Review Obsidian is not the Victim

[Jason]

Tags: Fallout: New Vegas; Obsidian Entertainment

<p>Shamus Young's latest <a href="http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=9737" target="_blank">Experienced Points column</a> is less than kind to <strong>Fallout: New Vegas</strong>, describing it as Obsidian's 4th "wrecked ship".</p>
<blockquote>But once again Obsidian has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. We can all lament the awesome game they nearly made for us. Maybe they&rsquo;ll even do the right thing and patch this title until we have it. But the blame for this mess must fall squarely on the shoulders of the people who made it. The victim is not the developer, but the gamer who gave them a chance they didn&rsquo;t deserve and bought this game. (I&rsquo;ll excuse myself from the victim group. I suspected this game would be a wreck but bought it because I wanted to write about how it all turned out, good or bad.)</blockquote>
<p>Rock Paper Shotgun's Quintin Smith also <a href="http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/10/21/wot-i-think-fallout-new-vegas/" target="_blank">found Obsidian's efforts to be phoned in</a>, as in "long distance, reversed charges, not-giving-a-fuck."</p>
<blockquote>It&rsquo;s just that this is absolutely not the classic that Fallout 1 and 2 unquestionably were, and it&rsquo;s also not the bold, bright reinvention that Fallout 3 was. It&rsquo;s just&hellip; here, offering more Fallout. Do you want some more Fallout? If so, New Vegas can provide, so long as you don&rsquo;t mind your every hour with it being laced with some small amount of disappointment. That is, unless you haven&rsquo;t played a Fallout game before, but in that case you&rsquo;re better off with the Game of the Year edition of Fallout 3.</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

It’s just that this is absolutely not the classic that Fallout 1 and 2 unquestionably were, and it’s also not the bold, bright reinvention that Fallout 3 was. It’s just… here, offering more Fallout. Do you want some more Fallout? If so, New Vegas can provide, so long as you don’t mind your every hour with it being laced with some small amount of disappointment. That is, unless you haven’t played a Fallout game before, but in that case you’re better off with the Game of the Year edition of Fallout 3.

bold, bright reinvention that Fallout 3 was

bold, bright reinvention that Fallout 3 was

 

[racofer]

Obsidian is the victim, news at 11.

 

[Xor]

Funny, I haven't found anything wrong with the game so far that wasn't present in Fallout 3.

 

[Silellak]

So, Obsidian's the victim, then?

 

[Jaesun]

The publisher is responsible for bug testing, and the approval of a final build when they decide to ship the game.

 

[Morkar Left]

Funny, I haven't found anything wrong with the game so far that wasn't present in Fallout 3.

This. They even improved the gameplaymechanics as far as i can see, yet. F3 crashed very often often for me, NV seems stable so far.

 

[Jaime Lannister]

no it goes like this, obsidian fired all their testers and just got mca to play the game, and mca was like well this is ok, so feargus and je sawyer were like LETS SHIP THIS RIGHT NOW, and pete hines was like, but wait shouldn't you guys delay it and fix the bugs? and then mca got down and sucked hines' dick while todd howard fapped to the whole thing and took a shit in public and the shit said "NEW VEGAS" and it was a sign, a sign that this game would be

beautiful

 

[Gragt]

Basically SY is praising the game as being better than Fallout 3 (not exactly a great feat in itself but still) but calls it a failure due to the bugs. I haven't played NV at all and don't know the extent but I know it isn't the first CRPG to be released in a very buggy state. Bugs are typically a temporary issue and while it may take some time to iron them out, many games got better after release and endured the years that came after.

He compares NV to KotOR2, NWN2 and AP. I played 2 of these and read enough about the others to get the idea that the issues that plagued them are different, some related to bugs and bad coding, and others pertaining to bad design. Those are quite different and in the case of bugs can (usualy) be fixed. Yet so far he complains about the bugs ruining the many improvements the game has over Fallout 3, which he calls good. Sure, bugs are annoying and their presence at release is a bad mark, but if he wants to play the reviewer shouldn't he try to look past the technical side and see what the game has to offer at its core? After the all we can expect that NV will patched over time and we'll be mostly left to deal with the gameplay itself. That sort of attitude is rather puerile. Even more when I see reports that many of the bugs currently in NV were also present in Fallout 3 at release but they didn't seem to bother most people then. If it's true, talk about bias.

 

[Brotherman Bill]

I had a long rant but it's way too late and I should sleep so I'll just say that Shamus is a butthurt retard who consistently praises shit games like WoW and FO3 while criticizing games with a glimmer of goodness in them for the things he should've bashed the the other games for in the first place.

