Obsidian CEO: “I’d love to turn Eternity into more like a Skyrim product”

TransgenderVaultDeweller

TransgenderVaultDeweller

"Fallout 4 adds to the lore"
http://www.pcgamer.com/obsidian-ceo-id-love-to-turn-eternity-into-more-like-a-skyrim-product/

Seems like Obsidian might be heading in a different direct, Weather or not this is something that will end up good or bad is a bit murky. It is unsettling however, if obsidian wants to get the "skyrim audience" that would entail dumbing down the game and perhaps even the rpg elements as we all know Bugthesda often does with their games.


On a personal note, Skyrim wasn't even that great in terms of its combat anyways. The sword play was pretty lacking and felt not kick really. I feel the feedback from the swings felt too much like knife going through hot butter, Little to no resistance or feel to it. Spells weren't all to impressive either. If the words are maybe taken out of context in this article as most gaming journalist tend to do with tabloid journalism. I'd be a bit more relived, Perhaps they mean't just want to experiment with a different combat system and aspect but i've seen a lot of companies fall from good grace. Bioware being one of the most notorious.


So who knows what this spells out, they want to continue to make RPGs that they're proud of but we will have to see what is waiting in store for us.
 
Well, with New Vegas they proved that they can make a more open world sandbox-style game and still pack it with great writing. So I would be interested. Part of me instantly gets worried, since Bethesda and their Skyrim aren't exactly what I hope Obsidian will use for inspiration. But still, it's Obsidian. They put story telling and roleplaying first.

If nothing else, we need more developers putting out better quality open world rpgs. Then maybe Beth will stop being lazy.
 
Firstly let's look at the question:

"So what do you want from the next 13 years? Do you still want to be independent?"

So that's a space of 13 years he is referring to and to be quite honest, i never really pay all that much attention to interviews with the developers, it's mostly just BS PR talk. Can't remember the last time a read an interesting interview with any developers.
 
i would agree if the combat would be closer to the kingdom come: deliverence.
 
>talks about how they have no interest in doing KOTOR3 even if they could
9T1kgIr.gif
 
As shit as it might sound, but I think I understand why they don't want to work on such a big huge licence like Star Wars anymore. I guess you really don't earn THAT much with it. And it's a lot of work and all that, particularly if you want to do it right. Companies that hold licences can really breath down your neck and giving you a lot of trouble. See Obsidian and Beth. Who knows how much shit they had to take, just so that Beth was pleased with New Vegas. Taking the same shitty engine, keeping the same gameplay and so on.

Arnust said:
Maybe they just want it to be 3D, so ultra casuals don't puke at the Isometric camera angle.
Click to expand...
Wasn't that one of the reasons they used kickstarter? To NOT fall in this marketing trap where you have to target every casual? Where you have to appeal to a certain audience and all that. I still remember some of the advertising they did for their kickstarter campaign, we want to make old school bla bla, no preasure bla bla ...
I don't get it, why abandon that with this project? If that interview is accurate.
 
Well, it's understandable. As much as I love Inxile's games, they are a niche, and Obsidian is a bigger studio, with more payrolls to check, so it's normal that they send bottles to the casual, cashing on big names to get attention. With Tyranny, they risk to encounter gamers who will take a look at the screenshots, and go "ah, it's the sequel to Pillars of Eternity and Torment", which is something they have to avoid, if they want the game to be profitable.
And if isometric games managed to bring back the "huge map, free exploration" thing as a norm, that would be great. It's one of the things that made the old fallout unique, and I didn't feel that in other classics such as Baldur's gate, or even the recent Pillars of Eternity. Great as these titles are, don't get me wrong.

And let's be honest, Skyrim in the hands of good writers could have been a great game (to its release date's standard), so I don't worry about it. Legacy of Kain was also made to appeal the casual gamers, it dumbed down some elements from title to title, but hell, it managed to stay excellent all the way.
 
I wouldn't lament a bit of streamlining, i got very confused by the early parts (same with Fo1, 2 and Wasteland 2, but this was even harder). I know that i could get into it just fine after some research, tutorials and playing it through, but an average gamer, say a "casual RPGer", could not get beyond character creation. That would help sales a lot, i think New Vegas really managed to balance Old-School RPG and "modern" gameplay and FPS perspective.
 
mithrap said:
And let's be honest, Skyrim in the hands of good writers could have been a great game (to its release date's standard), so I don't worry about it. Legacy of Kain was also made to appeal the casual gamers, it dumbed down some elements from title to title, but hell, it managed to stay excellent all the way.
Click to expand...
But that doesn't mean that everything has to look like Skyrim, and I mean that from the design, not the graphics. Like making something in third person for example, or how everything has to be open world where everything has to be rendered. Part of the problem is that we're getting also a visual dumbing down if more and more games follow that route.

See, I don't mind Skyrim. And I think you can make RPGs like Skyrim. They have their place in gaming. What I have a problem with is when people argue, Top Down/ISO is bad! Because it doesn't look like Skyrim! As like making something in a first person/3D engine would be kinda inherently supperior. While it is actually just a preference.

See, Transformers probably made more money then No Country for old Men. Does that mean Transformers is the better movie? Or Star Wars is probably more popular and markatable than 2001: A Space Odyssey. Does that mean it would be the better Sci Fi movie?

What do people actually REALLY mean when they say a certain game has to be closer to Skyrim? Well, it's just a different way of saying, that the game has to be exploit commercially, easier to advertise, and easier to merchandise. That's really all it is. It is first and foremost a marketing decision. Because flashy images always give you more marketing value. It's much harder to sell the soft stats of a game. Like the feeling you get from it. The reason why I enjoy a game like Baldurs Gate 2 more than Skyrim. Because Skyrim is first and foremost a product, where as Baldurs Gate is a game. And Skyrim was meant to be for everyone, where as Baldurs Gate was meant to be for a certain demographic.
 
