I'm trying to crystallize my opinions as I play. I am 25~ hours in and have JUST made it to Benny/House/Yes Man. Now the game has literally exploded into a crazy number of locations I have to visit, which - if the build up to this point is any indication - are each going to have their own quests & side quests marked within. Staggering. My thought on it to this point is simply: Bravo Obsidian. In my opinion, they were put into a near impossible situation to succeed. In fact, you could almost suggest that the storyline of New Vegas is a metaphor for the situation they found themselves in when designing the game:

Old School Fans (Caesar’s Legion): Uncompromising in their beliefs of a glorious civilization of the past (FO1/2 canon) and strictly adhere to their feelings on 'the way it should be.' This group tends to see the past as something to idolize and attempt to force their vision onto the populations around them. Obsidian worked very hard to appease this group in the game, but couldn't commit solely to this 'ideal' due to the other factors (factions) in play.

FO3 Generation (New Vegas): The next generation of tribals who felt they understood the 'old ways' but fell in love with a cheap imitation that focused more on the superficial glitz and not so much on the substance of the original lore. Unfortunately for Obsidian, this is where the real money & power is. Betting against the House (designing a game against the current trend of spoon-fed, rehashes) is a dangerous proposition to consider. Especially when there is heavy support – although self-motivated (profits)- from the NCR against any changes to this ideology.

Bethesda (NCR): Old world mentality (fantasy game design) combined with tired technology (Gamebryo engine) that has expanded too far, too fast. As a consequence, there is a disconnect between their leadership (quality control) and their frontline soldiers (skill of their writers/coders). Bethesda currently holds all of the power (Hoover Dam/Helios) and wants it diverted to where they feel it will benefit them most – the FO3 Generation (New Vegas). However, they cannot ignore the threat of losing ground with Caesar’s Legion and sympathizers of this philosophy. As such, they allowed Obsidian a level of autonomy in navigating this creative tightrope. Fortunately, Bethesda (NCR) has a decent marketing and public relations department, and they are constantly sending couriers out into the wastes to nail up NCR posters or disseminate NCR propaganda.” (Quoted straight from The Vault – not completely relevant to my point, but seemed to fit the anology. Especially in light of how they handled a certain negative review.)

New Players (Primm/Goodsprings/Novac/etc.): Lastly, there are the neutral territories. New players who are followers to the whims of the market. If they have never heard/played a Fallout, they simply cannot draw from experience/history to understand the game and need to be gradually introduced to the concept. Obsidian had to design a game accessible enough for new players, while setting the story pace quick enough not to bore the old school vets. No small feat for a universe as fleshed out as ‘Fallout’. I could ramble on and force a tie-in to this ‘group’ in the New Vegas game, but simply put: They take the advice of someone else – like the Courier (reviewer/friend) - and only voice their opinion after they purchase the game. (“This new sheriff you got us is tough, but fair.”) Converting these territories to ‘your side’ will only make success in the future easier. In other words, the more people asking for Obsidian’s take vs. Bethesda’s take, the more the creative ‘veto power’ changes hands for a possible next release.

---

TL;DR?
Obsidian was given a difficult framework to work within. Answering to many bosses: The old FO1/2 guard. The next-gen ‘console kiddies’ market that felt FO3 was “d4 b0mB”. Bethesda’s implied design restrictions, hurried timeline, coupled with the necessary use of the aging Gamebryo engine. Lastly, capturing the long-term interest of the ever elusive ‘new customer’. That they managed to create something that - to this point at least - ranks among the best titles I’ve played in many years (I’m 32) - with all of this background noise to contend with - is something I have to respect. Many thanks to Obsidian for their efforts and their ability to make the best of a bad situation.

Nice work! :clap:

There is nothing else to say that I completely agree.

Um wow. Interesting anologies. Weird thing is, some of them really do kind of make sense. Especially the NCR part.

So Bethesda wants to kill the old fans, and vice-versa?

Actually, yeah. That's probably right. Very astute post.

