Obsidian Would Love Another Chance at Fallout
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
Recommended Videos
That's the style of Fallout. The point of it was to have a post-apocalypse game that wasn't all grimdark and depressing.knight steel said:
OP: I would love it if Obsidian could get another go, though preferebaly one that isn't rush and has bug testing outsourced to someone else.
I'd rather Bethesda handled it, but I would like them to take a few notes from Obsidian's book. NV had much greater weapon variety and the 1 perk per 2 levels system really helped the player put more thought into specialisation. Also, the companions are much better, but personally, I'm not big on having them...
A big problem I have with NV? Look at this:
Something like 40-60% of that map is lies. Unexplorable mountainous regions. At least the Fallout 3 map is an honest square you can explore all over.
I think Borderlands is a bit confused, it's really goofy and funny, but when it tries to be serious, it's like that "angsty teenage kid", because it goes so over the top, expecting you to take it seriously. It's like when Handsome Jack talks about stabbing Lilith "over and over", in a genuinely serious voice, it's just sounds juvenile.
And another example is that when Handsome Jack makes a threat that every person the vault hunter ever came into contact with would die "staring at their own lungs as [he] ripped them from their chests", he says it completely seriously and with a genuinely threatening tone, but it's essentially the same kind of over the top torture as when he talks about gouging a father's eyeballs out with a spoon, which is given as if it's hilarious.
So which is it, Gearbox? Funny or horrifying? Anyhow, is this what you mean?
A big problem I have with NV? Look at this:
Something like 40-60% of that map is lies. Unexplorable mountainous regions. At least the Fallout 3 map is an honest square you can explore all over.
This is kind of off-topic, but I'm not sure what you mean by "Borderlands is depressing alone", but I might actually agree with you.Ultratwinkie said:
I think Borderlands is a bit confused, it's really goofy and funny, but when it tries to be serious, it's like that "angsty teenage kid", because it goes so over the top, expecting you to take it seriously. It's like when Handsome Jack talks about stabbing Lilith "over and over", in a genuinely serious voice, it's just sounds juvenile.
And another example is that when Handsome Jack makes a threat that every person the vault hunter ever came into contact with would die "staring at their own lungs as [he] ripped them from their chests", he says it completely seriously and with a genuinely threatening tone, but it's essentially the same kind of over the top torture as when he talks about gouging a father's eyeballs out with a spoon, which is given as if it's hilarious.
So which is it, Gearbox? Funny or horrifying? Anyhow, is this what you mean?
Because Bethesda made one game in the franchise right? At least Obsidian can claim they've made 1.5 games in the series =D
If Project Eternity turns out to be a bug ridden mess then i'll agree with you but in the meantime i lay the blame with the publishers not giving them sufficent time. Its not just Obsidian, a lot of studios have had to compromise a game one way or another to meet deadlines, just look at what Xenogears and Xenosaga could have been if not cut shortAntiChri5 said:
Oh please do.
Fallout NV is my favourite RPG in recent memory, and is definitely better then Fallout 3 IMO.
If Obsidian were able to make NV on a rushed contract, I hope to God we can see what they can do on a less retarded contract.
Fallout NV is my favourite RPG in recent memory, and is definitely better then Fallout 3 IMO.
If Obsidian were able to make NV on a rushed contract, I hope to God we can see what they can do on a less retarded contract.
Strange this is brought up, as I have been playing through NV for the past 2 weeks. It's not quite like I remember it, but still buggy as hell, and I still like Fallout 3 better.
That would be fucking brilliant, so long as they have time to finish the damn game this time. I love New Vegas, but a lot of the time it just doesn't feel like a finished game (looking at you, Freeside).
Yea, if they're going to make another one, they need to be given time enough to flesh out the world we're supposed to be playing in. New Vegas felt like such a shallow map as did the locations in that map.TheRightToArmBears said:
Mostly they need to be given the time and resources to Test the fuckin game...especially the ps3 version. I never had a game crash on me as much as New Vegas did. Easily the most broken game I have ever owned. Even after all the patching, it was still crashing and glitching out.