Really, I get that bugs are annoying and shit but the way he's whining one could think it raped his dog or something. This is the image I'm getting from reading his post:

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

The key to understanding Shamus Young and RPGs is to read his long article about Jade Empire. Then read NWN2 rants.

 

[AlaCarcuss]

Funny, I haven't found anything wrong with the game so far that wasn't present in Fallout 3.

Same here.

I'm finding this shitstorm all over the net about NV bugs completely bafeling. I've come across a few glitchs, but nothing to get my nickers in a knot over. About 30hrs in and only 1 CTD too.

Without trying to sound like an Obs fanboy here (which I most definately am not), I think they're coping a bit of a raw deal here. (based on reputation I'm guessing).

NV is superior to FO3 in almost every conceivable way.

 

[Ruprekt]

NV is a dumbed down fallout game. On the other hand Bethesda titles as shipped don't even qualify as games.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

and it’s also not the bold, bright reinvention that Fallout 3 was.

Jesus Fucking Christ.

 

[Mister Arkham]

I had a long rant but it's way too late and I should sleep so I'll just say that Shamus is a butthurt retard who consistently praises shit games like WoW and FO3 while criticizing games with a glimmer of goodness in them for the things he should've bashed the the other games for in the first place.

Really, I get that bugs are annoying and shit but the way he's whining one could think it raped his dog or something. This is the image I'm getting from reading his post:

This is pretty much exactly why I stopped paying attention to anything Shamus Young does a couple of years ago. I'll admit that the dude has some pretty serious knowledge of tabletop systems and he's supposedly a pretty topnotch programmer, but any time he starts to talk about something that he dislikes he seems to lose his shit and resort to nit-picking superficial issues and making blanket statements that are proven false by the simple act of paying attention to what's going on around you. As a result he comes off like one of those guys who has the misfortune of coming across a low-frequency bug early on in a game, throws his hands up in the air, and starts screaming about how the game is unplayable rather than just manning the fuck up and soldiering on.

 

[Jaesun]

I had a long rant but it's way too late and I should sleep so I'll just say that Shamus is a butthurt retard who consistently praises shit games like WoW and FO3 while criticizing games with a glimmer of goodness in them for the things he should've bashed the the other games for in the first place.

Really, I get that bugs are annoying and shit but the way he's whining one could think it raped his dog or something. This is the image I'm getting from reading his post:

This is pretty much exactly why I stopped paying attention to anything Shamus Young does a couple of years ago. I'll admit that the dude has some pretty serious knowledge of tabletop systems and he's supposedly a pretty topnotch programmer, but any time he starts to talk about something that he dislikes he seems to lose his shit and resort to nit-picking superficial issues and making blanket statements that are proven false by the simple act of paying attention to what's going on around you. As a result he comes off like one of those guys who has the misfortune of coming across a low-frequency bug early on in a game, throws his hands up in the air, and starts screaming about how the game is unplayable rather than just manning the fuck up and soldiering on.

 

[Volourn]

"The publisher is responsible for bug testing, and the approval of a final build when they decide to ship the game."

So is the developer. Stop trying to pass the fuckin' buck. Obsidian signed a contract butthey chose to. if the game ism shit it is shit ebcause of them. If the game is fuckin' awesome it is awesome ebcause of them.

It says a lot that the one game/expansion of Obsidian that the Codex really likes (MOTB0, Obsidian gets all the praisem but the publisher doesn't.

Fuk that bullshit.

 

[Mister Arkham]

"The publisher is responsible for bug testing, and the approval of a final build when they decide to ship the game."

So is the developer. Stop trying to pass the fuckin' buck. Obsidian signed a contract butthey chose to. if the game ism shit it is shit ebcause of them. If the game is fuckin' awesome it is awesome ebcause of them.

It says a lot that the one game/expansion of Obsidian that the Codex really likes (MOTB0, Obsidian gets all the praisem but the publisher doesn't.

Fuk that bullshit.

While I will easily admit that the actual act of fixing the bugs in the game rests with the developer, the QA process and all post-house play testing is usually handled entirely by the publisher. I'm far from an Obsidian apologist, but if Zenimax/Bethesda didn't initiate a comprehensive round of testing for the title and supply Obsidian with the data that they needed to locate and identify problems, then the blame does rest primarily on Bethesda/Zenimax. This is not to call Obsidian blameless, because the sad truth of this situation is that both parties have notoriously spotty quality control, but the good that they have done here as a developer far outweighs the bugginess of their product and all we can do is hope that Bethesda realizes that well enough to continue supporting the title as the patches keep rolling out.

