Game News Obsidian's next game is Tyranny, an isometric RPG set in a fantasy world where evil won

[Tacgnol]

It is true, SoZ is destroyed by that engine. MotB too for that matter. I could never even consider replaying them, just the thought of having to suffer with that engine again makes me cry.

Yeah, every time I go to replay MOTB I just give up halfway through due to how horrible the engine is. I can't actually work up the strength to play SOZ through, even though I really want to at least once.

I still can't get over how badly they fucked up NWN2 from a technical perspective.

 

[Black]

Well, I don't like to derail - and I know I'm in the minority on this, but I loved SoZ. I wish it had been more than a teeny tiny micro budget expansion - but we wanted to make a more Fortune and Glory type DnD adventure - similar to the original Pool of Radiance, or Darklands.

I get that coming in after MotB - it was a let down story wise, and the tech was a let down (too many map loads and load times at the time). If we had had more time and money we could have done a lot more. The party creation system and the party conversation system alone were enough to make SoZ great in my oh so humble opinion.

I played through DS3 on my 360 and had a great time - despite working on the game and having it all spoiled. I think the biggest mistake made with Dungeon Siege 3, was calling it Dungeon Siege THREE. If we had called it Dungeon Siege Alliance, especially back when BG Alliance and Marvel Alliance were still in people's memories, people would have understood what we were going for. Oh well - sometimes marketing is great - sometimes it sucks.

Alpha Protocol, while unpolished and a bit buggy, was an amazing experience to play. Well, it might have been more than a "bit buggy", but I don't think I ever hit a critical path breaker...

I liked both SoZzy and MotB, for different reasons, obviously. I was hoping that after SoZ all the improvements in it (overworld travel with party skills, party dialogues etc) would be used and perfected in something else NWN 2 related or maybe even a different game altogether.
But it was just left there. To die and rot alone. Like my hopes.

 

[deuxhero]

Well, I don't like to derail - and I know I'm in the minority on this, but I loved SoZ. I wish it had been more than a teeny tiny micro budget expansion - but we wanted to make a more Fortune and Glory type DnD adventure - similar to the original Pool of Radiance, or Darklands.

I get that coming in after MotB - it was a let down story wise, and the tech was a let down (too many map loads and load times at the time). If we had had more time and money we could have done a lot more. The party creation system and the party conversation system alone were enough to make SoZ great in my oh so humble opinion.

SoZ had some great encounter designs (the kobold tunnel where the shaman entangles you on the straightaway and his minons pelt you with missles). The problem is that RtwP trying to be turn based is so complete and utter shit they aren't remotely as fun as they should be. It's only OK when it's "RTT, but with more precision/thinking time" like 7.62.

If SoZ's design was applied to a game with good combat and non-ass load times, I would have loved it.

 

[Thal]

Well, I don't like to derail - and I know I'm in the minority on this, but I loved SoZ. I wish it had been more than a teeny tiny micro budget expansion - but we wanted to make a more Fortune and Glory type DnD adventure - similar to the original Pool of Radiance, or Darklands.

I get that coming in after MotB - it was a let down story wise, and the tech was a let down (too many map loads and load times at the time). If we had had more time and money we could have done a lot more. The party creation system and the party conversation system alone were enough to make SoZ great in my oh so humble opinion.

I played through DS3 on my 360 and had a great time - despite working on the game and having it all spoiled. I think the biggest mistake made with Dungeon Siege 3, was calling it Dungeon Siege THREE. If we had called it Dungeon Siege Alliance, especially back when BG Alliance and Marvel Alliance were still in people's memories, people would have understood what we were going for. Oh well - sometimes marketing is great - sometimes it sucks.

Alpha Protocol, while unpolished and a bit buggy, was an amazing experience to play. Well, it might have been more than a "bit buggy", but I don't think I ever hit a critical path breaker...

I've played all of these except DS 3 and I agree with a lot of what you've written here. In fact, if you dig around, you'll probably find a lot of love for SoZ in the 'dex. It's old school qualities definitely did not go unnoticed. AP too, but for different reasons, ofc.

The point I however want to make is that every one of these games, despite being good enjoyable experiences, have some major flaws in them. This is true with PoE as well.

The flaws are what is preventing them from achieving universal success and and acclaim. The gamer only receives the final product, he doesn't know that you had limited budget, didn't have enough time or had trouble with the engine.

You want Tyranny to hit the bullseye, you got polish all of those flaws away, not matter what they might be this time.

 

[DeepOcean]

We get it, you don't like isometric RtWP.

Nope, more accurate: TB>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RTwP>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Obsidian's RTwP.

 

[Deleted member 7219]

Well, I don't like to derail - and I know I'm in the minority on this, but I loved SoZ. I wish it had been more than a teeny tiny micro budget expansion - but we wanted to make a more Fortune and Glory type DnD adventure - similar to the original Pool of Radiance, or Darklands.

I get that coming in after MotB - it was a let down story wise, and the tech was a let down (too many map loads and load times at the time). If we had had more time and money we could have done a lot more. The party creation system and the party conversation system alone were enough to make SoZ great in my oh so humble opinion.

