Someone does since a heck of a lot of people seem to point fingers at Obsidian for the quality of testing and not pushing back the release date regardless of the information that's presented. Also, "ad infinitum" is a bit of an exaggeration, don't you think? If it will please you I will lay off...for now.


Eh, in 13 years of doing software architecture and development professionally (and much longer than that if you include academia) the only response I can make to that is "all code is bad until it's tested." Yes, sometimes (way too often) code is bad. Sometimes architectures are bad. Sometimes platforms are bad. Sometimes APIs are bad. Sometimes projects are disorganized. These things all produce bugs. I have a hard time believing Obsidian fills their desks with amateur programmers seeing as how I personally know plenty of veteran programmers that would take a pay cut to work on a good games development project.

There are waaaaaay too many variables involved for us to make any kind of judgment about anyone's code. The fact that testing wasn't completed doesn't give us any real information about why. In most cases you start testing the parts of the software that are done well before the entire project is done. I'm a very thoughtful, careful, and experienced designer/coder, but unless I'm working on something fairly simple, selling an improperly-tested or unfinished piece of software that I created is going to make me look like I don't know what I'm doing. I'm sure plenty of people would look at that outcome and say, "lawlz teh newb developer..."

What we do know for sure is that Bethesda knew what state the game was in and could have pushed back the release date if they wanted to. For whatever reason they chose not to. The only assertion I presented was that Bethesda had their finger on the pulse of where testing was at and had control of the release date. I'm not telling anyone who to blame...I'm just reiterating who had responsibility and control of what. Even if you did have evidence to make a case that Obsidian's code was a huge mess it was within Bethesda's control to do something about it during development and early testing or push back the release date. Hiring a contractor to do work for a product you're ultimately responsible for doesn't make you any less responsible for it. Good and bad. I've been there.

Oh, and as a quick aside, I agree with Obsidian deciding to use the same engine and many of the same mechanics with Fallout New Vegas. This allowed them to work more on a story than rebuilding all their assets on a new engine. Whenever a release comes along with the words "Fallout" and "Four" in it though, it must be on a new engine.

:celebration:





I was also in the industry...yes, there is no such thing as initial perfect code, but there are degrees of acceptable error. And yes testing is of prime importance and bethesda should not have released something that had, for some, unacceptable game killing bugs. but we both know that marketing and sales trumps production in most cases, unfortunately.

I'm just saying don't absolve obsidian of blame, they were essentially the developers, they also have responsibilities and were involved in QA regardless of whether bethesda headed that department.

Like I said, I'm not implying blame or lack thereof. There's literally no way for us to know where the mistakes were made. Bethesda had the most to lose or gain monetarily by hitting or missing the release date, though. For those who are disappointed that they paid for a game that is still buggy I'd look to the entity that sold me the product.

When I bring in contractors in my job it's my responsibility to stay abriast of their work and be ready to intervene if I see trouble...even if I'm not actively participating in the development at all...especially if said contractors are building on a platform I created. At the end of the day my company is responsible to our customers. I believe that games publishers are responsible to their customers to provide a satisfactory product. If the project went off course, regardless of whose fault it is, the publisher shoulders that loss along with whatever the developer's contract dictates they should also shoulder. It should not be passed onto the consumer. All the consumer should hear is, "we pushed back the release date, sorry!" The rest should be handled internally. I shouldn't have to care where the mistakes were made unless I was on the dev team.

Unfortunately, that's how the publishers usually play it these days. They pass the problems onto us with a promise of a patch so they can hit their release dates. I understand this in the PC world due to no amount of beta testing being enough to test all host environments, but there are obviously console issues as well.

Yes...the producer is the one who has the most to lose, and that's how it will be...bethesda will get the true alotment of punishment via profit loss in the future, because people will identify the finished product as a bethesda produced game....but that's my point, you don't need to go into so much effort pointing at them, they'll catch the flack regardless, as will obsidian to an extent, but that's also something you can't prevent, so don't get so frustrated about who individual posters point their fingers at.

Hopefully they can and will patch things satisfactorily sometime soon. I don't buy games at launch, so it's not an issue for me, yet....I will buy NV at some point, but I wait till games are actually truly completed....they never are at launch(some less than others).

I've seen nothing but 9's in British magazines - attesting to the brilliant writing, scripting, and action (thanks to the engine) but the bugs are only mentioned, if at all, in a fairly off the cuff manner - certainly no game breakers are written about. A patch and I'll be a happy (if more wary) bunny..

