It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
Navagon: I'm quite fond of Obsidian but I've never understood the crazy fanboyism they attract (like in this thread).

For every outstanding game they've made, they've made an almost equal number of grossly inferior offerings that were simply dull, broken and not worth the time.

Given that Pillars of Eternity was one of those outstanding titles, I am a little bit cautious about what to expect from ANY game they make next.

That said, given that Mass Effect is effectively an unlicensed KOTOR, they'd probably do something a lot like KOTOR 2 (which was one of those dull, broken offerings). I'd not hold out any great hope for it. But at least Bioware have already broken the Mass Effect universe. So Obsidian can't be blamed for that at least.
But I am enjoying KOTOR 2 so far..mostly for the story and characters.

Gameplay wise Jedi's are OP.
avatar
Navagon: That said, given that Mass Effect is effectively an unlicensed KOTOR, they'd probably do something a lot like KOTOR 2 (which was one of those dull, broken offerings). I'd not hold out any great hope for it. But at least Bioware have already broken the Mass Effect universe. So Obsidian can't be blamed for that at least.
KOTOR 2 (which was rushed out by LucasArts) is easily one of their best games though along with Fallout: NV. I like them both more than Pillars of Eternity which I felt had too many fetch quests. I found KOTOR 2 to be much better than KOTOR in terms of story, characters and writing.
avatar
cw8: KOTOR 2 (which was rushed out by LucasArts) is easily one of their best games though along with Fallout: NV. I like them both more than Pillars of Eternity which I felt had too many fetch quests. I found KOTOR 2 to be much better than KOTOR in terms of story, characters and writing.
You hated the quests in Pillars, but loved the ones in KOTOR2? Whoa, okay. Let's just agree to disagree and move on quickly.
avatar
Elmofongo: But I am enjoying KOTOR 2 so far..mostly for the story and characters.

Gameplay wise Jedi's are OP.
I enjoyed KOTOR 2 initially and invested a good number of hours in it. That's why when it threw me into the mire I didn't merely dislike it but pretty much detested it. I really liked KOTOR and KOTOR 2 suggested the possibility of being something more. But when it falls apart... damn...
avatar
darthspudius: and here I was thinking I was alone in this.
There are a hell of a lot of people out there aware of Obsidian's less than perfect past. KOTOR 2 is often slammed for its incompleteness. You just won't see a lot of those comments here,
Post edited August 02, 2015 by Navagon
avatar
cw8: KOTOR 2 (which was rushed out by LucasArts) is easily one of their best games though along with Fallout: NV. I like them both more than Pillars of Eternity which I felt had too many fetch quests. I found KOTOR 2 to be much better than KOTOR in terms of story, characters and writing.
avatar
Navagon: You hated the quests in Pillars, but loved the ones in KOTOR2? Whoa, okay. Let's just agree to disagree and move on quickly.
Loved is too strong a word, but I definitely liked KOTOR 2 better than POE, the main story and Kreia's personality clicked more with me than whatever POE had. Though you can say I loved some of the sidequests in Fallout: NV like Beyond the Beef and Vault 11. There are a good number of pointless uninspiring fetch quests in Pillars with no C&C especially in its big central city hub, Defiance Bay and that persists till the later parts of the game. It's like they poured all their soul into Fallout: NV and ran out of that juice for POE.
Post edited August 02, 2015 by cw8
avatar
cw8: KOTOR 2 (which was rushed out by LucasArts) is easily one of their best games though along with Fallout: NV. I like them both more than Pillars of Eternity which I felt had too many fetch quests. I found KOTOR 2 to be much better than KOTOR in terms of story, characters and writing.
avatar
Navagon: You hated the quests in Pillars, but loved the ones in KOTOR2? Whoa, okay. Let's just agree to disagree and move on quickly.
avatar
Elmofongo: But I am enjoying KOTOR 2 so far..mostly for the story and characters.

