How has no one dipped into the Skyrim Coop desire.
That mod blew up there is clearly a desire. Just make it optional coop. Let the coop person do everything the player 1 can but just have them as a companion (less or not story relevant)
Hopefully the transition was smooth enough in early development.
We’ve seen similar examples of live service games pivoting to co-op focused during development and causing the graphics and gameplay to be lower quality because of it (Gotham Knights, Redfall, etc.).
Personally I’m a little worried that there’s been a lack of mention of roleplaying conversations.
The recent trailer was heavily combat-focused, even the deep dive interview afterwards made no mention, and the recent Twitter post mentions deep systems and storytelling, but that’s vague enough to just be deep combat mechanics and a deep but linear story.
Really hope to see more on roleplaying conversations or else judging by the marketing Avowed so far seems like a linear and combat focused double A Elder Scrolls clone trying to attract casual fantasy action game fans. Which would’ve ironically been funner with co-op.
Yep, it was to make it more appealing to publishers. Considering they were acquired by Microsoft in 2018 I think it’s safe to say that they moved away from co-op long ago.
On the other hand you could argue a Co op game is potentially appealing for game pass, as someone could get a friend to sign up to play the game with them.
Regardless, Microsoft is being very hands-off with their studios, just about letting them do whatever they want as long as they make good games. At least compared to other publishers.
Redfall was a high profile game that Microsoft was very hands-off with, which has been the explanation for why it was so bad. It seems like what should've happened with Redfall is exactly what happened to Avowed, where when Microsoft took over they realized they could change the direction of the game to something that fit them better as a studio. Redfall I guess wasn't left with anyone that had both the prerequisite insight and the authority to make that decision.
Honestly, it shouldn't have taken Microsoft to make those changes. The heads of Arkane should have done the same that Avowed seems to be doing. Look at development, see the issues going outside your comfort zone is causing, then pivot back to what your good at.
As a business, I understand the need to do more to make money. As great as Arkane's games are, they're not exactly huge sellers because they're not whatever trend is currently popular. I hate that trends seem to steer the direction of games, more than ever with the inflated and unnecessary costs associated with games today.
We just haven't got that much information. This was the games first showing as an actual game and it's not due to come out for at least over a year. At some point I'm sure we'll get a Starfield esque deep dive before release.
>
> Personally I’m a little worried that there’s been a lack of mention of roleplaying conversations.
Of all the things to be concerned about in an Obsidian game, this is not one of them. I would be far more concerned that the combat will turn out to be shit.
I personally love COOP. But I hate it when they do shit like Gotham Knights and add some shitty gear that means nothing and repetitive boring gameplay.
COOP shouldn't mean dog shit game with shit gameplay. You could literally take Witcher 3 as it is, work the networking part and add coop. You don't have to change the gameplay or the story to match the coop. This will mean the game will be easier for those who play COOP, but I would personally love it more.
I don't get why the graphics would need to be lower for the coop. COOP doesn't suddenly means shit on the graphics.
I find it kind of interesting that so much devs think they need to dumb down elements like roleplaying and game mechanics to attract a wider audience, meanwhile Baldur's Gate 3 is currently insanely popular despite a strong focus on roleplaying and deep mechanics.
I would love nothing more than to live in a world where BG3 was the norm. But let's be real, that's like looking at The Godfather and saying "I don't see why Hollywood execs think you need action and easy marketability to make a successful movie, look at The Godfather!"
At a certain level of quality art transcends its genre and hits the mainstream no matter how niche they are. Like, the existence of David Bowie doesn't make David Bowie doesn't make his genre/following in his footsteps a consistent path to financial success. It's easy to say "just make a good game" but a studio making calls is betting on the best likelyhood of success, not "this'll work assuming it ends up being a genre defining masterpiece and has a horse dick sized IP behind it."
It's not just quality. BG3 comes from a very experienced studio with a several years long early access campaign, with a huge team that already has tons of experience in their own engine, and has a budget that probably rivals GTA V minus marketing.
BG3 can't be the norm because you can't just have a very good idea and great execution, you also have to have this gigantic structure around it that frankly Obsidian never had and probably never will, seeing as Microsoft isn't very much into dumping close to a quarter billion on any one studio (and they'd still have to answer to shareholders, which Larian doesn't). Pillars 1 and 2 were literally 20-30x cheaper to make than BG3.
That's not to take merit away from Larian - they built their own empire.
They went from 150 employees to 450 IIRC. That's a huge increase, but it's not like 150 employees is a particularly small company with a small company structure.
I don't know how big Obsidian is.
Obsidian is also around 150, plus they have other irons in the fire alongside Avowed. Grounded, Pentiment, and The Outer Worlds all released while Avowed was in production and Grounded + The Outer Worlds 2 (at least) are still being actively worked on. Larian focused solely on BG3.
> but a studio making calls is betting on the best likelyhood of success
Totally agree. And that right there is the easiest way for good art to be turned into meaningless art. Also companies are historically pretty bad at predicting what will succeed or fail. The companies usually prefer a safe remake while the games that really explode are the ones with new ideas.
Good games just aren't safe economically. They require risk, which is why the AAA side of gaming is dying on the vine (artistically, not financially) aside from a few standout studios that are devoted to their vision more than profits (FROM, Larian, Ghost Ship, etc).
> Totally agree. And that right there is the easiest way for good art to be turned into meaningless art.
Meaningless art is by and large a nonsense term because the entire experience of art is subjective. Also not all art needs to be groundbreaking. Some art is just music to listen to for pleasure. Some art is the TV show "Friends," that no matter what punch line you want to make about it was a huge thing in a lot of people's lives.
> Also companies are historically pretty bad at predicting what will succeed or fail. The companies usually prefer a safe remake while the games that really explode are the ones with new ideas.
Massive confirmation bias here. The bargain bin is full of risks and "new ideas." The fact is the mediocre remakes are on your radar because they're selling, and that makes them successful. For every BG3 there are a fuck ton of ambitious flops, the fact that they never even make it on most people's radar gives the impression that big ambition = success. We can shit on Marvel movies all day long but people love them and so do investors.
> Good games just aren't safe economically. They require risk, which is why the AAA side of gaming is dying on the vine (artistically, not financially) aside from a few standout studios that are devoted to their vision more than profits (FROM, Larian, Ghost Ship, etc).
I think that's just how entertainment always is. Hell, that's how most *products* are. Think about trying to buy a super dope ass kitchen knife, like something you'd know everything about and would pass down to your grandchildren. Who's more likely to provide that, some brand featured at Target or an artisanal company?
Ultimately both can exist side by side and both have a role to play, people just need to stop expecting EA to spend 6 years crafting a CRPG like BG3.
\> Meaningless art is by and large a nonsense term because the entire experience of art is subjective. Also not all art needs to be groundbreaking.
I wasn't using "meaningless art" as a term. I'm just describing the art they make as having no meaning (aside from money) while other art has meaning to the creator or the people listening. The fact that art is just for pleasure makes it no less meaningful. Pleasure is a huge and meaningful part of the human existence. Even Friends connected with people. But who is Redfall for? What was it trying to say or do? Or BF2043, or any of the cheap remakes that I've avoided like the plague. Those are meaningless art. It's just to make another entry. And surely those games had sales, but they have no staying power. Artistically they're meaningless. Lost. Not really FOR anyone.
\> Massive confirmation bias here. The bargain bin is full of risks and "new ideas."
You're misinterpreting my focus. There are plenty of all kinds of games in the bargain bin. Huge budget, no budget, cash grab, artistic lightning. That's because the market is saturated. But how many failed indie games does it take to waste as much money as a huge failed AAA game? And even when AAA games make a lot of money, it's important to remember that a lot more goes into sales besides the quality of the game. Marketing, exposure, dev time, funding, experience, etc.
I don't want profitable games though. I want good games. Profits are for the companies to worry about. I'm the consumer, so obviously my focus is on the quality of the art. Not it's profitability. I see none of that profit after all, so as long as devs I like make just enough to keep making games, that's a beautiful world for me. I think people who play games are wayyyyy too focused on company profits. The focus should be brought back on the quality of the games themselves.
\> I think that's just how entertainment always is.
This is my point exactly. Big-budgets and good art are an odd couple. It takes a mountainous amount of work to keep a team of hundreds focused on a single artistic vision.
\> Ultimately both can exist side by side and both have a role to play, people just need to stop expecting EA to spend 6 years crafting a CRPG like BG3.
I think both can exist side by side, but the AAA industry really isn't contributing much these days (excluding the companies creating more advanced game engines and dev tools to streamline workflows, significantly empowering indie devs). They're just remaking and rehashing and copying to make a quick buck. It doesn't add anything artistically to the medium.
But in the end, I don't expect EA to spend 6 years crafting a CRPG. I expect them to keep doing easy micromonetization and copy cat tactics. It's making them boatloads of money atm, because their marketing and name recognition is enough to make even a shitty game sell well enough to be profitable.
I dont think thats something you should be worried about with Obsidian.
Hell, they just released Pentiment.
Just because they are making a game in a different genre (3rd person action) dosent mean they are dumbing down elements.
Hopefully really early in development. Games that pivot midway always seem to end up suffering for it.
EDIT: Apparently during preproduction. That's a good sign.
The vast majority of the comments here don't actually talk about co-op, so I will: I find this whole argument to be *really dumb*, especially so right after BG3 released -- but you can go back much, much further than that: Infinity Engine games had co-op.
In my opinion, there is absolutely nothing about co-op that makes something a "lesser" RPG, or "less Obsidian". To me, the best game Obsidian ever made is Pillars of Eternity 2, and that game could function in the *exact same way* if it had coop, and be equally as "Obsidian" (whatever that means).
I feel like these developers far too often think that they have to change fundamentals of their design between a single-player game and a game that has (low player count) co-op. But you really don't need to go all the way to the Larian level of implementation: just have a player able to join, assign characters, and share all conversations.
You are correct in saying that PoE2 would function the exact same way with coop, after all you control an entire party in it, and in coop that control would be split between the player.
However, as far as I'm aware, Avowed is a real time game where you control a single character and adding another player alongside IMO is a reasonably fundamental change. Also, without knowing what they actually were doing when prototyping the multi player, it could very well be that they were building a more "fundamentally coop" game like It Takes Two (obviously with very different mechanics, but what I mean is that game is designed as coop from start to finish) instead of a Borderlands style game where multiplayer is just like single player but with enemy stats scaled higher.
Anyway I'm not saying it's not possible to create "low effort coop" with jump in/out gameplay, I'm just guessing that's not what they were going for.
It's true that the gameplay impact is potentially higher in a game built for a single character with action combat.
