surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
Poor Obsidian, it seems like M$ really fucked them over, hopefully they get a kickstarter or a new deal soon, I would hate to lose them.
Obsidian have the worst luck in the industry.
They make games I really enjoy, buggy or not...but damn, they rarely catach a break.
They make games I really enjoy, buggy or not...but damn, they rarely catach a break.
Well I can't really feel compassion for these guys, I mean the wya this game came out of the gate was a complete disaster. The game itself was great, but it was a house of cards ready to fall. At least that's how it felt playing the game at launch. It was so buggy and broken, I was just afraid to do things in fear of breaking the game. They really needed to polish this game more, it shouldn't have been released at that state.
Unfortunate. They topped fallout 3 in so many important ways. They do a great job despite often launching broken games
@Blatant
Microsoft has nothing to do with this. It's between Obsidian and Bethesda. Also notice how it's spelled: Microsoft. S. There's no dollar sign in that word.
@article
I think the big story here is Obsidian just faced a number of layoffs, development on the South Park game is being affected, and their next-gen project has been cancelled as a result of not getting those royalties, a decision based on an arbitrary point requirement on Metacritic. A requirement they missed by one fucking point.
It's not the requirement of reviewers to make sure developers get paid, but Metacritic's existence and position as, essentially, the universal benchmark used by the industry to mark "good" and "bad" games, it will always be misused like this. Seriously, Obsidian's being punished for being ONE point short? And who made that 85 decision in the first place? What not 86? Why not 80? God. Damn. Arbitrary.
Metacritic is not, technically, the cause of the problem. It is the people who use it incorrectly - putting too much value in the metascore a game receives. But honestly I don't personally feel like Metacritic does any good to justify existing as a tool that is more often than not misused to the detriment of the industry.
I think we'd all be better off if Metacritic disappeared, or at the very least if one or two similar sites appeared, each using different evaulation algorithms, to offer different "meta" points of view. This way, we could say "well it got an 80 on Metacritic but a such-and-such on these other indexes, let's put more thought into our decision".
Microsoft has nothing to do with this. It's between Obsidian and Bethesda. Also notice how it's spelled: Microsoft. S. There's no dollar sign in that word.
@article
I think the big story here is Obsidian just faced a number of layoffs, development on the South Park game is being affected, and their next-gen project has been cancelled as a result of not getting those royalties, a decision based on an arbitrary point requirement on Metacritic. A requirement they missed by one fucking point.
It's not the requirement of reviewers to make sure developers get paid, but Metacritic's existence and position as, essentially, the universal benchmark used by the industry to mark "good" and "bad" games, it will always be misused like this. Seriously, Obsidian's being punished for being ONE point short? And who made that 85 decision in the first place? What not 86? Why not 80? God. Damn. Arbitrary.
Metacritic is not, technically, the cause of the problem. It is the people who use it incorrectly - putting too much value in the metascore a game receives. But honestly I don't personally feel like Metacritic does any good to justify existing as a tool that is more often than not misused to the detriment of the industry.
I think we'd all be better off if Metacritic disappeared, or at the very least if one or two similar sites appeared, each using different evaulation algorithms, to offer different "meta" points of view. This way, we could say "well it got an 80 on Metacritic but a such-and-such on these other indexes, let's put more thought into our decision".
"the studio received a straight payment, with no royalties from sales."
That right there sums up everything that is wrong with the parasitic publisher model. Where the actual developers get a one off while the publisher clings to the game sales like a lamprey.
Yeah a publisher funded the game and they deserve to make their money back and a profit on top of that..... but the developers certainly don't deserve to get screwed.
Viva La Indie!
That right there sums up everything that is wrong with the parasitic publisher model. Where the actual developers get a one off while the publisher clings to the game sales like a lamprey.
Yeah a publisher funded the game and they deserve to make their money back and a profit on top of that..... but the developers certainly don't deserve to get screwed.
Viva La Indie!
@Silent
New Vegas is widely considered to be better than FO3 in many ways - combat, story, atmosphere, etc. More die-hard fans of the Fallout franchise feel New Vegas did a better job of capturing feeling like a Fallout game.
