Talk:Fallout: New Vegas

Victor

In the article, it said that Victor is a Mister Gutsy robot, however there is no evidence supporting this, and the general consensus (as demonstrated here: http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Victor_%28Fallout:_New_Vegas%29) is that Victor is the "TV Robot" that you see in the teaser trailer. Kahlzun (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering the lack of citable evidence to either type of robot, anything should be removed until confirmed by a reliable source (not a wiki or forum). ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 03:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, though I agree it's incredible in this case... a wiki is a collection of sourced data if Wikipedia exists at all, and for that wiki game developers regularly contribute either text for articles or are quoted and sourced in the relevant articles themselves, not to mention blog-feeds from the developers, who are more than anyone else primary sources. "Don't source Wiki', it's unreliable." Indeed. 74.240.224.193 (talk) 05:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Its is presumed that Victor is a TV Robot for various reasons.

1.Victor is cited as being the one who finds you in various sources. A TV Robot is shown digging up a shallow grave in the teaser trailer, presumably discovering the player-the player being said to have been left for dead in a shallow grave. Thus it can be presumed that this robot is Victor.

2.It is also said that Victor takes the player to Mitchell. During the course of Fallout 3 the Mister Gutsy range of robots are shown to have no appendages which they could feasibly carry an adult human with.

3. The character that appears on the television screen of the TV Robot during the teaser trailer bears a resemblance to the official name of one of Las Vegas most well known Neon light signs, Vegas Vic. Thus the character can be presumed being called Victor as a result of it broadcasting this figure, with Vic being slang for Victor. Wyrmalla

Not Sequel?

Saying, "Fallout: New Vegas is not a sequel to Fallout 3. Rather, it is an entirely new game." and following it with, "The events in the game follow three years after Fallout 3." Makes absolutely no sense. There is a clear contradiction there. Castlevania sequels are nearly always entirely new games yet we still call them 'sequels.' Especially since IT TAKES PLACE AFTER FALLOUT 3. That is practically the clear definition of Sequel. So someone please explain to how a game that takes place after a previous game and has the same series title is not a sequel? I mean, there's COD 4: Modern Warfare, and then COD: Modern Warfare 2, and then the next COD game won't be a sequel to MW because MW is spinning off into its own thing. Saying its an entirely new game implies that it IS a sequel and not an EXPANSION like so many of the Armored Core games like For Answer. Unless it's the start of a new sub-series, however, if it takes place in the same universe and is said to take place after the previous game, that makes it a sequel. (Korikitsune0 (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC))

It's a spin off. Like Fallout Tactics. Other games handle it differently. The sequel to Fallout 3 will be Fallout 4 if and when that is made. Rehevkor ✉ 00:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

So is it a one-off spin off the equivalent of many of the Armored Core Games in between the numbered ones but for no necessarily good reason other than wanting it to be a side-story on its own rather than a plot mover or is it a spin off sub-set like COD: MW2? (Korikitsune0 (talk) 04:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC))

I don't recall the Fallout series having anything to do with those, I have no idea how they are handled. In this case it's a separate game in the same universe with no direct links to the previous game(s). Fallout 3 could be considered a spin-off for the same reasons really but Bethesda and the gaming press considered it a sequel. What is a sequel and what is a spin off is a grey area sometimes, but this is defiantly a spin off. Rehevkor ✉ 05:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

From what I've heard of the plot of New Vegas I should be calling it a sequel; its set near the local of the original games, has the same factions as them and a similar plot about the rebuilding of humanity-NCR are set to feature in New Vegas, probably expanding their territory as they were set to in the original Fallout 3, the next step in the building of a civilisation. I'd say its more a sequel to the original series than Fallout 3 was, but the producers are pinning it as a spin off , so that's what w'ell have to call it. Its probably being called a spin off as it uses the same engine as Fallout 3, with Bethesda wanting to release a new engine for every direct sequel that they make, like in the case of the latter editions of the Elder Scrolls series. Or possibly its due to legal hiccup where only Bethesda are allowed to produce direct sequels, with them allowing other companies to make spin offs, like in the case of "Project: Vault 13". All we can do is guess really until Josh Sawyer or someone actually explains the matter.

