Although rare, sometimes bug and glitches in videogames can be unbelievably awesome.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q7v4F8r9Og

Maybe Alpha Protocol svcked because they were to busy making sure New Vegas won't, hmm?

I'll judged the game (and Alpha Protocol too) for what it is, and what it accomplished, but, this really casts a shadow on New Vegas' development and Obsidian's future.
It would be pretty shortsighted and really devoted fan-ish of me to deny that (I've always like Obsidian games a lot, and felt that if they finally managed to get the technical design right and the bugs ironed out could become the third WRPG force between Bioware and Bethesda).
At least Gamebryo is pretty moddable, though I surely hope that it's not the fans that will have to patch the game... :sadvaultboy:

I think that Alpha Protocol is a very different style of game, and it was built with a different engine.

The FO engine is a tweaked Oblivion Engine.

It was made for the type of game that they are creating.

And, I'm sure with Bethesda helping them, the game won't be as bugged as Alpha Protocol.

Bethesda wouldn't let them realease a crappy game with their name on it.

I'm slightly worried, but optimistic. Obsidian Entertainment has developed buggy, unfinished and slightly bland games (KOTOR 2, Alpha Protocol, Storm Of Zehir), but they've also created some excellent RPGs that were generally well received (NWN2 and Mask Of The Betrayer). So it could go either way. The most positive thing about F:NV is that some of the developers of the original Fallout are working on this project and they probably won't let what happened to Alpha Protocol happen to F:NV.

"Nuff said."

Eh, I'm optimistic. Besides the fact that the engine was mostly made when Obsidian officially started working on NV, I'm sure that Josh and others wrote a big stack of material over the years, in their spare time, simply because they couldn't help it. So the story was also pretty much made I believe. Alpha Protocols is more ambitious in the sense that it was made from scratch with difficult goals in mind, it was a lot harder to make. Think about all the stuff that annoyed people in F3, now imagine another company uses the same template for an Alpha Protocol spin-off, add to that said company had a vision for it in the last decade.

As far as Alpha Protocols goes, I view it as a vanguard, it's a step in the right direction at the very least; they will either get it right through patches or in the sequel.

and when they do, people will claim in forum boards they've been playing it ever since it was released.

I watched the alpha protocall review and the first thin I realized was the sneaking looked stupid.

Funny how "the bad" section could almost be describing fallout 3

I played AP and I don't think it is a bad game. I really enjoyed it. All it was missing was some direction...can't see someone listed as Art Director in the Credits for example...

I am confident that NV will be better than FO3, so no worries

Every RPG ive played had kinks in them, As long as the game has a good story and fascinating details I'm happy. Bugs and glitches will annoy me but the will be fixed if not by the producer than modders will step up.
So am I worried not unless they just focus on guns and combat.

I think Obsidian will have too much pride involved in NV to let it stink. BTW Wasn't Avellone the head of the AP team and left it or maybe rushed it so he could join the NV team?

Just because they created a game that didn't really live up to the quality people expected from it doesn't mean another game made by them will be bad. Not every work created by the same company can be great. Now what I've seen of New Vegas looks quite promising, and the fact that they're working with an already finished engine and can take a lot of the core mechanics from Fallout 3 probably makes programming the game much easier. In any case, I don't see much cause to worry simply because Obsidian released a game I've barely even heard of and don't care much about that recieved poor reviews.

I think that is correct... and that's a good point!

