After being hammered by the mainstream gaming media for having one of the glitchiest games of the decade, Fallout:New Vegas takes a new blow from PCWorld, which twists the knife in the wound listing links and texts that describe the game in very discouraging terms. It all may seam as a universal coalition against a game that promised a lot.
“Perhaps the biggest, most substantive criticism of Fallout: New Vegas is that it’s glitchy. Not just annoying so, but utterly, game-breakingly glitchy. In a massive, marathon play-through (before the game’s official launch), the game crashed five times in a 26 hour period, often in the middle of the action during vital moments,” reads a review by G4TV.
Now Obsidian Entertainment, the game’s developer, is left with the difficult task of countering the negative buzz. And they are doing a pretty good job at home, where they list everything positive, including a bold link to IGN’s Top 25 most wanted games of 2010, where New Vegas scored an unexpected place 1. Other reviews are more positive than all those listed by PCWorld – with The Escapist leading the way, with its bottom line conclusion: There is more than enough game in this package to justify the expense.
And Obsidian’s PR strategy gets even better, with Feargus Urquhart, CEO of Obsidian Entertainment, answering to a bunch of rewarding questions over at the Wall Street Journal. No mention of glitches and bugs… Fallout is a success. Or is it?
The positive few don’t supersede the negative many – Obsidian still has a long way to go. They’ll have to prove Andrew Kelly wrong, who ended his review in a somewhat positive note: New Vegas is disappointingly similar to Fallout 3, but the improved story and wealth of new content and features makes up for it – just.
They’ll have to counter Justin McElroy, who had to struggle a bit to find the courage to review the game: “How could I hope to evaluate the worth of Fallout: New Vegas, a full-price game that’s practically identical, both graphically and mechanically, to another game that was released two years ago? How could I tell you whether or not it’s an insult that you’re being asked to pay $60 for a game that’s so technically deficient that it scarcely feels past the beta stage?”
The list could go on, and for many, this seems like a lot of noise for nothing of substance. But the substance is there for Obsidian, whose games have been received with many negative reviews in the past as well. Luckily, the company managed to keep the fans interested – and this is a great accomplishment.