Why do they keep letting Obsidian keep making games?

  • 104 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Posted by ImpendingFoil (555 posts) -

I have never heard of a game coming from them that is not just completely filled with game breaking or crashing bugs.  From them now I've played Knights of the Old Republic 2, Neverwinter Nights 2 and Alpha Protocol which was also just kind of godawful and filled with bugs.  It is good to hear that New Vegas is a good game but once again the problem of extreme technical glitches just kind of makes me sad.  Maybe with the money they make from this game they can get themselves a quality QA department.

#2 Posted by fentonalpha (820 posts) -

I'm with ya on NWN2 but they keep making games because....they sell.

#3 Posted by MasterOfPenguins_Zell (2093 posts) -

To be fair, FA3 was pretty buggy at launch, and still can be.
 
Also, I don't think they had much time to work on KOTOR 2.
 
But yeah, they do seem to have really good games, that are super buggy.

#4 Posted by Undeadpool (4960 posts) -

They write really great stories. Yeah, the games are glitchy, but I'm on my third play-through of Alpha Protocol (I actually haven't encountered many glitches as much as UI issues).

#5 Posted by trophyhunter (5800 posts) -

Because they make fantastic games just very glitchy ones.

#6 Edited by BunkerBuster (1042 posts) -

Gee, could it be the fact that they made the first two Fallout games when they were Black Isle? 
Neverwinter Nights 2 and Icewind Dale were also amazing and sold a billion copies, that's how they keep getting work. 
Chances are that F: NV will also sell huge and they will continue to make games.

#7 Posted by AndrewB (7669 posts) -

Sometimes I wonder if we'll be needing to ask that question for too much longer. Then again, if New Vegas is a hit like Fallout 3 was, Obsidian is right back on track.

#8 Edited by Animasta (14713 posts) -

I'm fairly sure it's buggier because Gamebryo is a shit engine and the bug fixes that Bethesda did might not even be worth a damn to new vegas, since it's pretty much new models and stuff?

#9 Posted by Ulong (445 posts) -

Yah. it's a simple question of Quality of Gameplay Versus Quality of Stability.
 
I played through Alpha Protocol, NeverwinterNights 2, Kotor 2. Kotor 2 and Neverwinter Nights 2 were both far better than the original games, and Alpha Protocol was one of the best Action RPG games Ive played in years. I'll take the Bugs.

#10 Posted by EveretteScott (1520 posts) -
@ImpendingFoil said:
" I have never heard of a game coming from them that is not just completely filled with game breaking or crashing bugs.  From them now I've played Knights of the Old Republic 2, Neverwinter Nights 2 and Alpha Protocol which was also just kind of godawful and filled with bugs.  It is good to hear that New Vegas is a good game but once again the problem of extreme technical glitches just kind of makes me sad.  Maybe with the money they make from this game they can get themselves a quality QA department. "
I played through Alpha Protocol once then about half through again. Never encountered one bug or glitch.
#11 Posted by Weltal (2274 posts) -

If I had to choose between super buggy but awesome game versus super stable but boring games I'll choose the buggy one.
 Not that this excuses Obsidian but they make damn good games.

#12 Posted by velucyraptor (358 posts) -
@trophyhunter said:
" Because they make fantastic games just very glitchy ones. "
This. I'd rather a glitchy good game than a smoothly running pile of bore.
#13 Posted by neoepoch (1295 posts) -

KOTOR 2 was not fully their fault. They had to release it before the year ended so they were rushed for development. In fact they had to kill a few questlines because they were pressed for time (although fans managed to bring most of the content). They had to release it by late December...so they did.

#14 Posted by TheBlackPigeon (315 posts) -
@Laketown: 
 
You nailed it, sir. Bethesda seriously needs to get with something, anything other than Gamebryo. Shit's straight nasty.
#15 Edited by AndrewB (7669 posts) -
@neoepoch: I mean, yeah... and I'd totally give them a pass for that if every one of their other releases weren't plagued by the same bug/performance issues, even games they weren't rushed to do. 
 
I kept telling myself that they were a company that made great games but were just pressured for time, but then they released Alpha Protocol, and time wasn't an excuse for that one.
#16 Posted by sodiumCyclops (2644 posts) -

I kinda like to think it's just down to engine choices really.

#17 Posted by ReyGitano (2467 posts) -

With games as big and complicated as Fallout and Oblivion, glitches are just going to come with the territory. 
It sounds shitty, but it's something you have to learn to expect.  
I was 100% sure this game was going to be glitchy the moment it was announced, but for some reason I actually enjoy that in these types of games.

