Support NeoGAF

[traveler]

Alpha Protocol and ME3 aren't really comparable. If you were to say Alpha Protocol is better than ME1, though, I would agree. Part of the reason I feel the ME games have only gotten better is that they've moved away from the weakest parts of the series- ME1 was both a shitty shooter and a shitty rpg; at least the later two reduced the emphasis on one of the shitty elements and made the other semi competent.

No way in hell is DS3 better than Diablo 3. Thought, granted, this is coming from someone who thinks gameplay is the end all be all- loot be damned. Combat system and actual play takes precedence, and, for me, that makes D3 the action rpg to beat.

 

[Derrick01]

Come on guys, at least post why you think New Vegas was a lot better than Fallout 3 and vice versa. I've played 300+ hours of both, they're very different games and despite feeling that New Vegas is head and shoulders above F3 it's not like the game is totally without merit.

Fine I'm in the mood to do it yet again.

-Story is obviously much better written and more nuanced. It's not all super good guy BoS vs mustache twirling bad guys the Enclave. Although on the surface the Legion seems completely evil, it delves much deeper than that and you can begin to understand Caesar's way of thinking even if you don't agree with it.

-Quest design is leaps and bounds better. Many have multiple choices and solutions present that can affect how the various factions look at you.

-Companion system is better. There's more customization to each and each one has their own backstory that is slowly told to you throughout the game the more time you spend with them. The end-game to that story is a hidden quest that becomes unlocked for you to do.

-Gameplay is far superior. More skills and the skills you have are interwoven in various dialogue situations much more often than F3 which enhances the choices you make. Perks were reduced to every other level (I'm pretty sure it was every level in 3) to help with the balance. Standard FPS aiming was made to be much closer to a normal FPS than the hip fire zoom in F3.

-You can choose how you want to play. You can finish the entire game without killing anything at all, and if you want you can kill just about every non-child NPC even if it results in being locked out of quests.

There is a lot more especially on the gameplay side if people want to add to it. I didn't talk about the expanded crafting system with different ammo types for different types of enemies and the weapon mod system.

 

[disappeared]

That's...but...huh?

God's honest. It's happened more than a few times when a customer comes in and wants to chat about the series. Granted, most of those people have admitted to never playing F1 or F2.

 

[Durante]

There's no complexity in Obsidian's games. All the complexity happens in the dialogue and storytelling, which are completely out of player control. And the game design is made as painfully and boringly and frustratingly simplistic as possible.

There's something wrong with every single sentence you wrote. First of all, even disregarding dialogue entirely, New Vegas is a more mechanically complex game than FO3. Secondly, dialogue is very much in player control, and a part of the gameplay. And finally, their game design is the exact opposite of simplistic, which is actually what leads to some of the QA issues, e.g. the unparalleled reactivity in character interaction in Alpha Protocol.

Pretty much. I have better hopes for Project Eternity, South Park, and Wasteland 2 because they're smaller in scope.

Project Eternity does not seem smaller in scope than anything made after 2000.

Best assholes are smart assholes, this is like if Commander Shepard had twice the IQ.

A bit like Alpha Protocol is like Mass Effect 2 if Bioware had twice the ambition and talent (and half the budget).

 

[MikeE21286]

Obsidian is better than none of those.

 

[NBtoaster]

The only game I've played of theirs is New Vegas. It's inferior to Fallout 3 because:

-Main quest that initially funnels you through the world instead of giving freedom (it is available, but only if you really know the world and what to do)
-Some very long winded, boring dialogue
-The entire concept of Ceasar's legion is really dumb
-Removal of Bobbleheads and much less skill books make exploration less rewarding
-less points and perks on level up make leveling up less rewarding
-invisible walls in dumb places
-boring deserts and canyons as opposed to valleys and rivers
-more bugs

I still liked the game, but Fallout 3 is much better.

 

[deim0s]

Obsidian makes buggy trash. No. Just no.

* Looks at Bethesda *

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Fine I'm in the mood to do it yet again.

