Writing a new story to overlap a fully exported engine, complete with character models, rendered objects, etc, hardly qualifies as developing a game.
And Obsidian proved me right when they decided to stand on their own two feet...Alpha Protocol. A royal mess. Even there, they tried to use a Bioware-ish engine.
So, the only games that can be made are ones that reinvent the wheel. No such thing as learning and reusing things to speed up developement AND focus in other things. Yeah. Okay. Then by that logic only games that get a brand new engine and assets for them count as new games. That is insane, but okay. Personally on RPGs I prefer them to have original content, writing and areas than a brand spankin' engine and models and assets on each one.
By the way, no, you are wrong on that one. Bioware AND Obsidian both used the latest Unreal engine for Mass Effect and Alpha Protocol. If you wanted to accuse Obsidian of using a Bioware-ish engines you could've just mentioned both KOTOR2 AND NWN2, since those did use Bioware-developed engines.
They are scabs. They will come in at the behest of a greedy publisher that would rather outsource to them than pay the developer of the original hit what they deserve.
And yet the games they were "outsourced for" tend to have higher ambitions, better writing, and better world building than the previous ones. If so that is DAMN good outsourcing.
Obsidian are the equivalent of Asian call centers. Outsourced, barely serviceable labor for pennies on the dollar.
And the fact that you so-called game lovers keep supporting this kind of bullshit is fucking disgraceful.
Barely serviceable? What? So you want brand new EVERYTHING and absolute polish? Okay.
Gaming is about individual experiences, not franchises. Obsidian gets to exist because people are so fucking branded this generation.
But of course, some of the non-creative individuals from your beloved Black Isle work there now, so they *must* be great, and I must be full of shit. Yeah, that's it.
And why can't one have "individual experiences" in those franchises? Because in the Obsidian sequels that is what they do. They find explore the narrative possibilities of the settings, or build on what they had done before (in the case of New Vega(
Non-creative? Haha, no. When the team had the main writers/designers of Fallout 2 and 3, as well as being very well regarded, Obsidian is made of the remnants of Black Isle and Troika, if there is any company that cannot be said to be "uncreative", it is those.
1) Find publisher who managed to fluke into a mega hit game developed by an up and coming studio that has spread its wings and gone elsewhere.
Why yes, Bioware and Bethesda are up and coming studios. No.
2) Have publisher send over their proprietary original game code and the full engine.
3) Reuse most previously rendered objects/environments. Fans of the original hit will feel a sense of "Familiarity".
Reusing is not inherently bad.
4) Work for less since most of the work has been done by the departed actual developer. Publisher's margin skyrockets as costs are miniscule, MSRP is the same.
5) Branded fans don't have a clue = Profit.
That would be the case if Obsidian either worked fast or were sloppy in the design of their titles. If anything they are more expensive due to the scope of what they plan, which they can do in the sequel cases because they are NOT developing everything from scratch. Using existing tools is smart. Reusing assets and materials to reduce dev time to focus on CONTENT is smart. Not everyone is expected to reinvent the wheel every time. And even then, they CAN. They made a new engine for Dungeon Siege 3 (have not played, cannot comment) and they did not use another game's engine for AP (or at least not a adapation of the unreal engine done for another title).