Support NeoGAF

[hemtae]

You can kill anyone you want in New Vegas (except Yes Man, I think he's the only one you can't kill). That already gives you so much choice you can't even wrap your head around it.

Kids, Companions when they're in your service and you can't kill Victor when you're in Goodsprings.

 

[FairXchange]

Follow this crappy tutorial and then 1 1/2 hours later you're killing the powder gangers and off you go to Primm because that's what you've been hearing in every dialogue sequence for the past 2 hours..

So that means the first 2 hours have some minor direction. You realize you don't have to do any of that? It took me 45 hours until I made it to New Vegas. All told I've spend roughly 150 hours in the game and I'm still on my first play though and finishing up The Lonesome Road, then I'm gonna pick my faction and finish the game. I don't think anyone has had the same experience in Fallout NV with respect to mission progression.

 

[Casanova]

What on earth are you talking about? On later playthroughs, I scavenged around ruins and the Goodsprings homes and then made my own path to New Vegas; sometimes I stopped at Primm or Boulder City, sometimes I ignored them. Sometimes I took the Goodsprings quest differently, either siding with or against the convicts, sometimes I ignored the quest entirely to go do other ones.

How does that equal CoD? I merely responded that you could go in a completely different direction than the one you seemed to think was the only possible one.

What did you do in Fallout 3?

 

[Bombadil]

I don't even know where to begin

Well, if your internal presumption about Obsidian is that they're actually just Black Isle with a new name, then I suppose you wouldn't know where to begin.

Edit: Fallout New Vegas is about several factions fighting for control of the Hoover Dam because it is their source for pure, non-irradiated water.

Fallout New Vegas is about... dun dun dun... water. Fuck.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

They also mooched off Bethesda when they decided to use the same engine and assets to produce New Vegas.

Do you really think that using GameBryo was not part of the contract? Or do you honestly think that ZeniMax gave Obsidian money and a schedule to create a Fallout game as a followup to FO3, and there was no expectation on their part that it would be using the same technology?

 

[Coxswain]

You can kill anyone you want in New Vegas (except Yes Man, I think he's the only one you can't kill). That already gives you so much choice you can't even wrap your head around it.

You can actually kill Yes Man no problem, too; he's not invincible or anything. He just respawns the next time you go there because he's an AI and he can just hop from robot body to robot body.

There's Vendortron, too, but it's hardly a character.

 

[Chairman Yang]

DA2 is the only legitimate stinker they've made so far, the ME series was a conscious decision to move away from genre conventions (and actually with 3 they introduced more RPG elements back into the series, and they were better than they were in ME1). DA1 showed that they can create these sorts of games if they please, and don't forget that DA2 had a ludicrously short dev cycle, the kind of thing we're supposed to be cutting Obsidian slack for in this thread.

1. Sonic Chronicles and SWTOR are even worse than DA2. At this point, modern Bioware has made more stinkers than great games.

2. DA1 started development before Bioware went off the rails. I've seen no evidence that the current Bioware can create these sorts of games anymore.

3. Obsidian's short dev cycles led to a lack of polish and bugginess. DA2's short dev cycle led to fundamentally poor design decisions that might not have been solved with more time. Like wave-based combat was a disaster that removed most of the nuance and tactical thinking from battles. The MMO-style "thanks for bringing me this!" fetch quests were very similar to ME3's, which didn't have a short dev cycle.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

What did you do in Fallout 3?

I walked towards Megaton because there was a robot there and it was the biggest thing in sight, which seemed like a good start after the boring tutorial section. Why?

 

[Coxswain]

Well, if your internal presumption about Obsidian is that they're actually just Black Isle with a new name, then I suppose you wouldn't know where to begin.

It's more the idea that Blizzard and Bioware didn't get where they are today by 'mooching' established IPs, officially or by tracing over the lines.

 

[Lancehead]

What do you mean by "gameplay"? The gameplay in Mass Effect 2 is almost non-existent, the barest of "crouch behind crate" shooters. About all it has going are the choices, which Alpha Protocol does better in addition to having gameplay systems besides just shooting and choices. All Mass Effect 2 has going for it is presentation.

I mean the gameplay mechanics. As far as combat mechanics go, ME2 relies more on player skill than character skill, and AP the other way around. But being a 3D cover shooter ME2 results in a significantly better combat experience. Then there's dialogue mechanics - AP's are more sophisticated than ME's (with attitude stances rather than generic abbreviations), but I don't like the real-time stance mechanics. Stealth mechanics are pretty bad in AP because of the overpowered skills and stupid AI. Minigame mechanics aren't much fun either game. The general controls (camera, movement etc.) in AP aren't very good.

