YAYHOORAY – Fallout: Project Brazil Pt 1 Finally Out

On paper, Fallout: Project Brazil sounds like the stuff irradiated, scorpion-coated dreams are made of. It’s a ridiculously ambitious, fan-made prequel mod for New Vegas spanning a new vault, an entire new wasteland the size of Fallout 3’s, and multiple story-driven, highly choice-oriented episodes. The team that assembled it, meanwhile, comes from various corners of the professional entertainment world, which is – in part – the reason it took so long to finally see the sepia toned light of day. But now it’s here, in the gnarled, glowing ghoulflesh. I am kind of maybe excited a little a lot. But what’s actually in this installment? Wellllll…

The big downside to Project Brazil’s first step into this cruel, Fallout-starved world of ours is that it’s not particularly lengthy. The second installment will actually fill the new wasteland with factions and quests, but until then Vault 18 is apparently “a small world unto itself.” Here’s what you’ll be doing in it:

“Project Brazil tells the story of your player character, an adopted resident of Vault 18, on the night of the last big Vault-Ball game of the season. The consequences of your player’s decision to dodge or tackle Johnny Matheson shapes the rest of their life, playing as an computer Nerd or a popular Athlete. When the war finally reaches the Vault after one prominent figure turns out to be a member of the Enclave, a civil war erupts overnight, forcing the player to pick a side and escape into the wasteland with their rag-tag party of Robots and Friends.”

The mod’s available at both New Vegas Nexus and Mod DB right now, so dive in, make yourself comfortable, and the abruptly leave when everything starts exploding. I’m downloading it myself as I write this and OK it’s done now bye forever.


  1. Dominic White says:

    I was just considering reinstalling New Vegas today, so that I could play it with the latest version of Project Nevada. I doubt Project Brazil is compatible with it, though.

    Such an underrated game. I honestly consider it the ‘real’ Fallout 3, and it feels much more like a logical successor to the original two.

    • phelix says:

      New Vegas is ‘such an underrated game’? Huh? What did I miss?

    • csklr says:

      Project Nevada is compatible, in fact. There’s a built-in compatibility patch.

      • Dominic White says:

        Then I’m doubly excited. For those who haven’t tried it, Project Nevada is a general gameplay rework that makes it feel simultaneously more like a shooter (it’s almost STALKER-ish in places) and more like an old-school RPG, with stats having a solid effect on a much greater range of stuff.

      • guygodbois00 says:

        Downloading “as we speak”. Thank you for the information, kind person.

    • Vivi says:

      Project Brazil comes with a compatibility patch for Project Nevada.

    • 65 says:

      Only most of the mainstream games press (including RPS) considering FO3 superior to NV apparently.

      • Werthead says:

        Was the NEW VEGAS review RPS’s worst hour?

        It did feel odd that a gaming site that so often praises good writing, player choice and agency, good characterisation and games that aspire to have more weighty goals than just shooting things, then ripped on NEW VEGAS because the in-game fields looked a bit anaemic and the casinos didn’t have many people in them (without considering the limitations the consoleboxes had put on the game), which if I recall were the core criticisms.

        • Blackseraph says:

          It’s funny that people are still annoyed about that wit.

          I am still annoyed about that too though, mostly because rps were gushing about fallout 3 which was a worse game in so many ways.

          • Bhazor says:

            I’m still annoyed because Quinn’s straight up said that Fallout 3 was better written than New Vegas. That’s as flat out wrong as a subjective opinion can possibly be.

          • Blackseraph says:

            Oh I agree.

          • RedViv says:

            [INT 10] You mean it was not better written at all?

          • Bhazor says:

            I’m not saying it was well written. I’m just saying it was well-er written. All I’m saying is that if you get, I don’t know, a broom, say, and dip it in some brake fluid, put the other end up Chris Avellone’s arse, stick him on a trampoline in a moving lift, and he would write a better game than Bethesda on the walls. That’s all I’m saying.

          • DonDrapersAcidTrip says:

            RPS is basically kotaku at this point anyway, except articles that would be interesting if they were readable, instead of almost exclusively click-bait garbage.

          • Nim says:

            Wit? Was that text witty, was it sarcasm or was it simply trolling for page views. I fail to see how personal attacks on a development team could possibly classify as wit and I certainly wasn’t convinced by the rest of the material and If I have to start second guessing the contents of WOT:s, I’m better off not reading them. When read at face value, the text felt like a rush-job at the eleventh hour by someone hung-over and I was further disappointed when the rest of RPS chose to publish and defend it.

            Some pre-dispositioned really had a field day that day, lapping up the contents like gospel and then using it across the internet in arguments to attack Obsidian.

