So no critisising that goes deeper than superficility allowed, eh? The comments they are getting - even those that would appear harshly worded - are perfectly legitimate (and I'm not talking about the "bEthzdaH iZ teH Sh1Z" comments here). It's a clear message, that they're doing something wrong. And even though aren't from fans of Bethesda, they are from fans of the franchise - and they can be made to lean more towards being the actual fans (as you put it) by hearing to their peeves and making the right compromises in the design; in short: leaning more towards the originals without jumping completely off their own area of expertise. It is very possible for them to create a game that'll lower the amount [censored] they get thrown at without alienating the actual fans. There's nothing to lose in that bargain. Ignoring and filtering the feedback, however, only leads to losing customers - I know I'd probably do so too if I was in their situation, but filtering it doesn't make one not know the criticism is there, it's just brushing the dirt under the livingroom carpet (it is there and one feels it every time he steps on the it).

There is a better middleground to be found, if they are willing to go for it.

Great post. Those are some good concepts I hadn't considered. We could even deepen my anology further with Casar's Legion, citing that they refuse to adapt to advanced technology, preferring to rely on outdated techniques. Publicly crucify those that have proven themselves 'unfitting'. It could be fun, too. It was more just a vehicle to express my satisfaction with the game and as I was writing it, this anology came to mind.




Thank you very much.



I agree that that would be the best possible outcome. Bethesda made a great engine with Gamebryo. Had flaws, for sure, but it was very effective and generating large scale worlds. And their Black vs. White story-lines apparently fit their Elder Scrolls games well. So if Bethesda designs a next-gen Gamebryo while keeping in mind a small wish-list of functions for Obsidian to use in FO4, that does seem like a perfect marriage of strengths.



A bit about the OP: Innawerkz currently is playing Fallout New Vegas on the 360 and has never played and Elder Scrolls game. In fact, had never played a Bethesda game prior to Fallout 3 and had never played an 'Obsidian exclusive' game prior to New Vegas. In other words, my preferences are not fanatical boyism. <_< (That sounds wrong somehow). As for the Cyan part: Yes. Yes it does.



100%. I have nothing to add to this as it mirrors my opinion exactly.



I assume you were talking to the poster above you? But just in case you were directing this at me, I see nothing in my OP that attacks Bethesda. Even some of the things that could be seen in a negative light are all factually true:

Self-motivated by profits? Check. No sound business strategy isn't.
Stronger Fantasy-game Creators? Check. Allegedly.
Gamebryo showing it's age? Check.
Good marketing, public relations & tend to vigorously protect their products? Check.
Short leash & time-line for Obsidian? Check.

I've said it before on this site having heard it before on another site: A company learns more from the critics than from their fanatical boys.

Although i never played the first two, i have read the plot and side quests for them, and love NV for their references to these, and the fact that they have portrayed the BoS as more selfish than the eastern bunch, i alos like how there are more factions in this than 3, rather than just BoS (good), and Enclave (evil). We have factions that are both good for their own reasons.

This reason alone (and there are many others) makes it a true RPG :tops:

This sums up how I feel about new vegas basicly, I am a huge rpg fan having played dragon age, neverwinter nights sacred 1 and 2, titan quest and some others. Therefore I really like that the game is focusing more on the rpg aspect. However I I loved fallout 3 so much because of all the exploration and they took that away, so even though fallout new vegas is fun it just doesn't quite cut it for me.

Yeah, your the rare minority, always exceptions................

HUh? Took away exploration? Are you serious? Grossly exaggerate much? If by Fallout 3 you mean same locations with nothing interesting exploring? There is just as much explioration in NV as 3, only the content is better, and more interesting. What game are you playing? Fallout 3 had a tonen of same subways, same locales with nothing more then scrap metal in it. Also, the maps are different scales, it takes lomger for me to move 1 inch across the map in NV then it did in Fallout 3. Took away exploration? That is a fallacy.