-Story is obviously much better written and more nuanced. It's not all super good guy BoS vs mustache twirling bad guys the Enclave. Although on the surface the Legion seems completely evil, it delves much deeper than that and you can begin to understand Caesar's way of thinking even if you don't agree with it.

-Quest design is leaps and bounds better. Many have multiple choices and solutions present that can affect how the various factions look at you.

-Companion system is better. There's more customization to each and each one has their own backstory that is slowly told to you throughout the game the more time you spend with them. The end-game to that story is a hidden quest that becomes unlocked for you to do.

-Gameplay is far superior. More skills and the skills you have are interwoven in various dialogue situations much more often than F3 which enhances the choices you make. Perks were reduced to every other level (I'm pretty sure it was every level in 3) to help with the balance. Standard FPS aiming was made to be much closer to a normal FPS than the hip fire zoom in F3.

-You can choose how you want to play. You can finish the entire game without killing anything at all, and if you want you can kill just about every non-child NPC even if it results in being locked out of quests.

There is a lot more especially on the gameplay side if people want to add to it. I didn't talk about the expanded crafting system with different ammo types for different types of enemies and the weapon mod system.

Now that's what I'm talking about.

 

[Alex]

For my tastes, Dungeon Siege 3 is a really good example of just outright mediocrity, it's not like it was an amazing series to begin with but there's a reason no one even cares about it when it's been on sale for 4.99 about a dozen times.

It is, sadly the only Obsidian game that is largely jank free, but from a design standpoint it ranges from bland to ridiculous. I can't imagine Square fostered the product but I also can't imagine they micro'd some of the stupid things that neutered it even worse than it needed to be. At times, it seemed outright like Obsidian had no fucking idea what they were doing.

I don't want to get into the absolutes, white and black, them vs us type of list war/game comparison crap on here, but comparing it to Diablo III is honestly pretty dopey, IMO, no matter how you felt about some of Blizzard's decisions with that game.

 

[Lancehead]

AP should've been a visual novel.

I agree.

 

[Coxswain]

Obsidian's reputation for buggy games is way out of proportion compared to the actual bugs in the games they release. They've had basically two (maybe three; I never played NWN2 at release) buggy games, one of which had the completion deadline pushed up by six months in the tail end of development, and one of which runs on the engine of another company's game that was only slightly less buggy despite being orders of magnitude less complex in its scripting and world states and featuring much less content overall.

 

[Syraxith]

* Looks at Bethesda *

 

[Derrick01]

The only game I've played of theirs is New Vegas. It's inferior to Fallout 3 because:

-Main quest that initially funnels you through the world instead of giving freedom (it is available, but only if you really know the world and what to do)
-Some very long winded, boring dialogue
-The entire concept of Ceasar's legion is really dumb
-Removal of Bobbleheads and much less skill books make exploration less rewarding
-less points and perks on level up make leveling up less rewarding
-invisible walls in dumb places
-boring deserts and canyons as opposed to valleys and rivers
-more bugs

I still liked the game, but Fallout 3 is much better.

All that stuff you say makes ___ less rewarding actually makes it a better balanced RPG. You want to be hand-fed and congratulated for every little thing you do even if it results in a broken game. NV doesn't do that nearly as much.

 

[Totobeni]

Well I agree, Obsidian make real,deep,rich,complex WRPG with top story telling and awesome characters,right now only CD Projekt RED is near them.

 

[Currygan]

It's a good thing their games have better and far deeper RPG gameplay than Bethesda and Bioware's games too.

that's fine. They're still full of issues and no, I don't give a fuck about bugs when judging a game. FO3 was unplayable for three weeks when I got it

they're good at writing, much worse at making good videogames

 

[dab0ne]

Fine I'm in the mood to do it yet again.

-Story is obviously much better written and more nuanced. It's not all super good guy BoS vs mustache twirling bad guys the Enclave. Although on the surface the Legion seems completely evil, it delves much deeper than that and you can begin to understand Caesar's way of thinking even if you don't agree with it.

-Quest design is leaps and bounds better. Many have multiple choices and solutions present that can affect how the various factions look at you.

