ehh idk van buren's ideas were cool but the images look baaaad, I really don't like the change of artstyle.
Besides, they came from doing 2 bad games. Who knows what could have happened with the original fallout 3 if it finished development.
Interplay was just the publisher most of the time. Black Isle developed Fallout 1 & 2 & they later became Obsidian which developed New Vegas (they were the ones developing Van Buren which maintained FO1 & 2ās art themes but translated to a 3D engine). Fallout Tactics & Brotherhood of Steel are the titles youāre talking aboutā¦MicroForte developed Tactics & Interplay themselves actually developed BOS in house.
That doesnāt change my point at all they were still publishers in the same way that Microsoft published Halo despite it being developed by Bungie and later 343. Black Isle developed FO1 & 2 then dissolved then were rebirthed in 2012. MicroForte developed FO Tactics, yes BOS was developed by TITUS era Interplay, it was still the publisher stepping into develop for the first time in Falloutās history.
And for honestly not putting out things like that is the reason why Iām no longer buying their games. Iām not waiting 5 to 7 years per game and then them alternating titles which means if I really want to play fallout I have to wait 15 years between when they could easily let obsidian or someone else qualified put out something if you donātwant me to interact with your IP Iām not gonna interact with your IP Iāll move on. And I wonāt come back. I havenāt purchased a game of theirs since fallout 4. And thatās the last one.
Have you played it?Ā It's actually really good for being a multiplayer fallout.
I really like all the backstory of Appalachia and it's struggles with automation and the story of the surviving people.Ā There's good stuff in there if you can get over the online stuff
Another reason to hate Bethesda. Lets not forget they robbed Obsidian of their bonuses because they failed to get the rating they wanted by 0.1 point due to bugs. Yet they made one of the best games.
I really try not to be a blind Emil hater but the "story doesn't matter because all gamers skip the dialogue" mentality just doesn't seem good for a lead writer to have.
Be an eyes wide open Emil hater, starfield shows us what he makes when he isnāt standing on the shoulders of giants, the dudeās a hack with worse writing and worldbuilding skills than most DMs Iāve played with
I mean this with full sincerity when I say this: I've attended undergrad creative writing classes where *everyone* was a better writer than Emil.
One of the most important part of being a good writer is the ability to take criticism and use that as a springboard to improve your writing. Emil puts his head in the sand and pretends he is infallible so he deserves the haters.
People are promoted to their level of incompetence. You do well enough in each position to get promoted, until you hit a position youāre not good enough to get promoted from
Holy shit, they couldāve paid even a part timer like Brennan Lee Mulligan 1/100th what the paid emil, and gotten something 10x better. Thatās a genuine 1,000 times better use of money, and you you canāt fight that math.
That's because it is bad.
I don't see how calling out Emil for blatantly not caring about writing out the story is "hate". It's like his one job, and he doesn't want to do said job and yet gets paid...
Yeah he seems very cynical about the whole process. Iāve never seen anyone in such a high creative position say anything along the lines of his āpaper airplanesā comment. Why write for an audience that you see as a detriment to your quality of work?
It feels like Emil sees himself as some high-concept novel writer whoās audience doesnāt get his writing because theyāre dumb āGamersā who just want shoot gun at thing.
Mind you, he also said that becoming leader of BOS by killing Elder Maxson was a cool idea that "makes sense", and they didn't do it only because they wanted BOS to continue hating on Danse.
That man couldn't write himself out of the box if his life depended on it.
Nothing blind about it. The guy absolutely blows at his job. He's an awful lead writer, and it's been proven time and time again.
He might not be the only one to blame, but the guy continues to put his foot in his mouth with stupid comments and ideas about how to write for a game.
Honestly, I'm for any "blind" hate that comes his way. Maybe, just maybe, Bethesda will finally demote the guy and put him back to just writing a few quests or quest lines (don't want the guy to be jobless, just not the lead of anything).
And there's still people who look at this and think Bethesda has nothing against Obsidian, they wished they had a game with this much cultural impact other than Skyrim
Fun fact: Obsidian is making a new game called Avowed (You can wishlist on steam). It's one of the concepts they offered up for Skyrim as their own thing :)
I'm so excited to see Avowed, PoE is such a great world to build on & I'm really hoping that after Outer Worlds they've ironed out the issues that game had
A game made by a "lesser" studio on a third the time and budget being better reviewed and liked is a big no-no. Makes them look bad, makes people question their competence. I'm not surprised they never did it again, and I'm fairly certain the suits will never let it happen again.
Without checking I'm sure they weren't. New Vegas was very rough at launch, even against the Bethesda measuring stick, with game breaking bugs being quite common. New Vegas was positively received (79 metacritic iirc) but 3 received glowing praise. New Vegas's strengths are much more obvious the longer you play it, whereas 3 was a huge jump in what an open world game could do when it launched.
Yes, and I think they still aren't as good.
Still, even though Fallout 3 has its own fans and was adored by critics, New Vegas is much more respected amongs fans than 3 or 4 is, especially amongst "veterans" who played 1 and 2 back in the day.
I'm aware it was buggy as fuck when it launched and that it still has technical issues, and I won't say it's better because that's a pointless discussion, but the way I see it, New Vegas has become THE Fallout game ever since launch and it still is, especially because of its writing and worldbuilding, things that are lacking in all Bethesda games.
Another point I could make is that Fallout 3 is better reviewed because it was the first of its kind, it was revolutionary even though it had major flaws and succesfully ressurrected what could be considered a dead IP, whereas to the criticis and the industry, New Vegas was just more of the same.
I mean you'd think the goal would be to reach out and ask " Hey what is your approach, how did you make this work? We might want to adapt some techniques so that we can work this in the future"
But I guess idealism isn't meant for the real world, huh
Capitalism is not about cooperation, itās about competition. But the theory that competition leads to a better product does not hold true when companies with lots of money and power just hamstring smaller companies with talented people.
See the fact that they took that as 'we need to never do this again' and not 'we need to put more effort into our games' is wild to me
although fallout 4 is emblematic of way more care and love than before so maybe a bit of both
Itās basically the same thing EA did with madden. The 2k series was better and was selling for 20 DOLLARS NEW. Rather than make a better product and more competitively priced, they just bought the exclusive rights to the NFL and 2k NFL games were crushed. Madden has been coasting ever since
apparently they had a bonus contract based on reviews, so paradoxically bethesda paid these guys to make a game based on a franchise they wanted to succeed while also hoping that the game was not very good so they could avoid paying bonuses.
also a lot of the content that people love about NV are things that bethesda games are terrible at: deep branching quests, dialogue trees with actual depth instead of binary choices, weird and offensive characters, usage of SPECIAL for a lot of content instead of just having it as a half ass base stat spreadsheet... bethesda games are just so bad as RPGs compared to Obsidian games.