You bring up an excellent point that simultaneously weakens your feelings in the rest of your post. It SHOULD be clear (and applauded) that Bethesda heard the outcries of the 'Legion'. For this you could not be more right. They made a bold step to appeasing them through their decision to employ Obsidian. New Vegas was born. As a result, Obsidian has (imo) successfully narrowed the gap between these perspectives to the point of allowing a proper evaluation on what was an improvement - instead of the usual: 'I'm righ!' "No! I'm right!' 'Doo-doo head!' 'No, you are!" If you have been following what Killian Darkwater & OniOne have been discussing (excellent points & thoughts from both), it shows that there is a newfound tolerance, even appreciation, of what the other sides wish-list has brought to the Fallout experience.

It simply cannot (should not) be ignored that Bethesda revived this legendary, yet dead franchise. New Vegas simply does not happen without FO3. Bethesda did a great job overall but fell well short of many peoples expectations. However, it cannot be argued that Obsidian took this wonderful opportunity to get the franchise closer to it's roots and away from the 'Jar Jar Binks-ian' interpretation of the lore. (Purely my feelings on the story.)



Truth. Beth listens. It is clear. There is good management involved. There has to be. This is why it only makes sense to me - from a managerial/profit standpoint - to allow this Obs/Beth relationship bloom and reach its full potential. Beth creating the universe and Obsidian providing the soul(s).

That's the spirit! Love it.

I'm very happy that you liked it. It was fun trying to make it fit. I also agree that New Vegas hit all the right notes (for me at least) and did a great job touching all of the major points that both 'sides' were looking for. Killian (and others) have done a great job of explaining my feelings on what I meant by superficial glitz. Fallout 3 was breathtaking at points: First time out of the Vault. Looking up at the design of Megaton. Seeing Arlington National Cemetery for the first time and discovering the lone purple flower (life among all that death - hope amid the hopelessness). Great moments. However the game 'world' doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It is not convincing and the people in it never give me the impression that they are in it for survival. To say nothing of a completely unecessary plotline of purifying water, since purifying irradiated water is quite easy and does not require a GECK or any other item to create it. That is what I mean when I say it is superficial.




1) You are very probably right. Rose Coloured glasses seem to be on discount - for both sides. "Fallout 3 was full of idiotic, juvenile humour!" (Fallout 2 was guilty of this too). "Fallout New Vegas is broken & glitched to hell!" (Fallout 3 was released in very similar condition).
2) Beth's take is less valid from a canon standpoint. There is true literature written to help prevent things like that happen that was seemingly overlooked (ignored) during the design of FO3. This is what draws most of the ire from the 'old School' playas.
3) It was not a sweeping generalization. It was a goal post for Obsidians design team. From the resolute, Fallout historian who will not accept the slightest contradiction to the next generation gamer who is either unaware or couldn't be bothered to fully look into the setting of his/her 'bestest game evar!'. The term - although generally considered derogatory - was effective at concisely defining this image while being slightly controversial enough to start a conversation.

** As mentioned: I'm 32. I play on the 360. Hunching over my computer for a (admittedly significant) jump in graphics is not worth missing out the experience on my lovingly constructed home theater system.



I really like this response. This is why New Vegas has captured so much of my respect. It played more than lip-service to the originals while still trying to keep what made FO3 great. It has allowed these two disparaging opinions on 'the way it should be' to recognize that there are other possibilities.