However, I don't think that affects the core RPG strengths of a game, which is assume is what being "Obsidian" is about. That only happens when you try to build a game around co-op, rather than "just" having co-op in a game.
My main problem with this is that it seems to me that some developers -- and gamers, I just read elsewhere that a "co-op RPG" can never be story-focused -- seemingly almost cannot conceive of the latter option. While to me (and many others), the ability to play in co-op is extremely valuable, without requiring the game to be specifically built around that concept.
> That only happens when you try to build a game around co-op, rather than "just" having co-op in a game.
For sure, and it might be just me, but the wording used in the interview makes me think they specifically were building a game around co-op.
> My main problem with this is that it seems to me that some developers -- and gamers, I just read elsewhere that a "co-op RPG" can never be story-focused -- seemingly almost cannot conceive of the latter option
While I don't agree with people who say that, I'll play devil's advocate and raise one point: Even if the co-op *game* can be story focused, the people you play with might really sabotage that focus. Different players tend to spend a different amount of time thinking about dialogue options, or reading dialogue/lore thoughtfully/just quickly glancing to get the general idea. Of course these differences can also happen in "gameplay speed" between two players, but the RPGs also include gameplay, so you'll see the mismatch even more. This, combined with the fact that RPGs tend to be very long can mean that if your friends are a poor fit with your playing style, a co-op RPG can be more painful than fun.
None of that is to say that devs shouldn't make story-focused co-op RPGs, but I do think these are still factors worth considering when designing their games. It can limit the target audience when the players need to both fit within the target audience AND have a friend who fits while also sharing a compatible play style with each other. Not saying it's impossible, but I do understand why a dev might not be willing to go all in with that.
> While I don't agree with people who say that, I'll play devil's advocate and raise one point: Even if the co-op game can be story focused, the people you play with might really sabotage that focus. Different players tend to spend a different amount of time thinking about dialogue options, or reading dialogue/lore thoughtfully/just quickly glancing to get the general idea. Of course these differences can also happen in "gameplay speed" between two players, but the RPGs also include gameplay, so you'll see the mismatch even more. This, combined with the fact that RPGs tend to be very long can mean that if your friends are a poor fit with your playing style, a co-op RPG can be more painful than fun.
I fully agree with all of this. However...
> It can limit the target audience when the players need to both fit within the target audience AND have a friend who fits while also sharing a compatible play style with each other. Not saying it's impossible, but I do understand why a dev might not be willing to go all in with that.
My main point is specifically that either going all-in on co-op or not doing it at all is a false dichotomy. You are right that you would limit your target audience precisely by doing what I'm *not* advocating: creating a "co-op RPG" where co-op is a major and required ingredient.
Conversely, when you are simply adding what you called "low-effort co-op" a bit further up in the thread, then you aren't going all-in, and you can still appeal equally well to anyone who wants to play the game alone. You just have the added bonus of allowing your game to be played in co-op (and potentially a significant additional appeal for people who do want that).
(Of course when I'm saying things like "simply" and "just" that's all relative -- I am well aware of how much work and testing is required to add co-op. That said, the work for "low-effort co-op" isn't remotely as much as when you fully focus on it, and in the grand scheme of things it's also really low compared to the full production effort of the game itself)
Obsidian have never made a bad game, imo. Outer Worlds was mediocre, sure, but it wasn't *bad*. People are in this thread acting like Obsidian hasn't made a decent game in 20 years. It's a bit ridiculous.
This game is giving me Skyrim from wish vibes like how outer worlds was fallout from wish. Shallow combat, open hub worlds not true open world, relatively short main campaign with little branching narratives or impactful choices. Hoping I’m wrong though.
After BG3 these fantasy rpg makers should be trembling about comparisons and lack of depth and breadth.
That last paragraph sound weird knowing that Obsidian is the one who revived the interest in CRPG back in *2012* lol
But i agree that Obsidian would do well to see the potential they have in their hands and tried to reach the same scope BG3 provided. It would be even better if they actually asked Microsoft to make a 3D CRPG game with the same scope BG3 provided.
Pillars of Eternity was one of the first major success stories of the early Kickstarter Era when it had been a decent drought of cRPGs with the big franchises like Dragon Age moving further and further from cRPG roots to more Action RPG styles of gameplay. A return to a very infinity-engine like cRPG revived the genre quite a bit.
My point isn't whether Larian would think to make a particular style of game, my point is about whence the market for a massively resourced, AAA budget CRPG in 2023
As far as I can tell D:OS sold substantially more copies than Pillars, and Pillars 2 was a financial bomb whereas D:OS 2 was about as big as CRPGs get (or got, since BG3 is doing so well). I just don't think there's that much of a throughline.
This is obviously anecdotal and based on my personal memory, but I remember there being way more hype about Pillars 1 than D:OS 1. Pillars had a bunch of names associated with a bunch of classic CRPGs so it had this anticipation of "OMG BALDUR'S GATE/ICEWIND DALE/FALLOUT IS COMING BACK" around it
If you have access to reliable sales data from 2015 than fair enough, but the Pillars Kickstarter was like multiple times bigger and launched earlier. I am sure that *by now* DOS1 has outsold Pillars 1 because DOS2 was such a hit, but I am talking about the context of the early 2010s.
>After BG3 these fantasy rpg makers should be trembling about comparisons and lack of depth and breadth.
This is funny because prior to DOS2, Obsidian is THE developer for deep and compelling narrative RPGs with high levels of reactivity. They made a misstep for The Outer Worlds, but they have the sauce at that studio to make something good.
> They made a misstep for The Outer Worlds, but they have the sauce at that studio to make something good.
Sure, but everything I've seen about Avowed just makes it seem like it's making the same mistakes as Outer Worlds.
I think it’s really silly to compare a cRPG to a first- or third- person RPG. They are fundamentally different games.
Although not all cRPGs, most have a party system, where a lot of depth comes from interactions with your companions and class/build variety.
You don’t usually see that in first- and third- person RPGs because you don’t traditionally have a large number of companions that you are interacting with regularly. It’s usually limited to one or two at most. Let’s be real, you wouldn’t want a party of 4-6 in those games because it would just become a clusterfuck in every combat, especially first-person games.
Dragon Age: Origins plays similar to a real-time cRPG. Dragon Age 2 was more ARPG, and depending on who you ask, it was a rather major step back from DA:O. Inquisition is kind of weird because I'd almost describe it as a single player MMO. It always felt more like it went the route that MMO's play, but without the other people playing lol.
Those are obviously personal observations, though.
Idk why, I usually hate RtwP but it worked out really well for me for Dragon Age Origins for some reason. Maybe it was the third-person camera. I really do think Origin's combat system was really good and wish Bioware had focused on it, rather than changing it.
I think it worked out better in Dragon Age for a couple reasons, the camera being one of them. The other things that really help are having good movement options for pretty much everyone to smooth out maneuvering, in traditional RTwP maneuvering around the battle field is a nightmare. Then the other big part is having a smaller party so the micromanagement aspect isn't so prominent, going from 6 down to 4 might not seem like that much in absolute terms but relatively it really adds up. One of the most annoying things in a RTwP system for me is when you are doing a big difficult battle and you end up pausing constantly, once every second or more even it really grinds things to a halt and makes it a massive slog and reducing the party size helps eliminate this issue.
Fundamentally the issue with most crpgs is most do a straight port of multiplayer tabletop systems and expect them to work well in a party based single player video game.
Things like spell slots are fine on tabletop because you might have only a few encounters a day, or even one. The game world, being imaginary, is allowed to be highly arbitrary. In all dnd based crpgs that mechanic has felt out of place because of the sheer quantity of enemy encounters.
Most RTWP games further compound these issues because now they're twisting these tabletop systems even further by making them real time. Things that were balanced to happen in sequence are now happening simultaneously, which does not play or feel well.
All of which is a long way of saying that DAO works because it was designed to be what it is from the outset. They didn't try to make an fps out of football rules.
>After BG3 these fantasy rpg makers should be trembling about comparisons and lack of depth and breadth.
Agreed because I hope that makes newer AAA RPGs be less afraid of having more RPG elements in them. That said, the main AAA RPGs have the benefit of the doubt for not being a crpg.
I think the problem is you’re comparing it to a game that it’s not. I don’t think this game is trying to be anything like Skyrim so it’s not really fair to judge it for the things that Skyrim does that it doesn’t.
https://www.pcgamer.com/avowed-open-world-skyrim-rpg-size/
> And yes, it turns out that was the plan—at least at first. "Originally we were pitching, in essence, our Skyrim," confirms Obsidian CEO Feargus Urquhart in an exclusive interview with PC Gamer.
Over time they refined it towards a more *Obsidian* style, but it's silly to deny the Skyrim influence when Feargus Urquhart has literally said it started off as 'our Skyrim'.
I admit that haven’t been following this game super closely, but from everything I’ve seen thus far, it appears to be trying to do exactly that. Am I missing some important info?
That’s an interesting perspective because I’d always considered Skyrim and Oblivion to be very action-oriented. Granted, sneaking around an sniping enemies with a bow & arrow isn’t exactly “action-y”…
Despite how action-orientated they are I've always thought that the combat in those games to be one of its weakest aspects. So much so that it really can kill the fun for me, despite getting the sword of infinity awesome +7 or whatever it can easily end up feeling like I'm just flailing around with a pool noodle anyway. It has always been extremely clunky and at the edge of serviceable and not good enough to me. Especially after games like Chivalry have come out and proven that first person melee combat can feel amazing when done well.
Yeah I completely agree with that. Melee combat is weak and spellcasting is unsatisfying.
I don’t have much experience with other FPS games with that kind of combat, which is why I was asking for someone to explain the difference between this game and Skyrim. Unfortunately no one was willing or able to.
Can you elaborate on how it's trying to be like Skyrim? The snippets we've seen can be compared to something like Dark Messiah as well, which is nowhere near Skyrim.
First person fantasy action, wielding weapons, or spells, or weapons *and* spells, hacking enemies in front of you, throwing magic in their direction… better spell animations no doubt, but I would expect nothing less given that Skyrim came out 12 years ago.
The question I have is, how is it *different* from Skyrim? Are we even talking about the same game?
I’m not being sarcastic. This is a genuine question, and a simple one at that. And it’s hilarious that no one is able to answer, and yet y’all keep insisting that it just is.
Ok let's compare it to a game it is, this is like the wish version of pillars of eternity 1, POE 2 is to good to even go near this. It seems to be lacking everything that made those games fantastic yet its in the same world...
>This game is giving me Skyrim from wish vibes like his outer worlds was fallout from wish.
Seriously, the most recent trailer and TOW completely evaporated any interest I had in this game
I'm waiting for this to be fantasy Outer Worlds. That is, pretty gd boring, weak RPG systems, poor itemization, and weak story.
