-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Obsidian is better than Blizzard, Bethesda, and Bioware all AT THE SAME TIME
- Thread starter Jharp
- Start date
EmCeeGramr
Member
Why does New Vegas need an "excuse" anyway? It's a better game than FO3 in every aspect, there's nothing to excuse.
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
I need a excuse for not having played enough. No wait I have one, I wanted to finish NWN2.
I actually loved NV. But I'm British, and can't help taking the piss out of things. In this case, Obsidian fans. Its all good natured stuff though really.
That "Twilight" must be so much better than "Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles"
Obsidian Case is the best example what RPS wrote that complexity is always connected with bugs.
Arcanum was probably the best open world game with best designed world but at the same time it had ton of bugs. Same with Bloodlines.
Buggy and yet superb. That's what matter. If you can't swallow few bugs then i don't see why you want to even play RPG. Complexity is what makes RPG fun and at the same time creates bugs.
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
Very debatable. Being that it is a sequel, its bound to have made Improvements yes. But even with the improvements the fact that FO3 is still debatably better than NV shows that Obsidian are not the Gods they are made out to be.
If the truly were an amazing developer, they wouldn't make a game using a completed engine, many assets, core gameplay already in place, much of the lore, etc already done or partially done at the start of development, and make the game only marginally better. They would make it amazing.
Have beat both, and played all the DLC for both, I stand by FO3 being the better experience overall. Though NV had a few cool features and additions.
Red Blaster
Member
why does lack of polish matter when Bethesda's titles are notorious for that as well
moreover, it's far easier to overlook said bugs in an Obsidian title in light of the strengths of their respective games (plot interaction and malleability)
moreover, it's far easier to overlook said bugs in an Obsidian title in light of the strengths of their respective games (plot interaction and malleability)
It's not. I already listed a brief list of improvements the game made but there were many more I didn't. It's a factually deeper RPG in every way.
EmCeeGramr
Member
You could "debate" anything being better than another thing. It's the internet, and video games are a subjective experience.
And many people would think it's amazing!
Riposte
Member
One thing that bothers me about Obsidian is that they seem to be backpedaling from the tight connection between skill system and narrative with their new kickstart game (which, to be blunt, doesn't look like anywhere near the shake up New Vegas or Alpha Protocol ended up being). These two being connected is pretty much the bread and butter of the tabletop-inspired role-playing experience.
EDIT: I could see why someone might prefer Fallout 3, though I strongly disagree, and I think it comes down to "exploration". What Bethesda games succeed at (which is to say modern Elder Scrolls and Fallout 3) is a lot of progression feedback. To make a long story short, you finding new icons for your map is basically another bar to fill and the novelty of that area is like a pavlovian trigger (not unlike leveling up, it even has YOU FOUND THIS PLACE in big letters). With Skyrim in particular they have streamlined this process to the point where it is on the level of WoW-like MMORPGs. I think what you get ultimately is "highway hypnosis" gaming that just satisfying enough (or really: picks at your work ethic/completionist attitude) for 100 hours or so, then (maybe) your mind violently rejects it and touching the game ever again becomes difficult. I think with its more interconnected and believable world, NV attempt at this is lackluster (you won't see me upset about that though).
I believe the term is "doubling down".
EDIT: I could see why someone might prefer Fallout 3, though I strongly disagree, and I think it comes down to "exploration". What Bethesda games succeed at (which is to say modern Elder Scrolls and Fallout 3) is a lot of progression feedback. To make a long story short, you finding new icons for your map is basically another bar to fill and the novelty of that area is like a pavlovian trigger (not unlike leveling up, it even has YOU FOUND THIS PLACE in big letters). With Skyrim in particular they have streamlined this process to the point where it is on the level of WoW-like MMORPGs. I think what you get ultimately is "highway hypnosis" gaming that just satisfying enough (or really: picks at your work ethic/completionist attitude) for 100 hours or so, then (maybe) your mind violently rejects it and touching the game ever again becomes difficult. I think with its more interconnected and believable world, NV attempt at this is lackluster (you won't see me upset about that though).
I believe the term is "doubling down".
I agree with everything. Thus you are correct in your conclusion.
decoyplatypus
Member
I don't understand the argument. If Developer X made a sequel to Developer Y's game, used many of the assets and core systems of the previous game, borrowed liberally from pre-existing lore, but did the whole game on a rushed development cycle and created a game that most people agree is excellent and surpasses Y's entry in some respects (with room for people to disagree as a matter of taste), we would use that as evidence that Developer X is not that great?
Okay. Whatever explanation you find least disruptive to your little bubble of reality.
No, not every way. I dig FO3's approach with bigger, more involved quest chains to NV's everybody has something approach. Obsidian hit its stride with the more focused DLC. Its one of the reason I've always wanted a digital & episodic game from them.