Wyrmalla (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Though it has been cited as not being a sequel to Fallout 3, Fallout: New Vegas does seems as though it could be called a sequel to Fallout 2 however. I bears a similar setting, factions, style etc and also resembles the original planned sequel to Fallout 2 in a number of ways-basic plot elements, locations. Thus "Fallout 3" would seem to be more appropriately called a spin-off of the series rather than New Vegas, like in the case of Fallout: Tactics it takes place in a markedly different local, has a widely different theme and at times lore, and engine. But as long as the creators call it a spin-off that's what It'll be. :/ Wyrmalla (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

When it comes to the Fallout franchise, To compare the significance of Fallout New Vegas to that of Fallout Tactics is just really foolish. Fallout tactics isn't even considered accurate or canon to the series. Fallout tactics is a spin-off because it has little to do with the overall storyline of the Fallout Universe. Fallout New Vegas is not a spin-off because it's very crucial to the storyline of the Fallout Universe.

As stated in the "Victor" section - we need sources. As of now, the sources say that it is NOT a sequel. Regardless of the setting or theme, it's not a sequel. Many games have completely different settings and themes but are called sequels (and vice versa). If the developers call it a spinn-off, then that is what it is intended to be. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Fellas - it's a sequel to Fallout 1+2, F3 is really the spinoff, and Tactics is so non-canon it hardly counts at all. (No "raygun gothic", or "googie" architecture or tech design for example) On the use of sequel/spinoff, I speak here of artistic sensibilities, as a fan and buff of olden-days sci-fi, not as a commentator of any franchise legalese. Vegas itself is the most "googie" city ever built, even before the Fallout guys got thier teeth into it. As to a character from F2 being in F:NV, I'd point out Michael Dorn is voice acting here again, so it's gotta be Marcus the Supermutant (SMs live hundreds of years, who else could it be?)

Mojave Wasteland

I read on the Bethesda web site that the game was going to be based in the "Mojave Wasteland", referring to the Mojave Desert which crosses in to the states of California, Arizona, Utah as well as southern Nevada where Las Vegas is located. I have reason to believe that the game isn't JUST going to be based in Las Vegas, Nevada but a large portion of the desert itself. Could this be looked into? Thanks Cathys Son (talk) 02:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I recall that the game has a "wasteland" area larger than Fallout 3. I'm not sure were I read this. I'm not big on geography but I guess that consists of mojave. Rehevkor ✉ 11:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm just saying the article states that the game is based in "post-apocalyptic Las Vegas, Nevada" when its most likely going to be in various locations in the Mojave. You said it yourself, the wasteland in THIS Fallout is going to be bigger so I couldn't be JUST Las Vegas. I think that Las Vegas is going to be to New Vegas' wasteland to what Washington DC was to the Capitol Wasteland. 167.230.104.94 (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably? Rehevkor ✉ 14:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thus would it be preferred to have it state, "set around the area of the post apocalyptic Nevada"- implying that it is both set within and around the state, or something of that like?

Wyrmalla (talk) 13:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought maybe " Set in a post-apocalyptic Las Vegas, Nevada as well as the surrounding Mojave Desert" Giving the link to the deserts artical. something along those lines 167.230.104.94 (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

here is a source specifically mentioning "Mojave Wasteland." Rehevkor ✉ 17:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe the name Mojave Desert is before the nuclear attack. Mojave Desert is labelled as the Mojave Wastland after the nuclear attack. Davtra (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It's made clear on Bethesda's official site that Fallout New Vegas takes place "In and around the area of Las Vegas". They are, according to the lead designers, referring to the setting of the entire game as the Mojave Wasteland, which consists of a much larger area than just Las Vegas. you can look it up, it's somewhere on fallout.bethsoft.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.206.3 (talk) 03:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Character from Vault 21?

