Talk:Fallout: New Vegas/Archive 1

Archive 1

Opener

I've added a small plot summery in order to expand the introduction of the article, to try and fix the current problems. Peer review/expansion/revision would be greatly appreciated - just trying to get the article looking spick and span for potential GA status :) Kiefer (user) (talk) 10:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

The back of the case for the Xbox 360 version calls it "the follow up to Fallout 3." Possibly a better wording? 98.198.83.12 (talk) 08:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up is too vague and implies that it is a sequel (i.e. it continues the story of Fallout 3 in some way, or at least follows some of the same characters). Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.ðɒn/ ^(talk) 14:16, 24 February 2011 (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)

"That's not entirely true, not all professional review publications get prerelease access to most games… "

True, but I said most, not all (minor quibble). Also, I wasn't talking about "most games", but FO:NV specifically.

" …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."

True, but we're talking about New Vegas, not FO3, so it's not really relevant (and kinda just backs up what I said about them having NV pre-release, no?). I wasn't making a general statement about all games, but talking about NV specifically.

"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)."

Again, very true, but that's not what we were talking about.

I think most of what you have said is true (other than the "That's not entirely true" part, as it makes the assumption that I was talking about games in general), but not really what was being discussed. I get the feeling you just mis-read one sentence somewhere or something. Still, it's all valid stuff article-wise (if we can get reviewers comparisons between NV and 3 would certainly be good). Alphathon™ (talk) 01:15, 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)

I'd like to add that GBomb reference is NOT necessary considering they themselves contain a large encyclopedia site for which they host a reception of their own site...why is Wikipedia citing them as anything? It's like citing a cite that cites itself...Eurogamer, GameSpot, IGN - these are topsites and Tier 1 sites that should be mentioned. Rest should be referenced lightly. 72.67.50.45 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

GiantBomb is a special case where discretion must be used. The site is useable as a source when citing the professional reviewers. It is not acceptable to cite anything from the site's user submitted content.See WP:VG/RS - X201 (talk) 09:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The last review, from "ViP Media's Austin Beemer" is rife with spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors and should be considered for removal. Furthermore, I don't believe that it links to a specific article, so I think that Mr. Beemer has merely put his own comments/review on the page to draw attention to himself. 214.26.37.12 (talk) 11:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)jonesgp1996

 Done. I'm not sure about the spelling (Firefox didn't find any errors but they may simply have been spelled the same as a different word, like when people misspell there as their etc) but the grammar/punctuation was is pretty bad. Regardless though, it's non-notable (not from a "major" source and didn't really add anything other than "I was worried but it was good" anyway), unsourced and was an inappropriate use of quotation (although other reviews in the section are as well; I think some copy-editing is in order). Alphathon™ (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be a lot of changes on this article today. The first couple definitely long winded and then the messed up links. That last edit is fine. This is due to the Gamebryo engine running not the best on PS3 unfortunately. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.84.247 (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

1 - It's already discussed in the "Release" section

2 - We shouldn't be going out of our way to endorse a particular port. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 00:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with point one. Last change passable but not really needed. Article fine as was and second new editor shouldn't have got caught up.

Having read the edit comments, there is no blatant endorsment as such. Release information covers issues and clearly infers to users which version better. It would appear that Lenin needs to improve his handling of new editors as his comments were at times unqualified and unconstructive. Unless of course he is new himself and is still learning.

Still, we all learn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.246.166 (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2014 (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)

IGN Review is UK, not US

Noticed the score is listed as a 9 from IGN, but that was the UK version. This is attributed to the UK in the text but not in the table.

The US version gave a an 8.5 to the console versions and a 9 to PC. It should probably be corrected or specified that it's from the UK version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.126.137.162 (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done Alphathon™ (talk) 09:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Article needs much improvement

This article is written in a largely pre-release fashion, and a LOT of information needs to be made up-to-date. Sections such as the introduction need to be improved, and maybe some templates added so editors know what needs to be done. I would suggest a cleanup template, first and foremost. Vrinan (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Sound track

I believe the sound track deserves a listing in this article, on the account that it uses third-party songs, just as any movie would. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.89.165.44 (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to a released physical soundtrack or just the songs used in the game? Because without some good sources listing the latter would not be appropriate and tantamount to original research (if you want this information you could try The Vault wiki). Either way using 3rd party songs has never been unusual for any game, Fallout 1 did it for example. Rehevkor ✉ 15:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I think an inclusion of the game's soundtrack would be appropriate, considering it's wide selection of 'classic' third-party songs. As Rehevkor had said, the Fallout wikia may or may not be be an acceptable source. Tvaiello (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Last paragraph of Reception

The last paragraph of Reception is the most unprofessional and biased bit of writing I have ever seen on Wikipedia.