Gameplay wise Jedi's are OP.
avatar
Navagon: I enjoyed KOTOR 2 initially and invested a good number of hours in it. That's why when it threw me into the mire I didn't merely dislike it but pretty much detested it. I really liked KOTOR and KOTOR 2 suggested the possibility of being something more. But when it falls apart... damn...
avatar
darthspudius: and here I was thinking I was alone in this.
avatar
Navagon: There are a hell of a lot of people out there aware of Obsidian's less than perfect past. KOTOR 2 is often slammed for its incompleteness. You just won't see a lot of those comments here,
I remember KOTOR 2 on release. It was far from the grand game it apparently is now. Amazing what a little hype can do over the years.
avatar
Navagon: You hated the quests in Pillars, but loved the ones in KOTOR2? Whoa, okay. Let's just agree to disagree and move on quickly.

I enjoyed KOTOR 2 initially and invested a good number of hours in it. That's why when it threw me into the mire I didn't merely dislike it but pretty much detested it. I really liked KOTOR and KOTOR 2 suggested the possibility of being something more. But when it falls apart... damn...

There are a hell of a lot of people out there aware of Obsidian's less than perfect past. KOTOR 2 is often slammed for its incompleteness. You just won't see a lot of those comments here,
avatar
darthspudius: I remember KOTOR 2 on release. It was far from the grand game it apparently is now. Amazing what a little hype can do over the years.
I played it on release. Still better then anything Bioware has to offer:P
avatar
Navagon: I'm quite fond of Obsidian but I've never understood the crazy fanboyism they attract (like in this thread).

For every outstanding game they've made, they've made an almost equal number of grossly inferior offerings that were simply dull, broken and not worth the time.

Given that Pillars of Eternity was one of those outstanding titles, I am a little bit cautious about what to expect from ANY game they make next.

That said, given that Mass Effect is effectively an unlicensed KOTOR, they'd probably do something a lot like KOTOR 2 (which was one of those dull, broken offerings). I'd not hold out any great hope for it. But at least Bioware have already broken the Mass Effect universe. So Obsidian can't be blamed for that at least.
Honestly? Because most of the people who criticize Obsidian's lack of QA standards tend to turn a very blind eye to other companies who have long had the exact same issues, like Bethesda, or Ubisoft, etc, when many of those companies, LIKE Bethesda have had a just as long history with releasing bug riddled "final products."

The major difference imo, is that Obsidian is generally stuck according to contract guidelines with publishers, due to their independent status, while companies like Ubisoft and Bethesda can put as much time into their products as they'd like to, but they still choose to put out games in unfinished states at release. So people tend to view it as a subject of hypocrisy when people single out Obsidian for it.

I don't think anyone realistically believes Obsidian doesn't have a problem with getting overambitious, then running out of time on their deadlines, which leaves literally no time for proper Q&A. When Ubisoft gave them the time they needed for South Park, customers got a very well polished and bug free game, but I don't entirely blame publishers for some of Obsidian's problems, because it IS solely on them for signing those contracts and being forced to adhere to them.

Their fans tend to react to people with legit criticisms the same as people without them, because for every blind Obsidian fanboy, there tends to be a hater whose only criticism is "I HAET THEM AND THEY ARE SUX."

I also tend to think that there tends to be this sort of expectation now that games shouldn't take that long to make and shove it out, which is why we have so many problems of late. Arkham Origins and Arkham Knight, both buggy at launch, AssCreed Unity, glitched to heck and back, Skyrim at launch, and a whole host of other games. People keep expecting massive grandiose games to be put out in a year, and with the massive teams that that requires, there's no way in hell you can expect a yearly release schedule to NOT have quality issues.

Then take Obsidian, who isn't a massive company, and has to make do within the timeframes given to them, often on unrealistic deadlines, (I quote the case of New Vegas especially, because Bethesda gave them a shitty Gamebryo engine, a limited timeframe, then told them they had to hit 8s to be able to lay hands on the Fallout IP again.) Now, in that case, in Obsidian's shoes, you have a shot to be able to work more on the same property that a lot of the people employed at Obsidian created and loved, or you could tell Bethesda that you're sorry, that's not enough time to get a realistic project out and watch some other cheap studio without any love or respect for the brand shit out a monstrosity, while never getting the opportunity to make Fallout content again. What would you do?

