Eternity Avowed - Obsidian's first person action-RPG in the Pillars of Eternity setting

[Jenkem]

Obsidian's redemption arc begins NOW.

 

[Delterius]

Is The Outer Worlds as deep as an ocean?

I really like this question. I suppose it's clear that Outer Worlds is not as wide as an ocean, and that it's also deeper than a puddle. For what it's worth, while many complain that TOW was disappointing to due it's limited scope, I felt the problem with TOW was qualitative in nature. I felt like I was neither in an ocean nor a puddle, but an enclosed beach. And the real problem is how there weren't any waves to play with. I felt that plot failed to live up to the premise of TOW. But some of the scattered journals you find offered a glimpse of something better.

The very first zone has this interesting backstory to it. From what I remember at least. It was originally meant to be a self sustaining colony. Except the soil was atrocious for agriculture, so it transitioned into becoming an industrial hub for inputs from other colonies. Once the corporate coup / revolution happened on Monarch, it began to decline. It didn't have to. Sure, the local fish were atrocious for Edgewater's food industries. But there were plenty of people in the corporate hierarchy with ideas as to make a better product in spite of what they had to work with. It's only that the corporate culture was so toxic and short-termist that any ideas brought forward were responded to with demotion. As in, 'you're not paid to come up with better flavors of tuna and besides we are part of an oligopoly so we aren't competing with ourselves with different choices'. By the end of the colony's shelf life, Edgewater's middle managers had sabotaged their own equipment and sued each other's department for insurance claims. Downsizing and corporate cannibalism was their only recourse in face of their own lack of creativity.

I find that at least the idea of the chronic/comical mismanagement of Halcyon to be more interesting than the game's actual plot. And I notice this pattern of living through the consequences of that mismanagement, rather than witnessing the office politics gone mad in first hand. TOW in some ways is a game about the provincial concerns of Rome's ruin dwellers, and the failson generations that manage its remnants. Meanwhile I was teased with stories of Rome's collapse all throught the game. Monarch's coup is another good example. It arguably only happened because the three leaders of the coup were middle managers who were themselves mismanaged. The guy who was by the books and good with numbers was chided for not being charismatic and imaginative. The guy who was charismatic and imaginative was chided for flounting the rules too often. The woman who was a good leader was never put in a position of authority. Everyone in Halcyon who's good for a job is frozen at a position they are bad at, contributing to a systemic lack of creativity in every department. This doomed the colony once it's main settlement failed because all plans were laid down assuming Monarch's terraforming would be a success. It wasn't. It was all dominoes from there and I never got to see them fall.

 

[duskvile]

I've worked on games in which it takes hours to walk from one side of town to the other. Many popular, award-winning RPGs boast of hundreds of generic towns and randomly generated quests. The shallow simulation of huge environments isn't a good thing. Providing dialogue for scads of NPCs means none of them has anything interesting to say. Creating an entire country means any single building will be devoid of useful objects. It's a matter of time and storage space, and no amount of whack-on-the-side-of-the-head thinking allows you to finesse your way around the problems. Limit the size of your world. Provide several smaller maps. Increase the density of interaction. This accomplishes several goals:

• Players can explore without searching for something exciting to do. Aimless wandering is the enemy of fun.
• Developers can populate the world more densely with characters, objects, and quests, and give the illusion of a place with a life of its own.
• Developers can create more varied locations than in a sprawling world. This last point is critical, and most RPGs do this well. However, most RPGs feature wacky environments straight out of designers' fevered imaginations.

I would like they incorporate smaller maps with linear progression and more verticality filled with interesting storylines and few side quests. In some maps you can find secret passageways to previous maps.

 

[gabe1010]

If you want a high density of interactions on a small map(s) only, just save us the trouble altogether and make a linear story campaign.

Having an all-or-nothing attitude about this is bizarre. No one would want a linear Fallout.

Are you/Spector really advocating for level scaling?

No, it's about having a better-balanced difficulty curve.