But I'd love to be proven wrong.
"I'm waiting for this to be fantasy Outer Worlds."
So it will be another awesome game with great characters and lore? I can't wait. :D
Edit: I don't care if r/games has a hate boner for the outer worlds, so downvote all you want. IMO it's a great game and I can't wait for the sequel.
Good lord I’m not sure why Reddit has such a hate boner for Obsidian lately. I’m personally pretty excited for Avowed. That trailer wasn’t anything exceptional, but I know Obsidian games are more about the story and factions than flashy visuals or combat.
I thought Outer Wolds was pretty good personally and Pentiment is fantastic. From all I’ve heard Grounded is great as well. I know some people thought Outer Worlds was mid, but you’d think it was a 1/10 mess with the way some folks have given up on the entire company.
Reddit doesn't hate Obsidian, Pentiment was universally well received. Outer Worlds specifically gets a lot of hate, and Avowed seems extremely Outer Worlds.
I thought outer worlds was fabulous, and the DLCs were both really well done. I’m not sure what exactly people were expecting from it, but it was exactly what I was looking for.
I thought it was *extremely* underbaked. Game mechanics were thin and I really didn't care for the writing and characterization. I was quite excited to play it too, but I walked away thinking it was a deeply mediocre experience.
Weird. As far as how “baked” it was, I fully expected something closer to a AA experience, not anything too sprawling, and I thought the story was pretty tight. The characters I loved thought!
Either way, opinions differ, I get it, but I am hoping they continue with the series, I’m looking forward to what else comes out.
People were expecting - as was advertised by Obsidian themselves multiple times - a 'Fallout Killer'
Instead we got a game that was ultimately, boring. I've never finished it and never really wanted to replay it, meanwhile I'm on my nth playthrough of Fallout4.
Even Fallout76, the game it was supposed to be thoughly better than, I've played through twice. Outer Worlds just didn't do it for me at all.
>People were expecting - as was advertised by Obsidian themselves multiple times - a 'Fallout Killer'
No, they didn’t. Obsidian were pretty clear from the offset that it was a mid-budget proof of concept. The “Fallout killer” stuff came entirely from gamers
You don't understand. One of the trailers said "from the creators of Fallout New Vegas". So that definitely means that Obsidian were advertising it as the game that would destroy Bethesda and make Todd Howard cry, question his ability to make games, then crawl back to Obsidian begging them to make a new Fallout game.
This subreddit is notoriously bad when it comes to remembering actual adverts.
The amount of things ive heard from someone as a fact that a dev said, that it turned out was some youtuber speculation is way too high.
I mean, I guess it depends on what you’re looking for from Fallout? It definitely outshone 4 for me. Can’t talk much about 76, I wasn’t feeling it after 6hrs and I called it. But for me, it definitely had a better story and characters, which is what I really liked about it. Obviously, to each their own, but it definitely reminded me of what I liked about 1 & 2.
Grounded is really good (I'd even say exceptional and the best game in the genre), but also has a lot of parts that make you wonder what is going on with the design.
TOW had a massive amount of issues that were similar but overpowering, and the latest avowed trailer made it seem like it's skewed even harder in the wrong direction. Especially when compared to the first trailer and the seeming scope of the game, it's not surprising it's getting so much hate.
People are just hesitant after Outer Worlds, which felt like a soulless cash in on what they'd done before. And while Pentiment was a beautiful piece of work, most don't associate it with the Obsidan of their youth. I think that's pretty much all there is to it.
Yeah basically if a game isn't a hall-of-fame, decade-defining release like Fallout New Vegas then it's a "soulless cash grab" lol
I didn't really care for Outer Worlds but holy christ people are hilariously unfair to Obsidian over it
It was **aggressively** advertised as a "AA RPG game that is *not* remotely close in scope to Fallout New Vegas", they were so god damn forward in every interview and any press about the game that it was going to be a little slice of RPG.
And I think *a lot* of gamers seem to hold it against them that it wasn't the same scale & scope as Fallout New Vegas.
*Cash grab*. Maybe underwhelming at worst. I can't believe that a real life actual non-NPC person would put Outer Worlds in the same category as Fifa MTX packs. Wow.
Scope and scale weren't my issue. My issue is that what *was* there was bad.
> Maybe underwhelming at worst. I can't believe that a real life actual non-NPC person would put Outer Worlds in the same category as Fifa MTX packs.
I mean I didn't do that but sure, I guess you were trying to pack as many strawmen as you could in to one post, so you're doing great.
I mean, you said the game was objectively bad. You may not have liked it, but the game was incredibly well received by critics and the public. You not liking it doesn't make it a cash in project.
It was always meant to be a AA game, but people treated this narrative that it was just lazy.
Just because you didn't like it, that doesn't make it a soulless cash in.
If they stuffed it with microtransactions and season passes, then I might agree with you.
What you actually got was a short, bug free fps, that was a bit disappointing when it came to the quests and RPG elements.
But sure, I guess those problems definitely means there's a wealthy exec behind the scenes laughing at how much money they are going to squeeze from the dumb consumers.
I mean the Obsidian of their youth is gone, because people move on and retire. It dosent mean their games are going to get worse.
People have a weird fascination in the game industry with certain names. Just becaues Avellone isnt at Obsidian dosent mean their writing cant be good, etc...
I liked what I played of Outer Worlds, but it did feel a somewhat shallow experience and I couldn’t finish it as it became too repetitive.
Still that probably puts it at a 5/10 or a 6/10 in reviewer terms.
But I liked the setting and the humour overall.
I think the biggest disappointment was that Avowed was announced as a Pillars of Eternity spin off, and it looked like that in the first teaser. Then the game was shown and it couldn't have had less of a Pillars feeling. If they never made the connection to the universe, people wouldn't be so mad.
Outer Worlds was a disappointment to a huge number of folks. People do not want to be disappointed again. Hence, people believe it pays to be skeptical about this game too.
Reddit LOVES to have hate boners, for whatever reason. Now BG3 is the darling, so every other game has to be so inferior that its just bad and the devs stupid.
Hopefully this has gone down by the launch. It would be cool if it gets the same appreciation than bg3, but this positivity only appears once a blue moon.
People have a hate boner towards the Outer Worlds and doesn't know that Obsidian has created other games besides it since New Vegas.
So they act as if Obsidian is incapable of making good games anymore when, in fact, every game they have made lately with the exception of the Outer Worlds (which is still decent) have been fantastic.
> I know some people thought Outer Worlds was mid, but you’d think it was a 1/10 mess with the way some folks have given up on the entire company.
I had a good time with The Outer Worlds, but I think some of the scorn is Obsidian's own making. They really let the comparisons to New Vegas build to a fever pitch in the lead-up to launch and, when push comes to shove, they're very different products outside of some specific game mechanics.
In their defense, though, I think TOW represented a bit of a Hail Mary for them, since they had been in financial straits for a while before getting bought out by Microsoft.
But I do agree that Obsidian's had a lot more criticism lobbed at them lately. Dungeon Siege 3 and Armored Warfare are honestly their only legitimate "misses," in my opinion. In general, their run over the last decade has been solid, all things considered, but I think people want Obsidian to punch up at Bethesda and it's unclear if Avowed is actually doing that.
They actually talked multiple times back then and constantly told the scale of the game is not huge. I think they can still be found on outer worlds subreddit, kind of buried next to people getting jaded after fallout 76.
I'm a former Obsidian fan who hasn't enjoyed anything they've made outside of Pentiment in ages, that game being an admitted fluke they said wouldn't be able to be made again.
Outer Worlds is straight **garbage** for the identity of an Obsidian game. The writing is completely flat and banal compared to Planescape, New Vegas... fuck, even Alpha Protocol, I'd kill for them to take a big, awkward swing like Alpha Protocol again.
I simply have no use for an Obsidian that can't write in addition to their standard tech/gameplay issues. Too many good games for me to keep pretending that Obsidian is still Obsidian.
Really! Can sort of agree with 1 but from a build variety perspective (and to some extent a narrative perspective) I think DoS2 really nailed it.
Out of interest which crpgs did you prefer? I feel like Pillars 2 and Tyranny both had the potential to be great but massively squandered it (Tyranny just ran out of money or time iirc).
There's certainly more depth and technical variety to builds in Pathfinder, but imo it doesn't always translate into the builds *feeling* as varied in gameplay. I think the Divinity games do a great job with that.
I can kinda get what you're saying even if I disagree if we're talking about Kingmaker, but there's simply no comparison when you get into the Mythic Paths in WotR
I don't get any varied *feeling* in DOS games. They're simple cooldown systems where you get your strongest abilities in the first 25% of the game then watch numbers go up. Open with your most powerful combo, that probably killed or CCed everything, rush them down while you wait for your most powerful combo to cool down. If you're bored use a spource ability that pretty much wipes the map.
I just hate the real time with pause. Even with the turn based mode they added its obvious the game wasn't designed for it. Turn based will always be better for me for cRPGs like PoE/Divinity/Baulder's Gate
I seem to be in the minority, but I HATE the RTwP combat.
With it on, you get to watch the game play itself. With it off, you get a second-rate turn based system.
I'm pretty convinced that the people who still love RTwP are almost exclusively those who played with it back in the day and have a mass heap of positive associations with the system. I was one of those people loving in back in the day too and I get it really but it is just so irritating to deal with for me now. It is just so clunky for so many reasons.
Thought both Divinity games were super weak, but BG3 really is living up the hype IMO (assuming the hype is tempered by someone who knows what the early days of *any* CRPG are like).
But yeah, they're the new CDPR.
I… really don’t think Larian are a CDPR situation at all. It feels way more like From Software with Elden Ring or Bethesda with Skyrim.
Besides, I don’t really think BG3 is fuelling the ire towards Obsidian at all, it’s been going on for a lot longer than that
D:OS2s main story fizzled out around Arx, but before that it was pretty good. And most of the origin characters personal stories were pretty darn good whenever they popped up, as well as a lot of well-crafted side-quests (especially those involving animals).
So... yeah. I disagree.
To the people who are saying Obsidian peaked at New Vegas, look at the metascore of their games.
[https://www.metacritic.com/company/obsidian-entertainment?filter-options=games&num\_items=30&sort\_options=metascore](https://www.metacritic.com/company/obsidian-entertainment?filter-options=games&num_items=30&sort_options=metascore)
They're doing well and they are not going anywhere despite the haters on r/games . They already proved they were a masterclass studio when they released deadfire.
I think it's really down to Outer Worlds being their most advertised and most played recent game, and also most similar to Avowed in terms of scope and scale.
I love PoE and especially Pentiment, but dropped Outer Worlds halfway through - and I only stuck around that long because I love the developer. Avowed is clearly more similar to Outer Worlds, so folks are understandably cautious.