New Vegas is widely considered to be better than FO3 in many ways - combat, story, atmosphere, etc. More die-hard fans of the Fallout franchise feel New Vegas did a better job of capturing feeling like a Fallout game.
I'm just finishing Fallout 3 GOTY an I had a blast. Is New Vegas really better than Fallout 3 as people say?
Certainly don't blame Metacritic for anything here tho, Its a useful tool. Like all tools you need to learn how to use it before you can expect it to do anything useful for you.
Metacritic bonuses sound great if the publisher also plays along and grants the studio more time to polish the game and get that better score because if it imposes a solid release date and then the developer just rushes it out the door like the broken fallout NV, then that bonus is out.
On another note: I know I am being a dickhead here, but why the apostrophe plural, man?
On another note: I know I am being a dickhead here, but why the apostrophe plural, man?
If anything this shows that publishers have lost the meaning of scale as well. Gamers rail against reviews that score a game at 8/10, forgetting that 8/10 is a fantastic score. Publishers demanding that game be near perfect ( especially from the bugtown that is Obsidian ) shows they no longer get the scale either.
I agree with Guitarmy, when i first played New Vegas i couldn't go through one door without the game freezing but until the patches came out i was happy again. But still it's an amazing game nonetheless
Also Metacritic, easiest way to set a goal that isn't based on the volume of sales. Nope, we can make all the money in the world and still not give you guys a bonus because Metacritic.
Publishers are the scum of the earth <3
Publishers are the scum of the earth <3
Whats with the metacritic hate it's just an imperfect attempt at measuring a game's quality. There currently is no such better measure and if you don't like you dont have to use the site although it does make an impact on things but mainly because it's a measure of game quality so better metascore = better game. Better games usually sell more and that's what developers want.
Its always so heartwarming when corporations boil down your work to numbers on a spreadsheet. So sad when gamers train themselves to think that way, too.
@MrFloppyKnickers
"If anything this shows that publishers have lost the meaning of scale as well. Gamers rail against reviews that score a game at 8/10"
It's not Gamers who rail against a review that score's a game at 8/10. It's fanboys, who declare that their favourite series is the best thing in the world. Regardless of any flaws it has. Worsened by the fact that there is even more pressure on the system exclusive titles because they want to be able to laud it over the others.
I mean hell CliffyB had a real sook over GeoW3 review scores not being perfect. He complained that GeoW3 was the best in the series and should have been reviewed as such. Ignoring the fact that if your previous game was an 8 the fact that your next game was better doesn't entitle it to a better score. If every other game has improved in scope as much as your new title has since your previous one. Then the improvements are rendered irrelevant because they are expected to be there.
That is the long way of saying that an 8 in 2006 is not the same as an 8 in 2011.
The fact is if you were to take most titles from 2006 now and re-rate them in comparison to titles on the market now they would end up with 6's. Save for the rare few that age well, were ahead of their time(in which case it's unlikely your sequel has continued that trend anyways
"If anything this shows that publishers have lost the meaning of scale as well. Gamers rail against reviews that score a game at 8/10"
It's not Gamers who rail against a review that score's a game at 8/10. It's fanboys, who declare that their favourite series is the best thing in the world. Regardless of any flaws it has. Worsened by the fact that there is even more pressure on the system exclusive titles because they want to be able to laud it over the others.
I mean hell CliffyB had a real sook over GeoW3 review scores not being perfect. He complained that GeoW3 was the best in the series and should have been reviewed as such. Ignoring the fact that if your previous game was an 8 the fact that your next game was better doesn't entitle it to a better score. If every other game has improved in scope as much as your new title has since your previous one. Then the improvements are rendered irrelevant because they are expected to be there.
That is the long way of saying that an 8 in 2006 is not the same as an 8 in 2011.
The fact is if you were to take most titles from 2006 now and re-rate them in comparison to titles on the market now they would end up with 6's. Save for the rare few that age well, were ahead of their time(in which case it's unlikely your sequel has continued that trend anyways
Want better scores? Stop laughing out the bugs AFTER release. Yeah yeah, I know, publishers are evil, blah blah, but Obsidian bears responsibility too.