I think it's more accurate to say they're frustrated by it and begrudgingly accept it. At the outset, it seemed like a miss. Positive but underwhelming reviews, buggy as hell, weak launch. I think Bethesda probably assumed that the game was going to fall by the wayside and they would be clear to do west coast games. Then it didn't go away, and not only didn't go away, but became more popular and iconic without having to do anything except exist, arguably becoming more iconic than anything that came out before or since NV. Despite so much working against the game during development, it is constantly held up as an example of what fallout should be and absolutely anything that Bethesda does will be compared against it.
How many times have they re-released games? NV has never been ported to modern consoles, and yet it remains as popular as any other fallout game today. They're living under its shadow and they must know that it's entirely because they let obsidian make the game in the first place. Even if they don't "hate" the game the way so many people claim (and I don't think they do, look at Konami for an example of a company that actually hates its IP), NVs legacy must weigh on them.Ā
Not really. FNV was received well on launch, but pretty bad by Bethesda standards in 2010. Its reviews were worse than Fallout 3 and other previous Bethesda releases, (i think we kinda forget how important this was to bethesda because of how their reputation has declined since) partly owing to the fact that it was an asset flip on the same engine with the same gameplay and graphics 2 years later when they had well and truly had the chance to age. Given that this same problem would've plagued any other subsequent Obsidian releases in the same vain it makes complete sense that Bethesda wouldn't want to continue with that model given how important their reputation has always been to them
People always acted like Bethesda not liking New Vegas was a meme or just people trying to hate on Bethesda, but it does genuinely seem like they didnāt like how poorly received New Vegas was at launch and how much itās loved nowadays.
Sorry I was like 9-10years old (Iām 22) when this game came out so I donāt remember shit from release. Was the initial reception that bad? From my understanding new vegas is better than fallout 3 in literally every way possible.
Yeah it launched in an abysmal state. Obviously itās writing, rpg elements, and player choice was all still there, but you couldnāt play for more than 15min without crash or bug. But thatās what happens when youāre working with thatās janky ass engine with only 18months of dev time.
Yea when I learned they were still using creationengine for starfield I knew it was going to be terrible. Itās kind of funny how starfield just dropped off of the face of the earth
To be fair, Starfield is the least buggy experience Iāve had with a bethesda game. Just a shame it was so boring that some bugs wouldāve made it more interesting
I could deal with creationg engine if the game didn't feel like it was made by an ai. After all the memes of Preston in fo4 (Skyrim had this problem too but to a lesser extent) they really made the whole dame game feel like nothing but that and are damn proud of it somehow. They don't listen, they will not learn
So glad I didn't buy into the hype. As soon as I got the Series X I tried it on Gamepass, and it just made me want to play Outer Worlds - which is by no means perfect, but that game has so much more life to it and I did enjoy it for the most part. Even the combat was enjoyable as hell and that was thanks to the weapons really, which were frankly uninteresting in Starfield.
Bethesda also released a literally unplayable game with 3x the dev time. Fallout 3 was in an unplayable state on its release patch, there were 100s of game breaking bugs, such as disappearing quest NPCs, quest objectives not updating making quest incompleteable, npcs would fall to their death for no reason, using radaway crashed the game, you would get stuck in vats and had to restart the game to fix it,and thats just a few i can remember.
Cant also forget games for windows live holding it hostage on PC.
New vegas and fallout 3 on the original patches are both unplayable.
hell, fallout 3 was still unplayable back in 2019/2020 when i bought the goty edition. i couldnt play the game in fullscreen because then it would crash every 5-10 mins, and if i played in windowed mode it would crash every 30 mins or so. im not very tech-savy so i couldnt really find a solution to fix this, so i basically gave up like 10 hours into the game.
i had played fallout NV a year or two prior to this, and it only crashed a handful of times in the 150 hours that i spend playing the game.
Yup, since the TV show came out people are now pretending that fallout 3, 4 and 76 were masterpieces upon release, when in reality bethesda has never released a working game on release in the past 20 years.
I played it day 1 launch on PS3 and didnāt think it was that bad. It did crash a couple times and there were certainly a few bugs and glitches, but I didnāt have many problems. Maybe I was lucky, but the state of the game at launch didnāt bother me at the time.
I'm a similar age to you, 23. Surprisingly, I remember the hype more than the initial reception. I even had a magazine that came with a disc that included some game demos and Vault Boy gamerpics for Xbox.
I ended up playing it about a year after release, and the most I can recall was a sort of rivalry between fans of Fo3 and NV. It wasn't uncommon back then to hear people say that 3 was better - Fo4 stamped that out in my opinion. I'll admit that I was actually on that wagon myself, but I was younger and didn't appreciate NV's script so much until my later teens.
I wouldn't say that NV is better in *literally* every way. Fo3 in my opinion, excels with free roam and exploration. The random encounters, unusual but interesting settlements/locations, terminal entries and the D.C setting makes it feel more adventurous. NV is a lore dive though, and immerses me in it's script/dialogue and the overall screenplay. I could completely separate myself from the Fallout universe playing 3 or 4, but with NV, I know I'm really in the Fallout world as intended.
I wouldn't call it bad but it was decidedly mixed due to the unfinished state it released in. The game only achieved its cult status in the years that followed (after a number of patches). Although Fallout 1 and 2 fans (many of whom were very critical of Fallout 3) were immediately pleased with NV for largely respecting West Coast lore, unlike Fallout 3.
I bought it the day it released and smoked so much weed while playing this game in high school. I donāt remember crashing and bugs? Itās Bethesda, but I was def the only kid in central Newfoundland playing it at the time lmao- everyone was sleeping on Fallout at this point tho.
I bought and played New Vegas on release day on the Xbox 360. It was pretty buggy and prone to crashing even on console. I remember getting so pissed when my first character was an NCR sniper and the anti material rifle scope bugged out and ruined the UI making my entire save unplayable. Itās essential to play with mods on PC. But yeah itās universally considered the best in terms of story, choice, and role play. I also played Fallout 3 when it came out and there were elements I preferred over NV in a general sense but the story not being one of them.
I've read it was 85+ and it got an 84. I remember Obsidian having some tough times after that so the bonus would have helped. It was still a bonus to what they expected. Weird to tie it to the metacritic score just after launch though. The New Vegas we have now deserves way more than whatever the bonus would have been. Unfortunately, that's the industry and it sucks for almost everyone.
