sawyer wants rpg to evolve

[Mustawd]

Oh. I'd rate your post :informative: if I could. But I can't. Because I self ejected. Life is cruel, is what I'm trying to say.

EDIT: No but seriously, I rate your post informative. Thanks.

 

[Grauken]

I did it for you

 

[Cross]

The nu-Obsidian is the Obsidian of Josh Sawyer, the Obsidian that's focused on creating its own IPs

The old Obsidian made RTwP RPGs that were same-engine successors to Bioware games.

The new Obsidian makes RTwP RPGs that are spiritual successors to Bioware games.

 

[set]

Imma just post this here:
https://www.vg247.com/2018/04/21/rpg-players-resistant-to-change-says-obsidian/

And act all smugly because I can clearly see now why we saw good devs walking away from Obsidian this year. They've completely lost touch and think Fallout 4 is the direction RPGs should be going in.

 

[Infinitron]

The nu-Obsidian is the Obsidian of Josh Sawyer, the Obsidian that's focused on creating its own IPs

The old Obsidian made RTwP RPGs that were same-engine successors to Bioware games.

The new Obsidian makes RTwP RPGs that are spiritual successors to Bioware games.

True! But in this context, maybe not so important. The idea is that creating new IPs - even if those IPs are heavily derivative of existing ones - has shifted a great deal of Obsidian's "narrative horsepower" towards humdrum worldbuilding at the expense of crafting interesting character-driven narratives. Every hour a developer spends on lore is an hour he doesn't spend on other things. I mean, to some extent every IP is derivative of previous ones - for example, the Forgotten Realms can be thought of as derivative of Middle Earth. But if somebody had to create the Forgotten Realms from scratch and make Baldur's Gate at the same time, it would have been a pretty different game, one that couldn't rely on the audience's pre-existing familiarity with the setting.

 

[fantadomat]

Imma just post this here:
https://www.vg247.com/2018/04/21/rpg-players-resistant-to-change-says-obsidian/

And act all smugly because I can clearly see now why we saw good devs walking away from Obsidian this year. They've completely lost touch and think Fallout 4 is the direction RPGs should be going in.

I will post this here:
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/sawyer-wants-rpg-to-evolve.121468/
And act all smugly for checking for new threads from time to time .

 

[Roguey]

interesting character-driven narrative

This is how I'd describe Tyranny though.

 

[Kem0sabe]

Obsidian's best games have been offshoots of AAA franchises, i.e kotor 2 and new Vegas. Every fucking time they have been left to their own devices, they have fucked it up.

Best thing that obsidian can do is work on AAA action rpgs again, it fits them, and we as gamers are benefited by it.

 

[Falksi]

Just make it fun & enjoyable. Resistance to change is usually because said change kills both fun & enjoyment.

I always champion Dragon Age:Origins as the most successful step from CRPG to Action RPG. Enough elements of both to work & draw both crowds in.

It's not resistiance to change, it's resistance to wankness. Do it right & we'll love it.

 

[nobre]

The piece reads like he is talking about RPG's 'growth' in the sense of commercial success. Literally no one cares about that, unless you have a financial stake in the business. The people just want good games, damnit.

 

[2house2fly]

Translation: I want to make make RPGs for people who don't like RPGs.

Evolve... fuck off, how about wanting to make good RPGs in the first place? Nah, it's much easier to try to reinvent the wheel and then blame "grognards" when your shitty vision inevitably fails.

Pillars Of Eternity sold over a million copies.

 

[vonAchdorf]

See, this is where I think we're missing the context. This was a panel about "Evolving the Genre". According to VG247's writeup, during that panel, Josh Sawyer said these two things:

1) RPGs can/should evolve.

2) In the past, RPGs have evolved by adapting the Bethesda open world RPG formula.

People ITT are now assuming that those two statements are one and the same. That Sawyer said "We need to evolve our RPGs, by turning them into Bethesda games". But we don't know that. All we have is VG247's context-free summary of various things that he said.

This is an interpretation that makes sense because this observation:

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.

“The traditionalists probably get angry about this stuff, but Bethesda’s RPGs are very different from isometric RPGs.