I realize I'm sounding like an apologist and that's not my intent, I'm just trying to explain why I tend give Obsidian more of a pass than other companies. They've given me games I love and had a hand in other companies that created more games that I love, (Arcanum, V:tM) and created games that while glitchy, still have a unique identity that is, in my opinion, still good. None of them are perfect, but they're flawed gems, due to edited or cut content and performance issues.
avatar
darthspudius: I remember KOTOR 2 on release. It was far from the grand game it apparently is now. Amazing what a little hype can do over the years.
avatar
Mr.Caine: I played it on release. Still better then anything Bioware has to offer:P
I don't know. The game itself was fine but the pacing was borked. I still think Mass Effect trumps it (and most bioware) games.
avatar
Mr.Caine: I played it on release. Still better then anything Bioware has to offer:P
avatar
darthspudius: I don't know. The game itself was fine but the pacing was borked. I still think Mass Effect trumps it (and most bioware) games.
Bioware recent games normally have you play some sort of Jesus character. Space Jesus in Mass Effect, Fantasy Jesus in Dragon Age, the standard black and white morality. I prefer tones of greys, something The Witcher 3 has in spades and some Obsidian games.
avatar
darthspudius: I don't know. The game itself was fine but the pacing was borked. I still think Mass Effect trumps it (and most bioware) games.
avatar
cw8: Bioware recent games normally have you play some sort of Jesus character. Space Jesus in Mass Effect, Fantasy Jesus in Dragon Age, the standard black and white morality. I prefer tones of greys, something The Witcher 3 has in spades and some Obsidian games.
Mass Effect 2/3 yeah I agree but Shep was just an average grunt who got lucky in the first game.
avatar
OneFiercePuppy: They already made a Mass Effect game. It's called Alpha Protocol, and like pretty much all their games, it was buggy on release, has been mostly fixed, and generally gets either very good reviews, or very bad ones. Not a lot of middle ground.

But, seriously, they obviously wouldn't make a ME or DA game since those IPs are wound up tight. Be glad for PoE, which is a good game, and KOTOR 2, and NWN2, and FO3-2 (New Vegas, you know what I mean).
avatar
Elmofongo: So Alpha Protocal. Is it good?

I am well aware that the game was very buggy at release. Any patches that completely fixed the game?
The last three games published and developed by Obsidian have been bug free and work great out of the box, Dungeon Siege III (bad game, but not buggy), Stick of Truth (no bugs there) and PoE (perhaps balance issues to start with but not buggy) so it is safe to ignore the haters, Obsidian actually makes very solid releases now. Also the reputation was somewhat exaggerated, for example New Vegas was no more buggy than Fallout 3 on release and today New Vegas is way *way* less buggy than Fallout 3 (which will just freeze automagically on a multicore CPU system)

Alpha Protocol was... memorable. It's more Austin Powers than Jason Bourne, but it's there in between somewhere still. The first mission is so generic and boring, but then... you start to realize where this is going and it is a fun ride. Really recommend Alpha Protocol, if only because it is so odd.

I was not aware of any bugs on my two playthroughs of Alpha Protocol (updated to v. 1.1 which also removes any DRM)
Considering I didn't like Mass Effect 2 and 3, and have never been interested in the Dragon Age saga...they can only be better as far as I'm concerned.
avatar
LiquidOxygen80: Honestly? Because most of the people who criticize Obsidian's lack of QA standards tend to turn a very blind eye to other companies who have long had the exact same issues, like Bethesda, or Ubisoft, etc, when many of those companies, LIKE Bethesda have had a just as long history with releasing bug riddled "final products."

The major difference imo, is that Obsidian is generally stuck according to contract guidelines with publishers, due to their independent status, while companies like Ubisoft and Bethesda can put as much time into their products as they'd like to, but they still choose to put out games in unfinished states at release. So people tend to view it as a subject of hypocrisy when people single out Obsidian for it.