On the balance I do think AP's dialogue mechanics are better, but combat and other mechanics were more what I had in mind with that comment.

Yeah, you responded to the snippet, "In New Vegas the story seemed rushed and ultra-linear."

NV story is not "ultra-linear". That's factually wrong. But you go on to tell me how you found the NV world boring, not how the story is ultra linear.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Irrelevant to this thread.

This thread is about whether a terrible studio that has never proven it can deliver a great game on its own is better than a slew of studios that, at least at some point in their history, developed critically acclaimed games without having to mooch off of someone else's intellectual property.

thatescalatedquickly.jpg

Do you really think that using GameBryo was not part of the contract? Or do you honestly think that ZeniMax gave Obsidian money and a schedule to create a Fallout game as a followup to FO3, and there was no expectation on their part that it would be using the same technology?

Actually I believe it wasn't so much mandated directly as made necessary by the limited time and money they were allowed for the game. Either way though I don't think it's fair to call that mooching, they did pretty incredible things with what they had to work with.

 

[zkylon]

but this is exactly what 3's plot was about.

the DLC even makes you purify the water.

If I'm not mistaking he was referring to another thread in which Bombadil (correct me if I'm wrong) mistook New Vegas' story completely and said it was about water just like in FO3. It's not, it's about a water dam, an energy resources, that's clearly a major strategical asset in a political war between two philosophically and structurally opposite parties.

Kids, Companions when they're in your service and you can't kill Victor when you're in Goodsprings.

Well, companions can be killed in Hardcore mode, Victor has at least a story explanation and kids, well, yeah it sucks. It was funny as hell to walk around The Den in Fallout 2 with nothing but live explosives on your inventory and watching the little rascals steal it and run to peddle them only to blow themselves up.

But yeah, compare that to Fallout 3.

 

[The Technomancer]

I mean the gameplay mechanics. As far as combat mechanics go, ME2 relies more on player skill than character skill, and AP the other way around. But being a 3D cover shooter ME2 results in a significantly better combat experience. Then there's dialogue mechanics - AP's are more sophisticated than ME's (with attitude stances rather than generic abbreviations), but I don't like the real-time stance mechanics. Stealth mechanics are pretty bad in because of the overpowered skills and stupid AI. Minigame mechanics aren't much fun either game. The general controls (camera, movement etc.) in AP aren't very good.

On the balance I do think AP's dialogue mechanics are better, but combat and other mechanics were more what I had in mind with that comment.

Eh, but I feel that the "gunplay" in ME2 is still pretty bad because of how dull it is. The level design in ME 2 is absolutely abysmal, the combat doesn't do anything unique or interesting to make me want to do so much of it, and its like literally like 90% of the content. AP has better "gameplay" to me because it more fully integrates all of your actions into the whole experience, and the actions you can take extend beyond "shooting things" and "occasionally making a very obvious moral choice"

 

[Haunted]

Alpha Protocol

Terrible stealth, shooting, minigames. Mixed writing (e-mails!). Great dynamic dialogue and choices.


I can tolerate jank, but actually playing through the levels in that game is not fun at all.

 

[zkylon]

Actually I believe it wasn't so much mandated directly as made necessary by the limited time and money they were allowed for the game. Either way though I don't think it's fair to call that mooching, they did pretty incredible things with what they had to work with.

aka the game of the generation

Obsidian worked magic on that one, that's for sure.

Alpha Protocol

Terrible stealth, shooting, minigames. Mixed writing (e-mails!). Great dynamic dialogue and choices.


I can tolerate jank, but actually playing through the levels in that game is not fun at all.

You didn't like the emails? The Aggresive answers to Heck's emails were awesome!

 

[FairXchange]

Well, when detractors are saying things like NV's story is ultra linear or that it's bad because missions in the first hour make suggestions on where to go next, when it's 100% optional, I think it's safe to conclude some of these arguments aren't based on solid ground.

 

[Chairman Yang]

Irrelevant to this thread.

This thread is about whether a terrible studio that has never proven it can deliver a great game on its own is better than a slew of studios that, at least at some point in their history, developed critically acclaimed games without having to mooch off of someone else's intellectual property.

KOTOR "mooched" off of the Star Wars IP.
Fallout 3 "mooched" off of the original Fallout license (and the Gamebryo engine was made by someone else).

