Obsidian Lost Bonus for Fallout: New Vegas by One Metacritic Point

sb666

Fake Best
Apr 5, 2010
1,976
0
0
Country
Australia
Oh good another thing I can add to my list of reasons i hate Bethesda.
 

rembrandtqeinstein

New member
Sep 4, 2009
2,173
0
0
How could they have agreed to this deal? Course anyone who agrees to promised "bonus" money instead of an up front amount is known everywhere as a sucker.

And if they did have to agree why on gawds cracked out earth would they agree to a single metric instead of either reviews OR some reasonable sales figure.

The negotiator for obsidian dropped the ball on this one.
 

Electric Alpaca

What's on the menu?
May 2, 2011
388
0
0
j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
Except that Bethesda was responsible for bugtesting New Vegas, and the main criticism reviewers and gamers had with the game was the number of bugs. Meaning that Obsidian did all they could to make the game as great as possible, and Bethesda fucking up cost them Metacritic points which then cost them money.

When Obsidian were negotiating this deal, they were probably thinking "Can we actually make a game that improves on Fallout 3 and gets a great reception?" not "Do we trust Bethesda to not fuck up the bug-testing and completely screw over the reception for our game?"
Quality Assurance testing can only go so far - bugs being present in the game ultimately lies at the feet of those that created the software in the first place.


Resting the entirety of blame on the bugs is silly, a quote from one of the lowest scores provided on Metacritic: "The RPG aspect is so dominant that we forgive the technical issues and the lack of artistic ambition": Gamekult.

Gamers reception is irrelevant so don't bring that into the discussion again.

Yes you'll have those reviewers that assign more weight to core build, but more criticism is angled at how things haven't changed enough, how the game feels like glorified DLC, how it's graphically challenged.

There isn't a single thing to point the finger at, it's a patchwork of multiple concerns.

Irregardless - even if the sole reason was because of technical issues, Obsidian knows Bethesda's history as well as any other person; better I would imagine. It's their lack of foresight if Bethesda's QA wasn't taken into consideration.

Chris Avellone was asked a specific question on Twitter by a fan: "Did you guys get much money from New Vegas?" He replied no they didn't, because New Vegas didn't get the average score needed to earn their bonus. If you equate that sort of chat with the fanbase as spilling corporate secrets, then I can only hope you don't work for any company watchdogs anywhere.
What financial transactions take place is no business of the public, Bethesda is privately owned therefore negating the need to publicly declare their actions. It wasn't a place for him to comment.

I didn't say "spilling corporate secrets", I stated my opinion on discussing matters that shouldn't be discussed. I understand professional discretion.
 

Frylock72

New member
Dec 7, 2009
193
0
0
Imbechile said:
Tanis said:
Ahh...Obsidian, making even BUGGIER, half-assed, sequels to already buggy games.
Bethesda did the bugtesting for New Vegas.
Funnily enough, guess who I didn't vote for in the latest March Madness round! Astounding! On the topic of Metacritic being used as a judge for the quality of a game and a bonus, I say bullshit. This whole deal just smells fishy.
 

EHKOS

Madness to my Methods
Feb 28, 2010
4,815
0
0
Wait, can we still fix this?! DON'T WORRY OBSIDIAN I'M COMING TO VOTE FOR YOU!!!
 

agiganticpanda

New member
Sep 10, 2008
44
0
0
TLS14 said:
Tanis said:
Ahh...Obsidian, making even BUGGIER, half-assed, sequels to already buggy games.
I don't know what universe you live in, but New Vegas isn't nearly as buggy as it was a few years ago. Upon release, yes, it was buggier than Fallout 3, but after the patches and DLC started rolling in, Obsidian refined the game so that it was actually well-optimized for the engine.
and? I expect a game to not BSOD the first hour and not let me get past a certain point in a game to the point I had to play it on the XBOX which still had major crashes and bugs.

It's their fault for signing a shitty contract.
 

Darren716

New member
Jul 7, 2011
784
0
0
Bethesda should know not to trust internet game reviews seeing as most reviewers are hired by websites who are owned by the same mother company that owns game studios, so the reviewers will give games scores not based on merit but on the amount of ad revenue their site is making by hosting ads for the game on their site.
 