"As of November 8, 2010 the game has shipped 5 million copies worldwide,[58] achieving revenue of $300 million. Sad thing is, The PC version is quit pointless mainly because most get it for the Achievements. Well PC players will be sad to see The makers decided to go with steam, instead of sticking with GFWL.[59]"

1.) The many spelling and grammatical errors are annoying, but I wouldn't have posted if that were my only concern. 2.) This is written from the perspective of an Xbox 360 gamer. They seem to think that the only reason people play on PC is to get more points on their XBox Live profiles. They also fail to note that Steam has its own achievement system. 3.) The source for these claims not only has nothing to do with PC gamers being upset about the game using Steam, it also claims that the game was available with Games For Windows Live as well as Steam. Making this whole immature debacle pointless.

I should not have to hear what the "Sad thing is" with a highly biased opinion when reading Wikipedia. This is meant to be professional.

24.8.3.30 (talk) 08:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with that entirely. If you take a look now though you'll see it was already undone by 128.111.116.107. The edit in question was actually only performed at 07:25 (UTC), so less than an hour before you posted here (check the page history). In future if you see something like that, feel free to remove it/undo the edit since it does not comply with WP:NPOV. Alphathon™ (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Game Location

As to the {citation needed} tag in the synopsis paragraph; i can confrim (and it can be verified via atlas) that there are several locations on the arizona side of lake meade. Specifically the main legion camp. As for the reference to california, im not too sure about that. there is a mojave outpost i believe, in game, that looks like its sitting on the nv-ca border in the SW portion of the map —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.191.255.5 (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is pretty obvious if you look at an atlas or Google Maps or whatever that it crosses those states. The problem is that it needs a source since it is not "common knowledge". Alphathon™ (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how something on the most basic of maps can't be considered common knowledge. And just what sort of source could someone find to verify this supposedly non-common knowledge? Do we need a cartographer to write a blog stating that, yes, when you cross the river you're in Arizona so that then we can then cite *that*? That bar for common knowledge seems prohibitively low. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.173.134.91 (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It's very simple, if it's being challenged by anyone (and it is), then you need a source. And doing research in an atlas counts as original research, which is not acceptable. Like it or not, that's the rules on wikipedia, and when you're at popular articles with lots of traffic, it's that much more likely it'll be strictly enforced. Sergecross73 msg me 16:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the "common knowledge" contention doesn't apply to the actual looking in the atlas - "Geographic pieces of information easily verified by a nonspecialized map ("Dallas is in Texas")" is listed under Acceptable examples of common knowledge on WP:CK.

I don't recall whether the river itself is ever actually named in the game (it probably is, I just don't remember), but the Hoover Dam certainly is, so Arizona can probably be safely asserted as "common knowledge" when used along with a citation to the game itself that places in-game territory east of the dam. Quite how this citation would be constructed I don't know, but it seems to be within the relms of Wikipedia's guidelines.

California on the other hand is a little trickier to prove. I'm fairly certain that the outpost is either on or near the border, and that there is visitable territory within California. However, since there are no landmarks to prove where the border is, I don't see how it can be proven without a quote from a dev or something - it is difficult to tell how closely/accurately the game follows reality etc. so we can't use measurements along the road or anything like that, and doing so would probably be considered OR anyway.

Incidentally, the article currently doesn't even have the cn tag, and hasn't had for some time.

Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 22:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Begin a dedicated page for Fallout: New Vegas downloadable content?

Perhaps it is time to create a new page that covers the expansion packs for Fallout: New Vegas? As of my writing this, FNV: Dead Money has been released, with FNV: Honest Hearts to follow in seven days, as well as two more DLC packs by the end of 2011.

Supporting evidence: Fallout 3's expansion packs have a separate Wikipedia page here: Fallout 3 expansions. I volunteer to create the first version of the page, but I ask for advice on whether to name it "Fallout: New Vegas expansions" or "Fallout: New Vegas downloadable content".

Culveyhouse (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd say keep it here for now, since it is a sub-topic of New Vegas, and when it gets long enough, split it into it's own article (rather than simply creating a new article now). Providing you can get enough unique info (on plot etc) it shouldn't take much to be split-worthy. As it stands at the moment, the info on the page isn't really sufficient to be split, but as soon as it gets there, I see no reason no to. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 23:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Good point, we'll leave it in its current topic area, and perhaps I'll clean it up a little once FNV: Honest Hearts is released next week (May 17th). Once there are three DLC packs released, then that may be enough to create a new page (or expand the section with a large table). Culveyhouse (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Big Empty

« Warning, possible spoilers »

Earlier today, 75.68.50.138 added some notes to the Old World Blues section about the Big Empty's mention in Dead Money. Since this is not really about Old World Blues, I have cut it down and reworded it, but it got me thinking: would a section about the Big Empty be useful/appropriate (either within the DLC section or somewhere else in the article)? It is briefly mentioned at least once in the main game (by Veronica, as where Father Elijah went off to), then in Dead Money, as where Elijah has been, where he got his stuff from etc, and also in relation to Christine's back-story. It is also due to be the setting of Old World Blues, which is probably where most of the info will come from (when its released).

