The reason why people hate Obsidian Entertainment

[ArcossG]

Most of you have probably noticed that most people generally doesn't like Obsidian's stories

In my opinion the main reason is that Obsidian's stories are unique and morally grey people hate uniqueness and grey morality

Note: I saw enough angry comments in forums to know that this has nothing to do with bugs

WARNING: The rest of the post contains spoilers from Kotor 1, Kotor 2, Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas



Eample 1: Kotor 1 and Kotor 2

Kotor 1
Aside from that big plot twist near the end, this is a completely generic Star Wars story

1. The Sith appear from nowhere with a strong army and overwhelm the republic and the Jedi

2. Some unexpected twist that is completely out of the control of the good guys happen that slowly turn the tide( Malak betraying Revan )

3. The Republic wins and everything goes back to normal

Note: All the time the Jedi as perfect monks who are completely calm and certain of their victory because they are good and the Sith are bad and the light side is stronger etc

You could apply this to almost any Star Wars story



Kotor 2
The story takes some elements from the original trilogy but mostly it's something I have never seen before in Star Wars

People were expecting another generic Star Wars story and instead they got this:

- The Jedi aren't shown as perfect knights anymore and it is suggested that it's their weakness and not the Sith's strength that allowed the Sith to annihilate their order

- The dark side isn't shown as completely evil while the light side isn't shown as completely good AKA grey morality instead of simple black and white

- A darker story that deals with the aftermath of war( poverty, civil unrest, rebuilding etc.. ) and breaks the notion that everything in the Republic goes back to normal right after the Sith are defeated


2The reason why people prefer kotor 1 to kotor 2: They wanted more kotor 1 and got something new and different

That's it with the Kotors




Example 2: Fallout 3 VS Fallout: New Vegas


Fallout 3
The story is basically a rehash of Fallout 1 and Fallout 2, only shorter and dumbed down with a completely black and white morality system( The Brotherhood Of Steel is an order of noble knights who help everybody while the Enclave are a bunch of power armored racist savages who eat babies for dinner ) not much to tell really



Fallout: New Vegas
- The moralities of all factions are varying shades of grey

- The Brotherhood of steel and Enclave's moral positions are significantly diffrent

- An entirely different atmosphere

- New factions

The reason why people prefer Fallout 3 to Fallout New Vegas: They wanted more Fallout 3 and got something new and different
Note: I saw someone who DIDN'T play F:NV say that it would be worse than Fallout 3 because there is no Enclave in there

They main problem I guess is that people need a clear good and bad sides to like a story and Obsidian's strength is making something more complex than that. And people also prefer more of the same to something new

 

[AlternatePFG]

No, people tend to hate Obsidian for their buggy games. People tend to like grey morality, it's just that most people are turned off by the frankly large amount of bugs.

Personally, I love Obsidian, but the bugginess of their is sometimes hard to get past. You can argue that they really don't have time to iron out all the bugs, but they really just need to do something about that. New Vegas was bugtested by Bethesda though, if I remember correctly, so I don't know who to blame there. The game's quests were a lot more complex than the ones in 3 (As far as different outcomes, skill checks, etc.) and they ended having to break Gamebryo to make them work, so that's why they're so buggy. (If I remember correctly, on J.E. Sawyer's (NV lead designer) Formspring, he said something along those lines as to why the DLC quest structure isn't quite as complicated. They can't patch DLC's.)

And yeah, Fallout 3's storyline/writing was stupid, I don't think many people will argue there.

I still maintain that KOTOR 2 was brilliant and with the Restoration Patch it's pretty much just as good, if not better than KOTOR. NWN2 was pretty good, those who say the original NWN had an amazing and not cliched story are speaking out of their arses, but there were a lot of infuriating aspects of it. The expansion, Mask of the Betrayer on the other hand, is probably my favorite CRPG, ever.

 

[ArcossG]

And stop with the whole 'holier-than-thou' attitude. In my book, anyone who refers to 'people' as if he is not one of them too has a serious superiority complex.

how do you want me to refer to them?

 

[number2301]

Yeah I have to agree with the above, I don't really remember people complaining about the story of NV that often. Some people did yeah but not loads.

 

[Woodsey]

I think its more to do with KotOR 2's story turning into a complete fucking mess before whimpering out. It really could - and should - have been better than KotOR.

As for Alpha Protocol, the story's just boring. A modern-day spy thriller is interesting, evil PMC #312 isn't.

But mostly (as with KotOR 2) I think their decent writing is impacted by the state their games are released in. I haven't seen anyone dump on The Witcher 2 for being morally grey.

And most people I've seen have said they prefer NV to FO3.

And stop with the whole 'holier-than-thou' attitude. In my book, anyone who refers to 'people' as if he is not one of them too has a serious superiority complex.

How else is someone supposed to refer to other people?

 

[Zero47]

People have different tastes, narrowing it down to saying "oh people just need clear good and bad sides to a story" implying that people who disliked Oblivion Entertainment's stories just don't appreciate their complexity* is rather shortsighted.


*calling them stupid

 

[AlternatePFG]

I think its more to do with KotOR 2's story turning into a complete fucking mess before whimpering out. It really could - and should - have been better than KotOR.

To be fair, the development time was extremely short, and it was rushed out the door by LucasArts before they could finish it, but yeah, Act 3 of KOTOR 2 is annoying as hell. It's obvious that they were building up to something big, but Malachor V was by far the worst level in that game, it had the same problem the Star Forge had in KOTOR 1 but magnified by all the loose plot lines. (Boring level design, constant waves of enemies fighting you, absolutely no difficulty.)

 

[Sir Prize]

Excuse my french but cut the elitist BS for a sec and please bring your head back into the sunlight. No-one takes issue with grey morality, if they did then I'm pretty other games would be getting stick for it as well.