          • Hahaha says:

            Never fear someone linked to http://scientificgamer.com and it’s good, reminds me of old RPS

        • norfolk says:

          I for one will proudly raise my hand as someone who finds FO3 > NV and largely agree with the now-infamous RPS WIT.

          The huge letdown that was The Strip killed NV’s immersion for me, and the endings weren’t the “great stories” everyone gushes about – they were predictable, linear, and fairly boring. Now, it’s not like FO3 had a great story – it didn’t, it had a cop-out find my father story – but the scale and diversity of the environment, as well as the side quests and crazy locations, all just made it an awesome experience.

          For me at least.

          • nanowired says:

            Your post is akin to saying that Shades of Gray was an original story.

            I’ve seen far too many posts from people in this topic being gushing fanboys of Rockpapershotgun. its a sign that this place has gotten far too self absorbed to be a useful source for gaming news.

          • Lars Westergren says:

            People always gravitate to other people with the same interests and opinions, it is the law of the balkanisation of the internet. Saying that RPS is worse than other sites for this, or that stops being a good site, is just wrong.

          • RakeShark says:

            You’re not alone, I found myself enjoying FO3 more than FNV. The very subjective reason is because FO3 took place in a setting I actually know well: the DC Metro area. Walking around the capital wasteland was a much more fun experience for me because I could see what parts of town they were referencing. Hell I found my old home in there, right next to the 495 loop.

            Granted the story and characters of FNV are much much better. I just simply found myself having more fun exploring an urban wasteland rather than a desert one.

          • Rudel says:

            Me too. New Vegas had way too many “go & talk & come back and talk and vice versa” quests that highly annoyed me. Where nothing else happens except talking. If I want to listen to someone talking, I would just need to go to the room where my wife is. F3 was much better.

          • norfolk says:


            How is it anything like that?
            And how is agreeing with a controversial WIT being a gushing fanboy?

          • scatterbrainless says:

            Two reasonable explanations I have heard for the FO3>FNV preference are the greater focus upon the main character and his hero’s quest compared to FNV’s more factional, Yojimbo-style story, and the preferring of the burnt-out urban environments of FO3 to the sun-drenched Western environments of FNV. Two reasons I can respect while totally disagreeing with in every way.

          • Nick says:

            damn all these people talking in my rpg, I just want to shoot things.

          • Vinraith says:

            FO:NV is undeniably truer to the series, and is an excellent game, but I find I enjoy FO3 more because it’s a better wasteland sandbox. FO:NV is simply too civilized for my tastes, really, and doesn’t have merely as many nooks and crannies to explore as FO3 does.

            With Wanderer’s Edition, FO3 becomes the best wasteland survival and exploration game I’ve ever played, which is why I’ve played it 3 times over now and found new stuff each time. Even with Project Nevada, there’s simply too much developed society in FO:NV for it to ever be much of a survival game (especially after you reach New Vegas proper, which happens very quickly). The faction and quest stuff is well done, of course, but it’s not something I can see myself going back to for a second playthrough. Heck, it’s far from certain I’ll finish my first, I’ve been on the cusp of finishing for ages and can’t work up the interest to push through to the end.

            Ultimately, it’s not a story I find myself invested in, no matter how well written or branching it may be. That’s purely a matter of personal taste, though, and I can see how others might really enjoy it.

    • webwielder says:

      You’re really going out on a limb by praising NV over F3 in the RPS comments section!

      Let me try. Am I the only one who felt the XCOM reboot’s mechanics were a bit too dumbed down compared to the original???

      • Zorn says:

        I would humbly note that ‘a bit’ is still putting it quiet friendly.

      • Dominic White says:

        Actually, I think that as a tactical game, the new XCom might have been simpler, but it flowed much better. I wished they’d fleshed out the other elements a bit more, but I really enjoyed the tighter, faster combat.

        • RedViv says:

          Stop reasonably liking different things! THIS IS THE INTERNET!

          • Dominic White says:

            I’m sorry! I can’t help it! I… I just can’t get mad about videogames. I’ve never felt compelled to yell at someone for liking a game that I don’t.

            I’m sorry. I’m a broken human being.

        • Stevostin says:

          tighter ?

          I didn’t play old xcom because here in France my favourite mag gave it 6/10 for being pretty dull compared to other turn by turn strategy game.

          I played the reboot and was horribly annoyed by how uninteresting the fight are. Obvious optimal choices, too much randomness, a lot of “rushing to enemy then reboot” because frankly walking carefully to it is both trivial & tedious. Very wrong game design. To make a good game out of it you’d have to rethink the rules from the core.