#18 Posted by wolf_blitzer85 (5278 posts) -
@EveretteScott said:
" @ImpendingFoil said:
" I have never heard of a game coming from them that is not just completely filled with game breaking or crashing bugs.  From them now I've played Knights of the Old Republic 2, Neverwinter Nights 2 and Alpha Protocol which was also just kind of godawful and filled with bugs.  It is good to hear that New Vegas is a good game but once again the problem of extreme technical glitches just kind of makes me sad.  Maybe with the money they make from this game they can get themselves a quality QA department. "
I played through Alpha Protocol once then about half through again. Never encountered one bug or glitch. "
Did you have fun?
#19 Posted by Romination (2777 posts) -

They churn out good (or decent) sequels at strong speeds, and investors need to hear that.

#20 Posted by Oldirtybearon (4851 posts) -

People shouldn't have to choose between a stable game and a great game. That is Obsidian dropping the ball. The fact that they can't get their QA shit together tells me that they're a very amateurish studio when it comes to the technical aspects of game development. 
 
Great storytellers they may be, but that does not get them off the hook for shipping a half-broken game every damn time.

#21 Posted by MistaSparkle (2148 posts) -

Yeah but we are in the FUTURE now. We can just patch games later on and still get the game out on time. Seems fair to me. You just have to bear with it for a while.

#22 Posted by LiquidPrince (16020 posts) -
@velucyraptor said:
" @trophyhunter said:
" Because they make fantastic games just very glitchy ones. "
This. I'd rather a glitchy good game than a smoothly running pile of bore. "
No offense but this line of thinking is a bit ridiculous. Why should people settle for one or the other when there are companies out there making super stable games that also have amazing stories and graphics. Why settle for something at the quality level of Fallout when you can get something at the quality level of Uncharted 2. Imagine if Fallout had the story that it does, but with the quality of a Naughty Dog game.
#23 Posted by Hailinel (25179 posts) -
@MistaSparkle said:
" Yeah but we are in the FUTURE now. We can just patch games later on and still get the game out on time. Seems fair to me. You just have to bear with it for a while. "
God, I miss the days when this attitude was universally frowned upon in console gaming.  I'd rather wait another year for bugs to be fixed than put up with a broken game at launch and wait for it to get better.  I already did that with Fallout 3.  That wasn't fun.  That the PS3 version alone had some of the bugs that it did is just insulting.  I mean, getting stuck at the GOAT exam?  Seriously?  They couldn't fix a showstopper that occurs within the first twenty minutes of the game?  What the fuck is wrong with the morons that thought that was acceptable to ship with?
#24 Posted by altbotdos (124 posts) -

Speedballing for long periods of time will catch up with anyone. Better change tempo before the ceiling comes crashing down. 

#25 Posted by Driadon (3001 posts) -

I honestly never had any issues with Neverwinter 2 or KOTOR 2. And both of those games not only had very very well written stories, but their role playing was phenomenal.

#26 Edited by spazmaster666 (1972 posts) -
@LiquidPrince said:

No offense but this line of thinking is a bit ridiculous. Why should people settle for one or the other when there are companies out there making super stable games that also have amazing stories and graphics. Why settle for something at the quality level of Fallout when you can get something at the quality level of Uncharted 2. Imagine if Fallout had the story that it does, but with the quality of a Naughty Dog game. "

I don't think you can really compare a linear shooter like Uncharted 2 with an open world RPG like Fallout 3 or New Vegas. It's always easier to make a linear, cinematic games like Uncharted bug free than an open-ended game like Fallout since you have more control over what the player is or isn't allowed to do in the game. Also, a lot of the issues with the game is due to an outdated engine. Hopefully, this is the last Bethesda game that uses the Gamebryo engine.
#27 Posted by neoepoch (1295 posts) -
@AndrewB: Yeah, that's true. I just wonder if things would have been different if they had more time with KOTOR 2. But you are right, the rest of their games do generally have fairly big tech problems. What actually weirds me out is how they always seem to be doing sequels to games. Knights of the Old Republic, Neverwinter Nights, and Fallout all were establish franchises, two of which were Bioware games. It makes me think that one day they may do a spinoff of Mass Effect or Dragon Age. I'm going to reserve judgment on that, but I have met Chris Avellone, and his a cool guy..so that is something I guess.
#28 Edited by LiquidPrince (16020 posts) -
@spazmaster666 said:

" @LiquidPrince said:

No offense but this line of thinking is a bit ridiculous. Why should people settle for one or the other when there are companies out there making super stable games that also have amazing stories and graphics. Why settle for something at the quality level of Fallout when you can get something at the quality level of Uncharted 2. Imagine if Fallout had the story that it does, but with the quality of a Naughty Dog game. "

