Pathfinder 1E What's this, then, Paizo? ANOTHER video game? By Obsidian?

[Sonny]

Metacritic says the critics prefered Fallout 3 while users prefered New Vegas, but a lot more reviews for the former.
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/fallout-3
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/fallout-new-vegas


After forcing myself to finish the base game I didn't want to touch any expansions.
If they're that good I'll keep an eye open, if they're ever on sale. NWN2 doesn't seem to be on Steam though.

NWN 2 is on Good Old Games. Given the choice between Steam and GOG, I tend to buy from GOG. Though I like both, and have a ton of games from both services.

 

[Morrus]

NWN was all about the toolset for me. And NWN1 wins in that regard.

 

[Ainamacar]

My suspicion (not that it's particularly insightful) is that we're looking at another attempt at a Baldur's Gate style game using the Pillars of Eternity engine, with Paizo hoping to capitalize on Pathfinder's essential D&D-ness. Part of me really hopes, however, that we'll get a turn-based game similar to Temple of Elemental Evil (still the best implementation of the D&D ruleset for any edition), only this time with a story.

I don't think it's entirely fair to group Fallout: New Vegas in the "sequel to another company's game" camp since Obsidian has a core of Black Isle alumni. A good chunk of F:NV is based on the original Fallout 3 (Van Buren) before it was canceled and Bethesda bought the rights to the franchise.

Also, Alpha Protocol was an excellent RPG wrapped up in a poor to mediocre FPS engine, something that was simply not in their wheelhouse. I really wish they'd get a second shot at that property with a proper engine.

 

[ephemeron]

I think the amount of gamers who think Fallout 3 was better than New Vegas and had less bugs can be counted on one hand.
And Mask of the Betrayer is still among the best things ever for Neverwinter Nights (one and two).

I'm not going to call Fallout 3 or New Vegas better than the other, but I never ran into a game-breaking bug in either and have put much more time into Fallout 3.

In general, Bethesda's strength is in building sandboxes and Obsidian's is in narrative. In specific, NV unquestionably has the better plot, but after I finished it, I felt like I'd experienced just about all the game had to offer. FO3's main plot is a mess, but the Capital Wasteland invites haring off in new directions and trying new character types.

As for Mask of the Betrayer, I've heard great things about it but never got very far in. Part of it is that enough time passed between my finishing the base campaign and starting MotB that I forgot a lot of how the interface worked and what my character's abilities did. And part is that shortly after getting out of the first area I was forced into an unreasonably-difficult fight on behalf of an NPC whom my character had more reasons to consider an enemy than to support. Or at least that's the impression that's stuck with me -- that was a while ago now.

And to return to the original topic, I'd love to see Obsidian make a Pathfinder game. I strongly prefer single-player to multiplayer in computer games, and the Pathfinder MMO gave up any chance it might have had to be an exception when the comparison to EVE Online came up. But I'll probably wait for some fan patches before I give it a try.

 

[Scotley]

This actually goes back to the very earliest days of Pathfinder

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2i781?Pathfinder-RPG-Electronic-Products-CRPGs

 

[God]

I have no interest at all in Pathfinder Online. I would throw money at a Pillars of Eternity-style, party-based Pathfinder game from Obsidian sight unseen.

 

[wedgeski]

I don't play Pathfinder at all but I'd certainly look at this. My fear is that they won't have the money to throw at it that a project like this needs. Perhaps another KickStarter is around the corner.

 

[Skyst]

I'm a little more cynical.
Let's look at what Obsidian is known for:

* Knights of the Old Republic 2. A sequel to a game made by another company. Good but not as good as the original. Felt a little unfinished with a lot of bugs. It was really missing an ending for some of the storylines.
* Neverwinter Nights 2. A sequel to a game made by another company. Good but not as good as the original. Felt a little unfinished with a lot of bugs. I really felt like they played things safe, by changing the brothel into an inn.
* Alpha Protocol. Hadn't heard of it until now, but Wikipedia says that even critics who rated it favourably commented on its bugs.
* Fallout: New Vegas. A sequel to a game made by another company. Good but not as good as the original. Felt a little unfinished with a lot of bugs.
* Dungeon Siege III. A sequel to a game made by another company. Bad, being rated lower than the originals. Felt a little unfinished with a lot of bugs.
* South Park: Stick of Truth. While not an original property, it is at least a non-sequel. Released to great reviews and almost universal praise, although there are a few game stopping bugs. It should be noted that the creators of South Park worked very closely with Obsidian and retained creative control, which likely led to the game being delayed multiple times. Otherwise it would have very likely been released feeling a little unfinished with a lot of bugs.