The reason I suggest this is that it seems it will be a significant location, which clearly relates to both Dead Money and Old World Blues, and as a setting ties them both together (and thus isn't just relevant to one of them). If this weren't relevant to more than one of them, it'd almost certainly just end up as part of the description of the DLC (like the Setting section in the main bit of the article), but since it is, it seems to make sense that it be further discussed in a separate (sub)section. Of course if this is done, we'd have to be careful not to go beyond the purview of Wikipedia (we obviously don't need to go into as much detail as the Fallout wiki).

Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 20:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

"concentrated" vs. "directly"

The source uses the word "directly", so that should be used. The difference is subjective anyway. Яehevkor ✉ 13:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The difference is only subjective because I tried the word "concentrated" *after* getting reverted in every more accurate wording I attempted. "Concentrated" was an attempt to get something *vaguely* accurate past the blockade. But no, it has to stand exactly as written, because it's a direct quote from a review. I never realized before that only direct quotes were allowed, nor that reviews knew more about a game than the writers or the game itself, but I'm new here.

So please, don't dismiss my complaints as purely subjective when in fact I'm arguing that the entire sentence is blatantly wrong. I'll leave it alone until I find a developer's blog or something to disprove the existing source, but "concentrated" versus "directly" isn't the problem at all, and it's disingenuous to appeal to a bad source and a supposedly subtle difference to manufacture consensus.99.173.134.91 (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I never suggested your complaints were subjective, just the difference between the words. Яehevkor ✉ 16:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Inon Zur section.

"The team employed again Inon Zur,"

I dont know why, but this does not look right to me. Is it not;

"The team again employed Inon Zur," ? 82.5.78.247 (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done Яehevkor ✉ 21:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Reception issues

Someone might rephrase the two big quotes, maybe cite more reviews and/or expand these (there are 12 revs already in the infobox, don't add any more, but here are these that I removed if you want to cite them:). --Niemti (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

GAN Process

I posted a review for the GAN process, and have noted some problems with the page. Please visit my review and provide feedback! TI. Gracchus (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Music

Major licensed tracks

• "It's a Sin" – Eddy Arnold
• "Stars of the Midnight Range" – Johnny Bond
• "Love Me as Though There Were No Tomorrow" – Nat King Cole
• "Orange Colored Sky" – Nat King Cole
• "Something's Gotta Give" – Bing Crosby
• "Mad About the Boy" – Helen Forrest
• "Lucky Day" - Judy Garland
• "It's a Sin to Tell a Lie" – The Ink Spots
• "Jingle Jangle Jingle" – Kay Kyser
• "Johnny Guitar" – Peggy Lee
• "Why Don't You Do Right?" – Peggy Lee
• "Ain't That a Kick in the Head?" – Dean Martin
• "Heartaches by the Number" – Guy Mitchell
• "Big Iron" – Marty Robbins
• "Blue Moon" – Frank Sinatra
• "Hangover Heart" – Hank Thompson

Original compositions

• "Cobwebs and Rainbows" – J.E. Sawyer
• "Home on the Wastes" – J.E. Sawyer and Nathaniel Chapman
• "Streets of New Reno" – J.E. Sawyer and Nathaniel Chapman
• "New Vegas Valley" – J.E. Sawyer and James Melilli
• "Begin Again" – Justin Bell, Chris Avellone, Mikey Dowling, and Stephanie DeBrule

