Development Info Obsidian going down to South Park

[Kill Do]

http://i.imgur.com/GpepS.jpg

 

[IronicNeurotic]

Wow the comments in that article get more rage inducing everyday

Alpha Protocol was so horrible (to me) it ruined my anticipation for NV. NV turned out 'ok', but I got it on a deal for $40 after some patches fixed the bugs, even then I couldn't imagine paying 60 for it.

Maybe it's their writing, maybe it's the way they do the sequels to franchises. Nothing Obsidian has developed has interested me in the way that Bioware, CDProjekt, and Bethesda does on a constant basis. Their projects turn out 'ok', but I don't have the money to spend on 'ok' games, it's just the sad fact of life. I need something I want to play, that's so awesome I can't stop playing it.

Obsidian hasn't done that in a ten-year period. Soooo, I don't wait with bated breath, and I don't think I can be blamed for that.

@jllemondean:
Couldn't agree more man. Even with glitches aside, NV sucked pretty bad. I loved Fallout 3 but NV was lacking in everything I loved about it. Only thing they didn't mess up on was the weapons, and hardcore mode. I'd give it a 5/10, in comparison to the 8.75 I'd give Fallout 3. And that's without factoring in the game breaking glitches..

F:NV was a good game. Just because it wasn't as great as Fallout 3 doesn't make it bad. I never played alpha protocol, but I heard it was bad, but that's really the only bad game they've made as far as I know.

 

[DwarvenFood]

Makes you wonder about the age of these gamers and how they would explain FO3 somehow being better/more fun than FO:NV. Strange this person actually put cdprojekt together with bethesda and bioware as the "good" game makers, weird stuff man. Hope the publishers don't pay any attention to this shit.

 

[IronicNeurotic]

It gets better!

I wouldn't give them much credit for NWN2 or KotOR2. I loved both the original NWN and KotOR, but I was hugely disappointed by their sequels. I'm not completely down on them (I did enjoy Dungeon Siege 3), but they're still 'that studio that makes bad to mediocre sequels to great RPGs' in my eyes.

 

[St. Toxic]

Star Wars - KotOR II: Total shit.

Neverwinter Nights 2: Total shit.

Mask of the Betrayer: Total shit.

Storm of Zehir: Total shit.

Alpha Protocol: Total shit.

Fallout 3 - New Vegas: Total shit.

Dungeon Siege III: Total shit.

And now a South Park RPG.

LOL, just LOL...

No offense intended, but this seems about right. Add to this the comments from the next-gen, and it's plain to see that Obs successfully manages to alienate both the console kiddies and the rpg-enthusiasts time and time again. Maybe their heart is in the right place, but the brain is in the publishing department -- fair enough, it's an excuse. A savvy businessman would figure out, though, the pointlessness in trying to cater to two very different markets at once using the same product. South Park RPG is like the embodiment of two foreign entities, naturally repelled by each other, but forced to share the same space by a mad scientist; if it doesn't burst from within, spilling pus and projectile vomiting all over the place, it's still a monster to be shunned by civilized society.

I'd like to see what Obs could do with an original franchise and money enough to just muck about with it, I really would. But I can't even tell if the potential is there, because so far all they have released has been utter garbage.

 

[Qwertilot]

Just a little! Front/back in the 'party' of two and enemies in the air/ground. (In the thousand year door anyway.).

Not Kings bounty and the like no But still you can die if careless/just about have to think a tiny bit at times etc.

 

[St. Toxic]

I've played a bit of Mario and Luigi Partners in Time (gave up on it cause I could never really get the timing right and after a while it just became a necessity to dodge everything) but from that and some vids I watched of Paper Mario 64 I don't remember there being any positioning in those games, you could actually move around a map?

Just a little! Front/back in the 'party' of two and enemies in the air/ground. (In the thousand year door anyway.).

Not Kings bounty and the like no But still you can die if careless/just about have to think a tiny bit at times etc.

We're talking light-hearted adventure game here, the RPG part of the title is a misnomer. Mario RPG/ Paper Mario is story driven narrative with a few puzzles and easily manageable combat encounters scattered about. You can gut these games entirely by removing events and characters, I mean you have literally like nothing left but menus for game-play when you're done. I don't know what that says about SPRPG though.

 

[Rivmusique]

Star Wars - KotOR II: Total shit.

Neverwinter Nights 2: Total shit.

Mask of the Betrayer: Total shit.

Storm of Zehir: Total shit.

Alpha Protocol: Total shit.

Fallout 3 - New Vegas: Total shit.

Dungeon Siege III: Total shit.

And now a South Park RPG.

LOL, just LOL...

Well if 1eyedking says so...

 

[Xor]

moar like skywayking amirite

 

[Mortmal]

Why is he trying so hard ? They DONT DELIVER CUSTOM TAGS anymore. No matter how hard you try , no matter your efforts oneyeking you wont have the dumbfuck tag , those are remnants of another glorious era.

 

[Forest Dweller]

Eh, I wouldn't say never...

 

[Jaesun]

http://gamasutra.com/view/news/39031/An ... 1_2013.php

"We think its cash position may be compromised. The company's debt covenants suggest to us that its line of credit must be repaid to avoid default, and we think that THQ is at risk of running out of cash by the June 2012 quarter."

 

[circ]

SO MUCH FOR DAWN OF WAR 3.

 

[St. Toxic]

Well if 1eyedking says so...

Then what? He's not wrong, Obs hasn't exactly made any good games so far.

 

[Excidium]

http://gamasutra.com/view/news/39031/Analyst_THQ_Could_Run_Out_Of_Cash_By_Q1_2013.php

"We think its cash position may be compromised. The company's debt covenants suggest to us that its line of credit must be repaid to avoid default, and we think that THQ is at risk of running out of cash by the June 2012 quarter."

