Darth_Pavel Posted September 4, 2005 Posted September 4, 2005 We are planning on releasing a music and movie update in the coming weeks
Naso Posted September 4, 2005 Posted September 4, 2005 Obsidian doesn't give a **** about their first game, doubt they'll do that much for NWN 2 either.
Mark Havel Posted September 4, 2005 Posted September 4, 2005 A game like NeverWinter Nights 2 needs support IMO. Obsidian is backed by Bioware and Atari for this game, it's a different context and I think they can make a great game and give us a great support. Anyway, this thread is supposed to speak about the content patch, not the future games of Obsidian nor your will to buy them or not.
EnderAndrew Posted September 4, 2005 Posted September 4, 2005 Obsidian doesn't give a **** about their first game, doubt they'll do that much for NWN 2 either. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Obsidian posted on the content patch. Lucas removed it. I hate seeing blame being assigned to the wrong parties. If they didn't care about it, they wouldn't have worked their butts off to put together a game in like 9 months of full production time. I wonder how many start-ups could pull something like that off? If you seriously have such a negative opinion of Obsidian and their projects, then perhaps this isn't the forum for you.
cal_01 Posted September 4, 2005 Posted September 4, 2005 A game like NeverWinter Nights 2 needs support IMO. Obsidian is backed by Bioware and Atari for this game, it's a different context and I think they can make a great game and give us a great support.Anyway, this thread is supposed to speak about the content patch, not the future games of Obsidian nor your will to buy them or not. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ehhh, Atari. IIRC, their support for ToEE and MOO3 were pretty bad.
EnderAndrew Posted September 4, 2005 Posted September 4, 2005 Atari refused to pay for patches for ToEE, claiming that since ToEE wasn't shipped on time, any budget that would have went towards patches went towards production instead. Troika developed patches on their own dime and worked with the fans on fan-made patches. Atari is not a great publisher. I credit Bioware for what they have down with NWN-post release. I think Bioware is overrated as a development house, but they do support their products. I wouldn't be shocked if we saw more premium content as well as a commercial persistant world this time around. Atari might seek to cash in on NWN:2 more.
Judge Hades Posted September 5, 2005 Posted September 5, 2005 Only thing I care about, as a consumer, is the bottomline. Will the game get the proper technical support from its publisher and developer? Nothing else matters to me. I don't care about the money going back and forth between publisher and developer. I don't care about the politics behind the game. I only care about the game working on my system as it is designed to do and recieves support when it doesn't. Obsidian and LA failed to give KotOR 2 proper support. That is the bottomline. The reasons behind it is irrelevant to me. I am a consumer, nothing more. Given Atari's past overall support of their games, or the lack thereof, and Obsidian's reputation garnered by KotOR 2 I don't see NWN 2 having the proper support.
EnderAndrew Posted September 5, 2005 Posted September 5, 2005 Except I've never seen you blame LucasArts, while you blame Obsidian solely. You are smart enough to know the difference but choose to be willfully ignorant.
Jitawa Posted September 5, 2005 Posted September 5, 2005 I blame them both. Even if you could say Obsidian is powerless to act, and Lucasarts are just being wankers.... ultimately you have to at least concede that Obsidian put themselves into the situation where they're powerless. Also, as you mentioned with Troika (and others), even when official support is lacking... developers often are able to pick up the slack and release "unofficial" patches. Hell, if they just spent some time collaborating with the Free-Gizka crew that would speed that project along considerably. The time involved in reverse-engineering a game to figure out how to put in lost content is vastly larger than the time taken with a little developer assistance.
EnderAndrew Posted September 5, 2005 Posted September 5, 2005 How did they put themselves in that position? LucasArts gave them a timetable and then cut it short by 3 months. If the unofficial patches were merely bug fixes, they might be able to. But there is no way they are going to release an unofficial content patch. I suspect in the end, LucasArts had real problems with the original ending and wanted one a little less grim.
Jitawa Posted September 5, 2005 Posted September 5, 2005 I wasn't suggesting that they personally release an unofficial content patch if they have a legal hamstring, but they COULD help the fans that are already working on it, on the sly so to speak. That way, the patch comes sooner, but there are no real legal ramifications since the fans are releasing it, not them. They're at fault for the timetable since they agreed to it in the first place, and if LA was able to cut it short by three months without them having any real bargaining power -- then they also were showing a lack of good sense in signing a contract that allowed a publisher to do such. As far as unofficial patches for bug fixes, the game could still use quite a few of those as well.
EnderAndrew Posted September 5, 2005 Posted September 5, 2005 Who is to say that they aren't secretly helping the restoration project? Would we know? And just for the record, how often does a company do this? I just want to know if you're holding them to the same standard as everyone else.
