Fallout 4 Obsidian Petition

[WastelandShadow]

The petition has closed.

Do you know how? Was it moderated by the site which it was on, did ZeniMax find it or did the guy close it down?

Oh well... We should instead start a petition for Bethesda to focus more on storylines and characters for F4 and to hire back writers like Michael Kirkbride and generally every good writer that left the company over the years.

 

I don't know. I don't think the people of that site take down petitions like that and ZeniMax couldn't do anything even if they did find it.

[HoonDing]

The petition has closed.

[NerdBoner]

guys it's the age of the popamole-watch-a-movie-and-occasionally-press-a-button game...there is no chance in hell Bethesdurr is gonna make a game outside of their usual formula....or give up their second biggest IP as of now.

[marelooke]

Lol, so true in regards to fallout 3.

 

Still people are right, Bethesda didn't know what they were doing, you could tell as you played the game. They seem to have been trying to get better with the DLCs (Zeta no included)

 

Still doesn't make it a bad game.

 

I think they'll have a better grasp of plot elements with Fallout 4. They can create interesting characters like Serana in Skyrim, the first real fully fleshed companion they've made.

 

I never said Fallout 3 was a bad game, but it is a bad Fallout game for reasons already mentioned.

 

I've never encountered that companion, and of the NPCs I encountered in Skyrim were hollow shells compared to hundreds of other RPGs. So they were able to create one NPC that actually had some depth to it? Excuse me if I don't break out in applause.

 

Serana was added in the Dawnguard DLC (who's main story isn't exactly stellar even though it does contain interesting tidbits). Same as Katria. They are probably the two most interesting NPCs in Skyrim. They're nowhere near the level of a Viconia or Kreia (or insert some of your other favourite NPCs here) but they're pretty good for a Bethesda game (insofar I know, Oblivion, F3 and Skyrim are the only ones I've played). While they lack the depth I'd like you can actually care about them. If they keep iterating on this they might actually start creating characters that have a soul. That is, once they manage to upgrade their AI to a level that makes them actually useful to have around (or at least not a total hindrance).

 

I have mixed feelings about F3/NV, I like the F3 *world* better, the feeling when you enter some ruin that it has history, hell, history is all over the place. I sort of missed that feeling in NV, of course the setting is a big part of it, the capital wasteland is still at a standstill while New Vegas has actually started rebuilding a new world. On the other hand the characters in NV were loads better as were the quests.

 

All imho, of course.

[BladeO]

(insofar I know, Oblivion, F3 and Skyrim are the only ones I've played)

You should play Morrowind too. The main villain in that game is pretty awesome, and the story in general is pretty good imo. You should also try Daggerfall which has a different feel to it, it's more about mindless fun and dungeon crawling, but the story is pretty interesting there too. I've only heard good things about Redguard and Battlespire too, though I have not played those.

[Flouride]

I personally hated the world in F3 with the 2 person towns somehow surviving in the middle of Super Mutants. All those almost intact landmarks that somehow survived a nuclear holocaust and being abandoned for years. Only food available was either 200 years old or meat from creatures etc. etc.

 

That makes the world just seem like it couldn't even exist and takes away any "immersion" I would have in the world. And Bethesda pretty much made Fallout to be about finding cool real world locales in horrible shape. Compare that to the actually beliavable world building Obsidian did. Food sources, caravan routes, towns that could actually function and not get overrun by a single Super Mutant you accidentally pull into the town...

[AwesomeOcelot]

That's great and everything, having The Road: The Game, grey grey everywhere, and lots of old world buildings that have a lot of untouched old world stuff, but that's not Fallout, and I really like Fallout.

[AGX-17]

I like Bethesda, Bioware, and Obsidian. We all make RPGs.

 

Why all the hate? It's silly to hate on any company and/or their employees.

