Search the Community

While I don't agree with everything he says in this video, he did point out many things that were true. The only reason Fallout New Vegas didn't have the success Fallout 3 did is because of the short window of development on Obsidian. And the games had over 200 bugs at launch because Bethesda and their obsession for Gamebryo. What else could Obsidian do about that? Not much. A short time of development and working with a heap of shit game engine. Yet, they did do a real good job. So for Bethesda to see this as a failure for not meeting their expectations, I fully disagree with that. For the amount of time they had and the resources they used on a horrible game engine, it did fine. Now what makes me cringe is that fact that so much content was stripped because (as always) they have to appeal to console systems. If they would have given Obsidian more time for development, which means New Vegas being more depth and the addition of the cut content never being cut to begin with, and more time to work out the bugs to top that off, it would of sold more than Fallout 3. And they could of just cut out that content for the console gamers due to restrictive hardware and memory for the console version. But companies don't like to spend more time and money doing that so they just go with the dumbing down PC version to meet the requirements for console systems. I never thought I'd defend New Vegas since it's not a game I much like, but back then when I was criticizing it, I was doing so off of my experience itself and not including the factors like the short time of development. Because I didn't really care to know more than what I knew about that game. And the reason why I'm even mentioning this is because I among many others would like to see Obsidian return to make another Fallout sequel. But given that it seems Bethesda wasn't too happy with the outcome of New Vegas, I feel like that is not going to happen.