All subjective opinion. I consider Obsidian to be the best RPG studio bar none. And their most recent big RPG, Grounded, has sold over 10 million.
I think PoEs were a bit too much nostalgia driven, but that’s what they promised. I do agree with you and see Obsidian still as the most reliable RPG studio. Both PoEs and Tyranny were quite excellent. Outer Worlds I found to be meh, but it was still finely crafted with some interesting ideas.
I definitely wouldn’t count Grounded as an RPG - it is straight up survival game. Pentiment was narrative adventure.
I think PoE were some of the most mature RPGs I have played - with fantastic conversation trees and best reputation system I have experienced. I do think, though, that Obsidian is at its best when being creative - in the past decade they seemed to play it more safe - resulting in more even titles, but also a bit less exciting. While not exactly my cup of tea Grounded and Pentiment seem like real passion project, and they have spark that some of the other titles lacked.
There is little point in rating studios - Obsidian name still raises my interest, it’s perfectly fine if it doesn’t for others. I have clearly different taste than some other posters, and PoE’s Eora is the first fictional RPG world about which I cared. It seems to have themes, purpose and thought behind it, that made it interesting to me.
There is little point in rating studios - Obsidian name still raises my interest, it’s perfectly fine if it doesn’t for others. I have clearly different taste than some other posters, and PoE’s Eora is the first fictional RPG world about which I cared. It seems to have themes, purpose and thought behind it, that made it interesting to me.
Oh I love Obsidian, too. Don't get me wrong. Just because they have some hurdles to overcome, doesn't mean they don't make great games. IMO Tyranny was better than PoE and the recent pathfinder games. Tyranny really felt like you were making an impact. If you haven't played it, I suggest you give it a couple playthroughs to try the different possibilities. I've played through the Outer Worlds more than once, and plan on picking up its sequel when it comes out.
IMO Tyranny was better than PoE and the recent pathfinder games.
I am one of the few who bought Tyranny at launch😁. Didn’t like it nearly as much as PoEs, especially on consecutive playthrough but I sill liked it quite a bit. Too bad a sequel is unlikely to happen now.
I don't think it's a real issue. The only companies that I think are really going to have issues are ones like Obsidian, where people will expect a step forward. Owlcat's not on the same level and their games are different enough that they can avoid direct comparisons. They also have a history of including hidden depths, which helps a lot.
Obsidian is like BIO. Former good devs who are now plain garbage. I'll take Larian (despite certain issues), Owlcat (despite certian issues), and Solasta's devs over those devs currently as these three devs actually still make playable and fun rpgs. I have never liked Bethesda who have made exactly zero good rpgs, or Twitcher devs though I'd be lying if Cyberpunk didn't intrigue me somewhat, but I've managed not to throw money at it yet.
I also think some people are missing what the devs are saying as well. I think it is mostly:
1. Smaller studios cannot be expected to have a budget to pull off what BG3 is trying to pull off. 2. Other AAA studios are so corporate that the devs are not allowed to make a game like BG3.
I'm not positive they are exactly trying to make excuses as individual developers themselves. I think the Blizzard dev is more ripping Blizzard than anything (not sure if this is the exact article, but I know a Blizzard dev also commented apparently). For instance if Blizzard was in charge of the development of BG3 I imagine that it would:
1. Be online only somehow 2. Sacrifice tons of legitimate content for dice skins, armor skins and other microtransaction items 3. Things like Half-Orc and Dragonborn would have likely been paid DLC 4. There would likely be significantly less sub-classes and they would be included as paid DLC at a later time 5. They wouldn't have been given a six year development window 6. The game would have to be more commercially accessible and a lot of the content would likely be more tame to appeal to as wide of an audience as possible 7. Instead of being like 80-100 hours with tons of side content it likely would have been like 30-50 hours with a cliff hanger main story that released multiple paid for expansions
I don’t care who makes it as long as it is decent - but I think Larian are on the cusp of something very special & as an older gamer I echo those who have waited a very very long time for a d&d game as good as this one is going to be.
