WorstUsernameEver

It just felt like a missed opportunity to me. Bethesda tried, but it simply wasn't enough, it still was a simplified representation of the Fallout setting and.. judging by Skyrim and Morrowind, they *can* do better in terms of lore. That said, with all its flaws Fallout 3 is still a decently enjoyable game, there's certainly a lot worse out there.

Second-hand but reliable info is that it's a very unimpressive sum. Having a pair of extra eyes helps, I guess. I personally don't think it was needed (especially given as the original Wasteland was a very surreal, pastiche-y game and it seems like they're aiming for the same tone with the sequel), but if the team felt like that helped the project, more power to them.

I didn't say the cartoon gets delayed, I said they keep tweaking stuff until the end.

Kind of getting the feeling that the delays are as much THQ as Matt and Trey being perfectionists and keeping tweaking things till the end, like they do with the cartoon and their other stuff.

His character arc always felt weird and didn't work on any level to me. Granted, Ezio's is really really predictable, but at least it kind of works? Though it's a part of mindboggingly insane overarching plot.

Frankly speaking, Troika would have never gotten the license, they were already in a precarious economic standing. Besides, they still would have needed to go through a publisher to get the funding, meaning that, most likely, they would have had to go with a compromise turn-based/real time with pause hybrid. That never works well.

Party members are optional in the game.

It's difficult to talk about ifs, but the narrative about Bethesda saving the franchise from Oblivion is also false. There were other bidders for the franchise, Bethesda just offered more money. I don't doubt that the franchise would have strayed away from its roots even when not in Bethesda's hands, though, turn-based RPGs just aren't so hot with publishers.

I think they'd jump on the opportunity, actually, if that was the only problem. The contract was clear, and they failed to meet the clause for the bonus. Sucks? Sure. But it's not like they didn't know about it, and by industry standard (as far as I'm aware, most contracts include similar caveats, and often for metascores in the 90s rather than the 80s, which are much more difficult to meet) this was pretty.. okay? Frankly the press blowout about the whole situation was fairly weird, it was well-known among the press and even enthusiasts that publisher-developer contracts included clauses like that, and as far as messed up development cycles go, Fallout: New Vegas actually seems to have gone decently smooth.

Wait at least to see if it works well across a range of machines, if it actually accomplishes its goals outside of a KS pitch, etc. before making these claims? Going by what these forums think, Obsidian should have licensed a dozen engines for their future projects. Going by their past track record, it actually didn't work all that well.

It's not $10 but £10

I've been playing some The Banner Saga: Factions and X-COM: UFO Defense.

Feedback I heard it's that it's a mechanically terrible game with a decent story/setting and a somewhat awkward translation. Also that you should probably play it on easy. I'm still interested because RPGs with settings that vary ever so slightly from the norm are not exactly common, but it's not high on my playing list.

"I wrote a couple hundred games for the C-64 and the Amiga"... if this guy is such a prolific developer, what the heck does he need funding for??? I hope I'm remembering the details correctly (I should find the post) but he said himself that basically he DOES NOT need it since the game is basically ready, and it's just a way for himself to get committed to a deadline and actually get it out (think it was.. on the Codex? Forums though, not the interview). Of course, he could just open some pre-orders, but why do that when you can go through the crowdfunding craze and not be legally committed to offer refunds? P.S. : That interview is... interesting. Merely from an anthropological/study of the human mind point of view, though. I mean, come on: This is not how you should approach crowdfunding.

I don't know man, I think that's a rather idealistic and stupid way to see it, but suit yourself. Just want to note that you're targeting the wrong individual since Kevin Saunders never worked at BioWare.

Meh....I'd rather not....he decided to go to a complete sellout company that only cared about money and screwing the fans. I say leave him....Obsidian can do amazing things without such people....and good riddance. I'm gonna rock your world and shatter your reality but... Chris Avellone.. is David Gaider's friend!

Maybe not difficult but ceratinly undesirable and inferior. Look at ****ing x-com. Turn-based works really well with controllers because there are no time constraints so you don't need to give precise inputs quickly. The PC UI of XCOM is not that good, but that comes down to simply not getting the time it deserved.

If this was a turn-based game, I don't think it would be too difficult to do a version of the UI that caters to controllers, no, but when it comes to real-time with pause, I think the attempts we've seen in the past show pretty transparently that the experience just doesn't translate well and has to either be simplified for both the PC and console versions (Dragon Age II), or exclusively for the console versions (Dragon Age: Origins). I mean, I'm sure there's a sweet point that hasn't been reached yet, but frankly I don't think this game is being developed for the audience that would like for that to be reached in the first place.

I *do* remember my character, I just don't remember the precise details of the background, is all. I also don't think I ever had a character sheet. EDIT: For that matter, what happened to Wals' pseudo-Fallout game for which he actually wanted fantasy characters?

Have you ever actually met a nun?

I imagine some could be decently lucrative (others not so much considering the crowded market). Regardless, uh, I don't play mobile games, I don't even own anything that could play them properly, so it doesn't interest me.

The DLC sounds pretty awful. What the game needs is an expansion that injects more content, especially more maps and more layers/content on the strategic side which feels a bit barebone. But instead we get story-based content that also alters the game balance in your favor? Why?

Pretty much sounds like something a fanboy/rumor fan made up on the spot. Not that I wouldn't like Obsidian to work on another Fallout title, but frankly, I don't really get the feeling that even another collaboration is likely, let alone Bethesda suddenly feeling that the IP they spent quite a lot of money buying (and that sold better/garnered better ratings on Metacritic under their direction) is in "better hands" with Obsidian, who apparently would decide "you know what? it's gonna be a-okay if we roll back to the old mechanics, it's not like the larger part of the sales comes from new fans who don't know about Fallout 1 and 2!"

I prefer turn-based, but they're clearly trying to harken back to the Infinity Engine kind of mechanics and pacing and turn-based doesn't lend itself well to that. A pity but oh well, I can always hope that Obsidian will do a turn-based title eventually if they can self-fund more titles on the side of their bigger projects.

Seems like it'll reach its goal just fine. Mobile game makes me kind of not interested, though. It also looks like for many of the devs this is a side-gig? If I remember correctly Liz Fiacco is also working with Jason Fader's crew.