Anthony Davis leaving Obsidian

[Roguey]

I'd be more interested if the "critical acclaim" paid off for OE and if it's become easier to get decent contracts. Or if publishers are now more inclined to let OE do their thing without interfering too much.

http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/228754290368346572

(Assuming the apologists are right and the publishers are responsible for most of the shittyness in OE games. And comments like being "proud" of DS3 make me disinclined to believe that.)

Anyone who isn't blinded by fanboyism/antifanboyism would realize it's an even split. Bad direction and bad execution.

I might be confused here, but did glorious MCA not state that Obsidian did get a small cut in sales from FO:NV ? I will try to find the quote.

NWN2, not NV.

 

[Shannow]

I'd be more interested if the "critical acclaim" paid off for OE and if it's become easier to get decent contracts. Or if publishers are now more inclined to let OE do their thing without interfering too much.

http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/228754290368346572

That's not really specific, is it

 

[IronicNeurotic]

I don't care if you liked DS3 or not, but it most assuredly was a success.

I know how much Square shelled out to Obsidian to make the game, and even if they spent that exact same amount on marketing, which I doubt, the game still made multi-millions for Square.

Good to know. I'm one of the few people here that really liked DSIII so congratulations to you.

 

[Lgrayman]

This is a great thread and everything the Codex can be when it decides to sit up straight and stop acting retarded for awhile.

Good luck with everything, Anthony.

 

[villain of the story]

I thought Colonial Marines was already finished. It was even pushed back by Squirt Enix's initiative. So what capacity will you be working on A:CM at?

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

We already have a genre called action games. Or even arcade.

 

[curry]

you scared him away

 

[Anthony Davis]

I thought Colonial Marines was already finished. It was even pushed back by Squirt Enix's initiative. So what capacity will you be working on A:CM at?

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

We already have a genre called action games. Or even arcade.

At TimeGate I will be a Senior Programmer focusing on UI and Gameplay. However, like most game development companies I imagine, there will be tons of opportunity to do lots of different things.



Regarding action games - yes, that's true but I was thinking more along the lines of I don't need a skill parameter to pick locks in FO3, FO:NV, Skyrim, or Thi3f. The skill parameter there just exists to limit what I am allowed to pick, except for Skyrim where I can pick expert and adept locks right out of the gate.

I also don't need a stat or a skill to make headshots in Deus Ex or Deus Ex: HR, or FO:NV.

I am sure that we would agree that FO:NV, Skyrim, Deus Ex, and Deus Ex:HR are all RPGs.

 

[Anthony Davis]

you scared him away

Nah, not yet - though I'm sure that's coming.

Just moving to a new state, even if it's one I know, takes a lot of time and work. Plus, these mountains in Skyrim aren't going to hike themselves.

 

[Phelot]

I am sure that we would agree that FO:NV, Skyrim, Deus Ex, and Deus Ex:HR are all RPGs.

You just caused a lot of butthurt with this statement. Expect a massive tide of anger any minute now.


EDIT:

While I'm at it, do you think that a game calling itself an RPG is good enough or do you think it also has to "prove it" so to speak. Personally, I'm all for a game calling itself whatever it wants, but many disagree with this.

 

[villain of the story]

I also don't need a stat or a skill to make headshots in Deus Ex or Deus Ex: HR, or FO:NV.

I am sure that we would agree that FO:NV, Skyrim, Deus Ex, and Deus Ex:HR are all RPGs.

They aren't RPGs because of straight First Person Shooter mechanics. They are RPGs despite First Person Shooter mechanics. They are RPGs because they come with other stuff that are staple of RPGs. You think RPGs go great with straight action elements, that's fine. Don't take one for the other, though.

 

[Shannow]

Regarding action games - yes, that's true but I was thinking more along the lines of I don't need a skill parameter to pick locks in FO3, FO:NV, Skyrim, or Thi3f. The skill parameter there just exists to limit what I am allowed to pick, except for Skyrim where I can pick expert and adept locks right out of the gate.

That's major problem I have with FO3. It's also where I'd draw the line between action-adventure and RPG.
1. In an action adventure you can have most components of an RPG, but decisions just open or close certain avenues: c&c (not only story/dialogue wise but also skill wise).
2. In an RPG higher skill should not only equate to more options but also to the ease with which actions can be done.

And the lock-picking in FO3(NV) was an example how not to do it RPG-wise (and if you want to stay faithful to FO). I didn't mind the mini-game itself, but the "sweet spots" were plain bad design. In an action-adventure where you only have 3-5 ranks of lock-picking it's ok if certain locks require certain ranks, in an RPG, where every change on a scale of 100 (or more) should make a difference in your chances, it's stupid. In addition to that higher lock-picking skill actually makes locks harder to pick, since higher skill opens up higher level locks can be tried and they're more difficult in the mini-game than the lower level ones. It's conter intuitive.
You should have been able to attempt to pick any lock. Only with the difficulty depending on the difficulty of the lock in relation to your skill. And if the difference between the difficulty and your skill is >50 it should auto open without mini-game. (And before somebody comes whining that somebody with very high player skill could conceivably open even the most difficult locks with only one point in lock-picking, that's one of the problems of going action-"RPG". It's not like we asked for FO to be raped.)

 

[Jaesun]

So basically villain of the story fails at understanding basic cRPG mechanics.

Shocking.

 

[villain of the story]

A Real Time Strategy game is a game in which you make strategic choices in real-time, therefore almost any game is in fact a Real-Time Strategy game and any choice in a game can be strategic.

An Adventure game is a game in which you have an adventure, therefore almost any game is in fact an Adventure game and anything can be an adventure in a game.

A Racing game is a game in which you have races, therefore almost any game can in fact be a Racing game because sometimes you can be racing for your life eg. running away from enemies like you do in Assassin's Creed.

Long established context-dependent genre terminology? Pfff, who gives a fuck! Go back to 90s, old fart, this is 21s century, the next-gen. You just have to learn to move on with times and accept things as they are and not get stuck in obsolete and constrictive words.

Now excuse me while I go back to playing my latest favourite Real-Time Strategy Racing Action Adventure Puzzle game, Skyrim. Oh, I think it might also be a Role-Playing Game because you are playing the role of dragonborn. Yes, that must be it, I'm sure of it. You can also aim at your targets' heads to attack and therefore perform headshots, just like those examples Anthony Davis gave, so there's no question of this.

 

[Anthony Davis]

I am sure that we would agree that FO:NV, Skyrim, Deus Ex, and Deus Ex:HR are all RPGs.

You just caused a lot of butthurt with this statement. Expect a massive tide of anger any minute now.


EDIT:

While I'm at it, do you think that a game calling itself an RPG is good enough or do you think it also has to "prove it" so to speak. Personally, I'm all for a game calling itself whatever it wants, but many disagree with this.

I guess to answer your question directly, I don't pay too much attention to what a game calls itself. I feel like I've reached a point where the buzzwords don't have real meaning for me because most games have what I call light weight rpg game mechanics. Some are VERY light weight.

The most important thing for me when I sit down to play a video game is how much fun it is. I usually find RPGs to be the most fun because I enjoy RPG mechanics.

Sometimes I enjoy making the most optimal build I can. This is usually how I play Fallouts, or Bethesda games. Once I pick a build concept, I try to make it the most optimal I can for that concept. This can be fun for me.

Sometimes I enjoy role-playing a character or a group of characters regardless of whether they are optimal or not. If I am playing a game that can allow me to have fun and succeed with out being optimal, I will play that way. This is how I plan PnP DnD, and Darklands for example. In my current Darklands playthrough, I created a 60 some year old brainy scholar bythe name of Father Oswyn, named after a PnP DnD character of Josh's from our Pathfinder campaign.

The other reason I enjoy RPGs usually more than other genres is because I enjoy a compelling story. These days however, a compelling story is harder and harder to come by. It seems these days many game stories are either trite, or grim dark to the point of nihilism.

The last game story I think I really enjoyed that wasn't something Obsidian worked on was...man...

I remember being pleasantly surprised by Red Dead Redemption's story...

Let's see. Dark Souls doesn't really have a story, though I love the game.

Dragon Age 1 was ok I guess.

Does the story in Space Pirates and Zombies count?

 

[villain of the story]

So basically villain of the story fails at understanding basic cRPG mechanics.

Shocking.

Why would you say that?

 

[Anthony Davis]

A Real Time Strategy game is a game in which you make strategic choices in real-time, therefore almost any game is in fact a Real-Time Strategy game and any choice in a game can be strategic.

An Adventure game is a game in which you have an adventure, therefore almost any game is in fact an Adventure game and anything can be an adventure in a game.

A Racing game is a game in which you have races, therefore almost any game can in fact be a Racing game because sometimes you can be racing for your life eg. running away from enemies like you do in Assassin's Creed.

Long established context-dependent genre terminology? Pfff, who gives a fuck! Go back to 90s, old fart, this is 21s century, the next-gen. You just have to learn to move on with times and accept things as they are and not get stuck in obsolete and constrictive words.

Now excuse me while I go back to playing my latest favourite Real-Time Strategy Racing Action Adventure Puzzle game, Skyrim. Oh, I think it might also be a Role-Playing Game because you are playing the role of dragonborn. Yes, that must be it, I'm sure of it.

Just for the record, I don't think your opinion is invalid or anything. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer to this.

A little window into how my mind works, I categorize all games as resource management. Every. One. Some are obvious, like SimCity and the like, some are not. However if you look at all of them closely, that's all they really are.

In the same vein, most games to me are RPG games with FPS mechanics, or RTS mechanics, and yes, even RPG mechanics.

I guess I kind of feel like the boxes have all been squashed and torn apart and game bits are all over the place waiting to be picked up.

 

[Anthony Davis]

Regarding action games - yes, that's true but I was thinking more along the lines of I don't need a skill parameter to pick locks in FO3, FO:NV, Skyrim, or Thi3f. The skill parameter there just exists to limit what I am allowed to pick, except for Skyrim where I can pick expert and adept locks right out of the gate.

That's major problem I have with FO3. It's also where I'd draw the line between action-adventure and RPG.
1. In an action adventure you can have most components of an RPG, but decisions just open or close certain avenues: c&c (not only story/dialogue wise but also skill wise).
2. In an RPG higher skill should not only equate to more options but also to the ease with which actions can be done.

And the lock-picking in FO3(NV) was an example how not to do it RPG-wise (and if you want to stay faithful to FO). I didn't mind the mini-game itself, but the "sweet spots" were plain bad design. In an action-adventure where you only have 3-5 ranks of lock-picking it's ok if certain locks require certain ranks, in an RPG, where every change on a scale of 100 (or more) should make a difference in your chances, it's stupid. In addition to that higher lock-picking skill actually makes locks harder to pick, since higher skill opens up higher level locks can be tried and they're more difficult in the mini-game than the lower level ones. It's conter intuitive.
You should have been able to attempt to pick any lock. Only with the difficulty depending on the difficulty of the lock in relation to your skill. And if the difference between the difficulty and your skill is >50 it should auto open without mini-game. (And before somebody comes whining that somebody with very high player skill could conceivably open even the most difficult locks with only one point in lock-picking, that's one of the problems of going action-"RPG". It's not like we asked for FO to be raped.)

Originally cRPGs were attempts to capture the essence of a PnP RPG.

I guess it depends on whether you think a cRPG should still try to capture the essence of a PnP RPG. Some do, and do it well - like Darklands. Some do it poorly but bring an equally enjoyable experience that no PnP game can.


On an unrelated note, John Carpenter's Ghost of Mars is on instant streaming. Awesome.

 

[villain of the story]

I guess to answer your question directly, I don't pay too much attention to what a game calls itself. I feel like I've reached a point where the buzzwords don't have real meaning for me because most games have what I call light weight rpg game mechanics. Some are VERY light weight.

How can you even define what an RPG mechanic is and how any game can have light weight RPG mechanics when you think you don't need stats to limit your character for it to be an RPG? That nullifies the entire concept of "RPG mechanics".

It seems these days many game stories are either trite, or grim dark to the point of nihilism.

The last game story I think I really enjoyed that wasn't something Obsidian worked on was...man...

What do you think about DS3's story?

Also:

It seems these days many game stories are either trite, or grim dark to the point of nihilism. ... Dragon Age 1 was ok I guess.

lolwut. Is this the point where we should start dismissing your opinions based on objective inconsistency?

 

[Anthony Davis]

I guess to answer your question directly, I don't pay too much attention to what a game calls itself. I feel like I've reached a point where the buzzwords don't have real meaning for me because most games have what I call light weight rpg game mechanics. Some are VERY light weight.

How can you even define what an RPG mechanic is and how any game can have light weight RPG mechanics when you think you don't need stats to limit your character for it to be an RPG? That nullifies the entire concept of "RPG mechanics".

It seems these days many game stories are either trite, or grim dark to the point of nihilism.

The last game story I think I really enjoyed that wasn't something Obsidian worked on was...man...

What do you think about DS3's story?

Also:

It seems these days many game stories are either trite, or grim dark to the point of nihilism. ... Dragon Age 1 was ok I guess.

lolwut. Is this the point where we should start dismissing your opinions based on objective inconsistency?

What? I never said you don't need stats. Maybe I just wasn't clear. I'll try again.

The point I was trying to make was that, depending on the game, you don't need stats for everything because you can substitute player skill. For example, if FO:NV I don't need a Headshot Skill Chance because the game has FPS mechanics that allow me to use my own skill to aim for the Head.

But if I was playing FO1, which has an isometric perspective, there is no player skill to be had that can make headshots, so the game derives a chance to hit someone in the head based on my stats and skills.

Part of the complication is my fault I'm sure, I tend to be colloquial sometimes and specific at other times, and I'm not very consistent about it. For example, if I meet someone and they ask what kind of games do I like, I'll say "RPGs" because it is a simple and short way of describing what I like.

If I am getting into a discussion about specifics, I won't call the game an RPG, it would be more accurate for me to say I like games with RPG mechanics. I also appreciate games with RTS, TBS, and FPS mechanics. I enjoy games that combine those mechanics too when it makes the gameplay better.


It is hard for me to hold DS3's story apart from the Ehb Sourcebook, because I have read the WHOLE things. I don't think the story is the best work we have done, but I think it is ok.

As far as Dragon Age 1 goes, if you want to discount everything I say because you consider my subjective opinion an example of objective inconsistency... go crazy man.

 

[Jaesun]

Originally cRPGs were attempts to capture the essence of a PnP RPG.

That is still pretty much my definition of a cRPG.

 

[villain of the story]

A Real Time Strategy game is a game in which you make strategic choices in real-time, therefore almost any game is in fact a Real-Time Strategy game and any choice in a game can be strategic.

An Adventure game is a game in which you have an adventure, therefore almost any game is in fact an Adventure game and anything can be an adventure in a game.

A Racing game is a game in which you have races, therefore almost any game can in fact be a Racing game because sometimes you can be racing for your life eg. running away from enemies like you do in Assassin's Creed.

Long established context-dependent genre terminology? Pfff, who gives a fuck! Go back to 90s, old fart, this is 21s century, the next-gen. You just have to learn to move on with times and accept things as they are and not get stuck in obsolete and constrictive words.

Now excuse me while I go back to playing my latest favourite Real-Time Strategy Racing Action Adventure Puzzle game, Skyrim. Oh, I think it might also be a Role-Playing Game because you are playing the role of dragonborn. Yes, that must be it, I'm sure of it.

Just for the record, I don't think your opinion is invalid or anything. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer to this.

A little window into how my mind works, I categorize all games as resource management. Every. One. Some are obvious, like SimCity and the like, some are not. However if you look at all of them closely, that's all they really are.

In the same vein, most games to me are RPG games with FPS mechanics, or RTS mechanics, and yes, even RPG mechanics.

I guess I kind of feel like the boxes have all been squashed and torn apart and game bits are all over the place waiting to be picked up.

That's nice and cute, being open minded and all. Now will you please tell us what you tell publishers when you try to pitch an idea and say "we want to do this game, see?" and they ask you what kind of game it is?

 

[Phelot]

Long established context-dependent genre terminology? Pfff, who gives a fuck! Go back to 90s, old fart, this is 21s century, the next-gen. You just have to learn to move on with times and accept things as they are and not get stuck in obsolete and constrictive words.

Pretty much! All the butthurt over Skyrim (for example) daring to call itself an RPG is ridiculous and a pointless debate that this site nevertheless cannot get over and I simply will never understand how a game we don't like calling itself an RPG somehow detracts from the genre. It's as if we want to kid ourselves into believing that if Bethesda or Bioware or whoever else suddenly admits "Hey guys, we're frauds! These aren't really RPGs..." that we'll suddenly get all kinds of AAA turn based cRPGs again. It ain't gonna happen.

I guess to answer your question directly, I don't pay too much attention to what a game calls itself. I feel like I've reached a point where the buzzwords don't have real meaning for me because most games have what I call light weight rpg game mechanics. Some are VERY light weight.

The most important thing for me when I sit down to play a video game is how much fun it is. I usually find RPGs to be the most fun because I enjoy RPG mechanics.

Well said.

Originally cRPGs were attempts to capture the essence of a PnP RPG.

I guess it depends on whether you think a cRPG should still try to capture the essence of a PnP RPG.

We've discussed this before on this site. What is your opinion? Should cRPGs still try to emulate PnP? I mean... I guess at this point they don't even try to. Do you think it's even possible to completely "convert" so to speak a PnP game to a cRPG?

 

[Anthony Davis]

Originally cRPGs were attempts to capture the essence of a PnP RPG.

That is still pretty much my definition of a cRPG.

...and I enjoy those games immensely. Modern day versions of these games are hard to come by because most publishers have reams and reams of data that show they won't sell well, or well enough anyway.

Indie games and the mobile platforms are the best hope for them.


That's why I personally keep my D-Fend DosBox stacked to gills with older games. I just wish the older game controls weren't so cumbersome sometimes.

 

[Anthony Davis]

A Real Time Strategy game is a game in which you make strategic choices in real-time, therefore almost any game is in fact a Real-Time Strategy game and any choice in a game can be strategic.

An Adventure game is a game in which you have an adventure, therefore almost any game is in fact an Adventure game and anything can be an adventure in a game.

A Racing game is a game in which you have races, therefore almost any game can in fact be a Racing game because sometimes you can be racing for your life eg. running away from enemies like you do in Assassin's Creed.

Long established context-dependent genre terminology? Pfff, who gives a fuck! Go back to 90s, old fart, this is 21s century, the next-gen. You just have to learn to move on with times and accept things as they are and not get stuck in obsolete and constrictive words.

Now excuse me while I go back to playing my latest favourite Real-Time Strategy Racing Action Adventure Puzzle game, Skyrim. Oh, I think it might also be a Role-Playing Game because you are playing the role of dragonborn. Yes, that must be it, I'm sure of it.

Just for the record, I don't think your opinion is invalid or anything. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer to this.

A little window into how my mind works, I categorize all games as resource management. Every. One. Some are obvious, like SimCity and the like, some are not. However if you look at all of them closely, that's all they really are.

In the same vein, most games to me are RPG games with FPS mechanics, or RTS mechanics, and yes, even RPG mechanics.

I guess I kind of feel like the boxes have all been squashed and torn apart and game bits are all over the place waiting to be picked up.

That's nice and cute, being open minded and all. Now will you please tell us what you tell publishers when you try to pitch an idea and say "we want to do this game, see?" and they ask you what kind of game it is?

It's not always that simple I'm afraid.

Sometimes publishers come to Obsidian with a game they want us to make. Actually, I would say that is how it is MOST of the time. What publishers know is that Obsidian can deliver a well crafted story, and now with Onyx and DS3, they know we can deliver a rock solid game with very few bugs in it.

Any on going secret projects that Josh may or may not be the project director of, I can't talk about.


Let's see...

These are the games we pitched:
Alpha Protocol

That's it.

Now Atari, for example, might say make an expansion for NWN2. We would say ok, how about this? *shows GDD for MOTB*
Atari then says, great! Get to it!

Or Bethesda might say, we want you to make some DLC for FO:NV. We say Great! How about this? *shows GDD for DLC* Bethesda then says, great! Get to it!

 

[IronicNeurotic]

It is hard for me to hold DS3's story apart from the Ehb Sourcebook, because I have read the WHOLE things. I don't think the story is the best work we have done, but I think it is ok.

That has been my impression too just from ingame lore. If you actually get the context there is some pretty nuanced stuff there. I guess that approach was taken to not let the story get in the way of gameplay too much?

I think the Story on its own can keep up with (the story of) New Vegas/Alpha Protocol. Its not the greatest Obsidian has ever done but also not the worst. As far as story in Obsidian games goes it was probably the most consistent in quality all the way through.