I don't think you can really compare a linear shooter like Uncharted 2 with an open world RPG like Fallout 3 or New Vegas. It's always easier to make a linear, cinematic games like Uncharted bug free than an open-ended game like Fallout since you have more control over what the player is or isn't allowed to do in the game. Also, a lot of the issues with the game is due to an outdated engine. Hopefully, this is the last Bethesda game that uses the Gamebryo engine. "
I wasn't referring to Uncharted as a comparison to Fallout in terms of gameplay. Merely referencing it's quality. If you want to talk open world games, alright, then Assassin's Creed. Great game, with a great story, open world, and also completely stable.
#29 Posted by Mrnitropb (2090 posts) -
@LiquidPrince said:
" @velucyraptor said:
" @trophyhunter said:
" Because they make fantastic games just very glitchy ones. "
This. I'd rather a glitchy good game than a smoothly running pile of bore. "
No offense but this line of thinking is a bit ridiculous. Why should people settle for one or the other when there are companies out there making super stable games that also have amazing stories and graphics. Why settle for something at the quality level of Fallout when you can get something at the quality level of Uncharted 2. Imagine if Fallout had the story that it does, but with the quality of a Naughty Dog game. "
Awww, now I'm sad. 
#30 Edited by spazmaster666 (1972 posts) -
@LiquidPrince said:

I wasn't referring to Uncharted as a comparison to Fallout in terms of gameplay. Merely referencing it's quality. If you want to talk open world games, alright, then Assassin's Creed. Great game, with a great story, open world, and also completely stable. "

Yes I realize that you weren't comparing gameplay (I wasn't either); what I was saying is that I'm not at all surprised that Uncharted 2 didn't have any major technical issues since it was such a linear and cinematic game. Whereas with open ended games like Fallout, I always expect some level of glitching or technical issues even if it comes from some of the world's best developers (i.e. Rockstar, Bioware, etc) since it's much more difficult to catch bugs in an open-ended/open world game compared to a linear game (all games are glitchy before they go through QA it's just that QA for a linear shooter is probably much easier than QA for an open world RPG). Assassin's Creed has been one of the few examples of recent open world games that were pretty much bug free, but it's really the exception and not the rule these days.
#31 Posted by EveretteScott (1520 posts) -
@wolf_blitzer85 said:
" @EveretteScott said:
" @ImpendingFoil said:
" I have never heard of a game coming from them that is not just completely filled with game breaking or crashing bugs.  From them now I've played Knights of the Old Republic 2, Neverwinter Nights 2 and Alpha Protocol which was also just kind of godawful and filled with bugs.  It is good to hear that New Vegas is a good game but once again the problem of extreme technical glitches just kind of makes me sad.  Maybe with the money they make from this game they can get themselves a quality QA department. "
I played through Alpha Protocol once then about half through again. Never encountered one bug or glitch. "
Did you have fun? "
Yes, I did.
#32 Edited by LiquidPrince (16020 posts) -
@spazmaster666 said:

" @LiquidPrince said:

I wasn't referring to Uncharted as a comparison to Fallout in terms of gameplay. Merely referencing it's quality. If you want to talk open world games, alright, then Assassin's Creed. Great game, with a great story, open world, and also completely stable. "
Yes I realize that you weren't comparing gameplay, but what I was saying is that I'm not at all surprised that Uncharted 2 didn't have any major technical issues since it was such a linear and cinematic game. Whereas with open ended games like Fallout, I always expect some level of glitching or technical issues even if it comes from some of the world's best developers (i.e. Rockstar, Bioware, etc) since it's much more difficult to catch bugs in an open-ended/open world game compared to a linear game. Assassin's Creed has been one of the few examples of recent open world games that were pretty much bug free, but it's really the exception and not the rule these days. "
That's not completley true. All open world games have "some" glitches, but games like GTA and Mass Effect are pretty rock solid. I haven't crashed while playing those games even once. Although Mass Effect isn't really open world.
#33 Edited by spazmaster666 (1972 posts) -
@LiquidPrince said:

That's not completley true. All open world games have "some" glitches, but games like GTA and Mass Effect are pretty rock solid. I haven't crashed while playing those games even once. Although Mass Effect isn't really open world. "

GTA IV had plenty of bugs and so did Red Dead. Maybe not a lot of game crashing glitches (but that's probably just due to engine differences, not necessarily seriousness of the bugs themselves) but definitely a lot of annoyances. Mass Effect 2 was pretty solid sure but it wasn't really open world and a lot of RPG elements were stripped (the original Mass Effect however did have some serious issues, including game crashing ones). I do want to make it clear that I'm not trying to find excuses for the game's glitches (constant crashing it annoying regardless of how good a game is) but just trying to point out that a game like Fallout New Vegas, with so many complex systems in place, is bound to be more buggy than many other games out there.
#34 Posted by Shadow (4981 posts) -

