Beth listens to there fans Obsidian does not. Dawnguard and Broken steel are very good examples, a huge amount of dawnguard stuff is user requested features, (Examples: Barber, fortresses, vampire overhaul, Two giant new land masses, Epic new mounts, mounted combat, crossbows, new side quests ECT) broken steel extended the game, increased the level cap, let you keep playing. Obsidan NEVER has added the option to play after the story was over...Plus that bloody DEAD MONEY

I'm just saiyan, if you're gonna put a faction in the game make them joinable.

Also, Look at meeee... I'm in the SKYRIM FORUMS screaming for FALLOUT 4 and NO ONE CAN STOP ME!!!!

I highly doubt the underlined part. If anything, I'd bet that Obsidian would put more effort into following the lore than Bethesda does. If given ample time, I could see Obsidian properly implementing Volkihar vampires in Skyrim. Of course, this is all speculation, but Obsidian aren't ones to compromise their artistic vision and they have lots of talented writers.

Big difference, yes, but many of the tested nuclearbombs were well over the 200-750kt mark.

Ivy Mike - 10,400kt
Castle Bravo - 15,000kt
RDS-37 - 1,600kt
Grapple X - 1,800kt
Tsar Bomba - 50,000kt (Originally intended to be 100,000kt)
Test No. 6 - 3,300kt
Canopus - 2,600kt

Considering the test areas from some of these bombs are still vegetated, and were much more powerful, your claim is rather baseless..

Obsidian, as much as I've enjoyed their games in the past, are practically obsessive about putting out buggy products. It's like they have anti-QA... they have a quota for how many gamebreaking bugs have to be in the final product before it's released. Anyone who denies that it is historically true that Obsidian just cannot, no matter how hard they try, put out a product without frequent game-breaking bugs is just listening to the crunch of sand in their mouth... chewing on the only meal they have from the hole in which they've buried their head.

No. If so many people nearly have a heart attack over dragons backpedalling or paratrooper mammoths that forget to pull their ripcords, imagine the bloody outcry if Obsidian had their hands on the project. You'd probably start up the game and your console/PC would explode into flames.


Exactly. Absolutely nothing reeks havoc on immersion like freakin' frequent game-breaking bugs. New Vegas would have been a great game for me, nowhere near as fun in the exploration avenue as FO3, but dammit, it was buggy as hell.

This is what I essentially said in the other thread... the best the Obsidian dreamers can do is base their entire argument off of speculation: "If Obsidian had more time... if Obsidian did this... if Obsidian did that...". They didn't. So there. And Skyrim is a great game with or without them.

Complaining about complainers makes you no better than them, you know. :]

Where did you read that we're getting 'two giant new land masses'?

Publishers handle QA, NOT Obsidian. The bugs in FNV? Those are the fault of Bethesda Softworks, for rushing it out the door and not giving ample QA time. Skyrim has lots of bugs too, and it suffers from the same problem of not being properly QA tested.

*Sigh* Let me find it for you.

Sure... and how do the bugs get in there in the first place? Genuis! Also, the "Skyrim has lots of bugs too" as a retort requires a complete inability to perceive frame of reference. Simply log onto Metacritic or Amazon and compare the reviews. Go ahead. Compare the number of complaints with regard to *game-breaking* bugs in New Vegas vs. Skyrim. Oops. Every game/application has bugs... next time I'll make sure that you get the memo. But, it takes a level of denial beyond all comprehension to state that New Vegas could even hold a candle to the code cleanliness of Skyrim.


Thanks for the tip. When I do I'll refer to it. However, I'm not complaining about complainers... that would be a waste of time. Rather I'm pointing out that their arguments are based off of pure speculation whilst ignoring the fact that Obsidian has a history (even without Bethesda) of putting out buggy games. I've enjoyed playing Obsidian games in the past, so I don't hate them. It's just a simple reality. Ignore it if you will, but if you do, you're just a dreamer.

http://kotaku.com/5916595/skyrims-massive-dawnguard-sounds-like-a-proper-old+school-rpg-expansion/

Boohoo, it's not like Bethesda games have bugs or anything.
Not to mention, the game was built on Bethesda's Gamebryo engine, which was already known to have tons of problems inherent to it.

*Le-Sigh*
Interesting. Hadn't seen that yet. I was under the impression that they were not releasing "giant landmasses" per sey (with the exception of Soul Cairn) and instead were using existing areas in Skyrim. Thanks for the link.


This is true, I remember Oblivion being darn-near unplayable at release.

Double post, my bad!

See my comment above for the epic dismantling of this red herring. Thanks for playing. Not to mention, you have another problem with this statement. FO3 didn't have the same frequent game-breaking defects that NV did. It was the same exact engine. Obviously, those game breaking bugs were introduced during NV development... and... who was the developer again? Oh, yeah...

http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/thecrescat/files/2012/03/Flip-this-table-Jesus-style.jpg

Ahhhh, you're cool. Look, I've experience more problems with Skyrim fully patched than I have with New Vegas fully patched. I recognize that some may have had different experiences, but in my experience, I've found fully patched Obsidian games to be more stable and less bug ridden than fully patched Bethesda games. I didn't play New Vegas on launch, so I can't comment on that. Every developer is capable of bugs. I don't know why you feel the need to white knight Bethesda when they have their history of buggy games as well. The difference is, reviews like to take points off of Obsidian's games for being buggy, while excusing Bethesda's for some inexplicable reason.

