Bethesda Teases... Something
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Air to G-String 3 in 1 is all I get out of it without breaking my eyes or my brain.
Maybe I'll try later today. After more coffee. Just a cup. Or two. Or three. Or a dozen.
Maybe I'll try later today. After more coffee. Just a cup. Or two. Or three. Or a dozen.
With complementary Horse Armor. They learned their lesson, honest!Zachary Amaranth said:
OT: No clue what it could be, but what I got out of it was an auto-starting and auto-looping video that thankfully muted itself on opening. >.>
I wouldn't really call myself a Bethesda fan though. I like a game or two that they've published, and Skyrim was fun for a little bit, but I've never been able to get into any of the other Elder Scrolls games or the Fallout games they've published.
You have exactly two examples and no more. That isn't enough data to objectively qualify which company would make a better Fallout the next time around. People are split on which game they like better and Obsidian had a Hell of a pair of shoulders to stand on in the second iteration of the modern Fallout series.Freezy_Breezy said:
Meaning, Fallout 3 had to be newly created from scratch in all but the original theme. Anything they kept in had to be dramatically redesigned and a significant amount of resources went into creating a proprietary game engine. Obsidian was then given these resources with Bethesda as their publisher as well as their guidance. When you're not creating a game from scratch then you've got a hell of a lot more freedom (resources: Money, People, Time) to put more effort into polishing the existing engine and developing the story.
So the remaining question is which company would be better at redesigning the entire game world for the next generation of console? Bethesda is the one for that. There is practically no other company that is better at creating a sandbox for developers and modders to run wild in. However, there's no harm in hiring a few of the best writers that New Vegas game (Chris Avellone is practically gold right now).
I saw the title and though yay new Fallout but no, disappointed again. Damn you Bethesda and your teasing! Looks like my theory that they're waiting for the next gen consoles might be right. Oh well, whatever this is it's got my interest, Bethesda hasn't let me down yet.
Congratulations, you've just complained about someone making a point you didn't actually read or try to understand as if it was in direct disagreement with your opinion. Welcome to the Internet! Enjoy your stay.Freezy_Breezy said:
Saying that we don't have enough information to really come to a conclusion about which company would make a better successor doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong or even that I disagree that Obsidian developed a superior game. My point was to establish that Obsidian had significant efficiencies gained on the shoulders of Bethesda's earlier work (which was quite good by itself) that may have contributed to a more rounded/fleshed out story. I did nothing to establish that one was better than the other or that either would necessarily do a better job on the next game. So even your basis for complaint against me was a misunderstanding of intention. My only overall point was that Obsidian isn't exactly a company I'd go to in order to create a completely new engine for next gen systems. They're the company I'd go to if I wanted a well written game in an engine I've already created for them to use. Obsidian may be capable of doing so but they have no example of such engine design that I'm aware of beyond much simpler work. If Bethesda could design the engine and then hand off the story to Obsidian we may see the best of both worlds. I fail to see how this is objectively claiming their opinions were wrong. It's just pointing out factors that may have been overlooked that should be considered when looking forward to the next iteration of the series.
Even with subjective tastes you can make objective decisions. I like X because it had more Y and I like Y. The subjective bit is your preference for Y and the objective bit is quantifying how much Y it has. In this way, you may quantify the quality of games in relation to your subjective preferences. It's what game reviewers do all the time. 4 stars out of 5? Blamo: objective qualification of subject matter in relation to subjective tastes. The reader needs merely to find a reviewer that shares subjective tastes to have reliable reviews.
The question here is which company would produce more "Y" in the successor while simultaneously having to juggle the creation of a new game engine capable of utilizing more advanced hardware. If we had more points of data comparing the two companies we would be able to formulate some kind of answer. But for that, Bethesda and Obsidian would both have to create an installation of the series on the same engine and that isn't going to happen. You state that the game engine was buggy as Hell, and I agree. But it fails to recognize what kind of cutting edge engine it was at the time and that there was nothing comparable to it either. It also doesn't account for what was then demanded of that engine to perform was immense compared to other engines. Proper development could code around the issues and by New Vegas they'd gotten significantly better at understanding its issues (though, New Vegas still ended up having the same bugs in the end game despite having successfully delayed category bloating beyond what Fallout 3 did). Every engine has its bugs. A truly open world just makes them more apparent than a closed track.
Actually they got screwed over. I forget why, but they had to rush the game out or something. I also read somewhere that the devs, on the day before Troika closed, stayed at work and tried to iron out as many bugs as possible for no pay.Freezy_Breezy said:
BUT I'm not sure how accurate what I just said was. So take it with a grain of salt.
Also, it's good to see someone else who's played VtMB!