“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.

can't be anything other than a retrospective, not a plan for "the future of (JES) RPGs". He just states something obvious (RPGS can be different from isometric RPGs - duh there have been different RPGs from the beginnings of the genre). The second quote doesn't make much sense either - Bethesda style RPGs are older than Baldur's Gate or Fallout, so doing things differently than 20 years ago doesn't mean following Bethesda's style. If the genre should evolve / try something new, both IE and Bethesda style won't do it.

 

[Blakemoreland Hybrid Boss]

The hardcore RPG audience is very traditional. Fans tend to skew towards the more hardcore cases and they tend to be fairly resistant to change.

No, they are not.

I don’t want to paint too broad of a stroke there but RPGs can be a lot more than we have done with them so far. There’s much more than we can do and its much more radical.

If by radical you mean popamole streamlined gameplay, then that's pretty much what everyone have been doing for the past 20 years. The result of this improvement is games like Skryim.

For Sawyer, role-playing games are defined by the player’s ability to alter the storyline of the game through his or her actions, rather than the amount of stat tweaking or hit points a player delivers in combat.

Role-playing games are defined by the player’s ability to alter the storyline of the game through his or her actions by means of a system that models his abilities with stats and skills. If you remove this feature, you are not talking about a cRPG anymore.

So many games use RPG elements, stat progression and characteristics that are defined by those in RPGs. I start to question about whether that is the heart and soul of what a role-playing game is about

That's like saying that chess should be more than combinations of pieces in a chessboard. I start to question whether you should be a cRPG developer in the first place. Besides, it sounds ridiculous to insinuate that traditional RPG elements have been properly implemented in cRPGs. Usually, in the few circumstances where stats/skills checks are present they are fluffy, character system is mostly cosmetical in most cRPGs, etc. Complaining about these features as if they were restricting the genre is absurd.

The way that I work on role-playing games, they tend to be more about playing a character that has a range of personalities and a way of going through a story that changes that story in a very significant way. The amount to which things like statistics or combat systems interact with that, really can be much more fluid.

In bold for emphasis. What he really meant, but can't say openly is that he doesn't want to fail in his choices and that SPs distribution should be so easy to the point that there is no challenge anymore.

The traditionalists probably get angry about this stuff, but Bethesda’s RPGs are very different from isometric RPGs.

Fuck you!

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

But that's where cRPGs have been for more than 20 years. So this manifesto of change is actually another dig at genuined cRPG fans and a defense of popamole games that ruined the genre. If anyone still had any doubts what they should expect from Obsidian, I guess this settles then.

 

[Nano]

interesting character-driven narrative

This is how I'd describe Tyranny though.

No.

It had a character-driven narrative. But it wasn't interesting.

 

[Theldaran]

Like this?

 

[Blakemoreland Hybrid Boss]

He's just desperate to work at Bethesda and will throw the grognards that backed his games under the bus to draw some attention.

Fixed.

 

[Blakemoreland Hybrid Boss]

Sure. The disconnect occurs when he cites Bethesda's games, imo.

He praises C&C in cRPGs and commends Bethesda games, which are triple-A conventional games: linear as fuck.

 

[Sigourn]

I'm very disappointed in Sawyer. There's a difference between "evolution" and "change". Fallout 3 is a change from Fallout 2. It got rid of most of the good aspects of the game, replacing them with popamole. New Vegas is an evolution from Fallout 3. It reintroduced many mechanics from the previous games, and tried to fix what was wrong with Fallout 3.

In Skyrim, "immersion" is defined by voice acting and 1st person perspective. If you removed those two, Skyrim wouldn't be ANYWHERE near as popular as it is. None of those features have to do with "evolving" the genre. RPGs are about interacting with the world through a particular role which is defined by your stats. An RPG with no stats of any kind is an RPG where you can probably do anything you want whenever you want. The worst RPGs are those that still have stats, but they are meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Case in point, Skyrim.