In regards to the PC's origins being from Vault 21, this is incorrect; at least based upon recent previews of the game. The Courier attains their Vault 21 jumpsuit and Pip Boy 3000 from Mitchell, the Doctor of Goodsprings who tends to the PC at the beginning of the game, during the character generation process. He in fact is known to be a former resident of Vault 21, leaving it for an undesignated purpose, whereas the Courier's background is left deliberately unexplained, where I assume that Obsidian has given little detail towards this so as the player may come to their own conclusions, or by developments in the plot. However we may find that the PC did originate from Vault 21 later in the game, however unlikely this may be, but this would leave the issue of how they managed to take off their Pip Boy 3000 and why they do not have a Vault jumpsuit-or why Mitchell doesn't know them, possibly because he left well before the PC did...but that he doesn't know them...it wouldn't make since as the PC's age varies.-Wyrmalla

I can confirm 100% that the player character in the game does not come from vault 21. You are correct, he is given the vault suit from Mitchell. As said by the developers, the player is not a vault dweller. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.206.3 (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Spin-off?

in the article it says that Fallout New Vegas isn't a direct sequel to Fallout 3, but rather a spin-off of the series. While Fallout New Vegas may not relate to Fallout 3, to call it a spin-off would be inaccurate, as Fallout New Vegas is expected to be more relevant to the overall Fallout storyline than Fallout 3 was. If any game in the Fallout series is the least relevant to the overall franchise, it's Fallout 3, not Fallout New Vegas. I realize that it's not a sequel, but to call it a spin-off implies that it's not fundamental to the series, which it is.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.206.3 (talk) 03:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC) 

• Thanks for your input. I believe this needs to be debated. It's causing some confusion in Fallout Wikipeda articles. Davtra (talk) 04:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Just because you don't believe it is a spin-off/sequel/whatever, doesn't mean that's not what it is. http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/rpg/falloutnewvegas/video/6261040/fallout-new-vegas-interview-josh-sawyer The developers call it a Spin-Off to Fallout 3. Saying Fallout 3 is irrelevent is ridiculous, as that is a subjective input (I myself am a huge fan of the original 2 and I think the only reason fans of the originals pissed on Fallout 3 was because the original developers didn't work on it, which is odd because Fallout New Vegas looks exactly like Fallout 3, from what screenshots have shown. But am i going to add taht to the article? No.). The developers are making the game in the same way Fallout 3 was and they themselves say that it is "not a sequel, but a spin-off of the series." The theme and setting don't mean a thing here. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

