Interview Feargus talks about Project Eternity and Kickstarter (and not South Park) at Rock Paper Shotgun

[Infinitron]

Tags: Feargus Urquhart; Kickstarter; Obsidian Entertainment; Project Eternity; South Park: The Stick of Truth

The second and final part of Rock Paper Shotgun's DICE interview with Feargus Urquhart is up. In this segment of the interview, Feargus talks mainly about Project Eternity and Kickstarter in general, and also a bit about Obsidian's glitchy reputation. He doesn't really have anything particularly interesting to say about Eternity, although the information that the size of the game's development team is currently at "12 or 13 people" should be noteworthy for all of you industry stalkers. More interesting are Feargus' opinions on the Kickstarter phenomenon as a whole. Here's an excerpt:

RPS: At that point, what does Kickstarter become for companies in your position, then? Is it just some kind of nostalgia farm? The biggest successes have definitely hinged on nostalgia, but I think for a while a lot of people looked at it and said, “Maybe this is a truly viable alternative form of funding that could get more innovation into the industry.” Now it’s shifted back towards, “Well, it’s difficult to get real innovation going now unless your budget is $20,000 dollars.”​

Feargus Urquhart: Yeah, definitely. It goes back to what we were talking about before. First of all, there’s this haze of just the gold rush. There’s a lot of chaff. It has to resolve itself. Once it resolves itself, Kickstarter will be there to fund things that people want to back. It’s stupid, right? You can look today at what people look to back.​

[...] Things like what we did with Eternity, those might go away. Or maybe they don’t go away, but only so many can be done. A few a year. Four or five a year can get funded that way. But for the other things, we could see a ton of them. At that point, when your goal is down to a certain point, it’s more about people. One, they feel the goal is achievable. Think about it this way: When you have a goal of $2 million dollars, my $10 dollars moves it this much. When I have a goal of $20,000 dollars, my $10 dollars moves it this much. It’s not just that I’m getting something. It’s my feeling that I’m helping out. I’m giving to the industry. I’m letting someone do it. When it feels like my impact on that is meaningful, rather than $10 dollars moving it .00001 percent towards the goal, that’s what helps.​

RPS: So where does that leave crowdfunding for Obsidian as a company? Is it ultimately more of a sidestep – after which you’ll go back to publishing more traditionally for your projects? Or has it been a transformative experience for all of you?​

Feargus Urquhart: These are enjoyable games to make. I think it would be great to keep on making them. It helps us build a brand. So that’s where it’s transformative. It’s going to change our business, absolutely. Is it going to change the entirety of our business? No. I would still love to make Fallout: New Vegas 2, or whatever. Or even take Eternity at some point and have Eternity the [Infinity Engine] games and then Eternity the big open-world CRPG. I think that would be really cool.​

Nothing stops us from being able to do those two different things. It’s going to make us look at Eternity as a brand. What else can we do with it? I want to hook up with the Pathfinder guys and see about doing a Pathfinder Eternity world book thing. It sounds a little weird, but… A card game. A board game. I’ve already been chatting with Cryptozoic Entertainment. We have nothing going on specifically, but they have a lot of experience in board games and card games. That’s what’s going to be transformative.​

But overall, we still love making those big games. I don’t think we have to say we have to do one or the other.​

The interview concludes with a spectacularly unsuccessful attempt by the interviewer to get Feargus to say something about the state of South Park: The Stick of Truth since THQ's demise. Apparently, it's going to be "the most horrible game" that Feargus ships in his career (but of course he means that in a good way).

 

[Infinitron]

But that’s how we would handle it. We’d do an update. Josh would probably get on a video and say, “This is what it is. This is why we’re changing this. See this on the whiteboard.” As an example, Josh has changed the armor system in the game in the last three or four weeks. He’s changed it three times. Some of that is based on conversations he’s had with people online, friends of his in the industry, or internally. That’s the other cool thing about the Kickstarter. We get to change stuff ourselves. That’s fun.

I wonder what it's changed to by now.

 

[Irenaeus]

Some balanced rock-paper-scissors system.

