I want it so much! Fallout 3 was almost perfect! Now if only I could kill kids... *evil laugh*

those screens certainly dont flatter the visuals.

It looks like they took assets out of other games and stuck them into Fallout 3.

Will probably be a good game even though i don't like the visuals.

Visuals are really bad, but hey, if the experience is good, we'll soon forget about them. Is that a satellite beam on Screen 2? I mean... We saw that on Fallout 3: Broken Steel...

not exactly foaming at the mouth in anticipation. more likely going to be a good rental. considering just how little this looks to be improving upon fallout 3, and seeing just how many assets have been re-used, i just can't justify spending any amount of money on this. it could have done to be a completely different game in terms of perspective and gameplay (maybe go isometric again). cos this just looks like a glorified peice of DLC that they're charging full price for.

Seeing as how both Feargus Urquhart and Chris Avellone are involved, this game pretty much has to be incredibly awesome. I can't wait to play it and the fact that the graphics are still the same means that i can play it on my PC so yay for that :P

I think this is unfair. It's a sequel in the same gen, and it's doing to do more than enough to qualify as more than DLC. Firstly a brand new location, story, as well as characters, twice as many weapons as Fallout3, the ability to mod weapons, ADS, improved dialogue and companion commands...

I don't know how you could just rent Fallout. I put over 100 hours into 3 and still had places to explore. Just because it has the same engine and art style doesn't mean it ain't worth the price.

What he said. Between Fallout 3 and all it's DLC paks, I put in over 250 hours of game play, scouring every inch of wasteland in search of every last secret the game held. Beyond the shadow of any doubt, the game stands as the most "worth it" software that I have purchased in years. And while New Vegas may not look to improve the graphical engine much, it is delivering plenty of new game play elements, and will likely deliver just as much play time as Fallout 3 . . . not to mention, the requisite DLC paks to follow launch, starting early next year.

Worth it? Everyone better believe this is going to be so worth it. Yeah, it would be nice if they used a new game engine - the Gamebryo engine has been showing it's age, even before Oblivion came out. Hopefully starting with Elder Scrolls V (or whatever their next in-house RPG is), Bethesda will switch over to using id Tech 5 for all their games. Until then, so long as their games continue to deliver in spades on the game play and experience side of the equation, I'll keep happily getting my money's worth out of them.

Totally agree. With FreeSwag and b0vril. It's not about the graphics. it's about experiencing this new world. Fallout 3 and Mass Effect 1 & 2 are my favourite games this generation. Sure it'd be nice if it looked better, but hell, I still play Final Fantasy IV...

its not so much about the graphics as much as it is about the general approach to the game. this, with its reused assets and deja-vu appearence just doesnt appeal to me, in the same way bioshock 2 doesnt. i can accept minor tweeks to an engins within the confines of a console generation. i cant accept such a half assed fallout 3.1 tho.

I see it more as a full blown expansion, like in the old days before them fuckers started selling you single side quests. It takes the Fallout 3 game, improves a few things, adds a ton of new shit and throws a whole new campaign your way. This isn't fallout 4.

to be fair i see where korndog is coming from, turn the hud green remove some of the new ui features and bam anyone would think it's fallout 3, their is hardly any signs that it's a new game. Even those big green guys look like a stright drag and drop. But I won't put this game down I loved it on pc with a whole load of mods and am tempted to buy the pc goty edition for 15 quid I just hope these guys can deliver on an experience and the content.

For some reason, I firstly read "Power Ranger" instead of "Powder Ganger"... I should get some sleep.

I can see what you mean. I felt that way about Bioshock 2, though that doesn't mean it's not a worthy sequel I was just wasn't interested in going back to the same place. With Fallout3 I defiantly want to go back.

And of course they'll be reusing assets. I don't know why you think they wouldn't. It's set in the same universe with the same art style, same engine, there is no point in recreating something that will essentially look the same. Plus a game like this requires a tone of work as it is, with a new map, dialogue, story, side quests and all the new assets they are adding.

but the reused assets are noticable copy/paste jobs. that's my issue. yes it's the same universe, but it's a different location, things should be different enough to not feel like you've seen it all before. take the green mutants, why do they look exactly like they did in fallout 3? surely they could have created their own form of mutant for the new location? i have a feeling we'll be seeing a LOT of repeate enemies, more so then a "sequel" should really have. i mean, how cheap and nasty would it have been if there where noticable objects, enemies and textures in uncharted 2 that where esentially copy/pasted from the first game.

megido got it right in the sense that this isnt fallout 4, and is more akin to an expansion pack of old. but the problem with that is we're paying full retail for it. not expansion prices, plus your character doesnt pass over to the new game which is weird as hell.... this is the sort of thing i'd expect to sell for a budget price. not full retail. there is simply too much that is the same as the last game. you obviously understand since you felt the same way about bioshock 2. just becasue you actually want to return to the fallout world doesnt change the fact it's not the sequel it could have and SHOULD have been.

as far as i'm concerned this is a game for cash-in's sake. fallout 3 did well, they milked the DLC dry and instead of making a real sequel they just made more of the same with as little effort as possible. i'm fine with people being ok with that, more power to them, but just like bioshock 2 - a game i am currently renting and havnt touched for more then 5 minutes- it isnt for me. when you invest so much time into a game like fallout i want something vastly different if i'm ever going to do it again. becasue in the case of fallout, you see so much of it so often that the last thing you want to see is more barron brown wasteland.

The peeps at Joystiq have posted an interview with Obsidian Ent, lead designer Josh Sawyer, on some of the many changes coming to Fallout: New Vegas. Definitely worth a read, and certainly proof that at least gameplay and experience-wise, this is a lot more than just a mere expansion of Fallout 3 (mind you, even if it were nothing more than just a mere expansion, it'd still be a day one purchase in my house): http://www.joystiq.com/2010/05/05/interview-josh-s...

I too still wish they had improved the graphics. I personally have never cared much for Bethesda's use of the Gamebryo engine - unless you are running it on a really powerful PC, it just looks too bland. Beyond that, New Vegas is looking more and more what I had hoped Fallout 3 was going to be in the first place. And considering how much I wound up adoring Fallout 3, that is saying something.