If Fallout: New Vegas was developed by Bethesda

S

SpiritBreaker

First time out of the vault
If Fallout: New Vegas is exactly the same as it is now except it was developed by Bethesda Game Studios, would you hate it?
That's a rhetorical question, of course you would.
 
A valid question.
Personally, I have nothing against Bethesda. I still like Morrowind very much and Terminator: Future Shock is a brilliant game as well, and so is Daggerfall.
If Bethesda had made Fallout: New Vegas I still would have liked it.
Because it's a good game.
I know it's tempting to accuse NMA of being childishly anti-Bethesda, but really, folks here don't care about the company. We care about the game. There are reasons why Fallout 3 is considered rubbish, and it's not because Bethesda made it.
Look back at the days when Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel was in development and Fallout 3/Van Buren was rumoured. There was no company-loyalty, it was all about the game.

I hope this isn't just another troll who buys the whole "NMA is a bunch of basement-dwellers who'll never be satisfied with anything"-stuff. There's only, like, two of those guys here.
 
Hassknecht said:
A valid question.
Personally, I have nothing against Bethesda. I still like Morrowind very much and Terminator: Future Shock is a brilliant game as well, and so is Daggerfall.
If Bethesda had made Fallout: New Vegas I still would have liked it.
Because it's a good game.
I know it's tempting to accuse NMA of being childishly anti-Bethesda, but really, folks here don't care about the company. We care about the game. There are reasons why Fallout 3 is considered rubbish, and it's not because Bethesda made it.
Look back at the days when Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel was in development and Fallout 3/Van Buren was rumoured. There was no company-loyalty, it was all about the game.

I hope this isn't just another troll who buys the whole "NMA is a bunch of basement-dwellers who'll never be satisfied with anything"-stuff. There's only, like, two of those guys here.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the response.
I still think this is all just the result of extreme bias, nothing more.
I read some user reviews of Fallout New Vegas, and every time I read a bad review, it has the reviewer thinking it was Bethesda who made New Vegas, commenting things like: "This game has Bethesda's characteristic terrible writing", while every single praising review mentions "It is much better than FO3 because it is made by Obsidian".
In short, when they believe that Bethesda made the game then the writing is bland and awful, but when they find out it was Obsidian who made it the writing becomes brilliant and witty. Same applies to all the other aspects of the game.
 
compare with skyrim and NV, they don't make NV big diffrent from fo3. not about writing or something.
they simply don't make quest-based rpg.
what they making is dungeon crawling game.
quests are just excuse for dungeon crawling.
it's they're tradition except for Morrowind.
Morrowind might be only quest-based rpg from beth.
other? they are just dungeon crawling hack and slash game.
their dungeon isn't that great dungeon it's linear and easy to beat. what you do is simply killing enemy grab some loot.

Fallout series on the other hand, it quset based rpg.
the most important thing is solving situations to progress not about dungeon crawling and hack&slash.

fo3 is diffrent from other Fallout for this aspect.
quest isn't that great, plot is linear and not fun at all, rule is POS so fo3 play point is just dungeon crawling and hack&slash.

on the other hand, NV's main feature is quests and choice.
there are some dungeons but it isn't main feature of NV.

so if NV(I don't think they won't use this name though) is developed by beth, it's just simply another fo3.
 
I'm not a fanboy towards any company so if a game got good parts i will mention them.. And the same goes for any bad parts.
So for me it would not have changed my love and hate relationship for NV!
 
SpiritBreaker said:
Hassknecht said:
A valid question.
Personally, I have nothing against Bethesda. I still like Morrowind very much and Terminator: Future Shock is a brilliant game as well, and so is Daggerfall.
If Bethesda had made Fallout: New Vegas I still would have liked it.
Because it's a good game.
I know it's tempting to accuse NMA of being childishly anti-Bethesda, but really, folks here don't care about the company. We care about the game. There are reasons why Fallout 3 is considered rubbish, and it's not because Bethesda made it.
Look back at the days when Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel was in development and Fallout 3/Van Buren was rumoured. There was no company-loyalty, it was all about the game.