-Companion system is better. There's more customization to each and each one has their own backstory that is slowly told to you throughout the game the more time you spend with them. The end-game to that story is a hidden quest that becomes unlocked for you to do.

-Gameplay is far superior. More skills and the skills you have are interwoven in various dialogue situations much more often than F3 which enhances the choices you make. Perks were reduced to every other level (I'm pretty sure it was every level in 3) to help with the balance. Standard FPS aiming was made to be much closer to a normal FPS than the hip fire zoom in F3.

-You can choose how you want to play. You can finish the entire game without killing anything at all, and if you want you can kill just about every non-child NPC even if it results in being locked out of quests.

There is a lot more especially on the gameplay side if people want to add to it. I didn't talk about the expanded crafting system with different ammo types for different types of enemies and the weapon mod system.

Don't forget about dat dialogue wheel. Was sad when Grim Reaper's sprint was super nerfed though.

 

[george_us]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who had a blast with Dungeon Siege III. While I'm not sure I'd say it's better than Diablo III, I had a great time with it.

 

[NBtoaster]

All that stuff you say makes ___ less rewarding actually makes it a better balanced RPG. You want to be hand-fed and congratulated for every little thing you do even if it results in a broken game. NV doesn't do that nearly as much.

I want to discover a location and find something useful inside. Not just find (now useless) scrap metal and a skill magazine.

 

[hemtae]

The only game I've played of theirs is New Vegas. It's inferior to Fallout 3 because:

-Main quest that initially funnels you through the world instead of giving freedom (it is available, but only if you really know the world and what to do)
-Some very long winded, boring dialogue
-The entire concept of Ceasar's legion is really dumb
-Removal of Bobbleheads and much less skill books make exploration less rewarding
-less points and perks on level up make leveling up less rewarding
-invisible walls in dumb places
-boring deserts and canyons as opposed to valleys and rivers
-more bugs

I still liked the game, but Fallout 3 is much better.

-Eh, I still don't agree with that. I made it to Freeside on my first playthrough without going south first and not knowing about the stealth boy in Goodsprings. The roads are marked pretty clearly on the map and they tell you that Benny was a New Vegas person.
- Not really
- I thought that at too first and still kinda do. Its made a lot clearer once you actually talk to the guy for a while but I do think they could have been fleshed out more
- The different Level scaling made it more rewarding imo
- They've been removed
- There were valleys and rivers and a big lake in New Vegas
- Maybe.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Don't forget about dat dialogue wheel. Was sad when Grim Reaper's sprint was super nerfed though.

It's hilariously overpowered in F3, so I kind of agree. If you take the more and better criticals perks you can just go from VATS headshot to VATS headshot once you get it though, which does obviously break pretty much every encounter.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

I want to discover a location and find something useful inside. Not just find (now useless) scrap metal and a skill magazine.

Useless? You can craft that scrap metal into a weapon repair kit or bullets, buddy. That's way more useful than selling it to that guy in Megaton who dies 90% of the time because his pathing is bugged.

Besides, most F:NV locations do have good or rare shit in them, just not "permanent stat upgrades for free, you're now a demi-god" shit.

 

[Lancehead]

-The entire concept of Ceasar's legion is really dumb

No, it's not.

-Removal of Bobbleheads and much less skill books make exploration less rewarding
-less points and perks on level up make leveling up less rewarding

These complaints always get a chuckle out of me. I think NV should've given 1 perk every 4 levels, and reduced the level cap to at least 40. I feel like big rewards after hard work are far more satisfying than constant spoonfeeding, positive reinforcement.

 

[kingkaiser]

You'd be surprised at how many people walk into the store I work at and claim exactly that. I simply ask them why they think that, and most of the time the response is, "I thought the story and characters in Fallout 3 were better."

Yeah, and that's exactly how I feel about that too. New Vegas story felt like there was no real tension, and it came all too quick to climax. NV also lacked those special areas/events that made Fallout 3 so memorable. I mean nuking a city, a noble hotel full of crazy elitists right in the middle of nowhere, that VR Vault, that city build in a destroyed aircraft carrier, that intriguing android quest, the whole oasis quest...not one quest or area in NV stuck in my mind like these.

