Do you think there is a bias against Obsidian?

For me, it all started with Fallout New Vegas - 7.5 score, because of glitches/bugs. For some the game was broken, for others (like me) it was an excellent experience.

Then came Alpha Protocol (which i just finished) - 6 score. It was "accused" of citing "having low production values", which is a joke really. Yes, it has minor problems, but also YES - it is ambitions, YES - it was a great experience with good graphics and sound and a great story.

One other thing that i wanted to bring about Obsidian is my opinion that they have to be one of the best developers when it comes to scripting - their story presentations through script and conversation is close to being immaculate.

Yes, we all agree that reviews are just opinion, and we all agree that Obsidian's games are not perfect. But i think there is a tendency here and great features in their games are being strongly overlooked...

Thoughts?

I'm wary of Obsidian games. It seems that almost every game on their roster is sequel to a highly successful game, and they're always worse than their predecessor.

I'm wary of Obsidian games. It seems that almost every game on their roster is sequel to a highly successful game, and they're always worse than their predecessor.

Enid_Green

I'd have to completely disagree with that.

They do make plenty of sequels to other devs' RPGs, but they add a ton of depth and complexity to them. Sure, they don't have as many resources as Bioware or Bethesda, so their sequels generally aren't as polished or as stable, but I'd say that their sequels are always hands-down better RPGs than the originals (I'm talking about KOTOR2, NWN2 and New Vegas here).

One thing's for sure though - no other company does influence systems and party interaction anywhere near as well as Obsidian does. Actually, in general I'd say that their roleplaying mechanics are far above just about any other 'major' company in the business, and certainly better than anything Bioware and Bethesda have ever put out.

But...overall, polish seems to matter most for reviews. Deep-but-rough RPGs tend to rate lower than shallow-but-pretty RPGs: reviewers aren't biased against Obsidian, they just can't rate their games any higher because of rough edges.

Since Obsidian's games have a history of beeing extremely buggy and not well polished, I can see why they generally receive mediocre scores.

Although I agree that Obsidian is one of the most talented developers out there, the fact that they traditionally release bug-ridden games prevents them from receiving the recognition they would otherwise deserve

Its a widely held belief that Obsidian games have top notch stories and gameplay, but their QA is....lacking.

Personally, I enjoyed NVN2 IMMENSELY.

Obsidian is great when it comes to story and character. The thing is many just see the small smear and only remember that.

Alpha Protocal had good graphics? i thought it looked like a budget PS2 game

After the mess that was Alpha Protocol and the apparent, I haven't played it myself, glitchfest that was FO: New Vegas I have definitely developed a bias against Obsidian. Any game where I hear about broken quests leading to the game being unfinishable is a game that I want nothing to do with. I really loved Fallout 3, but after reading reports of people having to completely restart their game not once but twice, I decided to pass. Because of this I avoid Obsidian at all costs, which is really too bad because they do have good ideas on paper, but they just can't seem to get them into a playable form.