Obsidian making Fallout: New Vegas

[Jaesun]

misread the post. la la la.

 

Anyways NEW VEGAS HELL YEA!

Edited April 24, 2009 by Jaesun

[Trenitay]

HELL YEA!

 

I wonder why I've never liked Bethesda.

[alanschu]

It replaces rpgcodex.com with [censored], so you can neither link to it, or name it in posts.

 

And you know why that is? They gave Oblivion a negative review.

Yep.

 

 

 

Meh, it seemed to me that the bulk of the Fallout fans were ridiculous ass monkeys that were trashing Fallout 3 simply because it wasn't going to be Fallout 1/2.

 

 

If there's one thing that made me facepalm a whole hell of a lot, it's the stupid reaction by the "Fallout fans." I was ashamed to say I was a part of their company as a fan of the first two Fallouts. A lot of the vitriol that was spewed forth was just retarded, and you saw a lot of it here on the "peaceful" Obsidian boards too.

[Hell Kitty]

Obviously Oblivion was so crap, and that's why it sold so very badly....

 

Sales are not an indicator of quality.

 

Sales indicate the product is doing something right, which is what the "lol Oblivion is just bad" crowd seems to miss. People need to stop seeing praise as a defense of some objectively bad game and criticism as an attack on an objectively good game. Of course it can be hard to take people seriously when they have such an obvious bias against certain companies.

 

Meh, it seemed to me that the bulk of the Fallout fans were ridiculous ass monkeys that were trashing Fallout 3 simply because it wasn't going to be Fallout 1/2.

 

I always assumed the codex being censored on the Bethesda boards had more to do with their general attitude and vulgarity. Unless everyone who gave Oblivion a bad review is banned there then that excuse is nonsense.

[Tigranes]

Sales indicate the product is doing something right, which is what the "lol Oblivion is just bad" crowd seems to miss.

 

It indicates that a product has managed to procure sales through a combination of factors, which includes marketing and advertising, its relation to other products released at the same time (or before), platforms, distribution technologies and performances, and product's features / 'quality' (the judgment of which is dependant on things like myths and widely held perceptions regarding things such as game lengths and difficulty, the cultivation of consumer desire on the part of the developer/publisher and the industry, etc). Of course Oblivion did something 'right' to get sales, as far as 'right' pertains to 'an action that delivers sales'... at its core that argument is either a tautology that says very little, or one that says anything that gets you sales is 'right' by definition. if that is what you / some of you are saying, fair enough, but I disagree wholeheartedly with that.

 

Basically I'm trying tos ay that sales are not like a test score; they are not an impartial and immovable standard that rewards what is 'right' (and thus defines what is 'right'). Sales, and the choices of consumers, can and are manipulated, cultivated and thus engineered. It's just a (very important) consequence of a complex process and can't be used to so simply validate the quality of a product - again, unless you define the quality of a product as something that sells well (which is not the worst position in the world to take up, no).

 

I always assumed the codex being censored on the Bethesda boards had more to do with their general attitude and vulgarity. Unless everyone who gave Oblivion a bad review is banned there then that excuse is nonsense.

 

You can find solid arguments on various camps and positions in the big FO furore. The pity is that because of various factors, which does include the Codex's more 'vulgar' culture but also other things including Beth's style of moderation (which they are perfectly in their right to espouse), the Bethboard community has grown fairly insulated from some of the arguments out there, IMO. If New Vegas can mean some more communication and discussion between places like NMA/Codex, here and Bethboards then it'll be really good & interesting.

[Aristes]

What are we to substitute for sales in assessing the value of a product? I mean, there is critical acclaim. There is general popularity by word of mouth. There are sales. There are benchmarks in terms of how the product performs in a technical sense.

 

Fallout won wide acclaim, both by press and by general popularity. The sales were excellent. I thought the game had some irritating bugs, but nothing earthshattering for me personally and it was less buggy than, say, NWN2.

 

Saying that sales aren't the end game for the developers pretty much makes the entire argument meaningless. After all, if we don't use sales, at least in part, then game discussions become a free for all. ...And I love the idea that a game that sold as well as Fallout 3 did so based on clever marketing. hahaha Okay. Gotcha.

