Comments on: Hot Rock: Obsidian To Do New Fallout Game

By: Jeff

Jeff — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 23:28:47 +0000

Reply to DK

Troika wasn’t financially successful, but they were critically successful. Which at this point seems to be your main concern.

As more of a general comment, anyone complaining about Obsidian REALLY needs to play Mask of the Betrayer before saying they don’t have it in them to make a fantastic game. (Yea it’s an expansion. You can still play it without playing the original NWN2 though).

By: Sonic Goo

Sonic Goo — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:57:43 +0000

Hello Fallout Kitty.

By: Bhazor

Bhazor — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:49:58 +0000

Reply to Dk
Except the development was cut short half way through.
Their only internal problem was over ambition, which leads to a huge game, which leads to a complete arse of a game to beta test. Which leads to profit!

Troika used an outdated engine for Arcanum and a wholly unsuitable and unfinished one for Vampire. Troika went under in large part because contractual obligations meant Vampire couldn’t be released until after HL2 was released at which point no one cared about it because HL2 was released. Publishers ‘ey?

Temple of Elemental Evil was also a wee bit gash.

By: DK

DK — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:06:10 +0000

@”There’s too much talent and passion at that company to not be successful.”
The same could have been said about Troika. We all know how that one ended. Companies that live solely on the long past successes of some employees don’t succeed. See Troika, see Flagship, see Obisidian, etc.

By: Frank Dongs

Frank Dongs — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 06:47:44 +0000

Cry harder fanboys, someone might care what you think of Fallout 3.

By: SirNuke

SirNuke — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 05:29:08 +0000

RAINBOW FALLOUT: VEGAS

By: Orange

Orange — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 22:47:15 +0000

Obsidian have been getting stronger with each game, by Avellone’s own admission. There’s too much talent and passion at that company to not be successful.

Chances are Alpha Protocol will be by far the more interesting game compared to this though.

By: drewski

drewski — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:37:44 +0000

I’d rather have 20 awesome hours and 1 crap one than miss out on 20 awesome hours because there weren’t 21 awesome hours.

KoToR II’s great, I still don’t get the fuss over the end. It’s fine, none of the cut content matters.

By: Pantsman

Pantsman — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:30:54 +0000

@DK: Essentially then, their mistake was excessive ambition.

Call me crazy, but I’m actually glad they made that mistake.

By: Duouk2000

Duouk2000 — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:04:53 +0000

So awesome, who better to hand this to than Obsidian?

She’s coming home.

By: DK

DK — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:58:39 +0000

@Bhazor, that’s an astonishing feat of selective reading.
“so it was on us.” “…I should’ve been more responsible with the feature set.”
The correct responsive when you have a certain timeframe to make a game isn’t to write about the game you would have liked to make in your dream journal and deliver some pieces of a game – it’s to make the game that you actually CAN make.

By: Bhazor

Bhazor — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:31:00 +0000

Reply to DK
“We agreed to a tight schedule and delivered,” Ahhh, so they didn’t have enough time then because their publisher enforced a stupid deadline. That completely validates your idea that they somehow did it on purpose.

I guess we just have very, very different views on KOTOR 2 then. It’s just that yours are wrong.

Edit: Ooh, edits!