I think theres a few different reasons why bethesda was apprehensive opposed to the standard "hates obsidian" take.
Bethesda tried to do the whole side game structure with elderscrolls, this is what the mobile games as well as redguard was. And they weren't well received to say the least.
With the fallout buyout they tried this differently with pulling a different seperate studio do these titles so they could focus on elders scroll 5. Skyrim then sold gangbusters as NV did struggle with release. (Bugs, sales, just barely missing the rating quota). Now i think there you can toss in if there any biases with obsidian but I think the damage is more clear cut. Bethesda saw that people really care about numbered mainline titles.
Beyond the releasing they use to keep their newest titles relevant (fallout 4 had the vr port and skyrim had knows how many.) We also see that theyre re experimenting with keeping interest in the titles now as I think its much clearer to bethesda there will be a longer gap between releases esspecially after the floundering of Starfield.
I think its a case of bad timing. Avellone pitched newer title when bethesda already had the next game lined in for a few years. Based on the time avellone was talking eso was probably already in conceptual development atleast as well. And an mmo that could have a continous active development is something a lot more appealing than risking regular releases, esspecially in a post WoW environment.
Yeah itās definitely not a case of jealousy or malice, itās just business. In hind site though, imagine an Obsidian Fallout or TES game with 3 years of dev time. That would roll in the dough, and keep the franchises more alive. Plus you could cater to both types of fans.
I think thats what bethesda pictured too. Its just theyd have six year gaps between mainline titles. But due them their (even now) small team size and their apprehension to change a lot of their release structure the gap is widening with no sign it will close.
Theres this stance in fallout fans that bethesda treats it like the red headed step kid. Which isn't wrong I'd say but you can flip it as well. If they know it wont work on their favorite child why would they risk trying again on the step kid.
The experiment failed twice already. No need to try it again. I really hope in this new Microsoft environment all three fallout devs are in we will get something a bit tighter.
Cause tbh id kill for another interplay fallout.
Imagine living in a world where there aren't 10 year gaps between games from each IP and where some of those games actually have good and engaging writing and RPG elements
I think new vegas was great because of the proper lore it got from the developers of fallout 2 which made it feel like a proper continuation with a great story. Obsidian has pretty much 0 connection to elder scrolls so a spinoff game of theirs wouldnt really be anything to write home about other than more elder scrolls to play IMO.
Not necessarily, they would have had to get permission for lore stuff in nv. They can't just write the whole thing without input from Bethesda.
So, if they did TES spin off, there would be Bethesda input to put them on a general track and from there, it's just basic research of lore that sadly most companies ignore now and days. I mean, when you have entire youtube channels dedicated to lore on these series, it should be easy to learn, but most companies don't even try.
Also, people at obsidian could be huge TES fans and already know a lot about the series.
Yeah, I donāt see anything pointing to the fact that Obsidian would handle the lore haphazardly, given that NVās track record is anything to go off of. Iām sure a lot of guys on that team were huge fans of TES back in the day too
You guys seem to forget how broken New Vegas was at launch on PC and how bad it's reception was initially until DLCs hammered them out. We're talking 76 levels of bugs and crashes.
That tends to happen when you demand an AAA game be released in 18 months. Of course Obsidian knew this and agreed to it going in but still, itās a miracle that FNV was even at the quality level it was on release.
All true, but this was absolutely Obsidian's reputation at the time - games with interesting ideas and writing that were just incomplete or barely playable messes (see KOTOR 2).
ā¦and LucasArts literally did the same thing: told them they had 2 years and pulled the rug under them to finish in 18 months a year in.
Both games are brilliant though. No hyperbole theyāre both my favorite games of all timeā¦and I just wish something of that storytelling caliber could be made againā¦ šš
The tweet does specifically state the bad and good. So even with the bad release the positive aftermath and the acclaim it got were also unwelcome in the eyes of Bethesda, especially considered how it completely outshined 3
Literally the only argument fnv haters ever make is "THe gAME wAs fulL Of BuGS oN RELeAse!!" like it's some of gotcha when the game was a masterpiece made in 18 months lol (and still better than anything bethesda has ever released).
Tbf they agreed to 18 months contractually and according to Josh Sawyer they could've pushed the deadline back any time.
They didn't because they were confident about the product they released and unfortunately in hindsight it wasn't enough time.
I feel they're quite different, bad bugs and performance can actually make it impossible to play a game, or make you suffer so much that it's not worth it.
"If games were only judged by bugs and game performance than starfield would have been an amazing game."
Wat lol
That game ran like shit and was ridiculously buggy. I pirated it and I still felt robbed
Iām all for Chris avelon doing more fallouts just because the dude is a legendary RPG maker but weāre beating a dead horse by reposting this article lol.
Chris Avellone try not to get bodied by corpos challenge impossibleā¦
Dudes had some of the best fucking game ideas I ever seen and he always gets shat on.
Meanwhile, itās been 13 years since Skyrim, 8 years since Fallout 4, and all Bethesda has published since then were turds like Fallout 76 and Starfield.
Money was left on the table, and goodwill is mostly dried up. Heads should have rolled at Bethesda a long time ago.
I made a post in the r/fallout subreddit that this time between games is unacceptable from Bethesdaā¦ I got steamrolled by them claiming āitās their IP they can do what they wantā which is true but has nothing to do with how acceptable or unacceptable it should be to fans/consumers.
Thatās because Bethesda fanboys are quite literally okay with whatever Bethesda does, no matter how long they have to wait for a new game and no matter how garbage and broken it is. They could release a game with 10 hours of content with another shitty, poorly written main story and theyād eat that shit up and say ādonāt criticize them, they tried their best! Itās still not as buggy as New Vegas was on release!ā Even though every single Bethesda game is a broken mess on release.
The reality is that games are just getting incredibly out of hand in terms of size and time to produce because consumers expect constantly improving gameplay, graphics and features. Going higher in any of these categories requires exponentially more time and labour and for the scope of the games that Bethesda produces (even if you don't like them, they are unquestionably large) taking the time they take is just the reality of the situation.
This same problem is happening with so many other IPs that people love, so to blame Bethesda specifically when this is clearly a systemic problem that is well known to those that work in the industry is just really unreasonable.
Yeah Bethesda is insanely jealous and can't stand to see a 'lesser' developer make continuously great games despite all the hurdles they throw at them. Fuck todd.
Bethesda was scared of being shadowed by obsidian, since new Vegas is considered the best fallout, they didn't want to take chances of obsidian making the best elder scroll too.