Additional licensed tracks

• "Concerto For 2 Violins in D Minor - 2: Allegro Ma Non Troppo" – J.S. Bach
• "Jazz Club Blues" – Harry Bluestone
• "Where Have You Been All My Life?" – Hal David and John Cacavas
• "Slow Sax" – Christof Dejean
• "Flower Duet" from Lakmé - Léo Delibes
• "In the Shadow of the Valley” – Lost Weekend Western Swing Band
• "Let's Ride Into the Sunset Together" – Lost Weekend Western Swing Band
• "Lone Star" – Lost Weekend Western Swing Band
• "Sleepy Town Blues" – Harry Lubin
• "Spring Song" (Op 62, No 6) - Felix Mendelssohn
• "Piano Concerto No. 21 in C Major - 2: Andante" – W.A. Mozart
• "Joe Cool" – Nino Nardini
• "Blues For You” – Gabriel Pares
• "Goin' Under" – Darrell Wayne Perry and Tommy Smith
• "I'm Movin' Out" – The Roues Brothers
• "Sit and Dream" – Pete Thomas
• "I'm So Blue" – Katie Thompson
• "American Swing" – Gerhard Trede
• "Hallo Mister X" – Gerhard Trede
• "Jazz Blues" – Gerhard Trede
• "Manhattan" – Gerhard Trede
• "Slow Bounce" – Gerhard Trede
• "Strahlende Trompete" – Gerhard Trede
• "Von Spanien Nach Südamerika" – Gerhard Trede
• "Concerto Grosso no. 10 in B Minor - 1: Allegro" – Antonio Vivaldi
• "Concerto Grosso no. 10 in B Minor - 3: Allegro" – Antonio Vivaldi
• "Four Seasons No. 4, Winter - 2: Largo" – Antonio Vivaldi
• "Ride of the Valkyries" – Richard Wagner
• "Big Note Blues (Lazy Day Blues)" – Bert Weedon
• "China Doll (Happy Times)" - Bert Weedon
• "Rockin' at the Roundhouse (Roundhouse Rock)" – Bert Weedon

I don't think it's even important. --Niemti (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

About plot synopses...

As I've been discussing with Niemti, I believe the plot synopses parts of the article are holding back its overall quality level. In addition to the fact that they have problems with style, tone, and verification, F:NV features a plot line that diverges pretty wildly depending on your choices. For instance, the plot synopsis for the original game claims you kill Benny in Caesar's camp. Spoilers aside, that's only one of easily half a dozen ways to off the guy.

The easiest way to deal with this would be to simply remove the un-sourced sections of plot and setting for the main game and expansion, and perhaps add something about how player choices affect the story- that's a big part of the game, and would be much easier to find solid reporting on.

However, I personally kind of like a good, concise, and not-too-spoiler-y plot section in a game article, as hard as they are to source, and as much as many might argue they don't actually belong on a Wikipedia page in the first place. Anyone have any ideas about how to resolve this? Feel free to respond here or in the good article section.

Thanks,

TI. Gracchus (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it's an open world game after all. --Niemti (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Also I think development could be expanded, as Sawyer did many interviews etc. But that's purely optional. --Niemti (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fallout: New Vegas/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TI.Gracchus (talk · contribs) 18:08, 28 February 2013‎ (UTC)

Ok, this is my first GAN review, so please bear with me.

Fallout: New Vegas is a game I know and love, and though this article avoids all GAN quick-fails, there are still some serious problems with the article that are currently between it and approval.

First, what is right about the article. This article is comprehensive, and has obviously been written with love. It is also neutral, stable, and seems to comply with copyrights, although I will admit I'm not a copyright expert and plan to examine this more closely. Much of the article also complies with Wikipedia style guidelines, and although there are some small errors, these can be corrected.

The two big problems with this article are the tone and style in the "story" sections of the article and citations. There are large blocks of the article, including the introduction, the story section of the main game and of the expansion packs, as well as much of the top info box, the game requirements table, and the game music list, that totally lack citations. In addition, the quality of citations is also a factor. Bethesda sources are not "third party," and blogs are generally not allowed, using Bethesda's official page, their forums, or their blogs are (according to my understanding) not actually allowed. There are some links to what appear to be community pages, such as Xbox360Achievements.org and PS3Trophies.org. Some of the sources are also to very small news outlets whose opinions may not carry sufficient weight to be valid sources, or are more blogs than news outlets, such as Gamesauce or VG247. Further, there are are claims that are not sufficiently backed up by the sources. For instance, 7b and 10d do not list all of the factions listed in the sentence they seem to cite, which might be misleading.

I can provided a detailed breakdown of which citations work and which ones don't if asked, but bringing this page into compliance with citation policy might involve a lot of extra research or deleting large parts of the page. It seems to me that this would make the GAN a good candidate for immediate failure, but I'm inexperienced and would really value feedback from the nominator and contributor.

Also, this page was listed as having a review, but it did not appear. If I've made some kind of error, please let me know.

TI. Gracchus (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

• The GA citing of content is only for "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons." A thing to avoid is Asking for inline citations beyond those required by the criteria, in particular, asking for "more" inline citations even though all statements in the required categories are already cited. (Inline citations are not decorative elements, and GA does not have any "one citation per sentence" or "one citation per paragraph" rules.) If you think there is anything in particular that needs to be sourced in his light, you can point it out.
• The intro (lead section, aka "lede" as many people here call it for some strange reason) should have no references, because it's only a summary of the article.
• I'm actually confused what these 2 refs are supposed to be sourcing there, because I think they mention just none of these factions. It was strange so I just removed them. I must say I didn't check any references that I didn't insert here, I briefly just checked the content for being factual according to my knowledge. (Most of my work here involved all kinds of copyedit and making it look and read better, not writing, which was mostly done by 3 other guys.)
• Gamesauce is an interview with Sawyer and I think VG247 as a rather major professional blog is perfectly good for reporting about the DLC being released, which is not their research or opinion or anything like that. I don't know what would be any better websites for the trophies.
• Where's this rule about official websites? The forum post is by their main admin, seems legit.