Oh yes, because Fallout 3 is completely bug-free

#35 Posted by Animasta (14713 posts) -
@LiquidPrince said:
" @spazmaster666 said:

" @LiquidPrince said:

I wasn't referring to Uncharted as a comparison to Fallout in terms of gameplay. Merely referencing it's quality. If you want to talk open world games, alright, then Assassin's Creed. Great game, with a great story, open world, and also completely stable. "
Yes I realize that you weren't comparing gameplay, but what I was saying is that I'm not at all surprised that Uncharted 2 didn't have any major technical issues since it was such a linear and cinematic game. Whereas with open ended games like Fallout, I always expect some level of glitching or technical issues even if it comes from some of the world's best developers (i.e. Rockstar, Bioware, etc) since it's much more difficult to catch bugs in an open-ended/open world game compared to a linear game. Assassin's Creed has been one of the few examples of recent open world games that were pretty much bug free, but it's really the exception and not the rule these days. "
That's not completley true. All open world games have "some" glitches, but games like GTA and Mass Effect are pretty rock solid. I haven't crashed while playing those games even once. Although Mass Effect isn't really open world. "
dude GTAIV crashed on me constantly, so I don't know how you would get that.
#36 Posted by MysteriousBob (6272 posts) -
@Laketown said:
" @LiquidPrince said:
" @spazmaster666 said:

" @LiquidPrince said:

I wasn't referring to Uncharted as a comparison to Fallout in terms of gameplay. Merely referencing it's quality. If you want to talk open world games, alright, then Assassin's Creed. Great game, with a great story, open world, and also completely stable. "
Yes I realize that you weren't comparing gameplay, but what I was saying is that I'm not at all surprised that Uncharted 2 didn't have any major technical issues since it was such a linear and cinematic game. Whereas with open ended games like Fallout, I always expect some level of glitching or technical issues even if it comes from some of the world's best developers (i.e. Rockstar, Bioware, etc) since it's much more difficult to catch bugs in an open-ended/open world game compared to a linear game. Assassin's Creed has been one of the few examples of recent open world games that were pretty much bug free, but it's really the exception and not the rule these days. "
That's not completley true. All open world games have "some" glitches, but games like GTA and Mass Effect are pretty rock solid. I haven't crashed while playing those games even once. Although Mass Effect isn't really open world. "
dude GTAIV crashed on me constantly, so I don't know how you would get that. "
You must be unlucky because I've never had GTA IV crash or glitch up for me.
#37 Posted by endaround (2147 posts) -
@Shadow: I can't wait to see how many reviewers find bugs in this game that overlooked them in Bethesda's releases.  Its the same engine using the same QA with Bethesda's same let the community fix the bugs for us approach.
#38 Posted by wolf_blitzer85 (5278 posts) -
@EveretteScott said:
" @wolf_blitzer85 said:
" @EveretteScott said:
" @ImpendingFoil said:
" I have never heard of a game coming from them that is not just completely filled with game breaking or crashing bugs.  From them now I've played Knights of the Old Republic 2, Neverwinter Nights 2 and Alpha Protocol which was also just kind of godawful and filled with bugs.  It is good to hear that New Vegas is a good game but once again the problem of extreme technical glitches just kind of makes me sad.  Maybe with the money they make from this game they can get themselves a quality QA department. "
I played through Alpha Protocol once then about half through again. Never encountered one bug or glitch. "
Did you have fun? "
Yes, I did. "
That's why there is nothing to worry about.
#39 Posted by YoctoYotta (541 posts) -

There's no telling what Obsidian's relationship with Bethesda will be going forward, but on a tangentially related note, I really hope idTech 5 turns out to be a truly solid engine that Bethesda can use to create their future open world games with, whatever they may be.

#40 Posted by CL60 (16906 posts) -

Who are "they"?