          Note that Fallout I & II are certainly no better. Neither are III and NV, btw. And Mass Effect is even worse (combat decided in more than 50% by whether your allies will be able to not be completely stupid). But at least you can make F3 and FNV into a poor FPS, which is already more entertaining than a bad turn based strategy.

          Anyway, one thing X-Com isn’t to me is “tight”.

          • Bhazor says:

            I didn’t play old xcom because here in France my favourite mag gave it 6/10 for being pretty dull compared to other turn by turn strategy game.


            “Rushing to enemy and reboot”? You really really don’t understand how to play the game.

          • drewski says:

            Suddenly I’m almost unbearably curious as to what games you actually like.

          • scatterbrainless says:

            Also, why is Mass Effect in there in a comparison of turn-based games? It seems you got turned around at the IDon’tLike Crossroads and ended up in NonSequitur Village.

        • DatonKallandor says:

          That’s what I thought too, but then I played Xenonauts I remembered how important all the stuff is that XCOM cut from the original.

      • Audiocide says:

        Bethesda definitely had the right idea when they decided to make a first-person, open world Fallout game, and I sank more hours into Morrowind than any other game before or since. However, their interpretation of the Fallout universe was much lighter and more cartoonish than the originals. It just didn’t feel right. I enjoyed New Vegas a great deal more than F3.

        • webwielder says:

          Cartoonish compared to the previous games? From Cobbett’s recent retrospective on Fallout 2 on PC Gamer:

          Fallout 2 remains a divisive RPG, even among the series’ notoriously rabid fans. It’s much sillier than its predecessor, with references to everything from Monty Python to Star
          Trek largely dropped at random. Its handling of things like sex is either more mature or more “mature,” depending on your sense of humor. If you’re a female character for instance, your first encounter with one potential party member—a kid named Myron—involves him trying to slip you a mickey.

          • blackmyron says:

            Yeah, it’s bizarre seeing the more rabid Fallout fans that hate F3 pretending that F2 doesn’t exist – or just lumps it together with the first one, hoping no one notices. F2 is better than Tactics and BOS, but I guess that’s damning it with faint praise.

        • Stevostin says:

          The issue here is that people don’t compare Fallout 3 and Fallout, but Fallout 3 and what they remember from Fallout. I did reinstall Fallout thx to GoG and what jumped to me was that not only Fallout 3 was pretty close to Fallout, but it also was even closer to the game Fallout creator would have made provided they had the technical context to do it. The rendered part are very, very close to Fallout 3, whether it’s the dialog or the exiting from the vault.

          It’s perfectly fine to have fond memories of Fallout, but I played it after having loved other RPG and to that regard, it was a disappointment. While Fallout 3 was clearly a game I loved when playing it.

          And no, it’s not full of copy paste, every “dungeon” has something special, actually. Also, what’s with all those peoples speaking about the streets ? The biggest time is spend in the country, by a long shot. Makes me wonder if they played the game like I did.

          • theallmightybob says:

            Agreed, most people I have talked to have a bad memory of what fallout was. People who say it lost its “dark tone” seem to be just wondering around not paying attention to things in the game. I fondly remember in fallout 3 and NC finding many dark humor and tounge in cheek “serious” moments.

            It just seems to me most of the people complaining are angery it wasent isometric, like the “good old days”

          • Nick says:

            Fallout 2 had its silly moments, but it is still a far superior game in terms of writing, storyline, thematic content and quest design than Fallout 3, which is a typical Bethesda themepark with little or no cohesiveness and a truely terrible main quest. Still their strongest game writing wise since Morrowind at least.

            New Vegas on the other hand is pretty damn close, shame about the terrible F3 combat system. Not that Fallout/2s combat is particularly good, but it beats the shit out of VATS and gimped FPS mechanics for me at least. If only GURPS hadn’t fallen through.

          • Audiocide says:

            I played Fallout 1 & 2 when they came out, and replayed them again within the last few years. The differences in tone with Fallout 3 are glaringly obvious. I love Bethesda games, and thoroughly enjoy exploring their vast open worlds, which was also the strong point of F3. The atmosphere, however, just didn’t feel right.

            It seems to me that it’s the younger players who are having fond memories of F3, which is understandable if it’s the first Fallout game they’ve played. It’s not a bad game at all when judged on its own merits.

          • DickSocrates says:

            I stopped playing Fallout 3 out of disgust at the re-use of interior models. The game is nothing but copy and paste. There are about 3 different interior types. Police stations, offices, schools, hospitals all looks identical. The subway system is confusing and thoroughly badly thought out. Moving some set set dressing around doesn’t change every identical room into something different.