CobraX

New member
Jul 4, 2010
637
0
0
Wow what kind of broken, stupid Business Deal is this and who the hell even gives a crap about Metacritic?!

Oh, and Bethesda - Way to be a dick, just give them the bonus they were only one point under!

God, I hope the South Park RPG makes Obsidian some money, they are Talented developers and deserve much better than this kind of crap. It's just one crappy bump in the road after the other for Obsidian isn't it? Too bad, I like them and wish them the best of luck in the future.

Basically My Thoughts:
 

Farther than stars

New member
Jun 19, 2011
1,228
0
0
I'm not too heart-broken about the South Park RPG thing. If anything the world might be better off without it. But "North Carolina" sounds suspiciously like an appropriate setting for the next Fallout game. And if that turns out to be the case this news is completely aweful! :eek:
 

Mullahgrrl

New member
Apr 20, 2008
1,011
0
0
The fact that the game only got an 84 is annoying enough.

The fact that this has any reprocusions is death!
 

AnotherAvatar

New member
Sep 18, 2011
491
0
0
The real thing that bothers me here is that most game reviewers are company cock suckers, who will only love something if it's advertised on their site.

In a big way they are the leeches in this system, making a healthy living while doing little more than telling us their bullshit opinion.

While I will take the advice of select few reviewers I've come to trust, usually all reviews do is get me excited for a game I already want to play.

I'm sad that because of a few dicks who would have rather been playing Call of Duty Obsidian has to suffer, even though they made one of the best games of the year.

My evidence of this lofty status is personal, but I feel very telling: I've beat this game twice. And I'm not talking a speed run, I'm talking two totally different characters fully exploring it's massive world and clocking over 100 hours each. With all the amazing games that have come out in the past year, that I made time to play this massive gem again really says something.

Side note: I may be wrong here, but Bethesda's business department strikes me as a bunch of shifty fuckers, ranging from the whole Fallout MMO business that was a big deal not long ago, to their recent claiming of the term "Scrolls" (fucking absurd), to this. They may publish some games that I like, but every time I hear shit like this I grow reluctant to give them my business.
 

RaikuFA

New member
Jun 12, 2009
4,370
0
0
Fappy said:
WanderingFool said:
RoseArch said:
Imagine if Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 didn't have high metacritic scores. It sold truckloads. But ONE TINY METACRITIC SCORE OFF. No bonus for u!

>_>
Would anything have changed?

Anyways, This just goes to show that Numerical scores are for reviews can and will fuck people over.
I've hated the scoring system for years. A number tells you nothing and offers no real context.
Same here, thats why I use a final word with my reviews.

AnotherAvatar said:
The real thing that bothers me here is that most game reviewers are company cock suckers, who will only love something if it's advertised on their site.

In a big way they are the leeches in this system, making a healthy living while doing little more than telling us their bullshit opinion.

While I will take the advice of select few reviewers I've come to trust, usually all reviews do is get me excited for a game I already want to play.

I'm sad that because of a few dicks who would have rather been playing Call of Duty Obsidian has to suffer, even though they made one of the best games of the year.

My evidence of this lofty status is personal, but I feel very telling: I've beat this game twice. And I'm not talking a speed run, I'm talking two totally different characters fully exploring it's massive world and clocking over 100 hours each. With all the amazing games that have come out in the past year, that I made time to play this massive gem again really says something.

Side note: I may be wrong here, but Bethesda's business department strikes me as a bunch of shifty fuckers, ranging from the whole Fallout MMO business that was a big deal not long ago, to their recent claiming of the term "Scrolls" (fucking absurd), to this. They may publish some games that I like, but every time I hear shit like this I grow reluctant to give them my business.
Same here. I love JRPGs but you can tell from a good amount of professionals that review them that they don't even feel that the genre should even exist.

WRPG: Save the world = best story ever made
JRPG: Save the world = JRPG cliche would not play again
 

Electric Alpaca

What's on the menu?
May 2, 2011
388
0
0
j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
Which again, lies with Bethesda. They are responsible for licensing the Gamebryo engine for use in all their games, an engine notorious for how unstable and buggy a piece of software it is. When negotiating with Obsidian, one of Bethesda's conditions was that the game be developed for the Gamebryo engine. So really, according to you, the blame for the buggy software lies with Gamebase, the company that owns Gamebryo.
Again, if we know the issues present - so do the developers. If Bethesda insist upon one thing, Obsidian another. That's how negotiations work.

