Anthony Davis leaving Obsidian

[TheWesDude]

In the most traditional sense, I do think DS3 qualifies because you do assume a ROLE. You are one of the characters in the story - you have a name, a point of view, and a destiny.

Doom:

you play the role of a space marine

you are the main character of the story - trying to get out of hell

you dont have a name

you have a point of view - kill or be killed

you have a destiny - to get out of hell


meh, so doom missed one of your criteria

 

[Random]

Well, for what it's worth, welcome back to Texas and I hope you have a good time at TimeGate.

 

[grotsnik]

In the most traditional sense, I do think DS3 qualifies because you do assume a ROLE. You are one of the characters in the story - you have a name, a point of view, and a destiny.

See, I really, really hate that increasingly popular 'definition' (which I'm sure isn't a unique perspective around here) - it doesn't bother to differentiate between playing a 'part' and playing a 'role'.

Anyway, best of luck to you in Texas!

 

[Anthony Davis]

In the most traditional sense, I do think DS3 qualifies because you do assume a ROLE. You are one of the characters in the story - you have a name, a point of view, and a destiny.

Doom:

you play the role of a space marine

you are the main character of the story - trying to get out of hell

you dont have a name

you have a point of view - kill or be killed

you have a destiny - to get out of hell


meh, so doom missed one of your criteria

A name isn't required I guess on second thought anyway, see Fallout and Torment. I mentioned name to solidify the ROLE portion of the argument.

I do think you make a good point, and maybe that is why so many games can easily latch on RPG mechanics, because many games already have you assuming a role.

Historically, the stats that so many people associate with RPGs only existed because in the PnP versions of the game, the game master needed a way to limit what your character could and could not do - because the entire game took place in your collective imaginations.

Stats can be replaced with player skill depending on the limitations of the world presented in video game format.




You may not like it

 

[Anthony Davis]

In the most traditional sense, I do think DS3 qualifies because you do assume a ROLE. You are one of the characters in the story - you have a name, a point of view, and a destiny.

See, I really, really hate that increasingly popular 'definition' (which I'm sure isn't a unique perspective around here) - it doesn't bother to differentiate between playing a 'part' and playing a 'role'.

Anyway, best of luck to you in Texas!

Well, I don't know how popular that definition actually is.

I'm not exactly clear on the difference between playing a 'part' and a 'role' is either. Please explain.

 

[Mangoose]

Oh no

 

[IronicNeurotic]

Choice and Consequence - there are several choices you can make the change the outcome of the story and the characters within it. On a side note, I wish we could have released George Zeit's source book he wrote for the World of Ehb. It was an amazing read.

RPG Systems: you can build your character in different ways, though I feel this takes a lot of work to see any real difference. I know that Matt Maclean and some of the guys in QA were able to build wildly divergent classes. For example, Matt's Wind Shear Guardian was pretty OP.

On that note. What personalities have George Ziets and MattMcLean? There really aren't many interviews with Ziets around and I get a very "shy" vibe from him. Nathaniel Chapman on the other hand seems as nerdy as you can get.

Also how did you personally like DSIII? Are you proud of the "nearly bug free" Obsidian game accomplishment?

 

[Random]

Uh oh

 

[Captain Shrek]

Oh no

 

[grotsnik]

I'm not exactly clear on the difference between playing a 'part' and a 'role' is either. Please explain.

I guess I'd try and put it this way; if you're playing a part in a game, you're acting out a fictional character (who may have their own perspectives, name, destiny, etc, as above). That's the most important thing.

i.e. - I play the part of The Nameless One, a hoarse, semi-naked amnesiac.

The idea of a 'role', however, while it can overlap with all of that, is also emphasising the function of the individual within a larger space which allows for a number of different functions. Which is why we talk about 'roles' within an organisation, or a society - you've got the guy in the role of the CEO, in the role of Q & A, the role of the town doctor. In-game, it's the principle that I could create a character with specific skills/abilities/talents/whatever, who can accomplish various things and cannot do others, because that's not their role. It's about what your character's 'job' is, as it were, more than it's about their backstory.

i.e. My Nameless One, a hoarse, semi-naked amnesiac, plays the role of the thief within my party. Or the role of the wise guy who gets bonus XP from waking his memories. Or the role of the brute who just bashes his way through everything, etc, etc.

I dunno. That seem fair/not too likely to start a horrifically pedantic debate?

 

[Deleted member 7219]

Good to see you're still going to be in the games industry at least. I really liked KOTOR2 and NWN2, Alpha Protocol had some good stuff in it and was underrated IMO. Keep in touch.

 

[ironyuri]

I'm not exactly clear on the difference between playing a 'part' and a 'role' is either. Please explain.

I guess I'd try and put it this way; if you're playing a part in a game, you're acting out a fictional character (who may have their own perspectives, name, destiny, etc, as above). That's the most important thing.

i.e. - I play the part of The Nameless One, a hoarse, semi-naked amnesiac.

The idea of a 'role', however, while it can overlap with all of that, is also emphasising the function of the individual within a larger space which allows for a number of different functions. Which is why we talk about 'roles' within an organisation, or a society - you've got the guy in the role of the CEO, in the role of Q & A, the role of the town doctor. In-game, it's the principle that I could create a character with specific skills/abilities/talents/whatever, who can accomplish various things and cannot do others, because that's not their role. It's about what your character's 'job' is, as it were, more than it's about their backstory.

i.e. My Nameless One, a hoarse, semi-naked amnesiac, plays the role of the thief within my party. Or the role of the wise guy who gets bonus XP from waking his memories. Or the role of the brute who just bashes his way through everything, etc, etc.

I dunno. That seem fair/not too likely to start a horrifically pedantic debate?

God damnit, Bro-nik, stop bothering the nice man and go update our Jack the Ripper adventure LP.





@AnthonyDavis:

An Obsidian dev who took three pages to just get the quote function code working correctly. The irony is... palpable.







No, no, I kid. I'm one of the only people here who argued that DS3 was actually a very competent action rpg.

Also, I loved Alpha Protocol THIS much.

Best of luck in Texas. If you see any dark haired Codex transvestites, run. It knows how to handle guns.

 

[Anthony Davis]

I'm not exactly clear on the difference between playing a 'part' and a 'role' is either. Please explain.

I guess I'd try and put it this way; if you're playing a part in a game, you're acting out a fictional character (who may have their own perspectives, name, destiny, etc, as above). That's the most important thing.

i.e. - I play the part of The Nameless One, a hoarse, semi-naked amnesiac.

The idea of a 'role', however, while it can overlap with all of that, is also emphasising the function of the individual within a larger space which allows for a number of different functions. Which is why we talk about 'roles' within an organisation, or a society - you've got the guy in the role of the CEO, in the role of Q & A, the role of the town doctor. In-game, it's the principle that I could create a character with specific skills/abilities/talents/whatever, who can accomplish various things and cannot do others, because that's not their role. It's about what your character's 'job' is, as it were, more than it's about their backstory.

i.e. My Nameless One, a hoarse, semi-naked amnesiac, plays the role of the thief within my party. Or the role of the wise guy who gets bonus XP from waking his memories. Or the role of the brute who just bashes his way through everything, etc, etc.

I dunno. That seem fair/not too likely to start a horrifically pedantic debate?

Eh, I don't think it's pedantic. I think I get what you are saying and I get the example. So, to add an example, you would consider Lucas the Guardian a part, and Michael Thorton a role.

 

[Anthony Davis]

@AnthonyDavis:

An Obsidian dev who took three pages to just get the quote function code working correctly. The irony is... palpable.

I was waiting for the joke regarding the quotes.

 

[ironyuri]

Regarding Alpha Protocol:

Why Thorton rather than Thornton, and were all of you pissed off by the fact that almost no reviewer, or game magazine, could get it right in their write-ups?

I don't know how many articles I read where they just called him Thornton, as if they had just ignored the name of the protagonist.

 

[Anthony Davis]

Choice and Consequence - there are several choices you can make the change the outcome of the story and the characters within it. On a side note, I wish we could have released George Zeit's source book he wrote for the World of Ehb. It was an amazing read.

RPG Systems: you can build your character in different ways, though I feel this takes a lot of work to see any real difference. I know that Matt Maclean and some of the guys in QA were able to build wildly divergent classes. For example, Matt's Wind Shear Guardian was pretty OP.

