Editorial Was Obsidian the Smart Choice for Fallout: New Vegas?

[Mastermind]

Of course, I have to give the disclaimer that I loved AP. Feel free to ignore the rest of my opinion accordingly.

I'm not gonna ignore your opinion because you like AP (I too like some games nobody else seems to like or even hear of). I'm going to ignore it because you suffer from the incurable codextard disease of assuming your opinion is universal. For example, you can't seem to wrap your little head around the possibility that unlike you, most people might have actually enjoyed Fallout 3's gameplay. Don't like Fallout 3? Fine. Delude yourself into thinking it's an awful game on a universal scale and needs "voodoo" and "marketing" to make people like it? All that tells me is that you're incapable of making an objective analysis and I pretty much have no reason to listen to or care about what you have to say.

 

[Silellak]

 

[cogar48]

 

[Silellak]

Obsidian is fighting an uphill battle of idiots who can't see that "failing to impress when it comes to core gameplay" is something that 99% of all games struggle with. And most of them don't even have a coherent, non-linear narrative with plenty of choice and consequence.

If only that "narrative" told an interesting story, or the "choices and consequences" were anything more than glorified smoke and mirrors.

 

[Azrael the cat]

Of course, I have to give the disclaimer that I loved AP. Feel free to ignore the rest of my opinion accordingly.

I'm not gonna ignore your opinion because you like AP (I too like some games nobody else seems to like or even hear of). I'm going to ignore it because you suffer from the incurable codextard disease of assuming your opinion is universal. For example, you can't seem to wrap your little head around the possibility that unlike you, most people might have actually enjoyed Fallout 3's gameplay. Don't like Fallout 3? Fine. Delude yourself into thinking it's an awful game on a universal scale and needs "voodoo" and "marketing" to make people like it? All that tells me is that you're incapable of making an objective analysis and I pretty much have no reason to listen to or care about what you have to say.

I can't believe I'm replying to this pathetic troll, but no, I'm not assuming the my view is universal and frankly I can't think of many codex posters that do. If you had any reading comprehension, you'd notice that people are overwhelmingly aware that FO3 sold very very well, and that most gamers have different tastes to us. I happen to disagree with those tastes, and so obviously my opinion is proceeding from, well, my own opinion. Grow up a little and get some experience with people beyond highschool. You'll soon realise that most people aren't unaware of the subjective content in their statements - rather, it's such a trivial issue that they take it for granted. All reviews of anything are always going to be based upon someone's opinion. That doesn't mean that opinion isn't correct - relativism is a wholly different and frankly rather problematic theory, both as a theory of epistemology and of ontology.

If the obvious really has to spelt out to you, then here it is. I'm only going to say this once, because I don't usually cater to retards. But here it goes:
I know fully well that most gamers have different tastes to me. I know fully well that FO3 and Oblivion sold massive numbers of copies, and that they have enormous fanbases. I know fully well that most gamers rate FO3 and Oblivion very highly.

Ok? No assumptions of universality here.

Seriously, what the fuck do you expect? People to judge games on what OTHER folks like? Do you really need a 'news at 10: normative descriptions of things are usually predicated upon an individual's personal values, experiences and assessments'? Really?

 

[Azrael the cat]

I'd love to see Tournquist (from TLJ/DF) have full artistic control over a campaign design.

As if I needed more fuel to dislike you.

I also enjoy horsemeat (no, not in THAT sense you dirty dirty bastards).

 

[Andyman Messiah]

Obsidian is fighting an uphill battle of idiots who can't see that "failing to impress when it comes to core gameplay" is something that 99% of all games struggle with. And most of them don't even have a coherent, non-linear narrative with plenty of choice and consequence.

If only that "narrative" told an interesting story, or the "choices and consequences" were anything more than glorified smoke and mirrors.

The story is cliché but fun. The c&c is obvious but exists. Eh, I'd say I win.

 

[Ruprekt]

Fallout 3 is very atmospheric. The lore of the setting might be fucked up (300 years wtf) but the game looks just as I imagined Fallout; better even.

But that doesn't change the fact that Bethsda make toys as opposed to games. Not that there's anything wrong with this. Consoles are toys, and Beth's games are very ambitious for that platform. If you're used to playing rail road shooters or JRPGs then the amount of stuff you can do in a Bethesda game is very cool.

On the PC it's a different story as there are modders out there who do a good job of turning Bethesda's toys into actual games. I'm optimistic about new vegas because they have the best of these modders onboard (Oscuro).

 

[Carlos' Bitch1]

I have 'tried' Fallout 3 and dismissed it. To me, it is worse than a decent FPS. The FPS version was a poor mans version, and the VAT's was a horrible mutant of the original Fallout combat system.

In a nutshell; If they used an engine with similar mechanics to the first 2 Fallouts, I would be a little excited. As it stands, I couldn't care less about the thing.

 

[chzr]

 

[tunguska]

I was prepared to be totally, utterly outraged, but then I actually read the article. The author was aware of the fact that some of the original fallout team is now at Obsidian and he mentioned MCA by name. He mentions the horribleness of AP and the buginess of KOTOR II as some specific (and imho valid) criticism. It was much more intelligent than the summary seems to indicate.

