markec said:If there is one thing that every Obsidian game has in common (besides bugs) its shitty combat encounters.
Storm of Zehir slaps you in the face.
MotB at times, too.
markec said:If there is one thing that every Obsidian game has in common (besides bugs) its shitty combat encounters.
Shannow said:(...)
Jade Empire (1/10):
Shitty console shit, didn't play.
(...)
Oblivion (2/10):
Didn't play, but I read about shitty level-scaling, VOs and consolishness.
(...)
ME2 (2/10):
didn't play, but don't expect it to be better.
(...)
AP (1/10):
Didn't play, but looks like an especially buggy poor man's ME.
(...)
DA2 (2/10):
Didn't play, sounded like a royal fuck-up.
(...)
Wyrmlord said:"I didn't play this game, hence it was terrible." Even intelligent posters like ghostdog pull this nonsense sometimes, so I don't know why.
Yea, I'd say the final boss in SoZ is better than the best Infinity Engine games had.Darth Roxor said:markec said:If there is one thing that every Obsidian game has in common (besides bugs) its shitty combat encounters.
Storm of Zehir slaps you in the face.
MotB at times, too.
Wyrmlord said:Shannow said:Jade Empire (1/10):
didn't play.
Oblivion (2/10):
Didn't play,
ME2 (2/10):
didn't play
AP (1/10):
Didn't play
DA2 (2/10):
Didn't play
Wyrmlord said:So they need to be a better developer and better at making games? That's basically what you're saying.Pablosdog said:They just need better coders and QA.
This is like looking at Uwe Boll movie and saying, "It just needs better cinematography and screenplay."
Yeah making better RPGs than Bioware or Bethesda, they deserve all the praise in the world.J_C said:The sequels they make are better than the originals, so they deserve a credit for that in my book.
As for the rating of the games in the original post, it is totally subjective therefor totally shit.
I didn't say that they deserve all the praise in the world, but they deserve credit for improving on the original games quite a lot. And they don't receive that credit. Just visit any mainstream site, most gamers don't hold them in high regard, just because their games are buggy. Inspite their games having lots of good ideas and gameplay elements.Excidium said:Yeah making better RPGs than Bioware or Bethesda, they deserve all the praise in the world.J_C said:The sequels they make are better than the originals, so they deserve a credit for that in my book.
As for the rating of the games in the original post, it is totally subjective therefor totally shit.
J_C said:And they don't receive that credit. Just visit any mainstream site, most gamers don't hold them in high regard, just because their games are buggy. Inspite their games having lots of good ideas and gameplay elements.
your f3 review was shit lolEdward_R_Murrow said:Obsidian is certainly a special company, but not exactly in a good way. They're the only crew with such a wealth of talent and such a role-playing pedigree that has delivered so many games with huge hurdles to general enjoyment. I couldn't recommend any one of their games (that I've played) without serious reservations, and that isn't exactly the mark of a great studio. I guess lists are the "in-thing" here, so I'll give my go.
KOTOR2---Decent writing, fun story, and it's nice to see a different perspective on the force other than it being seen as the best thing ever to happen to the universe. Unfortunately, it's filled with a ton of combat, all of which is pretty much trash filler. I can't recall a single interesting fight (though I can recall laughably bad ones) and that's not a good thing for a game with so much combat.
NWN2---Honestly, looking back, I didn't mind the engine that much. Sure, it was a pain at times, but if you've played games for awhile, you've learned to cope...not that it excuses poor design, of course. What set me off was everything else. Loads of trash combat, "fake" choices, and writing/characters not up to snuff with Black Isle/Obsidian pedigree. When I say there were loads of trash combat...I mean it in a different way than normal. Sure, there were some encounters, design wise, that were interesting. The problem is, they didn't turn out to play well. It felt like the entire game was far too easy, and this is really driven home when you can easily vanquish two dragons at once, a feat only marginally less derp than soloing two dragons with ease in the original Neverwinter Nights. As for fake choices, I'm mostly talking about the trial where all roads led to fighting some dumbass. Joy. And the characters, while none were as potentially annoying as someone like Minsc, they also had this bad trait of not being optional, unlike Minsc. I don't want a feisty tiefling/hippie tree hugger/brooding anti-hero in my group? Too bad. At least it was my fault if I picked up a ranger with a rodent for my party. Poor game altogether...which is why I eBayed posthaste, and recouped a decent amount of funds.
