sawyer wants rpg to evolve

[Roguey]

Or Underrail.

Underrail was an iterative RPG as opposed to evolutionary.

 

[Viata]

I would like to see Obsidian try to make a survival horror

It's about a developer who is trying to survive, but the horror of his past failures is killing him every day. Oh wait.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Or Underrail.

Underrail was an iterative RPG as opposed to evolutionary.

Awesome.

And it was also better than anything Obsidian ever made.

Poor Potatoes 1 - Obsidian 0

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[Thonius]

When a business starts referring to its base customer base as "resistant to change" it means that it has grown sulky over what it feels is customer ingratitude for its efforts on their behalf, aka it's on a fast track to going out of business.

Interesting, so it's understandable that Obsidian wants a more mainstream customer base then?

It means they want to feed you a shovel of shit and surprised that you don`t want no shit.

 

[Roguey]

Id say that oddity system was quite an evolution to handle rewards in rpgs.

That doesn't seem all that evolutionary to me. Sure it's not how most RPGs do things, but other RPGs in the past have also handled XP differently from the usual "you get it when you kill things and complete quests."

Nothing wrong with being iterative, the most polished RPGs are that. You can't do something new for the first time and have it work perfectly.

 

[Zer0wing]

He pointed to Bethesda’s success with Fallout and The Elder Scrolls games as examples of a developer taking role-playing games in a different direction.

They’re much more action orientated, much more focused on the immersive experience.

 

[Infinitron]

Honestly this entire thread's existence is weird, lots of people seriously posting over a couple generic remarks in a developer event, posters losing their minds about Sawyer giving Bethesda/Skyrim as an example even thought he probably chose that because everyone fucking knows about the game and some people/media could be confused if he used some other less relevant game

This is true. On the other hand, maybe those people should be happier since the last time he made a "Bethesda/Skyrim"-type game he ended up producing a Codex Top 10 Of All Time RPG.

(Seriously Obsidian, is it too much to ask of you to always mention Fallout: New Vegas whenever you talk about making an open world RPG of that variety? Drama automatically averted, it's so easy!)

 

[Mustawd]

being iterative RPG prohibits it from being evolutionary?

If anything, evolution itself IS iterative. So I don’t get Roguey’s comment tbh.

 

[Roguey]

If anything, evolution itself IS iterative. So I don’t get Roguey’s comment tbh.

As I see it
Iterative: more of the same but better (sometimes not)
Evolution: doing something new based on what came before

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

he’s making a legitimate argument with real underpinnings even if you disagree with it.

Dude, you're making up stuff.

His argument is that most people (as in the lowest common denominator) don't think it's an RPG, therefore it's not an RPG anymore. That's the essence of it.

If people thought you need romanced for a game to be RPG would you also think that deserves "serious consideration".

I should let this go, but if you read the actual exchange, Josh is explicit that he's talking about his own personal definition, and emphatically says this is NOT based on the popular consensus.

Here is that particular question and answer:

Well, the general audience considers the Diablos to be ARPGs. If that's not the subject, then we have come to an impasse in the argument. I'd say MY criteria, though, for an RPG, is asking whether I can win without leveling up (or a similar mechanic).

I will certainly not argue that the general audience considers the Diablo games to be ARPGs. I've only been trying to advocate my position; sorry if it came across wrong.

Or, to put it another way: dude, you're making stuff up.

Here's the whole exchange from like 8 years ago, or at least what I could find of it. Grognards, do not read unless you want an aneurysm.

Spoiler

A friend of mine who used to work in game design says that the biggest problem with roleplaying game stories is that developers mistake writing more for writing better and that other genres are better suited for interactive storytelling. What do you think

If the central narrative is meaningfully interactive, I would classify it as an RPG. That is, I consider interactive storytelling to be the primary defining characteristic of RPGs.

I don't disagree that some designers write too much, but I think that's an indictment of specific content, not the fundamentals behind the genre.

You would not consider old dungeon crawlers as RPGs, then? And do not many adventure games center around interactive storytelling?