Of course the elephant in the room is that Bethesda is about as low as you can sink in the crpg world. Although, with DA, Biowhore is doing their best to compete. I thought Morrowind was a much better game than Alpha Protocol. I didn't like Morrowind and I have never actually played Oblivion, but I am tempted to give it a try just to see how it compares to Dragon Age and Alpha Protocol. I am betting that it would actually be better. Both Biowhore and Obsidian have sunk to new lows with their most recent games and both are going to soon be releasing games that are even worse (Dragon Age II and Dungeon Seige 3). Console kiddie games. So I don't know what to think about them anymore. As bad as Bethesda is, this guy could actually have a point.

I have no doubt in this particular case that Obsidian will do a much better job than Bethesda. Fallout is their baby and MCA is in his element. They may not be able to save the game from all the dumb Bethtard design decisions, but it will be a better game. Although I have to admit that I was one of the Alpha Protocol optimists pre-release and now I have egg on my face.

 

[Volourn]

"Fallout is their baby"

No, it isn't. A very small number of Obsidianites actually had anything to do with either FO1 or FO2. FFS

 

[Jaesun]

How many people at Obsidian does it take then for it to become "their baby"? 4... 5... 6?

 

[Andyman Messiah]

Takes two to make a baby.

 

[garfield_hsieh]

I think the real question is "is there any other options?"

 

[Morgoth]

All the key people who worked on F1/2 are also working on NV. So yeah, I'm confident it will be good.

Shame though they had to use Bethesda's F3 framework for that. A completely new designed Fallout with Onyx would have been really awesome.

 

[cogar48]

I think the real question is "is there any other options?"

 

[MetalCraze]

All the key people who worked on F1

0 of them

2 are also working on NV.

Only Avellone and Urquhart and it shows through a game being a massive nod to pop-culture all over again

 

[.Sigurd]

A completely new designed Fallout with Onyx would have been really awesome.

Now that you mentioned it...

 

[Tails]

All the key people who worked on F1/2 are also working on NV. So yeah, I'm confident it will be good.

Like Tim Cain, Leonard Boyarsky & Jason Anderson?

 

[merchant's skeleton]

All the key people who worked on F1

0 of them

2 are also working on NV.

Only Avellone and Urquhart and it shows through a game being a massive nod to pop-culture all over again

FU worked on FO1. I believe he did a lot of work on the Boneyard, and also polished a lot of the Hub. Also Scott Everts was Technical Designer and did all the map layouts on the first game. Not key people by any stretch but credit where credit is due.

Still, most previews are still giving them way too much credit for the first two games. Doesn't mean they can't make a good FO game (as good as we're ever going to get at this point).

Granted I haven't played AP so I don't have a legitimate opinion on how good or bad it is, but I believe this is the second such article I've seen about Obsidian before they've even released the game. You don't see this for Bioware and DA2, and every thing I've heard about that is much more retarted than what I've heard about FO:NV.

Here, I'll try to explain it to you:

Your preferences are not universal. In fact, your preferences vary wildly from the rest of the gaming population. You don't like Dragon Age (I don't either actually), but a lot of people do. As such, Bioware generally gets the benefit of the doubt, because regardless of your personal preferences, people like the games they make. The same is not the case with Obsidian, which even the Codex loves to hate half the time. Obsidian churns out a lot of shit by both mainstream and codexfag standards. So people wonder if letting them make a sequel to a very successful game like Fallout 3 is a good idea.

I know, it's hard getting your head around the concept that you (and the codex in general, and I include myself here) are pretty much irrelevant to most gamers and gaming publications. Tone down that ego a little bit and it'll all make sense.

Thanks Drog. Your lack of ego is an inspiration to us.

 

[latexmonkeys]

Here, I'll try to explain it to you:

Your preferences are not universal. In fact, your preferences vary wildly from the rest of the gaming population. You don't like Dragon Age (I don't either actually), but a lot of people do. As such, Bioware generally gets the benefit of the doubt, because regardless of your personal preferences, people like the games they make. The same is not the case with Obsidian, which even the Codex loves to hate half the time. Obsidian churns out a lot of shit by both mainstream and codexfag standards. So people wonder if letting them make a sequel to a very successful game like Fallout 3 is a good idea.

I know, it's hard getting your head around the concept that you (and the codex in general, and I include myself here) are pretty much irrelevant to most gamers and gaming publications. Tone down that ego a little bit and it'll all make sense.

I don't know what's worse - Skyway's constant, droning self parody, or your constant exercises in pedantism.

On second thought, you're worse.

Great job.

 

[Zomg]

All the key people who worked on F1

DIE KAFFIR

 

[Carlos' Bitch1]

FU worked on FO1. I believe he did a lot of work on the Boneyard, and also polished a lot of the Hub.

Really? I was under the impression that he stayed away from the 'budget' team doing Fallout and let them do their own thing so long as it didn't interfere with the 'Big Budget' games like Baldur's Gate.

 

[Big Nick Digger]

Fallout 3 is a very tough act to follow. Released in 2008 to stellar reviews and huge sales, it’s a real modern classic.

God damn Bethesda fanboys in the media.