As for your other point, let's call that a circumstance of an imperfect industry. People who pay attention to the games that they play like development houses in the same way that they like film directors. It's much easier to identify with both because they have a very hands-on job when it comes to the final product. Developers and directors are people who produce games and films that you enjoy, whereas publishers and production houses tend to be viewed as THE MAN. Nobody likes THE MAN because he hides behind PR people all of the time and has a tendency to have very public disagreements with the little guy making the game and movie for you where he threatens to take away all of the the little guy's money and not let you ever play that game or watch that movie. For the most part, the average person's understanding of a publishing house is that it's the thing that puts out the money, does none of the work, and then collects the majority of the profits. It is the monolith in the equation and nobody likes the monolith. Is that a fair or even a realistic way to look at things? Hell no. But it is how most people tend to look at things and it's how most people like to look at things, and at the end of the day it isn't entirely without merit. The developer is, after all, the one who is actually making all of the material that you're going to (hopefully) enjoy at some later date, so who wouldn't want to appreciate them by dropping their name when they talk about the title? Nobody talks about that great new Warner Brothers movie they saw last night, or about that great new shooter from EA. They talk about seeing the new Steven Spielberg movie or playing the new Gearbox game. It's a psychological reaction derived from the fact that it's easier to associate with someone who you can see as having a face and working for a living that it is with the room full of suits that tried to cut the budget by twenty percent and halve development time, and it's just as easy to go in the opposite direction when things don't turn out the way that you had hoped.

Again: it isn't fair, and it isn't strictly correct. It's imperfect. But so is the whole damn industry and so are the people in it and the ones who are playing the things that it produces.

 

[Ogg]

Obsidian has now such a bad reputation that with every game they'll develop, we will hear the same rant about how buggy it is, no matter whether or not it has more bugs than the average production of today.

 

[treave]

Fuck this, I played through the 90s, I can live with bugs. Fucking Fallout 2 was horribly bugged too (thanks for the slamdunk, Fearghus you wanker), and the Baldur's Gate games weren't uber-polished technical paragons of gaming either. Oblivion and Fallout 3 were both bugged to hell and back too, but of course they neglect to say anything about that in their 90+% reviews.

When did gamers start being pussies that whined about some random bug wiping their autosaves? I mean, fuck, autosaves? You fucking lazy assholes.

 

[Topher]

Fuck this, I played through the 90s, I can live with bugs. Fucking Fallout 2 was horribly bugged too (thanks for the slamdunk, Fearghus you wanker), and the Baldur's Gate games weren't uber-polished technical paragons of gaming either. Oblivion and Fallout 3 were both bugged to hell and back too, but of course they neglect to say anything about that in their 90+% reviews.

When did gamers start being pussies that whined about some random bug wiping their autosaves? I mean, fuck, autosaves? You fucking lazy assholes.

I played everyone of those games when they came out and not a single one has come close in terms of bugs then New Vegas for me.

 

[Ogg]

I played everyone of those games when they came out and not a single one has come close in terms of bugs then New Vegas for me.

What kind of bugs? CTD, stuttering, graphical glitches, broken quests... ? No mischief in my question, I'm really curious.

 

[treave]

Fuck this, I played through the 90s, I can live with bugs. Fucking Fallout 2 was horribly bugged too (thanks for the slamdunk, Fearghus you wanker), and the Baldur's Gate games weren't uber-polished technical paragons of gaming either. Oblivion and Fallout 3 were both bugged to hell and back too, but of course they neglect to say anything about that in their 90+% reviews.

When did gamers start being pussies that whined about some random bug wiping their autosaves? I mean, fuck, autosaves? You fucking lazy assholes.

I played everyone of those games when they came out and not a single one has come close in terms of bugs then New Vegas for me.

Fallout 2 easily CTDed in New Reno and Modoc, 5 times out of 10 while in those areas I'd get a crash and have to redo whatever I was doing. Baldur's Gate 2 had numerous script bugs that pretty much wreck quests. Off hand I can remember encountering Bodhi and Irenicus related bugs that prevented me from progressing because the scripts didn't trigger. Also the Ust Natha questline is bugged to all hell and back, with multiple spots where you can break the quest forever.

If New Vegas is far buggier than that then we're looking at Big Rigs level of piss poor coding.

 

[poocolator]

Dork Retard

 

[Trash]

The game crashed twice on me and had one corrupted quicksafe so far after playing over 20 hours. It's an unplayable pile of shit. Shit. SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously though, anyone picked up on this?

The setting feels slightly more coherent. (Although I’ve only seen a tiny bit of it so far.

Yup, he barely played it.