Are you referring to the separate resource pools for combat and non-combat skills here? Even after the explanations that does seem a bit iffy to me.
It has so many great ideas, though. How you can actually acquire intel for the main missions, how the dialogue/personality system works, how your choices actually matters.
It's too bad that gameplay wise it's a total disaster. The Xbox 360 version I have is also fairly poor on the performance side.
As for the OP and the thread, I feel that if they were supposed to be better than all three at the same time they wouldn't be in the situation they are now and having to do a kickstarter.
You can keep saying over and over again how quality =/= quantity and sales (which is true) all you want but in the end all of the other 3 mentionned in the OP at least made some golden games that contributed to their success and where they are now even if their recent output have been questionable.
Blizzard had Diablo 1/2, Warcraft 2/3 and Starcraft
Bioware had Baldur's Gate 1/2/ToB and KOTOR
Bethesda had their Elder Scroll games
You can't also say that they never had the opportunity to work on big franchises and that this is one of the reason they are not as big as the other 3 as they worked on Star Wars and D&D. If you weren't able to attract and keep fans of these franchises then maybe the issue is not simply about their poor taste but also about your overall output.
Oh I definitely agree such as the timer for dialogue choices. The gameplay itself is the problem, and that's a big problem.
Riposte
Member
Yep.
ZombieSupaStar
Member
Exactly. I am in love with what I've seen of Wasteland 2, and what they have talked about for Torment 2. I have faith in Brian Fargo and his team when hes not beholden to corporate masters and focus groups.
I still await Project Eternity but am not as excited for it.
rosaceadude2112
Member
Riposte
Member
The soul stuff could be really cool actually. I just don't think "let's make an old school WRPG" is very interesting. I want a trend-setter with old school elements.
EDIT: Uh, trend-setter is a poor choice of words. I want them to break new ground in emulating what the RPG actually is in respect to the tabletop experience.
EDIT: Uh, trend-setter is a poor choice of words. I want them to break new ground in emulating what the RPG actually is in respect to the tabletop experience.
Don't worry there's still plenty of people who hate RPGs here.
Last Hearth
Member
Or maybe they just don't think very much of Alpha Protocol or DSIII as either games or RPGs.
AcceptableGhost
Member
Obsidian Topic Hitlist:
Terrible posting by Zia. Check.
Derrick01 posts on first page. Check.
Every Obsidian game I have played I have thoroughly enjoyed (and always enjoyed them better than the efforts of the developers before them for games like New Vegas, etc). I think they are fully worthy of their cult following and hopefully they can keep making more stuff.
Terrible posting by Zia. Check.
Derrick01 posts on first page. Check.
Every Obsidian game I have played I have thoroughly enjoyed (and always enjoyed them better than the efforts of the developers before them for games like New Vegas, etc). I think they are fully worthy of their cult following and hopefully they can keep making more stuff.
rosaceadude2112
Member
Those improvements are debatable too! Quick let me post this hypothetical list of reasons FO3 is better that doesn't exist but let's pretend was posted in this thread earlier instead of all the shit one liners that didn't even bother to use "atmosphere" as an excuse:
Schweinehund
Member
I feel their writers are better, but I actually prefer bioware's gameplay.
No clue about the other two, not a big fan of elder scroll type games, and POE is better than D3, so I don't consider it a huge feat to dethrone blizzard.
No clue about the other two, not a big fan of elder scroll type games, and POE is better than D3, so I don't consider it a huge feat to dethrone blizzard.
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
lol. Your Psuedo elitist style of stating your opinion is terrible.
Anyone who doesn't like the games you do hates RPGs, or cant deal with "depth" and "complexity".
Ridiculous.
You will grow out of this phase eventually I am sure.
I get this, my point simply being that I too often see people dismiss dialogue and leveling as non-game parts simply because your movement is restricted or something.
Games are wholes and "crazy stuff" like inventory management is gameplay, even if so many people don't consider it such. Even cutscenes are to some degree part of gameplay, since they act as positive or negative feedback for your actions, for better or worse.
The definition of immersive sim is supposed to be a game with deep mechanics systems (AI, physics, intricated traversal methods, open ended non-choice oriented quest design, etc.) that sell realism based on the game's capability to react to your actions.
Say, in Deus Ex, if you make the effort you can kill Anne Navarre very early on and the game will acknowledge and mention it later. It's not an actual choice you pick, it's the designers putting situations in which you have the freedom to experiment and come up with the solutions within what the game systems allow. Basically it's making the roleplaying be almost entirely action-based instead of "decision-based". You don't have the dialogue choices of "Die Anne Navarre, you robo bitch!" and "<Respectfully greet Anne Navarre>", you just kill her, and the game behind the scenes is checking who's alive and reacting to it.