So my thoughts after some consideration. I would agree that BG3 is an anomaly in some ways, most especially because its a CRPG being made at a AAA budget with all that a CRPG is typically expected to have. I also think that calling it the new standard is kind of... wrong in idea. It raises the bar, but talking about standards, that's like saying Shakespeare became the standard for literature. He was the best in what he was trying to do, but not only does that not mean everyone else should immediately be derided for not making that the new average, but other people tried to do other things that can't be well judged against Shakespeare.
Even then, BG3 raises the bar only in SOME areas. Like, in terms of graphics the two new God of War games blow it out of the water. Engagement with the characters? I never played any of the games but even watching a let's play I was riveted by the level of emotion conveyed even in the beginning, that's a bar BG3 isn't even in sight of. We should recognise that that's that's game studio firing on all cylinders doing what it does best, same goes for BG3 and Larian.
Gaming isn't a linear thing. Games are varied and weird things. The standard of BG3 can't be applied to all games, same as the standard of God of War can't be applied to all games. Look at Hades. Another absolutely stellar game, a basically perfect version of itself. But trying to compare it to BG3 is fruitless because at a base level they really have very little to do with each other beyond being well balanced and polished, bit even then those design and polish principles are wildly different from each other. When we talk about what standard BG3 sets, what does that actually MEAN in practice? Even looking at another rpg, The Witcher 3, I think if they tried to make it more like BG3 it would have ended up being a worse game because the kind of rpg it was trying to be was, at its core, a different beast in terms of rpgs.
Even looking at another rpg, The Witcher 3, I think if they tried to make it more like BG3 it would have ended up being a worse game because the kind of rpg it was trying to be was, at its core, a different beast in terms of rpgs.
The Witcher 3 is one of my favorite games ever made, definitely in my top 2 or 3. It is the prime example of how a game can influence the gaming industry in a big way. There have been tons of attempts to try to make games like it and pretty much all of them have fallen flat. I think this is because studios start to look at games as formulas rather than focusing on the overall experience. They are like... we need to make a Witcher 3 game and say...
1. The world needs to be big? Check. But then they fill it with mediocre, repetitive or bad content. 2. We need TEH SEX and HAWT CHARACTERS! Check. But none of them are actually memorable or interesting. 3. We need a bad ass main character! Check. Only they aren't really bad ass... or well written... or interesting. 4. We need really good graphics! Check!!! Only good graphics alone can't make a game good. 5. We need an incredibly long main story with twists and turns! Check! Only the story they came up with is like 80% filler and just causes the game to drag on, since not many writers can come up with a 80+ hour epic that keeps you engaged.
That being said Witcher 3 clones will probably keep coming because they are very safe. I thought those Horizon games were dreadful and they seemingly still sold well. Ubisoft seems to somehow keep selling games that use a similar formula to the above. People like those big sprawling worlds full of empty content and mediocre characters/story.
CRPGs on the other hand? Those seem extremely risky for studios to sink a ton of money into. I think a lot of smaller devs jump on the CRPG bandwagon and try to do what DOS2 did in order to pull in the fanbase that BG3 will create. But I don't think any of the major AAA studios get pulled in and try to do what Larian has done. I think they just stick to the formula already in place and proven to sell.
4. We need really good graphics! Check!!! Only good graphics alone can't make a game good.
This is huge and so few shops understand. Growing up in the 80s and 90s, most games I played were either heavily text-based, or focused on interesting problems or stories because they couldn't lean on graphics like a crutch. Zork! King's Quest! Once the graphics started catching up to the storytelling, all the stuff that made games fun went out the window as secondary to graphics.
It's really, really hard to find games that are truly enjoyable to play that also have fantastic graphics
Sorry to revive this thread, but I just watched Crispys Tavern (he does DnD related stuff - stories, tips etc.) and he had a nice comemnt about this topic, so I thought, I'll leave it here (didn't want to open a new thread for that):
It's the first topic in this video.
Last edited by fylimar; 19/07/2307:29 PM.
"We are all stories in the end. Just make it a good one."
4. We need really good graphics! Check!!! Only good graphics alone can't make a game good.
This is huge and so few shops understand. Growing up in the 80s and 90s, most games I played were either heavily text-based, or focused on interesting problems or stories because they couldn't lean on graphics like a crutch. Zork! King's Quest! Once the graphics started catching up to the storytelling, all the stuff that made games fun went out the window as secondary to graphics.