On that note. What personalities have George Ziets and MattMcLean? There really aren't many interviews with Ziets around and I get a very "shy" vibe from him. Nathaniel Chapman on the other hand seems as nerdy as you can get.

Also how did you personally like DSIII? Are you proud of the "nearly bug free" Obsidian game accomplishment?

George gives off a very focused vibe. He is an extremely talented writer, and while quiet, he is always been accessible, and amicable.

Matt Maclean is a bit of a conundrum wrapped in a beard. He takes pride in being a cranky curmudgeon, but he hides both his heart of gold and his fist of death behind his beard. He is a superior technical designer who is not afraid of numbers.

Nathaniel Chapman is a nerd's nerd. He is like a limitless sponge for gaming knowledge and design. I think he has played every single game out there. I like how he can identify key aspects of other game designs and explain why they are key or why they are broken.


As for DS3, considering the budget we had, and the schedule we had (yes, I know every game company says this) I am very proud of what we did. I also knew the game would be VERY solid performance and bug wise because it was our own tech.

On that note, some day when I am ready to leave the game industry for good I am going to spill the beans about all of the...experiences... I have had within the game industry. I'm a big believer that you will reap what you sow and there are some companies and people out there who have sowed the wind.

 

[Anthony Davis]

Regarding Alpha Protocol:

Why Thorton rather than Thornton, and were all of you pissed off by the fact that almost no reviewer, or game magazine, could get it right in their write-ups?

I don't know how many articles I read where they just called him Thornton, as if they had just ignored the name of the protagonist.

Ugh. We couldn't even keep his name straight inside Obsidian, so I guess I can't really blame anyone. Heck, I might even have it wrong.

 

[serch]

This last post actually proves that Davis is a Volournian alt.

PD: Dont ninja-edit the quotes

 

[Jaesun]

Any thoughts you could share with us on the new Onyx Engine?

Also could Onyx be used to say make a turn based D&D cRPG and come with player modding tools to make thier own games? BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE THE MOST AWESOME THING IN THE WORLD. Just FYI.

Though I don't think any Publisher is going to break down the doors of Obsidian begging to make such a game...

 

[ironyuri]

Choice and Consequence - there are several choices you can make the change the outcome of the story and the characters within it. On a side note, I wish we could have released George Zeit's source book he wrote for the World of Ehb. It was an amazing read.

RPG Systems: you can build your character in different ways, though I feel this takes a lot of work to see any real difference. I know that Matt Maclean and some of the guys in QA were able to build wildly divergent classes. For example, Matt's Wind Shear Guardian was pretty OP.

On that note. What personalities have George Ziets and MattMcLean? There really aren't many interviews with Ziets around and I get a very "shy" vibe from him. Nathaniel Chapman on the other hand seems as nerdy as you can get.

Also how did you personally like DSIII? Are you proud of the "nearly bug free" Obsidian game accomplishment?

George gives off a very focused vibe. He is an extremely talented writer, and while quiet, he is always been accessible, and amicable.

Matt Maclean is a bit of a conundrum wrapped in a beard. He takes pride in being a cranky curmudgeon, but he hides both his heart of gold and his fist of death behind his beard. He is a superior technical designer who is not afraid of numbers.

Nathaniel Chapman is a nerd's nerd. He is like a limitless sponge for gaming knowledge and design. I think he has played every single game out there. I like how he can identify key aspects of other game designs and explain why they are key or why they are broken.


As for DS3, considering the budget we had, and the schedule we had (yes, I know every game company says this) I am very proud of what we did. I also knew the game would be VERY solid performance and bug wise because it was our own tech.

On that note, some day when I am ready to leave the game industry for good I am going to spill the beans about all of the...experiences... I have had within the game industry. I'm a big believer that you will reap what you sow and there are some companies and people out there who have sowed the wind.

Somewhere, in a decrepit tower block in Vilnius, a telephone rings.
"It's Riccitiello. I have a job for you. Anthony Davis. Texas. Make sure it looks like an accident."
"Half up front, half when the job is done. You won't reach this number again."

Somewhere in Texas, a man begins his final hours.

