Dungeon Siege 3 - Interviews with Feargus and Nathan Davis
 

Gamestm.co.uk talked with Feargus Urquhart about Dungeon Siege, a new IP and - Fallout. The interview also covers history of Obsidian as well as the games Obsidian has made - and much more. Here's his answer when asked about how the game compares to say Diablo:
The rest of the interview is really illuminating to read, especially since he also answers questions like what Obsidian have learned from working with various publishers during the years.
Gaming Illustrated also did an interview with Nathan Davis, Associate Producer at Obsidian.
More information.

Like Sheep ?

Uargh !

Now, this is the end of the PC RPG as we know it - and its future - until the pendulum swings back, of course.

Lemmings: The RPG! ;)

Yup. I was pissed when i read this article. Friggin console gaming.

It's more about mainstream gamers than console gamers. As Feargus says here he wouldn't necessarily make a PC exclusive RPG the same as he did 15 years ago either.

As the audience grows for games they will by necessity be made for larger audiences. Mainstream and less hardcore gamers want a more streamlined and accessible experience. Those of us who want something more complex are a minority. Minorities cannot expect to be treated like majorities, it's irrational.

Your right but I and others dont have to like it even if we only make up 20% of there sales. Unfortunately I have started to give up on even the remotest possibility that a AAA title will ever cater to my specific needs again. Ranting and raving about big companies wanting to sell millions of copies and thus catering to much less sophisticated audiences is just a waste of my energy.

Yeah. I enjoy mainstream action RPGs for what they are and I play old games and indie games for my true CRPG gaming. It's pretty much all we can do now.

I'm not excited about what Feargus is saying, in fact it really sucks, but I'm realistic and I know why he is saying it. What I wish is that some of these companies like Obsidian and Bioware would create smaller teams within the company that could make old-school games for Steam and iOS or something for small budgets. They don't see that as a real opportunity though because spending a million to make 5 million is like a waste of time to them. They want to spend 50 million to make 300 million.

Yeah I always thought why didn't the bigger studios make smaller old school rpgs and your right. Spending 1-2 million to make back a few million inst worth there time. The publishers and shareholders wouldn't like it. Thank god for all the indie rpg developers.

I came to the same conclusion after buying The Witcher 2. The funny control scheme in it reminded me of console games but it shouldn't have been in a supposed PC exclusive. The monitor resolution thing annoyed me as well.
This annoyed me as well: Skyrim_to_be_Really_Accessible_Consoles_are_Lead_P latform

I then took a look at the up coming games and realised that there was nothing on the horizon that would cater for an old school RPGer. I like complexity, I like it right from the beginning, I like to actually learn a new system as I play a game, I like being confused and figuring it out.

Once I understood that games became dead to me. I still have some GoG games to go through but my focus started to wander.

What to do now with my spare time…I always wanted to play piano or learn a language.
I decided on piano first and have been reading music theory books for the last couple of weeks and loving it :) I am learning a new system!
I will pick up a cheap second hand keyboard soon. I hope I like the practice as much as the theory.

To be honest, I'm not sure how that's any different than Oblivion, and it certainly doesn't come as a surprise.

For me it's more along the lines of them taking one of my toys away, limiting my options, but I still have toys left in the toybox. I like action RPGs too, and I like shooters, platformers, hack n' slash games and more. I like a lot of games, not just CRPGs. The death of CRPGs from big publishers just means less options, not the death of my gaming.

I don't think a lower budget would translate to being able to do something more complex for a niche market to them. That's not the way they think now. All they'll do is make some simplified 'accessible' game with crappier graphics. Look at Dragon Age Legends.

Agreed.

The reason for going iOS is easy money, not "niche" market complex games. It's simply the new gold, which will last for a while. If you want to earn big cash in that market, you want to appeal even broader than PC/Console - because the market segment has even fewer "enthusiast" gamers. It's all about trying to capture the casual mindset with whatever you can.

Also, given the pricing model - it's the accepted standard to have games that don't last long. So, naturally the focus will be on getting attention, not keeping it. You just want people to pay 5$ - which doesn't require longevity at all.

You misunderstand. I am saying if they wanted to make a niche title, a real CRPG, they could do so and still make money. They would just have to budget accordingly. They don't want to do this though because even though they could make money they could make MORE money doing something else.

The corporate mentality is not "make a profit" the corporate mentality is "maximize profits."

True unfortunately. It does however create a middle market that would be open to small developers to take advantage off. I hope the ITS / DoubleBear people will become such a studio

Those people, people like Vogel, are doing the same thing though. They can only make a certain level of game presentation-wise and they say "how can I get the most sales for what I can make?" The answer is to serve a passionate and starved audience.

Once he or anyone else thinks they have the money or opportunity to net a wider audience they will go for it, same as any other. Unless they are truly passionate about the niche themselves anyway. Passionate to ignore money.

Although people like to see Avadon and going iPad as evidence of that, I think Vogel has a long, long way to go to mainstream. who else makes TB RPGS, after all? thats right, Iron Tower… And the ITS people - well the only reason their project(s) exist is passion for RPGs. Tehy haven't seen a single $ yet, and are not sure they ever will. Sure, things change, people change, money lures… - but if these guys become truly mainstream one day, the niche will again be there for someone new to seize it.

Why is it that ALL indie developers must be fueled by a passionate fire of the art?

Maybe they've just carved out a market segment where they can exist, without having to be part of the regular job market. Maybe they simply enjoy the autonomy and the ability to be so much in control.

If you keep making the same game over and over and over, I fail to see how that makes you a truly passionate artist.

Maybe you have to be passionate to start out in this business, and actually get your first few projects launched and set up shop. But if you can make a reasonable living reiterating the same stuff with largely the same assets, many people will do that - because it's simply easier.