You missed the part about them also having the most to gain by hitting their release date. Anyway, have to agree to disagree here. I don't think publishers get enough flack for this happening. Software development projects go over-budget (both time and money sometimes). It happens...it's a very difficult process to estimate with 100% accuracy. When a publisher (or upper-management in the case of some dev shops) decides to take on a project they know this. Pushing a product out the door on a date that best suits the publisher regardless of whether the product is complete or not is not an acceptable practice regardless of who is pointing their fingers where. If the game isn't done then push back the release. If you stand to lose money by pushing back the release then penalize the developer per their contract (if that was in their contract, that is). Penalizing the consumer and then scapegoating the developer has become way too common a practice. The publisher can release the game whenever they chose to. They're making the most money. They can shoulder the appropriate amount of the liability too. At the same time perhaps developers are too eager to sign contracts as well. Who knows?


This is exactly right. The way to send the message to publishers that products need to be finished before they're released is for consumers to avoid buying titles until they're in an acceptable release state. The downside is that the degree to which a game gets post-release support seems to be driven by initial sales in many cases, so they may have us coming and going.

i'm playing on the 360 and I never had any major glitches save for the game freezing three times and I've gone through a bunch of different playthroughs (ive beaten it twice and am on a third playthrough now). some people get lucky, some dont.

Unless there's a revolt of the masses(and there won't be) you can't change the social and market dynamics, so it's the developers' responsibility to cover their asses in their contracts....that's all they can do.



Post-release support relates to sales, reviews, and word of mouth...and word of mouth is the most powerful influence by far IMO. Problem is that word of mouth is most effective if my policy of waiting to purchase is practiced by the majority of people....that is just wishful thinking. Games are electronic heroin to most people and they want their fix now....the game's bug fix will always come later.

That's life...I don't worry about it too much

Sure. To which the publisher says, "well, if you won't commit we'll find someone that will." :shrug: If you want to work you either self-publish or accept the fact that your publisher is probably going to throw you under that bus if they decide it works out better for them.


I'd say word-of-mouth is a factor only if it influences sales, but I don't have a seat at that table so it's hard to know for sure.


I'm not saying it will happen...just that it should happen. :whisper: It won't happen.


Oh, neither do I. When I see enough angst that's factually misdirected I might feel inclined to say something, but I sleep pretty well.

Almost same as my pal (who's also on 360)l. Only one freeze so far and waiting for the DLC to come for retail. Seems the issues are more of unlucky strikes than golden standards on console too. I myself have the Steam PC version and I have about 4-6 CTDs and that's all. I guess I'm lucky (as I never had any major issues what-so-ever - same with Alpha Protocol which is said to be a buggy mess) 'cause I have little to no technical issues with New Vegas - bar from 5 CTDs which isn't much for a modern era game.

The (almost) only issues I have are about gameplaymechanics - and they are personal issues. And given that my pal with his 360 has no issues at all (bar from few ants walking on their heads) I'm seriously doubting that the issues that other people have are internet related in some way or another.

And there's the compromise. If you're a developer you either accept the fact that the producer holds the ball or self-publish and make less money....it svcks but it's the way it is. So you just cover your ass "as much" as you can.

Of course some developers have true clout and can make producers compromise also, if that producer wants quality and or a developer's 'name drawing power' behind their product. I'm sure bethesda was salivating at the thought of including black isle roots in NV because of the extra draw it would bring from that certain group of gamers...and it probably gave obsidian a little contract leverage(we can only speculate). But the bottom line is bethesda has the money and resources(and licenses for that matter) and they produce the product. If obsidian wants to have access to those resources they have no choice but to acquiesce for the most part. Honestly I'm sure obsidian benefited more than they suffered out of this relationship, based on their share of mass profits from sales. Bethesda will get more "name" damage in the end also....so it's not as bleak as you make it sound for obsidian.

It's hard to say whether or not this is true. I don't see anyone blaming LucasArts for bugs in KotOR 2 despite their direct hand in mucking with the development time-line. The die-hard Bethesda fans will likely blame Obsidian completely. Either way the folks that lose out the most are the consumers that the problems ultimately get dumped on as a result of nobody taking the proper financial responsibility and pushing back the release date. If I were in their position that's what I would have to do. :shrug: Then again, my company's customers aren't gamers.

IF I had seen that review in The Edge - I would not have purchased FONV yet! I almost didn't anyway - sure wish I had waited.

But I will be checking that magazine in the future for honest reviews

Eh....even the consumers don't lose out really....as long as bugs get fixed eventually. The consumers hold the bottom line...they don't have to buy the games...but they do. Consumers lose out if the product is crap and 'never' gets fixed, but in that case reputation damage to both developer and producer would be much greater, so that's unlikely.

Basically the way I see it is that nobody really loses out here...the producer rakes in the money....the developer gets it's share to keep up or improve their capabilities and the customer "eventually" gets a decent product. At worst the consumer gets inconvenienced, but again, it is their choice. In my case, and those like me, we can only win....we wait and get a good(and cheaper) product later or don't buy it if it turns out it's not worth it.