I would consider them RPGs by the definitions of their time. If someone were to make Wizardry: Proving Grounds of the Mad Overlord today, I would not consider it to be an RPG.

Can you elaborate on why contemporary RPGs are defined as interactive narrative? IMO RPGs have always been the same - dependent on the player's development of a character's stats. E.g. AP would have been enhanced as an RPG if there were dialogue skills.

Would you consider Castlevania: Symphony of the Night to be an RPG? How about Devil May Cry 4? Ninja Gaiden? Call of Duty 4? All of these games feature the gaining of experience points (or equivalent) to unlock new abilities.

Advancement of character abilities is not unique to RPGs -- certainly not in the 21st century, anyway.

Most of the criticisms of AP have to do with the elements that aren't role-playing related. Personally, I don't think the DSS system would be improved with the addition of dialogue skills.

I would consider the xp aspects of the games you mentioned to be RPG systems, yes. But they are first and foremost action games, as your twitch-skill trumps the strategic planning from developing stats. Whereas in a "true" RPG, this is not the case.

Would you classify Oblivion and Mass Effect as "true" RPGs? Both are games in which your ability to actually aim attacks and time input are the primary determining factors in landing hits/doing damage.

In response to your Oblivion/Mass Effect question, I don't know why we have a black and white view of it. Do you think there can be a gradient scale of "RPG-ness" on which Morrowind would be more of an RPG than Oblivion, but both are RPGs.

They don't have to be black and white views, but if you're going to classify things based on criteria, those criteria should be consistent. The previous question declared, pretty emphatically, that Castlevania: SotN, DMC4, et al. were action games with RPG elements. Given Mass Effect 1/2s primary reliance on player skill in combat, what makes those games RPGs and not action games with RPG elements?

I see ME as it's classified, an Action RPG. Course, there's a very blurry gradient between an ARPG and an action game w/RPG elements. But it's clear (to me) what the RPG elements are. Oblivion, diplomatically speaking, is not very good at being an RPG.

Overlapping the mechanics of Mass Effect and Rainbow Six: Vegas 2, what are the elements of ME that make it an RPG and R6V2 not an RPG?

I think you misunderstood. As ARPGs are a hybrid of two elements, it's NOT easy to classify one. As such I *don't* classify ME as a "true" RPG. However it does have *more* RPG elements as R6V2 has equipment stats but no character stats and skills.

I don't have any difficulty classifying them because I don't intrinsically link styles of combat with the RPG genre. I classify games as RPGs based on their interactive storytelling. More specifically, if you have the ability to define and express your character(s) personality in a way that significantly alters the development of the story, it's an RPG. If you don't have that ability, it's not.

Where does Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare fall on the RPG scale for you? It has stat-heavy equipment, XP, levels, classes, unlockable classes, and perks.

How are games such as D2 (and 3 coming up) ARPGs, then, as they do not have interactive storytelling? What about Oblivion and Morrowind, as they do not allow storytelling or personality choices? You can do well easily in COD4 without unlockables. Not ME

I don't consider the Diablo games to be RPGs. They are action games with character advancement and equipment upgrading. It doesn't make them better or worse games because of how I classify them.

Furthermore, while it is necessary to be clear in classifying what constitutes as an essential element of a genre, actual implementation usually combines multiple genre elements and thus need not be easily classified. Popular example: Action-Adventures.

I think "action-adventure" is one of the broadest/least clear genre classifications. I may just be dense, but when someone tells me that a game is an action-adventure game, it gives me no clear idea of what to expect.

What the hell is with this rhetoric? So you're telling me that if stats are not exclusive to RPGs then they are not necessary if the story is "interactive"? The average text adventure has a more "interactive" story than the average RPG. What about that?

Text adventure games typically don't allow you to define and express your character's personality in a way that meaningfully changes the development of the story. An interactive story, to me, means more than just going through it via player input.

Would that mean text adventures are RPGs? And to be clear RPG = stat system and dice rolls. But stat system =/= RPG so please stop using Castlevania or whatever else game which doesn't even have a proper stat system or dice rolls in defense of your point.

