Square...Bethesda has the right approach.

[Cendres]

I actually like Obsidian, they're not THAT bad. And I know this completely off topic, but I couldn't resist posting this image once you mentioned Obsidian.

http://i56.tinypic.com/6ghmq0.png

Yeah I love Obsidian myself. Their games are shock FULL of bugs but their writers are really great. Fallout New Vegas was so much more interesting to me and I loved Neverwinter 2, KOTOR II was such a mess but I even liked that one, again for the story.

[MariyaShidou]

Yeah I love Obsidian myself. Their games are shock FULL of bugs but their writers are really great. Fallout New Vegas was so much more interesting to me and I loved Neverwinter 2, KOTOR II was such a mess but I even liked that one, again for the story.

+1

While Bethesda do a great job in making a sand-box to play with, it's very empty. Obsidian on the other hand, give life to said sand-box through branching storyline. Oh and it's real branching, not fake decisions like Bioware's. Only CD Project and Obsidian offer true and deep decisions in RPG.

And Bethesda has one thing to learn from Square-Enix (Which they did learn now in making Skyrim): FUGLY character model and clunky animation. It doesn't help when 90% of the people play the game in FPS mode.

[Cairdeas]

+1

While Bethesda do a great job in making a sand-box to play with, it's very empty. Obsidian on the other hand, give life to said sand-box through branching storyline. Oh and it's real branching, not fake decisions like Bioware's. Only CD Project and Obsidian offer true and deep decisions in RPG.

And Bethesda has one thing to learn from Square-Enix (Which they did learn now in making Skyrim): FUGLY character model and clunky animation. It doesn't help when 90% of the people play the game in FPS mode.

And 99% of them spend time modding about to fix it.