 

Look, I lurked here for a while before I started posting, and I've always thought of you as a clever member of the forum, Tig. I respect that you have a lot of passion on the Fallout issue. That's cool. ...But you must understand how hollow the sales != quality argument sounds. Consumers were offered a product and they purchased it in great numbers. I, for one, heard a lot of positive buzz about the product from folks on this very board and purchased the title and was quite happy with the choice. In fact, I think one of my first posts here was in regards to Fallout 3.

 

Let me add more to the wall of text. When NWN shipped, I was angry. I simply could not conceive how folks who had enjoyed the BG, IWD, and PST franchises so thoroughly could think of NWN as a quality product. ...But I have to concede that it has been a lucrative franchise that has sold extremely well. My own personal feelings aside, no matter how much I disagreed with the unwashed masses, clearly the franchise is successful.

 

So, if your primary argument is that sales are not the only factor in evaluating a product, I'll agree. However, sales are sufficiently important that I see them as one of, if not the, most decisive factors. After all, Why should any one unhappy reviewer's point of view take precedence over the clear evidence that a product has sold well? A trusted friend will undoubtedly have more influence than sales. A reviewer whose tastes and attitudes have been in aggreement with your own? Sure. ...But I've had friends who were dead set against a product on principle and, while I won't stop being their friend, I don't exactly regard them as a reliable source either.

 

Sales a compelling argument in favor of Fallout 3, and any argument about the future of the franchise must take that into account. Now, for my part, I think Obsidian can improve the product. I certainly hope they have greater sales. I'd think they'd be happy as hell is they even approach the FO3 sales, but I'm hoping for more. You can argue for improvements in quality and style. Good. You should do that. When we get more info, I will do that. However, that 800lb gorilla in the room is commercial success. Never take on the gorilla. Whether he does it with quality or style, in the end the gorilla will tear off your arms and beat you to death. Better to say to the devs, "you can have both commercial success and aspire to better quality than FO3."

[TwinkieGorilla]

Meh, it seemed to me that the bulk of the Fallout fans were ridiculous ass monkeys that were trashing Fallout 3 simply because it wasn't going to be Fallout 1/2.

 

 

If there's one thing that made me facepalm a whole hell of a lot, it's the stupid reaction by the "Fallout fans." I was ashamed to say I was a part of their company as a fan of the first two Fallouts. A lot of the vitriol that was spewed forth was just retarded, and you saw a lot of it here on the "peaceful" Obsidian boards too.

 

 

and here's another very common facepalm. the view which places the bulk of the Fallout fansite members in a camp which merely wants a recreation of Fallouts 1 and 2 (i have yet to see a single member anywhere who wants a recreation of Fallouts 1 or 2 but rather wants a game which meets the standards set by those games).

 

(edited for simplicity)

Edited April 24, 2009 by TwinkieGorilla

[Slowtrain]

I'd like to see at least one big city on Obsidians FO. Even 2 would be better. Places like The Hub or Vault City or NCR. Big places with different neighborhoods. Places that you can walk around in and get lost. Lots of people doing all sorts of things.

 

I would find that a lot more interesting than just another big blob of wasteland filled with some deathclaw caves and raider camps and mole rat dens but not a single solitary person to talk to.

[Aristes]

What I'd like to see is a game where the PC isn't the end all/be all. How about a game where the PC spends most of his time simply trying to survive in the wasteland? IF there is some grand cause, how about the PC is part of it rather than leading it? Maybe a game where the PC helps the chosen one rather than being chosen himself? Suppose we have an ending where the PC has to help the leader of his cause make the final decision?

 

I'm also in favor of less involvement from everyone from the super mutants to the enclave. Have some encounters there, but make them rare and meaningful. Finally, let the player create a goody two shoes PC, but make him pay for it. Likewise, let the player create a real bastard, but make him pay. Let the choices the player makes be meaningful. That's what I'd like to see.

[Slowtrain]

Let the choices the player makes be meaningful.

 

Words to live by. That is my biggest hope with Obsidian in the driver seat and not Bethesda.

 

I KNOW Josh believes in meaningful choices and consequences because he has talked it for years. Given the freedom, Obsidian could completely turn FO3 into something much more interesting. Bethesda built the world and put the technology together, and it's good enough. Now Obsidian can take those pieces and put some meaning behind them.

