Interview Chris Avellone talks about cancelled games of the past and possibilities for the future at Eurogamer

[Rake]

In before what is a crpg...

A game marketed as such. Full stop. Anything else is an exercise in futility.(and madness)

 

[General Maxson]

In before what is a crpg...

A game marketed as such. Full stop. Anything else is an exercise in futility.(and madness)

Well Bioware markets their games as rpgs. Bethesda also. I don't think they really are. More of 3rd/1st person action games (and exploration in Bethesda's case) with rpg elements.

 

[Lancehead]

First-person is good for exploration, item interaction, and allows many possibilities for free-form problem solving. Levitation, for example.

First, I said "quite suited to", not "more suited to". Second, I haven't given much thought to whether Arcanum would be better in first-person or isometric, but obviously it depends on what you consider makes the Arcanum experience. I have listed my take on it (the setting, the open character system, and the free-form problem solving), and I don't see any reason why first-person would be disadvantageous for them. Would you mind expounding on how first-person would handicap any of the three qualities I mentioned?

Are we talking about TES or Arcanum? o_O I mean like iso games don't have good exploration and it's a strong suite of FP only? Item interaction also... Arcanum had great item interaction options (ideas were nice, but the execution flawed). Unless you mean something else? What's advantageous to have movable furniture like TES games have in a game like Arcanum? No TES game capitalised on item interaction in any meaningful way, unless you mean putting buckets on people's head is meaningful. Only levitation had interesting effect of being able to reach some treasures in older TES games (and I don't consider that such an important aspect of crpgs - loot collection). And I don't think that's paramount to games such as Arcanum. Only reason to use FP really is obviously player "immersion". And that is decline. I can "immerse" myself just fine in iso, thank you very much. Again I don't understand what free form problem solving means and can you give me an example of FP rpg that does it, and why iso couldn't do it? Does open character system mean you level up skills by using them FP like TES games? And I know more iso crpgs with better settings than I do FP ones.

You demonstrate a failure of basic reading comprehension. But I'll try and clear some ludicrous misrepresentations and mistakes.

Are we talking about TES or Arcanum? o_O

Arcanum.

I mean like iso games don't have good exploration and it's a strong suite of FP only?

And where did I claim or imply that?

What's advantageous to have movable furniture like TES games have in a game like Arcanum?

You never moved items in Arcanum? You can pick up any item (provided ST is enough) and throw it like you would throw a grenade.

No TES game capitalised on item interaction in any meaningful way, unless you mean putting buckets on people's head is meaningful.

Why is TES in your head when I talk about Arcanum?

Only levitation had interesting effect of being able to reach some treasures in older TES games (and I don't consider that such an important aspect of crpgs - loot collection).

Levitation has many more uses than loot collection. If you can imagine being able to reach some treasures, why is it hard for you to also imagine deploying that effect to your advantage in combat? Or in accessing hard-to-reach places? Or in undertaking covert operations?

Only reason to use FP really is obviously player "immersion". And that is decline. I can "immerse" myself just fine in iso, thank you very much.

You can provide better arguments if you stop assuming others' intentions and start properly reading what they actually wrote.

Again I don't understand what free form problem solving means and can you give me an example of FP rpg that does it,

Free-form problem solving means solutions that are devised through mechanics rather than scripting. Examples of FPP RPGs include Deus Ex and Morrowind. New Vegas also, to an extent.

and why iso couldn't do it?

Again, where did I claim or imply that?

Does open character system mean you level up skills by using them FP like TES games?

No, it doesn't. Why would it?

And I know more iso crpgs with better settings than I do FP ones.

How is this in any way relevant to what I asked? I did not inquire whether FPP games have better settings than isometric or vice versa. I asked how FPP would handicap Arcanum's setting. It wouldn't, because player perspective doesn't define a setting.

 

[Carrion]

That's unfortunately true. Still, though, would Bloodlines be a better game with more dialogues, albeit less voice acting?

