Wasnt fnw made in like a year? Feels a bit dissingenious to compare a game as good as that for running poorly when most of bethestas catalogue had far more dev time and still turned out shit
this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
2 points (100.0% liked)
Gaming
15 readers
2 users here now
A community for informative and interesting gaming content and discussions.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Didn't read past the first paragraph. What a ridiculous statement, I've played it to completion numerous times without mods, how is it broken..?
Yeah that was my exact thought. I played it through like 8 times on Xbox, with no access to mods. It has glitches but in thousands of hours I never ran into running into anything game breaking or even lost progress, especially with multiple saves. I don’t think any game should be given a pass for having unresolved bugs but calling a great game “unplayable” when it’s not is utter bullshit
They made Grounded recently and its fucking awesome.
Outer Worlds was a AA game, so people calling it "trash" because its not Fallout in Space are just idiots.
I feel like Outer Worlds becomes a lot more enjoyable after a mindset shift from "this should be a Fallout clone" to "this is like an FPS version of KotOR." Avowed might turn out the same way since there is already so much expectation that it'll play as a Skyrim 2.0
They were selling The Outer Worlds for $60 despite it being an AA game.
Wait... they sold a game for the default price that every game is sold for regardless of quality, length or any other defining characteristic? I'm shocked!
It's just worse than Fallout tho is the issue. The issue isn't that it isn't enough like Fallout, it's that it's lower quality than even Bethesda's middling Fallout 4. Obsidian can't create a big budget project from scratch to save their life. They should stick to CRPGs, they're far better at those.
So the AA project is worse than the AAA project? Do you think this is some kind of point that you’re making to me?
Is your argument that lower budget automatically equals worse game? If Obsidian was better than Bethesda they'd make better games. Not like it would've been difficult to outdo Fallout 4 or Starfield even on a smaller budget. Obsidian outdoes themselves when they work with smaller budgets. Their smaller projects are far better than their big ones like Outer Worlds or Alpha Protocol. Obsidian just sucks when they actually have to put resources into gameplay mechanics and open world exploration rather than just writing. Games like Outer Worlds are going directly against their strengths.
Outer Worlds was a AA game, so people calling it "trash" because its not Fallout in Space are just idiots
People who make excuses for games because the poor wittle studio didn't spent a lot of money on it are idiots.
They were hired to make this game and were given a small amount of money for the budget. They used that money to make the game. Do you really think a small independent developer that was struggling to keep the lights had the bank account to pay for a AAA development?
Obsidian has a long trend of not finishing their games, sometimes it really is the publishers screwing them over, other times it's simply their own in-ability to manage their own projects.
But they always tend to throw a pity party for themselves and how they totally got screwed over by the big bad publisher, and then act all confused why many publishers don't want anything to do with them.
What carried their games was usually the writing, but in my opinion the quality of that has gone way down, especially since Avellone left.
Overall it feels like they keep trying to write about big ideas and philosophies, but their current crop of writers don't have a deep understanding or bother with the details, and the stories come of weaker as a result.
Obsidian didn't make Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, that was Bioware. Obsidian only made its sequel.
Avowed really is not hyping me. Feels generic and deja-vu.
The thing is Obsidian they sometimes release "good" stuff like
- grounded
- south park the stick of truth
- Pillars of eternity
- Fallout New Vegas is a fan favourite
I think what shocks me is how faster and, sometimes better, their game releases are compared to a much more massive and older Bethesda.
I am not a big fan of Obsidian entertainment but frankly the sole fact that we are comparing Bethesda to obsidian rather than Naughty Dog, Guerilla, Larian..just says it all for me
hot take: developer makes critically acclaimed games, but i don't like the pacing of one and think another is overrated. maybe it's worse than another developer infamous for having to issue refunds with the launch of their latest games.
The only critically acclaimed ones are the ones that are reusing half the assets from the previous game in the series, like KOTOR or FNV. Outer Worlds was not "critically acclaimed", it's reception was generally worse than Starfields, and it didn't have the excuse of high expectations like Starfield had. Outer Worlds failed to meet modest expectations.
Obsidian is fine if you give them small projects but the second you give them something big the whole thing turns out worse than the average Bethesda release.
You should play Grounded... It's my digital crack right now! Obsidian's best game by a long shot
I mean, say what you will, but OPs take is definitely hot!
Only mod I've ever used in FNV is the one that stops Johny Guitar from playing too often. I've beat it twice without any other mods.
Being wrong isn't a hot take. It's just being incorrect.
Yes...But i really enjoyed vanilla New Vegas for 100+ hours in marathon like 15 hours per day
Everyone was fanboying when outer worlds came out because it wasn’t a Bethesda game and it was “from the creators of oblivion” but the game was forgotten in about a month and people are still playing Skyrim.
I think at this point you gotta choose which mountainous pile of shit developer you put your faith into. I think both have failed hard as developers but the successes outshine the failures. I hate starfield and outer worlds but fallout 3 and Skyrim are two of my favourite games.
Wow imagine making a post trashing Obsidian and not even including all their amazingly written games that make them great. This post reeks of upset teenager.
Well, a lot of this is just an opinion and a matter of taste. But for me, the difference is clear: Obsidian makes conceptually good but technically flawed games (although, for the record, I didn't much like PoE). That's not ideal, but the thing with technical issues is that they are mostly fixable. Also, technical issues are something I can deal with if the game is otherwise great. Technically, a lot of GoaTs / GOTYs were a mess: Deus Ex was a disaster, The Witcher was also deeply flawed, and the less is said about Cyberpunk's release state the better. But once these are polished, what you're left with are great games.
On the other hand, Bethesda makes technically more or less perfectly functioning games, but they are (for me at least) bland, boring and samey. Which is *not* something that you can easily fix.
In the end, I enjoyed F:NV more than anything from Bethesda's kitchen, even with all the crashes (I played it unmodded on an old system so it crashed like once every few hours). And I don't think I'm the only one.