I don't think anyone realistically believes Obsidian doesn't have a problem with getting overambitious, then running out of time on their deadlines, which leaves literally no time for proper Q&A. When Ubisoft gave them the time they needed for South Park, customers got a very well polished and bug free game, but I don't entirely blame publishers for some of Obsidian's problems, because it IS solely on them for signing those contracts and being forced to adhere to them.

Their fans tend to react to people with legit criticisms the same as people without them, because for every blind Obsidian fanboy, there tends to be a hater whose only criticism is "I HAET THEM AND THEY ARE SUX."

I also tend to think that there tends to be this sort of expectation now that games shouldn't take that long to make and shove it out, which is why we have so many problems of late. Arkham Origins and Arkham Knight, both buggy at launch, AssCreed Unity, glitched to heck and back, Skyrim at launch, and a whole host of other games. People keep expecting massive grandiose games to be put out in a year, and with the massive teams that that requires, there's no way in hell you can expect a yearly release schedule to NOT have quality issues.

Then take Obsidian, who isn't a massive company, and has to make do within the timeframes given to them, often on unrealistic deadlines, (I quote the case of New Vegas especially, because Bethesda gave them a shitty Gamebryo engine, a limited timeframe, then told them they had to hit 8s to be able to lay hands on the Fallout IP again.) Now, in that case, in Obsidian's shoes, you have a shot to be able to work more on the same property that a lot of the people employed at Obsidian created and loved, or you could tell Bethesda that you're sorry, that's not enough time to get a realistic project out and watch some other cheap studio without any love or respect for the brand shit out a monstrosity, while never getting the opportunity to make Fallout content again. What would you do?

I realize I'm sounding like an apologist and that's not my intent, I'm just trying to explain why I tend give Obsidian more of a pass than other companies. They've given me games I love and had a hand in other companies that created more games that I love, (Arcanum, V:tM) and created games that while glitchy, still have a unique identity that is, in my opinion, still good. None of them are perfect, but they're flawed gems, due to edited or cut content and performance issues.
I would agree with the argument that Obsidian had little choice with KOTOR2. LA pulled the plug on them before their set deadline. Which no matter which way you look at it is wrong. It's just that the way I'm looking at it is that while they should have pulled the plug, they should not then have released the game.

I understand that Obsidian may have had issues with the Star Wars universe, but they outright broke it to make something more to their liking. There's also the fact that much of it is very poorly written by anyone's standards. Never mind Obsidian's.

But other than that the argument that Obsidian are overambitious is fair. They have a remit, a deadline and a budget and about the only time they actually respected any of that was with the damn Kickstarter.

I know a lot of people have problems with Bethesda here, but one argument you can't make against them is that they don't give games the time they need. Sure there are some bugs. But the games are massive and complex and any reasonable person should consider that inevitable and almost unavoidable.

If you want to criticise them for their Steam adherence and removing the Fallout games from GOG them go ahead, but saying they don't give games the time they need when they're one of the few publishers out there that are willing to give their games as much time as possible is blinkered hate and just plain wrong in entirely quantifiable ways.

I am also glad Obsidian exist. Someone needs to be out there taking the wild chances. But you have, HAVE to acknowledge that not all those chances pan out. Quite often this is because they dramatically overreach. Therefore most of their failures have been self inflicted. But I'd still rather they keep taking chances because when it does work out for them it can be spectacular.
Post edited August 04, 2015 by Navagon
avatar
LiquidOxygen80: Honestly? Because most of the people who criticize Obsidian's lack of QA standards tend to turn a very blind eye to other companies who have long had the exact same issues, like Bethesda, or Ubisoft, etc, when many of those companies, LIKE Bethesda have had a just as long history with releasing bug riddled "final products."

The major difference imo, is that Obsidian is generally stuck according to contract guidelines with publishers, due to their independent status, while companies like Ubisoft and Bethesda can put as much time into their products as they'd like to, but they still choose to put out games in unfinished states at release. So people tend to view it as a subject of hypocrisy when people single out Obsidian for it.