Is The Outer Worlds as deep as an ocean? Where would you put Morrowind, for example, along that spectrum? What is the relationship of width/depth/puddle/ocean to the hub vs open world comparison? Morrowind is deep and TOW is shallow, so where does that leave us?

I haven't played TOW yet but it seems to be deeper in ways that Morrowind isn't, different focuses. I would not describe Morrowind's encyclopedia NPCs as deep for example.

There's no all or nothing attitude. When did I suggest a linear Fallout? you have completely misunderstood me. Earlier Bethesda games, as contrasted with TOW, managed to both have a high density of content in some areas, and believable open worlds. If you don't care about an open world or traveling in real time and are fine with fast travel between levels, then there is something to be said for just doing a linear story and not a compromise.

What does a balanced difficulty curve have to do with a believable open world? What satisfaction is there in learning the ins and outs of a world and advancing enough to conquer the more difficult areas, if it's being scaled to you? In Morrowind, you can stick around Seyda Neen for 15 hours, or run straight up the hill into the most difficult area of the game, and that makes it feel more real. Again, it's about the immersion of an open world, not some action game-like smooth, balanced difficulty curve to keep people mindlessly zoned out.

You haven't played TOW...? Wha...why did you reply to this?

 

[luj1]

haven't played TOW yet but it seems to be deeper in ways that Morrowind isn'

ahahaha

 

[scytheavatar]

TOW was mostly made during Obsidian's days pre Microsoft buyout. It was marketed as a space Fallout but was always meant to be a AA game of way smaller scale than Bethesda's Fallout. But we all know that Obsidian was broke after Deadfire bombed and even making a AA game was challenging for them. Because of that TOW ended up feeling more like a long tech demo than a proper game.

Now that Obsidian has Microsoft cash I do expect Avowed to be of larger scale than TOW. Though of course it's still going to end up looking like shit versus Skyrim. But this whole denser smaller scale Skyrim has already been done successful by the Gothic games like decades ago and I am not sure why it can't work.

 

[Takamori]

Obsidian's redemption arc begins NOW.

I know you are shitposting but with Carrie Patel as narrative design?

 

[Reinhardt]

fun

 

[AwesomeButton]

TOW was mostly made during Obsidian's days pre Microsoft buyout. It was marketed as a space Fallout but was always meant to be a AA game of way smaller scale than Bethesda's Fallout. But we all know that Obsidian was broke after Deadfire bombed and even making a AA game was challenging for them. Because of that TOW ended up feeling more like a long tech demo than a proper game.

Now that Obsidian has Microsoft cash I do expect Avowed to be of larger scale than TOW. Though of course it's still going to end up looking like shit versus Skyrim. But this whole denser smaller scale Skyrim has already been done successful by the Gothic games like decades ago and I am not sure why it can't work.

I wish that was so, but while Obsidian *may* have cash (I don't have evidence of that), it certainly doesn't have the talent any more.

 

[Kem0sabe]

More money doesn't equal more talent. If the same developers, artists and writers are still at Obsidian, then its likely that they will produce the same quality of work as previously shown in TOW, PoE 1&2, Pentiment.

Obsidian, inxile and doublefine are just there to produce filler for gamepass. They are the Hallmark Christmas movies of game development.

 

[Roguey]

There's no all or nothing attitude. When did I suggest a linear Fallout?

When you suggested the hub and spoke model should be abandoned in favor of nothing but linear games or open world. (though Fallout is technically point to point)

You haven't played TOW...? Wha...why did you reply to this?

Because you made a general statement against the hub and spoke model.

 

[sebas]

TOW? I have played that game for over 35.3 hours according Steam and I can not for the life of me remember anything about it. I recall a Companion was a mechanic chick and the leadership skill was great for companions - that's it. By that measure, it's shittier than Hellgate:London

 

[luj1]

TOW ended up feeling more like a long tech demo than a proper game.

Now that Obsidian has Microsoft cash I do expect Avowed to be of larger scale than TOW

dont be foolish sheep

They said its gonna be of the same scale as TOW

Though of course it's still going to end up looking like shit versus Skyrim

wtf u talking? Skyrim is a massive algorithmic shit. Its not a bar for anything

 

[thesecret1]

TOW's the only game I've ever played that I actually had trouble staying awake with. No other game has made me physically tired the more I played.