 

[Rahdulan]

To be honest, there’s like a… I’m not going to call it a game design document. It’s more like a bullet list, just so we don’t forget the things that need to be in it. But Steve’s implemented doors probably four other times in RPGs. He knows all the stuff. We’re using Unity, so the backend of putting something in the game is already all there. Steve goes around and talks to everybody. He says, “I’m thinking this, because we’ve done this in other games. Maybe we need these new things.” They all agree to it, get a quick writeup, and go.

Damn I want to be Steve when I grow up.

 

[Irenaeus]

We don’t need to have a meeting about doors

What if it's a meeting about bashing doors?

 

[Major_Blackhart]

I didn't read the interview but the fact that he won't comment on it means it's shit.

 

[Excidium]

We don’t need to have a meeting about doors

What if it's a meeting about bashing doors?

You don't talk about such things at Obsidian.

 

[Infinitron]

I didn't read the interview but the fact that he won't comment on it means it's shit.

Won't comment on its release date, not the game itself.

 

[l3loodAngel]

But overall, we still love making those big games. I don’t think we have to say we have to do one or the other.

Well, you should. I backed, because I thought this was case and not help Obsi fund another popamole or find to a moron who will pay for it's development for 5 years before canceling it...

 

[Excidium]

But overall, we still love making those big games. I don’t think we have to say we have to do one or the other.

Well, you should. I backed, because I thought this was case and not help Obsi fund another popamole or find to a moron who will pay for it's development for 5 years before canceling it...

They aren't going to stop making the projects that keep the company afloat because they managed to crowdfund one game. Be prepared for the upcoming UE3 game by Obsidian.

 

[Major_Blackhart]

Or the next Fallout. By Obsidian.

 

[tuluse]

Would I put something risky on Kickstarter? I wouldn’t put something risky up on Kickstarter and try to get $2 million dollars for it. I would try something risky, but I would have to have very reasonable expectations.

This makes a lot of sense.

That’s what I was figuring. Somewhere around there.

It all normalizes.

Is [kickstarter] just some kind of nostalgia farm? The biggest successes have definitely hinged on nostalgia, but I think for a while a lot of people looked at it and said, “Maybe this is a truly viable alternative form of funding that could get more innovation into the industry.” Now it’s shifted back towards

There is nothing terribly wrong with this question (though it seems slightly trollish), but I consider backwards to be forwards right now. However...

“Well, it’s difficult to get real innovation going now unless your budget is $20,000 dollars.”

I’ve always wanted to end an interview with a self-aware critique of Everything That’s Wrong With Games Journalism! Thank you for your time.

Fuck, I hate this guy's writing.

 

[BobtheTree]

He makes it sound like South Park isn't quite as done as it needs to be. Yup, sounds like Obsidian. Perhaps Ubi will give them an extension. I don't have much interest in the game, but I'd like to see Obsidian do well since there's fuckall left for decent, high-profile RPG developers.

 

[Duraframe300]

He makes it sound like South Park isn't quite as done as it needs to be. Yup, sounds like Obsidian. Perhaps Ubi will give them an extension. I don't have much interest in the game, but I'd like to see Obsidian do well since there's fuckall left for decent, high-profile RPG developers.

That has probably more to do with the publisher change than anything else.

I don't doubt we may see the game later than initially assumed, but I do very much doubt this comes out buggy or unfinished for various reasons. I've more worries in that department about P:E.

 

[Helly]

Eternity the big open-world CRPG. I think that would be really cool.​

​

​

​

 

[Dexter]

Fuck, I hate this guy's writing.

Yeah, the entire interview rubbed me the wrong way yet again.

RPS: But, hypothetically, if you ever ended up in a situation where it came down to what you promised backers versus what was really right for the game, what would you do?

Sounded like another jab at his "wouldn't you rather make a game like Walking Dead, you know... A TRUE RPG?" he wasted 3 questions on last time.

This also pissed me off greatly:

RPS: At that point, what does Kickstarter become for companies in your position, then? Is it just some kind of nostalgia farm? The biggest successes have definitely hinged on nostalgia, but I think for a while a lot of people looked at it and said, “Maybe this is a truly viable alternative form of funding that could get more innovation into the industry.” Now it’s shifted back towards, “Well, it’s difficult to get real innovation going now unless your budget is $20,000 dollars.”