I must say my own problem is with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fallout-vegas-special-edition.jpg because it's not really needed and is an unfree image (it wouldn't be a problem if it was a photo that an user did, but it isn't). If you want you can go and remove it. --Niemti (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Gracchus here again!

Thanks so much for the great feedback, and clarification on stuff like inline citation guidelines and the policy on the intro. I also agree with you on the box art picture- safest just to get rid of it.

As to your other concerns, I did some research, clicked a bunch of links, and now bring you this updated report. In-line citations are, as you point out, only needed if content is likely to be challenged. However, all content on any article must be verifiable, that is, they must come from a proper source. These sources have to be third, party, and need to have some sort of oversight on them. Scientific articles have peer review, major media outlets have to maintain journalistic integrity to survive, etc. Ordinarily, blogs are out, but given their importance when it comes to video game review, I think they’re OK to include, now that you make the point.

However, this means that any Bethesda source is automatically not usable, because they’re talking about their own game. This includes info on their website, blog, twitter feed, and any press releases they offer up. Valve is also a questionable source, because they’re selling the game, and thus are in a clear conflict of interest.

So what does this mean?

Well, I read through all the sources, except videos, books, magazines, and the review section, which I more or less trust to be accurate. Altogether, about a third of the sources for this page are not relevant to their citation, do not supply all of the information cited in the citation, or otherwise do not meet Wikipedia’s standards as sources.

This means that much of the info box, almost all of the second paragraph of “Setting,” the second and third paragraphs of “Plot,” the System Requirements info box, the entire list of audio tracks, the first two paragraphs of “Release,” the entirety of “Honest Hearts,” almost all of “Old World Blues,” anything that isn’t cited as [37] in “Lonesome Road,” all of “Gunner Runner’s Arsenal and Courier’s Stash,” and selected other parts of the article (see my analysis of the source list below) are either unverifiable or consist entirely of original research.

The only think I can think of that would bring the article into “good article” territory would be to resource all of those portions or simply delete them. :(

I know it seems silly, but those are Wikipedia’s standards as I understand them. It makes creating articles on smaller musicians, videogames, webcomics, and other modern media very difficult to do.

It seems to me that good article status for this page might need to wait for a while. Thoughts?

List of citation statuses:

1) Dead 2) Not relevant 3) Good 4) Good, but no info for AU/JP 5) Not relevant 6) Not relevant 7) Video 8) Good 9) No access, magazine 10) a. good, b. Un-cited direct quote, also confusing in this context, should probably just be removed. c. good d. good e. good 11) Magazine 12) Video 13) Good 14) a. good, b. good 15) Video 16) Good 17) not official – community site 18) Good 19) not official – community site 20) Bethesda source - BBS 21) Video 22) Book – Guinness 23) Video 24) Lots of great info on the use of music in the game. The entire table of tracks is original research. 25) Bethesda source – press release 26) Bethesda source – official site Constitutes all of release except last paragraph 27) Good, but only includes Feb 10 and 7 release dates for America and “Europe” respectively 28) Good, but no mention of “Father Elijah,” and reaches a bit beyond information included in the article. Possibly too many inline citations. 29) Bethesda source – blog 30) Good 31) Good 32) Bethesda source – blog 33) Questionable – information provided by a game vendor. Possible conflict of interest. 34) Bethesda source – Bethesda employee twitter feed 35) Bethesda source – blog 36) Good 37) Good 38) Bethesda source – blog 39) Questionable – information provided by a game vendor. Possible conflict of interest. 40) Good 41) Good

42 – 66 look fine, but I didn’t click them all- all from reputable sources, content seems to match source.

67 & 70 Bethesda source – blog 72) Some guy’s YouTube video

TI. Gracchus (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually such sources are perfectly okay (the following is about biographies of living persons, which have additional scrutiny on Wikipedia):

"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources. This policy also applies to pages on social networking sites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook." (Bolded out as in original.)

There's nothing about official websites in any GA policies or guidelines, and official websites are so good they're actually even encouraged for external links. --Niemti (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Videos and magazines/books are also perfectly "good". --Niemti (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

But I removed Some guy’s YouTube video. :) Also the image. "Unduly self-serving" or "an exceptional claim" would mean a claim of, say, Bethesda's admin saying "it's the best game ever!", to source "it is the best game ever" - I think you know what I mean. I can't say anything about the songs, but I notified the original writers. (I actually think it's all trivia.) --Niemti (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I removed the music, unless there's an acrtual soundtrack it's all trivia. --Niemti (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and you can compare to the GA article Fallout 3. --Niemti (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi again!