People get ticked off with Obsidian for the bugs in their games, which they can take a bit of time to fix. When your playing a game, it breaks the flow to see a NPC try to walk through a table and get stuck in the middle.

 

[TheComedown]

Most of you have probably noticed that most people generally doesn't like Obsidian's stories

In my opinion the main reason is that Obsidian's stories are unique and morally grey people hate uniqueness and grey morality

Then why are the two The Witcher games so popular and CDProject praised?

 

[Hiname]

As for new vegas...

Of course the BoS is different. I believeit was stated several times that the eastcoast BoS and the westcoast BoS are somewhat... well, yes. Different.

In new vegas not only they are on strain and in a effective lockdown from their surroundings, I believe they are far more as the BoS should be. Closer to the original. If its advanced tech, it#s theirs. Step aside or get turned into a very sticky pile of goo.

 

[Proverbial Jon]

Fallout 3
The story is basically a rehash of Fallout 1 and Fallout 2, only shorter and dumbed down with a completely black and white morality system( The Brotherhood Of Steel is an order of noble knights who help everybody while the Enclave are a bunch of power armored racist savages who eat babies for dinner ) not much to tell really

Ummm... Obsidian had nothing to do with Fallout 3, that was all Bethesda. Obsidian only developed New Vegas.

But I actually liked New Vegas's story, certainly more than Fallout 3 at any rate. I thought New Vegas was the better game in generally actually. My biggest gripe are the game breaking bugs. Obsidian needs to spend more time in the QA stage... or, you know, ANY time at all would be good.

New Vegas was the first game which honestly presented me with a lot of tough choices. I couldn't please everyone or be the good guy all the time, which is my usual approach. I actually respected it for that grey morality. I wish more games would present me with options that are more than good/neutral/bad.

 

[genericusername64]

People hate original stories

What the hell? Your argument makes no sense, Fallout new vegas's story is better than fallout 3, and it's been widely excepted that it is. About 1/10 people actually defended fallout 3's shit story. People don't like obsidians games because they are buggy, and their ideas have bad execution.
Also, your using a strawman argument, so unless you have some actual data to back up your claim it's a pointless argument.
EDIT: Also this

Yay, pretentious patronizing topic!

 

[yuval152]

People don't like obsidian because of their buggy games,and also New vegas's story's was wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy better than fallot 3's and did you know that obisidian didn't make fallout 3?

People hate original stories

What the hell? Your argument makes no sense, Fallout new vegas's story is better than fallout 3, and it's been widely excepted that it is. About 1/10 people actually defended fallout 3's shit story. People don't like obsidians games because they are buggy, and their ideas have bad execution.
Also, your using a strawman argument, so unless you have some actual data to back up your claim it's a pointless argument.
EDIT: Also this

Yay, pretentious patronizing topic!

and also everything that he said.

 

[moose49408]

Personally, I think Obsidian is better story teller (in some ways) than Bethesda and Bioware. In fact, the only problem I have with their games is that they often come off as unfinished (not always through any fault of their own, mind you). Ultimately, I love all three companies, and I think they have different strengths and weaknesses. Bioware is better at creating believable, deep characters with good writing; Bethesda is better at creating rich, expansive, immersive game worlds; and Obsidian is better at creating (relatively for games) complex, engaging plots.

Anyone else think that if they worked together to create a game (Bethesda creates the game world/engine, Obsidian writes the store, and Bioware writes the characters) that it might be like the best thing ever brought into existence?

 

[Dunkhelzahn]

I can really only hope that this is a troll thread.

 

[Redratson]

People hate original stories

What the hell? Your argument makes no sense, Fallout new vegas's story is better than fallout 3, and it's been widely excepted that it is. About 1/10 people actually defended fallout 3's shit story. People don't like obsidians games because they are buggy, and their ideas have bad execution.
Also, your using a strawman argument, so unless you have some actual data to back up your claim it's a pointless argument.
EDIT: Also this

Yay, pretentious patronizing topic!

What that shortens what I was about to say/rant/counter arguement/ etc. Anyway, what he said.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

Obsidian games are usually not that bad but unfortunately every single one of them suffers from the "rushed out of the gates before ready" syndrome.

 

[ChupathingyX]

But I actually liked New Vegas's story, certainly more than Fallout 3 at any rate. I thought New Vegas was the better game in generally actually. My biggest gripe are the game breaking bugs. Obsidian needs to spend more time in the QA stage... or, you know, ANY time at all would be good.

*Bethesda did the QA testing for Fallout: New Vegas.

*Obsidian were using Bethesda's engine to make the game (an engine that only one person on their team had ever used before).

*Bethesda gave Obsidian a smaller budget and time-frame to make New Vegas.

Now, putting those facts (yes, facts) into consideration, and considering how buggy Fallout 3 was, I think Obsidian did the best that they could do and should not receive all of the blame for New Vegas' bugginess.

Yes the make buggy games, but so do Bethesda, and in terms of Fallout: New Vegas, the bugginess is not 100% Obsidian's fault.

What the hell? Your argument makes no sense, Fallout new vegas's story is better than fallout 3, and it's been widely excepted that it is. About 1/10 people actually defended fallout 3's shit story.

I've seen a lot of people on this very site defend Fallout 3's story and say it was much better than New Vegas'.

The main point I often see is;

1. The story is more personal (however, with the emergence of Ulysses and the the upcoming Lonesome Road, this could become much different)

There are many other reasons but that seems to be the main one I see the most.

Also you can take into account the, *ahem*, "professional" game journalists and reviewers such as the prestigious IGN, who also thought that Fallout 3 had a fantastic quote and one of the greatest. Whereas in their review of New Vegas they barely ever mention the main quest.