It's no wonder RPGs haven't really evolved in two decades. It's easier to call voice acting and choice of perspective "evolution", when what cRPG fans really want is a game that offers many more opportunities, mimicking how tabletop RPGs work. Evolution is being able to tell Constable Owens that some bandits are going to rob the bank, instead of simply refusing a quest from a shady Argonian and being unable to warn the guards about it. Evolution is being able to electrocute the water an NPC is standing in, as opposed to electricity doing jack shit. Evolution is being able to plant C4 by a cliffside and cause a shitload of rocks to fall onto the enemy camp. Evolution is being able to blast open the shitload of doors you see in fucking New Vegas, but of course you can't because this retarded way of making games means you have to make a bunch of buildings with nothing inside of them and which you cannot access.

THAT'S WHAT IMMERSION ACTUALLY IS, YOU... YOU... SOY BOY FAGGOT.

 

[FreeKaner]

EDIT: There really isn't a nuObsidian. It's just the old Obsidian before the kickstarters.

When people say "nuObsidian" they don't mean an Obsidian that wants to make popamole AAA games. In fact, there are a good number of people on this forum who prefer the old Obsidian that made popamole AAA games.

The old Obsidian is the Obsidian of Chris Avellone, the Obsidian that specialized in making ambitious, often buggy sequels to popular licenses, with heavily character-driven narratives and a tendency towards "philosophical" or trope-deconstructing writing.

The nu-Obsidian is the Obsidian of Josh Sawyer, the Obsidian that's focused on creating its own IPs with voluminous amounts of "lore", that seems more interested in system design than narrative, that prefers to play it safe and is wary of over-ambitious project scope.

So it's essentially all of Obsidian's games versus Pillars of Eternity, a project with a very specific vision and promises. We'll see what Obsidian is doing with this project of Tim Cain and Boyarsky. Likely it will be an action RPG in the vein of Alpha Protocol and New Vegas.

 

[fantadomat]

Sure. The disconnect occurs when he cites Bethesda's games, imo.

He praises C&C in cRPGs and commends Bethesda games, which are triple-A conventional games: linear as fuck.

Their games are not linear at all,their main quest is.... and nobody is playing it.

 

[frajaq]

He's just desperate to work at Bethesda and will throw the grognards that backed his games under the bus to draw some attention.

Fixed.

Nah Josh would never want to work at Bethesda, he said previously he doesn't want to work in AAA games

Although it would be fucking hilarious just to see the meltdown on this forum for it

 

[Theldaran]

In Pillars, we can choose

Spoiler

what we do with the harvested souls,

but since it's the end of the game, you conveniently never see the consequences of your actions in any significant way.

Let's face it, I don't play through Throne of Bhaal's boredom just to get those stylish scrolls telling of my companions' fate. That isn't the real goal.

 

[JarlFrank]

I want RPGs to evolve too. They're stuck in a place where they've forgotten what made them great back in the 90s and 00s, and the highlights of the genre are still found in that era. There hasn't been any progress from there. Nobody has made a game that is on par with Arcanum when it comes to player choice and the game reacting to what kind of character the player is playing. There isn't anything that surpasses Morrowind and Gothic 2 when it comes to 1st/3rd person action RPGs with an exploration focus. Ultima VII is still the gold standard of world interactivity and NPC schedules, and some developers like Larian strive to emulate U7's systems, but other than Larian no other devs come to mind who try to do this. The 90s and 00s have so many RPGs with interesting character systems, like the later Wizardries, Wizards and Warriors, or even Arcanum where you have beauty as a stat - most modern RPGs just stay with the classic D&D or Fallout inspired stat and skill system, without trying interesting new stuff.

There were so many experimental RPGs back in the day that tried do do things differently, or RPGs that evolved the genre in several ways, but right now we're in an era where indie and mid-list developers are just trying to return to the high standards of 90s and early 00s RPGs, but haven't yet reached them. But in order to evolve the genre, you need to know what has gone before. The Ultimas, Wizardries, Might and Magics, Dark Sun, Baldur's Gates, Gothics, Daggerfall and Morrowind, Arcanum, to mention only a handful - they have to be studied and analyzed and understood if you want to evolve the genre to the next step. Heck, throw some pen and paper systems in there, too, there is SO MUCH to learn from pen and paper.

