Is Bethesda jealous of Obsidian?

[.Ruby]

What are the chances of seeing an NV remaster?

[dragontology]

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.

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

What an odd thread.

[+Asmodai MVC]

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.

[+Red King Subscriber²]

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.

[Yogurth]

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.

[+Asmodai MVC]

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)

[Yogurth]

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

[dragontology]

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.

[Yogurth]

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.

[Brys]

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).

[+Asmodai MVC]

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.