            The biggest sin Fallout 3 committed was the entire south east of the map not even being open world! If you see something in the distance in this type of game, it is VITAL you can walk to it. That’s not possible in Fallout 3. I couldn’t believe after playing for a few hours of roaming the wasteland, the capital was a series of small maps linked by the metro. That was when I stopped playing. Layer on top of that bland writing, terrible looking NPCs and a lack of anything to do other than follow boring quests.

            Fallout 3 is initially awe inspiring, but for me it quickly became a slog that I will never play again.

          • drewski says:

            Somehow I can’t see “can I walk there” being as critical a gameplay critique as “time to crate” was back in the day.

            Personally I’d say whether I can actually get to some random object of scenery is about as important to me as whether or not a menu is red or reddish, but hey, each to their own. There were certainly plenty of places in Fallout 1 and 2 you couldn’t ever get to.

          • Werthead says:

            I’ve only completed FO3 and NV, so I’ve only compared them together. On that comparison FO3 – a good game on it’s own merits – is the weaker game. I tried playing FO1 last year and couldn’t do more than a couple of hours on it. It was clearly better-written, but the combat was trivially easy (at least at that early stage) and the graphics were really terrible, even by 1996’s standards. I couldn’t get into it, unfortunately.

            NEW VEGAS being made by many of the same people as FO1-2 is definitely a bonus in its favour, and its clear that Obsidian ‘get’ FALLOUT far better than Bethesda, but ultimately it comes down to the writing, story and gameplay, and NEW VEGAS worked a lot better for me across the board.

      • Jim Reaper says:

        If your remake has less depth than the original, you’ve done something wrong. X-Com came out in 1994 and is still the better game in my opinion. As for Fallout 3, unfortunately I bounced right off it, like I do most Bethesda games, whereas I’ve finished New Vegas several times…

        • drewski says:

          That’s pretty ridiculous. There’s a lot, lot more to game quality than just depth or complexity.

    • Premium User Badge

      Aerothorn says:

      Would you recommend Project Nevada over the JSawyer mod? I was planning on doing my next playthrough with the latter. How does Nevada deal with the whole food-system?

      • Stevostin says:

        I played with Nevada and liked it, and I am pretty picky with mods. Can’t remember if I tested the Sawyer thing.

      • Dominic White says:

        The JSawyer thing is just a slight rebalance mod, for the most part – a ‘directors cut’ post-release thing to expand on what was already started by Hardcore mode in the game. Nevada is almost a complete overhaul of the core gameplay. It’s a really good one, too, and it integrates pretty seamlessly with all the vanilla content and DLC.

        I much prefer the Nevada combat engine. It lets you spend VATS AP two extra ways – on sprinting (which can be used in conjunction with some perks as a shoulder barge attack) or on bullet time. There’s also a nice off-hand grenade button. It feels more like an action game, but your stats also dictate your playstyle a lot more, so it increases the RPG depth too.

      • StashAugustine says:

        Project Nevada Core is compatible with Sawyer’s Mod. Rebalance is too, but you’ll have to change some values to get them right.

      • scatterbrainless says:

        I can’t believe nobody has mentioned the lovely chap over at Gophervids. He does a very nice, very detailed explanation of how to get various Bethesda games working with around a billion mods, his FNV videos series was a great help – link to youtube.com – also his voice is oddly soothing if you’re battling with weird and frustrating mod anomalies.

    • heyhellowhatsnew says:

      Oh God Dominick White from SA posts here. He has nothing but wrong and bad opinions. Feel free to ignore his posts.

      • Dominic White says:

        Am I upsetting people by liking games again? I remember a whole forum that spent way too long talking about what I liked and how angry they were about it. Some folks have have got waaaaaaay too much free time on their hands.

        You could just not play the game, or not talk about mods for it if you think I’m wrong about it being good. Just a thought.

        • Davie says:

          I like you. You’ve been commenting here for years and unlike the vast majority of RPS’s readers you don’t feel the need to prove the superiority of your opinion over everyone else’s. Your comments are a pleasure to read whether or not I agree with them. Thank you for not pushing the comments thread ever closer to the festering pit of scorn and elitism it’s starting to become.

          • CrookedLittleVein says:

            While I’m not capable of such eloquence at the moment, I’d like to second this.

          • SuperNashwanPower says:

            “Starting to”?

            How very dare you sir. This venerated organ has been diligently cultivating its scorn and elitism pit since 1873. Do not damn it with such faint praise.