It's really, really hard to find games that are truly enjoyable to play that also have fantastic graphics
Yep, graphics aren't everything, BG3 would still be great if it had 8-bit graphics and was played on a Sega Genesis, also it would be hard to call it an "anomaly" when games like Fallout New Vegas and Dragon Age Origins exist, honestly I haven't been this hyped up for a game since the PS3 days.
Xalavier made some great points insofar as the apply to studios that check one of the following boxes: -Small -Limited Professional Experience -Limited Budget -Limited Notoriety
And most devs retweeting that argument were in the right. But two devs retweeting that argument need to fuck right off: Obsidian and Blizzard, who have massive notoriety and IPs, comparable team sizes, capacity for large budgets and fundraising potential, and decades of experience.
Avowed shouldn’t have gone through development hell and everything Larian did to develop its brand and secure contracts could easily have been accomplished by Obsidian which was following similar trajectory. Back in the mid-2010s it was clear that Obsidian and Larian were reviving CRPGs together, but only one company had the stomach to stick with it. Don’t even get me started on Blizzard.
Not shitting on Obsidian, which has produced some AMAZING games. But for Sawyer to come out and say that consumers shouldn’t expect RPGs to take the example of BG3 is just not a good look.if a new bar is set in cinematic and reactive RPGs by high level production on a single player experience with a long early access phase, then mid to large sized developers with those capabilities can either publish or perish.
Ambition is not poison. It is risk. For those who have it, they can fly high or crash and burn. For those who don’t, they can find peace in happy mediocrity.
Edits for addition: If the reason the devs that don’t tick those boxes cannot find success is because of the standards and parameters set by their corporate or financial overlords, then I hope the financial success of BG3 (and hopefully failure of corporate operations) will force a critical reevaluation of investor-developer relations in this space. Because either the devs are incompetent in game development (unlikely) or investors are shifting priorities so much that it is breaking their products.
For example: Obsidian is responsible for multiples all time RPG classics, has a total employee count exceeding 200, has tremendous industry experience, and can raise millions overnight, as seen in the POE kickstarters. Obsidian was doing every step that Larian was doing, but had more years of success under its belt.
Last edited by Zerubbabel; 20/07/2301:34 AM.
Remember the human (This is a forum for a video game):
Xalavier made some great points insofar as the apply to studios that check one of the following boxes: -Small -Limited Professional Experience -Limited Budget -Limited Notoriety
And most devs retweeting that argument were in the right. But two devs retweeting that argument need to fuck right off: Obsidian and Blizzard, who have massive notoriety and IPs, comparable team sizes, capacity for large budgets and fundraising potential, and decades of experience.
Avowed shouldn’t have gone through development hell and everything Larian did to develop its brand and secure contracts could easily have been accomplished by Obsidian which was following similar trajectory. Back in the mid-2010s it was clear that Obsidian and Larian were reviving CRPGs together, but only one company had the stomach to stick with it. Don’t even get me started on Blizzard.
Not shitting on Obsidian, which has produced some AMAZING games. But for Sawyer to come out and say that consumers shouldn’t expect RPGs to take the example of BG3 is just not a good look.if a new bar is set in cinematic and reactive RPGs by high level production on a single player experience with a long early access phase, then mid to large sized developers with those capabilities can either publish or perish.
Ambition is not poison. It is risk. For those who have it, they can fly high or crash and burn. For those who don’t, they can find peace in happy mediocrity.
Edits for addition: If the reason the devs that don’t tick those boxes cannot find success is because of the standards and parameters set by their corporate or financial overlords, then I hope the financial success of BG3 (and hopefully failure of corporate operations) will force a critical reevaluation of investor-developer relations in this space. Because either the devs are incompetent in game development (unlikely) or investors are shifting priorities so much that it is breaking their products.
For example: Obsidian is responsible for multiples all time RPG classics, has a total employee count exceeding 200, has tremendous industry experience, and can raise millions overnight, as seen in the POE kickstarters. Obsidian was doing every step that Larian was doing, but had more years of success under its belt.
Yeah they need to fuck off, why couldn't Obsidian or Blizzard do this, they're much bigger studios than Larian, it seems like something they could've easily pulled off themselves but for some reason they decided to complained about it, like a bunch of pathetic losers.