Alpha Brotocol---I loved the characters, and I could dig the cheesy spy stuff. I liked the character system for certain ways it was designed, even if the application left a lot to desire. The dialogue wheel was totally derptastic, but they certainly did at least try to make dialogues more "active" in a way (gelato man being the best example off the top of my head). Hell, I can even understand where they were coming from with a lot of the designs in combat, even the bosses. Unfortunately, Obsidian, in the Codex parlance, cannot into action games, and Alpha Protocol was a mess like no other. It was fun at times, but really had some serious flaws that are impossible to avoid/overlook and make enjoying the game harder than it should be.
Fallout: New Faggot---I've played this for maybe 7 hours. So far it feels like a much less retarded Fallout 3. Unfortunately, extreme retardation (note: extreme, not EXTREME) wasn't what sank Fallout 3, it was the awful, awful gameplay. New Vegas keeps the shitastic combat that made Fallout 3 stink like milk left in the sun for a week, but seems to throw somewhat less at you...and has so far refrained from the Elder Scrolls style of "exploring", which involves tons of dungeons filed with monsters. Not sure if I want to keep this one going, or just ship it back and yell at Gamefly for sending me this game while Devil Summoner has been at the top of my queue for two months and has been listed as High Availability for a bit now. Goddamn teases...
I guess I agree with Shannow in that, when you really look at it, Obsidian doesn't seem to stand out in any meaningful way to deserve their special status here; the treatment they receive over Bioware/Bethesda. They've never really made anything spectacular, and their games are, generally, not much better overall than Bio/Beth titles. It makes more sense to treat them the same way, and not expect too much, because you probably won't get much.
I'm not an IE superfan and I thought SoZ was okay, but no way. Sure, it took me multiple tries to beat it on my first playthrough, but on the second, I steamrolled that thing in one try on very difficult just by pre-buffing, then tanking and spanking with a barb/fb, ranger/rogue/fighter and a favored soul who only had to cast greater restoration thrice (plus true sight to fix some blindness). I also had a mage in the back doing absolutely nothing after the buffing, I suppose I could have sped up the process even further had I used it. I blame the complete lack of challenge mostly on a) only using 4 characters as opposed to the first time when I had two experience sponges acting as dead weight and b) the trading and crafting system. I started on them much earlier than before so I had all my characters dressed to the nines with the finest gear and all the best unbalanced-as-shit enchantments (the ability to put a +4 AC bonus on every piece of equipment was either an oversight or just plain dumb since it makes a bunch of other, more expensive enchantments completely worthless).Vaarna_Aarne said:Yea, I'd say the final boss in SoZ is better than the best Infinity Engine games had.
BG2 had pretty much the same problem with lone big monsters, buffing and summoning before going in made them a piece of cake. So much that Bioware made the dragons in the extension extremely sensitive to buffing. Going in their den while covered in buffs made them attack the party on sight.Roguey said:Anyway, I'm moderately positive (I could be wrong) the best IE bosses couldn't be defeated with an every day Dragon Age tactic on the highest difficult setting using similar character building techniques. Absurdian bungled again.
Well, it was years ago, when you said, "I saw Cryshit at my friend's place, and it was probably just a promotion of a fancy engine and no real game."ghostdog said:Wyrmlord said:"I didn't play this game, hence it was terrible." Even intelligent posters like ghostdog pull this nonsense sometimes, so I don't know why.
[Intelligence] Hey, when did I say this ?
... Yeah, but the method of finding True Names was just paying large amounts of money to "the Knower of Names/Secrets" or whatever its name was.Wyrmlord said:There's a bunch of weird ideas executed in this game. It has been 6 years since I played it, so I might not remember a single thing clearly. However:Serious_Business said:Your opinions are worthwhile to me, my friend
Yeah so -
HotU 8/10:
Despite all NWN's shortcoming fun dungeoncrawling and character-building.
Anyone care to elaborate on that? I never really touched this crap, but I've heard so many people say good things about it. What's up with that? Isn't it just more Bioware click-and-wait gameplay? Wtf guys?
1. You can find out people's "True Names", and blackmail them for anything with them. Knowing their names gives you power over them - including demigods and planar superdemons. I wondered, "Can I actually gain some out-of-this-world cosmic powers with them?" Turned out I could.