Considering that dialogue was perhaps the only thing that the game did exceptionally well while almost everything else ranged from mediocre to "pretty good", and that the excellent voice acting and facial animations played an integral part in dialogue being as good as it was, probably not. In single-character RPGs an isometric view doesn't really provide any real advantages compared to FPP, aside from maybe aesthetics. Exploration arguably works better in first-person because of the use of Z-axis and the lack of "erase the fog of war to reveal the whole map" mechanics and pixel hunting which is what "exploration" in isometric RPGs amounts to more often than not (go ahead, prove me wrong). Combat-wise either perspective can work just as well, although the amount of RPGs with good single-character combat is pretty low. Bloodlines' action combat wasn't really any worse than Arcanum's turn-based abomination despite only having a single character, though.

However, if you're controlling multiple characters, isometric is clearly the better choice while FPP has a high chance of leading to a total clusterfuck. If you're only directly controlling one character while giving out orders to others like in Arcanum, though, FPP might still be a valid option.

 

[General Maxson]

You prefer FP rpg. OK. I get it. I prefer ISO.

You never moved items in Arcanum? You can pick up any item (provided ST is enough) and throw it like you would throw a grenade.

Yes I have, that's why I didn't understand why is "item interaction" superior in FP. And it seems it's not.

Levitation has many more uses than loot collection. If you can imagine being able to reach some treasures, why is it hard for you to also imagine deploying that effect to your advantage in combat? Or in accessing hard-to-reach places? Or in undertaking covert operations?

Give me one example of those things in FP crpgs that can't be done in iso. Yes iso games can also be 3D, yes, you could use levitation and deploy effects of higher ground for combat advantage (even in 2D games).

Free-form problem solving means solutions that are devised through mechanics rather than scripting. Examples of FPP RPGs include Deus Ex and Morrowind. New Vegas also, to an extent.

Well can you give some example relevant to crpg discussion, except that Morrowind has some cool, hard to reach loot and locations (and that can also be made in iso games), and Deus Ex has some nice sneaking (where you are still dependent somewhat on player skill not only on stats like in a real crpg should be IMO)?

Does open character system mean you level up skills by using them FP like TES games?

No, it doesn't. Why would it?

Well what does it mean then?

How is this in any way relevant to what I asked? I did not inquire whether FPP games have better settings than isometric or vice versa. I asked how FPP would handicap Arcanum's setting. It wouldn't, because player perspective doesn't define a setting.

Again I think it would because it involves more of a player skill and less dependence on character systems (unless you don't consider it being stupid that you shoot point blank in someone's face in FP and constantly miss because of low weapon skill and that you still depend on player skill like Fallout 3 and New Vegas showed etc.). Among the reasons that it almost universally requires spending budget on facial animation, full voice acting (and by this limits writing creativity somewhat) etc. And all of this inevitably leads to the "rpgs" we have today, and I don't want that.

 

[Spectacle]

The same as Fallout?

Yes, as proven by New Vegas, despite the shitty Bethesda engine.

Which would be ten times better if it was made in Fallout 2 engine.

I'm not saying that a first person shooter Arcanum would be 100% shit (but only if it was made by Obsidian or at least inXile), but it would be worse than an isometric, tactical one.

Do you even like first person RPGs at all?

No.

Then you have no way to objectively judge if an isometric game is x times better or worse than a FP game....

 

[Lancehead]

You never moved items in Arcanum? You can pick up any item (provided ST is enough) and throw it like you would throw a grenade.

Yes I have, that's why I didn't understand why is "item interaction" superior in FP. And it seems it's not.

Depends on what you consider "superior", which is the reason why I never claimed* it's superior. It's definitely more elegant and convenient in FPP, and FPP also allows me to judge and control the trajectory of the thrown item better.

Levitation has many more uses than loot collection. If you can imagine being able to reach some treasures, why is it hard for you to also imagine deploying that effect to your advantage in combat? Or in accessing hard-to-reach places? Or in undertaking covert operations?