Xalavier made some great points insofar as the apply to studios that check one of the following boxes: -Small -Limited Professional Experience -Limited Budget -Limited Notoriety
And most devs retweeting that argument were in the right. But two devs retweeting that argument need to fuck right off: Obsidian and Blizzard, who have massive notoriety and IPs, comparable team sizes, capacity for large budgets and fundraising potential, and decades of experience.
Avowed shouldn’t have gone through development hell and everything Larian did to develop its brand and secure contracts could easily have been accomplished by Obsidian which was following similar trajectory. Back in the mid-2010s it was clear that Obsidian and Larian were reviving CRPGs together, but only one company had the stomach to stick with it. Don’t even get me started on Blizzard.
Not shitting on Obsidian, which has produced some AMAZING games. But for Sawyer to come out and say that consumers shouldn’t expect RPGs to take the example of BG3 is just not a good look.if a new bar is set in cinematic and reactive RPGs by high level production on a single player experience with a long early access phase, then mid to large sized developers with those capabilities can either publish or perish.
Ambition is not poison. It is risk. For those who have it, they can fly high or crash and burn. For those who don’t, they can find peace in happy mediocrity.
Edits for addition: If the reason the devs that don’t tick those boxes cannot find success is because of the standards and parameters set by their corporate or financial overlords, then I hope the financial success of BG3 (and hopefully failure of corporate operations) will force a critical reevaluation of investor-developer relations in this space. Because either the devs are incompetent in game development (unlikely) or investors are shifting priorities so much that it is breaking their products.
For example: Obsidian is responsible for multiples all time RPG classics, has a total employee count exceeding 200, has tremendous industry experience, and can raise millions overnight, as seen in the POE kickstarters. Obsidian was doing every step that Larian was doing, but had more years of success under its belt.
Yeah they need to fuck off, why couldn't Obsidian or Blizzard do this, they're much bigger studios than Larian, it seems like something they could've easily pulled off themselves but for some reason they decided to complained about it, like a bunch of pathetic losers.
Blizzard can't rven make an rpg where the only focus is combat.
After his video on the new patches balanceing i half expect Asmongold to just move to Baldur's Gate 3 lol
Xalavier made some great points insofar as the apply to studios that check one of the following boxes: -Small -Limited Professional Experience -Limited Budget -Limited Notoriety
And most devs retweeting that argument were in the right. But two devs retweeting that argument need to fuck right off: Obsidian and Blizzard, who have massive notoriety and IPs, comparable team sizes, capacity for large budgets and fundraising potential, and decades of experience.
Avowed shouldn’t have gone through development hell and everything Larian did to develop its brand and secure contracts could easily have been accomplished by Obsidian which was following similar trajectory. Back in the mid-2010s it was clear that Obsidian and Larian were reviving CRPGs together, but only one company had the stomach to stick with it. Don’t even get me started on Blizzard.
Not shitting on Obsidian, which has produced some AMAZING games. But for Sawyer to come out and say that consumers shouldn’t expect RPGs to take the example of BG3 is just not a good look.if a new bar is set in cinematic and reactive RPGs by high level production on a single player experience with a long early access phase, then mid to large sized developers with those capabilities can either publish or perish.
Ambition is not poison. It is risk. For those who have it, they can fly high or crash and burn. For those who don’t, they can find peace in happy mediocrity.
Edits for addition: If the reason the devs that don’t tick those boxes cannot find success is because of the standards and parameters set by their corporate or financial overlords, then I hope the financial success of BG3 (and hopefully failure of corporate operations) will force a critical reevaluation of investor-developer relations in this space. Because either the devs are incompetent in game development (unlikely) or investors are shifting priorities so much that it is breaking their products.
For example: Obsidian is responsible for multiples all time RPG classics, has a total employee count exceeding 200, has tremendous industry experience, and can raise millions overnight, as seen in the POE kickstarters. Obsidian was doing every step that Larian was doing, but had more years of success under its belt.
Yeah they need to fuck off, why couldn't Obsidian or Blizzard do this, they're much bigger studios than Larian, it seems like something they could've easily pulled off themselves but for some reason they decided to complained about it, like a bunch of pathetic losers.