 

(Now waiting on someone to hate on me for this post)

 

How can you go to Little Lamplight and not be overtaken by feelings of disbelief, if not more aggressive negative feelings? The only explanation for these kids' survival are engine-level gameplay mechanics (they are unkillable,) and there's no explanation as to where they come from or any other aspect of their cartoonish existence. It might work for a childrens' cartoon, but not an M-rated RPG.

 

Little Lamplight and the quests "Those!" and "Blood Ties" are the only truly infuriating aspects of Fallout 3. You could even call it a compliment that they've been able to stir up so much emotion in people.

 

It was a great game in the end because it was more than the sum of its parts, and thanks mostly to great level design and atmosphere. Fallout 3 was phenomenal when it was just you exploring the wasteland. It really fumbled when it came to writing.

 

It's just... COME ON. I'm the bad guy for killing the MURDEROUS CANNIBALS? How does just drinking your innocent victims' blood after murdering them make you shining Paladins of Light?!

Edited November 22, 2012 by AGX-17

[BladeO]

Little Lamplight and the quests "Those!" and "Blood Ties" are the only truly infuriating aspects of Fallout 3.

Those! and Blood Ties weren't't really infuriating, they were just trying to continue upon Fallout 2's wacky idiocy, they thought they'd do that well because of how Shivering Isles was praised.

The things that were truly infuriating in my opinion were: Mothership Zeta, Vault 87, the Enclave being even stupider evil than they were in F2 and to some amount Broken Steel as well, since they showed obvious favoritism to the good guy ending in that DLC.

[Lopushaven]

I would absolutely not sign such a petition and here is why. Obsidian added almost nothing new to FO3 graphicwise, it's like they just took all the hard work Bethesda had done (as in everything seen onscreen) colored it browner and told me I was no longer in DC but now in Vegas. Kinda just like they did with KoTOR. I bought the game FNV when it first came out and the only thing I was excited about was the new workbench and campfire stuff. But then the game was updated and most of that cool stuff dissapeared or was watered down until it sucked as well. And then I noticed almost 80% of the enemies had dissapeared in the town of Primm, really? two guys in the middle of the town with 9mm pistols are holding off the NCR? Here is what I think happened behind the seens.. Obsidian are just plain Lazy there game didn't work properly and they didn't want to take  the time or put forth the effort to fix it so they just deleted what didn't work perfect. Again same as they did with KoTOR 2. These are obviously very talented people but either lazy or they have horrible management that makes them hate working. I think it would be better if they just went and worked for Bethesda and then we would get an awesome game with an awesome workbench.

[alanschu]

Yes.  "Lazy" is definitely how I describe pretty much every game developer. 

[Benny]

I would absolutely not sign such a petition and here is why. Obsidian added almost nothing new to FO3 graphicwise, it's like they just took all the hard work Bethesda had done (as in everything seen onscreen) colored it browner and told me I was no longer in DC but now in Vegas. Kinda just like they did with KoTOR. I bought the game FNV when it first came out and the only thing I was excited about was the new workbench and campfire stuff. But then the game was updated and most of that cool stuff dissapeared or was watered down until it sucked as well. And then I noticed almost 80% of the enemies had dissapeared in the town of Primm, really? two guys in the middle of the town with 9mm pistols are holding off the NCR? Here is what I think happened behind the seens.. Obsidian are just plain Lazy there game didn't work properly and they didn't want to take  the time or put forth the effort to fix it so they just deleted what didn't work perfect. Again same as they did with KoTOR 2. These are obviously very talented people but either lazy or they have horrible management that makes them hate working. I think it would be better if they just went and worked for Bethesda and then we would get an awesome game with an awesome workbench.

 

 

I assume you played NV for... what? An hour maybe? Perhaps two?

 

Obsidian definitely didn't water anything down, New Vegas included virtually every gameplay feature of FO3 and then added a ton more.

 

As for adding anything "graphicwise." Why? This is the problem with your generation. It's all about graphics. Not about setting, atmostphere, mood, setpieces, or anything else. For you it all comes down to how much detail the textures and frames have. Go play Call of Duty and leave the actual gaming experience to the rest of us.

