Obsidian Lost Bonus for Fallout: New Vegas by One Metacritic Point
- Thread starter Mike Kayatta
- Start date
They. Got. Paid. For. The. Game.
If you're laying people off, then you're not managing your finances properly.
Relying on a bonus to not fire staff is exactly the same as waiting staff relying on tips to .. well .. live.
The problem here is not when some customer refuses to tip when they think the service is mediocre.
The problem here is not even because the service is mediocre enough to get such a reaction.
Sure, the billionz of bugs in F:NV is probably responsible for the 84, and had it 10% fewer bugs, it may have made the target.
However, that's still not the fucking issue.
The problem is, THE FUCKING RESTAURANT ISN'T PAYING STAFF ENOUGH TO LIVE ON.
If you're laying people off, then you're not managing your finances properly.
Relying on a bonus to not fire staff is exactly the same as waiting staff relying on tips to .. well .. live.
The problem here is not when some customer refuses to tip when they think the service is mediocre.
The problem here is not even because the service is mediocre enough to get such a reaction.
Sure, the billionz of bugs in F:NV is probably responsible for the 84, and had it 10% fewer bugs, it may have made the target.
However, that's still not the fucking issue.
The problem is, THE FUCKING RESTAURANT ISN'T PAYING STAFF ENOUGH TO LIVE ON.
reminds me of when I watched gametrailers Metroid Other M review, the guy spends most of it talking about the terrible voice acting, the bad story and script, and how he hates what they did with samus, which apparently only knock down to 8.9 or something like that.Orange12345 said:
I don't know what's sadder.
The fact that people think that those scores matter...
Or the fact that those scores are now costing people their jobs.
This is why I prefer video reviews. With text reviews, anything can be said to your face, and you wouldn't exactly be able to tell from the screenshots or from the text whether they're omitting a few things or not. Even with things like Zero Punctuation, you can tell that they had to go through some trouble playing through the game, and in the case of some video reviewers, capturing footage that outlines their points. Granted, some of them are extremely critical in their complaints and have a bar set so high that getting any kind of praise from them is difficult, but you can tell that they're being a lot more legitimate than most game sites.
Or hell, I'd even prefer something like GFaqs's review system, because if you're going to make text reviews, just have them open to the public. Sure, you're probably gonna have every CoD fanboy and their mum saying that Modern Warfare 7: Nuclear Combat was the best game of all time, but you'll also have the rest of the community pointing out its flaws, so you'll have a (slightly) balanced system.
The fact that people think that those scores matter...
Or the fact that those scores are now costing people their jobs.
This is why I prefer video reviews. With text reviews, anything can be said to your face, and you wouldn't exactly be able to tell from the screenshots or from the text whether they're omitting a few things or not. Even with things like Zero Punctuation, you can tell that they had to go through some trouble playing through the game, and in the case of some video reviewers, capturing footage that outlines their points. Granted, some of them are extremely critical in their complaints and have a bar set so high that getting any kind of praise from them is difficult, but you can tell that they're being a lot more legitimate than most game sites.
Or hell, I'd even prefer something like GFaqs's review system, because if you're going to make text reviews, just have them open to the public. Sure, you're probably gonna have every CoD fanboy and their mum saying that Modern Warfare 7: Nuclear Combat was the best game of all time, but you'll also have the rest of the community pointing out its flaws, so you'll have a (slightly) balanced system.
How exactly is it despicable?Darkmantle said:
Fallout 3 has scores of 90, 91 and 94 on Metacritic, depending on what platform your on. The fact that they set the target for bonus's at 85, rather then 90 like they most likely could have justified is downright benign by most big companies standards these days. I mean seriously, its FALLOUT, half the sites most likely added a couple of points simply because of the brand behind it, let alone the fact it possesses half the original developers from fallout 3.
The bonus was practically there's to lose, regardless of any interference or whatever from Bethesda. They had an established IP, a generous target to reach, and according to the fan reaction, they would smash it out of the park. Not to mention they inherited quite a few assets and code from Betheseda.
Due to the way the contract was no doubt worded, and the advantages they had, I certainly wouldn't be surprised if both sides considered the bonus target to merely be a formality. I mean, it was a quasi sequal, with features that brought everything back to their roots and crap.
If anyone screwed Obsidian out of the Bonus it was obviously Obsidian. It was most certainly theres to lose, and not bethesedas fault if they screwed it all up.
Seriously, why the hell is there so much Betheseda hate around. If it wasn't for them, there wouldn't have been ANY fallout 3 or Fallout New Vegas at all. Instead there would have been more Fallout Brotherhood of Steels, developed from a dying brand that likely would have ended up getting snapped up by EA or Activision.
Think about it. Fallout by Activison or EA, in the same vein as post westwood command and conquer, Syndicate or X-Com.
Coming soon, from EA. Fallout 1942. A newly innovative cover based shooter that takes us from before war ever changed. Live the war against
I think that depends on the house. This is Obsidian we're talking about, after all.The Gentleman said:
I have to admit, this does give me a certain amount of schadenfreude after Avellone's ***** fit [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.333033-Obsidian-Hopes-Digital-Distribution-Stabs-the-Used-Game-Market-in-the-Heart]
It takes more than a nostalgic pedigree to achieve greatness.
While using metacritic is asinine in itself, its almost said that when the game first came out, it was a "70" game. Fun; if you weren't raging against a game locking bug.
But now that the game has been patched up a bit, its a good solid 90+.
Only if they gave themselves 30 more days to find a bit more of those game locking bugs and nearly every review would have been above 80%.
I mean, there are 3 sites that rate it 70% or lower, which really drag down the score. If those 3 sites happen to have been even a minimum of 75%...
But now that the game has been patched up a bit, its a good solid 90+.
Only if they gave themselves 30 more days to find a bit more of those game locking bugs and nearly every review would have been above 80%.
I mean, there are 3 sites that rate it 70% or lower, which really drag down the score. If those 3 sites happen to have been even a minimum of 75%...
I think a better we just found a reason for "omg you gave us a 8 you haters" reasoning.
better system would be:
8.5 = bonus
8.0 = 0.75 bonus
7.5 = 0.5 bonus
7.0 = 0.25 bonus
that way this 0.1 point wouldnt be such a terrible thing for them.
better system would be:
8.5 = bonus
8.0 = 0.75 bonus
7.5 = 0.5 bonus
7.0 = 0.25 bonus
that way this 0.1 point wouldnt be such a terrible thing for them.
well, Bethesda, that's a dick move. And to think everyone honestly believes Bethesda can do no wrong. It doesn't help I already think Skyrim is the most massively overrated game of 2011, then they gotta do something stupid like this