Especially since it harkens back to this entirely retarded article of theirs from a while back (John Walker): http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/10/04/kicking-it-old-school-the-peril-of-kickstarter-nostalgia/ trying to pan KickStarter games going back to some sort of "out of style" medieval concept of design, as "dennovation" contrary to the great advancement of all them new games coming out, instead of even considering that a large part of the industry has only declined and dumbed shit down for mass market since then, and actually going back to when games were still good would be progress in itself, but no and I quote...

Kickstarter success stories have so far been firmly rooted in nostalgia, not innnovation. We’re seeing some of the biggest talent in the industry openly abandoning the ambition of innovation, and we’re paying them to do it.

[...]

But this isn’t innovation. It’s the opposite. It’s… dennovation? Unnovation? And it rather worryingly tends toward stagnation.
A huge part of gaming has been the advancement of genres, and perhaps most importantly, the blurring of them. And yes, certainly through this process there have been perceived casualties, purer genres that have been lost in the meld, and people want them back. But rather than innovating on those older, perhaps lost ideas, what we’re seeing here is just their being repeated. We’re seeing the best and brightest in games development not pledging, “With your money we’ll make something unique, inspiring, game-changing…” We’re hearing, “We’ll make something the way we used to in the past.” In these large projects we just aren’t seeing anything that can justify the word “innovation”.

[...]

No, of course, not every game has to be a technological or ideological evolution, but when we’re talking about some of the most talented people in the industry able to work without constrictions from publishers, my goodness isn’t that what we should be hoping for? Not this retreading of what came before, as if it’s some act of inspired rebellion. But then, would we choose to fund it?

The third thing is that, yet again there's apparently this big "Kickstarter decline" myth still going on e.g.:

In recent times, however, Kickstarter’s started to get a bit cranky. High-profile washouts are piling up – Wildman the most visible among them – and the gold in them thar hills seems to be losing its sheen. So then, is it time to book it back to publishers?

at the very start of the article. It's like they don't even get the idea that people wouldn't just throw all their money at every fly shit that comes along (probably spent too much time hyping new releases and with marketing people...) and that "Wildman" just wasn't appealing (and firing his entire staff didn't exactly fill people with confidence either). Nope it's the KICKSTARTER DECLINE!

 

[dnf]

RPS is a Den of scum and retardation

 

[Excidium]

lol people actually read that stuff. I just skim through what's in the OP.

 

[hiver]

Eternity the big open-world CRPG

Already fishing for Obsidian Skyrim... wow.
How about free to play with every item and equipment sold for real money?
Every shop a D3 auction house.

 

[Aeschylus]

There's nothing inherently wrong with an open world game. It all depends on the level of detail put into the environments, NPCs, and quests. If there's depth rather than breadth, open world games can be great. Granted, the number of games that actually achieve such heights can be counted on one hand, but still.

 

[May God Gently Caress You]

I can only hope Obsidian won't end up with losing Eternity IP due to, for instance, an unsuccessful Eternity open-world RPG for consoles...

 

[Wizfall]

Eternity the big open-world CRPG

Already fishing for Obsidian Skyrim... wow.
How about free to play with every item and equipment sold for real money?
Every shop a D3 auction house.

If W2 or PE don't sell well we are doomed.

 

[Bulba]

I can only hope Obsidian won't end up with losing Eternity IP due to, for instance, an unsuccessful Eternity open-world RPG for consoles...

if pe will be a success why not sell the ip? make shit load of money and make a new kickstarter calling it project blabla...

it's a bit of a shame that ubi will publish south park, with their stupid drm I'll have to pirate the game...

 

[Lancehead]

They can certainly make a good open world - New Vegas is proof for that - problems are that they need publisher money for that (they probably don't see this as a problem), and first/third person action is not their core competency.

 

[GarfunkeL]

More worrying is that a lot of people view RPS as the last bastion of true gamers and PC-crowd and sensible people and "journalists asking tough questions" and bullshit like that. When it's just a slightly better version of Kotaku/IGN.