#41 Posted by juice8367 (444 posts) -
@AndrewB said:
" @neoepoch: I mean, yeah... and I'd totally give them a pass for that if every one of their other releases weren't plagued by the same bug/performance issues, even games they weren't rushed to do.  I kept telling myself that they were a company that made great games but were just pressured for time, but then they released Alpha Protocol, and time wasn't an excuse for that one. "
I thought Alpha Protocol was an underrated game actually.  A few bugs sure but the story was pretty good.
#42 Posted by YoctoYotta (541 posts) -
@LiquidPrince said:
" @velucyraptor said:
" @trophyhunter said:
" Because they make fantastic games just very glitchy ones. "
This. I'd rather a glitchy good game than a smoothly running pile of bore. "
No offense but this line of thinking is a bit ridiculous. Why should people settle for one or the other when there are companies out there making super stable games that also have amazing stories and graphics. Why settle for something at the quality level of Fallout when you can get something at the quality level of Uncharted 2. Imagine if Fallout had the story that it does, but with the quality of a Naughty Dog game. "
That would be incredible. I want this. The problem is, Uncharted doesn't have to keep track of dozens of NPCs, and exact current state of untold thousands of forks and bent tin cans (and how many hundreds of other items?) spread across a relatively seamless world that stretches for dozens of miles in every direction. Naughty Dog can polish the hell out of their very nicely sized slice of the world that you get to see, but they only need to keep track of your current ammo levels and the last checkpoint you crossed. Everything else is baked in. Bethesda on the other hand has an overly ambitious goal in mind with the Elderscrolls games and Fallout 3 that has to be hard on any engine to achieve. Hopefully they can figure a better way to handle this stuff from the ground up with whatever tech they use next, because this janky shit with Fallout 3 and NV is a real bummer.
#43 Posted by CL60 (16906 posts) -
@juice8367 said:
" @AndrewB said:
" @neoepoch: I mean, yeah... and I'd totally give them a pass for that if every one of their other releases weren't plagued by the same bug/performance issues, even games they weren't rushed to do.  I kept telling myself that they were a company that made great games but were just pressured for time, but then they released Alpha Protocol, and time wasn't an excuse for that one. "
I thought Alpha Protocol was an underrated game actually.  A few bugs sure but the story was pretty good. "
I have to agree with this fellow.
#44 Posted by Obsidian (346 posts) -

Probably because they have such an awesome name.  Also their games are fun.

#45 Edited by Fjordson (2450 posts) -

It is tough to see technical issues continue to plague their games. I think they've got some quality talent there (I'm a big fan of Chris Avellone) so I want them to come out with a smash hit, both financially and critically, some day. I do think they're good at certain things, like story and characters. I've enjoyed their games despite some glaring problems. Alpha Protocol was unfortunate, though. I didn't experience a single redeeming quality while playing that. Terrible game. 
 
But let's be honest, Fallout 3 wasn't devoid of these sorts of problems either. I'm really getting sick of the Gamebryo engine.

#46 Posted by Tennmuerti (8141 posts) -

Obsidian make some of the best if not the best RPGs with writing, gameplay systems, story, characters, world depth, etc ...
 
Also with 3 full play throughs of AP I didn't have a single issue and enjoyed the hell out of it.
Nor did I have any major issues with NWN2.
KOTOR2 and F:NV are made on engines from other companies.

#47 Posted by FunExplosions (5407 posts) -
@KingWilly said:
" People shouldn't have to choose between a stable game and a great game. That is Obsidian dropping the ball. The fact that they can't get their QA shit together tells me that they're a very amateurish studio when it comes to the technical aspects of game development.  Great storytellers they may be, but that does not get them off the hook for shipping a half-broken game every damn time. "
My thoughts exactly. Game may be enjoyable, but we can't just let stuff like this be accepted with open arms. It's a disgrace to every developer who does things correctly.
#48 Posted by owl_of_minerva (1455 posts) -

Look at the publishers who demand that games be released by certain deadlines before they are ready, rather than just assuming that game developers involved in some of the greatest CRPGs of all time don't know better than you. If they were Valve or Blizzard they could print money while they take 10 years to make a game. Context plz.

#49 Posted by SpudBug (632 posts) -

New Vegas is pretty comparable to Fallout 3 before patches as far as bugs go.
 
People just forget how a game launches with problems these days. Even bethesda released one of the DLC packs for F3 that was completely broken and had to be taken down.

#50 Posted by WinterSnowblind (7617 posts) -
@owl_of_minerva said:
"Look at the publishers who demand that games be released by certain deadlines before they are ready, rather than just assuming that game developers involved in some of the greatest CRPGs of all time don't know better than you. If they were Valve or Blizzard they could print money while they take 10 years to make a game. Context plz. "


Alpha Protocol was repeatedly delayed to give Obsidian time to tighten everything up, for almost a year at one stage, so they really have no excuses.  Neverwinter Nights 2 was also an utter mess and after several patches and two expansions, is still almost unplayable.

 

It is worth pointing out that both of these games were excellent, technical issues aside..  but they have no excuses for the state they leave games in.

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.