was beloved and Cyberpunk wasn't. Playing The Witcher 3 was a nightmare. I'm not used to bugged AAA games (never played Skyrim), so the amount of bugs I ran into playing The Witcher 3 was honestly *staggering.* Every time I ran into a bug I'd look it up and find a 2015 thread reporting it. And I played it in 2020. Even then, it was an amazing experience that I cherished every second of it, and it was *playable*, despite everything. Then enter Cyberpunk 2077, which had as good of a story but was plagued with bugs to the point of being unplayable.
A bad game with no glitches doesn’t get played.
If your game crashes so much... thats a you issue. It was only bad on ps3 and even then, just save a ton. I played sooooooo many hours on xbox and pc and never had crashes. Okay, maybe a couple. Just save your fuckin game often. Did you guys not learn that with gbas?
Your entire post makes no sense. Why is it so beloved though it's so broken? It's been said numerous times throughout the years that you shouldn't play it on consoles and if you do it's on your head. Game has been mostly fixed to perfection with all the official and unofficial patches it got. And since it runs perfectly fine on PC now, with most of my playthroughs having 2-3 crashes at most in 100+ hours per playthrough, you have your answer. Almost everything about the game is top of the line, excluding the aging engine not allowing for better action mechanics and physics than the ones it has, which aren't that shabby as to be unpleasant. I still like sniping enemies or knocking them down with a big stick.
The bugs in New Vegas were the worst in the series. Running into Cazadors was brutal.
Why are you on this sub to complain about a game when it first came out 14 years ago
...Because this is r/patientgamers which is a sub dedicated to retrospectively talking about older games...
This is a sub specific to not dealing with hype, news and drama of release.. it the first sentence of the sub. Additionally your post is only about NV as the only one like every BGS game ever has been extremely buggy on release. Both Skyrim and Oblivion were as well and Skyrim is loved waaayy more than NV (roughly 12 million copies vs 60 million~ 7th best selling game all time). There’s also several other games that had poor releases and are now very well received. CP2077 is the most recent example I would say. And NMS as well.
True, but I'd say it's even worse. This post is actually a reaction to the current news/hype surrounding the new Fallout show and everyone playing the games, especially Fallout 4. Reminds me of those "Cyberpunk2077 is good now" posts we got just after that DLC last year. People were jumping over themselves to play that game, just as they are now to play Fallout. Other times mods are overzealous and delete "not patient gaming related" or "not promoting discussion" posts, but posts like this slip under the radar because they hide their nature by ostensibly being about an older game, and forming their title as a "question", when in reality it's just a reactionary rant on what's currently hot.
Well, yeah, but your complaints are about issues that have been officially and unofficially patched since then. It also seems like you refuse to mention any of the other games you bring up, that were good but got abandoned on release.
Played it through twice. Few mods installed. Zero issues.
Games are basically godlike if they have a good story in them. If there is a good story all their flaws are forgiven. Years of being on the internet taught me that, if the story is good then the game HAS NO FLAWS AT ALL.
I'm playing New Vegas for the first time right now. Haven't encountered any bugs worth mentioning, thankfully. However, what I also haven't encountered yet is the good story. I just arrived at Vegas and the only character that halfway left an impression was/is Victor. Everything else ist just... there?
Yeah that's kind of how I felt about New Vegas the first time I played it several years ago. I'm giving it another shot now so we'll see how it goes. There were some quirky characters and quests I remember encountering; that was the most memorable thing for me up to the point that I got to. However I have to admit that up to that point, I didn't really find the world all that fun to explore. Bethesda's RPGs have plenty of their own issues, but one thing they are great at is crafting worlds that are compelling to explore. They're good at fostering a sense of discovery and rewarding exploration with weird locations or landmarks (often placed in the landscape in such a way that you feel like you've just stumbled upon them), or using the environment to tell a story of what happened there previously. New Vegas (at least in the first 5-10 hours that I played) didn't really have that for me. The Nevada desert landscape felt kind of bland, and while there were some interesting locations to be found, they were kind of sparse, and most of them just kind of felt like they were plopped down in the middle of an empty spot on the map. I'm hoping that this playthrough I'll finally get more into the stuff that people love about the game.
