Fun Stuff > CLIKC
Dragon Age 2: Fuckin' Bitches, Stabbin' Dragons
Dimmukane:
No it ain't. Obsidian is the bee's tits.
Their main problem comes from being hired to make sequels for other people; their deadlines are much stricter than others. What's usually the first part of development to get the chopping block when time is running out? Bugfixing. I'm 95% certain they already knew about a lot of the bugs their games had before release, but had to skip over fixing them so they'd make their ship date. I'm not even certain they were given the time for compatibility testing for a lot of those games. If I recall correctly, Fallout 3 only got like 2 weeks of it, so I'm pretty sure New Vegas got none. The games themselves are really solid, just a bit more broken than people generally like them to be.
I hope I'm not starting something by saying all that, I just work in QA and don't much like seeing people discredit developers for putting up with the harsh reality of deadlines as best they can. Good QA and bugfixing are generally the line in the sand between a game being 'well-made' and everything else. A lot of developers have the first part of that, but no time for the second part. Bioware is one of the lucky few, and even then they still have some issues.
ackblom12:
I don't know, I love Obsidian but my only real defense for the ridiculous number of bugs that get through their games are a list of my favorite RPGs and how goddamn bug addled and yet amazing they were.
Dimmukane:
Yeah, that's basically my point. Games can still be great, even with bugs. Ideally, there wouldn't be so many, but if the game is still fun despite all of that, then they're doing good work.
I'm not a huge Obsidian fan or anything like that, but they do make fun games. I do think that if they weren't forced to any deadlines or other side projects, they'd release something at least on par with ME2 or DA:O, at least in the eyes of the public. Maybe they'll get that chance after how well New Vegas did, who knows.
But to stay on topic, I haven't played the game (I did play DA:O), but a bunch of the RPG-playing folks at work are not impressed. I think the consensus is that the Laidlaw probably should have been a bit more flexible in his design decisions. In DA:O, these folks were regretting decisions they made for story purposes, but in this game they've been forced into a narrower story path, and are instead regretting decisions they made because of how it affected gameplay later.
ackblom12:
Basically all I mean is that if anyone tries to tell me Arcanum and Vampire the Masquerade Bloodlines weren't amazing I'll shit down their neck.
Josefbugman:
^ haven't played Arcanum but completly agreed on Vampire.
The only thing I was dissapointed by was the fact that it didn't stay as a "slut 'em up" at later stages.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version