Obsidian's Pillars of Eternity [BETA RELEASED, GO TO THE NEW THREAD]

Excuses, excuses...

And yet, despite Codex proclaiming otherwise, the *is* quality content in them still. The problem is there's less of it with each iteration.

It's hard to argue with that. But that's beside the point.

And I completely disagree about Obsidian's approach to bugs - they should have had time to test that shit. To even test their games as early as possible. That they do not bother working on their most glaring flaw exhibits some degree of short-sightedness. Hence, I started to think they deserve the flak they are getting.

 

But they do?

Also why doesn't Bethesda in your example. PS3 versions of their games all had glaring, game breaking issues and they never bothered to fix them. DESPITE the only port they outsourced (Oblivion) working *fine* (Except for all the other Bethesda bugs)

Also ITT people are defending Bethesda

 

Ho? Like what?

 

Like the motherfucking gameplay, pretty nice character builds, lot's of skills and abilities, a large world to explore (which does get samey rather fast, but then again, I can say the same about every other sandbox RPG in recent memory). Shit like that is blissfully lacking in most Obsidian games.

I think we are varbalizing wrong things in what we despise in Bethesda and Bioware. The facts are that both companies:

a) offer more simplistic games in relation to what was before
b) focus on visceral 'feel'

However, I have to say they are at least competent at creating entertainment.

It's easy to complain about everything using absolutes. Recently I started to actually play Codex "black-listed" games I'd been warned against, and I cannot really say they are utter garbage, except for extreme cases where rush-job is evident (Dragon Age 2). For the most part they are solid pieces offering lots of amusement. For this reason I find all the talk about Obisdian "fighting a good fight" and the rest delivering "decline" quite delusional.

 

All of which is done so poorly in Bethesda games the only explanation for them still being in business is that they have a monopoly on a genre (LARPing simulators) a lot of people just seem to want to play, no matter what.

Is blissfully lacking because Bioware killed that shit off in the first place. From KOTOR to KOTOR2, from NWN to NWN2, from Mass Effect to Alpha Protocol. Spot the trend here?

 

Bad for you. But I think you attribute to much value in the "fluff" that distracted you from the overal picture. The stuff you mention isn't that important in the larger scheme of things.

Not saying that Skyrim is a superb game - it's a huge step back behind, say Morrowind. But's not the destroyer of worlds others painted it to be. I fail to see how it is much worse than, anything made by Obsidian.

 

Overall picture being you fap to LARPing simulators and don't give a shit how bad the actual games are as long as you can get your fix. Typical Bethesda whore basically.

 

Then how is it possible that Fallout:NV had such a lukewarm reception. Did Bethesda use their magical powers to undermine Obsidian's efforts?

Is blissfully lacking because Bioware killed that shit off in the first place. From KOTOR to KOTOR2, from NWN to NWN2, from Mass Effect to Alpha Protocol. Spot the trend here?[/quote]

Yes, I see that Obsidian takes work of others, improves on it and still manages to release deeply flawed games. Yes, I like the improvements bit but the hack-job of bugginess, and clunckiness really got on my nerves.

 

This is the sort of argument I should handwave with typical: "it's just your opinion man.jpg"

They are not (so) bad. Your turn: what is so bad in them that is not present in a corresponding Codex approved title.

 

This is something I will never understand. Maybe it was the bugs, but I guess the majority of people are not looking for the same things in games that I am.

Fallout: New Vegas is a beautiful work of art, easily everything Fallout 3 should have been and more. It's a first-person Fallout 2 with incredible, deep content and a rich, reactive world full of substantive choices and feedback. It has sharp, mature writing and a world that feels alive around you.

Bethesda has never done that for me. Bethesda makes pretty games you walk around in aimlessly.

 

It was not a Bethesda game.

 

Didn't FNV outsell F3?

 

Shh, according to gaming journalists and bloggers it was a total flop.

 

I know. So you are suggesting it was all because it was not made by Bethesda it "flopped"... Or that Bethesda made it "flop"... Ehm... Codex and its conspirational theories.

I would look for reasons elsewhere - poor marketing by Obsidian for one thing, It's obvious that all games by that studio ride on the fame on the original titles, and *nothing* else - which has been the studio's undoing for a long time. Maybe it's time to learn the lesson.

F:NV did enjoy better "word of mouth" recommendations - so in the long run it turned out quite nicely for Obsidian.

 

Or would have if Bethesda didn't screw Obsidian out of their money.

 

We all know why it "flopped" - it simply was not as consoletard friendly as FO3 was.

 

Well, on Obsidian's defense, the consolidation of publishing houses to the current low number did match with the overall low quality of games everywhere. So even if publishers aren't the sole fault for all their games, they probably still share a large blame.

 

Excuses, excuses.

I believed in Obsidian. But after Kickstarter craze and amatourish way they handled preparations for it my trust is at its limits.

I don't like the tone that guy is using in the video... but I hate to admit, he has a number of good points.

 

Well... I will never hold being amateurish against anyone, specially in the games industry. Heck, games where at their best when people where the most amateurish, working out of their garages and so. I don' think this is merely a coincidence. Of course, feel free to disagree with me about when games were at their best, though.

 

Really, bugs in Obsidian games have a number of factors - publisher shenanigans, huge amount of scripting, variables etc., out-of-house engines, not-so-high competence level of Obsidian programmers, and maybe even more.

 

I agree that in terms if inventiveness this is the most fun aspect of amatourish approach. It works quite well in 2-5 men made games. However, it does not work that well with large projects when you have whole teams to manage, and Gigabytes of code, not to mention other assets to create. You need something more than a creative mind to look after the entire undertaking, lest it turns out a far cry from expectations.

Creativity does not rule out preparation and management. It actually benefits from it a lot.

Case in point: suddenly the bugginess and the perpetual unfinished state of Obsidian's works makes sense now.

 

The reason for all those: bad planning and bad management. The way I see it, judging from the quality of their works and the nature of problems in them, until very recently Obsidian kept using outmoded waterfall development model (facepalm).