Feargus Urquhart on the Fallout license

[Brother None]

Feargus Urquhart shares some thoughts with Joystiq on New Vegas and Obsidian being a licensed-title-driven company.<blockquote>What was the deciding factor for you and the rest of the Obsidian staff in electing to create Fallout: New Vegas versus an original IP for your next game?

This is different than going off and making the Iron Man 2 game. I mean this isn't a movie game. It's taking a license that, first off, we already love -- and a lot of us actually were involved in making the original Fallout games. So this is sort of just something fun to do.

I mean literally, when I was at Interplay, a lot of the reasons why I didn't leave when I probably should have left before was so I could get to make another Fallout. And so I kind of look at New Vegas as a different kind of license.

Now, from kind of more of a business perspective ... I know it's a big surprise to everybody that the economy hasn't been what it has been. And in some ways, as a developer, it's easier to get licensed products signed up, just because it's sort of like -- usually, when a publisher is coming to you to talk to you about a game, you know, if they are saying, "Hey, we got this license we want you to use" -- you're already like 10 steps into the process. </blockquote>

 

[Verd1234]

A better question would be Why WOULDN"T Obsidian develop F:NV.

I mean, it's seems common sense...

 

[Khan FurSainty]

A better question would be Why WOULDN"T Obsidian develop F:NV.

I mean, it's seems common sense...

Not for some people.

 

[goobyman]

Whether or not it's common sense is debatable... but, I think as far as options go... And since we John Q. Public don't have much of a say in who develops it, I'd much rather it be Obsidian than Bethesda. *shakes fist in air at Bethesda*

 

[KristofferAG]

Bethesda will still be in charge, so I doubt it'd be that much different from if Bethesda themselves developed it.

 

[goobyman]

Bethesda will still be in charge, so I doubt it'd be that much different from if Bethesda themselves developed it.

And if my Boss did my job, she would do a shitty job of it. But, I understand your point.

 

[Brother None]

Bethesda will still be in charge, so I doubt it'd be that much different from if Bethesda themselves developed it.

Right, because Obsidian's KotOR II was no different from BioWare's KotOR.

Oh wait.

 

[KristofferAG]

Again with the zings.

Still, I've gotten used to think badly of Bethesda. They haven't exactly made me overly happy with anything yet. But hey, they keep me entertained.

 

[KarmaPolice]

So, if precident is anything to go buy, NV will be a bit less buggy, a few new items and a couple of welcome innovations. Then again, I have only slightly more faith in LucasArts making an original, bug-free game than if I did it myself. (I have played 20 of their games on various platforms for over a decade. The only game that actully had replayability was Rogue Squadron on the N64)

It's all dependent apon a) how much time they were given b) how much editorial control was kept by Bethesda c) how much $$$ they could throw at it and d) how much attention did they pay to the constructive crititism from gamers, from the hardcore oldskool to the newbies.

I'm not writing this one off in advance.

 

[Arr0nax]

So, if precident is anything to go buy, NV will be a bit less buggy, a few new items and a couple of welcome innovations. Then again, I have only slightly more faith in LucasArts making an original, bug-free game than if I did it myself. (I have played 20 of their games on various platforms for over a decade. The only game that actully had replayability was Rogue Squadron on the N64)

LucasArts ? Really ? What have you been smoking ?
NV is being developped by Obsidian...

 

[Forhekset]

So, if precident is anything to go buy, NV will be a bit less buggy, a few new items and a couple of welcome innovations. Then again, I have only slightly more faith in LucasArts making an original, bug-free game than if I did it myself. (I have played 20 of their games on various platforms for over a decade. The only game that actully had replayability was Rogue Squadron on the N64)

It's all dependent apon a) how much time they were given b) how much editorial control was kept by Bethesda c) how much $$$ they could throw at it and d) how much attention did they pay to the constructive crititism from gamers, from the hardcore oldskool to the newbies.

I'm not writing this one off in advance.

You must be confusing the publisher of Knights of the Old Republic with the developer of both KOTOR2 and Fallout: NV. I guess.

Also, Rogue Squadron is the only LA game with any replayability? Really? And I don't see the link between replayability and originality/bugginess, except that if a game is particularly buggy, you probably don't want to finish your first playthrough, let alone replay it. Your logic is all over the place.

 

[Kyuu]

Right, because Obsidian's KotOR II was no different from BioWare's KotOR.

Yeah, but Bethesda is probably afraid of Obsidian's efforts outshining their game, and thus I wouldn't be at all surprised if they quashed a lot of Obsidian's attempts at improving aspects of the game.

Not that I really know, but I imagine LucasArts isn't quite so full of itself.

Then again, since Bethesda isn't even giving Obsidian credit on the box art...

 

[MrBumble]

Yeah, but Bethesda is probably afraid of Obsidian's efforts outshining their game, and thus I wouldn't be at all surprised if they quashed a lot of Obsidian's attempts at improving aspects of the game

That would seem logical but Obsidian were allowed to :

-Improve the dialog system
-Improve stats impact
-Modify VATS
-Modify weapon crafting
-Create a companion interaction system
-Return the game back to the East Coast
-Modify the aspect of supermutants
-make actual choices and consequences based quests
-re-introduce the NCR

and who knows what else ?

So Bethesda being the publisher isn't as bad as it sounds...maybe.

 

[Lexx]

Yeah, but Bethesda is probably afraid of Obsidian's efforts outshining their game, and thus I wouldn't be at all surprised if they quashed a lot of Obsidian's attempts at improving aspects of the game.

CONSPIRACY!!!