There are RPG systems that don't use dice to resolve conflicts. Most notably, Amber uses straight statistic comparisons. Marvel Universe uses bids of resources to resolve conflicts.

A lot of the more recent (starting with Symphony of the Night) Castlevania games have a full array of "basic" stats (Strength, Constitution, Intelligence, Luck, Attack, Defense) in addition to purchased/leveled spells/powers/familiars. I don't know if that constitutes a "proper" stat system to you, but has always seemed well fleshed out to me.

Seriously, this is embarrassing to read. To be clear: Interactive storyline is not IN ANY WAY essential to RPGs.

I don't share the same opinion and I don't see why that's such a big deal.

So, you consider a game an RPG if it lets you define your pc's personality in a way that "significantly alters the story". There must be very few games you call RPGs then, since most only offer the illusion of choice and the story stays the same.

Yes, not that many. I think that offering the illusion of choice is bad for any game. I'm fine with being put on rails in games. Please just don't give me ten ways to be redirected into the same outcome.

To be clearer, I think it's fine if RPGs plot lines wind up in a similar place. But many RPG plot lines are made up of a lot of little relationships, small quests, and character conflicts that you can resolve as you see fit. That is what I think is interesting and find rewarding.

Well, the general audience considers the Diablos to be ARPGs. If that's not the subject, then we have come to an impasse in the argument. I'd say MY criteria, though, for an RPG, is asking whether I can win without leveling up (or a similar mechanic).

I will certainly not argue that the general audience considers the Diablo games to be ARPGs. I've only been trying to advocate my position; sorry if it came across wrong.

TL;DR: this is the crux of his position: "I think it's fine if RPGs plot lines wind up in a similar place. But many RPG plot lines are made up of a lot of little relationships, small quests, and character conflicts that you can resolve as you see fit. That is what I think is interesting and find rewarding." In short, he thinks the essential element of role playing games is... role playing. What a retard!!!

***

More broadly, of course RPG devs should be more radical. Just not in the direction of Skyrim (let's be reasonable: if he ever wants to make another fallout game, he needs to kiss Todd Howard's ass from time to time--it's a dirty job but someone has to do it). Consider the world Josh came of age in: aside from a few brief lulls, we had like 20 years of consistent CRPG incline from 1980 to the peak in the late '90s/early 2000s when he got into the industry. Developers kept coming up with great new ideas and adding them to their games.

Why wouldn't we want to get back to that after so many years of decline? Not every innovation will be worthwhile, some innovations are terrible, but that's not a reason to piss all over the idea of evolving the genre.

 

[FreeKaner]

If you can't define a role and play that role, it's not a roleplaying game. If rolling dice made for a RPG, backgammon would be one.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[Roguey]

While its small and easy concept, it got far reaching consequences in play style, pacing and in general focusing on exploration which is one of strongest aspects of the game.

I didn't really play it any differently than any other RPG. I guess maybe I was more content to leave a few enemies be instead of killing them, but that could be replicated with a quest xp-only system. I'm not much of an explorer if there's no explicit quest to encourage it.

 

[ColonelTeacup]

He pointed to Bethesda’s success with Fallout and The Elder Scrolls games as examples of a developer taking role-playing games in a different direction.

They’re much more action orientated, much more focused on the immersive experience.

This is why I buy american.

 

[Cael]

He pointed to Bethesda’s success with Fallout and The Elder Scrolls games as examples of a developer taking role-playing games in a different direction.

They’re much more action orientated, much more focused on the immersive experience.

The funniest part about this is that that cinder block would have hit him straight in the head if real world physics were involved, adding insult to the injury of a 20-storey fall.

 

[Sigourn]

I've spun his words in my head for some time.

He didn't say anything about Bethesda games being good or going in the right direction.

"He pointed to Bethesda’s success with Fallout and The Elder Scrolls games as examples of a developer taking role-playing games in a different direction. "They’re much more action orientated, much more focused on the immersive experience. That shows there’s more room for RPGs to grow than just to be what they were 20 years ago. It’s really a matter of finding an audience that matches up with that,” he added."