On second thought, maybe Obsidian should just help Bethesda with the story and progression of missions.
Im not gonna deny that Obsidian have been fucked over by publishers and the like, but as you said it happens to every company. The difference is that Obsidian seems to be the only conpany it happens to with evey damn game. Different publishers, different IP's, same problems. How many times is "Fucked by the publishers and ran out of time" a valid excuse?Quellist said:
I am looking forward to Eternity. Whether it's some vast publisher conspiracy or Obsidian having some wierd inability to work with publishers, the suits aren't a part of the equation with this one. We can finally see what Obsidian offers without interference.
HA well if it's a matter taste then you know can't really say "you're wrong!" but he is right in saying that Fallout series was never ABSOLUTELY dark and grim. It was strange combination of the main story being serious and the world around it being filled with little whacky moments. I mean this is the game that had a Star Trek away team make a guest appearance... by crashing in them in the desert with no survivors... so yeah whacky comedy.knight steel said:
OT: Yes Obsidian should absolutely make the next game. They really did the superior job of making a fallout game of the two companies. It's especially impressive when you consider how much shit they went through to get the rights to do that game and shoving it out the gate. Even the games post release is sort of sad... 1 meta critic point stopped them from getting a bonus they desperately needed (a point they didn't get because Bethesda did terrible QA for that game). I'm really glad to see they still get so much support for their game even despite Obsidians notorious reputation of flawed gems.
Dear Bethesda, I, the poster of this here comment dare you to, no, wait... triple dog dare you, to allow Obsidian to make Fallout 4. Prove to the rest of the world that you aren't a bunchac*nts about it, and let the post-apocalyptic world rejoice.
Dear Obsidian. You go right ahead and make Fallout 4. If Bethesda doesn't like it, find someone else to publish it, and call it something else, you know, so you don't get sued about it.
Dear Obsidian. You go right ahead and make Fallout 4. If Bethesda doesn't like it, find someone else to publish it, and call it something else, you know, so you don't get sued about it.
does this mean they might use the probable success of this to make another alpha protocol? if it does, then I'm buying the shit out of this
if it doesn't, then I'll be sad
if it doesn't, then I'll be sad
No way in hell. don't get me wrong, Old World Blues was funny and fit so well with the surreal nature I expect in Fallout games, but the botched console release STILL freezes up on me every so often to the point where it kills enjoyment and prevents me from taking on certain quests.
this says nothing about the fact that the player character is forced way to early to commit to one faction or another. I would have rather played House, Caesar, and Crocker for fools right up until Kimball came to Vegas, rather then being forced into a choice around time for House Always Wins III, For the Republic II or Render Unto Caesar II.
Obsidian has a case of "want my baby back", since they were all involved in Fallout 2. I understand that, but the franchise is in good hands now, let it go. you got to make MOST of the Fallout 3 you wanted in New Vegas, time to move on.
this says nothing about the fact that the player character is forced way to early to commit to one faction or another. I would have rather played House, Caesar, and Crocker for fools right up until Kimball came to Vegas, rather then being forced into a choice around time for House Always Wins III, For the Republic II or Render Unto Caesar II.
Obsidian has a case of "want my baby back", since they were all involved in Fallout 2. I understand that, but the franchise is in good hands now, let it go. you got to make MOST of the Fallout 3 you wanted in New Vegas, time to move on.
Notice ole chris said praised by CRITICS.
The game itself was a buggy unplayable mess that you could only fix on the PC version.
To date there remain several crippling bugs that are very common on the console versions. <- the Common part is the important bit.
Oblivion, Fallout 3 and Skyrim all had bugs but Bethesda didn't leave them broken they eventually fixed the worst ones.