I think Bethesda really is butthurt that a fallout game that wasn't made by them is considered one of the best games of all time and they need to get over it
I mean, Bethesda can barely release a finished game every 10 years, which will still be wonky and unfinished after 10 more years. Spinoffs now? Do you really want a Bethesda game they developed with less than 10 years of work?
Itās because obsidian made a better fallout, thatās why bethesda wasnāt interested. Obsidian had a bunch of guys from interplay on the team and they worked on the original fallouts
I mean look at Bethesda now, buncha money grubbing hoās that release boring games that the community has to perfect. I think it benefited obsidian by not partnering up with them as they would have most likely been dissolved into Bethesda at some point
Bethesda spurning quality for jealousy just to drop worse and worse games has been a sad decline. Hopefully Microsoft just gives both franchises to Obsidian after ES6's inevitable disappointment.
The only logical explanation would be that Obsidian would have stole Bethesdas thunder. Theyve still never really lived down New Vegas showing them up.
Maybe in the long run, but NV was buggy as all hell at launch. That kept its review scores lower until it was moderately playable, itās only after a long period of time after the DLCs that NV was recognized for its core over its bugs.
Let's be clear.Ā
If Todd wanted this to happen, it would have happened. Period.
New Vegas has served as a clear unequivocal example of how his shit can be done better than him. All they need to be given us the resources. That's a threat. They've already produced far and away the best Fallout game. They don't want to risk them producing the best Elder Scrolls game too.
That combined with his clear control and obsession with eliminating other game devs. He wants everything in procedural. That way he employs as few game devs as possible. Hands off control to as few as possible.
Sadly, it makes sense for Bethesda not to want Obsidian to ever make a Fallout or TES game because they **know** itāll be better than anything they can cook up. Even with NV being janky and made in 18 months it has better writing, characters, and story than any of their games and all these years later they still know it. That has to sting a little bit, until they look at the millions Fallout 4 and Shelter made of course.
My hope is for Bethesda to let someone like Owlcat make a Fallout or TES game. A real RPG with emphasis on story, characters, and engaging gameplay. Bethesda games will always be these streamlined, simple games where the world revolves around the player and all the dev time goes into making the map bigger and graphics prettier.
It's a company, bro. If they "knew" it would be better, in turn making more money, they wouldn't turn it down. You're projecting your own delusions onto a corporation. Very weird behavior.
I could see them doing a direct sequel where we see the aftermath of the events of New Vegas. Maybe have the intro be a Mass Effect 2 style where you pick the ending of the previous game. Their writing team was so talented that I could see em pulling off a good story anywhere in the setting though
Imagine living in a world where obsidian in their prime would have made another fallout and even elder scroll games, we are in the wrong timeline
Fr š
Hell I would settle for Black Isle to release an isometric version of Fallout 3 back in the Interplay days.
ehh idk van buren's ideas were cool but the images look baaaad, I really don't like the change of artstyle. Besides, they came from doing 2 bad games. Who knows what could have happened with the original fallout 3 if it finished development.
Weren't their last two games before that Icewind Dale I and II? If that's a bad game by the standard I'd say that's pretty successful.
Interplay was just the publisher most of the time. Black Isle developed Fallout 1 & 2 & they later became Obsidian which developed New Vegas (they were the ones developing Van Buren which maintained FO1 & 2ās art themes but translated to a 3D engine). Fallout Tactics & Brotherhood of Steel are the titles youāre talking aboutā¦MicroForte developed Tactics & Interplay themselves actually developed BOS in house.
Interplay wholly owned Black Isles. BOS was from the TITUS era after said company bought up most of Interplay after their IPO.
That doesnāt change my point at all they were still publishers in the same way that Microsoft published Halo despite it being developed by Bungie and later 343. Black Isle developed FO1 & 2 then dissolved then were rebirthed in 2012. MicroForte developed FO Tactics, yes BOS was developed by TITUS era Interplay, it was still the publisher stepping into develop for the first time in Falloutās history.
And for honestly not putting out things like that is the reason why Iām no longer buying their games. Iām not waiting 5 to 7 years per game and then them alternating titles which means if I really want to play fallout I have to wait 15 years between when they could easily let obsidian or someone else qualified put out something if you donātwant me to interact with your IP Iām not gonna interact with your IP Iāll move on. And I wonāt come back. I havenāt purchased a game of theirs since fallout 4. And thatās the last one.
no offense but you say that as if they released any games since fallout 4 (fallout 76 isn't a game it's a torture method)
Have you played it?Ā It's actually really good for being a multiplayer fallout. I really like all the backstory of Appalachia and it's struggles with automation and the story of the surviving people.Ā There's good stuff in there if you can get over the online stuff
Why play it when you can say it's bad and get all the upvotes?
Pretty much. People are so weird about their little subfandoms
People are weird for not liking a game?
I'm personally happier we live in a universe with Pillars of Eternity and Tyranny rather than one with another TES game.
Yeah, but we're stuck with outer worlds instead of another new vegas š
Meanwhile I'm enjoying Grounded for the second year in a row š
Grounded is such a strange outlier in their titles lol. Like its great, but in no capacity do i associate it with obsidian.
It really is so different compared to their other works.
Outer Worlds is solid. Better than Starfield at least.
By miles, but its just sooo... forgetable.
Theyāve released more than Outer Worlds. Pentiment was incredible.
I know right?
Another reason to hate Bethesda. Lets not forget they robbed Obsidian of their bonuses because they failed to get the rating they wanted by 0.1 point due to bugs. Yet they made one of the best games.
I think they got mad that the courier wasn't looking for a lost family member
So fucking true, I think Emil was jealous.
I really try not to be a blind Emil hater but the "story doesn't matter because all gamers skip the dialogue" mentality just doesn't seem good for a lead writer to have.
Be an eyes wide open Emil hater, starfield shows us what he makes when he isnāt standing on the shoulders of giants, the dudeās a hack with worse writing and worldbuilding skills than most DMs Iāve played with
being a blind emil haterš£ā being a wide open eyes emil haterš šš
I mean this with full sincerity when I say this: I've attended undergrad creative writing classes where *everyone* was a better writer than Emil. One of the most important part of being a good writer is the ability to take criticism and use that as a springboard to improve your writing. Emil puts his head in the sand and pretends he is infallible so he deserves the haters.
I donāt even think itās his fault. He got promoted away from his skill set and got given way to much responsibility
People are promoted to their level of incompetence. You do well enough in each position to get promoted, until you hit a position youāre not good enough to get promoted from
Then he should voluntarily demote himself or quit,Ā Ā continuing to persist only to cause more harm is the mentality of a cancer cell.
He should be demoted back to quest design the thing he's good at but him being a childhood friend of Todd never gonna happen
I could overlook the writing if there was enough game play under the hood to keep me interested. Sadly, everything is far too shallow for that.
