I fail to see why anyone would think this reasoning is "intelligent".
Somehow that doesn't surprise me.
I fail to see why anyone would think this reasoning is "intelligent".
Do you know what the word sufficient means?
Those are pretty much the reasons why some fans of cRPGS tend to love some of their games.They do great writing/quests/mechanics
then?Obsidian gets a lot of ultra irrational love around here,
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.but they suck at polish and visual aesthetics in general. Well "suck" is my opinion
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.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.
Nah .I'm just too rational
Are you suggesting that it took the same time to develop F:NV as it took F3?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.
Says the guy who thinks a game that erases your hard drive is not objectively bad.
Are you suggesting that it took the same time to develop F:NV as it took F3?
It's good to see that I'm not the only person here that doesn't blindly worship Obsidian.
Then I don´t understand where thisNot at all, I would be surprised if it took half the time.
conjecture came from.It had a better story since they were able to focus on developing the story instead of developing the engine.
Could you point me towards a post where someone blames all their mistakes solely on a non-Obsidian entity?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.
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.
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?
/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.
Ok, let´s try different wording.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.
would only have some merit if both games took same time to develop.It had a better story since they were able to focus on developing the story instead of developing the engine.
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.
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.
Obsidian "apologists", at least here, usually go two possible routes:There you go Deepo if you don't want to read the rest of the thread.
Not really.The difference is that bethesda had to do QA as well, which I guess is the point we are all arguing
Not really.