Is Obsidian moaning or what?

  • 54 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by Marcelloz (118 posts) -
#2 Edited by ryanwho (12082 posts) -

It is pretty easy, especially when Bethesda's Fallout game had a lot of the same bugs because the engine is shitty. And because most of the betatesters were Bethesda's. So its easy and kind of accurate.

#3 Posted by ArbitraryWater (11626 posts) -

Considering that every single game they have released has been janked and buggy in some form or another, I don't think that's true. At all.

#4 Posted by keyhunter (3207 posts) -

That's a totally reasonable to me.

#5 Posted by EvilNiGHTS (1093 posts) -

While yes, I think Obsidian's QA usually leaves a lot to be desired, there's a reason Bethesda are using a new engine for the next Elder Scrolls game. 

#6 Posted by ryanwho (12082 posts) -
@ArbitraryWater said:
" Considering that every single game they have released has been janked and buggy in some form or another, I don't think that's true. At all. "
You talking about Obsidian or Bethesda?
#7 Edited by ArbitraryWater (11626 posts) -
@ryanwho: Both. So it's both their faults. Bethesda for having made a janky engine, and Obsidian for being unable to do QA on a game in any reasonable timeframe.
#8 Posted by Vinny_Says (5700 posts) -

Yeah and Alpha protocol was SEGA's fault.

#9 Posted by Hailinel (24409 posts) -

Bethesda is an easy target (hello, Daggerfall!), but for the people at Obsidian of all companies to be blaming bugs on anyone else is ridiculous.

#10 Posted by ThatFrood (3375 posts) -

Dude, that's shitty behaviour.

#11 Posted by ryanwho (12082 posts) -
@ArbitraryWater said:
" @ryanwho: Both. So it's both their faults. Bethesda for having made a janky engine, and Obsidian for being unable to do QA on a game in any reasonable timeframe. "
And that's fine. Thing is, and this is just for me personally, I had waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more issues with bugs in Fallout 3 than in FNV, and yet people are bitching about FNV way more. I kind of feel like Obsidian's getting too much shit for this.
#12 Posted by Underachiever007 (2468 posts) -

That is bad form, Obsidian.

#13 Posted by Hailinel (24409 posts) -
@blacklabeldomm said:
" Yeah and Alpha protocol was SEGA's fault. "
Not really.  Sega delayed the release on Alpha Protocol to give Obsidian more time to develop the game.  I hate to think of what state the game was in at the original launch date.
#14 Posted by Underachiever007 (2468 posts) -
@Hailinel said:
" @blacklabeldomm said:
" Yeah and Alpha protocol was SEGA's fault. "
Not really.  Sega delayed the release on Alpha Protocol to give Obsidian more time to develop the game.  I hate to think of what state the game was in at the original launch date. "
I think blacklabeldomm was being sarcastic there.
#15 Posted by Animasta (14673 posts) -
@Hailinel said:
" @blacklabeldomm said:
" Yeah and Alpha protocol was SEGA's fault. "
Not really.  Sega delayed the release on Alpha Protocol to give Obsidian more time to develop the game.  I hate to think of what state the game was in at the original launch date. "
they never got any extra development time in the last delay, actually. Well, realistically, they didn't get any extra development money.
#16 Posted by TheMustacheHero (6655 posts) -
@Hailinel said:
" @blacklabeldomm said:
" Yeah and Alpha protocol was SEGA's fault. "
Not really.  Sega delayed the release on Alpha Protocol to give Obsidian more time to develop the game.  I hate to think of what state the game was in at the original launch date. "
Sarcasm bro.
#17 Posted by SuperfluousMoniker (2907 posts) -

It's the publisher's job to find the bugs and the developer's job to fix them. I'm sure testers were still finding stuff in the game up to when it shipped. Then again, you could playtest a game forever and still find crap, especially a big open ended RPG. Eventually you have to say it's good enough for release.