 

BOTH games were good. Fallout 3 told a very personal story that put the player in the centerstage of events. New Vegas took an interesting and different route by making the player more of a contractor in over his head than someone who a story revolves around. The envionments were also completely different. Capital Wasteland was extremely irradiated, bombed out, and utterly destroyed to the point that the only way to get around the city was to navigate the remains of semi-collapsed metro tunnels. The Mojave Wasteland was barely irradiated thanks to House, and as a result, was a far less depressing place to be. That's the key difference between the feel of the games. Fallout 3 was a very dark and uncomfortable game, New Vegas was a very fun and intricate game. None of these things make either better than the other.

 

Regarding your comment about taking Bethsoft's hard work... hardly. They used the same engine and design tools because it made sense. People liked the way Fallout 3 played, and redesigning the entire platform ground up would have taken  at least twice as long if not half a decade, why waste what works when it allows the Devs to focus on telling a talke rather than modeling frames and textures? It would be like whining that Bioware is lazy for recycling the mechanics of ME2 in ME3 when thee reality is, people want to play the sequel because they liked the prior installment. They want to find what they liked in the previous game in the new one while still enjoying a new experience.

 

I wouldn't sign this petition because I want Bethesda's Fallout 4. And then, a few years later, I want Obsidean's next Fallout on the west coast. Bethsoft can handle the East, let Obsidean take the West, everyone wins, and we get two very different yet still connected takes on the Fallout universe.

[Osvir]

I began playing FO:NV on my PS3 machine not too long ago (Now with a more mature & more understanding mindset than I had when Fallout 3 came out). I'm having a blast (Hardcore mode). This is the first Next Gen Fallout that I am playing with "devotion". There's really only one feature I am missing and nothing less, the ability to zoom out, top down, and scroll the screen like the old Fallout's. Not being camera-locked.

Now, I mentioned I am playing on the PS3 and it is suffering from the Dragon Age: Origins syndrome (although, playing DA:O on PS3 made me finish DA:O a second time on my PC I enjoyed the heightened feeling of "action" playing DA:O on PS3): back to the syndrome, it is difficult to play a strategy game on any console (Top-down, control squads, do actions etc. etc.).

There's a solution that might be "scary" but Whip-Select is one that would work brilliantly for a limited squad (4-6 characters): Stormrise is a great game that I picked up, and many of you might say "Stormrise pfft, that's the game that got tons of bad reviews and failed to be innovative" and personally I'd say that's your opinion, in my opinion it's a great strategy game. It's just missing the "top-down scroll the screen and observe the battle-field without being 'locked in view'".

What am I trying to say about Fallout: New Vegas??? It would be awesome if you could get that top-down feeling again, without being camera-locked to the character (just like Stormrise), and being able to get that old school feeling. The same thing goes for Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim. I want to be removed from being "locked" in Camera. "I want to be free!" in my movement. But I'm stuck to the character. That's really the only thing that I miss in Fallout: New Vegas, other than that I think it's a great game.

The very first impression I had of Fallout: New Vegas was "Wow this is a great game", but I got side-tracked and began my journey for completion. My fault, and it made my impression of the game go bad, I got bored with it because I got lost in my own aloof directive. If I had a quest in my Quest tab, I had to do it, if there was some dude I hadn't talked to, I had to talk to him. Doing all that quickly made me forget what the heck the Main Quest was all about (I did the same thing/mistake in Fallout 3). This made me dislike both Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas more. My fault. Back to what I said first so you don't forget it: I love Fallout: New Vegas today, now that I've grown up a little bit.

Still, they can't beat Fallout 1 & 2, and it isn't entirely about nostalgia, Fallout 1 & 2 has that simplicity going about them that makes them "that good". "Smoke on the Water" good. Of course, they were first as well. To be honest I'm with the group that likes Fallout above Fallout 2, for one I haven't finished Fallout 2, second because Fallout was first. Same thing with Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate 2. I enjoy Baldur's Gate more than the 2nd one. Why? Because Baldur's Gate was first.