What is a sequel, direct sequel, spin off, prequel etc can be complicated and has no "rules" as such. It depends on so many factors, and varies dramatically within different franchises. It's not uncommon for "direct" sequels in and franchise to have nothing to do with previous entries into the series, often only having to share a setting and minor elements. Some series have connected storyline over the whole franchise (Halo, Mass Effect, Half-Life for example), while others only have tenuous connections and story, events and characters of past games are pretty much forgotten and are only referenced (Elder Scrolls, Bioshock etc). Fallout as an example is just as complicated, when you think about it the connection between Fallout 1 and 2 is pretty weak. The storyline are separate, self contained and completely resolved by the end of the games, all but a handful of characters are even alive for both games (Tandi, Harold). In terms of any "rules" F2 could be considered a spin-off as easily as 3 or New Vegas or even Van Buren. The only shared elements is the overall setting and some factions (BOS in all games *sigh*, NCR in 2 and New Vegas, vaults everywhere). The only solid thing to go on is what the press and the developers call it. In this case, it is a spin-off. Rehevkor ✉ 16:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Don't forget Harold, hehe. Well he wasn't in Tactics if I remember correctly. Actually, now that I think about it, Fallout 1 and 2 were pretty different. Maybe it's just all the in-jokes and comic relief in the second one. Anyways, until the devs or publishers (or what have you) verify that it's an actual sequel, there's really no way we can say that this is one. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me just respond to all of this first of all by saying there's no need to get at each others throats here, I'm not trying to say that Fallout 3 is irrelevant. As a matter of fact I'm personally a bigger fan of Fallout 3 than I am of Fallout 1 and 2. Regardless though, the fact that Fallout New Vegas will continue the stories of Fallout 1 & 2 while being completely unrelated to Fallout 3 does in a way make it more relevant. Remember, all I said is that if there is one game that is the least relevant to the overall series, its probably Fallout 3 rather than New Vegas. I also didn't insist that what I suggested had to be put in the article page. But let it be understood that it still needs to be debated. I DO REALIZE THAT IT'S NOT A DIRECT SEQUEL. But the reason fans have a problem with the term "spin-off" is because it implies that the game has little significance to the series, which is not the case. 74.130.206.3 (talk) 02:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see any aggressiveness here, I think most were agreeing with you. Spin off isn't a huge stigma here, in fact most series fans seem to appreciate the distancing of F3. It's clearly a spin off, and trying to argue otherwise would most likely hinge on original researchy sequel "rules", which is a fallacy anyway. Disclosure: I've been a huge fan of the series since the first in '97, I'm also a huge fan of F3. Rehevkor ✉ 04:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it is wise to avoid using the "spin-off" term. Rather, explain in detail what it means and where it places the game. Users can generate their own conclusions. The point is, avoid using labels (unless the term is verified officially by developer or publisher, or definition is clearly defined). I'm listening to audio interviews; Josh Sawyer and Pete Hines don't use the term "spin-off". (FYI, I'm not familiar with Fallout series.) I'll try to define "spin-off". What is meaning of "spin-off"? Definition may be biased as I'm using Macquarie Dictionary, an Australian dictionary. Definition: Spin-off: an object, product or enterprise derived as an incidental or secondary development of a larger enterprise (a by-product). Is Fallout: New Vegas a by-product of Fallout 3? Is Fallout: New Vegas "smaller" than Fallout 3? Josh Sawyer in interview (link provided by 98.198.83.12) clearly said "...it is not a sequel to Fallout 3 but it's a stand-alone product...". Based on definition and audio interview, this means Fallout: New Vegas is not a spin-off (not a by-product) of Fallout 3. Davtra (talk) 07:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree 100% with what is said above (by Davtra). It's been stated that it's not a direct sequel, but at the same time, it's by no means "smaller" than Fallout 3, and it's certainly not a by-product of Fallout 3. It's probably best to avoid labeling it as a spin-off, seeing that it's not a spin-off by definition. I think basically the developers have referred to it as a spin-off simply because it's not related to Fallout 3 in any way, so it's not a sequel to it, and they don't have anything else to call it.74.130.206.3 (talk) 02:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the sentence "Fallout: New Vegas is not a direct sequel to Fallout 3 but rather a spin-off of the series" should be changed to "Fallout: New Vegas is not a direct sequel to Fallout 3 but rather a stand-alone product (and reference above audio interview)". Stand-alone means people don't need to play previous Fallout games in order to understand the events and characters in Fallout: New Vegas. Do you all agree with this change? Davtra (talk) 03:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds alright to me. Rehevkor ✉ 03:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds great 74.130.206.3 (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter to me, they mean the same thing. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought, what if in the article we referred to the game as the "successor to Fallout 3". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.206.3 (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

True in that it comes after Fallout 3 in the series, but that's it. Its more of a sucessor to Fallout 2 than 3, plus that it has jack all to do with 3 also might also be of note.=P-Wyrmalla —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.209.245 (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Classic Pack

In regards to the edits removed the names of the items included in this section and replaced the with generalisations, armoured vault 13 suit to armour, I've got to beg the question why, or if there was a page discussing this point, where us it to be found? The classic pack was announced at one point, but it seems as though that detail has been omitted from the Eb Games website since the "classic pack" was included in this article, but the details that were included in this article about the contents of the pack were sound- the advertisment for the pack was an official one- thus though it is debateble whether or not EB Games will ever release the pack, I find no reason why this article's run down of its contents was made all the more general; lest the reason that the pack was taken down to alter its contents, though unlikely.=P -Wyrmalla

You refer to this sentence, "The pack includes a weapon, apparel and health item that represent homage to Fallout and Fallout 2"? I believe it was unnecessary to list the in-game items because they did not help to understand the game. List of items and excessive detail is suitable for gaming and fan websites but not for Wikipedia. Non-experts should understand the article, so the in-game items were summarised. Thanks, Davtra (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Title image

The Title image for this page, showing the official Fallout: New Vegas title, seems to have been removed. This may be a bug, or because of copyright issues, etc, but could someone find another (legal) version of it promptly. -Wyrmalla

