Very probable.


Actually, this is not only harsh, but complete nonsense. People saying that there's not much actual work involved in rebuilding the engine Aurora to Electron like Obsidian did should just do their research better. It's not like they just use modding kits and then release some mediocre total conversion or something akin to that. Or that using using an existing character system is lazy.
People thinking like that make me mad.

I don't want to say either way until I get it, but I'm hoping it's good

On this whole "expansion or not" thing - it's whatever GTA: Vice City was to GTA 3. It's that simple. Why do we always have to get bogged down in semantics?

As far as quality goes - like all developers, Obsidian likely has some strengths to bring to the table, here; areas where they might even be able to teach Bethesda a thing or two. That's what you get when you add another perspective to the equation, at least ideally. I can't say I have a "preference" until I actually play the game, of course. But I can pretty much guarantee you that within this forum, after release, we're going to see threads where people were disappointed with the game, and others where people were pleased with it.

I have mixed feelings about Obsidian...sometimes they do great work I enjoyed NWN2 and KOTOR2 but they fluffed the ending of KOTOR2 because of deadlines. Then there is the widely criticised Alpha Protocol which appears to be a steaming pile of donkey doo.

I expect the game to be decent but I wouldn't like to place a bet on if it will be as good as fallout 3 nevermind if it will be better. I just keep thinking Obsidian are working with Bethesdas game engine and they might not be as familiar with it as Bethesda is.

I hope, fallout 3 was good.

The statement that Obsidian makes games better...Or, makes better games...Not sure on your grammar use there, kemosabe...Anywho, I would normally state it as a matter of opinion- Every developer is just as fallable as the next- but this time around, I'll concede that they're doing good work on New Vegas.

As one of the few who thought FO3 was a weak zombie shooter, built on a ridiculous premise, and using a very pretty engine, I just can't see how it could be worse.

From the sound of it, it will be much better.

Yes Fallout New Vegas will be better to those of us who have played Fallout 3 as it is appearing to be like one massive DLC in its similarities but with a whole new Wasteland and for the sake that we haven't explored it yet will make it better playing than Fallout 3 for at least the first 100 hours or it might be so definitively good that it beats Fallout 3 altogether and makes Fallout 3 seem redundant, who knows? well only the developers and designers know at this stage, and of course the game testers.

Much, much, better in my opinion

From what I have learned about New Vegas so far. Its looking better the FO3. :disguise:

who complaining
the original question was New Vegas be better than Fallout 3?
my answer was about the same
because it not going to be a lot different from fallout 3 apart from some extra and emprovements

it was only you who thought i was complaining

fallout nv will be a good game in the same way fallout 3 was
because it being make with this thought in mind
if its not broke don,t fix it

Well, what was clearly broken in F3 wil be fixed now. I'd say that might lead to a better game, wouldn't it?

remember that they needed to make a hole new engine that take's alot to you know

Opinions are going to vary widely here. Despite some issues (which I hear tell are being patched as we speak) I like Alpha Protocol. It has some shortcomings, yes, but I personally feel that most of the things it's been criticized for by the "gaming press" are pretty superficial, and in my experience most of the people commenting online haven't even played the game and are just parroting reviews they've read.

It was a very ambitious game. To me it feels like they just ran out of time to finish things in some areas. For example, it's missing some of the types of lighting effects people are used to seeing in modern games, which can have a pretty noticeable effect on a game's "graphical ambiance." To me this is pretty minor, but to others it's a "OMG teh bad grafx" situation. Yes, the sneaking character animation looks goofy.. Other issues like unbalanced skills and occasionally strange AI behavior are, to me, overlookable. There are a lot of other aspects of AP's gameplay that are fun enough that I'm having a good time with it while I wait for a patch.

If anything, playing AP has made me more optimistic about New Vegas. If Obsidian can build on Fallout 3 and add some of AP's gameplay, story, and dialog depth I feel it will be a significant improvement. Just my opinion, of course.

Who needed to make a new engine..? IIRC, Fallout 3 used Oblivion's engine, and NV is going to use that same engine. So really, no one had to make a new engine since Oblivion came out.

Time will tell.

It's true that Obsidian's games are very buggy but I think people, especially the critics, have been too harsh. Neverwinter Nights 2, for example, was a lot less buggy than the first Neverwinter Nights when it was released but the critics rated it much more harshly. Also, Dragon Age has a lot of the same problems as Neverwinter Nights 2 but the critics practically had their lips glued to Bioware's butt trying to kiss it.

I'm surprized that nobody's mentioned this yet.

When Black Isle was disbanded, Obsidian gobbled up as many developers from that studio as they could (or most of the developers fled to Obsidian. Take your pick.) Black Isle was, by the way, filled with the guys who made FO1 and FO2, and were working of Van Buren (the old FO3) before Interplay made the idiot decision to drop it.

So, I'd be surprized if Obsidian didn't have anybody who made FO1 and FO2 on the team for FO:NV. Heck, I'd be surprized if most of the team making FO:NV WASN'T from Black Isle.

As I'm assuming that the people who made FO:NV also worked on the originals, I'm pretty sure that FO:NV is going to be better than FO3. Heck, if Bethesda was developing FO:NV, I'd still be pretty sure it would be better than FO3.

Hmmm that's not reassuring...actually that sounds quite worrisome...what do you mean with this comment? Is obsidian not a good developer to bank on making new vegas a great game? Too bad bethesda game studios isn't doing this game then.

New Vegas will be better. Fallout 3 had MANY flaws.. I could name several off the top of my head.

bliviongate:
this might be obsidians crowning glory, the game engine was already in place, so much of their time has been spent on just basically taking fallout 3 and tweaking it into an entirely new game, with a lot of the basic framework already in place. it looks like fallout 3 in lots of ways still, but even better, and they're making it tougher and much more choice intensive with the SPECIAL and skills system, fallout was a great game but kinda broken with the too many skill points and perks system. so its gonna be more rewarding to play. it would be hard for them to mess it up, it should at least be as good as fallout 3 was, not worse, at leas thats what i'm expecting.

Wasn't the game engine in place with kotor 2 and its pretty much universal feeling that they failed with that game based off the original...that guys comment has me worried...

It's impossible to tell beforehand, but for me, all signs have been pointing to "absolutely."

Edit:



It's not a universal feeling. I for one don't think KOTOR 1 was better than KOTOR 2. Really, the only area where KOTOR 2 falls down is the ending, and that's due to Lucasarts moving the deadline up.

I've heard way more people say 1 was a lot better...fans of the series and majority of reviewers as well...of course there are always exceptions and you are under the exception category...so I'll change my wording instead of universal I'll say majority.