In a less story-oriented example, in Deus Ex you didn't really have paths like in Human Revolution. Maps were very open and you could make any power and technique combination you wanted to get through them. You can then take a box with you, drop it, hide behind it when a guard passes by, then pick it up again and rinse and repeat. That sort of stuff comes naturally because the game's systems and level design are there to encourage you to experiment, because they react to it in a satisfying way. It's believable because the game says "well if you think so then it's ok!". Human Revolution gets it wrong because it says "HERE'S THE STEALTH WAY! HERE'S THE TECH WAY! HERE'S THE SHOOTY WAY!" and you just feel like you're picking an option from a dialogue tree.
Fallout 3 does some of these things right, but ultimately the world feels really lacking nonreactive. You go on a killing spree and three days later people forget about it, inventory has no meaningful mechanics attached to it and the character system is very maxeable (this New Vegas does way better) so you can basically do everything in whichever way you like, and I never felt like I was thinking "outside-the-box" like in Thief or Deus Ex or even Bioshock.
FO3 and New Vegas are deep in their RPG trappings, which is perfectly fine, I for that reason don't see why people bother calling them immersive sims just because the AI goes to eat at noon and to sleep at night. People didn't call Oblivion an immersive sim and the AI is just as complex...
New Vegas is basically the much superior RPG. There's no two ways around that, most if not all the RPG mechanics are improved, the writing is better, companions are much more interesting, there's real choice and consequence, etc. Fallout 3 only has a subjective edge over New Vegas in that some people like Beth's approach to world building better. Personally I never found anything of value anywhere I went in Fallout 3, and I'm constantly bewildered by people saying that Fallout 3 rewards exploration more, because I see the dialogue, quest and lore abundance in New Vegas as a very good way to encourage people to explore.
The last conclusion I do agree. The template set by Bethesda is not very fun if you're looking for a solid RPG, which is why I like mods to come by and turn my New Vegas into some sort of STALKER game written by Obsidian. I got at least some passable shooting combined with excellent quest design. I'd love Obsidian to have been able to do an isometric RPG out of New Vegas, but you know how it goes...
Why are you labeling it as an RPG then if you have no stats and say decision-making has no influence on the RPG-ness of a game?
You sound like you have an open-ended adventure game in your hands
because Skyrim?
idk.
I guess established devs get a free pass and since obsidian hasn't "proved" themselves they get hated on.
either that or high production values matter more than real gameplay
or both. yeah..it's both
jim-jam bongs
Member
Derrick is passionate about his opinions. He also justifies them extensively. If you can't respond to the substance in his complaints which he's detailed at length in this thread, the classy thing to do is just to ignore him.
I played both Dungeon Siege 3 and Diablo 3 and I couldn't disagree more about DS3 being better than D3 and that simply based on the fact that I had to stop playing DS3 after a couple hours bcause it was no fun to play, while I played (and still play from to time) D3 for a lot of time, completing at least 2 difficulty levels.
cartman414
Member
Black Isle was partly involved in the BG saga.
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
The classy thing to do when he acts like all the posters here who don't enjoy the titles he likes are too stupid to get why they are superior is to just ignore it? Sorry I disagree with that point.
Yes, he attempts to back up his claims, but that does not make his attacks any more justified.
And yes, he makes some valid points, and some invalid ones. I have detailed at length my opinion on his stance on RPGs and his love of Obsidian in many a thread.
Him and I agree on certain things, but acting like people are somehow idiots because they enjoy games like Mass Effect, Skyrim, or Fallout 3 is unacceptable to me.
The story (and it's dialogue) is just about the only thing Alpha Protocol ever had going for itself.
And that's the definition of hyperbole everyone!
Seriously though, the only unplayable Obsidian game is probably the PS3 version of New Vegas, and that had to do with the engine that Bethesda has been using for a while now.
Obsidian gets their credit due to them actually making RPG's the way some people want RPG's. The enjoyment comes from the amount of believable and entertaining dialog along with a stories that aren't straightforward.
Last Hearth
Member
Was the PS3 version of FO3 unplayable? If not then the problem clearly isn't just the engine.
Anyway Obsidian strikes me as a bunch of architects deciding they want to form a construction company, but who knows very little about actual construction. They spend all their energy and time on great building designs and blue prints, but pays very little attention to detail on the actual building process.
So you end up with a house that has a very unique and appealing look, but the roof leaks, the electricity isn't wired properly, the floor creaks, and the foundation is not level. Nice to look at but a bitch to actually live in.
I remember there being a lot of complaints about freezing. Freezing and corrupted saves being the most numerous (IIRC, not a PS3 owner).
It's the engine. :lol Both FO3 and Skyrim have had issues on the console.