Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
TIM CAIN STAYS
Posted 21 February 2012 - 02:32 PM
Posted 21 February 2012 - 02:38 PM
problem with that statement is, a lot of games are buggy, not just Obsidian's games. and a lot of companies release one buggy game after another. yet somehow it's only Obsidian that is getting the bad rep.
I frequent quite a lot of sites and I often hear people saying how buggy Obsidian games are.
people just need something to whine about, and since Obsidian's games are all uncut gems, that's the only thing people can really complain about and not feel bad about themselves
I agree but they did release a string of games with some pretty hefty bugs. Most studious get away with it because the bugs are not so serious and they don't have 2 or 3 releases in a go (well there is Bethesda)
Bioware took a beating after DA2 but ME2 whether you like it or not was solid. ME3 50/50 could go either way looking at the demo. I also agree about the uncut gems but if people are not willing to dig to find them because of the overall quality , there is very little you can do.
I think Obsidian can shake the reputation if the next couple of releases are both impressive and relatively bug free.
Posted 25 February 2012 - 04:01 PM
Posted 25 February 2012 - 05:07 PM
I can honestly say I've run into more technical issues with Skryim than I had with FO:NV.
My experience is similar, I'm sure plenty of people had a disastrous time with New Vegas but apart from the odd crash I found it to be solid, Skyrim has way more outright broken quests but thankfully the engine itself was rock solid for me, no crashes at all over 150 hours last time I played.
Posted 26 February 2012 - 12:08 AM
I can honestly say I've run into more technical issues with Skryim than I had with FO:NV. I think the difference is, for whatever reason, Bethesda doesn't seem to get called on their technical issues. Maybe Obsidian needs to spend more money "encouraging" these review sites to look at the overall product instead of focusing on one or two glithces along the way.
Developers don't have that much power. Publishers can just pull marketing from site/magazines, or decide not to send review copies to their next big game etc.
Posted 26 February 2012 - 09:14 AM
Posted 26 February 2012 - 09:37 AM
Obviously, a vast majority of them are minor, but still.
Posted 02 March 2012 - 06:32 PM
These are also the only two to not use Bioware or Bethesda engines.
Given we all know how much a mess Bethesda's engines are, and CD Projekt confirmed the Aurora Engine (which was the base for NWN2 and KotOR2's engines) is terribly coded, I don't think it is a coincidence.
Posted 14 March 2012 - 06:58 PM
Maybe so. I played a lot of games after the fact (like years after release) so my attitude is likely to be somewhat different to someone who experienced things "in the day"
@Flouride DS3 was a solid title granted. But it will take something with a bit more ambition to shake that reputation.
You realize that Obsidian's buggy games were the result of a publisher screwing them in same way, right? Bethesda gave them 2 years to create an RPG as big, if not bigger than F3. SEGA kept flipping development on Alpha Protocol on and off and didn't want them to release patches...
That isn't Obsidian's fault, man.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users