I don't think there is enough info on this yet to get my "jump to conclusion" pad out of the closet.

The game breaking bugs svcked.

Then maybe they should have done their own Q&A in house. What your saying is if a builder builds a house with half of the nails and the house falls down on the home own during the first big wind. The it was the city insptectors fault. Crappy craftmenship is crappy craftmenship no matter who you try and put the blame on.

Greg

Which Bethesda is mostly responsible for. Not to mention most of Bethesda's games are buggy at release. I guess it's only fair that they go under next.


But.. it would've been the city inspectors fault. Before the house can even begin to be inhabitable, somebody needs to come down and make sure it's safe and sturdy. This is mandatory. If the house ends up ruining the lives of the inhabitants, then the inspector is fired because he didn't do his job.

Likewise, all games, ALL GAMES, are incredibly buggy in their first stages. It's always up to the QA testers to find and report/fix the problems.

Um, no. Testing and QA in software isn't the same as building a house and having it inspected. Software always has bugs. QA is as important as what you're referring to as "craftmanship" in software. It's part of the development process...it's not like an inspection that you do really quick at the end of the project. It's Bethesda's engine and Bethesda's testing. They knew about the bugs and it was their responsibility to hand them off to be fixed before the game was released. They're every bit as responsible (if not more) for the state it was released in as Obsidian.

This would only be applicable if the inspector had control over the date when the builder has to "finish" building the house. And when the inspector finds something wrong with the house he ignores it, doesn't allow the builder to fix it before they allow somebody to move it, and then everybody blames the builder.

WOW thats funny FFXIII on the PS3 is patch free and runs great. Yet Fallout New Vegas on PS3 was so buggy that it was unplayable after 50hrs. There goes your theroy right out the window.

Greg

QA is supposed to happen before the game is released. Apparently that wasn't a priority with New Vegas.

What? All that says is that QA did a terrible job. Who handled the QA? Oh, right, Bethesda.

Not completely dissing on Bethesda. They do some good stuff. Their QA ,however, really needs a major rework.

They're completely different games. And FO3 just had as many game breaking bugs. So are you saying Bethesda should start firing some employees?

I have never really enjoyed any Obsidian games so this does not bother me at all. Fallout: New Vegas was decent but like all the other Obsidian games I have played, I could not shake the nagging feeling that it could have been much better.

Look me up on PSN PSN ID is Soulwatcher, I have platnium on PS3 for Fallout 3. There weren't even a quarter of the problems that Fallout New vegas had on Fallout 3.

No, actually, there goes their theory to exactly where it started. The line was specifically games in their first stages. The whole point of the bugtesting process is that you get past these stages before the game is released. FFXIII, if it runs fine, does so because it was properly tested, not because it was made without bugs.

The issue with this is money; that's why publishers push for games to be released as soon as possible. Much of the cost of making a game is the basic salary of all the people working on it, and that includes their salary through the testing process. Publishers often decide to release at "playable" instead of "runs great" so that they don't have to pay more. If you're going to blame Obsidian for this, you're basically demanding that the company keeps working, every day, for several months, without being paid. That doesn't happen at any business, including the people who build houses. I've seen plenty of skeletal building-frames left sitting uncompleted because the funding was cut. This is the responsibility of whoever was paying for the building, not the people who were building it.

Okay. It varies. I had more problems with Fallout 3 than I did New Vegas. Your point?

And both Oblivion and Skyrim were atrociously buggy at release. I was lucky with Skyrim, though.

Next time your car is in repair and they run into problems. Tell them they dont have to worry about fixing it because they gave you a qoute so many hours and you dont want them working for free.

Greg

...I think that sentence could use some further bug-testing.

I cant help it if the truth hurts. Either make a quailty product or you will be on the outside looking in. I hope more developers go down. Then maybe we can get back to quailty games again!

Greg

He meant that your post didn't make sense. It didn't. Rephrase it. Why haven't you responded to any of my posts?

New Vegas had iirc a one and a half year development time. Bethesda rushed them and released New Vegas before Obsidian were done with it. Before I learned this I thought New Vegas was fantastic, after I learned it...New Vegas is a masterpiece.

Life isn't fair. I always hated it when a teacher said that when I was younger. Obsidian made one of the greatest games of all time, New Vegas. But Obsidian has been through so much, they used to be Black Isle, but they all got laid off. It seems the same thing is happening again. It's a shame.

How did I not post in this topic yet? I feel sorry for Obsidian they generally make amazing stories. New Vegas being legendary and one of my favourite games of all time. Blew Fallout 3 out of the water. I'm looking forward to the South Park rpg and hope they can work on Wasteland 2 as I hear the first game was great. So here's hoping they get to turn their bad luck around and go on to have great success. God knows we're going to need it with Bioware's craptacular performance these last few years. And with Bethesda being kind of blah these last few games they need some competition to inspire them. Skyrim was good, but if there was more competition I think they could have done better.

I'm not saying New Vegas was a horrible game, I did buy it twice (once for PS3 and once for PC) but I think Fallout 3 is a superior product. I did not, however, know that they had only one and a half years to develop it so that changes things slightly. But still, I did not like Knights of the Old Republic 2, and I thought Alpha Protocol was quite the under achiever.

Sure it did when you take a car in to get fixed. They qoute you on X amount of hours to do the job. If they run over X hours they work for free. So in other word if your paid to make a game work on it until its done right even if you have to work for free. Other wise expect back lash from the gaming community!

Greg

You can't keep working on it when the publisher gives you an unreasonable deadline and won't adjust it. Well you can, but you're working on patches at that point, after the game is released.

This. It wasn't their call. They were told to stop, finish up what they had, and get it out the door. What is not being understood here? Video game industry isn't an auto repair shop. One of the biggest key differences is there is a publisher and a developer. A mechanics shop is just one place. Second of all they aren't building the car, merely maintaining it. Something games don't do. So much in your anology that doesn't make sense I simply won't continue.