      • theallmightybob says:

        so how exactualy are his opinions of a pretty much subjective matter “wrong”

        • Lord Custard Smingleigh says:

          If they agree with me, the comments are right. If they disagree, I simply send a note to my odd-job man who specialises in removing certain impediments to the stress-free passsing of my day.

          • Geen says:

            In that case, I agree! Now please call off the assassins, I’m out of bullets and my door isn’t going to last much longer.

          • Lord Custard Smingleigh says:

            “Assassins” is such an ugly word. I prefer to think of them as the gardeners of society. They remove the weeds through measured application of blade and poison.

            My man Smiggs the gardener certainly doesn’t see much difference between the two vocations. You should see him garotte a dandelion.

            Oh yes, Smiggs, be a good chap and let him live, will you? The north-facing lawn edging needs some trimming, so you won’t even need to put down the scythe.

      • Koozer says:

        Really? My god, I’m so glad you were here to warn me! Thank you anonymous internet person whom I have no real reason to listen to!

      • Nick says:

        and has done for a long time, usually he at least expresses why he feels the way he does about things too, which makes him more worthy of reading than most people, often myself included.

      • ffordesoon says:

        I like that your handle is heyhellowhatsnew when you’re clearly nursing an old grudge by posting here.

        It’s to Dominic’s credit that I can’t imagine him doing the same if your roles were reversed.

      • Snakejuice says:

        Oh God you’re such a douche! Go stand in the corner of shame until you learn to behave yourself.

      • scatterbrainless says:

        This is the internet. I’m free to ignore everyone’s posts.

    • Werthead says:

      NEW VEGAS is an awesome, awesome game. My favourite RPG of the last 10 years (noting I’ve never played VAMPIRE COLON THE MASQUERADE HYPHEN BLOODLINES).

      That said, it takes time to get really good. The opening 3-4 hours I felt was quite aimless and lacking in character compared to FALLOUT 3. FO3 opens stronger in the vault, boots you into the Megaton/Tenpenny conflict straight away (for most people) and it has the better post-apocalyptic atmosphere that comes from using a much more famous city packed with familiar, half-annihilated landmarks. NEW VEGAS instead has you being shot, being rescued by Robby the Robot and Colonel Tigh from BATTLESTAR GALACTICA and then being booted out the door to do small fetch and kill quests in a tiny town before leaving that town, whereupon you risk suffering death-by-cazadore if you even think about looking in the wrong direction.

      Where FALLOUT 3 never really makes good on its early promise – ‘exploring post-nuke Washington DC’ translates as ‘exploring lots of copy-paste buildings in very small single streets of the city’ – NEW VEGAS massively exceeds it. I’d gotten so used to Bethesda’s binary, “Save the world by being a hero or still saving it despite being a dick,” choices that it was quite a surprise when NEW VEGAS told me I could side with the good guys (‘good’ meaning well-meaning but doomed by following historically-proven futile processes) or with the bad guys (‘bad’ meaning racist fascists but who arguably could only exist as such in an unremittingly harsh landscape) or tell them both to sod off and conquer the city myself with my own personal army of death laser robots.

      I also liked the fact the NEW VEGAS gave much more personality and weight to the companions. They’re actual people with reasons for hanging out with you, have side-quests and backstories attached to them and are fairly steeped in tragedy. In Bethesda games they’re walking backpacks who sound put out that they’re actually hanging out with you (see: Lydia).

      In addition, NEW VEGAS has much, much better DLC. OLD WORLD BLUES may be the best piece of DLC ever, simply for the cyberdog gun, the riffs on PORTAL 2 and RED DWARF (the sentient toaster must be a DWARF reference) and the way the comedy gives way to unexpected tragedy at the end. Even the least of the NV DLCs (the one in the casino) had a really threatening atmosphere, as opposed to the least of the FO3 DLCs (MOTHERSHIP ZETA) which was just dull and a waste of good material.

      Finally, NEW VEGAS had Michael Dorn in it reprising a character from FALLOUT 2 with aplomb, whilst FO3 remained resolutely Worfless.

      • Iceman346 says:

        While I am completely in line with your praising of New Vegas you having not played Vampire Bloodlines is a thing you should remedy THIS VERY MOMENT!

        Seriously, even with the Fanpatch Bloodlines goes bump every 10 minutes, the graphics, while still decent, clearly show that Troika didn’t have much experience with the Source Engine and the combat itself is lackluster. But those quests, that voiceacting, those characters are just some of the best stuff I know in videogame RPGs.

        Bloodline is an absolute masterpiece hampered by sloppy execution, an early release and a multitude of technical errors. But the good parts just shine so incredibly bright that it is easy to forgive the shortcomings. Play it. Now.