Seriously. Bethesda wants to earn money with Fallout. If Obsidian is improving on Fallout 3, in such a short time, with less money than Bethesda invested into Fallout 3 and the outcome will be cool and makes even more money or at least the same money as Fallout 3, there is no reason for Bethesda to wish that they fail. Especially if the overal gametype (open world 'n shit) stays the same anyway.

 

[KarmaPolice]

You must be confusing the publisher of Knights of the Old Republic with the developer of both KOTOR2 and Fallout: NV. I guess.

No, I'm not. Lookie here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsidian_Entertainment we all know that Wiki is god...

I was citing the best example we have, which is Star Wars - Knights Of the Old Republic (LucasArts) and KOTOR 2 (LucasArts/Obsidian). Same engine, same stuff, same style. However, there were developments, such as a eqipment mod bench (in 1 only for lightsabres, in 2 for nearly all guns, swords and armour), a chemical workbench (allowing the creation of medikits, stims and grenades). They ironed out some bugs (random flying around screen or CoD'ing when loading new area) a couple of handy additions (such as 'Container - Empty') which I was pleased to see in F3.

Then again, since Bethesda isn't even giving Obsidian credit on the box art...

I think this is standard industry practice. I know that Operation Flashpoint was the same - Bohemia Interactive (developer) got no mention on the box. However, they do get a big mention on the splash screen, just like with Obsidian and KOTOR 2. Tell me, what do you see more of, the box art or the splash screen while loading the game? I agree with what you imply though, it would seem fairer if they got some mention in the box art.

And I don't see the link between replayability and originality/bugginess...Your logic is all over the place.

The comment you were referring to was a kinda mini-flame against LucasArts, which has sucked a fair bit of cash from my wallet over the last decade with dissapointing results. The days of crippilingly buggy games are proberly gone forever, between the 'net and the fact that game producion is becoming as expensive as films, means that they are careful to make sure the fundimentals work.

For me, a great game needs to be either a) a polished example of the genre, b) an original addition to the genre or c) enemently replayable. The games you keep on your PC for years. The ones you re-install on your new PC five years later.

Examples in my mind would be for a) Gran Turismo 4 (PS2) b) The Sims (PC) and c) Morrowind (PC).

Fallout 3 is, in my opinion none of these. I'll mod it a bit, then it will proberly sit, unplayed on my computer for another year. Then I'll uninstall it. Five years later, I'll find that I've lost/broken/had stolen my CD. And I proberly won't care much about it.

Unless it is a complete turkey, NV will be more profitable than F3. It's simple economics. F3 had to support the entire development costs alone. NV, in using the same engine, 85% of F3's graphics and sounds will have much lower costs to cover. That's why game makers like to recycle old engines/graphics/sounds, because the profit margins are higher, and turn-around times quicker.

 

[Ausir]

I was citing the best example we have, which is Star Wars - Knights Of the Old Republic (LucasArts) and KOTOR 2 (LucasArts/Obsidian). Same engine, same stuff, same style. However, there were developments, such as a eqipment mod bench (in 1 only for lightsabres, in 2 for nearly all guns, swords and armour), a chemical workbench (allowing the creation of medikits, stims and grenades). They ironed out some bugs (random flying around screen or CoD'ing when loading new area) a couple of handy additions (such as 'Container - Empty') which I was pleased to see in F3.

KotOR was developed by BioWare, and only published by LucasArts, just like KotOR 2 was developed by Obsidian and published by Lucas.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

I think this is standard industry practice. I know that Operation Flashpoint was the same - Bohemia Interactive (developer) got no mention on the box. However, they do get a big mention on the splash screen, just like with Obsidian and KOTOR 2. Tell me, what do you see more of, the box art or the splash screen while loading the game? I agree with what you imply though, it would seem fairer if they got some mention in the box art.

I see it happen with virtually unknown studios but not with one as big as Obsidian but they should have their logo in the back.

The days of cripplingly buggy games are probably gone forever, between the 'net and the fact that game production is becoming as expensive as films, means that they are careful to make sure the fundamentals work.

Fallout 3 had such problems for some users and I've heard a number of horror stories about the PC port of GTA4. The days of Sierra errors are over though, we don't get messages like "ERROR: You have done something unexpected, this program will now close," for clicking the mouse :p

 

[Crni Vuk]

The days of cripplingly buggy games are probably gone forever, between the 'net and the fact that game production is becoming as expensive as films, means that they are careful to make sure the fundamentals work.

Many of the DLCs Bethesda has thrown out tell a different story though.

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

And though not crippling. we could really also do without bugs that make critters and humans take off for no apparent reason or start to bounce and twist around.

 

[DGT]

b) The Sims (PC)

Are you a troll?

Seriously, though, I have to agree on LucasArts (by which I mean anything they endorse, no matter who the actual developer... GOd forbid they design it too) generally sucking large quantities of the wang, but I don't understand all this hate for KOTOR. Rogue Squadron was fun as hell, yes, but it was just an arcade-style flight simulator. KOTOR was a fairly engaging and somewhat balanced RPG -- one I never had problems with bugs while playing. KOTOR2 is an upgrade in every way (except, sadly, the story -- but KOTOR2's is passable), and gains only a couple glitches -- again, in my experience. For me, both KOTOR1&2 are some of those games you replay time and time again years afterward.

Back on topic, it doesn't surprise me that Obsidian's not on the box. Why would Beth want to share any more of the fanboi love than they have to? Bad enough they have to pay Obsidian. Apparently, I now feel for Beth like I've heard so many people talk about Microsoft. xD