Thanks for the report. Rehevkor fixed it. Thanks, Davtra (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Pre-order editions

I've included some additional information on the release version of the game in the form of various pre-order packs. The original post of the Classic pack was removed as a result of the pack being prematurely released- that's why it couldn't be found on the EB Games website. I've included the webpage that I found this information on in the discription of my update in the main article-its from a fellow wiki- if someone could either add a link to this page from the retail versions section as a citable source, or go to the various sellers websites and cite the pages which contain this information from their, it'd be much appreciated.=P -Wyrmalla —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.45.158 (talk • contribs)

The wiki cannot be used as a source. I have added a less prominent mention of these packs referenced to Beth's own blog. Cannot use the store links as it'd be tantamount to advertising. Rehevkor ✉ 17:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Got'cha. I was just posting the info up in a semi note fashion to alight people to the information and thus someone else might have the time to write it up to Wikipedia standards; which you did promptly. Thanks for the insight. -Wyrmalla. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.45.158 (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

E3 Trailer

Another trailer has been released for the game,this time from E3, could someone add the details of it to this page?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-whnfIw_VfE&feature=player_embedded -Wyrmalla —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.45.158 (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It has been noted in article. It now requires a summary of the trailer. Davtra (talk) 01:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Discript of trailer contents added. As of present it is too long and should be summarised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyrmalla (talk • contribs) 23:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help! We will summarise the contents. Davtra (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

^^ Though the second one makes no mention towards the contents of the scenes shown in the ingame portion of the trailer, ie it could be an idea to note some of the locals shown or notable encounters-PC firing a rapid fire grenade launcher at a nightkin. Also it might be worth mentioning that the super mutants shown in the E3 trailer are still the temp models as a part of trivia for the section, though this seems an unecessary titbit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyrmalla (talk • contribs) 23:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. We can not go into detail. Wikipedia guidelines state that a concise summary is most appropriate. Davtra (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Got'cha. At least I can make some sort of contribution that can help make this a better article.=)Wyrmalla (talk) 00:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, you certainly did. Thank you Davtra (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the long drawn summaries of each trailor really necessary? It seems kind of pointless and it takes up alot of space on the article.Cathys Son (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing no. Rehevkor ✉ 17:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I've cut it. It's not appropriate for an encyclopedia article, without sources it's essentially someone's own analysis of the trailers and tantamount to original research. No actual game would receive blow by blow descriptions such as this, their trailers are no exception. Rehevkor ✉ 17:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Rehevkor is correct. @Cathys Son: the trailer description wasn't a summary. I haven't got around to summarising the trailers (for example, first trailer shows overview of New Vegas and music something is playing in the background; second trailer shows actual gameplay). Fullstop.  Davtra  ^(talk) 01:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I was just posting the details of the trailers so that someone else could take what was necessarry from the and put that into an article section up to wikipedia standards is all. No one seemed to be in the mood to write that section, so I laid the groundworks, which thus prompted an update. All I do with these articles is lay down all the available information so as someone else might make a decent article out of it, I haven't got the time to write up proper articles right now, and at least what I do causes others to take note and makes their work easier.=P —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyrmalla (talk • contribs) 02:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Canon?

I was wondering if Fallout: New Vegas is canon, or part of the main series. I mean it takes place 50 Years after Fallout 2, and even has the New California Republic in it. So is there any proof that everything is canon, or will it be like Fallout Tactics, or semi-canon, or not even canon at all. I was just wondering if any information about this has been leaked. 173.87.36.245 (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Fallout: New Vegas is Canon Yearsago (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know it's official standing, but as far as I'm aware it can be considered canon. See [1]; while not concrete it can be used as a guide. Rehevkor ✉ 00:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Its definately canon. Not only is it endorsed by Bethesda, but its made by the guys who made most of the Fallout series. Josh Sawyer also stated recently offhandledy that whilst parts of Van Buren are no longer considered canon, parts of Van Buren have been used in New Vegas and are now considered canon (alongside New Vegas).-Wyrmalla —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.209.245 (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Great points, Specifically, Information from Van Buren that does not contradict canon works, could be considered semi-canon, and now with inclusion of New Vegas are also now canon.Yearsago (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Teaser Trailer Section Removed