I hope this isn't just another troll who buys the whole "NMA is a bunch of basement-dwellers who'll never be satisfied with anything"-stuff. There's only, like, two of those guys here.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the response.
I still think this is all just the result of extreme bias, nothing more.
I read some user reviews of Fallout New Vegas, and every time I read a bad review, it has the reviewer thinking it was Bethesda who made New Vegas, commenting things like: "This game has Bethesda's characteristic terrible writing", while every single praising review mentions "It is much better than FO3 because it is made by Obsidian".
In short, when they believe that Bethesda made the game then the writing is bland and awful, but when they find out it was Obsidian who made it the writing becomes brilliant and witty. Same applies to all the other aspects of the game.
Click to expand...
Do you have any sources for that?
I mean, what does this tell you about the reviewer if he or she writes something like that? It must be a complete pillock with absolutely no journalistic integrity. If they say "It has Bethesda's trademark shitty writing" then they failed to do their research on a basic level. If they praise it just because it's made by Obsidian their review is just worthless because that's no reason for praise.

There is a bias, though, and you can't really eliminate it. A review should be as objective as possible, though, and the developer is not an objective criterium.
The mainstream-sites do favour Bethesda, though, so I guess if they had made New Vegas exactly the way it is now NV would have gotten way better reviews.
 
no they get worse score.
they only get 1.5 year to develop, reuse graphic and bugs.
plus they don't make nothing new. actually faction system was one of beth game's good point at Daggerfall and Morrowind but they just don't use it. and non-linear plot? thet don't make it except for Daggerfall.

NV get lower score thanks(not) for fo3's fault. bug was critised because beth don't fix bug at fo3 and they expect beth won't fix bug at NV.
 
woo1108 said:
compare with skyrim and NV, they don't make NV big diffrent from fo3. not about writing or something.
they simply don't make quest-based rpg.
what they making is dungeon crawling game.
quests are just excuse for dungeon crawling.
it's they're tradition except for Morrowind.
Morrowind might be only quest-based rpg from beth.
other? they are just dungeon crawling hack and slash game.
their dungeon isn't that great dungeon it's linear and easy to beat. what you do is simply killing enemy grab some loot.

Fallout series on the other hand, it quset based rpg.
the most important thing is solving situations to progress not about dungeon crawling and hack&slash.

fo3 is diffrent from other Fallout for this aspect.
quest isn't that great, plot is linear and not fun at all, rule is POS so fo3 play point is just dungeon crawling and hack&slash.

on the other hand, NV's main feature is quests and choice.
there are some dungeons but it isn't main feature of NV.

so if NV(I don't think they won't use this name though) is developed by beth, it's just simply another fo3.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you're talking about. Fallout 3 is the least linear, most choice oriented game of the 21st century. And no two quests are the same. And every quest has multiple outcomes, and multiple quests can cancel each other out if one is completed instead of the other.
It is when I read comments like this I realize how biased people are.
 
Thanks for the response.
I still think this is all just the result of extreme bias, nothing more.
I read some user reviews of Fallout New Vegas, and every time I read a bad review, it has the reviewer thinking it was Bethesda who made New Vegas, commenting things like: "This game has Bethesda's characteristic terrible writing", while every single praising review mentions "It is much better than FO3 because it is made by Obsidian".
In short, when they believe that Bethesda made the game then the writing is bland and awful, but when they find out it was Obsidian who made it the writing becomes brilliant and witty. Same applies to all the other aspects of the game.
Click to expand...
Because Bethesda... wait for it... have bad wiriting in their every game, so writing such things isn't nothing wrong? And on other hand, Obsidan in their games have a great wrting? What's wrong with pointing well known things?
Morrowind for example, while being great game, have poor level of story/dialogues and everyone knows that, and when it comes to Obsidan games, 2 tihngs - bugs/technical errors.

Fallout 3 is so hated... because it's simply bad game.
Every game can defend itselt, if it's great... and it's rather obvious.
Why would someone hate on cool game?
 
if fo3 is non-linear so other jrpg are.
do you really think main stream of fo3 is non-linear?
sub quests are just looking non-linear but no.
they are not connected each other and meaningless.
not that different from TES series. looking non-linear but actually linear.
 
Haven't touched Oblivion much besides at a friends house many many years ago. But wasn't the guilds etc quite well done? From what i remember it was at least much better than skyrim when it came to the dark brotherhood and fighting guild vs companions?

And to be honest i find as much bad parts in both teams even if Obsidian got more of the "better" stuff.. They are not that great.
 
Languorous_Maiar said:
Oblivion is worst TES game, so I would say no. ; p
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that the game is good! Dear god no :P But some parts at least felt good/better.
 
