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?