I removed the separate Teaser Trailer section. We don't need a plot summary of the teaser here, and it's relevant information is covered under the Plot Summary for the game and under the Marketing Trailers subsection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.58.228.206 (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

collectors edition info

anyway to get more details on the collectors edition stuff? the website seems to have few details. is this collectors edition LIMITED to a certain number or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.131.17 (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Reception

Any word on any reviews out there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathys Son (talk • contribs) 20:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Although you have worded it as a forum post (which is not allowed on Wikipedia talk pages) it is relevant to the article so I'll answer anyway. I'm fairly sure there's an embargo on reviews - Eurogamer are posting theirs tomorrow (19th Oct) so that's probably when everyone is as well. Alphathon™ (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if my vocabulary is not fit for wikipedias standards, but its the DISCUSSION TAB, NOT the article. I dont see how I address this page would matter. Lighten up homes Cathys Son (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not the words used, it's what was asked: "Any word on any reviews out there?" is a general question about the game - discussion pages are about the Wikipedia page they are connected to, not the subject of the page. If it helps, here is an except from WP:FORUM:

"In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance."

As it stands there are no reviews or reception listed in the article, so it is mildly relevant, but judging by your tone, I surmised that you were just asking a question about the game, rather than why there was nothing listed reviews-wise.

You can be as informal as you like (as long as you are civil) but should stay on topic (i.e. talking about the article).

Alphathon™ (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. If I misinterpreted you and you were just talking in a round-about kind of a way, then I apologise. Alphathon™ (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok ok. I guess you have a point. But Ive been checking the article all day for the reviews for the game. I figured maybe a magazine or web site would get an early copy of the game for reviewers, which is why I was asking. Now this section of discussion seems irrelavent. Sorry. Cathys Son (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it; there are many worse things in this world than unintentionally breaking a wikipedia rule, especially one which only exists to prevent clutter for the most part. Alphathon™ (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok. After reading numerous reviews, it seems as if the biggest issue with this game is the bugs and glitches. If these issues were to be fixed, would it change the outcome of the reviews? It seems to be a little unfair to judge a game based on a few bugs that could be fixed with a patch in the near future. Would their scores be altered or are all opinions final? Cathys Son (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

While the first post was mildly relevant to the page, this is certainly not. I'll say it again: this is not a discussion about Fallout: New Vegas, but the Wikipedia article about it. Alphathon™ (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Im referring to the RECEPTION section of the article. How the section could be altered if reviewers change their view on the game if the bugs are fixed. Also the games only been out for 13 hours here. It isnt likely that ALL reviewers have already beaten the game by the time the reviews were written, therefore they wouldnt be giving a full overview of the game. Just an experience theyre having at the point theyre at now. 167.230.104.94 (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Most reviewers (professional ones anyway, which are the only ones that are considered notable generally speaking) have had the game for a while but have been under embargo. Regardless, it goes without saying that if reviewers change their scores, the ones listed here would be changed - that's how Wikipedia works.

The thing is, that's not what you said; what you actually said was about the reviews themselves. You asked if all decisions are final; that is dependent on the website/magazine publishing them and/or the reviewer. You said the reviews were unfair for mentioning glitches (they weren't - many users do not have their consoles connected to the internet - bizarre I know, but true - and so cannot patch the game. Also, many games never get patched… Fallout 3 for example still has many a glitch and bug in all 3 versions); this is about the reviews themselves. Nowhere did anything you say link it with the contents of the article. If you don't think a review is fair, take it up with the reviewer, not Wikipedia.

P.S. I am assuming 167.230.104.94 = Cathys Son.

