Bethesda/Obsidian

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lets not even get into the DLC scam. Having to pay for a game again... jezz.. Why not make the game proper the first time? Have all those great ideas right from the start?

Because its not profitable.... hehehe.. The current game market is a scam to sucker you into paying them till the gum looses flavor till they ship out a new improved batch... Not about quality games. Not about fixing there game ether. Its about money.
Click to expand...

Yeah but the cost of making games,up to standards at leas, is increasing, because of the graphics obviously, me, i dont care about graphics, look at fallout 2, 12 years after realese and people are still playing, its called the test of time, and fallout certainly endures it!
 
SerbianWarrior said:
What made,and makes fallout,as a franchise,not just 1 and 2 great is the post apocalyptic atmosphere,gameplay,story and cultural references.
Click to expand...
and here i thought its just us old farts and our nostalgia :P


Wolfehunter said:
No its not. Bethesda is crap now. I've played all there games. I've seen there change in administration and there new modern mentality to gaming. All there concerned is Profits not Quality.
Click to expand...

today games are either hipped and get some return in the first few weeks and then mostly downloaded on P2P networks or flopped completely.
which mean 2-3 years of development, which is at least a dozen millions in cost gone down the sink with people livelihoods....

but yes, i see what you did there with new 'mentality to gaming' a COMPANY making a decision to adapt and make games for broader audience as opposed to companies like interplay who stayed true to its high quality product (btw how that went for them?)

[spoiler:a409981f90]although i would call it mentality of free market and ruthless laws of supply and demand [/spoiler:a409981f90]
 
SerbianWarrior said:
Yeah but the cost of making games,up to standards at leas, is increasing, because of the graphics obviously
Click to expand...
i am not to sure about that, somebody correct if i am wrong but i think that creating the model its pretty cheap and easy today.
i think that the majority of the time in games in our genre (for example the witcher) are spent on level design and testing, its just that today map are bigger and has more content.

obviously many arcade style games like god of wars which are more like movie production with motion capturing and meticulous directing of each and every boss fight to make it epic immersive cinematic story, iirc one of their boss 20 min boss fight's had more directors and scripters then all of FO1 team together.



btw the reason why i prefer the good old iso RPG's style is because of the crapy visuals which leaves much to my imagination allowing me to immerse into the story.
while most FP RPG didnt deliver it, trying to make all those huge open world turned up to be a lots of generic crap and with usually no story to begin with...

this is why i more excited about the newer titles like mafia2 or red dead redemption, which from the looks of it created an immersive world and gameplay, now all is left is read some reviews to see if the story checks up.
i just hope that this technology will become cheaper and widely available for smaller developers soon.



btw its not only graphics iirc the old republic MMORPG has more writes on board than FO1 team with enough plot for few novels...
altough i doubt that anyone here will give it much credit past the FPS rant...
 
SerbianWarrior said:
And they were pushing for a console, not a strong point...so yeah...
This was long,getting kind of awkward now, in conclusion
Click to expand...

I do not think consoles itself were the problem. Its like blaming the TV itself for shitty programming.

FBOS was a piece of shit because the story was butchered beyond belief. Working monorails, the game shamelessly used as a commercial for BAWLS drinks, and hardcore rockmetal for the WN, swearing for the hell of it, etc. The list goes on.

SerbianWarrior said:
but Bethesda made and released Fallout 3, without it i wouldnt have known about fallout 1 & 2, so they deserve a lot of credit as well
Click to expand...

Van Buren could have accomplished the same had Ineptplay used their brains. Troika had attempted to claim the Fallout IP but was outbid by Bethesda. Had things gone differently, Troika, could have done the same. Again, this is not something credit worthy regardless of who had the IP.

I am one of those who put graphics BEFORE story, scripting/dialogue, etc. Pretty much all of things that are essential to your suspension of disbelief. Fallout was all about dialogue, story, interaction with people. Every town was affected by the player characers actions with a corresponding ending.

Any Fallout that claims itself a sequel (as opposed to a spinoff), is going to be compared to its predecessors.
 
DarkCorp said:
Van Buren could have accomplished the same had Ineptplay used their brains. Troika had attempted to claim the Fallout IP but was outbid by Bethesda. Had things gone differently, Troika, could have done the same. Again, this is not something credit worthy regardless of who had the IP.

I am one of those who put graphics BEFORE story, scripting/dialogue, etc. Pretty much all of things that are essential to your suspension of disbelief. Fallout was all about dialogue, story, interaction with people. Every town was affected by the player characers actions with a corresponding ending.

Any Fallout that claims itself a sequel (as opposed to a spinoff), is going to be compared to its predecessors.
Click to expand...

Dude,i actually download the tech demo of Van Buren, and as it is, its awful, i mean thats obvious its an unfinished game, but even so, playing it for 10-20 minutes you can see it had huge potential, but as it is,it was never finished,Black Isles didnt finish the game, and Bethesda bought the rights no point in discussing what would have happened ;)
 
mor said:
this is why i more excited about the newer titles like mafia2 or red dead redemption, which from the looks of it created an immersive world and gameplay, now all is left is read some reviews to see if the story checks up.
i just hope that this technology will become cheaper and widely available for smaller developers soon.
rant...
Click to expand...

Personally, I wouldn't trust reviewers as far as I could through them, though I would recommend RDR for a pr. immersive game. There are some stupid things in it, some cheesy things, the ending is a goddamned cockslap, but you'll be feeling on your leg for your revolver before long.