#18 Posted by animateria (3252 posts) -
@Hailinel said:
" @blacklabeldomm said:
" Yeah and Alpha protocol was SEGA's fault. "
Not really.  Sega delayed the release on Alpha Protocol to give Obsidian more time to develop the game.  I hate to think of what state the game was in at the original launch date. "
I'm pretty sure blacklabeldomm's comment was sarcasm.
#19 Posted by Hailinel (24409 posts) -
@Underachiever007 said:
" @Hailinel said:
" @blacklabeldomm said:
" Yeah and Alpha protocol was SEGA's fault. "
Not really.  Sega delayed the release on Alpha Protocol to give Obsidian more time to develop the game.  I hate to think of what state the game was in at the original launch date. "
I think blacklabeldomm was being sarcastic there. "
@TheMustacheHero said:
" @Hailinel said:
" @blacklabeldomm said:
" Yeah and Alpha protocol was SEGA's fault. "
Not really.  Sega delayed the release on Alpha Protocol to give Obsidian more time to develop the game.  I hate to think of what state the game was in at the original launch date. "
Sarcasm bro. "
@animateria said:
" @Hailinel said:
" @blacklabeldomm said:
" Yeah and Alpha protocol was SEGA's fault. "
Not really.  Sega delayed the release on Alpha Protocol to give Obsidian more time to develop the game.  I hate to think of what state the game was in at the original launch date. "
I'm pretty sure blacklabeldomm's comment was sarcasm. "
Jesus Christ, people.  I get it!
#20 Posted by Carnin (40 posts) -
@ArbitraryWater:   Well all of their game they didnt build the engine so how could you fault them,
#21 Posted by Marcelloz (118 posts) -
@Hailinel said:
" @blacklabeldomm said:
" Yeah and Alpha protocol was SEGA's fault. "
Not really.  Sega delayed the release on Alpha Protocol to give Obsidian more time to develop the game.  I hate to think of what state the game was in at the original launch date. "
True, it always feels like they had too little time to deliver the quality needed for them to make a really classic game. It always is just ... not... there.
#22 Posted by JasonR86 (9657 posts) -

I don't think he was moaning but I don't think it's smart to belittle the engine of another company.  Things like this might keep Bethesda or Zenimax from looking Obsidian's way for future games.  It kind of makes them look a bit like whiners no matter how reasonable their logic is. 

#23 Posted by Soap (3577 posts) -
@ArbitraryWater said:
" Considering that every single game they have released has been janked and buggy in some form or another, I don't think that's true. At all. "
This, Obsidian has possibly the worst record for bugs I can think of. Alpha Protocol was a fucking disgrace, I found countless bugs and errors in that game almost immediately. 
Online
#24 Posted by Mystyr_E (1190 posts) -

I kind of call BS on that. I've put 150 hours into Fallout 3 (2 Xbox characters, one PS3) and I've had maybe 4 crashes. New Vegas on the other hand literally crashed 5 times in 2 hours and I wish I was kidding.
 
They can blame the engine all they want but they've worked on 4 engines so far (Odyssey, Electron, UE3 and Gamebryo) and they've still been buggy.

#25 Posted by BaneFireLord (2925 posts) -

Thank goodness Bethesda's working on a new engine for ESV. Then again, maybe that's not a good thing.

#26 Posted by Enigma777 (6071 posts) -
@marcelloz: Well... Bethesda has yet to deliver a bug free game either. Hell F3 was 10x more buggy than NV. Don't even get me started on TES...
#27 Posted by Mr_Skeleton (5143 posts) -

A lot of those bugs come from a 5 years old engine that was very buggy from the begining.

#28 Edited by PrivateIronTFU (3874 posts) -

I had as many, if not more, bugs in Fallout 3 as I did New Vegas. So I think it's pretty easy to blame Bethesda. They handle everything except for the actual making of the game. And even then, Obsidian was using Bethesda's engine.
 
Obsidian is just unlucky enough to have released Alpha Protocol in the state it was in beforehand.

#29 Posted by Chris2KLee (2334 posts) -

I'll cut them some slack since the Oblivion Engine has been buggy since day one. That said, by the time the last DLC for Fallout 3 rolled out, it was a much more stable game near the end. I have to imagine there were people that they could have talked to to make sure a lot of the Fallout 3 probs did not creep up on them in NV. As much as I really like that studio, they definitely have some problems on the QA end, as shown by EVERY release they have ever had. Dungeon Siege 3, built on their own tech I think, may or may not vindicate them.

#30 Posted by DrPockets000 (2859 posts) -

It's not cool to do that, but at the same time many of Obsidian's games are sequels, which entered development before bugs on the respective engines were ironed out.  So technically, some of the bugs probably are Bethesda's.  That's not to say that they shouldn't have fixed those bugs or be calling attention to them, it's still in poor taste.

#31 Posted by Brodehouse (9876 posts) -
@Hailinel said:
" @blacklabeldomm said:
" Yeah and Alpha protocol was SEGA's fault. "
Not really.  Sega delayed the release on Alpha Protocol to give Obsidian more time to develop the game.  I hate to think of what state the game was in at the original launch date. "
As much as I will freely admit that Alpha Protocol was (and is) a Goddamn mess, it's still totally true that Sega gave them about twelve bucks to develop the game with.
 