 

[Dishonoredbr]

Who cares about Avowed. Where's Alpha Protocol 2.

 

[gabe1010]

There's no all or nothing attitude. When did I suggest a linear Fallout?

When you suggested the hub and spoke model should be abandoned in favor of nothing but linear games or open world. (though Fallout is technically point to point)

You haven't played TOW...? Wha...why did you reply to this?

Because you made a general statement against the hub and spoke model.

This discussion is in the context of Open World RPGs, and comparing hub worlds vs genuinely open worlds in that context, specifically comparing Bethesda open world games with Obsidian games that previously used Bethesda's engine, but now don't. It is not some general commentary on hub worlds. Whether hub worlds work for immersive sims or looter shooters or distinct types of action oriented RPGs, maybe Dark Souls say, is not what is being discussed. The fact you think it was a "general statement against the hub and spoke model" betrays that you did not read the whole post and are not on topic.

 

[Roguey]

This discussion is in the context of Open World RPGs, and comparing hub worlds vs genuinely open worlds in that context, specifically comparing Bethesda open world games with Obsidian games that previously used Bethesda's engine, but now don't. It is not some general commentary on hub worlds. Whether hub worlds work for immersive sims or looter shooters or distinct types of action oriented RPGs, maybe Dark Souls say, is not what is being discussed. The fact you think it was a "general statement against the hub and spoke model" betrays that you did not read the whole post and are not on topic.

Yeah, I read your post. The Outer Worlds wasn't New Vegas nor was it trying to be New Vegas. Avowed tried to be Skyrim, failed, and now it's going to be fantasy Outer Worlds.

There's just no excuse for how limited TOW is, and how limited Avowed will allegedly be.

^ This is wrong.

 

[Riddler]

TOW ended up feeling more like a long tech demo than a proper game.

Now that Obsidian has Microsoft cash I do expect Avowed to be of larger scale than TOW

dont be foolish sheep

They said its gonna be of the same scale as TOW

Then where the fuck is the game? The previous one was released 4 years ago and we know development on the sequel was started immediately after and we haven't heard anything about the game except that it's in development, I'd be surprised if it's even released next year, putting the development time at probably some 6 years... For smallish game made by a relatively large studio when the previous game (that they're most likely reusing tech and design from) took about 3 years to develop...

This is insane.

 

[KVVRR]

The Outer Worlds wasn't New Vegas nor was it trying to be New Vegas

I don't know about that. At least from a gameplay system it sure did seem like they really tried to imitate the bethesda style of gameplay combat, going as far as to add NotVATS. Dialogue system is about the same, same with how the companions behave/their personal quests from what I can recall, anyways.
At the very very least the marketing was 100% trying to fool people into thinking it'd be New Vegas 2. You don't just say "From the creators of Fallout AND Fallout new vegas!!" while showing how it's all about your choices if you're not trying to pander to that crowd, and the timing with 76's release/announcement just helped solidify this even more -although that really just was good luck on their part.

 

[gabe1010]

This discussion is in the context of Open World RPGs, and comparing hub worlds vs genuinely open worlds in that context, specifically comparing Bethesda open world games with Obsidian games that previously used Bethesda's engine, but now don't. It is not some general commentary on hub worlds. Whether hub worlds work for immersive sims or looter shooters or distinct types of action oriented RPGs, maybe Dark Souls say, is not what is being discussed. The fact you think it was a "general statement against the hub and spoke model" betrays that you did not read the whole post and are not on topic.