I'm not trying to be the White Knight of Bethesda. Rather, I'm pointing out the flaws in the arguments of the White Knights of Obsidian.

There are flaws in your argument as well. Every game is bound to have bugs, and I'm pointing out that it's hypocritical that people often point to Obsidian as a developer notorious for bugs while simultaneously ignoring (or dismissing) Bethesda's buggy products.

I think skyrim would have been like, $20 after the holidays if Obsidian made it. I loved Fallout New Vegas, but hated having to install it to get through the intro tutorial before glitches crashed it.

Also I want to point out that while Bethesda games have glitches they usually get fixed well, and are due to the sheer amount of content that comes with the game. Obsidian in Fallout New Vegas delivered a product that was relatively small, highly bugged, and missing key features that players loved from the previous installment, like more than eight mini nukes. Obsidian simply puts out games that are sub-par to Bethesda who is a far more seasoned developer. They will get better, but for now they are too young in the game to really have a feel for making games truly in the triple A league, like Skyrim, FO3, or Oblivion.

Ok let's go into detail on this...


Swords vs. maces is a consmetic issue? No it's not, Bethesda clearly attempted to balance them. Maces, axes and swords all have perks dedicated to them. The point is Bethesda svckS ASS at balancing their games to the point where there's no -REAL- difference between swords and maces and axes. Axes generally svck whereas swords and maces are superior. That's not balance, because the only reason you would use an axe is for roleplaying purposes.
In New Vegas, you would use a police baton or a knife based on what's best for your character. Wanna play a police officer? You can design a character around the stats of the police baton so that it truly is the best melee weapon for him. Wanna use the knife instead and play a character with a knife fetish? More than easy: Grunt, Cowboy, 10 STR and every melee weapons/unarmed perk and you've got a character that's beast with knives, so much so that he uses them BETTER than a Super hammer.

Personally? I like not having to PRETEND my mace character plays different from my sword character. I like it when they actually DO play differently. I mean hell, when you play Monopoly, do you PRETEND the little doggy and the car perform differently? Wouldn't you prefer it if they actually did, and still retained balance?


Because YOUR argument doesn't prove anything. You're basically saying "my heavy armor character takes damage better because for him I take 4 out of 5 defense perks whereas for my light armor character I only take 2 out of 5." Gee that's great and all, but you're still playing pretend. The fact of the matter is that when optimized, the -ONLY- difference is 50% stamina regen vs. 10% chance of reflecting damage.

It's not balanced or unique if YOU have to conciously go out of your way to make them balanced and/or unique. That's, again, you pretending your characters are different.



I'd ask you to re-read my post, but it's a new thread.

One Handed = swing 3 times in three seconds, deal 80 damage total.
Two-handed = swing once in three seconds, deal 80 damage total.

What's the point? What's the difference? They're just different means to deal damage and nothing more.
The only difference in performance they provide is that one-handed can be dual-wielded for superior DPS, if you've got perks to invest you can use a shield, and two-handed has a side-swipe AOE effect. Those are the only differences.
You may say "they don't have the exact same damage output." So? Even if, say.....For example I bet dual-wielding has superior damage output to two-handed. Hell, one handed provides better offense AND defense because you can go from using a shield to dual-wielding for maximum damage. Great, so one is superior and the other is inferior. Now what? That's still not balance. You're still pretending that two-handed handles differently or that it's as good as one-handed. It's not though. It's a waste of space.

Again what does this show? That Bethesda has crappy game mechanics and that they can't balance a game out for crap. A weapon hitting 80 damage but only being swung once per 3 seconds, or a weapon dealing 27 damage and being swung once per second....these aren't exciting new ways to play. If I start with a two-handed character and then go to one-handed, I don't think "wow this is so different and exciting!" No, it feels exactly the same. They perform exactly the same. And that's boring. Even when one is superior completely, like dual-wielding, is that fun? No, because soon you just dual-wield. You could limit yourself and only let certain character dual-wield, but again, you're doing all the work whereas the game itself is very flawed.


If "roleplaying" is pretending the game's balancing and overall game mechanics aren't as crappy as I think they are, then no, I guess I don't understand roleplay.

In my opinion Obsidian should handle the Fallout games from here on out (won't happen), but Bethesda is the one and only for TES.

I totally disagree. With New Vegas and stuff like the NWN2 expansion Mask of the Betrayer, Obsidian have really shown themselves to be competent developers. I'd argue that they're far better than most AAA devs. Hell, with New Vegas, they were able to make a game that (imo) surpasses just about everything Bethesda has every done on a very strict deadline.