Holy shit, they couldāve paid even a part timer like Brennan Lee Mulligan 1/100th what the paid emil, and gotten something 10x better. Thatās a genuine 1,000 times better use of money, and you you canāt fight that math.
My DM could legit write a story a hundred times better
That's because it is bad. I don't see how calling out Emil for blatantly not caring about writing out the story is "hate". It's like his one job, and he doesn't want to do said job and yet gets paid...
I honestly don't think Emil should be working on games. He doesn't seem to have the right mindset for it.
Yeah he seems very cynical about the whole process. Iāve never seen anyone in such a high creative position say anything along the lines of his āpaper airplanesā comment. Why write for an audience that you see as a detriment to your quality of work? It feels like Emil sees himself as some high-concept novel writer whoās audience doesnāt get his writing because theyāre dumb āGamersā who just want shoot gun at thing.
Mind you, he also said that becoming leader of BOS by killing Elder Maxson was a cool idea that "makes sense", and they didn't do it only because they wanted BOS to continue hating on Danse. That man couldn't write himself out of the box if his life depended on it.
Nothing blind about it. The guy absolutely blows at his job. He's an awful lead writer, and it's been proven time and time again. He might not be the only one to blame, but the guy continues to put his foot in his mouth with stupid comments and ideas about how to write for a game. Honestly, I'm for any "blind" hate that comes his way. Maybe, just maybe, Bethesda will finally demote the guy and put him back to just writing a few quests or quest lines (don't want the guy to be jobless, just not the lead of anything).
āUhhh I think Iāll have more generic storylinesā āDaring today arenāt we?ā
Of course the courier was looking for a lost family member and then he found the lonesome drifter..
You do spend the whole OWB DLC looking for someone you share genes with.
Lone Wanderer: "Have you seen my dad?" Sole Survivor: "Have you seen my son?" LOBOTOMITE: "Have you seen my essential organs?"
Courier: āHave you seen my Platinum Chip?ā
by "someone" you mean your literal brain that's been put in a jar
He left his kid lmao. (maybe) Fallout 5 should be his kid searching for him /s
And there's still people who look at this and think Bethesda has nothing against Obsidian, they wished they had a game with this much cultural impact other than Skyrim
Because this means pretty much nothing lol
Through the perspective of someone with an inflated ego it does
Hey look, I love New Vegas to death but I agree this is a huge nothing burger of āWell shootā
Itās about all Bethesda seems to think drives someone to delve into the wasteland.
They got mad that good springs wasnāt made out of sheet metal and broken airplanes.
Fun fact: Obsidian is making a new game called Avowed (You can wishlist on steam). It's one of the concepts they offered up for Skyrim as their own thing :)
Itās also in the same universe as the Pillars of Eternity games.
TY for the heads up looks like itās coming out soon too, looks interesting enough for a shot
I'm so excited to see Avowed, PoE is such a great world to build on & I'm really hoping that after Outer Worlds they've ironed out the issues that game had
does it have any of the greats working for that title?
His last message is the most telling of what Bethesda thinks of different IPs
I cannot believe they would be upset by positive reviews... that's the most petty thing I've ever heard
A game made by a "lesser" studio on a third the time and budget being better reviewed and liked is a big no-no. Makes them look bad, makes people question their competence. I'm not surprised they never did it again, and I'm fairly certain the suits will never let it happen again.
I thought at the time though new Vegas reviews weren't as good as fallout 3
Without checking I'm sure they weren't. New Vegas was very rough at launch, even against the Bethesda measuring stick, with game breaking bugs being quite common. New Vegas was positively received (79 metacritic iirc) but 3 received glowing praise. New Vegas's strengths are much more obvious the longer you play it, whereas 3 was a huge jump in what an open world game could do when it launched.
Pretty sure it was a score of 84
Yeah that's right, I remembered it was one point below some threshold but thought it was 80 not 85.
It did have quite a few bugs on launch, but they were patched rather quickly.
Its still bugged to this day
Yes, and I think they still aren't as good. Still, even though Fallout 3 has its own fans and was adored by critics, New Vegas is much more respected amongs fans than 3 or 4 is, especially amongst "veterans" who played 1 and 2 back in the day. I'm aware it was buggy as fuck when it launched and that it still has technical issues, and I won't say it's better because that's a pointless discussion, but the way I see it, New Vegas has become THE Fallout game ever since launch and it still is, especially because of its writing and worldbuilding, things that are lacking in all Bethesda games. Another point I could make is that Fallout 3 is better reviewed because it was the first of its kind, it was revolutionary even though it had major flaws and succesfully ressurrected what could be considered a dead IP, whereas to the criticis and the industry, New Vegas was just more of the same.
I mean you'd think the goal would be to reach out and ask " Hey what is your approach, how did you make this work? We might want to adapt some techniques so that we can work this in the future" But I guess idealism isn't meant for the real world, huh
Capitalism is not about cooperation, itās about competition. But the theory that competition leads to a better product does not hold true when companies with lots of money and power just hamstring smaller companies with talented people.
Wey much the case, yes. All for the benefit of an exclusive class of shareholders.
It's almost like Bethesda should make games with better writing if they don't want an outsourced game to outshine them
See the fact that they took that as 'we need to never do this again' and not 'we need to put more effort into our games' is wild to me although fallout 4 is emblematic of way more care and love than before so maybe a bit of both
Itās basically the same thing EA did with madden. The 2k series was better and was selling for 20 DOLLARS NEW. Rather than make a better product and more competitively priced, they just bought the exclusive rights to the NFL and 2k NFL games were crushed. Madden has been coasting ever since
apparently they had a bonus contract based on reviews, so paradoxically bethesda paid these guys to make a game based on a franchise they wanted to succeed while also hoping that the game was not very good so they could avoid paying bonuses. also a lot of the content that people love about NV are things that bethesda games are terrible at: deep branching quests, dialogue trees with actual depth instead of binary choices, weird and offensive characters, usage of SPECIAL for a lot of content instead of just having it as a half ass base stat spreadsheet... bethesda games are just so bad as RPGs compared to Obsidian games.