Jitawa Posted September 5, 2005 Posted September 5, 2005 Are you referring to unofficial patches? They're fairly common. Obviously, two factors need to be in place to necessitate an unofficial patch. The game needs to have a bunch of errors, and the publisher needs to be refusing an official patch for some reason. You already gave one example, and I can think of others. Wizards & Warriors, the DW Bradley game was rife with bugs upon release, and Activision was dragging their feet on the patch. The developers pulled together and did a patch on their own time -- without cash from Activision. Ultima:9 was a buggy mess upon release. EA both enforced a release date before the developers wanted it, and didn't allow for patches. Anonymous team members released the last patch (related to bugs anyhow). The game still sucks, but developers did make an unofficial release. So, developers do make unofficial patches. Troika is probably a bad example (a good one?) since they went under for making buggy games. I'd assume progress on the cut content would move faster if the fans had access to development tools. Perhaps that's a poor assumption.
Jitawa Posted September 5, 2005 Posted September 5, 2005 I should mention it's also not uncommon for a game to be left as an unsupported buggy mess. Though this is more common with games that do poorly, or developers that go under. Tribes:Vengeance for instance, got next to no support for it's bugs, and the Vivendi Universal came out and said - "the game sold too poorly to justify the expenditures necessary for Q&A on a new patch, sorry, we will never patch this game, and if you decide never to buy our games again based on this, so be it" (that's loosely paraphrased). When Troika went under, it could no longer render patches for Vampire:Masquerade. However, I was under the impression that Obsidian was still around, and KoTOR:2 sold well.
213374U Posted September 6, 2005 Posted September 6, 2005 I blame them both. Even if you could say Obsidian is powerless to act, and Lucasarts are just being wankers.... ultimately you have to at least concede that Obsidian put themselves into the situation where they're powerless. Also, as you mentioned with Troika (and others), even when official support is lacking... developers often are able to pick up the slack and release "unofficial" patches. Hell, if they just spent some time collaborating with the Free-Gizka crew that would speed that project along considerably. The time involved in reverse-engineering a game to figure out how to put in lost content is vastly larger than the time taken with a little developer assistance. Those are two different issues you're talking about. Patches that solve technical issues isn't what the restoration team are doing. If you don't like the game, say so, but don't go around saying that "it needs fixing", because it most certainly does not, in that respect at least. OE aren't helping the restoration team probably because they stand by their work, like it or not. I agree that the game needs more bug fixing, but apparently "they are working on it". People should keep the bitching in check until they openly say that there aren't going to be any more patches. - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.
EnderAndrew Posted September 6, 2005 Posted September 6, 2005 Obsidian has said there will not be a content patch. A bug fix patch may happen, but I doubt it.
Jitawa Posted September 6, 2005 Posted September 6, 2005 Actually, they're not separate, check the Free-Gizka site, they released several bug fixes. More bug fixes I would say, than extra content at this point. http://www.team-gizka.org/downloads.html
kumquatq3 Posted September 8, 2005 Posted September 8, 2005 not getting a reply to my email to lucasarts, so, maybe tomarrow or maybe nothing. dunno
vaxen83 Posted September 8, 2005 Posted September 8, 2005 OE probably had a very difficult situation. If they turned down the offer, it would have been hard to get an opportunity like that to produce a game again. It's almost like a double sword where you have an opportunity to make a game, but ironically find that almost all the bargaining table's cards are owned by someone else whom you have to listening to, leaving little room for renegotiating. The only ticket you have is to accept/refuse the offer. Either way, OE's situation was almost a dilemma. Deep from within... Victims live a life of fantasy. Some see salvation as an act of God, a few look within for it. 朱宣澧
Judge Hades Posted September 8, 2005 Posted September 8, 2005 Personally I don't really care. I am not a game developer or publisher so what goes behind the scenes is irrelevant to me. All I care about is the bottomline. A game either works, or it doesn't. A game is either fun, or it isn't. A game is either supported, or it is not. Obsidian and LA failed KotOR 2 and the KotOR fans with this game.
jaguars4ever Posted September 8, 2005 Posted September 8, 2005 Personally I don't really care. I am not a game developer or publisher so what goes behind the scenes is irrelevant to me. All I care about is the bottomline. A game either works, or it doesn't. A game is either fun, or it isn't. A game is either supported, or it is not. Obsidian and LA failed KotOR 2 and the KotOR fans with this game. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bingo. Was the game finished? No. Was the game supported? No. Was the first release bug ridden and unplayable by console standards? Yes.
Judge Hades Posted September 8, 2005 Posted September 8, 2005 I am still waiting for Obsidian to give us a reason why we should still buy their products.
alanschu Posted September 8, 2005 Posted September 8, 2005 Ultima:9 was a buggy mess upon release. EA both enforced a release date before the developers wanted it, and didn't allow for patches. Anonymous team members released the last patch (related to bugs anyhow). The game still sucks, but developers did make an unofficial release. That would explain the EA official replacement CD that contained all the patches that I received, complete with a formal apology from the developers and the publisher. Odd.
vaxen83 Posted September 9, 2005 Posted September 9, 2005 I suspect their next reason will be NWN2. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And maybe PNJ after that. Deep from within... Victims live a life of fantasy. Some see salvation as an act of God, a few look within for it. 朱宣澧
Recommended Posts