Hassknecht said:
SpiritBreaker said:
Hassknecht said:
A valid question.
Personally, I have nothing against Bethesda. I still like Morrowind very much and Terminator: Future Shock is a brilliant game as well, and so is Daggerfall.
If Bethesda had made Fallout: New Vegas I still would have liked it.
Because it's a good game.
I know it's tempting to accuse NMA of being childishly anti-Bethesda, but really, folks here don't care about the company. We care about the game. There are reasons why Fallout 3 is considered rubbish, and it's not because Bethesda made it.
Look back at the days when Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel was in development and Fallout 3/Van Buren was rumoured. There was no company-loyalty, it was all about the game.

I hope this isn't just another troll who buys the whole "NMA is a bunch of basement-dwellers who'll never be satisfied with anything"-stuff. There's only, like, two of those guys here.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the response.
I still think this is all just the result of extreme bias, nothing more.
I read some user reviews of Fallout New Vegas, and every time I read a bad review, it has the reviewer thinking it was Bethesda who made New Vegas, commenting things like: "This game has Bethesda's characteristic terrible writing", while every single praising review mentions "It is much better than FO3 because it is made by Obsidian".
In short, when they believe that Bethesda made the game then the writing is bland and awful, but when they find out it was Obsidian who made it the writing becomes brilliant and witty. Same applies to all the other aspects of the game.
Click to expand...
Do you have any sources for that?
I mean, what does this tell you about the reviewer if he or she writes something like that? It must be a complete pillock with absolutely no journalistic integrity. If they say "It has Bethesda's trademark shitty writing" then they failed to do their research on a basic level. If they praise it just because it's made by Obsidian their review is just worthless because that's no reason for praise.

There is a bias, though, and you can't really eliminate it. A review should be as objective as possible, though, and the developer is not an objective criterium.
The mainstream-sites do favour Bethesda, though, so I guess if they had made New Vegas exactly the way it is now NV would have gotten way better reviews.
Click to expand...
There's lots of sources, practically everywhere you look it'll be the same. Try Metacritic's user reviews for example.
I wasn't referring to one writer, I'm referring to everyone.

As for "If they praise it just because it's made by Obsidian their review is just worthless because that's no reason for praise.", you have just described every single person who hates Fallout 3 but loves New Vegas at the same time.
I have yet to see any criticisms of Fallout 3 that are worth a response, all I ever read is "New Vegas has better characters, better gameplay, better story, more interactive game world, and it was made by Obsidian" and it rarely goes deeper than that.

As for the mainstream sites, if you are referring to advertisement revenue they get for praising games, I don't see how they would treat any game based on who developed it rather than who published it, and seeing that Bethesda published both Fallout 3 and New Vegas why would it make a difference who developed what?

I know you and everyone else thinks that they are being objective when calling Fallout 3 rubbish, it's the nature of every biased person to believe he's not biased.
 
I agree with you for fo3 is hated because it is poor game but for writing? I don't know.

Morrowind's dialog is awesome. actually not a good dialog for keyword system but at least hve good point of keyword dialog system. it can represent my intention and can gain lots of meaningful information by asking around. it would be bad writing for novel or something but actually good writing for RPG.
though it was only for Morrowind though.

what beth blamed isn't about writing.
it's game play.
 
SpiritBreaker said:
I don't what you're talking about. Fallout 3 is the least linear, most choice oriented game of the 21st century. And no two quests are the same. And every quest has multiple outcomes, and multiple quests can cancel each other out if one is completed instead of the other.
It is when I read comments like this I realize how biased people are.
Click to expand...
Fallout 3's main quest has one path and two outcomes, and even the evil variant has barely any effect.
Most side quests have two paths at most: Violent and non-violent, or good/neutral/evil at best. And the consequences of the quests are very miniscule at best, most of the time. Blowing up Megaton and changing the inhabitants of Tenpenny Tower is basically the most you can do.
And not even nuking a town in a post-apocalyptic wasteland is enough to fail that stupid Moira-quest or make you hated by absolutely everyone. Sure, you lose a bit karma, but you can regain that without any problems. The thing is, your actions have barely any consequences on a larger scale.
While Fallout 3 looks non-linear because you can always opt out of every quest, it's really very linear. You go from one main-quest-destination to the next and there's really not much to change in how you solve those quests.
Your choices simply don't matter. Destroy a whole town? Daddy's disappointed in you. Let's go on!
 
Languorous_Maiar said:
Oblivion is worst TES game, so I would say no. ; p
Click to expand...
after skyrim I feel frustrated.
I thought same as you but looking back on skyrim, oblivion did better job on decorating quest. so I think oblivion is better than skyrim.

BTW for me the worst TES is fo3.
I feel it has bad point of both oblivion and skyrim or it's prototype of skyrim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top