--------

My assumption is that with all the problems and delays in Alpha Protocol development... the developers knew, it couldn't be saved... so they have switched their main efforts to the f:nv project

and i'm sure in obsidian, they have already realized that f:nv will be their company's savior or doom-bringer depending on whether it is good or not.

if the game is good... maybe another fallout (or other rpg titles) will be made with the collaboration of the two companies... BUT if it fails... no-one will talk again about obsidian for a long time (in a good way, that is) ... ALSO bethesda will take a bad publicity hit for choosing obsidian, compromising future and current game plans with other studios (ie. Brink, Hunted) and obviously hurting the fallout franchise

no-one will gain anything if the project fails... and obsidian has everything to lose as a studio... so, obsidian will fight hard to make this work, and work good... and bethesda will make sure they'll do it right in order to protect her new money-earning franchise

in my mind there's no other way this game is going to develop/progress... the only option is success... and also, think about it...it's fallout... a lot of people in obsidian --i'm sure-- feel like they found their long lost puppy! :fallout:

To be honest, I doubt Obsidian wanted Alpha Protocol to be a 'stinker', a developer never wants to develop a stinker.
Granted, I haven't played the game, but I'm going to, and the european review generally praised the game.
The real problem isn't Fallout : New Vegas as a whole package (design, etc.) what I've heard until now is pretty strong, and even without Obsidian's name on it, would have actually captivated my interest at first glance.
What I'm worried is about technical polish, the correct implementation about new features and fine-tuning (you know, things like tinkering with weapon's stats, making sure the granularity is just right, etc.).
Josh Sawyer seems pretty dead serious about the project though, so, as naive as that may be, I'm still going to give him the benefit of doubt.
There is still the possibility of selling the game after buying it after all....

Game Developers: yearly revenues and reaching a quota (making money) > Pleasing the gaming community.

Duke Nukem Forever, anyone? A game release is a "try", you can either fail or succeed, and you can always try again - some go with re-imagining (repeating) the story, some go with sequels, some go with a similar core in a different concept. Rockstar finally got it right in GTA IV after many different takes (GTA series, bully, state of emergency, and more), and even GTA IV has room for improvements.

I do not know if ya'll played AP on the Xbox or the PC, but the PC version is a realy crappy port. AP is (sad enough) supposed to be played on a console... Anyway, i don't think obsidian will screw this up. Not fallout. :fallout: They can't afford to

Ohh come on guys I thought the whole "execs ruin everything" debate ended with the monolithic failures of the star wars prequels, aka George Lucs Pure cut vision.

Having a good exec in charge is vital, they tend to act as the voice of reason when the developers/producers get out of hand.

Alpha Protocol reminded me of Star Wars the Force Unleashed unironically, great concepts but the glitches and poor balance overruled any enjoyment I could get from the game.

For those who never play the force unleashed, imagine being to able to be that epic bad ass sith, then the boss jumps through the floor and you have to reset because of it or you frantically toggle to target the AT-ST instead of a stack of boxes.

I think as long as Betheseda keeps a tight leash on Obsidian the game will be good, if not Diablo: Hellfire it will be.

FO:NV is going to be using what we already know to be a pretty competent and stable game engine.

The Obsidian team care way too much about FO for it to be bad.

Bethesda would be stupid to let the game go out if it wasn't at least to the same standard FO3 was on release.

It's true that they care about the franchise, but just because the original Fallout is one of Sawyer's favorite games and "MCA" worked on Fallout 2 doesn't mean that New Vegas will be good. Keep in mind that Obsidian has never developed a game like Fallout 3 before; without that experience they're already at a disadvantage.



Bethesda publishes crappy games all the time; they've also developed their fair share.

True. However Bethesda has attempted to put some sort of insurance in place in the form of staffing some of their own employees over at Obsidian. With that, and frequent progress checks, I'm sure they're well informed of the situation and could apply pressure through their guys to make any necessary course corrections.
They're being smart about this.

Bethesdas, publishing it so, they wull probably look over it and fix bad things they see so where good. :goodjob:

While I doubt it will be as bad as AP or FO3 if you think that it won't come with its fair share of bugs and glitches and "I wish there was more...." or " why didn't they...." you are just flat out lying to yourself. Thats every game.... ever.

Because Fallout 3 was flawless.


I'll agree with others and say I'll judge the game by myself. I don't understand why people view critics as all knowing gods.