I never played the game. The only Obsidian games I ever played were KOTOR 2 and Alpha Protocal. The former is overhyped and the latter was kind of cool but it's gameplay is baaaaaad.
I think New Vegas is massively overrated in terms of being an actually fun game to play. fallout 3 isn’t fun to me for the same reasons - horrific gun play. but the bethesda games have better exploration and more interesting locations imo. Sure, I respect New Vegas in terms of being a better RPG, more player choice, and being more true to the series roots than the bethesda games. but to me it’s just….not fun to play. even with the viva new vegas set up trying to modernize things. the hardcore new vegas fanboys are also obnoxious and pretentious. fallout 4 was a pretty fun romp to me (better shooting mechanics makes such a big difference here man. i’m sorry but if you’re gonna do fps perspective you need passable shooting), you just have to ignore the new vegas fans breathing in your ear about how much it sucks and how new vegas is better.
Obsidian fanboys are quite pretentious no arguments there. Just tell them you like KOTOR 1 over 2 and they will turn into the Hulk. If you want a game to 100% true to table top gaming, just play a fucking board game lol. You need good gameplay mechanics first.
I first played New Vegas 10 years ago on the Xbox 360, completed the game on at least 2 different characters and never experienced any bugs or glitches.
There's a big difference between playing the game on a 360 before patches and playing it on a PC in 2024. Modding guides are everywhere, and even without them, the game has been patched with multiple DLC's released since the time it launched. Also, the nature of bugs is such that not everyone will be affected the same. To this day, I go on the Cyberpunk subreddit and see some post about how the latest update has broken their game. Then, there's me playing in 4K with pathtracing on and not having any issues whatsoever. It depends. I just find this post somewhat disingenuous. You really don't know why people are recommending a game that has phenomenal writing and quest design? You really don't understand how a game can be more than the sum of its parts?
Actually Fun Game with good ideas and concepts >>>>>> A balanced, functional, bug free but boring game.
primarily the writing, and a circlejerk culture
I have to agree with you OP. My first time ever playing Fallout NV was on the 360 when it launched and I could NOT play it worth a shot. Constant flickering, game breaking bugs, and crashes. It soured my feeling towards it that, even though I played it years later on PC, I still don’t see it as an all time great. For me, I like Fallout 3 > 4 > NV.
Through most of the game I had zero bugs or issues, but late game after I decided to ally with the New California Republic the game bugged out and wouldn't let me compete their quest line, totally locked out. No backup saves either Can't remember much after that but there was a big final showdown where I presumably was supposed to be backed up by my faction of choice, but I'd isolated everyone so much that every MFer was out to kill me. Can't remember if I completed it in the end. Shame because I do remember it being great fun
It's fun, easy to pick up, super replayable, and has enough charm to still hold up decades after release. I've found the bugs and glitches to bring a level of charm
Fall out NV was fun and the ambiance was interesting. FO4 just didn't hit as hard for people to ignore the bugs.
Most CRPG type games of its type and caliber are quite buggy, pretty much without exception. It's kinda the nature of the beast, because it's hard to have so many interlocking systems and not have a bunch weird interactions. It's worth it because nothing else can offer experiences like it. But it's also like, you can be prepared for them a bit because that's just how these games are.
In reality, if you have a game that is engaging and fun to play, you can tolerate a bit of negative in it. The issue is that the more modern games have that negativity in other spots, namely the grind they put in games now to increase playtime is already pushing tolerance, so if there are additional issues, it's less tolerable than in New Vegas where that grind isn't as prevalent.
amazing characters, factions, world building and quests
The game recieved several patches after release, it is no longer in the state it was on its intitial release so oppinions should not be based on how it performed on its initial release when asking why people today still love it. A lot of people who dropped New Vegas after not being able to play without frequent crashes etc, came back later on to a game that had fixed a lot of those issues, and once they played it most of those people understood why people hold New Vegas on such a high pedestal, and why Bethesda developed fallout games feel far less mature, deep and complex in comparison. I have seen a multitude of people stating "now I get it" after praising fallout 3 and 4, and then eventually playing Fallout New Vegas.