        • Dominic White says:

          To be fair, they were working with a very early pre-release build of the Source engine which bears little resemblance to the final product. When it comes to third-party engines, Obsidian really haven’t been too lucky.

          Grumble as you may about Dungeon Siege 3, but that was made with their own in-house engine and it’s technically smooth and slick as they come.

          • Werthead says:


            Obsidian didn’t make BLOODLINES, although I believe a chunk of the design team have since ended up working there.

          • Blackseraph says:

            You really should play that game though werthead, like iceman so enthusiastically said. It is one of the rpg masterpieces there are, in my honest opinion right up there with planescape torment and deus ex.

          • Werthead says:

            It’s on The List. I could do with a good RPG at the moment, as I’m currently 40 hours in DRAGON AGE and the terrible writing, poor voice acting and dull characterisation is making me lose the will to live. Only the passable combat and my blog review policy is keeping me going.

          • drewski says:

            Awful camera, though.

        • Yosharian says:

          “Seriously, even with the Fanpatch Bloodlines goes bump every 10 minutes, the graphics, while still decent, clearly show that Troika didn’t have much experience with the Source Engine and the combat itself is lackluster.”

          This is just absolute nonsense

          • Iceman346 says:

            Don’t overwhelm me with the sheer amount of your arguments :P

            Kidding aside: While the 10 minutes are an exaggeration (although the game has some very rough edges even with the fanpatch) on the graphics side especially some of the charactermodels are really badly done and weird looking and the combat of bloodlines is mostly left clicking without much depth whatsoever.

        • Skabooga says:

          If I had any advice for playing Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines, it would be to not worry about optimizing your character for combat and instead just turn on invincibility with cheats when the fighting gets tedious. Bits of the combat can be fun, but long stretches of it get tiresome without recourse to just blaze through it.

          • Yosharian says:

            Again, just absolute nonsense…

          • Asurmen says:

            I think you meant to write absolute sense.

          • Blackseraph says:

            What is nonsense about that exactly. Worst part about that game really is combat.

          • Nick says:

            Just heed the advice of various people in the game.. don’t skimp on combat skills.

            Its sad that the last third or so of the game is really combat heavy and I really wish they’d had the time to flesh out chinatown and holywood as much as the other two areas, but damn the game is so good in spite of it.

    • Chalky says:

      It’s weird reading the reply thread to this comment. I had always thought it was universally recognised that new vegas was a generally better game. I’ve always liked both about the same, but everyone I’ve spoken to has preferred vegas.

      Also congrats on the fact that there have been 23 comments on this article and every single one of them was in reply to your message. That’s quite a thing.

      • Sparkasaurusmex says:

        Still, it’s perfectly acceptable to say New Vegas was underrated due to the whole metacritic controversy

    • bitserum says:

      New Vegas was much more in line with where Fallout 1 and 2 left off. Not just the characters, but the world, the setting – had more character. Fallout 3 felt like resetting the storyline, a new game.
      Too bad New Vegas is buggier than Fallout 2… a downside of merciless deadlines.

      I feel that Bethesda just can’t create a good breathing world that feels alive, the likes of what Black Isle used to make. They do make it pretty, and vast, and detailed… environment is where their skills are over-focused. I’ll take New Vegas with all its bugs and quirks over F3 any day.

      • Dominic White says:

        Fortunately, having a full mod kit, there’s a big honking fan-patch that addresses most of the issues with the game.

        link to newvegas.nexusmods.com?

        After patches and DLC, throwing MTUI, Mission Mojave and Project Nevada at the game makes it into a much slicker package. I know it sucks to have to rely on mods so much, but at least the community has come together to make some universally supported enhancements.

        Honestly though, I think Fallout 2 was waaaaaaay more broken, especially at launch.

      • Nick says:

        I found Fallout 3 way, way buggier than New Vegas.

        • Werthead says:

          Word up. In FALLOUT 3 I had multiple CTDs and the DLCs were wonky (POINT LOOKOUT would work for about 45 minutes and then would crash on entering/exiting a building), though I blame GFWL for the latter.

          In NEW VEGAS I had one bug which meant I couldn’t load a saved game from the main menu (apparently this was a widespread issue). I had to start a new game every time and then hit quickload when the game world loaded up. This added one button click and about 3 seconds to load-up, so it a pretty negligible issue. Other than that, I didn’t have a single problem with NEW VEGAS or any of its DLC.

          To be fair, I played FO3 on release and NV a year later when it had been fixed, but even so I was expecting something far worse with NV and was pleasantly surprised by how trouble-free it was (compared to ALPHA PROTOCOL, which I simply can’t seem to get working at all).