Yeah, I read your post. The Outer Worlds wasn't New Vegas nor was it trying to be New Vegas. Avowed tried to be Skyrim, failed, and now it's going to be fantasy Outer Worlds

It was definitely trying to be New Vegas, or at least ride its coattails:

https://kotaku.com/fallout-firefly-the-outer-worlds-obsidian-tim-cain-1850606308
https://www.tweaktown.com/news/9220...d-pitched-as-fallout-meets-firefly/index.html
https://www.thegamer.com/the-outer-worlds-hopeful-dystopia-interview/

and as another poster mentioned, look at the marketing material. Anyway, my point is that this kind of Open World RPG is overwhelmingly better as an actual open world and not a fake one, regardless of whether other genres might benefit from hub worlds, or whether or not Outer Worlds was trying to be New Vegas. Look around at what the main complaint about Starfield is, for example:

pcgamer:

Starfield is built for fast travel. You will not be going on some grand space adventure or jetting off to new worlds—you hit a button and end up at your destination. In games as big as this, a fast travel option is a necessity, but unlike previous Bethesda RPGs, it's not optional. It's the only way to get around....I hardly feel like I have to move at all, allowing everything I want to just come to me. Not only does this make Starfield feel weirdly tiny, it completely unravels one of its central conceits: that space is impossibly huge and incredible and absolutely needs to be explored.

"completely unravels one of its central conceits..."
https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/starfield-review-to-infinity-but-not-beyond/1900-6418110/

Presumably for convenience's sake, trekking across the galaxy is relegated to strings of fast travel points. You pull up your starmap, chart the course, jump to a planet's low orbit, then select largely predetermined landing points on the surface. There's a lack of seamlessness since each step in the process is broken into multiple steps where you're mostly pulling up menus, watching short scene transitions, and sitting through loading screens. It's worth noting that you don't actually fly to planets in real-time, and flying in space is sort of an instanced bubble with nearby planets in the background. All this creates the feeling that Starfield's universe is rather small and, very quickly, I'd treat planets as a collection of fast-travel points, disjointed stand-ins for individual towns or cities.

"creates the feeling that Starfield's universe is rather small..."
https://www.ign.com/articles/starfield-review

Put another way, while you can walk across an Elder Scrolls or Fallout world without ever fast-traveling, in Starfield you can’t go anywhere without fast-traveling...When I discovered that so much of space flight is effectively a series of non-interactive cutscenes, it largely shattered the illusion of exploring a vast universe.

"largely shattered the illusion of exploring a vast universe..."
Bethesda-like RPGs are appealing because of the immersion in a genuinely open world. All the rest of it, the quests and lore and wiring and gameplay and UI and RPG elements are all, by comparison, pretty mediocre. The appeal of them, that they have over any other game, is the true feeling of being in a real-feeling, fictional world. Once they abandoned that like with Starfield, all that's left is a mediocre shooter, mediocre RPG, and mediocre space sim that can't compete with titles that are dedicated to those specific experiences.

There's just no excuse for how limited TOW is, and how limited Avowed will allegedly be.

^ This is wrong.

Ok, so what's the excuse then? They tried to do an open world skyrim-like, and for some internal reason failed, and are now reverting to making it a medieval/fantasy mod of TOW with hubs and fast travel and constant loading screens and big cliffs between areas even within a hub so you are always on or just off a road (you can see that in the avowed trailer even). They knew a skyrim-like genuinely open world was better and more appealing for this game type, so they started out with that, and only abandoned it once they realized...what exactly? what was their excuse for abandoning an open world other than that they lacked the engineering talent? Something about "tighter narrative design"? Seems like cope.
https://www.pcgamer.com/avowed-open-world-skyrim-rpg-size//

"We could go off and create an 8km x 8km open world and then deal with all the consequences of that—because that makes it a different style game. But we want to tell more confined stories that the player can experience with their companions, and then move from part of the world to part of the world. And, like I said, in the end, that's us."

a whole article of copium.

 

[Roguey]

I don't know about that. At least from a gameplay system it sure did seem like they really tried to imitate the bethesda style of gameplay combat, going as far as to add NotVATS. Dialogue system is about the same, same with how the companions behave/their personal quests from what I can recall, anyways.

