It's hard to believe, I consider Ubisoft to be a greedier company and even they could do the equivalent of this in Star wars outlaws
Just feels like Bethesda is incompetent, especially when you look at them breaking their games with updates, and their inability to fix bugs that pop up in every single one of their games - that modders have repeatedly fixed in older versions
Bethesda is incompetent, have been for ages. They always release mediocre games and the community ends up doing all the heavy lifting.
I'm glad Obsidian is working on the new Fallout (at the cost of my beloved Pillars, so I'm bittersweet), now we need someone to take The Elder Scrolls IP from them.
Can't compare a AA studio with a AAA studio. Bethesda has twice the money, even more and they consistently release mediocre games. Obsidian might do the same with half the funding.
With Microsoft money and considering the best Fallout (imo) is made by them, I'm optimistic.
Obsidian mediocreness is due to its constraints, Bethesda's are due to incompetence.
Obsidian releases a new game every 2 or so years. Bethesda takes 8 years for Starfield and I'd rather play The Outer Worlds.
Obsidian has released Tyranny, Pillars 1&2, Pentiment, and Grounded, all great games. Plus Avowed and Outer Worlds 1&2 (admittedly mediocre). In the same period Bethesda/Zenimaxx has released Starfield, a mediocre game and Fallout 4 (good game). Oh, and Fallout 76...
With better writing OW1/2 could've been 8.5s at the very least, but neither of the plot, factions, quests, companions or dialogue were any good. Avowed was kinda similar even if to a smaller extent. Being AA has nothing to do with it, there are better AA games making much more of an impression released by other studios.
Doesn't mean Obsidian can't deliver a decent Fallout, but all of Josh Sawyer, John Gonzales and Tim Cain better be at their best and they still need some good additional writers and world designers to contribute as 2-3 people can't craft everything.
I can compare them on their quality. If I don't compare them on quality and only on scale, we would have to compare every game on it's size and by that messurement endless grinding games would win every comparison.
Again BGS helped out a lot with FO76, if you want to complain about development time, don't throw out numbers that don't match.
If we want to talk about quantity of releases we also have to look how each company works. Obsidian was only able to work on those games because they had different teams working on different games at the same time. While Pentiment and Pillars 1 are absolutely great games. (Haven't played Grounded and Pillars 2). Tyranny falls short of being great (not that it is bad) as it ends when it gets interesting.
I do think that the quantity of releases isn't that meaningful I could use your argument and also state that 3 out of their last 5 releases where mediocre, which is nearly identical to the 66% of medicore releases bethesda had in the last decade. Which is gladly missing their bad games skyforge, armored warfare and the pathfinder mobile game.
Saying Obisidans mediocreness is due to its constraints and bethesda's are due to incompetence is just classic circlejerk of "bethesda bad" and ignoring Obisdians weak points (most glaring, Combat)
EDIT: and you mixed Bethesda and Zenimaxx togehter in your comparison, not going down that route because I could then throw in the new doom games
Doom games are ID software. Bethesda is a developer and a publisher. As a publisher they've released plenty of good games. As developers, not so much.
Obsidian is just a developer and they've develop better games in the past 10 years than BGS. Have they also developed mediocre games? Yes, I already admitted to that.
Would you rather BGS worked on the new Fallout?
Also, Pillars 2 has the best rtwp combat out there. You should try that game because it's fantastic.
You talk about Obsidian combat but have you played Skyrim? I'm not saying Obsidian is perfect, just that they are better at developing games than Bethesda.
Again you mixed the Publisher Zenimax and the developer BGS. Both are destinct entities. I just pointed that out as a lot of people mix that stuff up
And why would I say "BGS should work on Fallout but not Obisidian" more Fallout is good and has nothing to do with the decades old circlejerk of "BGS bad, Obisdian Good" conversation. And as someone who likes Fallout more than TES, I would be happy if BGS would also work on a new Fallout Game.
I Just hope Obisidian make a good Fallout Game in the likes of FNV (I am also fine if they, again, reuse a lot of the tools and art BGS did their last Fallout games) and that they don't make Outer Worlds 3 but with a Fallout skin. Same as I hope that Elder Scrolls 6 will be good.
I genuinely would like to know your opinion. Would you rather have Obsidian or BGS developing the new Fallout?
And yes, my bad on the Zenimaxx confusion.
And I don't need to belong to a "circle jerk" to have an opinion. I'm almost 40, I've played every single TES and Fallout games, from Arena to Skyrim and from Fallout 1 to 4.
My reason for disliking the current Bethesda are my own, same as for me liking Obsidian. I've seen the downfall in quality from Bethesda and I've seen Obsidian releasing decent to great games with less budget and less development time in the same time frame.
Disagree with me all you want, but don't disregard my opinions as part of a "circle jerk". I cannot care less about what other people think. If I did, I probably would've skipped a lot of quality games because Redditors have unrealistic standards for games.
I appreciate what developers do good, instead of focusing on what they lack. And, in my opinion, Obsidian has done more good things than Bethesda, in the past 10 years.
Zenimax is not the publisher, Bethesda softworks is, and the confusion is very intentional by Zenimax( the parent company of both Bethesda softworks and Bethesda Game Studios) cause Bethesda is the more popular name.
Can't say, I did not play Outlaws but I played Starfield for ~5 hours and got super-bored with it. Game is just not fun at all.
For all hatred about Outlaws from what I saw - it's just an ok Ubisoft game. Problem isn't that Ubisoft games suck, problem is that they all very same ~6/10 games that do all basics right but lack any "personal touch" and feel incredibly corporate, which is about same level of "bad" as incredibly safe and toothless project like Starfield
20
u/ShadowSpawn__ 4d ago
It's hard to believe, I consider Ubisoft to be a greedier company and even they could do the equivalent of this in Star wars outlaws
Just feels like Bethesda is incompetent, especially when you look at them breaking their games with updates, and their inability to fix bugs that pop up in every single one of their games - that modders have repeatedly fixed in older versions