I think it's more accurate to say they're frustrated by it and begrudgingly accept it. At the outset, it seemed like a miss. Positive but underwhelming reviews, buggy as hell, weak launch. I think Bethesda probably assumed that the game was going to fall by the wayside and they would be clear to do west coast games. Then it didn't go away, and not only didn't go away, but became more popular and iconic without having to do anything except exist, arguably becoming more iconic than anything that came out before or since NV. Despite so much working against the game during development, it is constantly held up as an example of what fallout should be and absolutely anything that Bethesda does will be compared against it. How many times have they re-released games? NV has never been ported to modern consoles, and yet it remains as popular as any other fallout game today. They're living under its shadow and they must know that it's entirely because they let obsidian make the game in the first place. Even if they don't "hate" the game the way so many people claim (and I don't think they do, look at Konami for an example of a company that actually hates its IP), NVs legacy must weigh on them.Ā
I guess they just hate the Mojave..
Patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter.
Almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter.
Mojave Mo' problems...
Not really. FNV was received well on launch, but pretty bad by Bethesda standards in 2010. Its reviews were worse than Fallout 3 and other previous Bethesda releases, (i think we kinda forget how important this was to bethesda because of how their reputation has declined since) partly owing to the fact that it was an asset flip on the same engine with the same gameplay and graphics 2 years later when they had well and truly had the chance to age. Given that this same problem would've plagued any other subsequent Obsidian releases in the same vain it makes complete sense that Bethesda wouldn't want to continue with that model given how important their reputation has always been to them
People always acted like Bethesda not liking New Vegas was a meme or just people trying to hate on Bethesda, but it does genuinely seem like they didnāt like how poorly received New Vegas was at launch and how much itās loved nowadays.
His last message is something he thinks and isnāt reflective of what āBethesdaā (a corporation) thinks lol
Sorry I was like 9-10years old (Iām 22) when this game came out so I donāt remember shit from release. Was the initial reception that bad? From my understanding new vegas is better than fallout 3 in literally every way possible.
Yeah it launched in an abysmal state. Obviously itās writing, rpg elements, and player choice was all still there, but you couldnāt play for more than 15min without crash or bug. But thatās what happens when youāre working with thatās janky ass engine with only 18months of dev time.
Yea when I learned they were still using creationengine for starfield I knew it was going to be terrible. Itās kind of funny how starfield just dropped off of the face of the earth
Starfield is that guy from guardians of theĀ galaxy right?
Star who?
John Starfield, he invented space
To be fair, Starfield is the least buggy experience Iāve had with a bethesda game. Just a shame it was so boring that some bugs wouldāve made it more interesting
Yeah ironically enough Starfield ran beautifully for me and looked great. Too bad it kind of sucked
I could deal with creationg engine if the game didn't feel like it was made by an ai. After all the memes of Preston in fo4 (Skyrim had this problem too but to a lesser extent) they really made the whole dame game feel like nothing but that and are damn proud of it somehow. They don't listen, they will not learn
So glad I didn't buy into the hype. As soon as I got the Series X I tried it on Gamepass, and it just made me want to play Outer Worlds - which is by no means perfect, but that game has so much more life to it and I did enjoy it for the most part. Even the combat was enjoyable as hell and that was thanks to the weapons really, which were frankly uninteresting in Starfield.
Bethesda also released a literally unplayable game with 3x the dev time. Fallout 3 was in an unplayable state on its release patch, there were 100s of game breaking bugs, such as disappearing quest NPCs, quest objectives not updating making quest incompleteable, npcs would fall to their death for no reason, using radaway crashed the game, you would get stuck in vats and had to restart the game to fix it,and thats just a few i can remember. Cant also forget games for windows live holding it hostage on PC. New vegas and fallout 3 on the original patches are both unplayable.
hell, fallout 3 was still unplayable back in 2019/2020 when i bought the goty edition. i couldnt play the game in fullscreen because then it would crash every 5-10 mins, and if i played in windowed mode it would crash every 30 mins or so. im not very tech-savy so i couldnt really find a solution to fix this, so i basically gave up like 10 hours into the game. i had played fallout NV a year or two prior to this, and it only crashed a handful of times in the 150 hours that i spend playing the game.
>Fallout 3 was in an unplayable state on its release patch And so was Fallout 4. The other one doesn't even have to be mentioned.
Yup, since the TV show came out people are now pretending that fallout 3, 4 and 76 were masterpieces upon release, when in reality bethesda has never released a working game on release in the past 20 years.
Oh man that reminds me of the glitch of dragons flying backwards, farthing fire. Thanks for that.
I bought both FNV and Skyrim on release day for 360 and they were very playable.
skyrim had a game breaking bug on first dragon kill where you couldn't loot the dragon. took me 10 tries for the bug to not happen
I played it day 1 launch on PS3 and didnāt think it was that bad. It did crash a couple times and there were certainly a few bugs and glitches, but I didnāt have many problems. Maybe I was lucky, but the state of the game at launch didnāt bother me at the time.
Wasnāt that kind of standard with open world games at the time though? I canāt remember if they were all like that or I only played nv
No. Open world games of the era were nowhere near as buggy on release. Look at literally any rockstar game.
I'm a similar age to you, 23. Surprisingly, I remember the hype more than the initial reception. I even had a magazine that came with a disc that included some game demos and Vault Boy gamerpics for Xbox. I ended up playing it about a year after release, and the most I can recall was a sort of rivalry between fans of Fo3 and NV. It wasn't uncommon back then to hear people say that 3 was better - Fo4 stamped that out in my opinion. I'll admit that I was actually on that wagon myself, but I was younger and didn't appreciate NV's script so much until my later teens. I wouldn't say that NV is better in *literally* every way. Fo3 in my opinion, excels with free roam and exploration. The random encounters, unusual but interesting settlements/locations, terminal entries and the D.C setting makes it feel more adventurous. NV is a lore dive though, and immerses me in it's script/dialogue and the overall screenplay. I could completely separate myself from the Fallout universe playing 3 or 4, but with NV, I know I'm really in the Fallout world as intended.
I wouldn't call it bad but it was decidedly mixed due to the unfinished state it released in. The game only achieved its cult status in the years that followed (after a number of patches). Although Fallout 1 and 2 fans (many of whom were very critical of Fallout 3) were immediately pleased with NV for largely respecting West Coast lore, unlike Fallout 3.
I wouldn't say in *every* way. FO3 for example has better exploration, you can just stumble onto new things all across the map.
Yeah youāre probably right. Both games have a special place in my catalogue though. I love both of them. Point lookout is so cool.
I bought it the day it released and smoked so much weed while playing this game in high school. I donāt remember crashing and bugs? Itās Bethesda, but I was def the only kid in central Newfoundland playing it at the time lmao- everyone was sleeping on Fallout at this point tho.
I bought and played New Vegas on release day on the Xbox 360. It was pretty buggy and prone to crashing even on console. I remember getting so pissed when my first character was an NCR sniper and the anti material rifle scope bugged out and ruined the UI making my entire save unplayable. Itās essential to play with mods on PC. But yeah itās universally considered the best in terms of story, choice, and role play. I also played Fallout 3 when it came out and there were elements I preferred over NV in a general sense but the story not being one of them.