It was definitely trying to be New Vegas, or at least ride its coattails:

https://af.gog.com/news/the_outer_w...r_take_themselves_too_seriously?as=1649904300

Tim Cain: Three of the biggest sources of inspiration for this game were Firefly, Fallout, and Futurama

https://www.pcgamer.com/how-tim-cai...de-it-into-the-outer-worlds-as-an-easter-egg/

"This is the form of a game I love to play," he says. "It's not necessarily open world, because we get tighter control over what kind of narrative we tell. Hub and spoke, is what a lot of people call it. First-person gives us a cool immersion. I know Leonard mentioned once years ago that we had already planned to take Fallout first person after Fallout 2.

This is an evolution of the original Fallout, much like Bloodlines was, not a derivative of a pretender.

Ok, so what's the excuse then?

No one can go from 0 to Skyrim. You need to build up the codebase, which means starting with a scope comparable to Morrowind. They have opted to have mini-open areas instead of confining the world to one Morrowind-sized space which only feels as large as it is because even the running speed is a slow crawl (Oblivion's walking speed is faster than Morrowind's run). TES games are also the way they are because they neglect the things Obsidian focuses on in favor of their hiking gameplay. Obsidian abandoning what they're known for to make an awkward Beth-clone would be daft.

 

[gabe1010]

So Fallout, along with some other IPs, are the thematic inspiration for TOW, ok...what does that have to do with the current discussion about the open vs hub world mechanics?

Cain thought hub and spoke would improve the narrative control...it did not, and that excuse, again, sounds like cope. He instead ended up with a game with much looser narrative control than dedicated linear campaigns like Halo:CE, and no immersion or world building type environmental narrative like FNV. TOW is and was widely panned as mediocre, and for good reason; it is the worst rather than the best of both worlds. It absolutely tried to be a similar genre to Fallout NV, and failed hard for, among other reasons, its video-gamey hub world. The kind of emergent, difficult to quantify, je ne sais quoi of immersive open world games is fully dependent on having an actual open world. As soon as that is abandoned, you are now competing with other linear or quasi-linear experiences with better gameplay and graphics, tighter narratives, and more in depth focus on their specific genre (first person shooters, immersive sims, etc...). TOW sucked in large part because it wasn't an open world, and Avowed will suck for the same reason.

Ok, so what's the excuse then?

No one can go from 0 to Skyrim. You need to build up the codebase, which means starting with a scope comparable to Morrowind. They have opted to have mini-open areas instead of confining the world to one Morrowind-sized space which only feels as large as it is because even the running speed is a slow crawl (Oblivion's walking speed is faster than Morrowind's run). TES games are also the way they are because they neglect the things Obsidian focuses on in favor of their hiking gameplay. Obsidian abandoning what they're known for to make an awkward Beth-clone would be daft.

Morrowind was made by like thirty people, about a dozen of whom were programmers, and released in 2002, in an engine they had not used for their previous games, and has a better and more believable and more open world than TOW, a game released in 2019 by more than 50 people in a much more advanced engine that already had open world tools out of the box. Literally no excuse.

https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Morrowind:Development_Team

You can get fast run speed within a few hours of starting a new Morrowind playthrough, and can leap and fly across the map within a few days of starting, and yet the world still feels large, alive, and real because it is dense with content and genuinely open.

How would it be Obsidian abandoning what they are known for to make an open world game like FNV, the title they are known for?

 

[KVVRR]

The tone of the game is more OG fallout than new vegas, sure. But the actual game plays more like new vegas than the original fallout, and you don't just do that by accident.

 

[Ismaul]

Avowed tried to be Skyrim, failed

It already failed before release? lol

I mean aside from trying to be Skyrim being a fail by virtue of what Skyrim is in itself...

 

[gabe1010]

Avowed tried to be Skyrim, failed

It already failed before release? lol

I mean aside from trying to be Skyrim being a fail by virtue of what Skyrim is in itself...

I think in this case what they are referring to is that initially, Obsidian tried to make a real open world skyrim-alike RPG, couldn't for some reason, so "failed", then development slowed or even paused, and was later rebooted to go in another direction. This is also probably why the initial teaser trailer years ago had a grim-dark, awesome-looking, gritty, serious fantasy vibe, and the latest gameplay trailer looks like fucking fortnite.