@Silent
Flintmech summed it up for me:
"More die-hard fans of the Fallout franchise feel New Vegas did a better job of capturing feeling like a Fallout game."
I really enjoyed New Vegas, outside of the glitches. It's one of my favorite games of all time.
Flintmech summed it up for me:
"More die-hard fans of the Fallout franchise feel New Vegas did a better job of capturing feeling like a Fallout game."
I really enjoyed New Vegas, outside of the glitches. It's one of my favorite games of all time.
That's just pure bullshit. How's about I pay only for a game if it gets a certain metacritic score, and otherwise I just pirate it, eh? Royalties should not be a bonus for a studio. A bonus *to royalties* is one thing (i.e. if it gets more than 85% then instead of 10% you get 12%, or whatever the numbers are) but they shouldn't be screwed over like that by publishers.
@HubertJass
For me, it's not so much "Metacritic hate". I just personally feel that Metacritic's misuse and abuse far outweighs any potential service it might provide to a curious consumer. I would not miss Metacritic if it went away and I think many feel the same. Metacritic's existence, through no real fault of its own, does more harm than good. Yes, it's the publishers that are to blame, but we would benefit from making it harder for publishers to do this shit, i.e. removing the tool they abuse so frequently.
@Camel Toad
New Vegas was no more buggy than FO3 as it used the same engine which Bethesda developed. It also sold just as much (if not more) than FO3, in spite of the bugs and Metascore.
For me, it's not so much "Metacritic hate". I just personally feel that Metacritic's misuse and abuse far outweighs any potential service it might provide to a curious consumer. I would not miss Metacritic if it went away and I think many feel the same. Metacritic's existence, through no real fault of its own, does more harm than good. Yes, it's the publishers that are to blame, but we would benefit from making it harder for publishers to do this shit, i.e. removing the tool they abuse so frequently.
@Camel Toad
New Vegas was no more buggy than FO3 as it used the same engine which Bethesda developed. It also sold just as much (if not more) than FO3, in spite of the bugs and Metascore.
I really Fucking hope they get to do another Fallout. I'll buy south park day 1 just to try and help. I love these guys. Their pedigree can't be denied. It's a shame their QA sucks and also that they always get the short end of the stick, bit the stories and ideas... I love you guys.
So Obsidian puts out a buggy game, and it gets ripped apart for it, which leads to them losing their bonus. Bethesda puts out a buggy game, and it gets jizzed all over by every reviewer, and they get GOTY for it. Oh the irony! I'm shocked that Obsidian was able to get a mid-80's review average on Metacritic, at alone in the 90's, like Bethesda seems to always get for their buggy games. Double standers much reviewers?
I can't blame developers from bitching about review scores if they miss out on a big bonus because of them.
@Blatant
So I can blame Microsoft for Alpha protocol, can I? Seriously, what are you even talking about.
So I can blame Microsoft for Alpha protocol, can I? Seriously, what are you even talking about.
@Flint
I played FO3 before I had Live, thus no patches. Encountered minimal bugs. Can't say the same on either front for NV.
I played FO3 before I had Live, thus no patches. Encountered minimal bugs. Can't say the same on either front for NV.
New Vegas was great. I definitely think it improved upon FO3, although FO3 was basically creating the Bethesda-approach-to-Fallout formula in one go. I'm not sure how appropriate the comparison is.
Still, New Vegas definitely felt more like 1 and 2, which isn't terribly surprising given that the NV leadership was essentially the same leadership that was working on the original Interplay Fallout 3. It's even based on the same story as Van Buren (Interplay FO3)....
I feel like Obsid gets a lot of crap, and it's not warranted. Despite making some buggy games and some mediocre games, they have made some of the best RPGs of the last 10 years. In fact, with Bioware becoming increasingly 'mainstream,' they're one of the only studios of their size still making RPGs.
I really hope they get a Kickstarter project or an offer to make another FO, as they really deserve better. New Vegas sold like effin' hotcakes.. so sad.