How dare you diss Bethesda fans. Fallout 3 was my FIRST Fallout game, so now I am an idiot who knows nothing?? I actually took my time to read up on lore and I know almost everything about the Fallout series. Pff, get out of the hole you are living under!

I must say, I don't entirely disagree with your sentiment (though I would have worded it differently).

I started with Fallout 3, and then played Fallout 1 and 2 after my interest in the lore was piqued. There are many fans "new" fans who have every bit as much invested in the lore as the old guard.

Sorry you took it so personally... That said, I believe you fit in the bolded part of my OP:



Note that I did not say Caesar's Legion was right for their immovable views on the originals as 'high art'. If you venture off of these boards, you will find members among 'the Legion' who dislike elements of New Vegas, too. It is what inspired the post - this impossible situation of bridging two very distinct expectations into one game. Consider it similar to your dad saying his music is better and today's is crap. Yearning for the good ol' days. Now imagine a band that creates music that appeals to both yours & his tastes perfectly.

Pretty tricky to accomplish.

Impossible, I'd say.

Try to please too many demographics and you'll please none. I believe NV struck a decent balance, but it's still undoubtedly a Fallout 3-styled game.

What a load of hooey. You can find enough examples in the game to support any permutation of this. Bethesda could be the Legion, seeking to conquer and homogenize everything, or it could be NCR, desperately attempting to emulate the past (games) but failing to support the ambition with shoddy architecture, or it could be House, callously pulling strings with little respect for its customers for the sake of acquiring money and power. Or NCR could be the old guard of fans, failing to see the world around them can't support their ideals on a large scale, blah blah blah....

Agree completely. I feel they did a fanatastic job of bringing the series closer to it's roots (humour/story/RPG elements-wise) while still offering some of what Fallout 3 was strong for (exploring/random encounters/FP perspective).

So far I am at a loss for what they could have improved upon in such little time with the engine restrictions they had.

Making a broken game is nothing to be applauded for...

But the game is not broken.

I'm playing it just fine.

Glitched to hell, maybe, but still a blast to play. A broken game, by it's very nature, cannot be "fun".

I didn't read any of it... but since you color coded your words. I agree with you. Whatever you might have said.

I love how your post is put together. It also grabbed my attention when you were talking about the game engine, as it is the number one thing I think needs to be changed in the next Fallout game, which I hope is done by Obsidian, cus they are great. Also so Bethesda can make a new Elder Scrolls game.

Played every Fallout since 1 came out.

This game rocks

If your computer svcks and doesnt meet the specs dont [censored] here

Alot of the bugs are irrelevant and easily ignored, oh no a Radscorpion warped, gamebreaking? no

Not a console fan, your playing on a 300 dollar outdated computer, im sure this is the best they could do given the scale of the game...

Awesome game that pisses on most multiplayer titles out there in replay value.

Interesting anologies. Well put.

To the people who say the game is broken. The game *is* broken, at least to some degree. If it wasn't broken, Obsidian wouldn't be spending time and resources fixing it. For those people mixing their scorn with nostalgia, just remember what a state fallout 2 was upon release. Even two patches later, after hundreds of fixes, the game was still as buggy as hell. It took 5 years of unofficial patching to finally get it cleaned up. New Vegas isn't even as remotely as bad.

As an old school fallout player (going back to wasteland), I must say Obsidian managed to meet all of the expectations I had of fallout 3 (what it should have been). This is a true sequel to the first two games using modern technology. Where Bethesda dropped the ball for old time fans, Obsidian picked it up and scored a goal. They deserve to be commended.

Hopefully, Bethesda will be smart enough to let Obsidian handle fallout 4 (or whatever lies next in the franchise). Bethesda knows how to market games, and build good engines and interfaces, and they know how to make a fun deep RPG story (morrowind).

But they've always been rather weak on immersion. This has been Obsidians strength. It's a good match, if Bethesda lets it prosper.