There has been so much dumbing down since the late 00s in the genre that you have to return to games made prior to that era and take concepts from these if you want to evolve the genre. The seeds are already there. You just have to pick them up.

 

[Sigourn]

I want RPGs to evolve too. They're stuck in a place where they've forgotten what made them great back in the 90s and 00s, and the highlights of the genre are still found in that era. There hasn't been any progress from there. Nobody has made a game that is on par with Arcanum when it comes to player choice and the game reacting to what kind of character the player is playing. There isn't anything that surpasses Morrowind and Gothic 2 when it comes to 1st/3rd person action RPGs with an exploration focus. Ultima VII is still the gold standard of world interactivity and NPC schedules, and some developers like Larian strive to emulate U7's systems, but other than Larian no other devs come to mind who try to do this. The 90s and 00s have so many RPGs with interesting character systems, like the later Wizardries, Wizards and Warriors, or even Arcanum where you have beauty as a stat - most modern RPGs just stay with the classic D&D or Fallout inspired stat and skill system, without trying interesting new stuff.

There were so many experimental RPGs back in the day that tried do do things differently, or RPGs that evolved the genre in several ways, but right now we're in an era where indie and mid-list developers are just trying to return to the high standards of 90s and early 00s RPGs, but haven't yet reached them. But in order to evolve the genre, you need to know what has gone before. The Ultimas, Wizardries, Might and Magics, Dark Sun, Baldur's Gates, Gothics, Daggerfall and Morrowind, Arcanum, to mention only a handful - they have to be studied and analyzed and understood if you want to evolve the genre to the next step. Heck, throw some pen and paper systems in there, too, there is SO MUCH to learn from pen and paper.

There has been so much dumbing down since the late 00s in the genre that you have to return to games made prior to that era and take concepts from these if you want to evolve the genre. The seeds are already there. You just have to pick them up.

I just posted a similar comment on Reddit

Popamole, here we goooooo!!

There are two types of RPGs worth doing.

• cRPGs: Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Fallout, Arcanum, etc. Games that both used stats to great effort and, in the case of the latter two specifically, gave the player lots of ways to interact with the world in a meaningful way.
• Proper action RPGs: Gothic, Dark Souls. Games where stats make a dramatic difference in how strong your character is, and only the most skilled, dedicated players can actually overcome this "stat barrier".

Anything without stats is a poorer RPG. You lose the way to actually define your characters beyond "what personality do I have". I guess it is simpler to make a mediocre cRPG or a mediocre action RPG than actually trying to evolve the genre into something that resembles a tabletop RPG in possibilities and scope.

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

Jesus guys, you need to learn the difference between a normative statement and a positive statement. At no point does he say the industry should evolve toward Bethesda style walking simulators (normative), he simply says this has happened (positive) and is one example of evolution that found an audience. Remember, Josh is the guy who made the most condescending face ever when saying “lots of people like Fallout 3.”

The actual normative statement is very different (emphasis mine):

“The way that I work on role-playing games, they tend to be more about playing a character that has a range of personalities and a way of going through a story that changes that story in a very significant way. The amount to which things like statistics or combat systems interact with that, really can be much more fluid.”

This does NOT mean he wants to get rid of stats, for fuck’s sake. He’s saying RPGs should disentangle C&C and a lot of the reactivity from your combat oriented character build decisions. Honestly, I get the sense that he’s talking about Resolve: it’s not very useful for combat for most classes but it’s the most important social statistic in PoE. That’s irritating. Do you limit your narrative choices with an optimal build, or nerf your character to unlock more dialogue? Arguably these are two different things that shouldn’t be controlled by the same system. He wants you to make more and more big decisions outside of character creation.

That’s neither crazy nor stupid. It might be really cool to create a totally different system for social interactions, but even if you think that’s dumb this is something where reasonable people can disagree. Really, all I see here is that Sawyer doesn’t necessarily want the player’s narrative choices to be limited by their character builds. Your build explains how the character does things, not why they do them. Josh doesn’t seem to think the why should always be limited by the points you pumped into charisma/resolve or intelligence etc...

Don’t be fooled by selective quotations, my dudes.