Not to mention NV was more of a 'new take' on a Fallout game, despite having a handful of throw-backs to the old games, it played nothing like them. It looked nothing like them. You weren't even part of a vault. You were a mailman!
The difficulty was artificially inflated by placing super high level enemies near starting areas; enforcing linearity.
The exploration was boring. The world was boring. A lot of the guns were recycles; in fact most of the textures, animations, etc. Were BETHESDA'S.
I just think they did a horrible job, and to this day I do not enjoy playing NV; but I don't claim FO3 is perfect.
I will say this in NV favor: they did a pretty decent job with the dialogue.... however, Bethesda proved they can "blow them out of the water" in that regard as well by having a massive cast of interesting characters and voice work in their latest game Skyrim.
I really see no real benefit to 'some of the old guys' working on a new Fallout; they've proven they don't know what they're doing and that they can't translate their old 2d games into the 3d game era. They even had most of the work done for them by Bethesda; The graphics, the animations, the weapon types, the skill and level up system, the VATS system, everything.
NV is a glorified buggy as hell fan-patch that cost $59.99 new.
-_- and yet people will love their games simply from trust, because their old games were so good. But the thing to remember is you don't have the ENTIRE team from the old games having worked on NV, in fact I'd say you have none of the truly talented ones working on it... Usually, the real heroes go un-sung, and the big-wigs take all the credit, and I believe this to be the case in this situation. People give credit to the big popular names but all the little people who worked on the old games? Pft, doesn't matter... that ONE or TWO guys can produce all the content we loved from the old games... BY THEMSELVES! Because they totally made those old games by themselves, right?
The game itself was a buggy unplayable mess that you could only fix on the PC version.
To date there remain several crippling bugs that are very common on the console versions. <- the Common part is the important bit.
Oblivion, Fallout 3 and Skyrim all had bugs but Bethesda didn't leave them broken they eventually fixed the worst ones.
Not to mention NV was more of a 'new take' on a Fallout game, despite having a handful of throw-backs to the old games, it played nothing like them. It looked nothing like them. You weren't even part of a vault. You were a mailman!
The difficulty was artificially inflated by placing super high level enemies near starting areas; enforcing linearity.
The exploration was boring. The world was boring. A lot of the guns were recycles; in fact most of the textures, animations, etc. Were BETHESDA'S.
I just think they did a horrible job, and to this day I do not enjoy playing NV; but I don't claim FO3 is perfect.
I will say this in NV favor: they did a pretty decent job with the dialogue.... however, Bethesda proved they can "blow them out of the water" in that regard as well by having a massive cast of interesting characters and voice work in their latest game Skyrim.
I really see no real benefit to 'some of the old guys' working on a new Fallout; they've proven they don't know what they're doing and that they can't translate their old 2d games into the 3d game era. They even had most of the work done for them by Bethesda; The graphics, the animations, the weapon types, the skill and level up system, the VATS system, everything.
NV is a glorified buggy as hell fan-patch that cost $59.99 new.
-_- and yet people will love their games simply from trust, because their old games were so good. But the thing to remember is you don't have the ENTIRE team from the old games having worked on NV, in fact I'd say you have none of the truly talented ones working on it... Usually, the real heroes go un-sung, and the big-wigs take all the credit, and I believe this to be the case in this situation. People give credit to the big popular names but all the little people who worked on the old games? Pft, doesn't matter... that ONE or TWO guys can produce all the content we loved from the old games... BY THEMSELVES! Because they totally made those old games by themselves, right?
I would love another chance at putting dozens of hours into a fallout game and then having my save files corrupted twice and never touching it again.
No one has ever forced Obsidian to sign any of their contracts. Their leadership absolutely suck at budgeting for time and resources and this is made clear again and again, every time they release a game, in fact. I'd love for Obsidian to actually ask for enough time to complete a game one of these days, but it's silly to blame publishers for the developer's failure to come up with and stick to a fucking schedule.AntiChri5 said: