RPG Codex Interview: Chris Avellone on Pillars Cut Content, Game Development Hierarchies and More

[Havoc]

Ok, DarkUnderlord, mate. That's a lie. You live in AUSTRALIA. Don't be surprised to see a rat that is smaller than in your country, they are smaller elsewhere, mate.

 

[Cross]

In a game world built around factions, you HAVE to have symmetry in order to achieve a proper agonistic choice when the player has to take a stance.

Yes, this. Totally agree. I felt FNV made Caesar's Legion "choice," mostly garbage and unfulfilling, when one could have included more room for player choice.

Could you talk a bit about the differences between the Caesar's Legion that appeared in New Vegas and the original concept of Caesar's Legion in your version of Van Buren?

 

[JarlFrank]

But aren't asymmetries, arbitrary as they may seem, more interesting and believable than perfect symmetry? Symmetry always feels formulaic to me, while asymmetry feels more natural.

In a game world built around factions, you HAVE to have symmetry in order to achieve a proper agonistic choice when the player has to take a stance.
Plus in a system where everything makes sense because it is authored (even procedural worlds derive from a seed, i.e. a kernel of "sense"), asymmetry is an illusion (a crafted one that gives the impression of a living, breathing world when properly done, but an illusion nonetheless).

What feels contrived however is when you only have binary options, that forces the player's hand into going into one extreme or the other. Usually introducing a third option is enough to break this abusive symmetry, be it a moral one (good vs evil), a functional one (resolving a quest by sneaking vs combat), or one that spans worldbuilding as a whole (Legion vs NCR for example). In all those cases a third option introduces some salutary wiggle-room for the player, but also by breaking the binary logic enables us to choose, mix and match approaches, instead of emphasizing two other-end-the-spectrum elements.

See, the kind of symmetry that I find formulaic and that was kinda expressed in Infinitron's post by the way he phrased it (some of PoE's companions are not permanent but die, why? This one faction in NV has no companion NPC, why?) is the symmetry of handling each faction or gameplay option in the same way, following the same formula, making it appear inorganic and forced rather than like a choice that grew from the world and story of the game.

Example: there are four factions in the game, each faction has one follower NPC you can recruit, each faction has a headquarters, each faction has you do 5 quests within their faction questline, each faction questline starts with you joining them at a low rank and ends up with you attaining a high rank.

That often ends up making the factions feel formulaic, samey, and gamey, because mechanically they are the same, even if the content differs.

Changing up the formula and making one faction play differently from the other, or offer a different experience, is the kind of asymmetry that not only makes the game world feel more natural but also lends more significance to player choice. One faction might offer more content of one type, for example, while another might offer none of that but more of another.

While Caesar's Legion was overall a little underdeveloped in NV, let's take the example of "there is no companion NPC for the legion" that Infinitron mentioned. So, every other faction has one or more companion NPCs, but this faction doesn't. What if, instead of adding a companion to create symmetry, you add different types of content to make up for the lack of a companion? This way, the faction would have one clear difference from all the others, and it could even be reflected in its overall gameplay and style. Maybe it's a faction that expresses the "lone wolf" approach, and that is an in-world reason for why it doesn't offer you a companion NPC. Maybe the faction offers you more infiltration-focused quests, or maybe a generic "bring us intel from other factions and we reward you" thing that the other factions don't have.

And boom, you got yourself asymmetric and interesting factions that actually play differently and offer different types of content to the player.

Same with approaches to gameplay: if you have a combat, stealth, and diplomacy approach for your encounters and quests, you should strive to allow for each solution in the majority of quests. As in, 90% of quests allow for one of those three options to be solved.
But then, you also have 10% of quests which can only be solved one way, or only solved two ways, instead of allowing for all three approaches. Some players will then likely fail those quests because their character isn't built for braving that kind of challenge. Sneak into a nobleman's mansion and steal blackmail materials on him without being seen? Well, looks like combat and dialogue focused chars won't be able to tackle that quest.

And that is some much-needed asymmetry that makes the game feel more realistic and believable, more natural, less perfectly arranged: it is only realistic that most characters won't be able to solve every single quest in the game, and that there are some tasks that just don't fit into their skillset but would be perfect for another character. It breaks the formula and therefore makes the game feel more varied and alive.

 

[Your Kindness]

Chris Avellone, what books in your opinion have the best villain characters? Asking for a friend.

 

[Cosmo]

Right, this is where your different priorities are apparent. Sometimes these asymmetries are arbitrary, but sometimes the game designer might want to make a narrative statement that supersedes player choice. The story of a neutral Courier who is equally encouraged to choose NCR or Legion isn't the same as the story of a Courier who has to do something transgressive, to cross the line from where he started.

The necessity of transgression should be be hinted at and conveyed by both story and gameplay then, otherwise it's a case of taking away player agency...

 

[JarlFrank]

In a game world built around factions, you HAVE to have symmetry in order to achieve a proper agonistic choice when the player has to take a stance.

Yes, this. Totally agree. I felt FNV made Caesar's Legion "choice," mostly garbage and unfulfilling, when one could have included more room for player choice.

Of course one could have, and should have. But it doesn't necessarily need to be "symmetrical" (or maybe we have different understandings of symmetrical), just to have a similar amount of content for the player to experience. It can be a completely different kind of content than what other factions offer, though.

I think "symmetry" is just a bad word to describe this. Symmetry implies that all options are essentially similar, but what should happen is that all options are similarly viable and offer similar amounts of content, while not being strictly symmetrical.

 

[Big Wrangle]

Different paths shouldn't be literally symmetrical, otherwise what's the point of trying out the rest on replay?

 

[Cross]

And that is some much-needed asymmetry that makes the game feel more realistic and believable, more natural, less perfectly arranged: it is only realistic that most characters won't be able to solve every single quest in the game, and that there are some tasks that just don't fit into their skillset but would be perfect for another character. It breaks the formula and therefore makes the game feel more varied and alive.

And sometimes it's the asymmetry that can make the game feel less realistic and believable. Take the earlier example of the two companions that die early in PoE, who are such blatant tutorial NPCs that they might as well have been wearing T-shirts saying 'I will soon die in the inciting incident that kickstarts the plot of this game'.

Chris doesn't seem to be referring to asymmetry, but lack of content for certain factions/sides, which is a separate issue.

 

[Quillon]

And that is some much-needed asymmetry that makes the game feel more realistic and believable, more natural, less perfectly arranged: it is only realistic that most characters won't be able to solve every single quest in the game, and that there are some tasks that just don't fit into their skillset but would be perfect for another character. It breaks the formula and therefore makes the game feel more varied and alive.

And sometimes it's the asymmetry that can make the game feel less realistic and believable. For example, the two companions that die early in PoE are such blatant tutorial NPCs that they might as well have been wearing T-shirts saying 'I will soon die in the inciting incident that kickstarts the plot of this game'.

Yet some dumbfucks didn't see it coming, wished they were full companions, being surprised by their death

 

[Blaine]

Bioware once said they couldn't remake BG2 with ME production values because it would cost too much, then we were told that these games could be made more efficiently with today's technology (Unity,etc). So far I'm not really convinced.

One crucial thing that could be done to cut costs is to move the fuck away from California. The needful hardware, software, and office space can be had absolutely anywhere. Studios can and have done it before.

This is a big issue with Kickstarted games and one that cropped up with the very first game that popularized it all, DoubleFine Adventure. Backers pay a premium for developers to live in California.

 

[Lazing Dirk]

most relentless troll on the Codex

Pretty sure DU takes that award with the button manipulation alone, let alone all the other shenanigans.

 

[Infinitron]

Re: different priorities, here's the line that keeps returning to me, from Jedi Master Radek's interview with Chris: http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=10319

MCA: I think a lot of computer games stories don't focus on the player enough. I think some writer gets it into their head that they want to tell a story about the world that isn't really involved with the player. The player just gets injected to it. I think that's the biggest problem. Ideally a computer game story very selfishly focuses on the player, and pays attention to the stuff that he does and reacts very specifically to that character, rather than trying to tell a completely separate story, where the player just happened to be along and happened to influence, but it isn't really about him at all.

One of my theories about Obsidian is that by transforming from a studio that works on other companies' intellectual properties, to a studio that creates its own intellectual property, they've by necessity become more of a "tell a story about the world" company - with an inevitable diminishment of their Avellonian qualities.

 

[JarlFrank]

And that is some much-needed asymmetry that makes the game feel more realistic and believable, more natural, less perfectly arranged: it is only realistic that most characters won't be able to solve every single quest in the game, and that there are some tasks that just don't fit into their skillset but would be perfect for another character. It breaks the formula and therefore makes the game feel more varied and alive.

And sometimes it's the asymmetry that can make the game feel less realistic and believable. For example, the two companions that die early in PoE are such blatant tutorial NPCs that they might as well have been wearing T-shirts saying 'I will soon die in the inciting incident that kickstarts the plot of this game'.

That's an issue of overall game design rather than an issue of asymmetry. They come across as tutorial NPCs that kickstart the plot precisely because that is what they are. The starting area of PoE is incredibly weak overall, one of the weakest parts of the game, and this trope of having two disposable characters that die 5 minutes into the game is part of that.

What about Yoshimo in BG2? He's the only companion that dies during the main quest, for good story reason, and you can take his heart from his dead body and purify it to give him peace in death. That's a fucking cool companion, and the betrayal is effective because it stands in stark asymmetry to all the other companions who neither betray you nor die.

 

[Cosmo]

What if, instead of adding a companion to create symmetry, you add different types of content to make up for the lack of a companion? This way, the faction would have one clear difference from all the others, and it could even be reflected in its overall gameplay and style. Maybe it's a faction that expresses the "lone wolf" approach, and that is an in-world reason for why it doesn't offer you a companion NPC. Maybe the faction offers you more infiltration-focused quests, or maybe a generic "bring us intel from other factions and we reward you" thing that the other factions don't have.