Final Fantasy? The very first one is the best one in my opinion. Why? There's a huge backstory to it, it was the game that saved Squaresoft from bankruptcy, it was a title that changed the entire company. It was the best Final Fantasy. It is simple, easy-going, not very heavy on the depth. It simply works. You create your party of 4, you venture out into the world to slay evil. That's that. Simplicity is King. "War is complex, Peace is easy".

One thing that I mainly disliked about Fallout 3 was the number "3" after the title.

If Fallout 4 ever comes out and is made by Obsidian then I ask only this: Ditch the number 4. Like "New Vegas", go with an awesome title like that. Fallout is Fallout, New Vegas is New Vegas. That's enough input/feedback/review from me

Have a great wonderful day.

[Benny]

Obsidian wouldn't be making "4" anyway so you don't have to worry about that. Bethsoft is now handling what is technically considered the "main" series, though in truth even Bethesda doesn't consider their series to be central any more than the other games. 3 was just the numerical value to indicate that it was intended to be a direct sequel to the first two which makes a bit of sense considering the heavy references to past games including the presence of Harold. 4 being the sequel to 3 will likely tie in even more because it's going to be another East Coast game, supposedly Boston if rumors are to be believed. If and when Obsidian starts their next Fallout, it would likely be a direct sequel to New Vegas and take place in the West Coast, though the name will probably not reflect that.

[AGX-17]

 

 

(insofar I know, Oblivion, F3 and Skyrim are the only ones I've played)

You should play Morrowind too. The main villain in that game is pretty awesome, and the story in general is pretty good imo. You should also try Daggerfall which has a different feel to it, it's more about mindless fun and dungeon crawling, but the story is pretty interesting there too. I've only heard good things about Redguard and Battlespire too, though I have not played those.

 

 

Keeping in mind that Morrowind was the end of Bethesda's good main storyline/writing days. The well-written quests and characters in F3 were few and far between, the main storyline was garbage for the most part. The thing that Bethesda excels at is level/area design (in F3, not so true of Skyrim or Oblivion,) exploration and atmosphere, that was what made F3 great. Edited March 10, 2013 by AGX-17

[JadedWolf]

After what happened with FO:NV (the metacritic thing) I honestly would rather see Obsidian put their time and energy into things that would offer the company a better deal.

[AGX-17]

After what happened with FO:NV (the metacritic thing) I honestly would rather see Obsidian put their time and energy into things that would offer the company a better deal.

Well, we don't know how much Obsidian actually earned from NV, and the metacritic thing was just a bonus. Obsidian got what they were promised, whatever that was, and it is known that NV opened a lot of doors/led to a lot more opportunities for the company. And pretty much every public face at Obsidian has said they'd love to work on another Fallout game if Bethesda came to them about it.

 

They obviously benefited much more both financially and in terms of publicity from NV than from, say, Dungeon Siege III or KotOR II. From both a business and a creative perspective, there's no logical reason for Obsidian to refuse another Fallout project from Bethesda.

[Aoyagi]

After what happened with FO:NV (the metacritic thing) I honestly would rather see Obsidian put their time and energy into things that would offer the company a better deal.

It was a deal Obsidian agreed to, was it not? 

[JadedWolf]

 

After what happened with FO:NV (the metacritic thing) I honestly would rather see Obsidian put their time and energy into things that would offer the company a better deal.

It was a deal Obsidian agreed to, was it not? 

Yeah, they did. Not sure what your point is.

 

 

After what happened with FO:NV (the metacritic thing) I honestly would rather see Obsidian put their time and energy into things that would offer the company a better deal.