Still, New Vegas definitely felt more like 1 and 2, which isn't terribly surprising given that the NV leadership was essentially the same leadership that was working on the original Interplay Fallout 3. It's even based on the same story as Van Buren (Interplay FO3)....
I feel like Obsid gets a lot of crap, and it's not warranted. Despite making some buggy games and some mediocre games, they have made some of the best RPGs of the last 10 years. In fact, with Bioware becoming increasingly 'mainstream,' they're one of the only studios of their size still making RPGs.
I really hope they get a Kickstarter project or an offer to make another FO, as they really deserve better. New Vegas sold like effin' hotcakes.. so sad.
Yeah with any of the Bethesda's games I've played (Morrowind, Oblivion, FO3, Skyrim) I've encountered very little bugs, and played these games for 200+ hours each. I was actually surprised to see people complaining about the bugs in Skyrim, I only experienced one bug and one screen lock. Oblivion froze on me a few times but they happened so so rarely, plus a dude had his head stuck in a roof and he was suspended in midair. FO3, only experienced the rare lock up.
New Vegas was an entirely different story. Graphical glitches, constant freezing, quest bugs. Those were rare in Bethesda games for me, but they happened all the time in New Vegas.
Hopefully this will teach them to have a better QA process.
New Vegas was an entirely different story. Graphical glitches, constant freezing, quest bugs. Those were rare in Bethesda games for me, but they happened all the time in New Vegas.
Hopefully this will teach them to have a better QA process.
Fallout 3 was definitely better in my opinion. Letting you play through key stages of your childhood was a stroke of genius I thought because I ended up feeling more attached to my character and the game world than any game ever (like, I REALLY cared about finding my father). The characters and locations I also thought were a lot more memorable and the quests more fun and interesting. It was more focused, too - I did all the quests and stuff and my total playtime was 100 hours, whereas New Vegas felt more thinly spread and could've gone on much longer, but I got bored after 50 hours. And New Vegas also had features like customizing your gun or playing "caravan" which I never figured out and just ended up ignoring. New Vegas was great as more Fallout, it's a lot of fun and you can get right into it faster than FO3, so it's a great sort of expansion if you've played FO3 and are hungry for more. But for people who haven't played either yet, I'd recommend FO3 first all the way. You don't even need the GOTY edition with the DLC (I played Broken Steel and while raising the level cap and letting you keep playing after the ending are well and good, the new quests were kinda rubbish and it wrecked what I thought was kinda brilliant about the ending, so I could take it or leave it. Just save before the last quest and the SE is fine).
Just thought I'd share my perspective. Of course I never played the original Fallouts so it doesn't contradict what Flintmech said about die-hard fans of the original games preferring it.
Anywho, this metacritic stuff is pretty shitty.
Just thought I'd share my perspective. Of course I never played the original Fallouts so it doesn't contradict what Flintmech said about die-hard fans of the original games preferring it.
Anywho, this metacritic stuff is pretty shitty.
"the studio received a straight payment, with no royalties from sales"
That kills a bit my desire to buy the game.
That kills a bit my desire to buy the game.
Metacritic and even game journalists in general are little more than a parasite, I haven't taken a review seriously for a very, very long time.
What has Metacritic actually ACHIEVED since it's existence? The buying habits of people are no different to what they used to be, well marketed games sell and the actual good games STILL don't sell as much as they should. It's a useless, hopelessly flawed tool as far as I'm concerned.
So New Vegas manages an 84 rating as opposed to an 85 rating, and Obsidion are screwed out of their royalties. Soon after Obsidion have to lay off a ton of people, including some poor person who worked for ONE WHOLE DAY...
It's a pathetic decision by the publisher, but without the publisher the game would not exist AT ALL, publishers at least have a function. Metacritic on the other hand seems to exist for the purposes of pissing people off alone.
What crappy systems we have to put up with these days.
What has Metacritic actually ACHIEVED since it's existence? The buying habits of people are no different to what they used to be, well marketed games sell and the actual good games STILL don't sell as much as they should. It's a useless, hopelessly flawed tool as far as I'm concerned.