So asymmetrical gameplay but symmetrical importance...
I can stand behind that, but you'll have to admit that it means a much greater workload, not only in world/gameplay designing but also in QA/fine-tuning.

 

[JarlFrank]

What if, instead of adding a companion to create symmetry, you add different types of content to make up for the lack of a companion? This way, the faction would have one clear difference from all the others, and it could even be reflected in its overall gameplay and style. Maybe it's a faction that expresses the "lone wolf" approach, and that is an in-world reason for why it doesn't offer you a companion NPC. Maybe the faction offers you more infiltration-focused quests, or maybe a generic "bring us intel from other factions and we reward you" thing that the other factions don't have.

So asymetrical gameplay but symetrical importance...
I can stand behind that, but you'll hav to admit that it means a much greater workload, not only in world/gamplplay designing but also in QA/fine-tuning.

It potentially does mean a greater workload, yes, since you can't follow a fixed formula. But it also means a potentially greater payoff since it will give players some new surprises on replays, which will translate into positive word-of-mouth, which means the invested effort will have been worth it.

 

[Roguey]

a number of others concerning harassment/hostile workplace issues, from both men and women

Annie Mitsoda gonna rue the day she coined "rapethirsty."

 

[MajorMace]

Didn’t Chris want the temporary companions of PoE to be permanent?

I did, I admit it - for very good story reasons (I felt the same way about Sunny Smiles in FNV).

It's a very long narrative design rationale, though, which can be discarded.

Was it because having these companions suffer the biawac with the player gave not only a very good reason for them to travel with the PC, which is often difficult to come up with when designing companions in such games, but also created a lot of empathy as they'd have the same problem as the PC while setting up a perfect occasion for heated discussions as to how to reverse the situation ?

Or something else ?

 

[Bohr]

One of my theories about Obsidian is that by transforming from a studio that works on other companies' intellectual properties, to a studio that creates its own intellectual property, they've by necessity become more of a "tell a story about the world" company

Does the ownership of the IP necessarily determine the type of game you make though? I get that you may want more "lore dumps", etc, if people know nothing about the world your game is set in, but surely there are different approaches one can take, and still make a game focusing on the player with the lore being revealed more indirectly or subtly?

 

[Quillon]

Btw. this is some petty shit criticizing legion content by MCA; having worked on the game; knowing full well that it was intended to be more than what it ended up.

 

[Blaine]

Jason Liang
Care to explain your reasoning, or are you just going to drop off a rating and leave?

 

[JarlFrank]

One of my theories about Obsidian is that by transforming from a studio that works on other companies' intellectual properties, to a studio that creates its own intellectual property, they've by necessity become more of a "tell a story about the world" company

Does the ownership of the IP necessarily determine the type of game you make though? I get that you may want more "lore dumps", etc, if people know nothing about the world your game is set in, but surely there are different approaches one can take, and still make a game focusing on the player with the lore being revealed more indirectly or subtly?

Yeah, if you look at PS:T it's telling a deeply personal story centered on the player character, and yet at the same time it's also heavily focused on the world and its workings, and explored many themes of the Planescape universe without offering straight-up loredumps on how this universe works (you encounter things like the rule-of-three and how belief shapes reality first-hand, rather than being told about it).

Making your own IPs set in your own fictional worlds that you want to tell the player about does not neccessitate making the story revolve around the world, with the player only incidentally being a part of that story.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

What do you guys even mean by symmetry here? Symmetry of power? You definitely don't need factions to be on similar power level. Symmetry in amount of content? You don't need that either.

 

[JarlFrank]

What do you guys even mean by symmetry here? Symmetry of power? You definitely don't need factions to be on similar power level. Symmetry in amount of content? You don't need that either.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/537520/SYMMETRY/

 

[Ainamacar]

One of my theories about Obsidian is that by transforming from a studio that works on other companies' intellectual properties, to a studio that creates its own intellectual property, they've by necessity become more of a "tell a story about the world" company

Does the ownership of the IP necessarily determine the type of game you make though? I get that you may want more "lore dumps", etc, if people know nothing about the world your game is set in, but surely there are different approaches one can take, and still make a game focusing on the player with the lore being revealed more indirectly or subtly?

Even some direct lore could help: mouseover lore isn't subtle, but if it scratches the writer's itch to explain the world they might find it easier to exercise restraint in shaping the story itself.

 

[Cosmo]

It potentially does mean a greater workload, yes, since you can't follow a fixed formula. But it also means a potentially greater payoff since it will give players some new surprises on replays, which will translate into positive word-of-mouth, which means the invested effort will have been worth it.

Color me sceptic.
I mean, can it really work when every RPG out there is starving for time and money ?
I can see a game following those lines ending up like Arcanum, stuck in the middle between being a clusterfuck an a masterpiece.