Posted May 09, 2018
MyFeetHurt: For some stupid reason no one could say that aloud until 2 years after the first one released, so... does it really matter?
No of course not, it's just mindless childish escapism.
But it is a shame to see this company have become so turgid and risk averse, and above all to have no real soul or passion in their writing, to whatever degree that matters.
Not much, I suspect.
Mm. It's specially disappointing, because it's actually the case that this "strategy" of theirs wasn't naturally chosen out of incompetence or lack of ideas - like what happens to most studios. Instead it was chosen in spite of them. No of course not, it's just mindless childish escapism.
But it is a shame to see this company have become so turgid and risk averse, and above all to have no real soul or passion in their writing, to whatever degree that matters.
Not much, I suspect.
With the first game, long before the rushing and releases, they actually had a playable version of Josh Sawyer's first draft for the rules, with interfering spellcasting, counter magic, and also counter skill and so on. Along with the whole accuracy vs. strength mechanic that very cleverly allowed you to make narratively believable types of characters - that also made mechanical sense in the game.
There were cleraly some technical challenges with this setup, because it required some types of calculations that disagreed very obviously with the scripting approach someone at Obsidian loves. And this is of course the same type of issue that turns up with conversations, the quest trees, and so on. So there is a wish here to develop something interesting, but it has to be worth it.
But importantly, these issues were solvable - it's actually possible to get something that looks and plays a lot like Ice Wind Dale 2 wishes to be, but couldn't due to engine (and licensing) limitations. And there's no need to have any insider knowledge about the development process to recognise some of the design goals in PoE from Sawyer's earlier spin on D&D3.5 in IWD2.
So why didn't that happen? Why did Obsidian choose to go with linear tables and a "traditional" approach. Why did the dexterity/accuracy mechanic disappear, why did potion scumming return, why did magic conventions survive, etc. And on the design stage, why did we get linear and largely isolated hubs of activity, with quests that were more or less independent from each other, and so on.
It's because of two things. One: I know for a fact that a certain senior super-producer at Obsidian became convinced that the entire rule-system was impenetrably complicated for a majority of the fans (he also spoke about how ten very loud people on their forum - I'm not making this up, I swear - were representative for the wishes of their potential customers). Two: It is massively easier to plan and schedule a project that has solid milestones, and where completing threads and paths, such as quest-lines and stories, can be developed in parallel. This is why you get quests that could just as well not exist in the same universe - where they only tie together in superficial ways.
And according to the focus-groups any major or minor publisher will make use of nowadays - a massive, massive majority won't ever notice the difference anyway. They'll choose the colour of the ending, and accept it as a unique and specific ending responding to their choices, etc.
Worse than that - when you also know that your ruleset and vision is extremely narrow. That after you've presented it, and showed it to your "trusted" fans -- only 1 out of a 60 or so internet assholes will actually see how brilliant it is. Then is it worth gambling the company's reputation and finances on that one person?
I mean, I haven't got many nice things to say about Obsidian's managers, and clearly neither does the major design people in the company. But you can see the wisdom of not spending time, and quite a lot of time, on developing a system that 1/60 people likes. It might be what the designers wanted, and it might be brilliant - but if you genuinely become convinced that it isn't possible to sell, then it makes sense to choose Obsidian's approach where they churn out masses of games that are semi-popular, rather than spending time on developing a gem that maybe just one person will loudly celebrate as the best game ever.
In the same way, the previous games Obsidian had that were superb - they were universally panned in the reviews. It took years and years before anyone "important" admitted that Fallout NV made "Fallout3" look like an unfinished piece of garbage in comparison. And they didn't even sell that well.
So it's truly a shame that Sawyer's original draft wasn't used, and that the requirements of the scripting language for having quests interfere with each other in semi-interactive narratives wasn't completed - and likely never will. In spite of a working product, a running draft, actually making it through the production stage.
But it is also understandable why it happens. Personally, I would have chosen differently - but then again, I'm not the one paying people's salaries here.
Post edited May 09, 2018 by nipsen