Aside from that, the whole "mooching" argument is irrelevant. Who cares how an Obsidian game is better, as long as it's better? Do you track dev costs for each game you play and enjoy the game more if it was more expensive?

 

[zkylon]

KOTOR "mooched" off of the Star Wars IP.
Fallout 3 "mooched" off of the original Fallout license (and the Gamebryo engine was made by someone else).

Aside from that, the whole "mooching" argument is irrelevant. Who cares how an Obsidian game is better, as long as it's better? Do you track dev costs for each game you play and enjoy the game more if it was more expensive?

Mass Effect mooched off Gears of War!

 

[HK-47]

Eh, but I feel that the "gunplay" in ME2 is still pretty bad because of how dull it is. The level design in ME 2 is absolutely abysmal, the combat doesn't do anything unique or interesting to make me want to do so much of it, and its like literally like 90% of the content. AP has better "gameplay" to me because it more fully integrates all of your actions into the whole experience, and the actions you can take extend beyond "shooting things" and "occasionally making a very obvious moral choice"

If you werent doing biotic combos in ME2, then you werent playing the game correctly.

 

[subversus]

I agree with OP.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

aka the game of the generation

Obsidian worked magic on that one, that's for sure.

It doesn't get much sweeter.

Well, when detractors are saying things like NV's story is ultra linear or that it's bad because missions in the first hour make suggestions on where to go next, when it's 100% optional, I think it's safe to conclude some of these arguments aren't based on solid ground.

I don't know if I'd go that far, but it does certainly indicate to me that I should go elsewhere for recommendations. Anyone who finds the beginning of New Vegas linear or poorly designed clearly plays games for different reasons to mine.

 

[Casanova]

I walked towards Megaton because there was a robot there and it was the biggest thing in sight, which seemed like a good start after the boring tutorial section. Why?

There was a rolling robot in Goodsprings, and it was the only thing in sight...

I hardly doubt you just decided to fight your way through to the New Vegas strip immediately after walking out of the Doc's... that just doesn't add up. If so, I give you mad points in Intuition.

Both games were linear. I suppose the measure of linearity is determined by how fruitful you choose to play initially.

 

[Metroidvania]

What you're saying is the exact opposite of how many people felt about New Vegas compared to FO3.

I wish there were some objective, technical analysis of the entire map of both games to put to rest, once and for all, this interminable debate.

The Mojave is a world that at least attempts to appear "real", even if that does lead to several mapped locations that don't necessarily have super-sweet loot in them. Usually there's still a reason for the location, whether its a minor non-marked quest, a small story, a legendary enemy, or something of that nature.

To me, Fo3 literally felt like a connect the dots/fill in the map game. The main plot points were fine with regards to map/positioning, but everything else just felt so....random and not connected to the overall world.

 

[Omega]

DA2 is the only legitimate stinker they've made so far, the ME series was a conscious decision to move away from genre conventions (and actually with 3 they introduced more RPG elements back into the series, and they were better than they were in ME1). DA1 showed that they can create these sorts of games if they please, and don't forget that DA2 had a ludicrously short dev cycle, the kind of thing we're supposed to be cutting Obsidian slack for in this thread.

lol what RPG elements?

Fetch quests and turret sequences? Horde-like mission structure where you kill 15 enemies and move onto the next point just to kill another 15 enemies?

These are not RPG elements and that is literally all this game is. They even cut back on character interaction. It's mostly done the same way fetch quests are done. by awkwardly standing next to them like that kid in school who had no friends and didn't want to be embarrassed being seen alone.

and then you listen to them talk to someone else. and the few chances you do get to talk to them, it's short and aside from Javik, there's one or two real conversations, after that it's just one-liners.

example: aside from fighting with Vega while he cries about how you saved humanity, he says pretty much nothing the entire game. You go to him and it's just "hey loco, sup?"

there is nothing RPG about this game. Unless including extra "talents" to put points into makes it an RPG I guess. In the end, none of those talents do anything. I beat the game on insanity on my first playthrough, without ever dying, without ever putting any points into my talents or upgrading my guns.

 

[Bombadil]

Do you really think that using GameBryo was not part of the contract? Or do you honestly think that ZeniMax gave Obsidian money and a schedule to create a Fallout game as a followup to FO3, and there was no expectation on their part that it would be using the same technology?

You're glossing over the fact that Obsidian had to first engage in talks with ZeniMax to develop New Vegas in order for there to be a contract. They did the same thing with Knights of the Old Republic 2. I don't think the major publishers of the video game industry have much faith in Obsidian.

