CONUNDRUM

[FatBoy]

I love UFC Undisputed 09 & 2010. I still play 2010 on a daily basis. However, Fallout 3 is my favorite game of all time. Here's the problem: both EA MMA & Fallout: New Vegas are released the same day. I can only afford to get one game, and I can't decide which one I want to get. In the long run, EA MMA seems to have the most re-playability, but I'm sure it'll take me many hours to accomplish everything in Fallout. I guess a lot of it depends on the initial reviews. I'm sure I'll end up getting both games eventually, but which one should I splurge on first?

[Guest]

Fallout. Gives EA some time to publish eventual bug fixes and lets you find out if it's worth buying. Fallout, on the other hand, is a safe bet.

[Guest]

I'm in the slightly weird position of being a huge MMA fan... and a huge Fallout Nerd... and not being that hyped for either game, at least at release.

 

I found Fallout 3 terrible. I know a lot of people consider it a classic but I hated virtually every aspect of it. From a redundant difficulty that make even the supposedly challenging parts stupidly easy to the fact that very few of your actions had any consequences the game was full of glitches, bugs and idiocy. Mods did a lot to fix it... but a mod can't completely remove a nonsensical story line, lack of internal cohesion or the basic game-play... which was far more wasteland explorer/fps than it was RPG. Other than fan-service there was little there that reminded me of the brilliance of the first two Fallout games. Add in that ever since Bethesda realised the money they could make from DLC they've been making it harder and harder for mod makers.

 

That said, I'm more optimistic about New Vegas. It's got a lot of the original Fallout team on it and is including a lot of what they prepared for the cancelled original Fallout 3 (known as Van Buren). From the previews and interviews they've worked on fixing a lot of the flaws I found with Fallout 3... and the realism mode should be a godsend. Even so I'm probably going to give it a month or two before picking it up. Obsidian Entertainment have a habit of producing flawed masterpieces: while their NWN games were rubbish, KOTR 2 was brilliant but cursed with bugs and cut content. Alpha Protocol is a truly great game with incredible vision and replay value... but suffers through a lack of playtesting, bugs and some gameplay weaknesses. Considering Bethesda's own lackluster approach to removing bugs and glitches I think New Vegas could well be a bit glitch-ridden... so a month or two allows the community to tweak it... and improve on areas.

 

MMA games have always been hit and miss. My favourite is still Pride GP (I unfortunately never got to play the sequel), which is a PS2 game from years ago. The Undisputed's have been ok but little more full of badly balanced gameplay and exploits. EA MMA looks fairly polished and the ground work looks great... but a recent Aoki vs Nick Diaz match I watched looked like the fighters were floating/ice skating when standing up (compared to the sluggish movement of the E3 demo) and the graphics looked a little cartoony for my liking (add in Aoki looked nothing like himself). I'll probably hold off buying it was well.

 

So... I'd not buy either... but I'm a complex man.

 

If I had to buy one I'd hedge towards New Vegas. Hopefully there's enough there that means that for the month or so it takes to get game-fixes and decent mods out into the world you can still play it.

 

 

[Guest]

Your both totaly missing the "Joined a fighter to Fallout Sydney" achivement in your pip boys.

 

There is no question here. Get NV.

[Guest]

Your both totaly missing the "Joined a fighter to Fallout Sydney" achivement in your pip boys.

 

There is no question here. Get NV.

 

You should totally expand 'The Fallout' and have someone open an org. in LV called "The Fallout - New Vegas".

[Guest]

Ill be shocked if someone dosnt try it when the game comes out