Arnust said:
I wouldn't lament a bit of streamlining, i got very confused by the early parts (same with Fo1, 2 and Wasteland 2, but this was even harder). I know that i could get into it just fine after some research, tutorials and playing it through, but an average gamer, say a "casual RPGer", could not get beyond character creation.
Click to expand...
I'm currently playing the new Torment, and listen, the character creation takes at least an entire, long and very confusing hour. Bear with me, the game is excellent, brillant even, I love it and I actually enjoy complex character creation, but when you start to imagine what it would be for someone who has never played a traditional RPG before... The casual gamer wouldn't even stand 10 minutes, at least in this version (still in testing phase as we speak). I've been trying for months to convince a friend of mine to do so with Fallout 2, but it's doomed to fail, because of the temple of trials and the character creation menu, which he doesn't even want to understand. And my friend may be impatient, but he's not a "casual", call of duty, Bethesda kind of gamer, so it's really a shame.

The writing should never get dumbed down. But streamlining the introductions could really help some studios when it comes to bring great titles to a big audience. In my mind, the temple of trials has always been the weak selling point of Fallout 2, and the reason why many curious gamers simply give up in a matter of minutes. It's an essential part, but it should have looked more like the morgue from Planescape, which is probably one of the most immersive, mysterious intro I've ever seen. It sets the general tone, it raises questions, there's plenty of dialogs, choices, mini quests etc. Baldur's Gate II also rocked its introduction, in my mind. The dungeon may be a bit too long, but the atmosphere is set, the questions are raised, the characters are met and the motivation is clear : get the hell out of here, fast, and find out what happened down here once you're in a safe place. It's simple, it works. Fallout 2's intro, while necessary, doesn't really set a tone for the new gamers. It only works if you already played Fallout 1, because you are confused and surprised by the tribal atmosphere and want to see more about this new direction. But otherwise, it doesn't really work.

The weak point of all RPGs, I think, is to greet the new player with the character creation menu. The first thing you see in the game is a glorified excel sheet, before you hear the music, before you even know what it's about. The last "Torment" may be on the other extreme of the spectrum, but at least, it's an interesting alternative : you begin with a clean slate, a freshly born character, and only after you got used to the game's atmosphere and gameplay, you actually get to create your character, step by step. The idea behind it is good, and with a little more simplicity, it could really help classic RPGs attract a wider audience.
 
Let's just hope they learned their lesson from the Black Isle days. If they're bought up by the right publisher, they could do amazing things. If not... well, we know how that goes.

Honestly I don't really care what they do and what path they choose, as long as they keep making great rpg's. That sounds very obvious, I know. But to be more specific, in my eyes they don't absolutely need to stay independent and fund their games through Kickstarter. They don't even absolutely need to make top-down fantasy rpg's. As long as they get a publisher that believes in them, supports them, and doesn't fuck them over in the end, I'm sure all will be good. These are some really talented industry veterans, and I honestly think they deserve more than being an independent studio fighting for their survival.
 
Didn't Feargus say that same "Skyrim like" thing several months ago already in some other interview?
 
mithrap said:
I'm currently playing the new Torment, and listen, the character creation takes at least an entire, long and very confusing hour. Bear with me, the game is excellent, brillant even, I love it and I actually enjoy complex character creation, but when you start to imagine what it would be for someone who has never played a traditional RPG before... The casual gamer wouldn't even stand 10 minutes, at least in this version (still in testing phase as we speak). I've been trying for months to convince a friend of mine to do so with Fallout 2, but it's doomed to fail, because of the temple of trials and the character creation menu, which he doesn't even want to understand. And my friend may be impatient, but he's not a "casual", call of duty, Bethesda kind of gamer, so it's really a shame.
Click to expand...
I am sure there is room for improvements. But I fear ... you will always lose something in the process. See what happend to Star Trek, when they made it let us say, more accessible ...
 
On one hand, streamlining does take away some features and traits for RPGs since it implies that some part of the role-playing experience would be lost to allow accessibility for a wider. On the other hand, it's more economical for games to do so (to get a wider audience) and a competent studio would be able to compensate for such streamlining. I'm a little worried that Obsidian may fall for the trap of doing the former without attempting to compensate for said former. Shame about no KOTOR 3 though but I've made peace with that fact.
aenemic said:
If they're bought up by the right publisher, they could do amazing things. If not... well, we know how that goes.
Click to expand...
Imagine if they were bought by Bethesda though... It'll be something to think about seeing how Bethesda Softworks has done some wonders for studios like Arkane and id but keeping in mind, the rushed development cycle for New Vegas and the Metacritic thing. It'll be a mixed bag to say the least.

I honestly hope Obsdian is bought up by Paradox in such a situation. They've established a working relationship for publishing Pillars of Eternity(and Tyranny's pre-release) and so far, I'm not seeing any downsides in that relationship.
 
I actually hope obsidian is bought by Bethesda. Yeah Bethesdas as a developer sucks, but their a great publisher, and maybe they might give fallout to obsidian while they work on their new projects.
 
And if they do get bought up, would another cRPG be possible? Cause remember what happened with Interplay "cRPG's don't sell, it's console market we should be targeting!"
So if they get bought up, what are the chances of them actually being allowed to create another cRPG at all?
And they aren't allowed to use publisher funding for that, how successful would a kickstarter be exactly? I mean, the reason why people back shit is cause they ain't got no other way of funding it. But if Obsidian got a big publisher behind them then people will wonder why they need backers and the backers will be worried that the publisher will wriggle their toxic fingers into the project.

I can understand why they'd want to get bought up. But all I can think about is Interplay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top