NV story is not "ultra-linear". That's factually wrong. But you go on to tell me how you found the NV world boring, not how the story is ultra linear.

No, actually. It's not factually wrong. It's a statement that could be subjectively valid depending on the experience of the player. If the player who made that statement felt that, in the course of playing New Vegas, the main plotline dominated the game and guided the player in a linear fashion, then he wouldn't be lying if he described the game's story as ultra-linear. Bear in mind that due the bugginess of New Vegas, it is possible to create major glitches in the game by completing certain missions in a particular order. Thus, one could experience New Vegas as an open world game that lets you do whatever you want in whichever order you want as long as you accept that the game can get fucked up that way. I experienced this issue with Skyrim.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

There was a rolling robot in Goodsprings, and it was the only thing in sight...

I hardly doubt you just decided to fight your way through to the New Vegas strip immediately after walking out of the Doc's... that just doesn't add up. If so, I give you mad points in Intuition.

Both games were linear. I suppose the measure of linearity is determined by how fruitful you choose to play initially.

I'm starting to wonder if you know what linear means.

 

[Lancehead]

Eh, but I feel that the "gunplay" in ME2 is still pretty bad because of how dull it is. The level design in ME 2 is absolutely abysmal, the combat doesn't do anything unique or interesting to make me want to do so much of it, and its like literally like 90% of the content. AP has better "gameplay" to me because it more fully integrates all of your actions into the whole experience, and the actions you can take extend beyond "shooting things" and "occasionally making a very obvious moral choice"

Just so we're on the same page: when I say "mechanics" I mean the ways by which the player can interact with the content of the game adhering to the rules of the system. Basically, how a player "chooses" or "acts". So to me when you say "it more fully integrates all of your actions into the whole experience", that's content design - how the game reacts to your choices. And that's where AP shines.

 

[NBtoaster]

It's more 'desolate', which I guess in some people's eyes means that it's better as post-apocalyptic fiction, even though it really doesn't make sense that any of that stuff would be that way after 200 years.

It makes plenty sense given how rough the Captial Wasteland had it compared to the Mojave.

Regarding atmosphere, I think it's better because of music, the visuals (better looking sunsets etc), and loneliness. I don't like the western music in New Vegas, while this is the best music conveying lonely, desolate wastes I've heard.

 

[The Technomancer]

Just so we're on the same page: when I say "mechanics" I mean the ways by which the player can interact with the content of the game adhering to the rules of the system. Basically, how a player "chooses" or "acts". So to me when you say "it more fully integrates all of your actions into the whole experience", that's content design - how the game reacts to your choices. And that's where AP shines.

In which case I'd say that Mass Effect 2 has competent mechanics and does absolutely nothing interesting with them. Not even the combat. The combat is competent but dull as a brick.

 

[HK-47]

lol what RPG elements?

Fetch quests and turret sequences? Horde-like mission structure where you kill 15 enemies and move onto the next point just to kill another 15 enemies?

These are not RPG elements and that is literally all this game is. They even cut back on character interaction. It's mostly done the same way fetch quests are done. by awkwardly standing next to them like that kid in school who had no friends and didn't want to be embarrassed being seen alone.

and then you listen to them talk to someone else. and the few chances you do get to talk to them, it's short and aside from Javik, there's one or two real conversations, after that it's just one-liners.

example: aside from fighting with Vega while he cries about how you saved humanity, he says pretty much nothing the entire game. You go to him and it's just "hey loco, sup?"

there is nothing RPG about this game. Unless including extra "talents" to put points into makes it an RPG I guess. In the end, none of those talents do anything. I beat the game on insanity on my first playthrough, without ever dying, without ever putting any points into my talents or upgrading my guns.

But dude you get to choose between two different upgrades each time, half of which just straight stat upgrades!

 

[EmCeeGramr]

There was a rolling robot in Goodsprings, and it was the only thing in sight...

No, not really.

I hardly doubt you just decided to fight your way through to the New Vegas strip immediately after walking out of the Doc's... that just doesn't add up. If so, I give you mad points in Intuition.

I didn't say that I did. I said that it was an option, and one that I took on later playthroughs. Again, you acted like there was "an 1 1/2 hour" tutorial foisted upon the player that culminated in you being forced to kill the Powder Gangers and then heading to Primm without any choice, as opposed to FO3's intro, when you can in fact do whatever you want in New Vegas after you create your character and leave Doc's house.