...wait, what?

We're discussing how the reception of NV ultimately ended up losing Obsidian money, and now you claim that reception is irrelevant?
Gamer reception is irrelevant, critic reception is relevant - did you not read the original article? What the public thought of the game had no baring on the bonus.

I quote:

and the main criticism reviewers and gamers had with the game was the number of bugs.
I used your word of "gamer" and yet you've failed to understand me. User. Customer. Consumer. Not professional.

The quote you highlighted is incredibly relevant to the point I am trying to get through to you. Almost universally, the gameplay additions, setting and story created by Obsidian have been praised by critics. Almost universally, the bugs have been criticised. Considering that bug testing was Bethesda's department, why is it fair to blame Obsidian for the faults of another company? And why, when you choose a quote praising the gameplay and deriding the technical issues, do you then claim these things are not part of the discussion at hand? If you're going to claim something is irrelevant, please choose something other than a highly relevant excerpt from the very website which is at the heart of the issue.
I think you're being deliberately difficult and at this point I'm losing patience with discussing this with you.

If your next post is like this I refuse to respond.

The quote I highlighted is a critic review, with a critic score that makes up part of the overall Metascore, the relevant part. You're getting hung up in your own confusion.

My point was the quote states that Gamekult ignore the bugs AND artistic direction. I.e. two shortcomings identified in one fell swoop, but also brushed aside as not being the sole reasons of the low score. Yes there was praise for the gameplay, but also two criticisms. They had OTHER problems with the game as the reasoning for their low score.

I'm not ignoring the game having bugs was part of the issue - you're ignoring the fact that bugs were one issue of many.

1) Any game made on the Gamebryo engine is going to be 'graphically challenged'. Bethesda could have given John Carmack the rights to make New Vegas, and it would have still looked like crap.

2) Obsidian had 18 months to make New Vegas. That is not enough time to completely rebuild the game's mechanics from scratch and integrate them into a new setting. As it stands, the fact that Obsidian managed to take the Fallout 3 template and add iron-sights, companion commands, a reputation system, weapon modifications, and a better lighting system and third-person controls in that time is a testament to their hard-work and creativity. Few other developers could have pulled off those changes in that period of time.

3) The gameplay differences between Fallout 3 and New Vegas is no worse than in other series like Call Of Duty, Battlefield or Gears Of War, and in many cases is a good deal better. Can you show me where Call Of Duty implemented a reputation system or AI ally commands?
We're not talking about those games. Games that have a multiplayer being the sole focus and therefore having any entirely different scope to a single player game.

Like I said, my opinion doesn't matter. Your opinion doesn't matter. Professional publications are all that matter. When Obsidian agreed to these terms they agreed to produce this game knowing that their judgment would lie on reviewers.

Therefore their efforts should have been placed in pandering to them. Simple.

Bethesda told Obsidian that they would handle bug testing. Obsidian took them at their word. Are you now saying that Obsidian should go into every contract negotiation with the assumption that the other party are lying through their teeth and not to be taken at their word? How on earth could they ever get anywhere with financing if that were the case?

Bethesda made a contractual promise to Obsidian. Obsidian took them at their word. The fact that Bethesda did only the bare minimum to fulfil their end of the bargain should not be laid at Obsidian's feet. If one party fails to fulfil their obligation, the blame lies with them, not with the other party for not being more cynical.
Then if that was the case they can sue, but it's amusing how they aren't isn't it? If there really was a case for breach of contract and the only reason the average wasn't hit was because of technical mars than why hasn't this been taken to court?
 

Krantos

New member
Jun 30, 2009
1,840
0
0
Fappy said:
What kind of backwards bullshit business deal is that? Is this common? For fucks sake gaming industry, forget about Metracritic scores! They are meaningless as many of the publications are bought off anyway (looking at you, Gamespot and IGN). This makes me sick.
Well, Obsidian agreed to the deal, so...

I agree it's not a very good system, but Obsidian can't really complain as they went into this knowing how things would work.

Plus, anytime Obsidian complains about their publisher, I take it with a mountain of salt. Since, you know, they've done it. Every. Single. Time.

I love Obsidian's games (when they work right), but the developer itself has always irritated me with their constant whining.