I played through DS3 on my 360 and had a great time - despite working on the game and having it all spoiled. I think the biggest mistake made with Dungeon Siege 3, was calling it Dungeon Siege THREE. If we had called it Dungeon Siege Alliance, especially back when BG Alliance and Marvel Alliance were still in people's memories, people would have understood what we were going for. Oh well - sometimes marketing is great - sometimes it sucks.

Alpha Protocol, while unpolished and a bit buggy, was an amazing experience to play. Well, it might have been more than a "bit buggy", but I don't think I ever hit a critical path breaker...

I've played all of these except DS 3 and I agree with a lot of what you've written here. In fact, if you dig around, you'll probably find a lot of love for SoZ in the 'dex. It's old school qualities definitely did not go unnoticed. AP too, but for different reasons, ofc.

The point I however want to make is that every one of these games, despite being good enjoyable experiences, have some major flaws in them. This is true with PoE as well.

The flaws are what is preventing them from achieving universal success and and acclaim. The gamer only receives the final product, he doesn't know that you had limited budget, didn't have enough time or had trouble with the engine.

You want Tyranny to hit the bullseye, you got polish all of those flaws away, not matter what they might be this time.

The point I was making in my post (that Anthony responded to) was that pointing out flaws is one thing (all Obsidian games have them, just like all other games do), but the reaction to Pillars of Eternity from some people here has been nothing short of hysterical - as the earlier pages of this thread show.

 

[Black]

 

[Anthony Davis]

Well, I don't like to derail - and I know I'm in the minority on this, but I loved SoZ. I wish it had been more than a teeny tiny micro budget expansion - but we wanted to make a more Fortune and Glory type DnD adventure - similar to the original Pool of Radiance, or Darklands.

I get that coming in after MotB - it was a let down story wise, and the tech was a let down (too many map loads and load times at the time). If we had had more time and money we could have done a lot more. The party creation system and the party conversation system alone were enough to make SoZ great in my oh so humble opinion.

I played through DS3 on my 360 and had a great time - despite working on the game and having it all spoiled. I think the biggest mistake made with Dungeon Siege 3, was calling it Dungeon Siege THREE. If we had called it Dungeon Siege Alliance, especially back when BG Alliance and Marvel Alliance were still in people's memories, people would have understood what we were going for. Oh well - sometimes marketing is great - sometimes it sucks.

Alpha Protocol, while unpolished and a bit buggy, was an amazing experience to play. Well, it might have been more than a "bit buggy", but I don't think I ever hit a critical path breaker...

I've played all of these except DS 3 and I agree with a lot of what you've written here. In fact, if you dig around, you'll probably find a lot of love for SoZ in the 'dex. It's old school qualities definitely did not go unnoticed. AP too, but for different reasons, ofc.

The point I however want to make is that every one of these games, despite being good enjoyable experiences, have some major flaws in them. This is true with PoE as well.

The flaws are what is preventing them from achieving universal success and and acclaim. The gamer only receives the final product, he doesn't know that you had limited budget, didn't have enough time or had trouble with the engine.

You want Tyranny to hit the bullseye, you got polish all of those flaws away, not matter what they might be this time.

The point I was making in my post (that Anthony responded to) was that pointing out flaws is one thing (all Obsidian games have them, just like all other games do), but the reaction to Pillars of Eternity from some people here has been nothing short of hysterical - as the earlier pages of this thread show.

I have plenty of things I don't like about Pillars, for example - the story was ultra nihilistic, exposition dumps, and the encounter design was uneven at best. The later greatly improved in the expansions - there are some hard and twisted encounters in the expansions.

The engagement system was never something that bothered me at all, certainly no more than the various mechanics similar to it in various DnD rule sets. Certainly now that it's been turned more and more perks were added and more bugs were fixed. Playing 3.0+ is really a lot of fun for me now.

Again, obviously, just my opinion.

 

[Fry]

The engagement system was never something that bothered me at all, certainly no more than the various mechanics similar to it in various DnD rule sets.

Ssshhh. He might be listening.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Again, obviously, just my opinion.

Come on, man, this is the Codex, not some fagass forum, and everybody is entitled to state their opinions as facts.

And then face the rage.

 

[Infinitron]

The engagement system was never something that bothered me at all, certainly no more than the various mechanics similar to it in various DnD rule sets.

Ssshhh. He might be listening.

Haha, haven't you guys noticed that Sensuki has stopped commenting on PoE (and on RPGs in general)? He's either doing work for Whalenought or getting a life, good for him either way.

 

[Fry]

Haha, haven't you guys noticed that Sensuki has stopped commenting on PoE (and on RPGs in general)? He's either doing work for Whalenought or getting a life, good for him either way.

I just assumed he got an IT/DevOps job. His particular brand of obsession is perfect for the business.

 

[Azarkon]

Engagement, etc. have been discussed to death, but my bottom line for all the combat discussions is: you're making a rtwp game, not a turn based game, so all these detailed mechanics that have to be managed every second become tedious, rather than tactical/fun. Pillars of Eternity's system, similar to that of D&D 4th/5th edition, would be excellent in a turn based game but in a rtwp, the model should be Baldur's Gate, not Temple of Elemental Evil.