 

So I believe. And hope.

[Hell Kitty]

Of course Oblivion did something 'right' to get sales, as far as 'right' pertains to 'an action that delivers sales'... at its core that argument is either a tautology that says very little

 

It's says little because it doesn't go into what a game did right to get those sales, but it's more than "sales are not an indicator of quality" which says nothing at all. Sales also aren't an indicator of a lack of quality. It's like when people bring up popularity, and the common response is "just because people like it, doesn't mean it's good", which is an equally useless claim. While popularity doesn't mean something is good, it also doesn't mean it's bad, so what are we supposed to get from statements like these? Such statements are meant as a dismissal. "Popularity/sales aren't an indication of quality, therefore popularity/sales are irrelevant." It's the equivalent of saying "Yeah, so? That doesn't mean anything", but of course it does mean something, it means the product is doing something right/wrong.

 

unless you define the quality of a product as something that sells well (which is not the worst position in the world to take up, no).

 

If one defines quality as "a product with high sales", then obviously the statement "sales are not an indicator of quality" is incorrect.

 

What are we to substitute for sales in assessing the value of a product? I mean, there is critical acclaim.

 

If one is willing to dismiss sales and popularity, why would critical acclaim be any different? Obviously it's not, given how common it is for people to accuse reviewers of being bribed, victims of hype, or just plain lying.

 

What I'd like to see is a game where the PC isn't the end all/be all. How about a game where the PC spends most of his time simply trying to survive in the wasteland? IF there is some grand cause, how about the PC is part of it rather than leading it? Maybe a game where the PC helps the chosen one rather than being chosen himself? Suppose we have an ending where the PC has to help the leader of his cause make the final decision?

 

I like this. Not just the PC helping the leader make decisions though, but the PCs actions determining what kind of person the leader becomes.

Edited April 24, 2009 by Hell Kitty

[Slowtrain]

I sigged your line, Aristes. Hope you don't mind. But it's good sig for gaming board.

[FabMan_UK]

snip

 

Does quantity of sales dictate quality? No

Does the fact a product maybe ported to an additional system dictate quality? No

Does the fact that additional content made and sold after initial release dictate quality? No

Does quantity of sales for additional content dictate quality? No

Does the reviews by critics dictate quality? No

Does the opinions of the masses dictate quality? No

Does the fact people are still using it years after release dictate quality? No

Does the fact that huge amounts modifications used and shared by millions dictate quality? No

 

 

What dictates quality? My opinion, naa na! Whatever I say is good, is good. Whatever I say is rubbish, is rubbish.

 

Coconut is rubbish, all those people that like it are weird!!! Isn't that right CrashGirl?

Edited April 24, 2009 by FabMan_UK

[Slowtrain]

If by coconut, you mean Oblivion then well, yeah.

 

Except it doesn't mean people are weird, it just means they like a crap game.

 

I have all the Resident Evil movies on Collector's Edition CD's. They are total crap, but I enjoy them. Its more a reflection on my horrible taste in movies then any positive qualities inherent to the films though.

 

People like what they like. I don't argue that.

[Maria Caliban]

I didn

[Tagaziel]

Yeah, well, I am guilty of being biased in favour of Fallout.

 

I think the different rating was based on how the quests played out, in Fo3 it's preceded by a practically obligatory shooting funhouse sequence, while in Fo1 it's a case of finding out about the quest, doing some background work and waiting. 3, it's just shooting your way through to a badly written villain.

[IguanaBob]

In my experience though, I didn't really find the game get harder or easier as I leveled up. The annoying part of that though, is that commonly traversed areas that occasionally had the odd beetle or something, now had Yao Guai and Deathclaws running around. I honestly would have preferred it to be easier simply to maintain consistency of the setting.

 

Yeah,I

[Kjarista]

If by coconut, you mean Oblivion then well, yeah.

 

Except it doesn't mean people are weird, it just means they like a crap game.

 

I have all the Resident Evil movies on Collector's Edition CD's. They are total crap, but I enjoy them. Its more a reflection on my horrible taste in movies then any positive qualities inherent to the films though.

 

People like what they like. I don't argue that.