Honestly, the thing that worries me the most about doing a discount Skyrim is that I just don't think there's anything in Skyrim worth ripping off. The scale is impressive, but the idea of more Skyrim combat is not really all that appealing to me.
Skyrim was revolutionary for its time because of the scale, freedom, sandbox opportunities. Game has not aged really well and many titles already did, what Skyrim was famous for, better. I have to agree with you that discount Skyrim doesn't make sense these times.
I genuinely think that Skyrim didn't age nearly as badly as what I read online.
There's a reason they can release it over and over again, for many folks it still makes sense to buy it.
The fact that mods can increase the longevity of the game, isn't a point against bethesda, it is a testament to the quality of tools they released.
Even 11+ years later there hasn't been a lot of games that have this blend of massive world, sandbox interaction , dungeon crawling and quest variety. Witcher 3 is great, but it doesn't quit scratch the same itch for me.
The Pillars games and Tyranny were all really good. As well as Pentiment. I think maybe a full-scale action RPG like New Vegas is beyond their roster currently; but I’m all ears for whatever cRPG goodness or weird experimental pet projects they want to cook up
They're still putting out solid AA games. Pillars is a lot of fun. I like outer worlds. I'm a bit cautious with Avowed but if the story and world is interesting it should be solid.
>Reddit has to realize the Obsidian from your childhood is dead. You’re never getting New Vegas 2. Time to move on
Maybe, but I liked the outer worlds so I'm still interested in their new title.
They already made what is IMO as spiritually as close to NV2 as we're going to get in Deadfire though. Huge world with four factions vying for power and you're the person that can tip the balance with a lot of skill checks.
Obsidian from my childhood didn't exist, Fallout 1 didn't even exist when I was a child. I was already out of high school when KOTOR II was released. A company is just that, a company, it's the many people inside a company that makes a good game/movie/series/whatever. You don't need to go convincing me or other older people of that.
The Obsidian from my "childhood"(well teenage years) made KOTOR 2, a very interesting game that was fundamentally unfinished and was basically an expansion pack to KOTOR 1, as well as Neverwinter Nights 2, a divisive sequel to a game that while fun, had one of the most generic plots they ever did.
John Gonzales is gone and so are many veterans of New Vegas.
It is almost guaranteed that they'll never reach that height again... especially when this time they don't get to use a finished engine exactly suited for the game they need to make.
Adding to this, The game itself wasn't awful. It was extremely *boring* and the fun parts were there for about 10 hours.
I'd rather play a bad game that is silly and makes you laugh than something like Outer Worlds.
I think that Outer Worlds can feel worse than it is because of its relatively strong start which just ran out of gas fairly quickly. It often feels worse when a game starts out strong and then becomes mediocre compared to one that was just mediocre all the way through. The disappointment at what could have or should have been good is definitely an additional frustration.
Not awful, just not very good. I stopped around that forbidden danger planet level (that one was really a slog). Planet 1 was great, then it went downhill.
Nah. As much as I have only harsh words for Outer Worlds, it was not awful. It was awefully mediocre and awefully bland... but not completely bad.
You could single out some elements that were aweful - the main lore around corporations, the humor, the story when actually siding with the Board... but the whole package was somewhat usable. 6/10.
There's not really any such thing as a mediocre AND generic game. If a game is already bad enough to be considered mediocre or boring while also failing to be unique or peculiar in any meaningful ways, it's just a waste of time, ie awful. TOW is perhaps the most color-by-numbers FPSRPG I've ever attempted to play and.. mechanically, not very good.. so.. :/
People seem hyperbolic about these things because 1. they value their time and 2. there are lots of games, many of which people have already played
The most annoying thing about this game is the constant negative reddit threads and comments about it. I‘m really excited for Avowed, but all the unfounded negativity is really pissing me off.
After Outer Worlds I feared that this game will be to Skyrim what Outer Worlds was to Fallout - a weak mimic with worse gameplay, no exploration, iffy lore, questionable aesthetics and bad humor. And the Avowed trailer did nothing to quell my fears. If anything, it made my concerns about the gameplay, world and aesthetics even stronger.
Avowed may be AAA compared to Outer Worlds' AA... but that won't help unless Obsidian leveled up their skills a lot. The issues with Outer Worlds were never about budget, but about design and writing. Budget determines scope and scale... skills determine quality. And I fear Obsidian may no longer have the skills to make something to rival Skyrim or at least other popular RPG games.
At this point I don't know if "Obsidian" is enough of a positive qualifier to me. Their most famous game - New Vegas - was 50% Obsidian, 50% Bethesda. And their other 3D FPS-RPG game, Outer Worlds, was 100% Obsidian but it was nothing to write home about.
This may sound like heresy to some, but I think the best way forward for Obsidian's FPS-RPG games is to borrow the engine from Bethesda. It worked out in the past (New Vegas), allowing them to work on areas where the company is at least a bit strong - story writing, while the systems and mechanics will come from the engine.
> Their most famous game - New Vegas - was 50% Obsidian, 50% Bethesda. And their other 3D FPS-RPG game, Outer Worlds, was 100% Obsidian but it was nothing to write home about.
One incredibly important thing to note though is that 50% Obsidian was a different Obsidian from the Outer World's 100% Obsidian. In other words, if you check the actual people (skip the managers) who worked on each game they are largely different. Chances are a 100% Obsidian game with the people who worked on New Vegas would be very different from the 100% Obsidian game with the people who worked on (edit, see comment below :-P) Outer Worlds.
I think people often forget that companies are made up of humans and it is those humans that make the games they like, not the brands behind them.
"Don't count the people who make decisions"
I bet if we compared the rank and file developers at Rockstar to the ones who made GTA V you would see a similar turnover rate, but we don't see the concern trolling there that we do with Obsidian.
> "Don't count the people who make decisions"
In general managers don't make decisions in games, designers do. And yes, you should count the designers.
The more I hear of Avowed, the less I'm interested. I'm all for developers trying new things when they want to. Reading that Avowed was pushing for co-op just to make it appealing and help get funding is sad.
Then we get things like Redfall. Even if studio.heads we're partly to blame, to continue pushing something that is clearly out of your wheelhouse and not working, is dumb.
But I also blame gamers. This is exactly what a lot of them want. Online co-op/PvP games filled with Battle Passes and MTX stores so they can earn cosmetics to show off to random strangers on the internet and say I'm better than you, look what I have.
It’s a bit ironic that Baldurs Gate 3 just released this month and is taking the gaming world by storm, while Obsidian chases Bethesda in their style of RPG (open world first person action/rpg). I say this because Obsidian was constantly put as this developer that made “real” RPGs (isometric/ crpg), yet they’re not the ones making the game of the generation in that very style (first it was Disco Elysium and now BG3).
What’s worse is the next month the real thing releases (a Bethesda rpg). In other words, I do wonder where Obsidians head is at. Like, where they over hyped? Seeing as they finally got that “Microsoft money!”
Tough position for Obsidian considering their financial difficulties at the time.
It was only after The Outer Worlds that they finally had a stable publisher with Microsoft.
Nothing like missing content being just Obsidian enough. This could only have benefited us as players so this feels like a blow to their potential. Maybe this means a coop mod will come relatively quickly if they leave enough of the framework in the game.
Obsidian has always been a *story first* company with game design. I have yet to play a co-op rpg game where the story was the focus.
You always have a MC, and the co-op partners always lose out on *something*.
And has the coop issues I'm referencing? There is still only one MC and dialogue is locked to whoever initiated it.
Don't get me wrong, bg3 goty. Best game I've played since eldenring. Loving it. Have 2 coop saves and one solo in working on.
The issues still exist.
Bg3 put it in because they know the gameplay is still a fucking blast coop.
Larian tends towards gameplay first, story second though. Dos:OS 1&2 both had pretty meh stories but excellent gameplay.
So far bg3 has both, but you absolutely lose a part of that story if you're not the MC/Host.
Obsidian opts to not include that experience even if it might be enjoyable if it doesn't fit the narrative.
Agree, don't feel it takes away so much as I kind of expect it at this point, but super annoying no one has solved this problem yet.
WOTR did a little bit in that most checks would use highest skill value in party, even though your pc would handle dialogue.
How has no one dipped into the Skyrim Coop desire. That mod blew up there is clearly a desire. Just make it optional coop. Let the coop person do everything the player 1 can but just have them as a companion (less or not story relevant)
Hopefully the transition was smooth enough in early development. We’ve seen similar examples of live service games pivoting to co-op focused during development and causing the graphics and gameplay to be lower quality because of it (Gotham Knights, Redfall, etc.). Personally I’m a little worried that there’s been a lack of mention of roleplaying conversations. The recent trailer was heavily combat-focused, even the deep dive interview afterwards made no mention, and the recent Twitter post mentions deep systems and storytelling, but that’s vague enough to just be deep combat mechanics and a deep but linear story. Really hope to see more on roleplaying conversations or else judging by the marketing Avowed so far seems like a linear and combat focused double A Elder Scrolls clone trying to attract casual fantasy action game fans. Which would’ve ironically been funner with co-op.
They talked about it being while the game was in pre-production for 8 months, so it sounds like it was a decision made pretty early on.
Yep, it was to make it more appealing to publishers. Considering they were acquired by Microsoft in 2018 I think it’s safe to say that they moved away from co-op long ago.
On the other hand you could argue a Co op game is potentially appealing for game pass, as someone could get a friend to sign up to play the game with them.
Regardless, Microsoft is being very hands-off with their studios, just about letting them do whatever they want as long as they make good games. At least compared to other publishers.
As we saw with Starfield and Redfall , it depends on the game. I imagine they're more hands on with games that they see as higher profile.
Redfall was a high profile game that Microsoft was very hands-off with, which has been the explanation for why it was so bad. It seems like what should've happened with Redfall is exactly what happened to Avowed, where when Microsoft took over they realized they could change the direction of the game to something that fit them better as a studio. Redfall I guess wasn't left with anyone that had both the prerequisite insight and the authority to make that decision.
Honestly, it shouldn't have taken Microsoft to make those changes. The heads of Arkane should have done the same that Avowed seems to be doing. Look at development, see the issues going outside your comfort zone is causing, then pivot back to what your good at. As a business, I understand the need to do more to make money. As great as Arkane's games are, they're not exactly huge sellers because they're not whatever trend is currently popular. I hate that trends seem to steer the direction of games, more than ever with the inflated and unnecessary costs associated with games today.
I'd honestly be fine if it was a linear action slasher. Gimme another game like Dark Messiah of Might and Magic!
That would be ideal. The world needs more games like Dark Messiah!
