Is Bethesda jealous of Obsidian?


Is Bethesda jealous of Obsidian?  

13 members have voted

  1. 1. Is Bethesda jealous of Obsidian?

    • Yes
      3
    • No
      9


Recommended Posts

No, they're not. Why would they be? Bethesda games sell better. They might be aware that Obsidian games have better writing. Probably are. In a perfect world, they might just acquire Obsidian (I believe Obsidian was amenable to the prospect a little while ago) and let them make Fallout games, and just have Bethesda publish them. But Todd Howard is probably more concerned with printing money than telling deeper stories. And New Vegas's deeper stories with shallower gun play didn't sell as well as Fallout 3 (or 4).

 

Chances of an NV remaster? Probably slightly less than the chance of a Fallout 3 remaster. Fallout 3 would make Bethesda more money, and they can probably extend it to New Vegas for far less cost than developing a new remaster. Upgraded textures and whatnot is possible now with mods, but if you mean like Skyrim Special Edition with a new 64-bit executable, I'd say the chance of any 3D Fallout or Elder Scrolls older than Skyrim getting that remaster is pretty close to absolute zero. Unfortunately, they're not doing much looking back.

I'm not sure what the deal is with this thread, the first post doesn't match the title, they're two different questions.

 

Title:  Is Bethesda jealous of Obsidian?

What would they possibly be jealous of?  Bethesda is a much bigger company (well part of a much bigger company anyway, the parent company is Zenimax) with much higher sales.

 

First post:  What are the chances of seeing an NV remaster?

(What does this have to do with the title?)

A remaster I suspect would be up to Obsidian if you're just talking about engine upgrade, improved textures, etc.  I assume they already have the license to the game so they can upgrade it if they like and try to resell it as long as it's fundamenally the same game.  If they want to use the upgraded engine that Bethesda made for Fallout 4 though (and used with Skyrim Remastered) instead of upgrading the engine on their own then they'll likely have to license it from Bethesda... which I don't believe they license their engines to ANY third parties anymore.  Bethesda certainly isn't going to just give the fuits of their labor away to another company for free.

 

I like both Bethesda and Obsidian, both are great game companies and I don't believe there is any animosity between them.  I'm not even sure Obsidian wants to go back to NV.  They're a small development house and right now they're focusing on Pillars of Eternity II which is their own IP instead of something they had to license.  They seem to be focusing on games built with the Unity Engine right now and trying to upgrade the NV engine would be a pretty dramatic turn for them at this point.

Bethesda is all about the money. The terrible writing in games like Skyrim and Fallout 4 doesn't matter because people buy those games anyway - sometimes just to laugh at Bethesda's terrible physics engine if nothing else.

 

Bethesda is actually very disappointed that New Vegas did not do as well. Monetary disappointments do not get remakes / remaster.

 

You are only asking that question because you are not in Bethesda's target age range.

As far as the storytelling goes, Obsidian are the best in the business and Bethesda one of the worst. Unfortunately, gaming community often neglects script, dialogues, pacing....and focuses more on the visual side. If Bethestda aren't jealous of Obsidian, they should be. Perhaps it would help them write something good.

2 hours ago, Yogurth said:

As far as the storytelling goes, Obsidian are the best in the business and Bethesda one of the worst. Unfortunately, gaming community often neglects script, dialogues, pacing....and focuses more on the visual side. If Bethestda aren't jealous of Obsidian, they should be. Perhaps it would help them write something good.

Different strokes for different folks.  I personally care very little for story telling in games in general.  (there ARE rare exceptions)

 

 John Carmack once said:

"Story in a game is like a story in a porn movie. It's expected to be there, but it's not that important."

I tend to agree, though I'm fully aware that other do not.

 

Sales tend to back that up with many top selling games (including most of Bethesda's) having poor stories.  Sure there are exceptions and again I totally understand that there ARE people who do enjoy story a great deal in games but clearly they aren't buying as many games or NV would have sold more than the weak story Bethesda games.

 

For me if I want a pre-scripted story I'll read a book or watch a movie.  In a game I want a sandbox to play in to make my own unique experience as much as possible.  I generally want a game that I can go back to and find new things and choose different results to get different outcomes.  I absolutely love Bethesda's games and you could cut the main story completely out of every one of them and they'd still be some of my favorite games.

