1. Obsidian*Dulcinea said:I'd say on the whole Bethesda has a much better track record for the games they've made.
Obsedian's lineup consists of so many rushed sequels and unfinished experiences. A lot of their games have community made mods that finish and add back in content Obseidan couldn't.
If they were in the space travel business, 90% of the world's astronauts would be dead.Thedek said:I think they are too in love with their older games, which weren't quite as bad (black isle old fo1/2 bg kind of stuff) that and they give them too much credit for their ambitions.Super Toast said:That's just pathetic. Annoying shit like this makes me wonder why anyone would consider Obsidian to be a competent studio, let alone good.
Sure, it's nice to find people who have good, impressive ideas on paper, but they really ought to figure out how to make the things work.
They reach so much for the stars that they don't pay attention to the important details that will make their space rockets actually get them there in one piece.
Exactly. I remember bugs in Fallout 3 but they never deterred me from playing it like they have in New Vegas.Legion said:This is what has put me off of buying the new DLC. The game is just bug-riddled and it really has clouded my opinion of the game to the extent that I just can't pick it up and play it any more.
People said Fallout 3 was buggy but I experienced nothing that wasn't aesthetic, New Vegas on the other hand has just been insane.
It's frustrating really, because I really enjoyed it at first.
True.Dulcinea said:Bethesda isn't the problem; every game Obsedian makes has complaints of being rushed and bug riddled.
Bethesda made games are better. Not perfect. But better.
110% agree.Jumwa said:Really makes me long for the days of Bethesda's "ruining" the Fallout franchise with Fallout 3.
Don't get me wrong, Fallout New Vegas is--bugs aside--a great game, in many ways better than Fallout 3. The problem being the bugs are hard to put aside and a direct sequel (game mechanics wise) SHOULD be better, that's the base assumption when you're working with tools already provided. You use the experiences and feedback of the first time to make the next game better, more robust.
Obsidian failed to do that. I know fans have all the excuses in the world for why Obsidian is "off the hook" on making a terribly buggy game, such as: "They were using another designers game engine!" "Their publisher didn't give them the time/funds necessary to do it!" etc.. But these all fall short when you realize that Obsidian has had the same exact issues with every different publisher, while other design teams haven't.
At some point you have to stop pointing the finger of blame elsewhere.
Eh, it's more of a Schrödinger's Cat situation. It's both a surprise, and frustration, until you encounter the problem. Then it's either ^^Fasckira said:"Testing" isnt something Bethesda do. They like to give the greatest gift of all to their fans, the gift of "surprise". Others (the fans for example) would perhaps consider this gift to be more "frustration" however.Dulcinea said:Ouch. That's just not on. Why was this allowed out to the public? Surely testing would pick that up... Sheesh.![]()
Err...WHAT?!?Undead Dragon King said:...And the Escapist was up in arms over Dragon Age 2, saying it was the worst RPG ever.
At least BioWare TESTS their games before launch! Bethesda...not so much. And yet where is the furor for their buggy RPG's? I know that Obsidian developed New Vegas, but I've seen similar bugs in Fallout 3 and Oblivion.
I'm half-expecting there to actually be Tentacle Bears in Skyrim- because of graphical bugs