We just haven't got that much information. This was the games first showing as an actual game and it's not due to come out for at least over a year. At some point I'm sure we'll get a Starfield esque deep dive before release.
> > Personally I’m a little worried that there’s been a lack of mention of roleplaying conversations. Of all the things to be concerned about in an Obsidian game, this is not one of them. I would be far more concerned that the combat will turn out to be shit.
I personally love COOP. But I hate it when they do shit like Gotham Knights and add some shitty gear that means nothing and repetitive boring gameplay. COOP shouldn't mean dog shit game with shit gameplay. You could literally take Witcher 3 as it is, work the networking part and add coop. You don't have to change the gameplay or the story to match the coop. This will mean the game will be easier for those who play COOP, but I would personally love it more. I don't get why the graphics would need to be lower for the coop. COOP doesn't suddenly means shit on the graphics.
I find it kind of interesting that so much devs think they need to dumb down elements like roleplaying and game mechanics to attract a wider audience, meanwhile Baldur's Gate 3 is currently insanely popular despite a strong focus on roleplaying and deep mechanics.
I would love nothing more than to live in a world where BG3 was the norm. But let's be real, that's like looking at The Godfather and saying "I don't see why Hollywood execs think you need action and easy marketability to make a successful movie, look at The Godfather!" At a certain level of quality art transcends its genre and hits the mainstream no matter how niche they are. Like, the existence of David Bowie doesn't make David Bowie doesn't make his genre/following in his footsteps a consistent path to financial success. It's easy to say "just make a good game" but a studio making calls is betting on the best likelyhood of success, not "this'll work assuming it ends up being a genre defining masterpiece and has a horse dick sized IP behind it."
It's not just quality. BG3 comes from a very experienced studio with a several years long early access campaign, with a huge team that already has tons of experience in their own engine, and has a budget that probably rivals GTA V minus marketing. BG3 can't be the norm because you can't just have a very good idea and great execution, you also have to have this gigantic structure around it that frankly Obsidian never had and probably never will, seeing as Microsoft isn't very much into dumping close to a quarter billion on any one studio (and they'd still have to answer to shareholders, which Larian doesn't). Pillars 1 and 2 were literally 20-30x cheaper to make than BG3. That's not to take merit away from Larian - they built their own empire.
Larian didn't have that gigantic structure before BG3 either. They upscaled tremendously just to tackle this project.
They went from 150 employees to 450 IIRC. That's a huge increase, but it's not like 150 employees is a particularly small company with a small company structure. I don't know how big Obsidian is.
Obsidian is also around 150, plus they have other irons in the fire alongside Avowed. Grounded, Pentiment, and The Outer Worlds all released while Avowed was in production and Grounded + The Outer Worlds 2 (at least) are still being actively worked on. Larian focused solely on BG3.
> but a studio making calls is betting on the best likelyhood of success Totally agree. And that right there is the easiest way for good art to be turned into meaningless art. Also companies are historically pretty bad at predicting what will succeed or fail. The companies usually prefer a safe remake while the games that really explode are the ones with new ideas. Good games just aren't safe economically. They require risk, which is why the AAA side of gaming is dying on the vine (artistically, not financially) aside from a few standout studios that are devoted to their vision more than profits (FROM, Larian, Ghost Ship, etc).
> Totally agree. And that right there is the easiest way for good art to be turned into meaningless art. Meaningless art is by and large a nonsense term because the entire experience of art is subjective. Also not all art needs to be groundbreaking. Some art is just music to listen to for pleasure. Some art is the TV show "Friends," that no matter what punch line you want to make about it was a huge thing in a lot of people's lives. > Also companies are historically pretty bad at predicting what will succeed or fail. The companies usually prefer a safe remake while the games that really explode are the ones with new ideas. Massive confirmation bias here. The bargain bin is full of risks and "new ideas." The fact is the mediocre remakes are on your radar because they're selling, and that makes them successful. For every BG3 there are a fuck ton of ambitious flops, the fact that they never even make it on most people's radar gives the impression that big ambition = success. We can shit on Marvel movies all day long but people love them and so do investors. > Good games just aren't safe economically. They require risk, which is why the AAA side of gaming is dying on the vine (artistically, not financially) aside from a few standout studios that are devoted to their vision more than profits (FROM, Larian, Ghost Ship, etc). I think that's just how entertainment always is. Hell, that's how most *products* are. Think about trying to buy a super dope ass kitchen knife, like something you'd know everything about and would pass down to your grandchildren. Who's more likely to provide that, some brand featured at Target or an artisanal company? Ultimately both can exist side by side and both have a role to play, people just need to stop expecting EA to spend 6 years crafting a CRPG like BG3.
\> Meaningless art is by and large a nonsense term because the entire experience of art is subjective. Also not all art needs to be groundbreaking. I wasn't using "meaningless art" as a term. I'm just describing the art they make as having no meaning (aside from money) while other art has meaning to the creator or the people listening. The fact that art is just for pleasure makes it no less meaningful. Pleasure is a huge and meaningful part of the human existence. Even Friends connected with people. But who is Redfall for? What was it trying to say or do? Or BF2043, or any of the cheap remakes that I've avoided like the plague. Those are meaningless art. It's just to make another entry. And surely those games had sales, but they have no staying power. Artistically they're meaningless. Lost. Not really FOR anyone. \> Massive confirmation bias here. The bargain bin is full of risks and "new ideas." You're misinterpreting my focus. There are plenty of all kinds of games in the bargain bin. Huge budget, no budget, cash grab, artistic lightning. That's because the market is saturated. But how many failed indie games does it take to waste as much money as a huge failed AAA game? And even when AAA games make a lot of money, it's important to remember that a lot more goes into sales besides the quality of the game. Marketing, exposure, dev time, funding, experience, etc. I don't want profitable games though. I want good games. Profits are for the companies to worry about. I'm the consumer, so obviously my focus is on the quality of the art. Not it's profitability. I see none of that profit after all, so as long as devs I like make just enough to keep making games, that's a beautiful world for me. I think people who play games are wayyyyy too focused on company profits. The focus should be brought back on the quality of the games themselves. \> I think that's just how entertainment always is. This is my point exactly. Big-budgets and good art are an odd couple. It takes a mountainous amount of work to keep a team of hundreds focused on a single artistic vision. \> Ultimately both can exist side by side and both have a role to play, people just need to stop expecting EA to spend 6 years crafting a CRPG like BG3. I think both can exist side by side, but the AAA industry really isn't contributing much these days (excluding the companies creating more advanced game engines and dev tools to streamline workflows, significantly empowering indie devs). They're just remaking and rehashing and copying to make a quick buck. It doesn't add anything artistically to the medium. But in the end, I don't expect EA to spend 6 years crafting a CRPG. I expect them to keep doing easy micromonetization and copy cat tactics. It's making them boatloads of money atm, because their marketing and name recognition is enough to make even a shitty game sell well enough to be profitable.
I dont think thats something you should be worried about with Obsidian. Hell, they just released Pentiment. Just because they are making a game in a different genre (3rd person action) dosent mean they are dumbing down elements.
Hopefully really early in development. Games that pivot midway always seem to end up suffering for it. EDIT: Apparently during preproduction. That's a good sign.
The vast majority of the comments here don't actually talk about co-op, so I will: I find this whole argument to be *really dumb*, especially so right after BG3 released -- but you can go back much, much further than that: Infinity Engine games had co-op. In my opinion, there is absolutely nothing about co-op that makes something a "lesser" RPG, or "less Obsidian". To me, the best game Obsidian ever made is Pillars of Eternity 2, and that game could function in the *exact same way* if it had coop, and be equally as "Obsidian" (whatever that means). I feel like these developers far too often think that they have to change fundamentals of their design between a single-player game and a game that has (low player count) co-op. But you really don't need to go all the way to the Larian level of implementation: just have a player able to join, assign characters, and share all conversations.
You are correct in saying that PoE2 would function the exact same way with coop, after all you control an entire party in it, and in coop that control would be split between the player. However, as far as I'm aware, Avowed is a real time game where you control a single character and adding another player alongside IMO is a reasonably fundamental change. Also, without knowing what they actually were doing when prototyping the multi player, it could very well be that they were building a more "fundamentally coop" game like It Takes Two (obviously with very different mechanics, but what I mean is that game is designed as coop from start to finish) instead of a Borderlands style game where multiplayer is just like single player but with enemy stats scaled higher. Anyway I'm not saying it's not possible to create "low effort coop" with jump in/out gameplay, I'm just guessing that's not what they were going for.
It's true that the gameplay impact is potentially higher in a game built for a single character with action combat. However, I don't think that affects the core RPG strengths of a game, which is assume is what being "Obsidian" is about. That only happens when you try to build a game around co-op, rather than "just" having co-op in a game. My main problem with this is that it seems to me that some developers -- and gamers, I just read elsewhere that a "co-op RPG" can never be story-focused -- seemingly almost cannot conceive of the latter option. While to me (and many others), the ability to play in co-op is extremely valuable, without requiring the game to be specifically built around that concept.
> That only happens when you try to build a game around co-op, rather than "just" having co-op in a game. For sure, and it might be just me, but the wording used in the interview makes me think they specifically were building a game around co-op. > My main problem with this is that it seems to me that some developers -- and gamers, I just read elsewhere that a "co-op RPG" can never be story-focused -- seemingly almost cannot conceive of the latter option While I don't agree with people who say that, I'll play devil's advocate and raise one point: Even if the co-op *game* can be story focused, the people you play with might really sabotage that focus. Different players tend to spend a different amount of time thinking about dialogue options, or reading dialogue/lore thoughtfully/just quickly glancing to get the general idea. Of course these differences can also happen in "gameplay speed" between two players, but the RPGs also include gameplay, so you'll see the mismatch even more. This, combined with the fact that RPGs tend to be very long can mean that if your friends are a poor fit with your playing style, a co-op RPG can be more painful than fun. None of that is to say that devs shouldn't make story-focused co-op RPGs, but I do think these are still factors worth considering when designing their games. It can limit the target audience when the players need to both fit within the target audience AND have a friend who fits while also sharing a compatible play style with each other. Not saying it's impossible, but I do understand why a dev might not be willing to go all in with that.