I think my first post after I'd played NV for the first time said something along the lines of, "It's exactly what I thought it would be." Slapping Fallout 3s desire for action out of it a little, and making it discard its leather armour and put on a nice RPG tuxedo to allow it to mingle with the high society of real old school, character driven parties. I got a sense in and around the Westside / Freeside type towns that I could easliy transport myself to the isometric and nothing of what I'm feeling about the oppressive environment would be missing. Even down to the looped ambients of a hum of people, when they're strangely absent from the screen. I think Obsidian have certainly tapped that piece of the puzzle into the big picture - transposing the old RPG experience onto Bethesda's new take on the genre. :shrug:



I think a lot of Fallout 3 asks the player to notice those things, and a lot of the storytelling is done just through great level design, and it doesn't rely on having characters describe why life is so bad, and hard. The experience of Fallout 3 - the thing I think most players attach to - could easily be done without any friendly NPCs at all. An entire world in which you are the sole, civilised survivor picking your way through a harsh environment of crazy, insane and barbaric humans, and horrible mutated creatures. During the adventure you stop at terminals and pick up holotapes and get a sense of what things were like before it came to this. Instead of the old RPG feel, you get more of an FPS feel in terms of presenting a story, or experience. But it is equally alluring. Like Doom 3 or something, traversing a once elaborate and functioning facility is now just a broken, dark world, and the people that were there are gone and you're picking through what they left behind to better understand how things were for them. All about atmosphere.

The thing about the water purification and the GECK. I think it's qualified in terms of story by understanding that purification on the scale they were going for was too difficult, given the technological contraints and the lack of people able to develop new technologies (or understand pre-war tech enough to duplicate it successfully). They tried to develop new technology, work around their shortcomings in regards to tech, and every attempt failed. The GECK is a one shot solution to that problem of purifying water on a large enough scale to have a massive enough impact in really changing things for a great many people, without asking the science team to build something on a huge scale, when more than half of what they need could perhaps take years to find or develop, or manufacture on a large enough scale to implement.

- Anyway. Fallout 3 as superficial glitz is a throw away term. There are many, many great little stories for the characters of the Captial Wasteland and a genuine RPG experience to be had in terms of getting to know them, and form opinions on them - when that's done the world is realised for the player. Where it was lacking was in the RPG elements that dictate the kind of relationship your character could have with them, in terms of his intelligence, strength, charisma... etc. FO3 was just the first incarnation of how RPG and FPS elements can be combined to create a combat-driven role-playing experience. Obsidian have added a more complex frontal lobe to the young developing RPG brain of it in the merger. :thumb: :shrug:

Yep. I just got off the phone with Josh saying that he's glad someone sees what they had to deal with and I'm now entertaining an offer to join their PR team.

Of course this is siimply my own thoughts on a plausible situation that Obsidian faced. I can definitely be accused of inventing this mythical scenario, but I didn't think I was really reaching. Were there angry old schoolers slighted by a perceived 'disrespect' on the treatment of their beloved canon? Yes. Is there a very large group of new & underinformed gamers to the Fallout universe? Yes. Was there a relatively tight schedule for Obsidian to work within? Yes. Would there be a reluctance to change 'what worked' from FO3? See where I am going with this?

Calling Obsidian 'glorified modders' is an insult to the creativity & immersion they brought to the table. I'm loving these 'writing is so easy' comments. Of course it is. That's why nobody remembers or draws inspiration from the "Iliad" & "The Odyssey" or "Oedipus Rex". Legendary classics are being written every weekend. Just because someone knows how to dip their brush onto a palette does not mean that they can paint the Sistine Chapel.

(Hyperbole is fun)

On point 2, I would say that writers on long-running franchises ignore canon all the time if it suits their purposes, be they dramatic or whatever. And I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, either. If you're not careful atavistic ancestor-worship can have a sort of calcifying effect when taken to extremes, with any deviation from the original vision branded as heresy regardless of its merits. I suppose what I'm saying is that for every Greedo Shoots First there's an Alan Moore's complete reworking of Swamp Thing's origin story. Or, canon is not scripture. But obviously it all depends on how highly you regard the original source material, and I do totally understand the ire of the old-school hardcoe players, even if I do wonder that some of them can't see the wood for the trees when dismissing FO3 out of hand because, say, the BOS aren't behaving as they "should" or whatever.

On point 3, fair dos, I hope no offence was taken, I just find the caricaturing of console gamers you see constantly on here rather tiresome, as though choice of hardware were some sort of test of character.