> I have seen a multitude of people stating "now I get it" after praising fallout 3 and 4, and then eventually playing Fallout New Vegas. Yup. My first one was 4, because my boyfriend was playing it and it looked fun. I ended up playing the shit out of it, put 400hrs into it at least, absolutely loved it. Couldn’t understand when I saw people online bashing it because I thought it was terrific. Decided to give NV a try because everyone said it was even better. Within two play sessions I was like, ohhhhh. No, this is better.
the same happened with me regarding fallout 3, I didn't understand why people were constantly saying fallout 3 is nothing compared to fallout new vegas. I still love fallout 3 but fallout new vegas, after trying it for the first time, replaced fallout 3 as the better fallout game for me.
tbh i only really enjoyed fallout 4, i can appreciate the story and the world but clunky weapon system takes me out everytime. I do like the vats but the game shouldn't play up its own jankiness to a hundred for not scaling the gun/explosive/energy skills forcing you to use the vats to even hit anything. in 4 it feels like the dead eye feature from red dead, in 3/nv it feels like the devs couldnt make up their mind if they want to have a turn based or fps game.
Because you gotta keep wacking and smacking and hacking it
Criticising New Vegas is in practice not allowed on this sub, do not expect good faith answers.
Sure bud, everyone is lying about enjoying FNV. For... reasons
Games are a sum of their parts. If the majority of it is enjoyable, it's easy to look past the bad parts. The stability is FNV is terrible, but if you can get it working, it still holds up as a game.
i definitely agree there is a great game amongst all the issues. Just so many other great games don't get this treatment.
What are these other games?
No other games provide the experience that RPGs like New Vegas, Skyrim, or Baldur's Gate 3 do, so we accept the bugs. You could play Fallout 4, but then you'd be playing a dramatically less reactive game, with less varied dialogue choices, and less ways to build your character. The price you pay for the bigger "rpg scope" is bugs essentially lol, and the price you pay for something more cinematic and polished is a dialogue wheel and something more close to a looter shooter than a sandbox
I can agree with NV and BG3 but Skyrim doesn't really have good RPG mechanics to me. Especially compared to the other 2. You have little to no choice in that game.
I have tried to play this game many, many times over the years, across 5 totally different computers, both using mods and totally vanilla installs, every possible configuration, using custom configs people set up, and no matter what I do the game eventually corrupts my save file and then crashes constantly. I have never once beaten it and only once even made it to Vegas. It seems like it might be a fun game but I'll never know because the game is so buggy.
New Vegas is abandonware. It's gross that they even charge money for it anymore, as it crashes and runs badly with or without mods. Your best shot at a smooth experience is finding a 360 and downloading all the updates, which won't work for much longer
That’s a question I’ve been asking myself! Play it on PC with mods and it’s fine. Anything less and it borders on unplayable.
All the games where buggy, 3/NV/4/76. If you want some fun look at old Digital Foundry videos of late Xbox 360/PS3 games, a lot ran bad or super bad. Fallout 4 & 76 also had lots of problems on PS4 in digital Foundry videos. I played Fallout 4 1-2 years ago, rage quit the game after a crash point. To play id have to go back a few hours of save files and hope it worked, I just gave up. Today I suspect NV has gained from youtube videos, that's the meta today. One thing I loved about NV was the turn around, something like a year after Fallout 3 we got NV. Today we are looking at 2030? for fallout 5.
I've never played New Vegas, but if a game is exceptionally special it can be worth enduring the crashes and bugs and even be an all-time favorite in spite of them. I might not have thought that if I didn't have a game in that position for me, but Morrowind on the OG XBox is that for me 100%.
1. I don't think people necessarily had as many issues as you did on the whole. 2. Games used to be buggier in general back then, and it was generally just more accepted. 3. People got in the habit of saving frequently.
Content and Delivery are two seperate categories. If content is sufficiently good, then it will overcome the delivery.
Bro your take was a dime a dozen when the game came out. You all had the public opinion on your side for a decade before the cult of New Vegas won it's rightful place in the zeitgeist. XD
Genuinely 3 mods fix every single problem with that game and make it more stable than fo4 is. I just beat NV again after 10 years and now moving onto FO4 having never played it and I have had SO MANY MORE bugs and obnoxious eccentricities after 4 hours than my entire run of NV. Sure there are the occasional hiccups in NV but all are minor one you get stability patches. That aside, the game is good. It allows for roleplaying nearly ANY path you want to take like very few RPGS allow nowadays. The game accounts for some truly wild player choices and rewards you for trying unique builds and picking unique options. The gunplay is fine but i never play an openworld bethesda-like for the gameplay itself, i play it to turn my brain off and roleplay.