You ever heard the old adage, whenever you order anything, you can have it Good, Cheap or Quickly; Choose two.  Sega chose Good and Cheap, and the Good didn't come together.
#32 Posted by yinstarrunner (1185 posts) -

I had about as many bugs playing F:NV as I did with FO3 and Oblivion, so I give Obsidian the pass on this one.   
Alpha Protocol kind of didn't have much excuse, though I didn't have nearly as many problems with it as other people seemed to.
 KOTOR 2 they definitely have an excuse for, though, seeing as they were forced to ship the game unfinished.
 I had a single quest scripting bug in NWN2 and the game crashed on me like once.
 
I dunno.  I find it hard to fault Obsidian too much since the quality of their writing is so far beyond any other developer these days.  So call me an apologist.

#33 Posted by MegaMetaTurtle (414 posts) -
@ryanwho: 
 
Weird, I was completely the opposite in regards to Fallout 3 and NV bugs. 
 
Only had one or two in Fallout 3. Stopped playing NV for a while till there's a few more patches.
 
(360 version btw)
#34 Posted by Bucketdeth (8007 posts) -

Well it is true the engine is a little on the rough side, and no matter how many patches it receive's more bugs will most likely pop up.  
I think Obsidian is right and we will really see how well they can create an engine when Dungeon Siege 3 comes out which is done on their Onyx engine.

#35 Edited by guthwulf (251 posts) -

Although the engine might not be theirs, compared to Fallout 3 and Oblivion Fallout: New Vegas is a lot worse bug-wise. And the engine had been around way longer, so it's kinda weird to blame that for New Vegas' problems.
 
By the way, anyone have the feeling that the stability has decreased since Dead Money has been released? I onbly installed it yesterday, but the game already crashed about six times - more often than in the 90 hours before that.

#36 Posted by 02sfraser (847 posts) -

The engine is awful but Obsidion could have done better quality control. I had a much worse time trying to play New Vegas than I did 3. Although the DLC was totally broken to the point of nearly being unplayable.

#37 Posted by Jadeskye (4367 posts) -

They both release broken games so i think the arguement is moot, that said, they're both known for creating awesome games despite the jank.

#38 Posted by Lukeweizer (2654 posts) -

What's Obsidian's reason for Alpha Protocol then?
 
I just finished New Vegas and thought it was incredibly bleeeeh. Constant performance issues and shitty design choices. Didn't enjoy the experience except for the roaming around and not focusing on story stuff. I basically it enjoyed it for being Fallout 3-2 and not New Vegas. 
 
Really looking forward to Skyrim though. Hopefully they can inject new life into the Bethesda style RPG.

#39 Posted by TheDudeOfGaming (6078 posts) -

Whatever,its still a great game,and the true moaners are the people complaining about the bugs -.-

#40 Edited by TheDudeOfGaming (6078 posts) -
@Lukeweizer said:

"Didn't enjoy the experience except for the roaming around and not focusing on story stuff. I basically it enjoyed it for being Fallout 3-2 and not New Vegas. 

Wow...just...just wow.I think you might want to edit that.
#41 Posted by Tennmuerti (8073 posts) -
@Mystyr_E said:

" I kind of call BS on that. I've put 150 hours into Fallout 3 (2 Xbox characters, one PS3) and I've had maybe 4 crashes. New Vegas on the other hand literally crashed 5 times in 2 hours and I wish I was kidding.  They can blame the engine all they want but they've worked on 4 engines so far (Odyssey, Electron, UE3 and Gamebryo) and they've still been buggy. "

I call BS on your BS
I played through Fallout 3 several times and experienced frequent issues and crashes. Not to mention that all the DLC instalations were FUBAR'ed and VAT's lagged like hell.
While in Fallout New Vegas I had 2-3 crashes total in the entire time I played it with completing every sidequest and exploring all areas, etc ... with no other technical issues.
In other words, experiences can differ.
 