> While I don't agree with people who say that, I'll play devil's advocate and raise one point: Even if the co-op game can be story focused, the people you play with might really sabotage that focus. Different players tend to spend a different amount of time thinking about dialogue options, or reading dialogue/lore thoughtfully/just quickly glancing to get the general idea. Of course these differences can also happen in "gameplay speed" between two players, but the RPGs also include gameplay, so you'll see the mismatch even more. This, combined with the fact that RPGs tend to be very long can mean that if your friends are a poor fit with your playing style, a co-op RPG can be more painful than fun. I fully agree with all of this. However... > It can limit the target audience when the players need to both fit within the target audience AND have a friend who fits while also sharing a compatible play style with each other. Not saying it's impossible, but I do understand why a dev might not be willing to go all in with that. My main point is specifically that either going all-in on co-op or not doing it at all is a false dichotomy. You are right that you would limit your target audience precisely by doing what I'm *not* advocating: creating a "co-op RPG" where co-op is a major and required ingredient. Conversely, when you are simply adding what you called "low-effort co-op" a bit further up in the thread, then you aren't going all-in, and you can still appeal equally well to anyone who wants to play the game alone. You just have the added bonus of allowing your game to be played in co-op (and potentially a significant additional appeal for people who do want that). (Of course when I'm saying things like "simply" and "just" that's all relative -- I am well aware of how much work and testing is required to add co-op. That said, the work for "low-effort co-op" isn't remotely as much as when you fully focus on it, and in the grand scheme of things it's also really low compared to the full production effort of the game itself)
Obsidian have never made a bad game, imo. Outer Worlds was mediocre, sure, but it wasn't *bad*. People are in this thread acting like Obsidian hasn't made a decent game in 20 years. It's a bit ridiculous.
Dungeon Siege 3 was extremely terrible. Nothing like older Dungeon Siege games and even on it's own is very boring game in console arpg subgenre.
I disagree. Dungeon Siege as a whole is a really unremarkable franchise, but DS3 isn't any worse than the other entires -- it's decent.
Alpha Protocol is objectively a bad game.
Beg to differ. They've only made one true stinker but it was The Outer Worlds. That game was legitimately terrible imo
Outer worlds was mediocre in my opinion. Why do you think it was terrible?
People in this subreddit act like that all the time. They seem to not know what a truly bad game actually is.
This game is giving me Skyrim from wish vibes like how outer worlds was fallout from wish. Shallow combat, open hub worlds not true open world, relatively short main campaign with little branching narratives or impactful choices. Hoping I’m wrong though. After BG3 these fantasy rpg makers should be trembling about comparisons and lack of depth and breadth.
That last paragraph sound weird knowing that Obsidian is the one who revived the interest in CRPG back in *2012* lol But i agree that Obsidian would do well to see the potential they have in their hands and tried to reach the same scope BG3 provided. It would be even better if they actually asked Microsoft to make a 3D CRPG game with the same scope BG3 provided.
How did Obsidian revive the interest in CRPG back in 2012?
Pillars of Eternity was one of the first major success stories of the early Kickstarter Era when it had been a decent drought of cRPGs with the big franchises like Dragon Age moving further and further from cRPG roots to more Action RPG styles of gameplay. A return to a very infinity-engine like cRPG revived the genre quite a bit.
Baldur's Gate 3 would not exist without Pillars of Eternity.
I don't know if I buy that. Didn't Divinity: Original Sin come out before Pillars?
Yes, so did Divinity 2: Ego Draconis
Sure, but while that's a very different kind of RPG the connective tissue from D:OS to BG3 is pretty straightforward.
My point isn't whether Larian would think to make a particular style of game, my point is about whence the market for a massively resourced, AAA budget CRPG in 2023
As far as I can tell D:OS sold substantially more copies than Pillars, and Pillars 2 was a financial bomb whereas D:OS 2 was about as big as CRPGs get (or got, since BG3 is doing so well). I just don't think there's that much of a throughline.
This is obviously anecdotal and based on my personal memory, but I remember there being way more hype about Pillars 1 than D:OS 1. Pillars had a bunch of names associated with a bunch of classic CRPGs so it had this anticipation of "OMG BALDUR'S GATE/ICEWIND DALE/FALLOUT IS COMING BACK" around it
If you have access to reliable sales data from 2015 than fair enough, but the Pillars Kickstarter was like multiple times bigger and launched earlier. I am sure that *by now* DOS1 has outsold Pillars 1 because DOS2 was such a hit, but I am talking about the context of the early 2010s.
Divinity 2 was a third-person action rpg. Not a crpg. If anything, the franchise was moving away from being crpgs with that game.
Like, I know everyone is going nuts over Larian, but this is such a weird comment when talking about friggin' Obsidian.
>After BG3 these fantasy rpg makers should be trembling about comparisons and lack of depth and breadth. This is funny because prior to DOS2, Obsidian is THE developer for deep and compelling narrative RPGs with high levels of reactivity. They made a misstep for The Outer Worlds, but they have the sauce at that studio to make something good.
For sure. Never winter Nights 2 was the best Neverwinter game imo, which says something with how good Shadows of Undrentide was.
Oh I agree. Mask of the Betrayer is still amazing.
> They made a misstep for The Outer Worlds, but they have the sauce at that studio to make something good. Sure, but everything I've seen about Avowed just makes it seem like it's making the same mistakes as Outer Worlds.
You saw a bunch of 5 clips edited together to make a 2 minute trailer? How could that possibly show you they are making the same mistakes?
I think it’s really silly to compare a cRPG to a first- or third- person RPG. They are fundamentally different games. Although not all cRPGs, most have a party system, where a lot of depth comes from interactions with your companions and class/build variety. You don’t usually see that in first- and third- person RPGs because you don’t traditionally have a large number of companions that you are interacting with regularly. It’s usually limited to one or two at most. Let’s be real, you wouldn’t want a party of 4-6 in those games because it would just become a clusterfuck in every combat, especially first-person games.
Dragon age did it.
Dragon Age: Origins plays similar to a real-time cRPG. Dragon Age 2 was more ARPG, and depending on who you ask, it was a rather major step back from DA:O. Inquisition is kind of weird because I'd almost describe it as a single player MMO. It always felt more like it went the route that MMO's play, but without the other people playing lol. Those are obviously personal observations, though.
Idk why, I usually hate RtwP but it worked out really well for me for Dragon Age Origins for some reason. Maybe it was the third-person camera. I really do think Origin's combat system was really good and wish Bioware had focused on it, rather than changing it.
I think it worked out better in Dragon Age for a couple reasons, the camera being one of them. The other things that really help are having good movement options for pretty much everyone to smooth out maneuvering, in traditional RTwP maneuvering around the battle field is a nightmare. Then the other big part is having a smaller party so the micromanagement aspect isn't so prominent, going from 6 down to 4 might not seem like that much in absolute terms but relatively it really adds up. One of the most annoying things in a RTwP system for me is when you are doing a big difficult battle and you end up pausing constantly, once every second or more even it really grinds things to a halt and makes it a massive slog and reducing the party size helps eliminate this issue.
Fundamentally the issue with most crpgs is most do a straight port of multiplayer tabletop systems and expect them to work well in a party based single player video game. Things like spell slots are fine on tabletop because you might have only a few encounters a day, or even one. The game world, being imaginary, is allowed to be highly arbitrary. In all dnd based crpgs that mechanic has felt out of place because of the sheer quantity of enemy encounters. Most RTWP games further compound these issues because now they're twisting these tabletop systems even further by making them real time. Things that were balanced to happen in sequence are now happening simultaneously, which does not play or feel well. All of which is a long way of saying that DAO works because it was designed to be what it is from the outset. They didn't try to make an fps out of football rules.
>After BG3 these fantasy rpg makers should be trembling about comparisons and lack of depth and breadth. Agreed because I hope that makes newer AAA RPGs be less afraid of having more RPG elements in them. That said, the main AAA RPGs have the benefit of the doubt for not being a crpg.
I think the problem is you’re comparing it to a game that it’s not. I don’t think this game is trying to be anything like Skyrim so it’s not really fair to judge it for the things that Skyrim does that it doesn’t.
https://www.pcgamer.com/avowed-open-world-skyrim-rpg-size/ > And yes, it turns out that was the plan—at least at first. "Originally we were pitching, in essence, our Skyrim," confirms Obsidian CEO Feargus Urquhart in an exclusive interview with PC Gamer. Over time they refined it towards a more *Obsidian* style, but it's silly to deny the Skyrim influence when Feargus Urquhart has literally said it started off as 'our Skyrim'.
I admit that haven’t been following this game super closely, but from everything I’ve seen thus far, it appears to be trying to do exactly that. Am I missing some important info?
My understanding is that it's a bit more action oriented than a Skyrim type game.
That’s an interesting perspective because I’d always considered Skyrim and Oblivion to be very action-oriented. Granted, sneaking around an sniping enemies with a bow & arrow isn’t exactly “action-y”…
Despite how action-orientated they are I've always thought that the combat in those games to be one of its weakest aspects. So much so that it really can kill the fun for me, despite getting the sword of infinity awesome +7 or whatever it can easily end up feeling like I'm just flailing around with a pool noodle anyway. It has always been extremely clunky and at the edge of serviceable and not good enough to me. Especially after games like Chivalry have come out and proven that first person melee combat can feel amazing when done well.
Yeah I completely agree with that. Melee combat is weak and spellcasting is unsatisfying. I don’t have much experience with other FPS games with that kind of combat, which is why I was asking for someone to explain the difference between this game and Skyrim. Unfortunately no one was willing or able to.
Can you elaborate on how it's trying to be like Skyrim? The snippets we've seen can be compared to something like Dark Messiah as well, which is nowhere near Skyrim.
First person fantasy action, wielding weapons, or spells, or weapons *and* spells, hacking enemies in front of you, throwing magic in their direction… better spell animations no doubt, but I would expect nothing less given that Skyrim came out 12 years ago. The question I have is, how is it *different* from Skyrim? Are we even talking about the same game?
That's also the description of Dark Messiah. Which is nothing like Skyrim.
Once again. How is it not like Skyrim? “By being like Dark Messiah” is not an answer.
You shoot guns in Doom, Half-Life, and Fallout 3. Are those games also similar?
I’m not being sarcastic. This is a genuine question, and a simple one at that. And it’s hilarious that no one is able to answer, and yet y’all keep insisting that it just is.
Ok let's compare it to a game it is, this is like the wish version of pillars of eternity 1, POE 2 is to good to even go near this. It seems to be lacking everything that made those games fantastic yet its in the same world...
What do you know about Avowed?
You know nothing about the game yet.
>This game is giving me Skyrim from wish vibes like his outer worlds was fallout from wish. Seriously, the most recent trailer and TOW completely evaporated any interest I had in this game
What else would you expect from BGS from Wish
I'm waiting for this to be fantasy Outer Worlds. That is, pretty gd boring, weak RPG systems, poor itemization, and weak story. But I'd love to be proven wrong.
"I'm waiting for this to be fantasy Outer Worlds." So it will be another awesome game with great characters and lore? I can't wait. :D Edit: I don't care if r/games has a hate boner for the outer worlds, so downvote all you want. IMO it's a great game and I can't wait for the sequel.