Thank God Obsidian and others are NOT following Larian's example.
Xalavier made some great points insofar as the apply to studios that check one of the following boxes: -Small -Limited Professional Experience -Limited Budget -Limited Notoriety
And most devs retweeting that argument were in the right. But two devs retweeting that argument need to fuck right off: Obsidian and Blizzard, who have massive notoriety and IPs, comparable team sizes, capacity for large budgets and fundraising potential, and decades of experience.
Avowed shouldn’t have gone through development hell and everything Larian did to develop its brand and secure contracts could easily have been accomplished by Obsidian which was following similar trajectory. Back in the mid-2010s it was clear that Obsidian and Larian were reviving CRPGs together, but only one company had the stomach to stick with it. Don’t even get me started on Blizzard.
Not shitting on Obsidian, which has produced some AMAZING games. But for Sawyer to come out and say that consumers shouldn’t expect RPGs to take the example of BG3 is just not a good look.if a new bar is set in cinematic and reactive RPGs by high level production on a single player experience with a long early access phase, then mid to large sized developers with those capabilities can either publish or perish.
Ambition is not poison. It is risk. For those who have it, they can fly high or crash and burn. For those who don’t, they can find peace in happy mediocrity.
Edits for addition: If the reason the devs that don’t tick those boxes cannot find success is because of the standards and parameters set by their corporate or financial overlords, then I hope the financial success of BG3 (and hopefully failure of corporate operations) will force a critical reevaluation of investor-developer relations in this space. Because either the devs are incompetent in game development (unlikely) or investors are shifting priorities so much that it is breaking their products.
For example: Obsidian is responsible for multiples all time RPG classics, has a total employee count exceeding 200, has tremendous industry experience, and can raise millions overnight, as seen in the POE kickstarters. Obsidian was doing every step that Larian was doing, but had more years of success under its belt.
Yeah they need to fuck off, why couldn't Obsidian or Blizzard do this, they're much bigger studios than Larian, it seems like something they could've easily pulled off themselves but for some reason they decided to complained about it, like a bunch of pathetic losers.
Thank God Obsidian and others are NOT following Larian's example.
We are talking about Xalavier’s points on scope and scale for what he calls “megagames,” not Larian’s specific style of game. Obsidian hasn’t put out an RPG since the Outer Worlds, and their production team is consistently divided across multiple projects. Did you think the announcements about Avowed made the game enticing in contrast to its initial release trailer?
I would prefer Obsidian spend its resources on experiences like Pillars, except with more budget and labor to produce fuller experiences.
Whether you like Larian’s style of game or not (even if you haven’t played it), Swen and co. Made extremely intelligent business moves that Obsidian easily could have taken. For example: -Kickstarters (POE kickstarters were MASSIVE) -Soliciting player feedback and developing player statistics and datasets. -Seeking out strong IPs to piggyback or developing more tie in products for their RPGs and worlds. -Cordoning of 15-20 percent of their game to release as an Early Access pre-order. -Temporarily scaling company growth with revenue and project growth, and then consolidating after release. -Centering your team on a small number of projects and maintaining talent enthusiasm and autonomy to avert “development hell.” -Finding ways to build hype through community engagement even after years of development. People shit on Swen for doing skits and wearing armour, but the panels and influencer collaboration helped to bring community engagement.
Demand more from your favorite companies, not less. In an alternate universe, Obsidian is also putting out their own take on the RPG of the decade, inspired by CRPG classics, Fallout New Vegas, and Owlcat’s Pathfinder.
Remember the human (This is a forum for a video game):
Obsidian is understandably hesitant to release another Pillars of Eternity game. PoE2 was a significant commercial disappointment and Obsidian were not quite sure why (though maybe that has changed).
As somebody who was underwhelmed by the first PoE and has forever given up after a third attempt at playing PoE2, I’m not sad to see that they’ve moved away, but I don’t find their particular style of Bethesda lite games appealing either. They need to come up with a style of their own. They’ve never had that and it hurts them. Some people here like to bemoan BG3 being DOS3, but Larian having a house style that is specifically associated with them is a good thing for Larian. Obsidian could learn a thing or two here.