 
 @blacklabeldomm said:

" Yeah and Alpha protocol was SEGA's fault. "

@Lukeweizer said:

" What's Obsidian's reason for Alpha Protocol then?  I just finished New Vegas and thought it was incredibly bleeeeh. Constant performance issues and shitty design choices. Didn't enjoy the experience except for the roaming around and not focusing on story stuff. I basically it enjoyed it for being Fallout 3-2 and not New Vegas.   Really looking forward to Skyrim though. Hopefully they can inject new life into the Bethesda style RPG. "

What was wrong with Alpha Protocol in terms of technical issues?
Because after 3 playthroughs I had 0 technical bugs/issues/crashes.
This is kind of annoying to me since I see a lot of people saying how shitty AP is, while not having played it. (even Jeff's review only mentions one real technical issue with the doors he had) (framerate is non issue on PC, and on consoles every second game has framerate hicups)
#42 Posted by Gamer_152 (14072 posts) -

I think you're making accusations without proper knowledge of the situation, I mean have any of us seen the source code or know how development for this game went? There were definitely huge underlying problems with the Fallout 3 engine and I doubt Obsidian would straight-up lie about a thing like this but we just don't know the entirety of the situation.

Moderator
#43 Posted by Cereal_Killa (50 posts) -

I think its less to do with whether or not its true and it just making Obsidian look bad, bitching about other companies publicly never comes off well.

#44 Posted by Cretaceous_Bob (506 posts) -

It's important to note that if you actually read the quotes in that article the guy is actually talking about the difficulties of making a game on somebody else's engine, which I think is valid. The engines Obsidian has worked with are not Unreal 3; they aren't commercially licensed and supported. Think about how buggy Fallout 3 was, and that came from a team that is very familiar with that engine. This guy isn't pointing fingers at Bethesda, he's saying there have been inherent disadvantages that came with not putting out a game on an in-house engine and that has coloured the reputation of the company a bit unfairly. 
 
I think that sounds reasonable; whether or not he is right has yet to be determined.

#45 Posted by Superharman (61 posts) -

The article wasn't the best piece of journalism, it has been turned from a "hey we're making our own engine for Dungeon Siege 3" to, "Fallout NV Bugs weren't out fault." It is really just a complaint about using a third party engine and the associated problems. I'm no programmer, but I can't imagine that having to phone someone and try and work out a solution to a problem with the people being on different sides of the country is ideal.  Obsidian very well could have done the best job possible in the time they were given, we don't know nor are we likely to ever know.
 
Personally, I never had any major issues with New Vegas, probably 2 crashes which is less than some other RPGs I've played recently. Similar situation to Fallout 3 which crashed a couple of times, but nothing that caused me a great deal of stress. Oh and I had no bugs for me in Alpha Protocol so there is that. Not that I'm denying these games had issues, they just didn't hinder my experiences.

#46 Posted by Ghostiet (5250 posts) -

It's probably true. Still, Obsidian should shut the fuck up after Neverwinter Nights 2. Really.

I'm all for the old writers of Torment and Fallout. With KOTOR2, they had a reasonable explanation why that game was a mess. But so far, they're just the Troika people again.

#47 Posted by Marcsman (3180 posts) -

That's total BS. Fallout 3 played a lot smoother than Fallout:New Vegas. 
Nut up Obsidian or shut the fuck up.
#48 Posted by Lukeweizer (2654 posts) -
@TheDudeOfGaming said:
" @Lukeweizer said:

"Didn't enjoy the experience except for the roaming around and not focusing on story stuff. I basically it enjoyed it for being Fallout 3-2 and not New Vegas. 

Wow...just...just wow.I think you might want to edit that. "
Why? Because you don't agree with it?
#49 Edited by Lukeweizer (2654 posts) -
@Tennmuerti: How about how the shooting doesn't work? Even Vinny was talking about it. You put reticule over enemy, shoot, and nothing happens. 
 
I'm still own it and am looking forward to playing the game for the story. But doesn't mean it doesn't have issues.
#50 Edited by Tennmuerti (8073 posts) -
@Lukeweizer said:

" @Tennmuerti: How about how the shooting doesn't work? Even Vinny was talking about it. You put reticule over enemy, shoot, and nothing happens.   I'm still own it and am looking forward to playing the game for the story. But doesn't mean it doesn't have issues. "

Erm what?
The shooting works just fine.
You have a crosshair that just like in any other modern FPS game indicates your bullet spread, so obviously not every bullet will hit, it increases in size if you keep dumping and decreaes if you stand still or crouch. RPG system just makes it smaller / decrease faster.
There is nothing technically wrong with shooting. Just becouse some one does not understand game mechanics does not mean the game is suddenly broken. 

 
@Marcsman said:
" That's total BS. Fallout 3 played a lot smoother than Fallout:New Vegas. Nut up Obsidian or shut the fuck up. "
For a lot of people F:NV actually run smoother. Fallout 3 was just as broken if not more when it was first released

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.