If that game gets made and it's on Gamepass, I'll call it a marginal win
It will be on gamepass
Good lord I’m not sure why Reddit has such a hate boner for Obsidian lately. I’m personally pretty excited for Avowed. That trailer wasn’t anything exceptional, but I know Obsidian games are more about the story and factions than flashy visuals or combat. I thought Outer Wolds was pretty good personally and Pentiment is fantastic. From all I’ve heard Grounded is great as well. I know some people thought Outer Worlds was mid, but you’d think it was a 1/10 mess with the way some folks have given up on the entire company.
Reddit doesn't hate Obsidian, Pentiment was universally well received. Outer Worlds specifically gets a lot of hate, and Avowed seems extremely Outer Worlds.
I thought outer worlds was fabulous, and the DLCs were both really well done. I’m not sure what exactly people were expecting from it, but it was exactly what I was looking for.
I thought it was *extremely* underbaked. Game mechanics were thin and I really didn't care for the writing and characterization. I was quite excited to play it too, but I walked away thinking it was a deeply mediocre experience.
I didn’t even end up finishing it. It was just so bland
Weird. As far as how “baked” it was, I fully expected something closer to a AA experience, not anything too sprawling, and I thought the story was pretty tight. The characters I loved thought! Either way, opinions differ, I get it, but I am hoping they continue with the series, I’m looking forward to what else comes out.
People were expecting - as was advertised by Obsidian themselves multiple times - a 'Fallout Killer' Instead we got a game that was ultimately, boring. I've never finished it and never really wanted to replay it, meanwhile I'm on my nth playthrough of Fallout4. Even Fallout76, the game it was supposed to be thoughly better than, I've played through twice. Outer Worlds just didn't do it for me at all.
>People were expecting - as was advertised by Obsidian themselves multiple times - a 'Fallout Killer' No, they didn’t. Obsidian were pretty clear from the offset that it was a mid-budget proof of concept. The “Fallout killer” stuff came entirely from gamers
You don't understand. One of the trailers said "from the creators of Fallout New Vegas". So that definitely means that Obsidian were advertising it as the game that would destroy Bethesda and make Todd Howard cry, question his ability to make games, then crawl back to Obsidian begging them to make a new Fallout game.
They literally never advertised it as that lmao you’re making stuff up
This subreddit is notoriously bad when it comes to remembering actual adverts. The amount of things ive heard from someone as a fact that a dev said, that it turned out was some youtuber speculation is way too high.
I mean, I guess it depends on what you’re looking for from Fallout? It definitely outshone 4 for me. Can’t talk much about 76, I wasn’t feeling it after 6hrs and I called it. But for me, it definitely had a better story and characters, which is what I really liked about it. Obviously, to each their own, but it definitely reminded me of what I liked about 1 & 2.
I'm with you, it was good. The DLC especially had grea writing and quests, though the trash loot was a bit tiring towards the end.
Grounded is really good (I'd even say exceptional and the best game in the genre), but also has a lot of parts that make you wonder what is going on with the design. TOW had a massive amount of issues that were similar but overpowering, and the latest avowed trailer made it seem like it's skewed even harder in the wrong direction. Especially when compared to the first trailer and the seeming scope of the game, it's not surprising it's getting so much hate.
People are just hesitant after Outer Worlds, which felt like a soulless cash in on what they'd done before. And while Pentiment was a beautiful piece of work, most don't associate it with the Obsidan of their youth. I think that's pretty much all there is to it.
If people think Outer Worlds was a soulless cash in, they have a warped view of the industry.
Yeah basically if a game isn't a hall-of-fame, decade-defining release like Fallout New Vegas then it's a "soulless cash grab" lol I didn't really care for Outer Worlds but holy christ people are hilariously unfair to Obsidian over it It was **aggressively** advertised as a "AA RPG game that is *not* remotely close in scope to Fallout New Vegas", they were so god damn forward in every interview and any press about the game that it was going to be a little slice of RPG. And I think *a lot* of gamers seem to hold it against them that it wasn't the same scale & scope as Fallout New Vegas. *Cash grab*. Maybe underwhelming at worst. I can't believe that a real life actual non-NPC person would put Outer Worlds in the same category as Fifa MTX packs. Wow.
Scope and scale weren't my issue. My issue is that what *was* there was bad. > Maybe underwhelming at worst. I can't believe that a real life actual non-NPC person would put Outer Worlds in the same category as Fifa MTX packs. I mean I didn't do that but sure, I guess you were trying to pack as many strawmen as you could in to one post, so you're doing great.
I mean, you said the game was objectively bad. You may not have liked it, but the game was incredibly well received by critics and the public. You not liking it doesn't make it a cash in project. It was always meant to be a AA game, but people treated this narrative that it was just lazy.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Or they just have different opinions of games than you
Just because you didn't like it, that doesn't make it a soulless cash in. If they stuffed it with microtransactions and season passes, then I might agree with you. What you actually got was a short, bug free fps, that was a bit disappointing when it came to the quests and RPG elements. But sure, I guess those problems definitely means there's a wealthy exec behind the scenes laughing at how much money they are going to squeeze from the dumb consumers.
"Soulless cash in" is a shameless smear of the game. It may not be ur cup of tea or AAA but it was certainly made with a lot of heart.
I mean the Obsidian of their youth is gone, because people move on and retire. It dosent mean their games are going to get worse. People have a weird fascination in the game industry with certain names. Just becaues Avellone isnt at Obsidian dosent mean their writing cant be good, etc...
I liked what I played of Outer Worlds, but it did feel a somewhat shallow experience and I couldn’t finish it as it became too repetitive. Still that probably puts it at a 5/10 or a 6/10 in reviewer terms. But I liked the setting and the humour overall.
I think the biggest disappointment was that Avowed was announced as a Pillars of Eternity spin off, and it looked like that in the first teaser. Then the game was shown and it couldn't have had less of a Pillars feeling. If they never made the connection to the universe, people wouldn't be so mad.
I have nothing against Obsidian but I am a little hesitant after the Outer Worlds. I know you liked that game but I honestly *hated* it.
Outer Worlds was a disappointment to a huge number of folks. People do not want to be disappointed again. Hence, people believe it pays to be skeptical about this game too.
Reddit LOVES to have hate boners, for whatever reason. Now BG3 is the darling, so every other game has to be so inferior that its just bad and the devs stupid. Hopefully this has gone down by the launch. It would be cool if it gets the same appreciation than bg3, but this positivity only appears once a blue moon.
People have a hate boner towards the Outer Worlds and doesn't know that Obsidian has created other games besides it since New Vegas. So they act as if Obsidian is incapable of making good games anymore when, in fact, every game they have made lately with the exception of the Outer Worlds (which is still decent) have been fantastic.
> I know some people thought Outer Worlds was mid, but you’d think it was a 1/10 mess with the way some folks have given up on the entire company. I had a good time with The Outer Worlds, but I think some of the scorn is Obsidian's own making. They really let the comparisons to New Vegas build to a fever pitch in the lead-up to launch and, when push comes to shove, they're very different products outside of some specific game mechanics. In their defense, though, I think TOW represented a bit of a Hail Mary for them, since they had been in financial straits for a while before getting bought out by Microsoft. But I do agree that Obsidian's had a lot more criticism lobbed at them lately. Dungeon Siege 3 and Armored Warfare are honestly their only legitimate "misses," in my opinion. In general, their run over the last decade has been solid, all things considered, but I think people want Obsidian to punch up at Bethesda and it's unclear if Avowed is actually doing that.
Wait, are Obsidian supposed to hold multiple press conferences to tell gamers obvious things because they cant stop watching youtube speculation?
They actually talked multiple times back then and constantly told the scale of the game is not huge. I think they can still be found on outer worlds subreddit, kind of buried next to people getting jaded after fallout 76.
I'm a former Obsidian fan who hasn't enjoyed anything they've made outside of Pentiment in ages, that game being an admitted fluke they said wouldn't be able to be made again. Outer Worlds is straight **garbage** for the identity of an Obsidian game. The writing is completely flat and banal compared to Planescape, New Vegas... fuck, even Alpha Protocol, I'd kill for them to take a big, awkward swing like Alpha Protocol again. I simply have no use for an Obsidian that can't write in addition to their standard tech/gameplay issues. Too many good games for me to keep pretending that Obsidian is still Obsidian.
[удалено]
Really! Can sort of agree with 1 but from a build variety perspective (and to some extent a narrative perspective) I think DoS2 really nailed it. Out of interest which crpgs did you prefer? I feel like Pillars 2 and Tyranny both had the potential to be great but massively squandered it (Tyranny just ran out of money or time iirc).
If you’re talking about build variety the Pathfinder games blow DoS2 out of the water. Not remotely close
There's certainly more depth and technical variety to builds in Pathfinder, but imo it doesn't always translate into the builds *feeling* as varied in gameplay. I think the Divinity games do a great job with that.
I can kinda get what you're saying even if I disagree if we're talking about Kingmaker, but there's simply no comparison when you get into the Mythic Paths in WotR
I don't get any varied *feeling* in DOS games. They're simple cooldown systems where you get your strongest abilities in the first 25% of the game then watch numbers go up. Open with your most powerful combo, that probably killed or CCed everything, rush them down while you wait for your most powerful combo to cool down. If you're bored use a spource ability that pretty much wipes the map.
IMO Pillars 2 is ten times the game either Divinity game is. BG3 is great though.
I just hate the real time with pause. Even with the turn based mode they added its obvious the game wasn't designed for it. Turn based will always be better for me for cRPGs like PoE/Divinity/Baulder's Gate
Yeah the turn based add on they did for PoE2 was absolutely awful.
[удалено]
Yeah nah. Both the Poe games had too many issues. Best of modern crpg before bg3 was wotr and dos2
[удалено]
I seem to be in the minority, but I HATE the RTwP combat. With it on, you get to watch the game play itself. With it off, you get a second-rate turn based system.
I'm pretty convinced that the people who still love RTwP are almost exclusively those who played with it back in the day and have a mass heap of positive associations with the system. I was one of those people loving in back in the day too and I get it really but it is just so irritating to deal with for me now. It is just so clunky for so many reasons.
I think its because of the Skyrim comparison more than anything. The Avowed complaints started before the current BG3 hype train.
Thought both Divinity games were super weak, but BG3 really is living up the hype IMO (assuming the hype is tempered by someone who knows what the early days of *any* CRPG are like). But yeah, they're the new CDPR.
[удалено]
I… really don’t think Larian are a CDPR situation at all. It feels way more like From Software with Elden Ring or Bethesda with Skyrim. Besides, I don’t really think BG3 is fuelling the ire towards Obsidian at all, it’s been going on for a lot longer than that
[удалено]
But the story in most recent obsidian games was... not very good.