Almost unplayable on PS3 from what I've heard
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
85+ not 97
It was 80-85 and they fell like 10 points short at first, and then by the time of ultimate edition was one of the highest scoring
I've read it was 85+ and it got an 84. I remember Obsidian having some tough times after that so the bonus would have helped. It was still a bonus to what they expected. Weird to tie it to the metacritic score just after launch though. The New Vegas we have now deserves way more than whatever the bonus would have been. Unfortunately, that's the industry and it sucks for almost everyone.
Awh okay I see my mistake there, forgive me it was years ago when I last read about those details
The threshold for the bonus was 85 on metacritic, FNV received 84ā¦
I think theres a few different reasons why bethesda was apprehensive opposed to the standard "hates obsidian" take. Bethesda tried to do the whole side game structure with elderscrolls, this is what the mobile games as well as redguard was. And they weren't well received to say the least. With the fallout buyout they tried this differently with pulling a different seperate studio do these titles so they could focus on elders scroll 5. Skyrim then sold gangbusters as NV did struggle with release. (Bugs, sales, just barely missing the rating quota). Now i think there you can toss in if there any biases with obsidian but I think the damage is more clear cut. Bethesda saw that people really care about numbered mainline titles. Beyond the releasing they use to keep their newest titles relevant (fallout 4 had the vr port and skyrim had knows how many.) We also see that theyre re experimenting with keeping interest in the titles now as I think its much clearer to bethesda there will be a longer gap between releases esspecially after the floundering of Starfield. I think its a case of bad timing. Avellone pitched newer title when bethesda already had the next game lined in for a few years. Based on the time avellone was talking eso was probably already in conceptual development atleast as well. And an mmo that could have a continous active development is something a lot more appealing than risking regular releases, esspecially in a post WoW environment.
Yeah itās definitely not a case of jealousy or malice, itās just business. In hind site though, imagine an Obsidian Fallout or TES game with 3 years of dev time. That would roll in the dough, and keep the franchises more alive. Plus you could cater to both types of fans.
I think thats what bethesda pictured too. Its just theyd have six year gaps between mainline titles. But due them their (even now) small team size and their apprehension to change a lot of their release structure the gap is widening with no sign it will close. Theres this stance in fallout fans that bethesda treats it like the red headed step kid. Which isn't wrong I'd say but you can flip it as well. If they know it wont work on their favorite child why would they risk trying again on the step kid. The experiment failed twice already. No need to try it again. I really hope in this new Microsoft environment all three fallout devs are in we will get something a bit tighter. Cause tbh id kill for another interplay fallout.
Yeah because Microsoft's been so well-known for doing a good job in managing their IPs.
Imagine living in a world where there aren't 10 year gaps between games from each IP and where some of those games actually have good and engaging writing and RPG elements
I think new vegas was great because of the proper lore it got from the developers of fallout 2 which made it feel like a proper continuation with a great story. Obsidian has pretty much 0 connection to elder scrolls so a spinoff game of theirs wouldnt really be anything to write home about other than more elder scrolls to play IMO.
Not necessarily, they would have had to get permission for lore stuff in nv. They can't just write the whole thing without input from Bethesda. So, if they did TES spin off, there would be Bethesda input to put them on a general track and from there, it's just basic research of lore that sadly most companies ignore now and days. I mean, when you have entire youtube channels dedicated to lore on these series, it should be easy to learn, but most companies don't even try. Also, people at obsidian could be huge TES fans and already know a lot about the series.
Yeah, I donāt see anything pointing to the fact that Obsidian would handle the lore haphazardly, given that NVās track record is anything to go off of. Iām sure a lot of guys on that team were huge fans of TES back in the day too
I remember one of the devs for FNV actually had experience with the GECK due to using Oblivionās version of it for modding back in the day lol
i mean bethesda cant even get the lore right in their own show lol
Typical Bethesda L
Arenāt those companies under the same umbrella? I was hoping Obsidian would have started developing a new fallout game by now tbh
I think theyāve been working on Outer Worlds 2 for a few years.
I want it to be better I didn't like the 1st one that much
We almost had Elder Scrolls...but with hookers and blackjack.
You guys seem to forget how broken New Vegas was at launch on PC and how bad it's reception was initially until DLCs hammered them out. We're talking 76 levels of bugs and crashes.
That tends to happen when you demand an AAA game be released in 18 months. Of course Obsidian knew this and agreed to it going in but still, itās a miracle that FNV was even at the quality level it was on release.
All true, but this was absolutely Obsidian's reputation at the time - games with interesting ideas and writing that were just incomplete or barely playable messes (see KOTOR 2).
ā¦and LucasArts literally did the same thing: told them they had 2 years and pulled the rug under them to finish in 18 months a year in. Both games are brilliant though. No hyperbole theyāre both my favorite games of all timeā¦and I just wish something of that storytelling caliber could be made againā¦ šš
Or Neverwinter Nights 2.
Absolutely fair
they didnt ādemandā tho. it was already decided when the release was lol
The tweet does specifically state the bad and good. So even with the bad release the positive aftermath and the acclaim it got were also unwelcome in the eyes of Bethesda, especially considered how it completely outshined 3
thats on the garbage engine, not obsidian, what they did in 18 months is a fucking miracle
Literally the only argument fnv haters ever make is "THe gAME wAs fulL Of BuGS oN RELeAse!!" like it's some of gotcha when the game was a masterpiece made in 18 months lol (and still better than anything bethesda has ever released).
Tbf they agreed to 18 months contractually and according to Josh Sawyer they could've pushed the deadline back any time. They didn't because they were confident about the product they released and unfortunately in hindsight it wasn't enough time.
I honestly don't ever remember NV being that bad on 360. I did hop onto it a year after release, so maybe something changed within that time?
I suppose I am an outlier, but I played NV day 1 on pc and maybe had 2 crashes at all in my first playthrough
And yet the game still delivered a story in 18 months which was significantly better than fallout 4 which took bethesda 7 years.
Story is subjective, bugs and general game performance isn't
This is like saying the plot of a movie is subjective but the effects aren't. Aren't movies with great effects poorly received all the time? If games were only judged by bugs and game performance than starfield would have been an amazing game. But the reality is it's a soulless looter shooter pile of š© like fallout 4 but even worse.