          Also, it’s interesting that NV works smoothly with no problems with Windows 7, whilst FO3 seems to really hate it and you have to faff around to get it working. Over time, FO3 has actually become the game that’s harder to play. Given that NV got hammered by reviews for its bugs whilst FO3’s were completely ignored (guess Bethesda paid a lot more for advertising for FO3), that’s kind of ironic.

        • Bhazor says:

          You thought Fallout 3 was buggy? Try playing an unpatched Skyrim.

          Yet strangely the massive game breaking bugs never get mentioned in the reviews.

          • Werthead says:

            Unless you were playing on PlayStation 3. In which case you’re probably still staking out Bethesda HQ with a sniper rifle.

          • Bhazor says:

            That’s what I’m talking about. A crippling game breaking bug that rendered the game unplayable after 20 hours and not a single review brought it up.

          • Nick says:

            Yeah, I played unpatched Skyrim too. Bethesda games get a pass when it comes to bugs, unlike Obsidian ones. Not sure why. Hell even my favourite of theirs (Daggerfall) is one of the buggiest games of all time.

            Hell you can find several reviews of NV criticising stuff that was part of the shitty Fallout 3 gamebryo engine/its limitations, yet nothing is mentioned in the Fallout 3 reviews.

          • drewski says:

            “That’s what I’m talking about. A crippling game breaking bug that rendered the game unplayable after 20 hours and not a single review brought it up.”

            I wonder how many reviewers actually reviewed it on PS3, though. Most big cross platform titles seem to get reviewed on 360 or PC.

          • blackmyron says:

            Trying playing the “unpatched” port of GTA IV, which is to say, “20% of the actual game missing”.

      • drewski says:

        I’m probably as big a Bethesda fan as there is on this forum, but the criticism that their worlds lack character is entirely valid.

        I mean, I can see *why* but no, Bethesda, 20 dudes is not a thriving metropolis.

    • lowprices says:

      I’m going to say something controversial and shocking: I enjoyed all three “numbered” Fallouts and New Vegas and didn’t feel the need to get angry because Fallout 3 was not the same as Fallout 1.

      • bitserum says:

        I loved Fallout 3, especially since the series seemed dead for a very long while after the second Fallout. New Vegas just quenched the thirst (somewhat), that the Black Isle’s originals left.

      • LennyLeonardo says:

        Yeah, I agree. I like it when sequels go their own way, and I think all the Fallout games have their strengths. I would say that Fallout 2 is the funniest, and that goes a long way with me, but New Vegas has cowboy guns, so…

  2. Stevostin says:

    Fallout 3 is a comic book. It’s full of memorable moments but at the cost of integrity. Side quest are mostly totally disconnected from the whole picture but the good thing is they are free to go on their own. Ultimately, while the sense of place is not as strong as in FNV, they also are… fun. Like in, I laughed pretty hard sometimes, something I never did with FNV (except in the Big MT but even then it was a more sophisticated laugh).

    To me they are two interesting take on Fallout. Love them both.

    • Werthead says:

      These kind of discussions about what is the better game usually end up with it sounding like I’m hating on FALLOUT 3, when I don’t. I put about 90 hours into the game, got all five of it’s DLCs and really enjoyed it. I think it’d be hard to go back to now, though, as NEW VEGAS does show up FO3’s shortcomings in narrative, character, writing and the lacklustre main quest (some of FO3’s side quests are excellent, however). For the fun of walking around a wasteland looting stuff and shooting mutants, FALLOUT 3 remains pretty good stuff and probably remains Bethesda’s best post-MORROWIND game.

      • Ernesto25 says:

        Same, from a guy who 1st fallout game was 3 i loved it and it got me into role playing games and i didn’t care for NV. After playing 1 and 2 and getting into other rpgs both old and new like planescape i prefer NV due to actually role playing and believing in the world. I think F3 did do a good job though for new players as a reboot I have more “memorable moments in 3” but in terms of roleplaying i didn’t d alot in 3 it was more “see what i can get away with”. Im very glad they all exist though.

      • Nick says:

        Yup, I enjoyed Fallout 3, was a huge step up from Oblivion, its a shame they didn’t take on any of its better qualities for Skyrim.

        Some of the little side quest vignettes were fantastic, the VR town vault for example was a superb idea, its just a shame a lot of the writing elsewhere wasn’t strong and the main quest was piss poor. Oh and they totally missed the point of the Brotherhood of Steel.

    • Jason Moyer says:

      I like Fallout 3 a lot. My biggest complaint, really, is how badly it struck out when it came to a lot of the lore. Not so much because “omg canon is sacred!” but because the Super Mutants and Brotherhood in particular don’t feel anything at all like they did in FO1/2 and NV.