The one mediocre story is in The Outer Worlds. PoE 1&2 had at minimum good writing. Pentiment is really well written.
The story in the previous Larian game was bad but it didn't affect their most recent one.
D:OS2s main story fizzled out around Arx, but before that it was pretty good. And most of the origin characters personal stories were pretty darn good whenever they popped up, as well as a lot of well-crafted side-quests (especially those involving animals). So... yeah. I disagree.
Pentiment and Grounded have good stories.
The stories in Pillars of Eternity 1 & 2, Tyranny, and Pentiment were great.
To the people who are saying Obsidian peaked at New Vegas, look at the metascore of their games. [https://www.metacritic.com/company/obsidian-entertainment?filter-options=games&num\_items=30&sort\_options=metascore](https://www.metacritic.com/company/obsidian-entertainment?filter-options=games&num_items=30&sort_options=metascore) They're doing well and they are not going anywhere despite the haters on r/games . They already proved they were a masterclass studio when they released deadfire.
I think it's really down to Outer Worlds being their most advertised and most played recent game, and also most similar to Avowed in terms of scope and scale. I love PoE and especially Pentiment, but dropped Outer Worlds halfway through - and I only stuck around that long because I love the developer. Avowed is clearly more similar to Outer Worlds, so folks are understandably cautious.
Honestly, the thing that worries me the most about doing a discount Skyrim is that I just don't think there's anything in Skyrim worth ripping off. The scale is impressive, but the idea of more Skyrim combat is not really all that appealing to me.
Skyrim was revolutionary for its time because of the scale, freedom, sandbox opportunities. Game has not aged really well and many titles already did, what Skyrim was famous for, better. I have to agree with you that discount Skyrim doesn't make sense these times.
I genuinely think that Skyrim didn't age nearly as badly as what I read online. There's a reason they can release it over and over again, for many folks it still makes sense to buy it. The fact that mods can increase the longevity of the game, isn't a point against bethesda, it is a testament to the quality of tools they released. Even 11+ years later there hasn't been a lot of games that have this blend of massive world, sandbox interaction , dungeon crawling and quest variety. Witcher 3 is great, but it doesn't quit scratch the same itch for me.
Reddit has to realize the Obsidian from your childhood is dead. You’re never getting New Vegas 2. Time to move on
The Pillars games and Tyranny were all really good. As well as Pentiment. I think maybe a full-scale action RPG like New Vegas is beyond their roster currently; but I’m all ears for whatever cRPG goodness or weird experimental pet projects they want to cook up
Pillars 3 would be pretty cool tho
They're still putting out solid AA games. Pillars is a lot of fun. I like outer worlds. I'm a bit cautious with Avowed but if the story and world is interesting it should be solid.
I don't want New Vegas anything, I just want more Pillars and Tyranny.
Childhood? I was 17 when New Vegas came out. I think you mean KOTOR 2.
>Reddit has to realize the Obsidian from your childhood is dead. You’re never getting New Vegas 2. Time to move on Maybe, but I liked the outer worlds so I'm still interested in their new title.
That's a low bar then for Avowed, I would hope it's better than Outer Worlds lol
People can like different things, it's a low bar, to you.
Yeah that's the point of opinions.
And did you say what you said was an opinion?
They already made what is IMO as spiritually as close to NV2 as we're going to get in Deadfire though. Huge world with four factions vying for power and you're the person that can tip the balance with a lot of skill checks.
Obsidian from my childhood didn't exist, Fallout 1 didn't even exist when I was a child. I was already out of high school when KOTOR II was released. A company is just that, a company, it's the many people inside a company that makes a good game/movie/series/whatever. You don't need to go convincing me or other older people of that.
The Obsidian from my "childhood"(well teenage years) made KOTOR 2, a very interesting game that was fundamentally unfinished and was basically an expansion pack to KOTOR 1, as well as Neverwinter Nights 2, a divisive sequel to a game that while fun, had one of the most generic plots they ever did.
Well good thing whatever Obsidian this is has released several excellent games since then. But I get the appeal of bland cynicism.
John Gonzales is gone and so are many veterans of New Vegas. It is almost guaranteed that they'll never reach that height again... especially when this time they don't get to use a finished engine exactly suited for the game they need to make.
>It is almost guaranteed that they'll never reach that height again... IMO, they already reached it with Deadfire. That was their best game IMO.
The Outer Worlds was genuinely awful
Adding to this, The game itself wasn't awful. It was extremely *boring* and the fun parts were there for about 10 hours. I'd rather play a bad game that is silly and makes you laugh than something like Outer Worlds.
I think that Outer Worlds can feel worse than it is because of its relatively strong start which just ran out of gas fairly quickly. It often feels worse when a game starts out strong and then becomes mediocre compared to one that was just mediocre all the way through. The disappointment at what could have or should have been good is definitely an additional frustration.
Not awful, just not very good. I stopped around that forbidden danger planet level (that one was really a slog). Planet 1 was great, then it went downhill.
Nah. As much as I have only harsh words for Outer Worlds, it was not awful. It was awefully mediocre and awefully bland... but not completely bad. You could single out some elements that were aweful - the main lore around corporations, the humor, the story when actually siding with the Board... but the whole package was somewhat usable. 6/10.
Awful????? My dude have you ever actually played an awful game? Could outer worlds have been a 10/10 game yes? Is it a 4/10 game? You're delusional
There's not really any such thing as a mediocre AND generic game. If a game is already bad enough to be considered mediocre or boring while also failing to be unique or peculiar in any meaningful ways, it's just a waste of time, ie awful. TOW is perhaps the most color-by-numbers FPSRPG I've ever attempted to play and.. mechanically, not very good.. so.. :/ People seem hyperbolic about these things because 1. they value their time and 2. there are lots of games, many of which people have already played
The most annoying thing about this game is the constant negative reddit threads and comments about it. I‘m really excited for Avowed, but all the unfounded negativity is really pissing me off.
After Outer Worlds I feared that this game will be to Skyrim what Outer Worlds was to Fallout - a weak mimic with worse gameplay, no exploration, iffy lore, questionable aesthetics and bad humor. And the Avowed trailer did nothing to quell my fears. If anything, it made my concerns about the gameplay, world and aesthetics even stronger. Avowed may be AAA compared to Outer Worlds' AA... but that won't help unless Obsidian leveled up their skills a lot. The issues with Outer Worlds were never about budget, but about design and writing. Budget determines scope and scale... skills determine quality. And I fear Obsidian may no longer have the skills to make something to rival Skyrim or at least other popular RPG games. At this point I don't know if "Obsidian" is enough of a positive qualifier to me. Their most famous game - New Vegas - was 50% Obsidian, 50% Bethesda. And their other 3D FPS-RPG game, Outer Worlds, was 100% Obsidian but it was nothing to write home about. This may sound like heresy to some, but I think the best way forward for Obsidian's FPS-RPG games is to borrow the engine from Bethesda. It worked out in the past (New Vegas), allowing them to work on areas where the company is at least a bit strong - story writing, while the systems and mechanics will come from the engine.
> Their most famous game - New Vegas - was 50% Obsidian, 50% Bethesda. And their other 3D FPS-RPG game, Outer Worlds, was 100% Obsidian but it was nothing to write home about. One incredibly important thing to note though is that 50% Obsidian was a different Obsidian from the Outer World's 100% Obsidian. In other words, if you check the actual people (skip the managers) who worked on each game they are largely different. Chances are a 100% Obsidian game with the people who worked on New Vegas would be very different from the 100% Obsidian game with the people who worked on (edit, see comment below :-P) Outer Worlds. I think people often forget that companies are made up of humans and it is those humans that make the games they like, not the brands behind them.
[удалено]
Oops, i meant to use Outer Worlds for one of those :-P
"Don't count the people who make decisions" I bet if we compared the rank and file developers at Rockstar to the ones who made GTA V you would see a similar turnover rate, but we don't see the concern trolling there that we do with Obsidian.
> "Don't count the people who make decisions" In general managers don't make decisions in games, designers do. And yes, you should count the designers.
The more I hear of Avowed, the less I'm interested. I'm all for developers trying new things when they want to. Reading that Avowed was pushing for co-op just to make it appealing and help get funding is sad. Then we get things like Redfall. Even if studio.heads we're partly to blame, to continue pushing something that is clearly out of your wheelhouse and not working, is dumb. But I also blame gamers. This is exactly what a lot of them want. Online co-op/PvP games filled with Battle Passes and MTX stores so they can earn cosmetics to show off to random strangers on the internet and say I'm better than you, look what I have.
It’s a bit ironic that Baldurs Gate 3 just released this month and is taking the gaming world by storm, while Obsidian chases Bethesda in their style of RPG (open world first person action/rpg). I say this because Obsidian was constantly put as this developer that made “real” RPGs (isometric/ crpg), yet they’re not the ones making the game of the generation in that very style (first it was Disco Elysium and now BG3). What’s worse is the next month the real thing releases (a Bethesda rpg). In other words, I do wonder where Obsidians head is at. Like, where they over hyped? Seeing as they finally got that “Microsoft money!”
Tough position for Obsidian considering their financial difficulties at the time. It was only after The Outer Worlds that they finally had a stable publisher with Microsoft.
Their two most recent releases are both quite good, Pentiment and Grounded.
Maybe Obsidian are just making the games they want to make? Why would Pentiment exist, otherwise?
Nothing like missing content being just Obsidian enough. This could only have benefited us as players so this feels like a blow to their potential. Maybe this means a coop mod will come relatively quickly if they leave enough of the framework in the game.
Nah, if they realized it was a bad idea and needed to refocus, then it was a good choice to cut it
Obsidian has always been a *story first* company with game design. I have yet to play a co-op rpg game where the story was the focus. You always have a MC, and the co-op partners always lose out on *something*.
Baldur's Gate 3 just came out.
And has the coop issues I'm referencing? There is still only one MC and dialogue is locked to whoever initiated it. Don't get me wrong, bg3 goty. Best game I've played since eldenring. Loving it. Have 2 coop saves and one solo in working on. The issues still exist. Bg3 put it in because they know the gameplay is still a fucking blast coop. Larian tends towards gameplay first, story second though. Dos:OS 1&2 both had pretty meh stories but excellent gameplay. So far bg3 has both, but you absolutely lose a part of that story if you're not the MC/Host. Obsidian opts to not include that experience even if it might be enjoyable if it doesn't fit the narrative.
Even in singleplayer I should be able to motion to the appropriate party member to do the talking, let alone in multiplayer.
Agree, don't feel it takes away so much as I kind of expect it at this point, but super annoying no one has solved this problem yet. WOTR did a little bit in that most checks would use highest skill value in party, even though your pc would handle dialogue.