I absolutely love the logic I see in topics like this. First you say something to the effect of "Bethesda you make crappy games and are just all around crap," but in the same topic you say "Oh and I sure do hope you let Obsidian make Fallout 4." I don't see the sense in that. Even if Bethesda actually considered, even for a second, letting Obsidian do Fallout 4, if they went on their own forums and looked at why exactly certain people want Obsidian to make Fallout 4, the only reason they'd find is a finely worded paragraph that boils down to "Because you are a terrible developer Bethesda. Now please listen to me! Please please please!"

Maybe messages like that - even if not leading to Obsidian making the next game - at least lead to eyes opening to a certain degree in the Beth offices. Doubtful, I know, but it is possible - there is enough backlash to warrant some form of changing regarding design decisions with the Fallout franchise. They can, of course, ignore stuff like that, but that only leads to them losing customers - and the harsh words keep pouring in.

I'm sure Bethesda has been paying attention to the almost constantly negative things said about them and their game by the most vocal original Fallout purists ever since Fallout 3 was released. Hell, they even hired Obsidian to make a Fallout game, and I'm sure that was no coincidence. But comments like those in the first post and many others one sees daily around here show that even hiring some of the creators of the original Fallout games to make a new game does absolutely nothing for their reputation in the eyes of original Fallout purists, and probably made it worse (Lol Obsidian maek bettar RPG Bethesda suks hardar now).

I for one hope the only "eye opening" they start doing is learning to filter out comments from the seemingly endless amount of unpleasable original Fallout purists out there, and spend more time listening to their actual fans. But, contrary to seemingly popular belief, Bethesda is smart, and probably learned to filter them out long ago. One could say "it's never good to filter out fans," but it's painfully obvious they aren't fans and never will be fans.

It's not that Bethesda is terrible at developing, it's that they just really don't know what makes the Fallout universe tick. On the surface, Fallout 3 appears to be a true sequel to the originals. At its core, though, it's not.

Bethesda has crafted some amazing games (I've put hundreds of hours into Morrowind,) but even with their own series they've ended up falling into pits, such as how Oblivion was watered down and stripped of most of its depth as an Elder Scrolls title. However, this wasn't a result of them being bad developers, but rather, a result of them listening -too- much to what the people here on the forums and elsewhere wanted, like a better combat system, better navigational system, better character creation, etc.

And they sure did fix those things. But they went into "overkill mode" when they did, which is why the game ended up having a combat system more akin to an FPS than an RPG, magical quest arrows pointing you exactly to where your objective was, and an over-simplified set of stats and skills.

Bottom line is, if you try to please every single person and their personal wants and needs when it comes to something like this, you end up with a title that is mediocre overall. I feel like Bethesda has very much fallen into this trap in the past. It doesn't mean they're bad at creating games, though.

The OP is a fun, clever read! Poking fun at the old fans, the new, at Beth, and even Obsidian, and is essentially lauding F:NV... so it gets my thumbs up in that respect.

I'd say F:NV is a hit for most because all of these factions were combined, were given a fair hearing, and catered to in some respect. Anyone trying to sell Bethesda short though will fail in every respect, four plus years of development at the hands of an obviously, extremely talented group of people didn't just lay the foundations, but absolutely breathed new life into a franchise, and carried it to heights no old school fan could have envisioned. Saying FO3 is superficial glitz is... urgh.

I give credit to Bethesda for laying the foundation and implementing the gameworld into the engine. Beyond that, though?

Fallout 3 seemed like a poorly-written fanfiction, utilizing a rehashed version of Fallout 2's storyline with the added bonus of "find Daddy and do as he says." The dialog, while better and more dynamic (in terms of player responses) than that found in the Elder Scrolls series, was very simplistic, straightforward and average. And the humor was either "LOL RANDOM" Family Guy-style stuff, or not to be found at all. Not to mention the fact that it was far too easy to break the game by making a completely god like, perfect character (and this was made even easier after the Broken Steel DLC.)

In many ways, I feel like Fallout 3 was the "beta", and Fallout: New Vegas is the game we should have gotten two years ago. Fallout 3 was a good game, it just wasn't what it should have been.

Which faction best represents the rampant bugs, lack of polish and unfinished content?

Bethesda's Forum Brigade, obviously.