 

I like Oblivion because it supports my preferred gaming style. If you prefer heavily scripted, story driven games, then you p[probably won't like it. If you measure modern games with games from 10 years ago, you probably won't like any modern game.

 

But you not liking a game doesn't make it crap. It only makes it crap to you, and the two, of course, are not the same.

[player1]

Most disappointing in F3 was that perk that gave additional lines with characters of opposite sex.

 

I've found less then 5 such dialogs (total, for both sexes) in whole game.

Edited April 24, 2009 by player1

[Kjarista]

It replaces rpgcodex.com with [censored], so you can neither link to it, or name it in posts.

 

And you know why that is? They gave Oblivion a negative review.

 

The negative reviews were fine. What wasn't fine was the years of excessive negativity BEFORE the game came out. Nothing could be done to appease these folks. They were, and are entitled to their opinions, but for many of them the mere fact that Beth purchased the franchise meant game over for them. One does not continue to fight hopeless battles.

 

You folks might start getting a taste of it here. If F:NV isn't a FO1 clone, you better man the ramparts.

[SteveThaiBinh]

I moved a post into the spoilers forum. I don't think Fallout 3 spoilers here are really a problem, but an outline of the entire main quest was perhaps a bit too much. Remember you can use spoiler tags, too.

[Luhaja]

Sorry for going slightly off topic.

 

I enjoyed that post about fallout 1 versus fallout 3 a lot Mikael Grizzly. You

[Wombat]

I think any hardcore RPG gamer forum would fit if you would like to bash games by Bethesda but what I wanted to do is to examine the possibility of "the greatest common factor" for both hardcore gamers and other gamers who make enough money to keep a company stay in the market at least.

 

Oblivion did some things better at least about combat game-play compared with Morrowind. Also, NPC dialogues became more concrete although the quality is rather disappointing. The game-play of Oblivion made the game more friendly while the lack of deeper content made me bored pretty quickly. I think, for those who played older TES games, it was pretty obvious from the start.

 

Now, if Bethesda managed to do better job with FO3 than they did in Oblivion as some people here mentioned, then, I think Obsidian could do a better job with dialogues and balancing if they are given enough time.

 

That said, something bugs me is what Annie VanderMeer Carlson, one of the former Obsidian employees, complained of at ITS forum.

http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index...g23598#msg23598

http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index...g23602#msg23602

 

Even in Obsidian, is this tendency of shifting weight from the content to the game-play happening? Even with the game lead by Chris Avellone?

 

Then, again, AVC seems to be yet another person who is in the dark.

http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index...g23802#msg23802

 

What we know is that the company seems to have became quite huge.

Edited April 24, 2009 by Wombat

[Dagon]

weeeeeehaaaw !

I'm still excited about this news!

 

If any of devs reads this thred, I would really like to see something like New Reno again, but this time with decent explanation of how it can exist in a post nuclear wasteland. It would be nice if the main location would be somekind of the centre of civilization in the wasteland, "all roads leads to Vegas", as Hover Dam was to be in Van Buren ,

 

I would love to see vegas a as a combination of New Reno and Hub. The place which is controlled by mafias but has pretty good economic and agriculture explanation. I would like farms outside of city providing food, drugs and alcohol supplies and caravans hq's, casinos inside, also it should be crowded by caravans as was Hub in F1 or Bartertown in MadMax 3.

Edited April 24, 2009 by Dagon

[TwinkieGorilla]

Now, if Bethesda managed to do better job with FO3 than they did in Oblivion as some people here mentioned, then, I think Obsidian could do a better job with dialogues and balancing if they are given enough time.

 

 

yes, i'm concerned about the time limit as well. while New Reno was one of those bits which started to veer off the true "Fallout" path with it's silliness, what with the porn, the boxing, the mafia, etc....what it DID do right is it's utter expansiveness of it's content and quests. what i'd really like to see is the former kept to a minimum and the latter brought to fruition. one of the most disappointing aspects of FO3 was that Megaton was really the only "town/city/settlement" and it felt more like Shady Sands than something like New Reno. then on top of that you come to find out that most of the rest of the game are empty fetch quests, dungeon crawls and combat-heavy l00t runs.

 

New Reno barely had anything to do with Combat. i'd love if we are able to say the same about New Vegas.