 

[Syraxith]

-more bugs

Nope.

 

[dab0ne]

The only game I've played of theirs is New Vegas. It's inferior to Fallout 3 because:

-Main quest that initially funnels you through the world instead of giving freedom (it is available, but only if you really know the world and what to do)
-Some very long winded, boring dialogue
-The entire concept of Ceasar's legion is really dumb
-Removal of Bobbleheads and much less skill books make exploration less rewarding
-less points and perks on level up make leveling up less rewarding
-invisible walls in dumb places
-boring deserts and canyons as opposed to valleys and rivers
-more bugs

I still liked the game, but Fallout 3 is much better.

That shit drove me in-fucking-sane.

 

[Durante]

I still think it's telling that I played Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 3 and New Vegas for more than 100 hours each, but New Vegas is the only one I actually finished.

 

[Derrick01]

I want to discover a location and find something useful inside. Not just find (now useless) scrap metal and a skill magazine.

NV didn't have that many places where there was nothing. You're talking about maybe 5-10 places out of a game that has 100+ locations.

And you talk about the bobbleheads being taken out. That was a good thing as most of them gave permanent stat upgrades on top of all the upgrades you found throughout Fallout 3. NV replaced them with snow globes that give money instead which is much more valuable in the game (some of the weapons at the shops can run you 10k+ caps). But it's not like they took out permanent stat upgrades in the game, you just need to work a little more to get them and make choices on what to get.

 

[Hasphat'sAnts]

I used to like that Turn Up The Radio song a lot.

Now I get flashbacks like 'Nam.

 

[Eidan]

One mediocre to poor game and GAF will turn on Obsidian in a heart beat.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

A bit like Alpha Protocol is like Mass Effect 2 if Bioware had twice the ambition and talent (and half the budget).

In what sense is Obsidian particularly talented outside of perhaps the writers? Even then I'm not so sure. Obsi games have good plots but ME game dialogues have not been slouches, with plenty of great moments scattered across all three games. I'm not seeing how I could justify saying that Obisidan is twice as talented as Bioware. Their artists are probably worse, and I see no evidence to suggest their programmers or designers are worse than Obsidian. There's a difference between "they didn't make the game I wanted them to" and "they failed to make the game they wanted to".

 

[Majukun]

wasn't alpha protocol a bad game?

 

[NIN90]

One mediocre to poor game and GAF will turn on Obsidian in a heart beat.

Like Dungeon Siege 3?

 

[KiteGr]

So if you want to be a good dev/publisher your company's name must not start with "B"

 

[Derrick01]

One mediocre to poor game and GAF will turn on Obsidian in a heart beat.

Dungeon Siege 3 was mediocre at best. We're all still here and I'm very hyped for South Park even though it's not going to be a super hardcore RPG.

 

[Hasphat'sAnts]

wasn't alpha protocol a bad game?

A game with the highest highs, and lowest lows.

Depends on your level of tolerance for bad game play for some cool dialogue sequences.

 

[thetrin]

I don't agree, only because I haven't played an Obsidian game that has wowed me. I have played several Blizzard and Bethsoft games that have blown me away.

Also, bugs completely ruin games for me. I'd rather have a smaller, polished game, than an ambitious buggy game. Having great aspirations doesn't make my video game more fun.

 

[Randomizer]

One mediocre to poor game and GAF will turn on Obsidian in a heart beat.

Hmm they have a whole portfolio of them, didn't stop this thread being made.

 

[disappeared]

Yeah, and that's exactly how I feel about that too. New Vegas story felt like there was no real tension, and it came all too quick to climax. NV also lacked those special areas/events that made Fallout 3 so memorable. I mean nuking a city, a noble hotel full of crazy elitists right in the middle of nowhere, that VR Vault, that city build in a destroyed aircraft carrier, that intriguing android quest, the whole oasis quest...not one quest or area in NV stuck in my mind like these.

I'm not knocking F3 for those examples you brought up. I thought those were fantastic.