Give me one example of those things in FP crpgs that can't be done in iso. Yes iso games can also be 3D, yes, you could use levitation and deploy effects of higher ground for combat advantage (even in 2D games).

I did not claim* it couldn't be done in isometric, but it would be much more abstracted because of the absence of the Z-axis and proper view cones.

Free-form problem solving means solutions that are devised through mechanics rather than scripting. Examples of FPP RPGs include Deus Ex and Morrowind. New Vegas also, to an extent.

Well can you give some example relevant to crpg discussion, except that Morrowind has some cool, hard to reach loot and locations (and that can also be made in iso games), and Deus Ex has some nice sneaking (where you are still dependent somewhat on player skill not only on stats like in a real crpg should be IMO)?

The whole spellmaker in Morrowind is a great example of free-form nature of the game.

Does open character system mean you level up skills by using them FP like TES games?

No, it doesn't. Why would it?

Well what does it mean then?

It means that it has a single character point pool and has no class restrictions.

How is this in any way relevant to what I asked? I did not inquire whether FPP games have better settings than isometric or vice versa. I asked how FPP would handicap Arcanum's setting. It wouldn't, because player perspective doesn't define a setting.

Again I think it would because it involves more of a player skill and less dependence on character systems (unless you don't consider it being stupid that you shoot point blank in someone's face in FP and constantly miss because of low weapon skill and that you still depend on player skill like Fallout 3 and New Vegas showed etc.). Among the reasons that it almost universally requires spending budget on facial animation, full voice acting (and by this limits writing creativity somewhat) etc. And all of this inevitably leads to the "rpgs" we have today, and I don't want that.

What are you talking about? What does all that have to do with setting? Arcanum's setting is steampunk with a dichotomy of technology and magic. FPP or isometric, player skill or character skill doesn't have anything to do with that.

And, as a side note, the not-being-able-to-hit-by-shooting-from-point-blank-range you seem to dislike is a direct result of character stats overriding player skill. Quite ironic, that.

You prefer FP rpg. OK. I get it.

I don't believe you do.

* Why do you read "FPP does this well" as "isometric can't do this"?

 

[Rake]

The same as Fallout?

Yes, as proven by New Vegas, despite the shitty Bethesda engine.

Which would be ten times better if it was made in Fallout 2 engine.

I'm not saying that a first person shooter Arcanum would be 100% shit (but only if it was made by Obsidian or at least inXile), but it would be worse than an isometric, tactical one.

Do you even like first person RPGs at all?

No.

Then you have no way to objectively judge if an isometric game is x times better or worse than a FP game....

Never said i was objective about it. :D

 

[General Maxson]

Lancehead:

I think it is given that even Morrowind (although still a nice game IMO) has been a harbinger of decline to crpg fans, and all other FPP new "rpgs" just followed the decline trend further to appeal more to today's gamers. It has actually come to this, that if it weren't for kickstarter, no "real" rpgs would ever be made, except maybe some indie ones. And I'm not saying KS games will be great. But at least I have a hope they could be, whether with Bethesda and other FP today's "rpgs" I had no such hope. Only action games with some rpg elements. I have mentioned the reasons why already.

In a fairytale fantasy world, sure a dev would make a great FP rpg, but as we see in Bethesda's example it just doesn't work that way, it only leads to more decline and simplification of rpgs. Sure, Skyrim is better as a game than Oblivion, but as an rpg it's even more simplified. It just won't happen. Whoever makes FP rpg, wants more audience and sales and that inevitably means simplification. And FPP rpgs inevitably focus more on loot and world interaction than on things that should constitute crpg. Sure, some nice ideas can be had like that, but they are mostly underutilized at the expense of other things that are more important IMO.

 

[Broseph]

Perspectivefags ITT.

 

[Smejki]

Who could he be referring to? That second paragraph sounds like it's meant to be a hint.

My bet is on Ubisoft, Square Enix, Deep Silver of the bigger ones, maybe even Paradox. Even EA wouldn't surprise me. Bethesda maybe?

or 1C