Project Eternity - Closes with >$4.1M

JDR13 · October 19, 2012

Thrasher said:
I fail to see why anyone would think this reasoning is "intelligent".

Somehow that doesn't surprise me.

DArtagnan · October 19, 2012

Thrasher said:
Do you know what the word sufficient means?

Do you know what unreasonable means? How about rational?

Thrasher · October 19, 2012

Says the guy who thinks a game that erases your hard drive is not objectively bad.

DeepO · October 19, 2012

DArtagnan said:
They do great writing/quests/mechanics

Those are pretty much the reasons why some fans of cRPGS tend to love some of their games.
What´s with the

DArtagnan said:
Obsidian gets a lot of ultra irrational love around here,

then?
Writing/quests/mechanics are pretty damn important, y´know.

DArtagnan said:
but they suck at polish and visual aesthetics in general. Well "suck" is my opinion

My opinion is that visual aesthetics are mostly adequate in their games. Usually not great, but usually not bad either. Polish certainly is not their strength, but they do tend to get more flak in press than some other companies with their games, in my eyes. Personally I had about the same amount of problems with bugs/glitches in Skyrim as in F:NV, if not more, and I consider Skyrim´s UI worse than (pretty cumbersome) UI of NWN2, for example.
However, even when I´d agree with you on polish 100%, then I´d point out that you yourself shared this sentiment:

DArtagnan said:
If polishing stuff means simplistic, superficial and arcadey action with a bit of RPG elements - then I'll take buggy any day of the week.

Similar sentiment could be applied to some Obsidian games as well. Having a cRPG with "great writing/quests/mechanics" simply may be enough for some to be more forgiving to lack of polish and top notch visual aesthetics.

DArtagnan said:
I'm just too rational

Nah

.

rune_74 said:
Fall out new vegas used the majority of the assets from the original, and didn't do to many things different that I can think of. It had a better story since they were able to focus on developing the story instead of developing the engine.

Are you suggesting that it took the same time to develop F:NV as it took F3?

DArtagnan · October 19, 2012

Says the guy who thinks a game that erases your hard drive is not objectively bad.

I'll take that as the answer I'm not surprised to get for my question

I'm glad we got that over with.

Now, if it's all the same to you - I think we should let the thread get back on track. I've said my piece - and I'm ok with not getting anyone to admit that Obsidian has a bad track record when it comes to polish.

DArtagnan · October 19, 2012

DeepO

Thank you for a rational and level-headed response - and I think we agree about most things Obsidian.

But again, let's get back on topic. I tire of this nonsense

Thrasher · October 19, 2012

That sure isn't what you were arguing.

rune_74 · October 19, 2012

DeepO said:
Are you suggesting that it took the same time to develop F:NV as it took F3?

Not at all, I would be surprised if it took half the time.

This is not directed at you deepO, but this thread should come with tin foil hats.

An outsider reading this would think Obsidian = great Bioware/bethesda=evil.

The logical assumptions without any bias at all is that Obsidian got the full help of both companies for their games. There is no evidence to dispute this at all. Fallout 3 was nowhere as buggy as Fallout new vegas(even running on the evil bethesda engine as some of you say).

From the wiki:
"Within hours of the game's release, players of Fallout: New Vegas began reporting a variety of technical issues (game-saves becoming corrupted, the game freezing, players becoming stuck within the terrain, and random NPCs appearing behind the player, initiating combat out of context).[71][72] Bethesda Studios stated that they, in conjunction with Obsidian, were actively working on an update for release "as soon as possible" to address in-game issues. They also urged customers to keep their copies of New Vegas rather than return them to stores, stating that providing the best possible experience to their users was a priority.

Within a week of the original release, a patch was available for PC, Xbox 360, and PS3 versions of the game, which contained over 200 quest and scripting-related fixes.[73] The update released on December 14, 2010 has fixed further glitches and save game problems, including companion related bugs.[74] Subsequent updates were released in February and April that corrected numerous bugs and gameplay issues. A patch was released on July 5, 2011, that included a provision that automatically creates a save prior to the endgame sequence. After credits, the user is prompted to load this save game, allowing single save players to play DLC without creating a new game.[75]"

I like their games but to blidnly follow them and blame all their mistakes on the two companies that published their games (who the normal world thinks made the games) is irrational at best and stupid batshit crazy at worst.

blatantninja · October 19, 2012

JDR13 said:
It's good to see that I'm not the only person here that doesn't blindly worship Obsidian.

'I wouldn't say I blindly worship them, but I've enjoyed a lot of their games and I'm sure I'm going to enjoy Project Eternity as well. You can always find something to nitpick on companies for.

How about Bioware (even before EA)? NWN may have had a great editor that led to awesome mods, but the vanilla game was a shitfest story and gameplay wise. The follower thing instead of companions? Crap. Baldur's Gate 2: Throne of Bhaal? Linear plot, a bit boring compared to BG2: SoA, and loads of other problems. But I still love old Bioware.

Nobody's perfect.

DeepO · October 19, 2012

rune_74 said:
Not at all, I would be surprised if it took half the time.

Then I don´t understand where this

rune_74 said:
It had a better story since they were able to focus on developing the story instead of developing the engine.

conjecture came from.

rune_74 said:
I like their games but to blidnly follow them and blame all their mistakes on the two companies that published their games (who the normal world thinks made the games) is irrational at best and stupid batshit crazy at worst.

