This. Oblivion has always been hopelessly broken, on release it was plagued by broken quests, glitches, crashes, and many Bsod's. Many of which still occur ingame. Since they've patched it and with this patch the game isn't bad at all.

No, They already made a super promising game series (Kotor) go bad because they cut lots of things and even a whole planet (Kotor 2). The ending was pathetic.

Having easily usable mod tools means they don't have to.

@DoctorWho? wasn't KotoR Bioware

im on console and there really isnt that many bugs at all now. hell when oblivion came out there still wasnt as many issues with it compared to FONV now with it patched

Which doesn't help console users (like myself).

KotoR was Bioware, KotoR 2 was Obsidian at Bioware's request.

I actually would love to see a spinoff or such made by obsidian as long it Doesnt halt the production of the next actual elder scrolls.

Which as has been stated already, was entirely Lucasarts fault.

Given all the resources still in the install, there was quite the good game there before Lucasarts deadlined them.

Ermmm no thank you, I don't want super mutants in my elder scrolls.

You must be very confused.

Obsidian is never short of promise, bugs and excuses

You guys are crazy. Star Wars KOTOR II was awesome and almost as good, if not as good as the original, the only problem is that they lacked time to properly finish it and I didn't even realized until someone told me there was stuff missing. The consensus is also that New Vegas is the better new Fallout, much closer to the original spirit (which makes sense since a lot of the dudes there worked on the original games) without the [censored] humour. Fallout 3 is good, but hardly particularly good, it was more of an experiment with someone else's franchise and the best thing about it is that they fixed a bit some of Oblivion's problems. Alpha Protocol had a lot of problems like bad gameplay, but despite the troubled production, they managed to beat Bioware at their own game with the choices bit. Whereas in the Mass Effect games only a select few of these choices actually do something major, it doesn't even have a big impact on the game or subsequent ones, most of the others were all emails and single lines of dialogue. In Alpha Protocol, there's a [censored]load of variables that can drastically change things and how the game evolves, it is actually dynamic when it's not the case with the ME games. As much as Obsidian released a particularly uneven game in Alpha Protocol, it was an experiment that showed what the studio was capable of, they just needed more time and to elaborate on certain concepts. Now taking the reigns of an already established franchise, I bet they'd be far better off. Considering Obsidian's history at being faithful to the original games, I doubt they'd piss anyone off. KOTOR II was just that, KOTOR part 2, as New Vegas doesn't do anything special either. Some might view this as a bad thing, but for conservative fans or those weary of seeing another studio mess up, it can be a good thing. As much as I like Bethesda, they still messed up a game of their franchise with Oblivion, so I wouldn't hate Obsidian all that much for doing something negative of that kind if the original developers already did it, and I doubt Obsidian could do worse than Oblivion.

Kotor 2 was Obsidian.

Evidence? support? It's all well and good to make things up

There is no evidence... it's completely a perspective thing. To each their own.

I would like them to have at least a part in developing a TES game. Good writing does wonders and Bethesda could really use some judging from their precedent efforts.
I for one think that New Vegas is a better game than both vanilla Oblivion and FO3, giving you actual choices in quests (with plenty on non-lethal options to complete them) and a main story that is not insultingly stupid (I am looking at you, end of FO3). It was buggy, yes, but not much more that FO3 and it was still Bethesda's decision to ship the game as it was.

Or into RPGs since Oblivion...

And KOTOR II a bad game? When you loved the original? What is the craziness present here? I feel people are bashing Obsidian for no good reason, or that people are praising the [censored] out of Bethesda for no good reason either, they made their share of [censored]ups too.

Actually, you're bashing Bethesda for no good reason. And praising Obsidian

Well, to me, New Vegas had a genuinely interesting plot with wide-reaching consequences depending on how you went about it. Fallout 3 was a generic "lawful good vs chaotic evil" plot, even going so far as to create a new Brotherhood of Steel faction and turning them into a bunch of one-dimensional crusaders. Compared to the BoS in FO1/2/NV, I didn't find them interesting at all.

I meant in terms of why he thinks it is the general consensus, from this thread Fallout 3 is the more popular.

(I'm not saying it's better, just more popular from this thread)

Subtlety is not Bethesda's strong point (any more), unfortunately.

Forums, and not just those with blind Bethesda fans, it's obvious that on a developer's forum 95% of the people will praise the game made by said developer regardless of the quality, which might actually be better, but the judgement would still be unfounded. True Fallout fans know that the originals are miles better than Fallout 3, and that New Vegas is closer to the original spirit. In case you didn't know, half of Obsidian are basically the originators of Fallout. Fallout 3 is good, but it's nothing special. It's mind boggling the number of people here who praise Oblivion or Fallout 3 when they've only been around since around the time Oblivion came out, I'm not accusing you of anything though. But don't mistake me for an Obsidian fan, I barely play their games and much prefer Bethesda, but they aren't without their faults as proven with Oblivion and Fallout 3 (which is a bit better than OB though). Fortunately, they seem to be getting much better recently, or at least I hope so from the info I gather.

EDIT: Praising Obsidian? Please quote, I'm just defending them without using superlatives. And I'm certainly not bashing Bethesda, please quote a passage of me clearly stating such opinion.

oh wow someone agrees.

this argument is hilarious. Obsidian would be a fine developer for an Elder Scrolls spinoff provided two conditions were met - first, that it was not an open-world game but rather something along the lines of Redguard; and second, that Josh Sawyer headed up the project.

every other Obsidian game has been a gigantic mess, but New Vegas was probably the least messy with respect to its scope, and while i didn't care all that much for New Vegas, given his ideas and his approach to game design in general Josh would very easily be the best person to have in charge of something like this.

i'd rather Arkane make something along the lines of Battlespire but not [censored], myself.

I played Fallout 2, and gameplay wise it svcked (in my opinion of course) I do agree that New Vegas waas better in terms of storytelling and spirit, but they didn't really change the game formula much, maybe they could release a new game with the same engine one year after every Bethesda release using the same mechanics? (Or before even, to raise hype)

Obsidian makes good but complex RPGs. Bethesda make good sandbox RPGs with stories with little choice.

The choices in New Vegas are so numerous I feel its a chore to play. FO3 handled choices quite well I thought (except for the main quest; can't side with the Enclave, WHY THE HELL NOT? BOS aren't exactly saints, why
portray them as such?)

But anyway, let Obsidian handle their own games and let Bethesda carry on making a great series based around exploration and creating a character to fit around your imagination and playing them your way.

It's funny that everyone seems to assume that those they disagree with are "a vocal minority" even when there is little evidence one way or another.