Are developers supposed to make games for fun? Or are they supposed to entertain us? Obviously Obsidian does not make very entertaining games. Do you see Activision losing its rear end on MW3? No! Why? The game is very entertaining and has tons of replay value.

Defending a company that makes lack luster games. Just because they made the original Fallout is absurd.

Greg

*sigh*

New Vegas is a great game. New Vegas isn't a game for the majority though. This does not make it a lackluster game by any means. It depends on what certain people are looking for in a game.

Easier games attract more players. I'm not saying MW3 is easy but it's mainly about the online multiplayer. MW3 was heavily funded and advertised as well. Some people don't understand how to play New Vegas they assume it svcks. Yes New Vegas had a lot of bugs/glitches when it was first released, but the Ultimate Edition addressed many of them

If MW3 didn't have online multiplayer the replay value would be very low. The story svcks, it's not challenging unless on veteran. New Vegas makes you think and it has an incredible story. Lots of weapons/armor, choices and consequences. You can join factions etc.

Skyrim is not having any problems selling are you saying its easier then Fallout New Vegas?

Lackluster to the ignorant "masses". The sad thing is that games not focusing solely on shallow and flashy action or tacked on social features do not sell as well as those that do. For an oldschool gamer, like yours truly, games like MW - that bloat the market - are as far from being entertaining as the earth is from the sun. The smaller groups are neglected and each title packed with unrealistic enough expectations for them to really be worth making. Videogaming is supposedly at its all time peak, yet all we get is more Modern Warfares, Battlefields, Sims, Farmvilles, etc, each copying one another in their respected genres. Where's the innovation, where's the creativity... in the niches that are not getting made, or sabotaged by the massappeal pressures.

Good thing is, though, that people like me save money when there's so much [censored] in the market rather than incline.

Look at the difference here Morrowwind, Oblivion, Fallout 3 and Skyrim all sold really really well. Why? Because they are very entertaining games and the gaming public loves them. When you make good games they sell and they sell well.

Greg

Hell yes I am. Skyrim is a fun game and I enjoy it. But it's very easy, even on master.

I think this reasoning is a case of seeing what you want to see.

Obsidian has largely made sequels and add-ons. Some people who bought the original would have decided it wasn't their kind of game, or that they've had their fill of that kind of game, so they wouldn't have bought the sequel. Sequels and add-ons almost universally have a smaller player base.

Furthermore, publishers are eager to get sequels and add-ons out before the market cools to the original, so those sequels and add-ons are often rushed out the door before they're actually ready. The consensus on Obsidian games is that they're destroyed by publisher interference.

There are maybe two games from Obsidian's portfolio that you can blame on them.

One of them is their last game, Dungeon Siege, which was an unambitious but largely bug-free game.

They are good games and I enjoy them all. But just because a game sells well doesn't mean it's a good game. I understand what your saying. If a game is good and it doesn't sell well, it doesn't mean that game is not good.

New Vegas sold fairly well. But your biased as hell.

http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/708491/fallout-new-vegas-sales-300-million-5-million-units-shipped/ While that may not indicate sales, it is a good approximation of the number of units sold.

You keep implying New Vegas was crappy as if you're right. You're not - you're wrong. Far better than FO3 as an RPG anyway.

Secondly, crappy games and day 1 DLCs and patches are not related. Crappy games can be great from a technical standpoint.

And I don't own a developer's best friend either.

The truth is that you're incredibly biased and short sighted, so it is useless arguing with you.

Jet set radio future would like a word with you.

AP is what mass effect, could and should have been.
Yes they do, fallout new vegas and alpha protocol are the best things to happen in rpgs for a long time.
Skyrim is one of the worst.

Oh and as for day 1 dlc.
Obsidian had the minor crap like classic, tribal, caravan and merc packs.
Meanwhile oh so great devs like Bioware cut an entire squadmate.

Alpha protocol had no dlc too. But hey keep making unrelated posts, in an attempt to insult obsidian.

NOOOO! Not Obsidian! This is horrible! :'(

Is he really saying Obsidian is a bad company!? If that is true why do so many publisher/developers go to them to develop their sequels?

Thiiiis

Although the glitches in NV on release day were epic. Omnidirectional hunting rifles!

What we need is Bethesda to make the world, and Obsidian to write the dialogue and rpg mechanics.

Two quick things guys. First, this discussion is getting pretty heated and it really needs to cool off. Second, it's also getting rather off topic. There's a logical train of thought to go from Obsidian, to different sorts of games, to general discussions of niche versus broadly popular games . . . but when you take the train this far out you've left the original topic too far behind you.

Obsidian is one of my favorite developers and I was saddened to hear about the layoffs and the cancellation of Project North Carolina. There's nothing wrong with having a thread to discuss this matter, but we do need to keep the discussion civil and on topic.

Personally I wonder how much of Obsidian's problems are coming for THQ's money woes. THQ is the publisher of Obsidian's South Park game and from the stories I've read it seems to be the title wort-hit by these layoffs. After MS canceled Project North Carolina, which itself seems to have hurt Obsidian quite a bit, their deal with THQ is probably what was keeping them afloat . . . and now THQ is in trouble.

They didn't, unfortunately. "Good" and "popular" have never been mutual guarantees, and worth of mouth and market size have always had more influence than game quality. Okami was extremely widely acclaimed, but flopped partly because no one had heard of it and partly because it was too "different". New Vegas was (eventually) praised by many as an excellent RPG, but its release-day bugginess spread via word of mouth and it struggled in the vital early days after release, leading many to shun it even after the bugs were fixed. An RPG that sells well is going to do worse than an FPS that sells well, simply because the market is larger. If they struggle, as they often do frequently because of publishers forcing early release to compensate for targeting a smaller market, they easily get in trouble.

Obsidian didn't get revenue from sales, so they weren't helped by that at all. All they really got from New Vegas was stuck with the blame for the bad reputation its buggy launch created, and the layoffs that followed.

In my opinion, New Vegas and Mask of the Betrayer are two of the best RPGs of the past decade. Creatively, Obsidian are the current kings of the genre. While the big companies focus more and more on ramping up the action and eye candy, Obsidian is one of the few to still focus on substance.

Perhaps they could take a cue from Baldur's Gate Enhanced Edition and develop some isometric games on the cheap, using an IP of their own creation. They could release it independently and earn all the profits. It might not have them rolling in money, but it would be better than seeing the rewards for your work go to someone else.

Yes, I know. I meant more in the vein of being given a bit more benefit of doubt through accepting their pitches or even bothering going through with the ones they were working (like North Carolina).

It's a cruel world in the mainstream, I guess.

imo....this.
All the Obsidian bashing makes me sad. I don't love all the ES games but I'm not bashing Beth for not making all their games ones I personally enjoy. I don't love all Obsidian games (just like I don't like all Beth games) but I love/admire many of the creative people of Obsidian. As much as I like gaming, there are very few video games that make me connect to them in an emotional way, outside of adrenaline rushes, and Obsidian's games tend to do that. Whether it's the writing of characters or the music they choose or something else, I don't know. But it's there for me.

There's a rumor that they may try to Kickstart something (not that Wasteland thing, that's different). If that ever comes true, I'd definitely pitch in to support it. I want to give them a chance to make more original IP's instead of just contracting to do sequels in order to survive....or whatever.

Aside from its problems Alpha Protocol is actually a pretty cool game.

Before we continue to argue about this, though, I think you should read about how publisher/developer relationships work. It's eye-opening.