You could rephrase the first sentence like so, and Sawyer would still be right:

"He pointed to Idea Factory’s success with the Hyperdimension Neptunia series as an example of a developer taking role-playing games in a different direction."

It is obvious: there are many ways to make an RPG, and we don't really need Sawyer to say it. But the reason his words piss me off so much is that he is implying cRPGs are stagnating because of inherent limitations as opposed to the incompetence of developers. That cRPGs don't evolve (in the "min-maxing" sense) because of grognard hardcore roleplayers, and not because the basic cRPG template is already perfect as it is, and just needs more time in the oven. Like someone over on Reddit mentioned:

Try playing a Priest of Eothas in PoE. Not only does it change next to nothing, despite how incredibly different people's reactions towards you should be, but worse still, you can ask Eder who Eothas is. Sure, different places use different names, but a priest would probably know them. When was the last time you heard a Catholic priest ask who Jehovah or Yahweh is? It's "What's a Paladin?" levels of nonsense.

 

[ColonelTeacup]

I've spun his words in my head for some time.

He didn't say anything about Bethesda games being good or going in the right direction.

"He pointed to Bethesda’s success with Fallout and The Elder Scrolls games as examples of a developer taking role-playing games in a different direction. "They’re much more action orientated, much more focused on the immersive experience. That shows there’s more room for RPGs to grow than just to be what they were 20 years ago. It’s really a matter of finding an audience that matches up with that,” he added."

You could rephrase the first sentence like so, and Sawyer would still be right:

"He pointed to Idea Factory’s success with the Hyperdimension Neptunia series as an example of a developer taking role-playing games in a different direction."

It is obvious: there are many ways to make an RPG, and we don't really need Sawyer to say it. But the reason his words piss me off so much is that he is implying cRPGs are stagnating because of inherent limitations as opposed to the incompetence of developers. That cRPGs don't evolve (in the "min-maxing" sense) because of grognard hardcore roleplayers, and not because the basic cRPG template is already perfect as it is, and just needs more time in the oven. Like someone over on Reddit mentioned:

Try playing a Priest of Eothas in PoE. Not only does it change next to nothing, despite how incredibly different people's reactions towards you should be, but worse still, you can ask Eder who Eothas is. Sure, different places use different names, but a priest would probably know them. When was the last time you heard a Catholic priest ask who Jehovah or Yahweh is? It's "What's a Paladin?" levels of nonsense.

Wouldn't the release of Divinity: Original Sin completely repudiate this sentiment from Sawyer, as it was a standout success? Perhaps he just wants those easy mainstream audience bucks? Or does not want to self reflect on any shortcomings he and his team may have that has cause Sub-optimal sales for his latest games?

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

Josh Sawyer: “I am also contributing to the problem.”
RPG Codex: “when will this dipshit realize that he’s part of the problem???”

 

[Sigourn]

Wouldn't the release of Divinity: Original Sin completely repudiate this sentiment from Sawyer, as it was a standout success? Perhaps he just wants those easy mainstream audience bucks? Or does not want to self reflect on any shortcomings he and his team may have that has cause Sub-optimal sales for his latest games?

It definitely does, from my perspective. I've heard D:OS does some things I think are pretty cool and an example of increased interactivty in cRPGs. Of Pillars of Eternity, I've heard ZERO things I think are great. Deadfire? A fistful of nothing. That's why I think he is not just stating facts (I do believe he is stating facts), but he is being, either intentionally or not, extremely misleading.

For instance, I would never call cRPG fans "resistant to change", because that is fundamentally ignoring what "change" actually is nowadays: the change towards action RPGs which means an objectively worse roleplaying experience, no matter how much fun you may have with the game itself. I don't have any trouble admitting it: I LOVED Gothic, enjoyed it much more than Fallout. But the better RPG is Fallout, no doubt about it. Bethestards simply refuse to have their precious games called "bad RPGs". They refuse to enjoy the games for what they are: glorified action adventures where stats may as well be completely gone.