 

[hemtae]

It makes plenty sense given how rough the Captial Wasteland had it compared to the Mojave.

Regarding atmosphere, I think it's better because of music, the visuals (better looking sunsets etc), and loneliness. I don't like the western music in New Vegas, while this is the best music conveying lonely, desolate wastes I've heard.

The water supply wouldn't still be borked for that long I think and given that the borked water supply is the reason everything is as screwed as it as, it shouldn't be like that after 200 years.

 

[Coxswain]

No, actually. It's not factually wrong. It's a statement that could be subjectively valid depending on the experience of the player. If the player who made that statement felt that, in the course of playing New Vegas, the main plotline dominated the game and guided the player in a linear fashion, then he wouldn't be lying if he described the game's story as ultra-linear.

This is a definition of "linear" which encompasses any game where the player character doesn't literally divide by mitosis and start walking in two completely different directions simultaneously.

 

[HK-47]

In which case I'd say that Mass Effect 2 has competent mechanics and does absolutely nothing interesting with them. Not even the combat. The combat is competent but dull as a brick.

I'm telling you the only way to play is with a full biotic team.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

This is a definition of "linear" which encompasses any game where the player character doesn't literally divide by mitosis and start walking in two completely different directions simultaneously.

...

I would play that game

 

[Bombadil]

KOTOR "mooched" off of the Star Wars IP.
Fallout 3 "mooched" off of the original Fallout license (and the Gamebryo engine was made by someone else).

Aside from that, the whole "mooching" argument is irrelevant. Who cares how an Obsidian game is better, as long as it's better? Do you track dev costs for each game you play and enjoy the game more if it was more expensive?

They're not better games, though.

My points about the development side of things only reinforces my arguments that Obsidian are not a well-respected studio within the industry. They have a hardcore legion of fans on the internet, which is great for them. But they keep getting passed around for quick turnaround sequels. They're not given a proper dev cycle or enough money to make those games.

I pity them, but I also wonder why they're treated that way. And my only conclusion is, they're just not liked by the rest of the industry for some reason that maybe the rest of us don't know about.

 

[zkylon]

No, actually. It's not factually wrong. It's a statement that could be subjectively valid depending on the experience of the player. If the player who made that statement felt that, in the course of playing New Vegas, the main plotline dominated the game and guided the player in a linear fashion, then he wouldn't be lying if he described the game's story as ultra-linear. Bear in mind that due the bugginess of New Vegas, it is possible to create major glitches in the game by completing certain missions in a particular order. Thus, one could experience New Vegas as an open world game that lets you do whatever you want in whichever order you want as long as you accept that the game can get fucked up that way. I experienced this issue with Skyrim.

I don't think you know what a linear game is.

 

[Gestahl]

No, not really.



I didn't say that I did. I said that it was an option, and one that I took on later playthroughs. Again, you acted like there was "an 1 1/2 hour" tutorial foisted upon the player that culminated in you being forced to kill the Powder Gangers and then heading to Primm without any choice, as opposed to FO3's intro, when you can in fact do whatever you want in New Vegas after you create your character and leave Doc's house.

Please stop responding to insane people.

 

[HK-47]

The water supply wouldn't still be borked for that long I think and given that the borked water supply is the reason everything is as screwed as it as, it shouldn't be like that after 200 years.

If you start using this argument, a lot of Fallout breaks down. Though I do find it funny that shifting water through dirt would remove a large amount of radiation from the water, if I remember reading correctly.

 

[Wallach]

...

I would play that game

Actually it sounds like a decent idea for a roguelike where you are time limited in taking turns, measuring your success in how far you can progress while splitting your character into as many potentialities as possible.

 

[NBtoaster]

The water supply wouldn't still be borked for that long I think and given that the borked water supply is the reason everything is as screwed as it as, it shouldn't be like that after 200 years.

None of the games are really concerned with accurate portrayal of what radiation does after a nuclear holocaust.

 

[HK-47]

They're not better games, though.

My points about the development side of things only reinforces my arguments that Obsidian are not a well-respected studio within the industry. They have a hardcore legion of fans on the internet, which is great for them. But they keep getting passed around for quick turnaround sequels. They're not given a proper dev cycle or enough money to make those games.

I pity them, but I also wonder why they're treated that way. And my only conclusion is, they're just not liked by the rest of the industry for some reason that maybe the rest of us don't know about.

I'm sure you just feel so bad for them, with your unfounded speculation.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

Obsidian is not well-respected in the industry, which is why a major publisher allowed them to a make a major release in their second-most valuable IP.