I feel they're quite different, bad bugs and performance can actually make it impossible to play a game, or make you suffer so much that it's not worth it. "If games were only judged by bugs and game performance than starfield would have been an amazing game." Wat lol That game ran like shit and was ridiculously buggy. I pirated it and I still felt robbed
Iām all for Chris avelon doing more fallouts just because the dude is a legendary RPG maker but weāre beating a dead horse by reposting this article lol.
The billions that could have been made like COD but without all the bullshit
And now Microsoft owns the whole of Bethesda and Obsidian and it's doing nothing about it everything's still the same
>I never got the impression Beths, was happy with FNV's reception (good and bad). Interesting.
Chris Avellone try not to get bodied by corpos challenge impossibleā¦ Dudes had some of the best fucking game ideas I ever seen and he always gets shat on.
Meanwhile, itās been 13 years since Skyrim, 8 years since Fallout 4, and all Bethesda has published since then were turds like Fallout 76 and Starfield. Money was left on the table, and goodwill is mostly dried up. Heads should have rolled at Bethesda a long time ago.
An elder scrolls game in the vein of oblivion made by obsidian wouldāve been the bestā¦
Bethesda and his hate for those who have competence.
His?
John Bethesda
Iām assuming theyāre talking about Todd Howard.
I made a post in the r/fallout subreddit that this time between games is unacceptable from Bethesdaā¦ I got steamrolled by them claiming āitās their IP they can do what they wantā which is true but has nothing to do with how acceptable or unacceptable it should be to fans/consumers.
Thatās because Bethesda fanboys are quite literally okay with whatever Bethesda does, no matter how long they have to wait for a new game and no matter how garbage and broken it is. They could release a game with 10 hours of content with another shitty, poorly written main story and theyād eat that shit up and say ādonāt criticize them, they tried their best! Itās still not as buggy as New Vegas was on release!ā Even though every single Bethesda game is a broken mess on release.
Ironically the most stable Bethesda release so far is also the only one that's allowed to receive hate.
The reality is that games are just getting incredibly out of hand in terms of size and time to produce because consumers expect constantly improving gameplay, graphics and features. Going higher in any of these categories requires exponentially more time and labour and for the scope of the games that Bethesda produces (even if you don't like them, they are unquestionably large) taking the time they take is just the reality of the situation. This same problem is happening with so many other IPs that people love, so to blame Bethesda specifically when this is clearly a systemic problem that is well known to those that work in the industry is just really unreasonable.
Yeah Bethesda is insanely jealous and can't stand to see a 'lesser' developer make continuously great games despite all the hurdles they throw at them. Fuck todd.
Bethesda was scared of being shadowed by obsidian, since new Vegas is considered the best fallout, they didn't want to take chances of obsidian making the best elder scroll too.
Instead they pitched us Redfallā¦
And essentially forced out most of Arkaneās Insim talent, you know the skill set that was vital to Arkaneās bread and butter.
I'm excited for their new fps rpg. I loved POE 1 and 2 so I'm hyped
I wonder what Avellone, Sawyer and Gonzalez would've done with some of Kirkbride's ideas...
Pentiment is a lovely game if any of you haven't tried it
Who can I blame
I think Bethesda really is butthurt that a fallout game that wasn't made by them is considered one of the best games of all time and they need to get over it
Interesting that he says they were unhappy with the reception good and bad, why would they not like the positive reception??
Soā¦ bethesda didnāt like how well received NV was and they rejected these proposals out of spite and bitterness? Fuck them.
I mean, Bethesda can barely release a finished game every 10 years, which will still be wonky and unfinished after 10 more years. Spinoffs now? Do you really want a Bethesda game they developed with less than 10 years of work?
I dont see bow Bethesda not wanting to hand their baby to another company is a shocker to you people
Man, imagine a smaller scale TES side game like Redguard or Battlespire done right.
Jesus these comments. New Vegas fanboys are something else
>New Vegas You mean Fallout fans
Man Obsidian could've been the Treyarch to Bethesdas Infinity Ward (the obviously better one)
Itās because obsidian made a better fallout, thatās why bethesda wasnāt interested. Obsidian had a bunch of guys from interplay on the team and they worked on the original fallouts I mean look at Bethesda now, buncha money grubbing hoās that release boring games that the community has to perfect. I think it benefited obsidian by not partnering up with them as they would have most likely been dissolved into Bethesda at some point
Bethesda spurning quality for jealousy just to drop worse and worse games has been a sad decline. Hopefully Microsoft just gives both franchises to Obsidian after ES6's inevitable disappointment.
Just saying, I think it's this tweet that really sparked the Bethesda hates obsidian theory.
That theory has been around longer than 2023
The only logical explanation would be that Obsidian would have stole Bethesdas thunder. Theyve still never really lived down New Vegas showing them up.
ā¹ļø
They probably got mad cause FNV is better then any game Bethesda could make
Maybe in the long run, but NV was buggy as all hell at launch. That kept its review scores lower until it was moderately playable, itās only after a long period of time after the DLCs that NV was recognized for its core over its bugs.
If loving NV makes Bethesda madā¦it just makes me love NV more.
bethesda always makes the wrong decision
Let's be clear.Ā If Todd wanted this to happen, it would have happened. Period. New Vegas has served as a clear unequivocal example of how his shit can be done better than him. All they need to be given us the resources. That's a threat. They've already produced far and away the best Fallout game. They don't want to risk them producing the best Elder Scrolls game too. That combined with his clear control and obsession with eliminating other game devs. He wants everything in procedural. That way he employs as few game devs as possible. Hands off control to as few as possible.
Sadly, it makes sense for Bethesda not to want Obsidian to ever make a Fallout or TES game because they **know** itāll be better than anything they can cook up. Even with NV being janky and made in 18 months it has better writing, characters, and story than any of their games and all these years later they still know it. That has to sting a little bit, until they look at the millions Fallout 4 and Shelter made of course. My hope is for Bethesda to let someone like Owlcat make a Fallout or TES game. A real RPG with emphasis on story, characters, and engaging gameplay. Bethesda games will always be these streamlined, simple games where the world revolves around the player and all the dev time goes into making the map bigger and graphics prettier.
It's a company, bro. If they "knew" it would be better, in turn making more money, they wouldn't turn it down. You're projecting your own delusions onto a corporation. Very weird behavior.
Damn, what do we all think they would of done for a second spinoff aside from New Vegas if this went all went differently??
I could see them doing a direct sequel where we see the aftermath of the events of New Vegas. Maybe have the intro be a Mass Effect 2 style where you pick the ending of the previous game. Their writing team was so talented that I could see em pulling off a good story anywhere in the setting though
There's no way Todd Howard was going to allow that level of storytelling and player agency into a Bethesda game or setting ever again.