      • Ernesto25 says:

        This is something that surprised me when playing F1 and 2 how some of the races and factions compared with F3. The outcasts seem like a missed opportunity in hindsight they are just well there really not really doing much.

    • drewski says:

      You take your “being reasonable about things on the internet” and GET OUT.

    • blackmyron says:

      I’m with you on this one. I like F3 and F:NV, and for different reasons. NV fixed a lot of issues with F3, refined the skills/crafting, but suffered from a lack of random events (one of the key enjoyments of F3, and Skyrim for that matter) and being more of a “post-post-apocalyptic” than “post-apocalyptic”. But in the end, I spent a ridiculous amount of time playing both games – which is really what I’m looking for.

      • Werthead says:

        I’ve seen that criticism before but I think it’s a feature, not a bug. After all, in both FO3 and NV it’s been 200 years since the nuclear war. Society should be getting back on its feet and new civilisations should be arising. From what I played of it, FO1 nailed that feeling (and that was set ‘only’ 100 years after the bombs) and NEW VEGAS certainly does, as it’s what most of the game is about. FO3 feels like the bombs fell maybe a month earlier at best.

        I like the post-apocalyptic feel of the game, I’m just not sure it’s true to the franchise.

    • LennyLeonardo says:

      Hmmm. “Comic book” = “lack of integrity”. Not sure about that.

  3. Stevostin says:

    I am tempted but it’s… so short. Sooo short. Any other good content mod to justify reinstalling FNV YET AGAIN ?

  4. DrScuttles says:

    This is a mod I’ve been looking forward to for some time (or am I getting confused with another similarly scoped project that’s highly likely to evaporate into the ether? Probably. I don’t know any more). I’ll wait until more of it is released though as getting any Gamebryo game into a shape that I’m happy with involves such a convoluted mess of downloads, mod managers, file editing, tweaking, faffing, jiggery and pokery that it gives me a headache even thinking about it. And even then I’m worried that if I hit the keyboard too hard the whole engine will shatter into a million angry mods spilling out of my monitor and fly straight up my nose.

  5. Astartes says:

    Am I the only one that felt both New Vegas and Fallout 3 were rubbish?

    Oh I feel alone; I’ll be off playing Fallout 2.

    • Ernesto25 says:

      Im sure others do but it may depend on the definition of “rubbish”.

      As a game in general fallout3 and NV are still leagues ahead comapred to most RPG’s.

      As a fallout game “debatable” is the best way to put it.

      • Astartes says:

        I consider them bad games; not just simply as bad sequels to Fallout 1&2 but terrible, shitty games.

    • drewski says:

      Probably not, but you might be the only person who hates the games to bother coming into a thread specifically about a mod for one of the games just to say you hate them.

    • Nogo says:

      I consider F2 to be a bit rubbish…

      Glad we shared these thoughts

  6. mr.ioes says:

    Whoever reinstalls New Vegas now, make sure to visit Vault 11.

  7. F3ck says:

    This is good news.

    I’ll play Fallout Anything…that’s how well they’ve done in my book; any DLC or significant mod is an excuse to reinstall and replay. No one makes a game-world (a tactile world one can manipulate…not an oil painting on the wall) like Bethesda.

  8. Cryptoshrimp says:

    Man. I tried to play this, and I can appropriate the huge amount of effort involved, but at this stage, it’s just really not very good. Things appear and disappear, the first bit of the story is a huge infodump, it’s confusing as hell.

    However, with another year of polish, this could really shine.

  9. Lionmaruu says:

    oh boy… I play this game in and out since the launch on xbox and pc. and now just when I was almost 3 months “clean”… yay to my wasteland addiction!

  10. Wombats says:

    This is a 2Gb file…why is there no torrent?
    Is someone able to seed it, please?

    Requiring an internet browser to maintain a connection for several hours is insane.
    Nexus mods blocked my ability to get into X-COM mods, too, the sooner these guys go the way of FilePlanet the better.

    • Cryptoshrimp says:

      The sooner one of the best things that happened to Bethsoft modding dies, the better? Well, thanks.

      • Wombats says:

        Its locked behind a pay wall.
        You can forcibly insert it I can’t play it.

        • Cryptoshrimp says:

          Not really sure what you’re saying there, I’m afraid.

        • Dominic White says:

          I’ve downloaded a whole bunch of XCom mods from Nexus sites and never had to pay a penny. You need a pay to access their fast download servers, but that’s only if you’re going to be downloading many, many gigabytes of stuff.

    • Nogo says:

      Download manager maybe?

  11. JossTravers says: