Fallout: New Vegas dev says don't expect a remaster, argues Bethesda doesn't have the source code or 'the engineering knowhow'
1mon 27d ago by lemmy.world/u/cybercafe in games from www.pcgamer.com
"Copilot please remaster Fallout New Vegas "
- Sadya Nadella, probably
Yeah, we know Bethseda does not have 'the engineering knowhow', we've known that for like a decade now.
That the author considers this 'an eyebrow raising assertion' betrays that they understand nothing about games on the backend, or how development actually works.
Avellone argues there's a unique roadblock with New Vegas: "the very last milestone" Bethesda gave Obsidian Entertainment was to "deliver all the source code and the ability to make the build" for $10,000.
"For reasons unknown to me, but I have suspicions, [Obsidian studio head] Feargus [Urquhart] decided not to cash out that milestone, and did not deliver it," says Avellone. "It's not a strange decision if you feel, which would not be out of the realms of possibility, that the New Vegas experience cheated him out of X amount of money.
You pull away all their bonuses, a decade ago, for missing a review score mandate by one point.
For a game with barely enough dev time allocated to it, for a dev cycle that would have been 100% crunch before crunch became a term people use.
Its the best 3D Fallout game that exists.
Its a game that largely revolves around revenge on some asshole who fucked you over.
And Bethesda wants to now remake it, probably looking to make a lot more than $10k.
Yeah, gee, I have no idea why they didn't go for that last stretch goal, yep, no clue.
EDIT:
Now excuse me while I laugh, and whistle Heartache by the Numbers.
this comment is so filled with disinformation that it must be ragebait
for one, the bonus was a tacked on thing bethesda threw in as a freebie, which obsidian devs (i think it was sawyer) said would just be going to the shareholders/business people up stairs
for two, obsidian is the one who set the timeframe to make the game, and obsidian is the one who denied the devs more time, no matter how much they asked
for three, thats not objective in the slightest
for four, only for the first quarter of the game. the rest being a bunch of almost optional fetch quests, with some main quests sprinkled in
for five, not confirmed anywhere
for six, because obsidian was ran like absolute garbage back then and couldnt even afford another month to fix bugs because they would have went under due to the incompitance of the ceos of obsidian
my internet is not good right now so i dont feel like finding sources, but i know sawyer, avellone, and a few other obsidian devs have said as much
I like your username.
i like yours
Now kith
šš
New Vegas doesnt need a remaster, anyway.
It needs a Remake
with the cut content restored and an actually fleshed out legion
and less loading screens, especially around new vegas, because they had to cater to the ram limits of the consoles at the time.
going to the top of the lucky 38 and seeing absolutely nothing out the window was such a huge disappointment
i figured since fo3 had the washington monument then surely new vegas would have a similar one
the best thing about a remake for either Fallout 3 or New Vegas, it'd do a significant chunk of the work for remaking the other one.
So having them bundled into one remake bundle would be fantastic.
Probaly never happen, but a boy can dream.
You expect an official release of Tale of Two Wastelands?
Each game will be released separately for 70 dollars and will be disappointing.
You expect an official release of Tale of Two Wastelands?
??
No?
Each game will be released separately for 70 dollars and will be disappointing.
Yeah, I know. Thanks for ruining the fantasy.
wasnt oblivion only 40?
That was more of a remaster than a remake. A remake would be making the game from scratch and could be expanded and/or changed. For example expanding the legion side of the map and making Ulysses into a companion instead of a villain. There's so much cut content for New Vegas that you could remake the game and have it be distinct from the original.
I'm of a firm opinion that no game needs a remake. Fixing up old games so that they can be played on modern systems - yes please. Remaking the same game but """better""" - no thanks, I'd rather see something original and new come out
There are some exceptions like Pathologic 2 which is basically a remake but also a reimagining, but those are exceedingly rare.
I'll disagree a bit. Angel of Darkness should definitely have been a Remake.
They must have put so much effort in to get that just as crappy as the original.
New Vegas needs it to.
I love the fuck out of the game, but its heavily handicapped by its need to fit within console limitations at the time of its release... Not only that, its just full of jank.
A remaster is not capable of addressing the core issues that need addressing with New Vegas, especially with no source code.
A remake is the only way to get a solid, amazing update to New Vegas that will endure for another 16+ years.
I must disagree.
Like while i can still fully enjoy old resident evil games, because i have nostalgia for the i fully understand why people who are born after they have been made would be put of by them.
By remaking those games they could indruduce the game to whole new audience who would never play the yanky outdated versions.
More extreme example. I would love to have modernised version of Betrayal at Krondor. It had good story. The core gameplay and world was great and there was intresting mechanics, but it was released 1993, so it by modern standards it looks like garbage and the ui is very unintuitive.
Most gamers now will never experience that story and those who do, will not get the same experience i got, because they will look everything in the game as a product of its time and the focus will be on the retro aspect, not on the game it self.
By remaking those games they could indruduce the game to whole new audience who would never play the yanky outdated versions.
This is where we disagree.
- I don't think we should try to re-introduce those games to new audiences - they can seek them out if they are interested. I haven't played Planescape Torment until 2017, I haven't played Gothic/Deus Ex/Thief games until 2020s. I liked them just fine having never played them in my childhood, I thought they were great. But by remaking influential hits of the past we water them down to "just another mediocre remake that released this year".
- A remake by definition will not do anything new, and if we spend resources on remakes (and sequels) then we are robbing the current generation from having their own formative experiences. I want to see new IPs come out that try new and different things and move the medium forward. So far indie games are doing a great job with that, but I also want AAA games to not get stuck in regurgitating the same material year after year. What is this generation's Half-Life, Roblox?
Most gamers now will never experience that story and those who do, will not get the same experience i got, because they will look everything in the game as a product of its time and the focus will be on the retro aspect, not on the game it self.
If they play a remake - they will not get the same experience you did either. It will be different even if they remake it shot for shot - because story is also a product of its time. And if they don't remake it shot for shot and make changes to adapt it to modern "standards" - then it's a different, derivative game vaguely inspired by the original piggybacking on the name.
- I don't think we should try to re-introduce those games to new audiences
Well if we disagree on this deep fundamental level i dont think we can have real discussion about this, as my personal opinion is that stories i love should be made as easy as possible for people to reach. Like i would love people to read book Kalevala, but its written in old Finnish so i think its completelly fine for make the book more easily approachable for the masses by translating it to todays English, even if it looses a lot by turning the writing to prose.
- A remake by definition I just want to say there is no real definition for remake.
if we spend resources on remakes (and sequels) then we are robbing the current generation from having their own formative experiences. I want to see new IPs come out that try new and different things and move the medium forward.
This goes more to the business end too. Its not zero sum game and making remakes dont mean companies stop making new games.
Like activision tasked Vicarious vision to make Crash remakes and because those did allright they were comfortable to let Toys for Bob make comoletelly new Crash game. The remake indruduced the Crash games to new audience. Without that push the new game would most definedly did worse than it did. (It was profitable, but not as much as investors wished).
Same with resident evils. Both remakes and new installations are being produced at the same time and they help to make the engine better everytime.
Sequel
No
Virginity: I'm the only thing you can lose and never get back š„°\
Source code: Hold my beer šŗ
Arguably the people who created New Vegas didnāt have the engineering know how, lol.
Are you telling me severed arms are NOT supposed to rubber band across the ground as Deathclaws with power fists fly like rockets across the horizon?
I thought that was cannon.
If you're using a cannon I think this is WAI
Powering the metro with people is totally normal, not body horror sort of stuff.
Now get back to your ditch, car 43!
That was BioWare and Fallout 3.
the engineering was Bethesda's, though
Why thank you for the correction.
Bethesda really shouldn't be allowed to own these IPs anymore at this point, idk who in the AAA scene would do a better job, but something's gotta give. They don't give a single shit.
The AAA industry is obsessed with using their own game engines, to the point where the AA industry can run circles around them using Unreal.
You can give the IP to a random Norwegian (they're always Scandinavian) game studio you've never heard of before and get a better product.
Oh yes Unreal.
The one that is causing the majority of games to play like dogshit at 20 fps with mandatory frame generation
That's the studio's fault not the game engines. There's also unity of course and godot
Unreal is just a resource hog. I can play AA 3D games on my laptop at 30FPS, but I can't run an Unreal starter scene with a sphere at more than 20. They just don't give a shit about anything that's not top end hardware.
Considering how hardcore lemmy/fediverse users are about socialism, fuck capitalism and corps, this is a very strange take to make about using Unreal or Unity instead of running the inhouse engine or godot as the primary argument.
The studios don't care about any of that.
Not my point.
nop unreal is dogshit for a lot more reason than dev dont optimize their games. unreal is bad for the medium but good for the industry, wich i hate it cause we have game with unreal then.
Norwegians are always Scandinavian, correct.
Not triple A but Inexile and Owlcat could probably handle the series pretty well. Also throw Elder Scrolls to the guys who made Tainted Grail.
Bethesda also kept them from getting a fat payout so the devs are very unlikely to help.
Bethesda just kept them to their original contract and didn't pay anything they weren't required to. I mean, it would have been a nice "thank you" for almost meeting their goals. But they didn't.
i believe it was sawyer who said he blames himself for that because he did not pivot the team to work on bug fixing until it was way too late
The promised bonus was dependent on what rating the game got from Metacritic. If it got an 85 or better, they got the bonus. It got an 84 and specifically lost points due to the rampant bugs. BioWare was responsible for bug testing and QA according to the contract.
it's still an asshole move though, only a soulless corporation would ever clutch to the "well actually" of a single point of an average of reviews to deny a whole bonus
even if they were cheeky like "oh you were one point short so the bonus will be 5% less than we promised haha" it'd have been better than a binary yes/no
Or they really wanted it to be 90%+. Maybe the 85% was already giving them 5% leeway.
Doesn't sound like they'll necessarily be honest about the situation either then.
That sounds a bit strange, the source code for nearly every script that handles quests, mechanics and such is bundled with the game and what modders have been using since release.
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, I don't see why a remaster like Oblivion's would be impossible. It runs on top of the original game anyways.
Cause the real reason which is well known is Bethesda higher up dont like the fact it s the most loved fallout post Bethesda acquisition and wasn't made by them
Well they need to make better Fallout games, then. Start with firing Emil Pagliarulo. That man should never be allowed into the writer's room ever again.
He should have a restraining order for making games in general
Bethesda's never had a good writer since Morrowind. the best story tellers in Bethesda were the people who designed the obscure side locations with environmental storytelling, and I guess Bethesda took that as a slight against its reputation and replaced handmade locations with reusable slop in starfield. it's like they are trying to get worse with every game.
what make better game ? are you crasy ? We saw how they treated the reception of starfield like fan being in the wrong and not an issue on their end so no hope on that subject
That's literally not true. It's false information spread by fanboy dickriders like you
I don't mean to sound like an asshole, but this whole "NV was the best game ever made" is getting REALLY old, especially now 16 years after the game released.
I mean, for all of its flaws it is objectively better than Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 though. And I loved Fallout 3. So the comment you're responding to is correct, because 3 and 4 are the competition (76 and Fallout Shelter do not count).
(76 and Fallout Shelter do not count)
Would it make a difference?
yes. shelter CLEARS new vegas plus the classic fallouts easily
Spoken like somebody who does not understand what objective means.
So they're right that they said Bethesda hates NV, because Fallout 3 and 4 are "worse" (completely subjective btw, even though I do enjoy NV)? Not because someone at Bethesda actually confirmed that (which they never have)?
None from Bethesda but old obsidian dev did. Mb it was Chris not sure. But wouldn't be surprise since nobody listen him even when he said fallout isn't about capitalism and he s just a voice screaming far away cause nobody seem to be aware of it
Bethesda does not hate New Vegas, Obsidian, or anyone who worked on the game. Find proof then I'll change my tune.
They wouldn't be featuring it so heavily in all Fallout media if they didn't like it; especially the show, which season 2 is basically New Vegas 2.
I don't know why so many people (like you) just accept the falsity that "Bethesda hates New Vegas and Obsidian" when literally no one from either company has ever said so.
The only people who say that shit are like you, who can't seem to fully grasp reality, or are trying to push some kind of agenda.
The show is litteraly a rewriting of what was a grounded belivable world into a goofy borderlands clone. Even with Bethesda approval I won't say it s an argument.
Also the story about how Bethesda imposed hard deadline and didn't deliver their bonus to obsidian for just one point on metacritic is well known.
Also
According to him, "They had a whole PowerPoint. Not even about the DLC, they had a whole PowerPoint about all the things Obsidian did wrong." He sarcastically described the meeting as "hugely morale-boosting," noting that the developers felt they had provided a quality game. "I thought we did a good product for you guys that kept Fallout in the public consciousness," Avellone stated, adding that it felt unfair since Bethesda "reaped a lot of the rewards for it" while being visibly unhappy during the review. The technical friction went even deeper, leading to a confrontation over performance and the future of the game's code. Avellone recalled an interview in which he was asked whether the game would hit 30 frames per second, which he believed was a basic standard. However, a tech director at Bethesda later scolded him for making that promise. "I sat there, and I smiled, and I took it," he said, while internally wondering, "Why do you have a fāing engine that can't run 30 frames per second, and then call that your claim to fame?"
i mean the best game ever made ? i never said that i said the best fallout with bethesda being on the cover ever made. went on steam fallout 3, and 4 stand at 80% and nv at 90% pretty sure on all site that have gamers reviews it will be the same storry. The overall population said that nv is better than 3 and 4
Metacritic says 3 and 4 were both better reviewed than NV. Took me like ten seconds to look it up.
3 and 4 also sold way more than new vegas
in fact, new vegas being a masterpiece wasnt even discussed until like 2017. before that, opinions were varied
yeah but that doesnt equal quality or better game.
u mean a paid journalist? that s why i said gamers. Journalists also feel concord was a good game as for highgard and every new pokemon or cod so yeah kinda dont care about their opinion
I actually talked to all of the players, and they all agreed with the reviewers. They said NV is actually a little overrated. š¤·
Overatted certainly, the best fallout certainly too
Thatās a solid point. Assuming their bespoke Unreal Engine/Gamebryo hybrid engine can run the scripts, thereās no reason it couldnāt be āremasteredā in the same way.
Eventually you will want to change the lighting or fix a high severity bug. You need the source to recompile or repackage.
This is Bethesda we're talking about, I don't think they'd worry about fixing bugs
The script source code is packaged with the game though. You can see the entire game's implementation through the GECK and XEdit pretty much.
To push a release for a game you need to package it. It's one thing to have no more ci/cd, you could technically build, package, and deploy on a workstation. But without source you can't even do that because the build system is part of the source code. A game is a few hundred gigs of pure data and it needs to be packed to make it playable.
Well yeah.
It was made by Obsidian, not Bethesda. And we already knew Bethesda had no engineering know-how when New Vegas originally launched š¤·āāļø
They didn't need to add the last part but I'm so glad that they did
Todd Howard seething
Just make a new game. This remaster bullshit is awful. You donāt even need to make a new game engine, just use the assets you have and make more stories. Call it a dlc and put the original game out there for $20 and the dlc for $50 and all you had to really invest in were story writers, a few expensive devs to make new assets, and a room of 1099s to help fix code issues.
See there are a couple of problems with this plan.
1] Emil Pagliarulo is complete self-sucking hack at this point, who quite literally could not write a coherent, engaging story, with characters that actually act and speak like human beings, in a world that is actually consistent and makes sense... if he tried.
As evidence of this, please see anything he's done in the last decade.
So unless you're gonna fire him and everyone he's molded, no shot.
He was also the design director of Fallout 76 and Starfield.
Which are essentially perfect examples of both incompetent game design and execution of ssid design.
Literally, he is the primary problem with Bethesda as a game developing company.
2] The entire problem is that you, like the rest of AAA gaming, have the game dev prioritization backwards.
You want the actual experts to fix and refactor the engine. Having contractors do all that for the last decade plus is why everything is broken now; bandaids upon bandaids produces code necrosis.
Assets, on the other hand, are broadly much simpler, (presuming you habe templates and standards as determined by the engine), and there are way more people who can produce quality assets than there are people who can fix and refactor core engine code competently.
The problem that now exists, not just with Bethesda, but many game dev studios, and engines... is that there have been so many things contracted out for so long that nobody, literally no one actually has both a broad and deep understanding... there aren't any experts any more.
Another great example of this is the attempt at the new engine for Halo Infinite. They just hired a bunch of contractors to overhaul the existing engine.... almost none of them had ever used it before. They did their best, it was not enough, snd then they all got let go.
Fnv was nearly unplayable at release due to bugsā¦
It was quite prone to crashing-to-desktop and certain PC configurations had bizarre graphics issues, but I did play through it on hardcore in the week of release and had a great time with it. Just needed to quicksave a lot.
The kind of bugs that it did not have a lot of were quest bugs. Bethesda's own games are 'wide but shallow', and very few quests in the world seem to interlink with each other, but despite that, they're very easy to break accidentally, or cannot be completed due to flag issues. Oblivion managed to wrangle up a complex plot with tonnes of interrelated parts, and it mostly just worked.
What F:NV could have been if it had been made in a good engine... Most of the times where it got dinged in review scores were for bugginess and instability. Trying to build a castle upon sand; there's only so much you can do before all the cracks appear.
That day one experience was the only thing that made it feel like a Bethesda game. I had that exact same experience in Daggerfall, Morrowing, Oblivion, and Fallout 3.
Remastering and remaking an existing game is much easier than making a new game thatās actually good. Why do you think so many AAA companies have become obsessed with remakes and remasters? Theyāve lost the creative talent to be able to make brand new hit games. And theyāre too risk-averse to even try!
If you want new games that are actually good and innovative, your best bet is indie games. Indie games are more innovative and less risk-averse, operating on a sink-or-swim model (many separate indie game devs all competing).
Copilot: New Vegas
I do find it odd that Bethesda, as the IP rights holder and publisher of the game, was not given a copy of the source code? Whats the story with that?
I mean this politely butā¦ read the article?
Source code gets lost all the time, for all kinds of reasons.
Let me guess someone stole their sourcecode
Avellone bragging that his game's code has security-through-spaghetti.
Now there's a term I have to find a way to use at work tomorrow!
I dream of a sequel that focuses on the consequences of the legion falling apart after the second battle of hoover dam.
Basically a game where one faction wants to turn the remnants of the legion into a unified democratic republic (perhaps a mixture of the Roman senate and the NCR), another faction wants to find a new caesar (and possibly reform some of the stupider sides of the old legion) and a third faction just wants to go back to being a bunch of independent tribes that only trade with each other.
You would play as the grown up child of a legionaire who died at hoover dam and a slave who was sold off to somewhere else when you were young.
They could hand it over to Nightdive Studios. They did a banger job with System Shock.
Eventually.
so people have to reverse engineer the game and try to make a remaster ig?
Or they can just play the original and stop making the world a worse place to live for everyone else
I find the idea that all old games need remasters/remakes very disrespectful tbh. Artists worked hard on those games back in the day. I can justify improvements to performance but updating visuals such as lighting and textures to be prettier or more realistic often misunderstands what the original game was going for.
I've been playing a lot of Diablo 2 Lord of Destruction lately, and the graphics are a huge part of what makes the game feel like it does. The remaster is really good, but it doesn't really hit the same vibe. What the old game (and a loooot of other old games) needs is a whole buttload of quality of life features. Something different mods have done a very good job of taking care of for Diablo 2.
While I understand your reasoning (although I don't necessarily think that remasters/remakes are bad) I am not a fan of Bethesda's current visual style for Fallout compared to Fallout 3/New Vegas in general so in this caae I'd fear they would change some really iconic designs. Oblivion afaik did it well but New Vegas and 3 fans are VERY protective of their precious games so I'd expect a lot of wariness and criticism. Plus, yeah, performance updates would be the biggest factor to include especially considering how bad New Vegas runs without mods but knowing Bethesda I would not be too hopeful lol. I'd still kill for a remaster but I'll remain sceptical.
Just like trading in rocket league. So sad.
That's a bit silly thing to say tbh. There's nothing special about NV that can't be recreated without source code.
Especially when the community makes games like fallout London on their own time. Fucking copout from weak ass developers.
Tbf he's a writer, left obsidian long ago, and only info of this is a few dev inside bethesda who probably don't care enough to answer him seriously
They canāt really remaster without the source code, especially if they wanted to go the route of Oblivion and tack a new rendering engine onto the old game logic. Theyād have to remake the game from scratch, which would definitely make a better product, but is wayyyyy more work.
Sounds like an excuse more than a reason.
Ah yes because F:NV was such a technical masterpiece. What a ragebait statement.
I mean hardly, but neither has any of Bethesda's own games. The New Vegas team did what they could with the broken tools that Bethesda makes, and they managed to craft a fantastic narrative, something Bethesda will never come close to delivering.
Cool but the narrative doesnāt have anything to do with technical expertise like Avellone is claiming. It was way more buggy than Fallout 3. and some of us are old enough to remember that.
A reminder as well that Avellone had very little to do with the parts that people love about F:NV or even the original Fallout games.
Less that they lack the technical expertise to remake it completely, but they lack the technical expertise to remake it cheaply and quickly without the source code. At that point they might as well make a new fallout game.
Thatās not the claim of the article though. Avellone is ragebaiting in a desperate attempt to stay relevant. Itās an absurd claim to make in context - especially from a game/narrative designer who has not worked with Bethesda since the original game came out.
I never played new Vegas. I hadn't played a fallout game since fallout 2. I bought new Vegas when it was on steam sale for $0.99. I was having fun playing, exploring the wastes. Got about 20 hours into it and now it won't open. Game crashes as soon as i click load save.
So disappointing. I finally get to new Vegas and meet mr house. And i can't do anything else.
If you're on windows this is a relatively easy fix, I believe you're looking for the "4GB patch". I believe anyway. There's a patcher out there that fixes it up easy.
I hate to say it but... Linux really shines here. The backwards compatibility is insane and it really does just work. If you have a deck it just sings, in fact the deck is one of the best ways to play the older games
You absolutely have to play with mods. I'd recommend doing at least the basics of Viva New Vegas. Sadly NV is old enough now and from that era where compatibility wasn't quite figured out yet. Thankfully, if you do the basic installation (and likely even the full install), you should be able to play your old save as it doesn't add any content to the game, just bug fixes and QoL features
As was mentioned a moment ago, you may need the 4GB+ patch if your system has more than 4 gigs of RAM, but it would also help to use the Unofficial Patch too.
Reboot reboot reboot
Obsidian hasn't made a good game since... So why are they throwing shade?
Have you considered doing an AMA on your life as a blind person ?
I'm afraid I'd be unable to respond to all the questions since I can't read!
I take it you haven't played Pentiment
Pentiment was great. You can feel that it's made with so much passion.
I played with a friend who was a medievalist sitting beside me, and she confirmed that all the weird and wonderful marginalia animals were from actual manuscripts
avowed was not bad. outer worlds tho...š¬
Outer Worlds was fantastic.
Can you make legitimate criticisms about some of it? Sure. You can make legitimate criticisms about anything.
But the overwhelming amount of hate I've seen was from fanboys who deluded themselves into thinking it was gonna be New Vegas in space, When nothing even remotely close to that was hinted.. and because it didnt up being what they deluded themselves into thinking it was gonna be, they hated on it.
Also, they've made a TON of fantastic games.
Alpha Protocol was a mindblowing game with a depth and complexity that still makes it playable today, 16 years later (technically it came out before New Vegas, but Alpha Protocol doesnt get enough love so I'll mention it when ever I can)
As for post-New Vegas games..
Stick of Truth was wildly succesful
Pillars of Eternity was wildly successful, and created a franchise for them.
Tyranny was fantastic and fresh
Outer Worlds I already covered.
Never played Grounded but it must be wildly fuckin popular to be getting a sequel and a TV show.
I'm not sure I'd call Outer Worlds "fantastic", but I'd probably still call it "good" which still holds up against he higher up comment saying they haven't made any good games since. It reminded me of the first Mass Effect game in a way, it was a KOTOR game with the soul stripped out of it. Outer Worlds was just FNV with far less soul and in space. I didn't run into any bugs while playing on release though, which was a nice surprise.
the only reason i beat outer worlds was for parvarti. there were sometimes quests that were fine, but nothing really memorable. i did not care for its atmosphere and ham fisted blunt as an atom bomb style of storytelling. the combat was also horrible. i genuinely do not know why anyone would even attmept the hardest difficulty, there is just no way its any fun.
the perks were practically useless in my eyes because it was so barebones, making it not a real incentive to level up. the gear also sucks outside of that super cool monster mashup outfit.....that you get to wear for about 10 minutes because it comes right at the end of the game
id overall give outer worlds a 3/10 it could have been good but too many elements ruin it for me
conversely....outer worlds 2? i couldnt even get a quarter of the way through
stick of truth was awesome yeah. havent played any others
You play Grounded yet?