In fact, I recently observed a bunch of D&D 4th/5th edition campaigns, and it struck me just how necessary turn-based is to even simplified PnP RPG systems. Bioware was only able to get away with rtwp by massively reducing the complexity of the PnP rules. The same applies to Pillars of Eternity.

 

[FeelTheRads]

good for him either way.

Yeah, I bet you were totally worried about him.. or maybe it just feels good to not have someone tear apart with proofs and actual arguments the game you whiteknight in every other post* . It's easy to dismiss the usual codex "this is shit", but the truth hurts when it's presented in an eloquent way so the best thing to hope for is that it just disappears.

*By the way, wouldn't it also be "good for you" to stop doing that?

 

[Roguey]

the story was ultra nihilistic

Eric had things to say about this interpretation.

 

[Infinitron]

good for him either way.

Yeah, I bet you were totally worried about him.. or maybe it just feels good to not have someone tear apart with proofs and actual arguments the game you whiteknight in every other post* . It's easy to dismiss the usual codex "this is shit", but the truth hurts when it's presented in an eloquent way so the best thing to hope for is that it just disappears.

Don't assume that everybody is as cynical as you are.

*By the way, wouldn't it also be "good for you" to stop doing that?

Could be, but I'm hardly the only one on this forum who can't stop posting about the game (and other games from Obsidian). I also sat down today for over an hour and summarized a presentation about the hugely ambition sequel to the Codex's GOTY 2014, but not so many reactions to that.

 

[Anthony Davis]

the story was ultra nihilistic

Eric had things to say about this interpretation.

Hahahaha, and he has patiently endured many questions and comments from me too.

 

[Tigranes]

Engagement, etc. have been discussed to death, but my bottom line for all the combat discussions is: you're making a rtwp game, not a turn based game, so all these detailed mechanics that have to be managed every second become tedious, rather than tactical/fun. Pillars of Eternity's system, similar to that of D&D 4th/5th edition, would be excellent in a turn based game but in a rtwp, the model should be Baldur's Gate, not Temple of Elemental Evil.

Wat

"Tactical complexity in RTWP makes it tedious not tactical"

Do people just want to never pause and put on AI autopilot because of course RTWP is going to be boring if you make it as boring as possible

I like turn based but it's amazing how many Codexers insist on just dungeonsieging RTWP games

Presumably some of you think RTWP is shit whatever you do with it, OK, but then you probably wouldn't play those games anyway right

 

[Excidium II]

I just want this shitty compromise to disappear from videogames.

 

[Nines]

I played through DS3 on my 360 and had a great time - despite working on the game and having it all spoiled. I think the biggest mistake made with Dungeon Siege 3, was calling it Dungeon Siege THREE. If we had called it Dungeon Siege Alliance, especially back when BG Alliance and Marvel Alliance were still in people's memories, people would have understood what we were going for. Oh well - sometimes marketing is great - sometimes it sucks.

The expectations were accordingly higher, but overall I don't think it would have saved the day. I wish it was a little bit less consolish, but I still enjoyed it, especially the addon. Obsidian added some meaning to otherwise meaningless party-based Dialobesque formula through lore, dialogues and choices. I also enjoyed the visual side (the art direction, as well as the technical side). Whoever build Stonebridge, I hope they're still working for Obsidian. Leona's bazookas were too much though.

 

[cherry blossom]

Since Anthony dodged my question in particular, I guess the camera/scene management will still be handled poorly.

 

[Excidium II]

What question?

 

[Mustawd]

What question?

I like that first screenshot, and the camera angle.

Looking at all screenshots, it looks as though they might have gotten the 3D iso camera right for once. Now as long as the camera angle is fixed and the 3D game world is designed to utilize fixed angle ie. no nonsense like obstruction of items and characters.

Unless this will be TB with a good, in-depth character system, the game will flop. Plenty of RT iso action games already and the screenshot with action does look like a RT combat moment.

Sigh.

Anthony Davis, can you tell us anything on the camera angles and rotation? Shouldn't be a big deal of info to share, unlike game systems, length etc. The screenshots look like the game might actually use parallel projection or a perspective at a very refined low field of vision.

 

[Excidium II]

I'll be very surprised if it has camera rotation. Though at least it would justify the unfinished look of the enviroment art (compared to PoE).

 

[Anthony Davis]

What question?

I like that first screenshot, and the camera angle.

Looking at all screenshots, it looks as though they might have gotten the 3D iso camera right for once. Now as long as the camera angle is fixed and the 3D game world is designed to utilize fixed angle ie. no nonsense like obstruction of items and characters.

Unless this will be TB with a good, in-depth character system, the game will flop. Plenty of RT iso action games already and the screenshot with action does look like a RT combat moment.

Sigh.

Anthony Davis, can you tell us anything on the camera angles and rotation? Shouldn't be a big deal of info to share, unlike game systems, length etc. The screenshots look like the game might actually use parallel projection or a perspective at a very refined low field of vision.

I'll have to play it again to refresh my memory - but I'm pretty sure you can make a reasonable guess about the camera from the screenshots.