It doesn't mean Vogel is chasing the money - but it also doesn't have to mean he's chasing the ultimate game design. I certainly don't see it.

No you are right it certainly doesn't have to mean that, although I think at least for RPG developers it usually starts that way - there are far easier paths to "make it" as an indie than with CRPGs, I'm pretty sure.
I actually think in Vogels case its somewhere in between - its become a job for him, its not about passion so much anymore. His blog and comment is very down to earth and he often comes across as rather disillusioned. So its his job - but its a job he knows he does very well and he is proud of what he does - more an artisan than an artist, then. The end result is still that he is single-handedly responsible for probably just about every second TB CRPG that got made in the last ten years, love 'em or hate 'em.

I can't help thinking that that's just simply wrong.
It's like he's talking about the 30's or something but it's about games made a decade ago… I bought them back then, and I'm still around plus I now can waste my own money on a whim without having to justify it. Someone told me that the average age of gamers is 35 years… and that actually sounds right to me… we're still here, you are just not interested to sell anything to us.

Well, with that post we get closer to agreeing.

Maybe we're both delusional ;)

Unfortunately, I think he's dead on the money.

It's not so much a question of age - as it's a question of it having become a mainstream thing.

Lots of 35 year olds are mainstream gamers with little or no interest in the history of the RPG genre and how it all began.

With that said, I think they're overcompensating and taking the easy way out - in terms of ensuring profit.

The primary audience may very well be mainstream, but that doesn't mean you can't give them complexity and an experience requiring an investment. The thing is that developers are NOT doing what they claim they're doing.

They're not "easing" them into the game and introducing complexity. They're easing them into it alright, but where the hell is the complexity? Also, they balance the "normal" difficulty level so that everyone and their mother can do it. Why would anyone want to invest, if every challenge can be overcome without it.

That's the primary issue I see today, and I simply don't believe this bullshit line about "slowly introducing" complexity.

DS3 complex at any point? You've got to be kidding me.

What I actually wonder is who decides what 'mainstream' is.
I expect what most will call mainstream is whatever sells most. But will you sell a complex RPG if you don't bother to advertise it or even make one for that matter? The thing is that now that I'm in my 30s I don't really bother to search too much, if you want me to buy your game you need to come to me and show me, but I'm here and I will buy it if you do it.

I'll use DA: Origins as an example - somewhat simplistic when you looked under the surface but, regardless of whether it was good or not, that game did have the appearance of a complex and deep game, (and it still is more complex than most games I've played recently) it was promoted as such and it still sold.

I think you're very right that marketing plays the biggest role.

But even a big seller like DA:O had many detractors based on the "complex" character creation - which is a bit of a joke, considering how incredibly simplistic it was.

But we largely agree that there is a much larger market for complex games, than what developers/publishers are trying to paint as reality.

You should remember, though, that DA:O was one hell of an investment for the team behind it. You can't make an equally complex/deep game (and we agree it's not really very complex/deep) without doing something big in terms of marketing and production values.

If they can sell similar numbers by working for a year and marketing it right - then that's naturally what they'll do.

That's kinda what they tried with DA2. They shot themselves in the foot with that one, though, because they'd spent so much capturing so many people for a "deep" game - and then switched around way too much, generating a very powerful word of mouth against it.

Word of mouth is something I often think suits underestimate and get surprised by.

That's true but still the intention of big production values is to impress the audience of the 'mainstream'. I expect that the audience of Icewind Dale yould be perfectly happy with cheaper, non-'magnificent' production (I understand we're talking about visuals and sound) as long as it's functional and pleasant.

Yeah, and I think they might be surprised by how big an audience there really is for such a game.

Even so, there's a bigger audience still for simpler iterations of the same game.

At least, I fear that's the case.

Good question, very good question.

I sometimes suspect there are analyst companies behind that - and that there is the sheer amount of data on sales is used.

The main problem I see behind it is, that no-one is "hinterfragen" things anymore a possible English translation would be "to ask what's behind things").

We need philosophers in the gaming and in the overall software business, I strongly believe.

Because - in my opinion - they are the ONLY ones who are able to REALLY "hinterfragen" things …

Not everyone who did it then would accept it now though. One thing I noticed debating the merits of Duke Nukem Forever is that, all other aspects of that game aside, a ton of people HATED the non-combat sections. Walking around talking to people or messing with stuff, the physics puzzles, the platforming… they hated it all. It didn't seem like they hated it on quality, they just hated the existence of non-combat sections. When I said Half-Life 2 did all those same things and is considered a masterpiece they all said something like "well that was 7 years ago, we've moved on."

In other words since the popular shooters today are constant action-a-thons and have removed puzzles and platforming and such it is considered wrong to do otherwise, even from people who enjoyed those elements years before. I would guess if you released Icewind Dale tomorrow, even with modern graphics, many of the very same people who loved it then would call it old and boring today.

I have played neither Duke Nukem Forever nor Half-Life 2 but judging by the reviews and comments I read I understand that you are comparing one of the best games of its genre with one of the worst. No matter what these people believe they hated, you simply can't judge things out of context like that. I mean even if those aspects were indeed good you might still hate them if they were presented at the wrong time and/or in the wrong way.

Hey, case in point: I can't think of an RPG but do you play adventure games? Did you follow the remake of Monkey Island? It's a much older game than Icewind Dale and devilishly hard compared to most contemporary adventures that play themselves.

I can when the complaints are about the mere existence of certain elements. And when the people I confront about it say things like "well Half-Life 2 is pretty boring if you play it today."

What about Episode 2? Or have shooters evolved far past 2007 now? And by evolved I mean gone back to the on-rails approach of the early 90's, before it was possible to offer more varied gameplay.