Great news.

 

[Metro]

Good, maybe now Double Fine will self-publish and stop agreeing to these 'no PC versions for a year' stipulations.

 

[J_C]

Good, maybe now Double Fine will self-publish and stop agreeing to these 'no PC versions for a year' stipulations.

 

[IronicNeurotic]

http://gamasutra.com/view/news/39031/Analyst_THQ_Could_Run_Out_Of_Cash_By_Q1_2013.php

"We think its cash position may be compromised. The company's debt covenants suggest to us that its line of credit must be repaid to avoid default, and we think that THQ is at risk of running out of cash by the June 2012 quarter."

Thats not really that much a problem here. They can just find a new publisher in this case after all.

 

[Shannow]

Well if 1eyedking says so...

Then what? He's not wrong, Obs hasn't exactly made any good games so far.

1. Many people on the codex (and everywhere else) disagree.
2. The codex (and you) may whine but judging the quality of games can not be done objectively*. "Right" and "wrong" simply do not work. You can "agree" or "disagree". Any comment "this game is shit" can only be taken as "I consider this game to be shit", everything else is nonsense.
3. He was just so over the top with his judgement that even I, certainly not a fan of Obsidian, could only shake my head. That kind of non-differentiating absolutism cannot and should not be taken seriously by anybody.








*You can discuss various aspects of games more or less objectively, but for the "whole game" everybody'd have to agree on what constitutes "good" quality. Since our likes, dislikes and preferences differ that isn't possible.

 

[St. Toxic]

1. Many people on the codex (and everywhere else) disagree.
2.judging the quality of games can not be done objectively
3. He was just so over the top

I'm aware of this. But he's not wrong, they haven't made any particularly good games. You're welcome to enjoy them and disagree with his statement, but he's not wrong.

You can discuss various aspects of games more or less objectively, but for the "whole game" everybody'd have to agree on what constitutes "good" quality

A consensus doesn't make it any more objective. There are many communities out there who're in love with terrible games. If one of these communities was the only survivor of a nuclear holocaust, their favorite games still wouldn't be good when considered objectively.

 

[Andyman Messiah]

Fun fact: 1eyedking is the the reason why I spent almost 2 years playing Final Fantasy 7.

He's a big wuss and therefore disqualified from everything.

 

[Shannow]

I'm aware of this. But he's not wrong, they haven't made any particularly good games. You're welcome to enjoy them and disagree with his statement, but he's not wrong.

That I can agree with.
That

total shit

for every game, I cannot.

You can discuss various aspects of games more or less objectively, but for the "whole game" everybody'd have to agree on what constitutes "good" quality

A consensus doesn't make it any more objective. There are many communities out there who're in love with terrible games. If one of these communities was the only survivor of a nuclear holocaust, their favorite games still wouldn't be good when considered objectively.

Of course consensus is a neccessity for objectivity. If you cannot agree on criteria to judge by, if you cannot agree what constitutes "good" or "bad" implementation of said criteria you can't do anything but agree to disagree with no side being closer to an objective judgement than the other.
Two examples:
1. RT vs TB: While people who like RT can argue over the quality of the implementation of RT in a certain game or people who like TB can argue about the quality of its implementation in another game both with some semblance of objectivity, it's no use and certainly not objective if a RT lover calls every TB game "total shit" and vice versa.
2. Bugs: While everybody agrees that they're bad, the amount and severeness that are acceptable differ from person to person.

In 1. there is no global consensus about the criterion and in 2. there's no global consensus about when the quality becomes "bad". Since games have far more aspects which can all be disagreed upon any claim to objectivity is preposterous. As long as you can explain why you like/dislike a game, you have a valid opinion, but nothing more. Just because you consider whatever game you thought of in your example as bad and think that you can "objectively" rationalize your opinion, does not mean that its fans (have to) share your criteria for judging it or, if they do share some with you, that they'd agree on the emphasis you put on them or the way you judged them.
Doesn't mean one cannot argue, doesn't mean one side can't have a broader horizon than the other and thus a better foundation for their opinion, doesn't mean the other side cannot come to see things your way, doesn't mean that one side or the other doesn't simply ignore certain facts, but in the end there can't be any objective judgement of taste.

 

[villain of the story]

:brofist:

For instance, even though Arcanum is in my top 10, I would find it perfectly understandable if someone called Arcanum a barely playable piece of shit because of the right reasons. I liked and endured the game despite all the flaws. Good parts were that good to me. Even ignoring the flaws, the good might not feel that good to somebody else.

The likes of VD would disagree, of course, for such have found the ultimate universal truth and have no qualms about enforcing it to the best of their abilities.

 

[kris]

1. Many people on the codex (and everywhere else) disagree.
2.judging the quality of games can not be done objectively
3. He was just so over the top

I'm aware of this. But he's not wrong, they haven't made any particularly good games. You're welcome to enjoy them and disagree with his statement, but he's not wrong.

Presenting opinion as fact.
Claiming that another opinion is a fact, while others enjoying the games won't change his opinion being a fact.

 

[St. Toxic]

I never claimed it as fact. All I claimed was that he wasn't wrong.

Of course consensus is a neccessity for objectivity. If you cannot agree on criteria to judge by, if you cannot agree what constitutes "good" or "bad" implementation of said criteria you can't do anything but agree to disagree with no side being closer to an objective judgement than the other.

And that's how the cookie crumbles. Objectivity in game reviews comes from appeals to authority, not consensus. The opinions of critically acclaimed developers and the opinions of diehard fans of successful games become the staple by which other games are judged. This process is under constant renewal, which is why there's a generation gap in the criteria employed.