 

[Icewater]

On that note, some day when I am ready to leave the game industry for good I am going to spill the beans about all of the...experiences... I have had within the game industry. I'm a big believer that you will reap what you sow and there are some companies and people out there who have sowed the wind.

Mind sharing any of the more tame experiences?

Anyway, the fact that you tell us you have tons of dirt to drop pretty much confirms that a lot of the shit we hear about the games industry being a horrible place to work is true even if you don't go into specifics.

 

[crufty]

I think what I like is are story driven single player war games

 

[IronicNeurotic]

As for DS3, considering the budget we had, and the schedule we had (yes, I know every game company says this) I am very proud of what we did. I also knew the game would be VERY solid performance and bug wise because it was our own tech.

So, would you name the 800'000 sold as a positive result? Or to be more specific do Square and Obsidian still have a positive relationship? (And on that note Bethesda) Obsidian isn't really known for long-term publisher relationships.

Of course I understand if you can't answer these questions. Be as vague as you want to be if it means "answering" them, of course^^

 

[grotsnik]

Eh, I don't think it's pedantic. I think I get what you are saying and I get the example. So, to add an example, you would consider Lucas the Guardian a part, and Michael Thorton a role.

Well, not exactly. More that you're taking on the part of the character (as you said, taking on history and opinions and backstory and so on) - but the character's the one playing the role. The role-playing is not derived from me, the player, being in the shoes of Colonel Badass, no matter how well-drawn,, storied and three-dimensional Colonel Badass may be, but by Colonel Badass having a particular role (chosen by the player out of a number of possible roles) to play within the game - made up of unique functions that shape the way the game is played and how challenges are overcome, whether that be a diplomatic thief, a hacking expert, a supportive healer, and so on, and so on.

And, I guess, you'd then want to gauge 'RPG'-ness on some combination of the variety and number of these functions, and how much influence they have on how the game's played.

On that note, some day when I am ready to leave the game industry for good I am going to spill the beans about all of the...experiences... I have had within the game industry. I'm a big believer that you will reap what you sow and there are some companies and people out there who have sowed the wind.

Oh, you coquette, you.

 

[Anthony Davis]

Choice and Consequence - there are several choices you can make the change the outcome of the story and the characters within it. On a side note, I wish we could have released George Zeit's source book he wrote for the World of Ehb. It was an amazing read.

RPG Systems: you can build your character in different ways, though I feel this takes a lot of work to see any real difference. I know that Matt Maclean and some of the guys in QA were able to build wildly divergent classes. For example, Matt's Wind Shear Guardian was pretty OP.

On that note. What personalities have George Ziets and MattMcLean? There really aren't many interviews with Ziets around and I get a very "shy" vibe from him. Nathaniel Chapman on the other hand seems as nerdy as you can get.

Also how did you personally like DSIII? Are you proud of the "nearly bug free" Obsidian game accomplishment?

George gives off a very focused vibe. He is an extremely talented writer, and while quiet, he is always been accessible, and amicable.

Matt Maclean is a bit of a conundrum wrapped in a beard. He takes pride in being a cranky curmudgeon, but he hides both his heart of gold and his fist of death behind his beard. He is a superior technical designer who is not afraid of numbers.

Nathaniel Chapman is a nerd's nerd. He is like a limitless sponge for gaming knowledge and design. I think he has played every single game out there. I like how he can identify key aspects of other game designs and explain why they are key or why they are broken.


As for DS3, considering the budget we had, and the schedule we had (yes, I know every game company says this) I am very proud of what we did. I also knew the game would be VERY solid performance and bug wise because it was our own tech.

On that note, some day when I am ready to leave the game industry for good I am going to spill the beans about all of the...experiences... I have had within the game industry. I'm a big believer that you will reap what you sow and there are some companies and people out there who have sowed the wind.

Somewhere, in a decrepit tower block in Vilnius, a telephone rings.
"It's Riccitiello. I have a job for you. Anthony Davis. Texas. Make sure it looks like an accident."
"Half up front, half when the job is done. You won't reach this number again."

Somewhere in Texas, a man begins his final hours.

Hahahaha, see this is how I'm going to retire, build hype for my autobiography that is still 30 years away.

Hold on, there's the doorbell.