I don't think anyone realistically believes Obsidian doesn't have a problem with getting overambitious, then running out of time on their deadlines, which leaves literally no time for proper Q&A. When Ubisoft gave them the time they needed for South Park, customers got a very well polished and bug free game, but I don't entirely blame publishers for some of Obsidian's problems, because it IS solely on them for signing those contracts and being forced to adhere to them.

Their fans tend to react to people with legit criticisms the same as people without them, because for every blind Obsidian fanboy, there tends to be a hater whose only criticism is "I HAET THEM AND THEY ARE SUX."

I also tend to think that there tends to be this sort of expectation now that games shouldn't take that long to make and shove it out, which is why we have so many problems of late. Arkham Origins and Arkham Knight, both buggy at launch, AssCreed Unity, glitched to heck and back, Skyrim at launch, and a whole host of other games. People keep expecting massive grandiose games to be put out in a year, and with the massive teams that that requires, there's no way in hell you can expect a yearly release schedule to NOT have quality issues.

Then take Obsidian, who isn't a massive company, and has to make do within the timeframes given to them, often on unrealistic deadlines, (I quote the case of New Vegas especially, because Bethesda gave them a shitty Gamebryo engine, a limited timeframe, then told them they had to hit 8s to be able to lay hands on the Fallout IP again.) Now, in that case, in Obsidian's shoes, you have a shot to be able to work more on the same property that a lot of the people employed at Obsidian created and loved, or you could tell Bethesda that you're sorry, that's not enough time to get a realistic project out and watch some other cheap studio without any love or respect for the brand shit out a monstrosity, while never getting the opportunity to make Fallout content again. What would you do?

I realize I'm sounding like an apologist and that's not my intent, I'm just trying to explain why I tend give Obsidian more of a pass than other companies. They've given me games I love and had a hand in other companies that created more games that I love, (Arcanum, V:tM) and created games that while glitchy, still have a unique identity that is, in my opinion, still good. None of them are perfect, but they're flawed gems, due to edited or cut content and performance issues.
avatar
Navagon: I would agree with the argument that Obsidian had little choice with KOTOR2. LA pulled the plug on them before their set deadline. Which no matter which way you look at it is wrong. It's just that the way I'm looking at it is that while they should have pulled the plug, they should not then have released the game.

I understand that Obsidian may have had issues with the Star Wars universe, but they outright broke it to make something more to their liking. There's also the fact that much of it is very poorly written by anyone's standards. Never mind Obsidian's.

But other than that the argument that Obsidian are overambitious is fair. They have a remit, a deadline and a budget and about the only time they actually respected any of that was with the damn Kickstarter.

I know a lot of people have problems with Bethesda here, but one argument you can't make against them is that they don't give games the time they need. Sure there are some bugs. But the games are massive and complex and any reasonable person should consider that inevitable and almost unavoidable.

If you want to criticise them for their Steam adherence and removing the Fallout games from GOG them go ahead, but saying they don't give games the time they need when they're one of the few publishers out there that are willing to give their games as much time as possible is blinkered hate and just plain wrong in entirely quantifiable ways.

I am also glad Obsidian exist. Someone needs to be out there taking the wild chances. But you have, HAVE to acknowledge that not all those chances pan out. Quite often this is because they dramatically overreach. Therefore most of their failures have been self inflicted. But I'd still rather they keep taking chances because when it does work out for them it can be spectacular.
I don't disagree that the last half of KotoR2 doesn't hold up to the first, aside from the mining facility, which, as a tutorial was both overly long and tended to end up being a bit boring and drawn out. How much of that is due to cut content to make a semi-coherent game to make that holiday release target that LA insisted on, I don't know. Heck, I don't even know if the guys who did the restoration mod know how much content or intended content and extended dialogues and full planets there were supposed to be.