Thanks for all the good guidance- I'm sure there are those who would argue that Bethesda is describing one of its products, and not technically describing itself when it talks about its games, but I'm not one of those people. Given that instruction, however, I'm not going to abandon common sense for the set of splitting hairs. Also, I know sources like book, magazine and video are good, I simply didn't comment on them because I couldn't check them from where I am.

However, there are still several citations (as I noted in the list) that aren't actually citing sources to support the claim in the article. In addition, the much general information infobox, system requirements infobox, the second paragraph of "Setting" (except the last two sentences), the last two paragraphs of "Plot," everything after the [34] citation in "Honest Hearts," the second paragraph of "Old World Blues," and everything after [38] in the second paragraph of "Lonesome Road" seem to constitute original research, and are also where tone and style seem to break down the most.

Thanks again for your contributions and patience as we work through this! I hate to be such a drag on the process, but for what it's worth I'm learning quite a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TI. Gracchus (talk • contribs) 03:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC) And I forgot to sign. My bad. :( TI. Gracchus (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems that the original authors didn't show up in a week after I notified them, probably retired from Wikipedia. You can remove anything that you think is dubious or should be sourced, just place it in talk page and maybe it will be done later (I don't think it would be any essential content). Actually I didn't play New Vegas yet (but I finished Fallout 1-3 and almost finished Tactics about 10 years ago) so I can't even really comment on anything plot related. --Niemti (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you still around? --Niemti (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Closing since it's yet another stalled review. Wizardman 04:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

DLC plot that can be rewritten and restored (see above)

After the First Battle of Hoover Dam, Caesar sent Ulysses to Great Salt Lake to rally the White Legs to destroy New Canaan. With his help, the White Legs found a large supply of weapons artillery. The White Legs then destroyed New Canaan, sending the Burned Man and the New Canaanites to the Zion Canyon, where the Dead Horses stand with them against Caesar. The Courier then arrives in the Zion Canyon and meets the Burned Man who is surprised that it is a different Courier than Ulysses that came to him, as he had figured Ulysses would come to murder him. This sparks the beginning of Honest Hearts.

focusing on Ulysses, a former Frumentarii of Caesar who had discovered the "Divide": an emerging post-war community recently annexed by the New California Republic. In response, the Legion sent a small army to seize the Divide for itself. At the same time, NCR ordered the Courier to deliver a package that ultimately proved to be the arming code for the region's abandoned missile silos. This delivery detonated the nuclear warheads within after a short delay, trapping the armies of the NCR and the Legion and turning the Divide into a tornado strewn land full of ghouls, radiation, Deathclaws and other dangers. Ulysses holds the Courier to be responsible for the unintentional destruction of the Divide, and when he is ordered to deliver the Platinum Chip, he declines when he realizes the Courier survived, intending to allow various factions seeking the chip to kill the Courier instead of him personally. Surviving Benny's ambush, Ulysses contacts the Courier and asks him/her to enter the Divide for a final confrontation, triggering the start of Lonesome Road.

Old World Blues focuses on the Think Tank, who had captured Father Elijah for brief seconds and had then come into contact with Ulysses who had rescued Christine Royce. Holotapes of Ulysses conversation with Christine were left in the Big Empty. Upon discovering a crashed satellite at a drive-in theater just outside Nipton, the Courier is kidnapped by the Think Tank and his/her brain, spine, and heart are removed, only to be replaced by cybernetic synthetic parts of the three. The Courier is then presented with the choice of either attacking the Think Tank or fighting with it against a greater threat, starting the story of Old World Blues.

--Niemti (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Fallout connection

Per [2] there is apparently no shared development even though there are reliable sources saying so? To name a few Scott Everts (F1 and 2), Chris Avellone, Brian Menze, Aaron Brown.. could be more. Яehevkor ✉ 17:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's keep this discussion centralized at Talk:Fallout_(series)#Minor_edit_war  czar ♔ 22:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The bombs and House

I think it should be mentioned somewhere that not ALL the bombs hit Vegas, because Mr House says that he shot down most (or some I can't remember) of the bombs with his missiles before they hit, this is further proved by Raul (who was alive before the war and saw the bombs fall from Mexico City), stating the following, "I saw House's missile flying up and hitting the bombs" or something along those lines. Benners88 (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

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)no

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

I'm just gonna say this but Victor is a securitron not a TV robot, but I played New Vegas multiple times and if you ask Victor he confirms what he is. Just search securitron in one tab and Fallout New Vegas Victor in another, nuff said. Benners88 (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

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?)