Well, we don't know how much Obsidian actually earned from NV, and the metacritic thing was just a bonus. Obsidian got what they were promised, whatever that was, and it is known that NV opened a lot of doors/led to a lot more opportunities for the company. And pretty much every public face at Obsidian has said they'd love to work on another Fallout game if Bethesda came to them about it.

 

They obviously benefited much more both financially and in terms of publicity from NV than from, say, Dungeon Siege III or KotOR II. From both a business and a creative perspective, there's no logical reason for Obsidian to refuse another Fallout project from Bethesda.

Well, maybe you are right and it was a good deal in the end for Obsidian's reputation. And honestly, I can't look into the financial side for Obsidian; maybe they did make some money out of it. But considering how many copies were sold, it just seems downright wrong to me that they didn't get more out of it. Especially since Obsidian had to cancel a project and lay people off in the same time. So if Obsidian can get a better deal with something else, maybe even something they can develop themselves from the ground up like Alpha Protocol or a new kickstarter (though I honestly don't know how profitable that would be), I would vastly prefer that. Don't get me wrong, I loved FO;NV, and if they can get a better deal than last time I would be all for it.

[Aoyagi]

 

 

After what happened with FO:NV (the metacritic thing) I honestly would rather see Obsidian put their time and energy into things that would offer the company a better deal.

It was a deal Obsidian agreed to, was it not? 

Yeah, they did. Not sure what your point is.

My point is that there is nothing wrong with paying or not paying according to a contract that was agreed by both sides and has very specific terms (most of which are unknown to the general public). I don't know what the all the rage is about. Yes, it was close, but I doubt "getting close" is often taken into consideration when making a deal. Metacritics is a terrible site, yes, but the same thing could happen if the condition was "sell this many copies in that many months".

[JadedWolf]

 

 

 

After what happened with FO:NV (the metacritic thing) I honestly would rather see Obsidian put their time and energy into things that would offer the company a better deal.

It was a deal Obsidian agreed to, was it not? 

Yeah, they did. Not sure what your point is.

My point is that there is nothing wrong with paying or not paying according to a contract that was agreed by both sides and has very specific terms (most of which are unknown to the general public). I don't know what the all the rage is about. Yes, it was close, but I doubt "getting close" is often taken into consideration when making a deal. Metacritics is a terrible site, yes, but the same thing could happen if the condition was "sell this many copies in that many months".

I think you completely miss what my post is about. I am not "raging" about the deal; not at least to the extent that I am saying that Bethesda not paying was wrong. It was legally valid and a very, very good deal indeed for Bethesda Softworks. They made a lot of money out of it indeed. I just think in retrospect it was a very bad deal for Obsidian and if making another Fallout would depend on another such deal I would rather have them spend their time and energy on something else.

[Aoyagi]

Are you sure that Obsidian doesn't get a share from sales? If it was such a bad deal, why would they agree to it? Just for the joy of making a new Fallout with elements of Van Buren?

Edited March 17, 2013 by Aoyagi

[WDeranged]

I felt outrage at Obsidian losing their bonus but ultimately they agreed to the terms and fate didn't swing in their favour, hopefully they can get a better deal next time (I really want there to be a next time...), considering all the publicity they've had recently and the fact that New Vegas did very well.

[Sannom]

Are you sure that Obsidian doesn't get a share from sales? If it was such a bad deal, why would they agree to it? Just for the joy of making a new Fallout with elements of Van Buren?

I think it was Sawyer who said once said on his tumblr that Obsidian never got a share from the sales of the games they made, although there sometimes gain a bonus when the game reaches some numbers.

 

Bethesda being painted as a daemonic entity of pure evil and greed for the Metacritic thing always seemed silly to me. They missed it by one point, if memory serves. That's a case of bad luck, not Bethesda having set unreachable goals or Obsidian overestimating the quality of their game.

[WastelandShadow]

It seems to me the low metacritic score was a direct result of the bugs at launch which was a result of the unreasonably short development time on that horrible engine, and Bethesda's complete lack of QA on the project. So yeah, **** them.