Alphathon™ (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not entirely true, not all professional review publications get prerelease access to most games and what that access entails depends on the specific game. It sounds like, from the reviewer at RPGFan, that publications who got prerelease access to New Vegas got a physical copy of the game while Fallout 3's prerelease reviews were conducted in ~18 hours (time might be off) in a 4 or 5 star hotel room with a Bethesda representative present to help them in any way they could. The more important thing to notice when comparing reviews is the mention of bugs and other problems which were carried over from Fallout 3 but which weren't mentioned in Fallout 3 reviews and how reviewers feel the game fairs compared to Fallout 3 (mention of both viewpoints might be a nice addition). UncannyGarlic (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Alphathon, do you have to be such a jerk? The guy is just voicing his legitimate questions, and you're trying to be a Wikipedia Law Enforcer; please stop. I know rules are rules, but he's not hurting anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.199.68.134 (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have to issue personal attacks? Wikipedia:NOTAFORUM is part of an important policy, no one has the right to ask someone to just ignore it. Rehevkor ✉ 19:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI, a question that violates Wikipedias policies is not a legitimate question by definition. Alphathon™ (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Alphatron. Really people, I'm just as excited about New Vegas, but Wikipedia is NOT at all the place to talk about it. Try Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, join the Fallout forums, or look at the Bethesda site, but PLEASE keep your personal opinions and non-informational discussions in your personal and non-informational lives. -- Imadeausername! (talk|contribs) 01:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

YOU ARE CORRECT I WAS WRONG TO QUESTION YOUR AUTHORITY ALL HAIL THE WIKIPEDIA OVERLORDS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.199.112.51 (talk) 05:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Overlords do not exist and are irrelevant to the article. Sentences in all caps are against wikipedias policies and standards. It is strictly preffered to sign in before posting in the discussion tab and signing off after. It is also required to have a broom handle up your anus during the posting of your comment.

P.S. If you already had a broom up your ass, I apologize. Cathys Son (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Please discontinue your personal attacks. This section has reached the end of useful discussion. ferret (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack; I'm targeting a GROUP of idiots rather than individuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.199.17.115 (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from. Wikipedia discussions can get very heated, and I myself have been involved in quite a few. However, I have to agree wholeheartedly with ferret in that this section, originally a simple question about when reviews would be posted on Wikipedia for this article, has turned into a verbal Wikibrawl. To answer the question, most often, most of the reviews (especially those not produced by large gaming magazines or other large corporations) will come out AFTER the game has been released. Otherwise, check the big game magazines (Official XBox Magazine, Gameinformer, PlayStation Magazine, etc.) for about 6 months prior (try checking the websites) to see if they have covered the game in particular. Now, in New Vegas' case, that obviously is not what happened, but back on the subject of the appalling hostility between people here, can we at least TRY to be civil and dignified? Would you tell your mother she had a "broom up her ass?" Really, people. Have some class. -- Imadeausername! (talk|contribs) 01:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm done "issuing personal attacks" or whatever; however, I was just standing up for Cathys Sons because Alphathon was leaning a bit towards being egomaniacal and having control over Cathys Sons' question. Shouldn't such a diehard Wiki Person know not to bite the new people?

Its squashed. I ask a question and instead of an answer I get bashed. Im currently discussing the possibility of a forum ,a more free speaking section on the site, with other users. Cathys Son (talk) 02:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The large quotes should probably be summarized, with common points being sourced to multiple articles to demonstrate that it is a common opinion. UncannyGarlic (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Article Confliction

In the introduction paragraph, it states that Fallout: New Vegas takes place 3 years after the events of Fallout 3, putting in the year 2280 C.E. However, the setting paragraph states clearly that Fallout: New Vegas takes place 4 years after Fallout 3, in the year 2281 C.E. I think, but am not sure, that it is 3 years after Fallout 3, but would like someone to check this and fix the problem. My internet is limited, and I cannot connect to just about any site but Wikipedia. Therefore, I again ask for someone to find this out and fix this issue. -- Imadeausername! (talk|contribs) 01:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Allegations that reviews have been delayed under pressure from publisher

Dan Hsu, former editorial director of 1Up and head of Bitmob, has tweeted allegations that a publication delayed publishing it's review under pressure from Bethesda and that there are rumors of two other sites doing the same thing, Bethesda denies the allegations. I'm dubious about whether or not this can be considered a reliable source due to being a twitter feed but the author has traditionally been considered a reliable source when published. Thought I'd see whether this deserves mention yet (especially considering that he didn't want to mention names) or if it needs to go through a more official medium first. [Here's a link to a summary of the posts in question], and a [link to the twitter feed]. UncannyGarlic (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)