So... I guess the lesson for Paizo is to work with Obsidian and don't let them ship it until it's done.

I just had to register to comment on this crap. You obviously never played these games and know very little about them. Anyone who takes metacritic reviews as gospel is a fool. KotOR better than KotOR2? Not by a long shot. NWN2:OC better than MotB? Are you insane? F:NV is one of the best CRPGs we've gotten in years, without question. I'll give you DS3, but that entire franchise is a shoddy Diablo clone anyway. And how had you not even heard of AP?

The vast majority of bugs in Obsidian games come from rushed development schedules and cross platform releases. Guess who sets these schedules? Publishers. RPGs don't make WoW/CoD/Madden money and these smaller developers get forced to cut corners and send code prematurely for QA. Guess who predominantly performs QA? Publishers again! Makes you wonder why the Kickstarter thing has been so successful.

Reading some reviews and a wiki page doesn't grant you authority to do a "let's consider what Obsidian is known for" post when you clearly don't know anything about them yourself. Now go play Alpha Protocol.

 

[Kinak]

This actually goes back to the very earliest days of Pathfinder

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2i781?Pathfinder-RPG-Electronic-Products-CRPGs

Funny quote from that thread:

I anybody at Obsidian wants to talk to me about a CRPG based on Pathfinder, I am all ears! Have them contact me at lisa@paizo.com.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Jester David]

You obviously never played these games and know very little about them.

So because you disagree with my review and assessment, I must not know anything?

Anyone who takes metacritic reviews as gospel is a fool.

I have my opinion, and I choose to back it up with Metacritic because it includes both the reviews of critics and fans, giving a broader opinion. It's more fair than just relying on how I felt at the time.

KotOR better than KotOR2? Not by a long shot.

KotOR 1 had an actual ending, rather than banking on a third game that never happened. The plot twist of KotOR was excellent, and the characters were better.
The end villain in KotOR 2 was better though.

NWN2:OC better than MotB? Are you insane?

Well, never played beyond NWN2, so I purposely didn't mention the expansion. I only compared NWN1 to NWN2
The story of NWN1 was weaker but I found several gameplay elements of NWN2 to be extremely slow and problematic, there were a lot of balance issues in some fights, and the toolset was much harder to use.

F:NV is one of the best CRPGs we've gotten in years, without question.

The question being how much can you credit Obsidian for that, and how much can you credit Bethesda.
They made the game in 18 months, so it's not so much making a new game so much as making a stand alone expansion.

And how had you not even heard of AP?

*shrug* There could be lots of reasons. Checking, it was out in 2009, and I think I was deep into Lich King that spring/summer.
Another reason is that Obsidian isn't a huge name in video games. They're noteworthy to us (D&D and Pathfinder fans) for making two d20 games, but otherwise they're just a lesser BioWare.

The vast majority of bugs in Obsidian games come from rushed development schedules and cross platform releases. Guess who sets these schedules? Publishers. RPGs don't make WoW/CoD/Madden money and these smaller developers get forced to cut corners and send code prematurely for QA. Guess who predominantly performs QA? Publishers again! Makes you wonder why the Kickstarter thing has been so successful.

And yet, many game studios still manage to become successful enough to eventually stop releasing buggy games.
Or prioritize patches to fix bugs.

Reading some reviews and a wiki page doesn't grant you authority to do a "let's consider what Obsidian is known for" post when you clearly don't know anything about them yourself.

But playing 1-2 extra games and eschewing Wikipedia & Metacritic makes you the expert?

Okay, I'm a little cynical/biased as I have less respect for "sequel studios". It's one thing to make your own hit game, and it's another to run with the name of another studio's hit game. (I have the same feelings regarding movies.)
It's fine to make your start with a sequel then adaptation before branching out into your own content. You need to show your chops. But so far Obsidian has made only one "Obsidian" game, and while the story sounds good, the game itself was average. And they immediately returned to the safe, warm comfort of other people's franchises.
They have another self-owned IP coming out, and we'll see how that goes. But if they're doing a Pathfinder game, they're still basing their studio on other people's franchises.

Now go play Alpha Protocol.

Added to my Steam wishlist. I'll keep an eye out for sales.