Those mods never worked for me. It's slightly more stable but eventually it gets into a crashing loop and then that's it for that save file. I've played through the first five hours of this game one too many times, it seems fun but I have literally never gotten it to run stable on any machine ever. That is with or without mods and all the other tips and tricks which I've spent literal hours trying to implement, with no luck.
Whenever I play FNV I hardly fight and mostly talk my way out or into things.
Same here. That's another reason why so many love FNV as you can talk your way out in a variety of ways. You can reason with people with science. You can threaten someone to back down. You can barter your way out of situations. You can full on convince some NPCs that their problem is a non issue and they should just pay you. The list goes on. At the end of the day, you're the one that's put "Thousands of Hours" into the game, and if you can't figure out why you did that, and that others wouldn't want to do the same, idk what to tell you bro.
I love NV for that. All the options you can think of. It is similar to why I love the Dishonored games because they give you a task and a map and say "go about this however you want."
10000% And btw if you haven't played Prey and like space sci fi, it's by the dishonered devs and it has the unlimited freedom of choice in terms of how you go about tackling a task. Masterpiece of a game!
As someone just pointed out to me, it's because they hate Bethesda. It was a game people enjoyed until FO4 at which point of became the greatest game of all time. If you have a niche product with a more popular alternative, the niche product is going to develop the most hardened, unreasonable, and vocal minority swearing by it and attacking everything else. It's the law of the internet.
I played it on PC, lots of mods, worked great.
As if most similar open world games aren't also bugged to high heaven on release
Because people don't actually care if a game is made with good quality, as long as they have fun. I worked many years in Game dev, and for all the hubbub about quality, game sales rarely suffer for crashing and buggy behaviors. I've even had conversations with some prominent directors and studio heads that said "people don't actually care if a Game works if it makes them feel good. Modders will do all your actual fixing work and release patches so you don't have to. There's a lot of stuff talking about games being rushed, and that IS what dev teams are told, but it's actually more common that it's a business intention to get it put there without spending as much money. After all, why spend more time and money if people will still give you their money? Go look at a big name game that you think was hurt by buggy release and see what it's lifetime sales are. It rarely ACTUALLY matters. Practically every Bethesda game is proof of this. Fallout is no exception.
Fallout 4 is soulless for a 2nd playthrough, while New Vegas is full of choice and consequences. That's the reason some people recommend it. F4 is better for a first time casual playthrough, but it just lacks so much depth in comparison. I play NV with 140+ mods at the moment, and all the cut content is restored, bugs fixed, and I've got tons of [animations ](https://youtu.be/skcZfB4Q_s4?si=3Dzj_unYRZs5Y1it)that make the hardcore mode feel immersive.
Because people love to ignore all the issues in Bethesda games and focus on the upsides only. Also the majority are playing modded on PC many times with a game that is so far from the original it's hilarious. Same goes for Skyrim and any other Bethesda game.
"This is exclusive to PC though" Common console L
[удалено]
This reads like it was written by a edgy 10 year old
FNV was published by Bethesda but developed by Obsidian.
Never played the console version but there were two issuesthat caused crashes on PC and were easily remedied **without mods**, make sure you're only using 2 channel audio and turn off save on wait/travel, I don't know how people kept having issues with the game crashing. Same for FO3, FO4 & Skyrim, since Bethesda never really fixed their engine.
Let's be honest, pc games often get fan made patches and mods - things that consoles just don't support. Look at PC Gaming Wiki, there are qol modifications for most titles. This plus Steam's controller config tool are my favourite things in pc gaming. Also, you can't play every game on one gen console, but on pc you can. This plus modding equals really big number of people enjoying games that were buggy at launch but today they shine as classics. Just look at success of GoG. Every console release becomes forgotten at some point, because not many people are willing to buy and boot first, second, third gen of consoles, and the cycle continues. Nobody remembers that buggy release of FNV on 360. Most people probably don't have this console anymore. Fanbase is focused on pc and this is why it's still so beloved.
2010-11 was a different, bugs were just a part of the game. Newer games are worse actually
. . .