My grief with F3 stems from the typical "you're the only character in this world who can save us" bullshit that Beth ALWAYS puts in their narratives.

What Obsidian did with NV\s story was more along the lines of, "well, there were actually several other couriers who could have done exactly the same thing, but they died, and then you got shot in the head." It doesn't explicitly tell you to "go save earth." It's more of a personal story than an outright "save all humans" thing.

 

[Durante]

One mediocre to poor game and GAF will turn on Obsidian in a heart beat.

Many consider DS3 mediocre though. Of course, its an entry (the best entry) in a series entirely built on mediocrity.

I guess people would turn if Eternity turns out badly, but that is just exceedingly unlikely to happen.

There's a difference between "they didn't make the game I wanted them to" and "they failed to make the game they wanted to".

Ok, let me slightly adjust my statement to "twice as talented at creating RPGs". Because between Dragon Age 2 and what happened to ME after 1, it seems Bioware lost most of their aptitude at that.

 

[Clevinger]

I like Obsidian's games, but god damn their fans are obnoxious.

 

[HK-47]

What flamebait.

 

[hemtae]

NV didn't have that many places where there was nothing. You're talking about maybe 5-10 places out of a game that has 100+ locations.

And you talk about the bobbleheads being taken out. That was a good thing as most of them gave permanent stat upgrades on top of all the upgrades you found throughout Fallout 3. NV replaced them with snow globes that give money instead which is much more valuable in the game (some of the weapons at the shops can run you 10k+ caps). But it's not like they took out permanent stat upgrades in the game, you just need to work a little more to get them and make choices on what to get.

Caps aren't really worth more considering there's an infinite amount of them and you can find every weapon outside of a shop (unless you have the GRA DLC). Also repairing them is trivial with the Jury Rig perk.

 

[Syraxith]

I still think it's telling that I played Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 3 and New Vegas for more than 100 hours each, but New Vegas is the only one I actually finished.

Coming to Oblivion from Morrowind is definitely my biggest letdown for this generation.

 

[WickedLaharl]

wasn't alpha protocol a bad game?

It's fucking awful. Easily one of the absolute worst games I've played this gen.

 

[Loxley]

Your statement is as wrong as your grammar. DS3 was completely bug-free on release.

Oh sick burn bro.

Yes, because Obsidian miraculously managed to release one game this gen that was bug-free (not even their best game, which is the real tragedy) my entire statement is rendered completely false.

Yeah, no.

 

[Lancehead]

In what sense is Obsidian particularly talented outside of perhaps the writers? Even then I'm not so sure. Obsi games have good plots but ME game dialogues have not been slouches, with plenty of great moments scattered across all three games. I'm not seeing how I could justify saying that Obisidan is twice as talented as Bioware. Their artists are probably worse, and I see no evidence to suggest their programmers or designers are worse than Obsidian. There's a difference between "they didn't make the game I wanted them to" and "they failed to make the game they wanted to".

System design is constantly better than all the mainstream RPG developers put together.
Content design is always better (story, plot, area design, quest design etc.; not encounter design)
Innovative stuff - Spirit Eater mechanic, influence system in KotOR 2, real time stances in AP (I actually dislike that stuff).
Mechanically rich.

 

[Boss Man]

I agree with your opinion OP, it is a good one.

 

[hemtae]

Oh sick burn bro.

Yes, because Obsidian miraculously managed to release one game this gen that was bug-free (not even their best game, which is the real tragedy) my entire statement is rendered come try false.

Yeah, no.

You said they always release buggy games. He showed you not always. So yes it is completely false.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Yeah, and that's exactly how I feel about that too. New Vegas story felt like there was no real tension, and it came all too quick to climax. NV also lacked those special areas/events that made Fallout 3 so memorable. I mean nuking a city, a noble hotel full of crazy elitists right in the middle of nowhere, that VR Vault, that city build in a destroyed aircraft carrier, that intriguing android quest, the whole oasis quest...not one quest or area in NV stuck in my mind like these.

Personally I'd say that Vault 11 alone was more memorable than any single location in F3.

 

[kittens]

Everyone's better than Bioware.