 

As an example I just finished Horizon: Zero Dawn, it had a great Story and amazing graphics (for a console game) and was absolutely worth the price of admission but I probably won't spend too much more time playing it.  I spent a few dozen hours in that game.  On the other hand Skyrim, which has a horrible story, I've spent hundreds of hours in on the original release on the PC version and not to long ago started playing around in the updated version for the PS4.  I'll likely go back and play it for again and again and again because it never gets old.  I still load of Morrowind from time to time and I've spent hundreds of hours in it but I've never gotten past maybe the 5th Story mission or so because I just start the game and go off on my own.

 

In many ways Bethesda is still be the best at developing open world games.  Maybe Witcher is better or GTA but that's it.  Once again I'm fully aware everyone doesn't like "open worlds" and they can certainly be done badly.  I totally agree though that Bethesda sucks at Storytelling, just like id did at their peak.  id was successful during their peak because of better graphics, Bethesda doesn't have the best graphics though, it's not graphics over storytelling for Bethesda like it was for id.  For Bethesda it's sandbox over storytelling and I personally prefer a good sandbox to a good story in games.  (a good story is WAY better than a bad sandbox though)

9 hours ago, Asmodai said:

Different strokes for different folks.  I personally care very little for story telling in games in general.  (there ARE rare exceptions)

 

 John Carmack once said:

"Story in a game is like a story in a porn movie. It's expected to be there, but it's not that important."

I tend to agree, though I'm fully aware that other do not.

 

Sales tend to back that up with many top selling games (including most of Bethesda's) having poor stories.  Sure there are exceptions and again I totally understand that there ARE people who do enjoy story a great deal in games but clearly they aren't buying as many games or NV would have sold more than the weak story Bethesda games.

 

For me if I want a pre-scripted story I'll read a book or watch a movie.  In a game I want a sandbox to play in to make my own unique experience as much as possible.  I generally want a game that I can go back to and find new things and choose different results to get different outcomes.  I absolutely love Bethesda's games and you could cut the main story completely out of every one of them and they'd still be some of my favorite games.

 

As an example I just finished Horizon: Zero Dawn, it had a great Story and amazing graphics (for a console game) and was absolutely worth the price of admission but I probably won't spend too much more time playing it.  I spent a few dozen hours in that game.  On the other hand Skyrim, which has a horrible story, I've spent hundreds of hours in on the original release on the PC version and not to long ago started playing around in the updated version for the PS4.  I'll likely go back and play it for again and again and again because it never gets old.  I still load of Morrowind from time to time and I've spent hundreds of hours in it but I've never gotten past maybe the 5th Story mission or so because I just start the game and go off on my own.

 

In many ways Bethesda is still be the best at developing open world games.  Maybe Witcher is better or GTA but that's it.  Once again I'm fully aware everyone doesn't like "open worlds" and they can certainly be done badly.  I totally agree though that Bethesda sucks at Storytelling, just like id did at their peak.  id was successful during their peak because of better graphics, Bethesda doesn't have the best graphics though, it's not graphics over storytelling for Bethesda like it was for id.  For Bethesda it's sandbox over storytelling and I personally prefer a good sandbox to a good story in games.  (a good story is WAY better than a bad sandbox though)

 

I fully agree with most of what You wrote but "Open World" games do not clash with good storytelling as Witcher showed and Bethesda has much to learn from that approach. As far as Carmack's sentiment, ID's stories are rock bottom of the gaming world and he beautifully portrayed his games, no mistake about it :)

IMHO the storytelling is the crucial part of the game, it is what makes You remember the particular game, how it made You feel or how immersed in the story You got.

 

Once upon a time when a journalist asked John Ford (famous movie director), what are the three most important ingredients that make a movie good? He said: script, script and script :)

But when did "famous movie director" John Ford make a game, what is it called, and how did it fare? Games and movies are two different mediums.

 

You want a fun, simple game with a great story? Check out Thomas Was Alone or Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons. A platforming puzzle game and a uniquely controlled game with gibberish for dialogue, and yet, they have better stories than Fallout: New Vegas. In my opinion. Mostly because they're unique. And they're pretty much must-play games. And they both go on sale quite often for under $5 each, so everyone really should play through them. They both only take a few hours to get through.