So New Vegas manages an 84 rating as opposed to an 85 rating, and Obsidion are screwed out of their royalties. Soon after Obsidion have to lay off a ton of people, including some poor person who worked for ONE WHOLE DAY...
It's a pathetic decision by the publisher, but without the publisher the game would not exist AT ALL, publishers at least have a function. Metacritic on the other hand seems to exist for the purposes of pissing people off alone.
What crappy systems we have to put up with these days.
Bet if they hadn't released such bug-riddled mess of a game to start with then they would have gotten that extra percentage point.
Again, this is probably more the fault of the higher-up setting unrealistic time goals, or perhaps eliminating proper QA testing.
Either way, they got a raw deal here.
Again, this is probably more the fault of the higher-up setting unrealistic time goals, or perhaps eliminating proper QA testing.
Either way, they got a raw deal here.
New Vegas would have been great... if the damn game worked! It was by far the buggiest, glitchiest and most broken game I've ever played. My roomie tried playing it the other day. He put a bunch of hours into the game. Finally, he decided to continue on the main quest to see benny.... he can't enter Vegas anymore. the game crashes every time.
Maybe theres a patch that fixes it now, but thats no excuse. We don't have home internet yet so we can't download it. And just coz you can patch a bug, doesn't mean shipping a broken game is acceptable.
Maybe theres a patch that fixes it now, but thats no excuse. We don't have home internet yet so we can't download it. And just coz you can patch a bug, doesn't mean shipping a broken game is acceptable.
So now we have ammunition on how to ruin studios who put out shit-tier games and charge $60 for them(not talking about falloutNV)?
AWESOME.
AWESOME.
I have to get back into this game. It just is such a time investment that I never seem to have the desire to play it anymore. They should have given them the bonus anyways. I wonder if they hit the sales quota.
Okay, if they're setting the bonus mark at 85, then MAKE BETTER GAMES. Sorry, I don't have any sympathy here. FO:NV was not a 85+ game. It was a good game, sure, but it was buggy as all hell and deserved the marks it got.
They didn't get a raw deal or the shaft or any of that bullshit nonsense. A goal was set, and they missed it! Maybe whoever makes Fallout 4 won't put out a buggy mess.
They didn't get a raw deal or the shaft or any of that bullshit nonsense. A goal was set, and they missed it! Maybe whoever makes Fallout 4 won't put out a buggy mess.
@Nasirum: Well, that's easier said than done. What if, like many others have before, made a really excellent game that nobody buys or has a renewed appreciation over time?
The reviews are out of their hands. They could make a solid game and the reviews might be decisive, like Deadly Premonition. It all depends on the opinion.
I don't think anybody intends to make average games, they make the best they can with the resources given. You don't instantly make greatness, you just refine good ideas.
The reviews are out of their hands. They could make a solid game and the reviews might be decisive, like Deadly Premonition. It all depends on the opinion.
I don't think anybody intends to make average games, they make the best they can with the resources given. You don't instantly make greatness, you just refine good ideas.
Damn reviewers! Fallout 3 had glitches and shit, yet it got a pass!
And New Vegas was honestly a better game.
And New Vegas was honestly a better game.
Wow, this is terrible news. I can't believe there was money tied to a metacritic score though, that is just very strange.
I thought Fallout New Vegas was better than fallout 3, and I am so hyped for the South Park Game. I hope they they are ok.
I thought Fallout New Vegas was better than fallout 3, and I am so hyped for the South Park Game. I hope they they are ok.
"
Blatant
Poor Obsidian, it seems like M$ really fucked them over, hopefully they get a kickstarter or a new deal soon, I would hate to lose them."
You mean Bethesda? What does MS have to do with anything?
Blatant
Poor Obsidian, it seems like M$ really fucked them over, hopefully they get a kickstarter or a new deal soon, I would hate to lose them."
You mean Bethesda? What does MS have to do with anything?
They missed royalties by one measly metacritic point? Who'd have thought releasing technically unsound games would come back to bite Obsidian in the ass.
I dont see a destructoid review on there, if Jim gave them a perfect 100, would that bump them up or has the time already passed??
follow