That said, I have no problem with Obsidian's take on the Star Wars mythos, but what I found was plotholes in the writing, especially dealing with how the "big bads" were handled so easily and simply, or that Korriban felt so empty. But how much of that went to pot due to actually getting shut down by LA is hard to say. It is what it is, really. I wasn't overly fond of Kreia either, to be honest.

On the subject of Bethesda, I'm not a hater. They do, however, make a perfect counterpoint to Obsidian, as they're filled with just as many industry veterans and have been in business for just as long as Obsidian, and still continue to release buggy/glitchy products at release, ESPECIALLY in the case of Fallout 3, which STILL has issues to date, and has to be modded to not freeze up or crash. I used them to illustrate the point that there's plenty of companies out there as guilty as Obsidian for poor QA practices.

I understand how big the games Bethesda makes are, and how complex they are, but everyone remembers that every release they've had since Arena has had some kind of issues with them. Daggerfall, Terminator games, etc. I won't say that they're not good games, because that would be wrong and I own a lot of their catalogue and enjoy them. I just find it very disingenuous of people to ignore them when discussing companies that put out buggy products.

Lastly, if you got the gist of my first post, then you'd understand that a lot of what Obsidian does IS self-inflicted, but I also think they've been making a conscientious effort to improve in that regard, which can only be a good thing.
avatar
LiquidOxygen80: I don't disagree that the last half of KotoR2 doesn't hold up to the first, aside from the mining facility, which, as a tutorial was both overly long and tended to end up being a bit boring and drawn out. How much of that is due to cut content to make a semi-coherent game to make that holiday release target that LA insisted on, I don't know. Heck, I don't even know if the guys who did the restoration mod know how much content or intended content and extended dialogues and full planets there were supposed to be.

That said, I have no problem with Obsidian's take on the Star Wars mythos, but what I found was plotholes in the writing, especially dealing with how the "big bads" were handled so easily and simply, or that Korriban felt so empty. But how much of that went to pot due to actually getting shut down by LA is hard to say. It is what it is, really. I wasn't overly fond of Kreia either, to be honest.

On the subject of Bethesda, I'm not a hater. They do, however, make a perfect counterpoint to Obsidian, as they're filled with just as many industry veterans and have been in business for just as long as Obsidian, and still continue to release buggy/glitchy products at release, ESPECIALLY in the case of Fallout 3, which STILL has issues to date, and has to be modded to not freeze up or crash. I used them to illustrate the point that there's plenty of companies out there as guilty as Obsidian for poor QA practices.

I understand how big the games Bethesda makes are, and how complex they are, but everyone remembers that every release they've had since Arena has had some kind of issues with them. Daggerfall, Terminator games, etc. I won't say that they're not good games, because that would be wrong and I own a lot of their catalogue and enjoy them. I just find it very disingenuous of people to ignore them when discussing companies that put out buggy products.

Lastly, if you got the gist of my first post, then you'd understand that a lot of what Obsidian does IS self-inflicted, but I also think they've been making a conscientious effort to improve in that regard, which can only be a good thing.
Given that you have multiple options right from the start, KOTOR 2 can either hold together quite well, or deteriorate very quickly. I think I may have hit a wall that I didn't have to hit had I made other choices, but nonetheless, having seen what I did there was no compulsion whatsoever to replay and follow a different path.

I don't know how much got cut either. But I know at least one whole planet didn't make it. Plus a lot of stuff on the planets that did. I'm just not convinced Obsidian could have turned it around if they had more time. I could have overlooked their contempt for the universe (it's not like I don't pick major flaws with Star Wars) but they just didn't justify what they were doing in what they have done.

Bethesda's games are never perfect. That's not a point that anyone would ever contest. But they've never released something that was intrinsically broken or fundamentally incomplete. The same can't be said of Obsidian, even if you overlook KOTOR2 as not being their fault. I was always able to play their games on release, even if they needed serious patching to increase stability.

And yes, we're agreed. Obsidian have been really stepping up lately. Fallout New Vegas (and its brilliant DLC) really seemed to revitalise them. It's a shame that they were stuck with a janky engine and Xbox limitations, but the game still shone.