19 minutes ago, dragontology said:

But when did "famous movie director" John Ford make a game, what is it called, and how did it fare? Games and movies are two different mediums.

 

You want a fun, simple game with a great story? Check out Thomas Was Alone or Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons. A platforming puzzle game and a uniquely controlled game with gibberish for dialogue, and yet, they have better stories than Fallout: New Vegas. In my opinion. Mostly because they're unique. And they're pretty much must-play games. And they both go on sale quite often for under $5 each, so everyone really should play through them. They both only take a few hours to get through.

 

Thx for the recommendations I will look into those even though I am not a platformer :) Fallout under Bethesda is not Fallout, compared to F1 and F2 with their charm and humour, F3+ is a generic FPS/RPG, it is just terrible, not much different than their Morrowind/Skyrim...etc.

12 hours ago, Asmodai said:

 John Carmack once said:

"Story in a game is like a story in a porn movie. It's expected to be there, but it's not that important."

I tend to agree, though I'm fully aware that other do not.

Hahaha ok I love that quote...

 

Actually I think it depends on the game, a game doesn't necessarily have to be story driven, or have a good story, to be a game, just like a movie doesn't necessarily have to be a porn movie... as far as I know.

Story is not that important in a bethesda game but lore does help the feeling of immersion, which is important in an open world game for it not to feel just like a random sandbox game. Story is not that important in many multiplayer and competition based games, I mean, I never cared about "story" whenever I touched counter strike as a kid. But Story is primordial in, say, a bioware game, otherwise you'd just have a boring, repetitive fedex game.

I'm not going to praise the writing in bethesda's games but I rather feel we had a good balance of fun, freedom and story. I don't feel like New Vegas was way better than FO3 or FO4. But I can't judge FO1 and 2 (haven't touched them, unfortunately).

9 hours ago, Yogurth said:

I fully agree with most of what You wrote but "Open World" games do not clash with good storytelling as Witcher showed and Bethesda has much to learn from that approach.

I believe I did note Witcher as an expeception.  I honestly don't think Bethesda cares about story.  Their games sell well with bad storytelling so why even bother spending a bunch of effort on story?

9 hours ago, Yogurth said:

As far as Carmack's sentiment, ID's stories are rock bottom of the gaming world and he beautifully portrayed his games, no mistake about it :)

IMHO the storytelling is the crucial part of the game, it is what makes You remember the particular game, how it made You feel or how immersed in the story You got.

I understand that there are people that share your sentiment but I'm not one and I don't think the masses consider storytelling is as crucial as you and the OP seem to.  If they did then TellTale games for example which are held up as exceptional storytelling games would be outselling GTA and Bethesda games and the lastest FPSs.  Just like in the medium of motion pictures sure there are people who absolutely love a great deep drama story but they don't fill theaters the same way the latest blockbuster action/effects movies do.  Sure there's no reason action/effect movies can't have great stories either but usually they don't and I don't think the people making them care that much about the fact they're missing it as long as tickets are selling.

 

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • All these CEOs got the biggest boners thinking about firing employees for AI. Turned out it was just a wet dream.
    • And the fact that the majority of people from Poland are white European Christians while the people you are complaining about in post after post are not is just a coincidence... Every sentence in your post I am replying to is racist nonsense. None of it is actually based on any facts whatsoever. All immigrants are seeking a better life too. It's literally the only reason they would risk everything and leave their homes, families, and homeland. They are working and contributing to the economy too, as you even admit. They get the same benefits your partner did AND that YOU are eligible for as well. That is one of the key things of the EU and a mark of a civilization. That is the definition of a society where everyone is given a chance, treated equally and fairly, and is judged by the content of their character, not their different skin color or which version of ignorant superstitious nonsense their parents lied about as children. Racists around the world said the same things about the Irish and Jews and Poles (like your partner) and...every other immigrant movement over the centuries. What's your family's heritage, by the way? Were your ancestors lied about with racist fearmongering crapola by self-entitled locals the same way as you are now? If someone like that said the same things about all people from Poland, like your partner, would they be right? Or would you want them to judge your partner based on who they actually were, not where they just happened to come from?
    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!