SerbianWarrior said:
Lets not even get into the DLC scam. Having to pay for a game again... jezz.. Why not make the game proper the first time? Have all those great ideas right from the start?

Because its not profitable.... hehehe.. The current game market is a scam to sucker you into paying them till the gum looses flavor till they ship out a new improved batch... Not about quality games. Not about fixing there game ether. Its about money.
Click to expand...

Yeah but the cost of making games,up to standards at leas, is increasing, because of the graphics obviously, me, i dont care about graphics, look at fallout 2, 12 years after realese and people are still playing, its called the test of time, and fallout certainly endures it!
Click to expand...

I really don't get all this DLC hate. If highspeed internet was available back in 1997 as it is today, you bet your ass Interplay would've used it if somebody had thought of it. If a developer intentionally leaves things out of the game to be released as DLC, that's pretty dirty. If not, they can add stuff on based on fan likes/dislikes. DLC allows the developer to make more money, yes, but they are in a business, and they also get to add things to the game.

Think about it. If games with DLC didn't ship until all the DLC was made, they'd still be in development, with the developers thinking up new shit to put into the game, and they'd be bankrupt before you know it. Christ, people were cool with expansion packs, and that's all DLC is. Just smaller, and less money. And more money for the developer, since they don't need the publisher to print out discs, boxes, manuals, package it together and ship it. It lets them keep interest in their game, even after the original parts of it have been picked clean.
 
what would have happen if it wasn't bethesda but BIOWARE who had obtain the IP of fallout ???
 
:lol: continuum
more seriously, bioware knows how to make good rpg, with non-politically-correct contents though. I pretty like fallout 3 (!) even if it's not a good fallout, I think it's a good game. But i think it would have been a lot better dev by bioware.
 
CapNot said:
what would have happen if it wasn't bethesda but BIOWARE who had obtain the IP of fallout ???
Click to expand...

I don't really want to think about it...


CapNot said:
more seriously, bioware knows how to make good rpg
Click to expand...

Hmmm, I am not so sure of that... Even if they knew at some point (which is at least debatable) they don't now.
 
o.k pelicano.
Give me the title of a good rpg (not jap one, and not fallout of course...) and a good dev studio so i could learn from you, cause I thought I knew my subject but it seems I were wrong ....
 
I'm just saying Bioware hardly would deliver a proper fallout. An overall better rpg than Bethesda? Probably, Bethesda just suck balls at that. But a "better" fallout game? As Continuum has hinted, Bioware would have delivered a Mass Effect clone with PA settings. Just like Bethesda an Oblivion clone.

Honestly, I think Troika would have been THE developer for more fallout awesomeness. But shit happens.
 
It was what I wanted to say, FO3 would have been better dev by bioware than bethesda. It surely won't have been THE FO3 we've all waited for of course (interplay does still exist but it's dead anyway), but it would have been better. It's my personnal opinion.
 
That most likely would be the case, at least less retarded juvenile humor.
But it would still turn out to be some 'epic tale of massive proportions' in which the hero is constantly reminded that only he or she can save the world.

Sure, the Vault Dweller, Chosen One, and the Warrior (Fallout Tactics) were also sort of bigger than life heroes, but I felt more that these were more random men/women who found themselves in the position of saving the world from some threat, not necessarily having intentions from the start to do so.

I don't have the feeling that Bioware does subtle very well.
 
Fallout 1, maybe, but not Fallout 2 since you're the CHOSEN ONE. Bioware would've probably allowed Epic Crazy Shit, though, by actually having the people of the wastes start rebuilding civilization and shit.

I would like to see a Fallout game made by Bioware. It could be really pr. good.
 
Still DirkGently, outside Arroyo nobody would care that you are the 'Chosen One'.
Trying to convince others might as well get as much attention as calling yourself "King Pickles, monarch of the wasteland, master of all you survey."
 
Yes, and that's made fun of in the game. Except, even if they don't know it or believe you, you're still the chosen one. Arroyo believes, you ( in theory) believe it.

Look at Dragon Age: Origins. After you've played a couple of origin stories, you realise that you're really just the right guy at the right time, like John McClaine. Your origin story is Nakatomi tower, the terrorists are whatever the hell crazy shit happened to you, and Duncan/the grey wardens are McClaine's quick thinking and quicker reflexes. Mass Effect one was like that, to an extent.
 
Okay, that is true.
Still I feel that Bioware would go way overboard with it, at some point the player commanding or at least influencing massive armies or something similar.

I sort of liked how in the end sneaking into the enemy's compound or headquarter as a thief is still the most effective method, rather than leading some super strike force.
 
Well it all depends on the story, doesn't it? DAO's story has been leading up to a huge, epic battle, and it'd be disappointing if it didn't since you spent the whole game building an army.

ME's story requires you be sneaky, since Shepard, for the most part, has always been like a scalpel.

Fallout by Bioware on the other hand, should let you do both, join the bad guys, and do all sorts of other shit. Bioware's becoming pretty good with choice lately.
 
the unfortunate thing about concentrating on quality instead of profits is that it doesn't always pay out.

generally, high profit games are either trendy or are part of a solid franchise.

Fallout has neither. the setting was a post apocalyptic future while most RPGs have been fantasy-style. i guess we can thank D&D for that...

also, the only real predecessor is Wasteland, an ancient relic from the era of the Apple II and the Commodore 64. i don't think most gamers in the late 90's even knew that game existed.

don't get me wrong, i really like the game. i played it many times and i'm even trying my hand at modding the game now that the tools for it are available and user-friendly. however, it doesn't have the solid base to be a high profit franchise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top