Someone said "Wizardry is not an RPG" earlier. I do think it is an RPG. Whether it is shallow or not is up to you: "it doesn't have dialogue", true. "There are almost no skills to use", true. But Wizardry doesn't need them. To me, a shallow game is a game that has mechanics it doesn't take advantage of. An RPG like that is a bad RPG. Wizardry is a good RPG in that it uses what it has to great effect. But it is more appropiately described as a Dungeon Crawler, because that is ultimately what you are looking for. Not so much "playing a role, developing my characters", as it is "getting to the bottom of that fucking dungeon".

 

[ColonelTeacup]

Wouldn't the release of Divinity: Original Sin completely repudiate this sentiment from Sawyer, as it was a standout success? Perhaps he just wants those easy mainstream audience bucks? Or does not want to self reflect on any shortcomings he and his team may have that has cause Sub-optimal sales for his latest games?

It definitely does, from my perspective. I've heard D:OS does some things I think are pretty cool and an example of increased interactivty in cRPGs. Of Pillars of Eternity, I've heard ZERO things I think are great. Deadfire? A fistful of nothing. That's why I think he is not just stating facts (I do believe he is stating facts), but he is being, either intentionally or not, extremely misleading.

For instance, I would never call cRPG fans "resistant to change", because that is fundamentally ignoring what "change" actually is nowadays: the change towards action RPGs which means an objectively worse roleplaying experience, no matter how much fun you may have with the game itself.

Well, that's one of the inherent cruxes of game development or any creative art isn't it? You can try and follow trends and try and play it safe, or try your own thing and hope people like your ideas on the mechanics, interactivity or synergy of the game. I guess in this instance Sawyers possible failing is refusing to self-reflect on the issues with a critical eye, instead opting to claim there is no longer a market for his chosen field. Self critique is hard at times though, especially the longer you've been doing whatever you are reflecting on, to be fair. I haven't played enough of AoD to have enough of an opinion on it, though I have heard good things as well, but I couldn't say it was the "evolution" of crpgs, perhaps a possible fork in the road if nothing else. No single path is ever the definite one.

 

[Sykar]

Or Underrail.

Underrail was an iterative RPG as opposed to evolutionary.

As others have mentioned, the Oddity system is quite unique and you will be hard pressed to find something similar which was also optional and you can still play with a classic experience system if you think that Oddity does not suit your playstyle.

On top of that unlike most other cRPGs the difficulty settings here does affect AI behavior in combat as well as enemy types and whether you get some in part really difficult random encounters or not.

The way this game handles Stealth is also fairly unique since it is handled as its own minigame where you run against time against enemy detection unlike most of the rest where you push a button and become invisible and that is that.

 

[Quillon]

Bethesda's "new direction" in Obsidian's hands = New Vegas so only worry if you don't like NV. I have no hope to see my favorite/dream gameplay system in an RPG, its more likely I'll see it in an RTS but RPG =/= gameplay/combat system, its so much more; what separates FO3 and NV.

And so Cainarsky game with shapes/without numbers doesn't bother me at all as I'm sure their game will have depth where it matters the most, as they have shown previously in an FPS RPG.

 

[One-and-a-half-Ivan]

Obsidian - it dead.
A penny for the 'Next Troika' guys.

We are RPGCodex men
We are the Troll men.
Laughing together,
Dices rolled for fun. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We shitpost together
Are quiet and meaningless
As proof in forum war
Or reason that we seek for
In the games of Bethesda.

Shit without texture, games without gameplay,
Impotent creators, flawed gem without flaws.

Those who have crossed
With tears in eyes to the likes of RPGWatch,
Remember us - if at all - not as lost,
Violent souls, but only
As RPGCodex men,
The Troll men.

****************

This is the way RPGs end,
This is the way RPGs end,
This is the way RPGs end,
Not with decline, but an arrogance.

 

[The Great ThunThun*]

Why do RPGs need to "Evolve", again?