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.


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.

Barely serviceable? What? So you want brand new EVERYTHING and absolute polish? Okay.


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.


Why yes, Bioware and Bethesda are up and coming studios. No.


Reusing is not inherently bad.


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).

I love, how you jump on "fan patches" instead of "masterpiece".

I am looking forward to seeing what they can do with this project. The addition of Obsidian is making me tempted to make a pledge. :)

What? You haven't pledged yet! "Release the hounds!"

Thank you for the replies to me post (too many to comment on individually). My point is not that Obsidian is a bad company but simply that I got slightly annoyed when people "attacked" TormentFan for daring to question Obsidian's greatness. As the debate in this thread shows then the gaming community is divided about Obs. games and if they are great or not or if the bugs are due to publisher's bullying or their own incompetence.

I simply take objection to how we debate in the gaming community and why it always need to be this polarizing thing as in black & white rather than shades of Grey. Obs. have many great ideas but the execution often lacks far behind and sadly execution is important as-well. I also agree with TormentFan that a company cannot continue to live of their former glory as another company (BI).

It's very easy for me to find many things to love in Obs. games like the dialog wheel in AP, Kreia in KOTOR 2, story in an action-RPG in DS3, dark setting in MotB and better writing in NV. But it's also easy to find many things to hate in Obs. games. I'm not gonna say they balance each other out but I sometimes think we gamers cut companies like Obs. too much slack based on "potential" of a game. In the end it should be the final product that matters and not what COULD have been. Don't get me wrong, I also love innovation and trying new things in games but then we must be honest and say when it doesn't work.

I know this is the Internet but can we please debate this in a calm and civil manner?

I don't care whether OE is in on it or not. Incidentally, I love OE's games, but I'm mostly excited because of the open window that allows Tim Cain and MCA to get aboard.

FTR New Vegas was a lovely game, but it was far from perfect. Many areas were written and/or designed by amateurs e.g. The Thorn, Vault 21, Camp Searchlight. Keep these people out of Wasteland 2; just get the professionals aboard.

i had absolutely no problems with NWN2 when i played it right when it came out. loved it since it was much closer to Baldur's Gate than Neverwinter Nights 1 was.

why don't you get off your high horse for 2.5 seconds? so their games tend to be faulty in some regards. big deal. does that make them entirely unenjoyable? are you seriously going to tell me that F: NV cannot be enjoyed? then why do most of their games have a sizable cult following, including what's generally considered their worst game, Alpha Protocol?

lighten up, Francis.

don't worry about it. you've just made the best post this thread is likely going to see.

Reckon they accept kidneys as currency?

The problem is that a lot of people like to OP assume that their opinions naturally trump others, or that their opinions should be taken as absolute fact and Gospel. Obsidian's had their problems, but they've arguably turned out some very good games; yet people are already writing off Wasteland 2 just by the fact that Obsidian is going to be involved in a tangential way. They're emotionally committed to unquestionably hating Obsidian, and unquestionably hating this game, and God forbid that they might be wrong or that they might have to change their position on things.

Cmon, Obsidian is one of the few big companies that isn't afraid to try something new.

I think many people here play there games "wrong".Maybe it's the "consoles generation mentality" that every game has to be perfect on release. But if you have been a gamer in the time before the internet, where you had to wait until a gaming mag finally had that patch you wanted, you are a lot more forgiving. Publishers pick release dates and devs have to work around them.

When I play a game, I want to be immersed, I want an experience. I'm not going to nitpick about every little detail. Even if I have to do a workaround to get a game going, even if I spent an hour on the internet to get a game running, I don't care as long as the narrative, the story, the feel of the game gets me. And Obsidian houses, ever since Fallout and PS:T some of the best game designers in the business (at least for my tastes).

I play my games to enjoy them, not to get picky. I've played through both Fallouts unpatched when they were released. Was it buggy? Definitely. Was it sometimes tedious? Undoubtly. But was it one of my greatest gaming experiences? Hell, yeah!

So, in the end. Wasteland 2 can be the same buggy mess that Fallout 2 was. Did it make Fallout 2 any less of the great game it is? My advise would be to just "let go". Let the game take you away and enjoy the ride.

Bringing experienced people from Obsidian on for design and writing purposes is probably a good move.

Before you criticize, do you know how many employees inXile has? They'll have to hire external contractors to do some of the legwork anyway. Why not hire they guys who have made some of the best RPG storylines in recent years?

They're absolutely right to do this, and I'll consider raising my pledge from 150 to 300 if it looks like it's going to hit $2.1M.

I actually withdrew my pledge the other day, realising I'm not that interested in Wasteland (it was a bit too much before my time). But after this? Of course I'm back.

I don't understand the Obsidian hate in this thread. Of course they are not perfect, but when it comes to interactive storytelling no one, absolutely no one else in the industry pushes the envelope as much as they do. And for me, interactive storytelling is what makes videogames such a fascinating medium.

I have to admit that in this case I don't really care one way or another, supporting Wasteland was always going to be a "dangerous" bet unlike the Double Fine game.

I mean an adventure game is something relatively easy to do "bug free" without that much effort, those kind of games are by definition very linear with the only a basic inventory to manage.

But on the other side something like Wasteland, an RPG with a much bigger world, stats, quests, there is so much thing that can go wrong that it there is little doubt that it will one way or another.


Concerning Obsidian, I am always surprised that so many peoples nowadays consider them as the second coming; I remember not so long ago when they were considered as being the poor man's Bioware, the "Bioware-lite" that worked on games/sequel that the real Bioware didn't care about.

Like Bioware they did some good things (I actually did like Alpha Protocol despite being ridden with flaws), some bad (DS3) and some average (NW2) so having them on the project can be either a good and a bad thing.