I don't think playing a blame game is really going to do anything at all. My hope is that this being their first partnership in such an endeavor that the only thing that will change is that they will all be able to assess where the problems occurred, how to do a better job next time, what adjustments in schedules, testing and such other details and that future releases will go smoother and with less problems. What makes me sad in a way is that Obsidian has a reputation of putting out buggy games and Bethesda has such a reputation and this one was double buggy. But if they can use one another's strenghts to do better that will be awesome.

They both make games I enjoy and I can therefore overlook a few bugs and await patches.

I'm hoping for Obsidian to have an opportunitu to make another spin off between Fallout:4 and 5 myself. For that reason alone I might buy an extra copy of this game.

Yeah I think all this talk about damage to Bethesda is bogus wishful thinking by people who are angry at their current game. The truth of the matter is that New Vegas has Already outsold Fallout 3 and Zenimax has Already declared the game a success. That's not just a "happy note" from Zenimax - its a clear signal to Bethesda and Obsidian that they did a good job and that the bean counters are (at least) satisfied Enough for the parent company to say that. Add to it that most of the reviews are already out and done, and most were very positive towards the games.

I certainly think that Bethesda will _continue_ to carry the reputation of putting out buggy games, but they will also _continue_ to carry the reputation as one of the best AAA game produces in the business and I'm 1000% sure that if the next title is TES V, all talk of New Vegas bugs will mean Nothing in the end there as well. People will buy the games, buggy or not, and those of us that Love these games will continue to endure. No one said it was fair, because it's not - its a business. And as Softnerd said, no one Here is going to change the industry standard Nor our insaciable hunger for AAA RPG titles like these.

Vote with your wallet, its the only vote you have.

....or maybe continued synergy between the two will result in the next game being buggy ^squared instead of just double buggy :blink:

I'm split down the road. I experience bugs, but I'd say Fallout New Vegas gets a 9 for the game world and dialogue and etc. But from a technical aspect, I'd say a 5 or a 6. Obsidian made a great world, but to be very honest, I cant believe they had two hundred plus testers and never experience a SINGLE bug, the probabilities of this happening are so astronomically low it's just not a safe bet that its genuinely true. I still think the Devs deserve a hearty pat on the back, but they could definetely worry more about the bugs than the idea of what they should do for a DLC.

The bugs haven't been too bad for me yet, I have put about 60 hours into the game and I have had some mild crashing to desktop but nothing out of the norm, really. I probably crash when playing FO3 just as much as I do in New Vegas. Im use to having to hit f5 all the time when playing, not sure if thats a good thing or a bad thing but over the years I have just gotten use to it. Most of the games I play have some mild crashing problems because most of them are very sophisticated and I run them at max settings. (when I say mild crashing, Im talking about one crash for every 3-5 hours of gameplay)

Also, there is one bug that has been bothering me a little bit. It only seems to happen when I use guns that require a .357 magnum round (revolver and cowboy repeater), but whenever I use these guns it sometimes locks my character up and I can't do anything which is very annoying when im in combat. Aside from this, the game runs great on my PC. I still use Windows XP and im able to run the game at max settings (ultra) without dropping below 60 fps.

Overall, im very happy with the game aside from a few design elements that I will end up tweaking wih mods.

double post

I'm on my third playthrough as well, on the PS3. I was able to say pretty much the same thing as you, until the serious game freeze at the Tops casino. The game freezes within seconds of it loading.

The Mag got it wrong big time, in my books Fallout New Vegas is a 9.7 out of 10. The only reason it isn't 10 out of 10 is the bugs. I didn't have too many problems with the bugs when I played I was able to get 40 hours in and only had it freeze up on me 4 times with 2 of those 4 being my fault.

Hey do you know as time passes technology moves forward? fun fact. You know why FO3 got a higher review score? because that was 2 years ago. Here we are..2010 a game called FNV marketing itself as a standalone NOT A DLC game which runs on the exact same engine as FO3, a 2008 game, which is on a same engine as Oblivion a 2006 game. Do you think if FNV was released in 2020 as it is now will it get a higher score or a lower score? People would look at this game as a ATARI game way out of its league trying to market for $50 when it clearly isn't worth $1.
And that last statement isn't too far off from the actual truth as this game should of been a $10 DLC w. the amount of recycling used to create this game & lack of maintenance it's receiving.

Very fair review. I would probably enjoy the game more if I could see the forest through trees. If I could enjoy New Vegas without all the distracting glitches and crashes I might change my opinion about the game. EDIT: It doesn't help one bit when someone posts that the game has run smoothly for them accept for one crash. I get all the problems described in the Edge review, so I totally agree with it. The game is a 6.

Still, I can't seem to stop playing it.