Could you point me towards a post where someone blames all their mistakes solely on a non-Obsidian entity?

DArtagnan · October 19, 2012

How about Bioware (even before EA)? NWN may have had a great editor that led to awesome mods, but the vanilla game was a shitfest story and gameplay wise. The follower thing instead of companions? Crap. Baldur's Gate 2: Throne of Bhaal? Linear plot, a bit boring compared to BG2: SoA, and loads of other problems. But I still love old Bioware.

Nobody's perfect.

You're absolutely right, which is why it's silly to argue against the flaws that are a part of all developers.

While I love NWN - I have to agree that the main campaign was very uninspired. The later expansions were much better - but there's no denying the obvious.

That's really all I'm saying. You're a rare Obsidian fan - because you can acknowledge their flaws without going into irrational defense like so many around here.

rune_74 · October 19, 2012

DeepO said:
Then I don´t understand where this

conjecture came from.

Could you point me towards a post where someone blames all their mistakes solely on a non-Obsidian entity?

Ok I shouldn't have said all, but the majority since you want to be a stickler to details, on here like to push the bugginess on their releases to a third party. Just read through the thread.

As for half the time I stick to it, the majority of the game assets where taken directly from fallout 3, sure they added their own and a few other functions but the real interesting bits of NV is the story. I'm not sure why it isn't obvious it should take less time if you have all the assets of an original game and not having to make your own engine. Not really sure why you are arguing that.

azarhal · October 19, 2012

/read rune_74's post, start to laugh

Reading your post is as if Obsidian did a better job at patching New Vegas than Bethesda ever did for any of their own games/DLCs. Heartfire would like a few crashes and freezing fixes right now, it feel lonely.

Also, Fallout 3 wasn't as buggy? I suggest you go check the patches for that game. You can find them here(fallout 3) and you can compare them to those of NV here. Have fun.

rune_74 · October 19, 2012

azarhal said:
/read rune_74's post, start to laugh

Reading your post is as if Obsidian did a better job at patching New Vegas than Bethesda ever did for any of their own games/DLCs. Heartfire would like a few crashes and freezing fixes right now, it feel lonely.

Also, Fallout 3 wasn't as buggy? I suggest you go check the patches for that game. You can find them here(fallout 3) and you can compare them to those of NV here. Have fun.

There you go Deepo if you don't want to read the rest of the thread.

NV was patched by Obsidian and Bethesda. It shouldn't have been as buggy since the majority should have been patched in Fallout 3 and found in NV before shipping…but hey why use logic. 200 quest and scripting bugs in the first patch. Bethesda should have been hung for that.

DeepO · October 19, 2012

rune_74 said:
As for half the time I stick to it, the majority of the game assets where taken directly from fallout 3, sure they added their own and a few other functions but the real interesting bits of NV is the story. I'm not sure why it isn't obvious it should take less time if you have all the assets of an original game and not having to make your own engine. Not really sure why you are arguing that.

Ok, let´s try different wording.

My point is that this statement

rune_74 said:
It had a better story since they were able to focus on developing the story instead of developing the engine.

would only have some merit if both games took same time to develop.
Fallout 3 took at least twice as long to develop. That seems like a solid amount of time to develop the engine AND deliver quality story/writing to me.

rune_74 · October 19, 2012

DeepO said:
Ok, let´s try different wording.

My point is that this statement

would only have some merit if both games took same time to develop.
Fallout 3 took at least twice as long to develop. That seems like a solid amount of time to develop the engine AND deliver quality story/writing to me.

The difference is that bethesda had to do QA as well, which I guess is the point we are all arguing

azarhal · October 19, 2012

rune_74 said:
There you go Deepo if you don't want to read the rest of the thread.

NV was patched by Obsidian and Bethesda. It shouldn't have been as buggy since the majority should have been patched in Fallout 3 and found in NV before shipping…but hey why use logic. 200 quest and scripting bugs in the first patch. Bethesda should have been hung for that.

Bethesda let modders fix their quests/scripts bug through the unofficial patch since Morrowind. :/

DeepO · October 19, 2012

rune_74 said:
There you go Deepo if you don't want to read the rest of the thread.

Obsidian "apologists", at least here, usually go two possible routes:
a) Obsidian is not solely to blame for all mistakes in their games (don´t confuse with "Obsidian is not to blame for anything", which is what you implied in one of your previous posts)
b) some games get easier away with roughly same amount of mistakes
Azarhal post more-or-less falls into the second category by implication, so it has nothing to do with what I was arguing with you about.
I don´t see azarhal stating that Obsidian is entirely without blame anywhere

.

DeepO · October 19, 2012

rune_74 said:
The difference is that bethesda had to do QA as well, which I guess is the point we are all arguing

Not really.

rune_74 · October 19, 2012

DeepO said:
Not really.

Think you missed the joke, why so serious?

Project Eternity - Closes with >$4.1M

SasqWatch

DArtagnan

Guest

Wheeee!

deep outside

DArtagnan

Guest

DArtagnan

Guest

Wheeee!

SasqWatch

Resident Redneck Facist

deep outside

DArtagnan

Guest

SasqWatch

SasqWatch

SasqWatch

deep outside

SasqWatch

SasqWatch

deep outside

deep outside

SasqWatch