It is not a sequel because it was not developed by Bethesda. It's that simple. Is it canon? Yes, until or unless Bethesda retcons parts or all of it. UncannyGarlic (talk) 07:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me remind you all this: If you go to the Lone Wolf Radio Station ingame, there is a Wasteland Survival Guide inside, now that may just be an easter egg by the makers but still, just saw this and thought I should mention that. Benners88 (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2015 (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)

I know this is settled but I'm going to add on more info, if you ask ask the lady who owns Vault 21 in the game she doesn't act/sound like she knows you, now you may be thinking that maybe she forgot about the PC but if you ask her if she knows Doc she still remembers him and his nickname. Benners88 (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Is Mission Mojave the best community patch to take note of?

I find it odd that in the "release" section the article provides a link to Mission Mojave: Ultimate Edition's mod page as a reference to how many bugs has been fixed. First of all, Mission Mojave doesn't "fix" just bugs, but also has cosmetic changes- take note of the second picture on the Nexus mod page, so 27,000 records edited isn't an exact measure on the amount of bugs fixed. Second, the mod page is not a reliable source. The mod has not received any significant coverage from the video game media, and there are many other community patches, such as Yukichigai Unofficial Patch, which is more recent and does not contain non-bugfix game changes. I suggest that this passage should be deleted. Tinyds (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done --The1337gamer (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Fallout: New Vegas DLC

Why do Fallout 3 & 4 get their own pages for DLC while New Vegas only has a section on the article's page dedicated to it? Is the DLC in New Vegas not regarded as significant as Fallout 3 & 4? 128.227.135.147 (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fallout: New Vegas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6AvEZZJAf?url=http://www.gamesradar.com/golden-joystick-awards-2011-all-winners/ to http://www.gamesradar.com/golden-joystick-awards-2011-all-winners/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fallout: New Vegas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150316034917/http://www.1up.com/previews/fallout-3_7 to http://www.1up.com/previews/fallout-3_7

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

New California fan-made mod

Why is New California, a fan-made mod, mentioned on the page? There are thousands of New Vegas mods out there and this one is highlighted here with its own section. Seems to me like a promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:45B:C300:2D55:970C:2C19:5E3C (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Because it's has its own article due to in depth coverage by reliable secondary sources. It's entirely appropriate to denote a second notable topic related to this one. -- ferret (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Category:LGBT-related video games reverted?

@Ferret: I think that there is definitely sufficient coverage of gay and lesbian characters in the game to be in the category for LGBT-related video games; Arcade Gannon, Christine Royce, Veronica Santangelo, Corporal Betsy, and the Confirmed Bachelor & Cherchez La Femme traits. Here's some sources I found from a cursory search: 1 2 3 4 5 6 I think there's definitely more sources that cover this, but this is what I was able to find quickly. Waxworker (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Waxworker: There's an important distinction between games that simply include LGBT options or characters, without any particular note or focus (As most Bethesda games do), and games that explicitly have and focus on LGBT themes. New Vegas has no particular focus on LGBT themes or topics. In fact, it makes no commentary really at all, it simply is (One could argue that "simply is" is the best kind of representation, but that's beyond the point). Categories are suppose to be defining traits of a game. I, at least, would never be asked "What's a great LGBT game?" and think of any Bethesda title. In short, I feel this category implies more about New Vegas than it should. There may be a more tightly defined category that would fit, such as games featuring same-sex marriage? -- ferret (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ferret: The category "LGBT-related video games" is defined as "This category is for video games that feature LGBT characters as playable characters, as major characters essential to advancing the plot, or gameplay explorations of sexuality or gender that deviate from the hetero-normative." The player character can be gay through the Confirmed Bachelor or Cherchez La Femme traits, and Arcade Gannon and Veronica are major characters with their own personal quests. Christine Royce is a major part of the Dead Money expansion, and Veronica's ex-girlfriend. I think there's significant coverage on the LGBT aspects of the game, and New Vegas has been cited for having well-written gay characters. A game doesn't have to be 'gay commentary' to be in the category, the category is meant for games with significant LGBT representation, which New Vegas has, as shown by the sources listed, among others. Waxworker (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I am not a fan of the generic broadness of the category name. I feel at best New Vegas skirts by on the skin of its teeth to meet the definition given. -- ferret (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Tale of Two Wastelands

I found three sources (and numerous which mention this mod but aren't focused around it) discussing this mod for Fallout New Vegas, which I believe is notable enough to warrant a mention in this article. I'll be adding them onto the Mods section if no one has any objection.

https://www.pcgamer.com/mod-that-merges-fallout-3-and-new-vegas-gets-long-awaited-total-rebuild/ https://bloody-disgusting.com/video-games/3536003/fallout-new-vegas-mod-tale-two-wastelands-updated-total-rebuild https://www.unilad.co.uk/gaming/mod-that-merges-fallout-3-and-new-vegas-gets-awesome-rebuild// Tinyds (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tinyds: PCGamer is the only one of those that is solidly a reliable secondary source. Try using WP:VG/RS's custom reliable source search to see if you can find more. -- ferret (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ferret: I found two more from sources listed on the VG sources page, are they enough?