 

[Varna]

Lol someone post a pic of that one quest in New Vegas... YOU KNOW THE ONE. Yeah, New Vegas sure is linear as hell.

Obsidian is amazing. They just suck at balancing their games all the skills and systems in their games.

They just need to spend more time polishing their products. The only game that really didn't engage me was DS3. It's just so bland. Definitely feels like something they really didn't give a shit about it.

I was planning to do a KOTOR marathon earlier this month and after the initial segment in the first game I got to my first quest and moral choice... it went something like "I'm going to fucken kill you!" or "I'm going to be your good little errand boy." I promptly uninstalled after I remembered that entire game was pretty much like that. This is where Obsidian pretty much shines. They just create amazing atmosphere and choices that are so ridiculously obvious.

 

[Bombadil]

I don't think you know what a linear game is.

Yes, I do. A linear game is one that forces you to follow a predesignated path.

But the other poster described the story as being linear.

It is possible for an open-world RPG to have a linear story.

 

[Casanova]

Please stop responding to insane people.

Please stop making posts that don't contribute to the topic of the thread.

 

[zkylon]

They're not better games, though.

My points about the development side of things only reinforces my arguments that Obsidian are not a well-respect studio within the industry. They have a hardcore legion of fans on the internet, which is great for them. But they keep getting passed around for quick turnaround sequels. They're not given a proper dev cycle or enough money to make those games.

I pity them, but I also wonder why they're treated that way. And my only conclusion is, they're just not liked by the rest of the industry for some reason that maybe the rest of us don't know about.

They get treated like that because they're a privately owned company in an industry that's as bloodsucking as the worst of them. What do Bethesda or Bioware have that Obsidian doesn't? Big, fat, corporate backing.

They also make extremely safe games that, while fun for many, they clearly don't reward the type of play Obsidian fans enjoy.

I'm very thankful Obsidian seems to respect their craft (even if they did scare me with DSIII) as much as to not go public and get turned into a monstrosity like Bioware and instead choose to go smaller with Kickstarter.

Yes, I do. A linear game is one that forces you to follow a predesignated path.

But the other poster described the story as being linear.

It is possible for an open-world RPG to have a linear story.

My fault, I misred you as saying it was a linear game.

I have to agree on that, then, it's a linear story with some branching, like in most open RPGs.

Ultra-linear I'd have to say is crazy, though, what with the multiple endings and parallel and skippable main quests.

Lol someone post a pic of that one quest in New Vegas... YOU KNOW THE ONE. Yeah, New Vegas sure is linear as hell..

This is just an optional side quest, mind you.

 

[Bombadil]

They get treated like that because they're a privately owned company in an industry that's as bloodsucking as the worst of them. What do Bethesda or Bioware have that Obsidian doesn't? Big, fat, corporate backing.

They also make extremely safe games that, while fun for many, they clearly don't reward the type of play Obsidian fans enjoy.

I'm very thankful Obsidian seems to respect their craft (even if they did scare me with DSIII) as much as to not go public and get turned into a monstrosity like Bioware and instead choose to go smaller with Kickstarter.

You think Obsidian takes risks?

Corporate backing tends to come with success. You do something that's successful and then the corporations that only do shit for money come knocking at your door. It's true, Bethesda, Bioware, and Blizzard are all worse off now because of their corporate backing. But they got to be corporately backed entities because they made great games.

Now, I think you're making the argument that the people working at Obsidian have some kind of ethical character that keeps them from selling out. And while I'm being accused of speculating about the reputation of Obsidian within the industry, I think you as well are simply speculating about the individuals working at Obsidian. You're implying that the other studios (Bioware, Bethesda, Blizzard) don't respect their craft. Why?

 

[Lancehead]

Obsidian is not well-respected in the industry, which is why a major publisher allowed them to a make a major release in their second-most valuable IP.

I'd say some truth lies in the fact that in a changing gaming landscape to survive as a medium sized independent developer you got to take what you can get. Obsidian devs have experience with RPGs, they want work, they don't own any IP, they don't have much bargaining power. Those surely played a part in them getting many sequels.

Also, one can't deny Feargus loves his slam dunk sequels.

 

[hemtae]

While not entirely related to this discussion, I liked the little nugget Feargus Urquhart had about the kickstarter thing.

"So, you want us to do a Kickstarter for you, using our name, we then get the Kickstarter money to make the game, you then publish the game, but we then don’t get to keep the brand we make and we only get a portion of the profits."
"Yup"