https://www.gamezone.de/Fallout-3-Spiel-23088/News/total-conversion-mod-vereinigung-new-vegas-1270554/

https://www.gry-online.pl/newsroom/tale-of-two-wastelands-mod-laczy-fallout-3-i-fallout-new-vegas-w/zf1b6c3

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-10-08-fallout-3-dlc-sized-mod-released-after-five-years-development (just a mention) Tinyds (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Between those four reliable sources, that should be enough to make a small paragraph. -- ferret (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Specific Mod Highlights Unnecessary or at least Too Long

Seems to me the comparative size of the list of specific Mods with their descriptions and scandals is more recency bias than actual noteworthy information. Especially the drama about The Frontier; how does that have anything to do with the game itself? To my best guess, whoever wrote those is probably someone who spends a lot of their time engaging in the Fallout fandom and thus thinks these mods are being discussed more than they actually are in the wider culture. Or they just hurriedly added a summary when the drama was ongoing. Even if it is worth noting -- I firmly believe that the section detailing the issues with a piece of fan content released 11 years after the actual subject of the article itself should not be longer than any of the descriptions of the game's expansions; come on.

EaseofUsePal (talk) 06:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The article is fine to cover details about it's mods that recently fairly decent coverage themselves. If and when the content holds undue weight and the article's sizes warrants it, they might be spun out, but that's really not the case here. I've noted you seem to be removed negative details from some of the content, as well as the supporting sourcing, without clear reason. -- ferret (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

fallout the frontier should have its own page

New California which is arguably less inportent has its own page and the frontier has been discussed in a verity of publications showing it is inportent enough to have its own artificial Roma enjoyer (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• its own article

Roma enjoyer (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Add a section for Cast?

Should I add a section for the voice cast in the game. Seems like it's needed since the game has a lot of voice acting from big talent like Mathew Perry and Zachery Levi? Mr.kilroy1945 (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

We do not typically include cast lists for video games. See MOS:VG#Inappropriate content #11. -- ferret (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah okay. I had made an edit to include information on casting, but have now removed it.

Thanks for the info. Mr.kilroy1945 (talk) 03:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Update on Fallout the Frontier

According to this source, the rework of Fallout the Frontier has been cancelled. This happened for various reasons, the main one being that the mod just has too many problems to realistically fix. I don't really think it'd add much to the article as a whole, considering how long the section is already. However, I dislike the mod, so noting that it ceased development would be really, really funny.

FrogsAreAwesome (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

abbreviation of title

I'm trying to help BDD (talk · contribs) add an abbreviation for this article to the disambiguation page at FNV. To comply with MOS:ABBR#Use sourceable abbreviations and MOS:DABABBR, this article must both use the initialism and have it sourced to reliable sources that show it's widely recognised. Is anybody here familiar with any such sources with which to help out? Much appreciated, all! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Metacritic score vandalism

the metacritic score for pc in review section is wrong. It should be 84 instead of 94 as it is in the linked reference. Being that score at the center of a serie of controversies, it should probably be reverted back to what it was before 84.221.62.220 (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

It was vandalized. I've repaired all the links and scores. -- ferret (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Mods secrtion removed or shortened

I propose that the Mods section is either deleted or heavily reworked/shortened. Mods are a prominent part of all Creation engine games, but why are a couple of random mods being displayed here and pretty much elevated to the same status as official DLC?

I find the section about The Frontier especially nasty and counterproductive. An article about New Vegas should not be discussing some random mod authors and their fetishes. Or if this needs to be discussed, then the Mods section should equally contain dozens of other important or notorious mods (Someguy series, The Living Desert, various bug and engine fixes, etc.). 84.248.155.10 (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

There aren't enough reliable sources to mention the Someguy mods. I wanted to mention them but there were extremely little- only The Frontier, New California, and TTW had enough for a mention. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 21:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

DLC Separate Page?

Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 used to have individual pages for all of their DLC, which I think have now all been combined into "Fallout 3 downloadable content" and "Fallout 4 downloadable content" pages. Should FNV get a "Fallout New Vegas downloadable content" page as well? The DLC is definitely notable enough for it's own page. 2600:8800:1E8E:4600:D1A6:72C2:936D:73EC (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree, New Vegas should have its own DLC page given the fact that 3 and 4 have their own. Although admittedly I'm lazy, and I just rewrote the majority of the New Vegas article, so I'll get around to it eventually. Hopefully, I get sidetracked very easily. Famous Hobo (talk) 00:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)