Chris Avellone's Blog

1) A proper sequel to NwN with a focus on customization, smooth gameplay, and multiplayer. Use the Pathfinder ruleset!2) A classic 2D isometric RPG. Not another Planescape please...nothing could ever compare to the original. Start a bold new IP!

Why not? The Planescape Setting is big, creative and has mutliple stories still left in it. It's not like Torment touched on everything possible in it.

 

Planescape is owned by WoTC, and they would have to have it licensed from them. Also, modern Planescape sucks because they got rid of the alignment grid (setting completely changed as a result) and AFAIK WoTC won't let you use old versions of their work. Bringing up the next point, it would have to use 4e if it used D&D at all.

 

All of that aside, I just want to see a creative new game that won't be sullied by comparison to Planescape, arguably the best RPG of all time.

On top of what I'd said before - I'd love to see you do an RPG sans combat. Where combat just isn't an element at all - where the concentration is more upon exploration, puzzles, and learning about a unique environment. That would be interesting, too. I just think that there's a lot of focus on combat in RPGs of late and there doesn't need to be.

 

This "EVERYTHING CAN BE SOLVED BY MURDAR!!!11" attitude adopted by so many RPGs (I'm looking at you, Skyrim) makes me feel like an omnicidal maniac, and I don't want to feel like an omnicidal maniac! So at the very least, even if you include combat, I'm hoping that there'll be ways to completely avoid it entirely. I know some people get their rocks off at gutting virtual people, but... Iono, I'm just not a violent person. In general, it's not something that appeals to me.

 

And the more 'serious' it is, the more 'in Universe' it is, the more it bothers me. This is why the omnicidal maniacs of Skyrim bothered me, but Bulletstorm didn't so much. If you have to include mandatory combat, silliness is a good aspect to have there. But yes, let's prove that we're not a bunch of hormonal idiots unable to conceive a game where we weren't satisfying deep, bizarre needs via poking things with manswords.

 

Let's do away with that stereotype altogether. Like I said before - with something like this you have the chance to take a risk, to do something really unique. And whilst I realise that a completely sans combat game from you guys is unlikely (no matter how much I'd wish for it), I do hope that you'll not put a heavy focus on combat.

 

There are other ways of doing things - you could even try to have a really fleshed out diplomacy system, for example. You know, that's the one thing I really liked about Vanguard: Saga of Heroes. That's what kept me in that game for almost five months. I despised it graphically, I felt that aesthetically it was terrible, and the world was boring. So why did I stay?

 

I stayed on because diplomacy was a card game that you got to play, and you could actually use that to 'level up,' you could explore the world as a diplomat, never engaging in combat at any point. So you'd seek out other diplomats and people represnting cultures, clans, peoples, nations, or what have you, and you'd engage in diplomacy with them. It was great. It was silly, but it was great.

 

Why not more of that?

 

I don't know, but it makes me feel like some bloodlusting savage when I think of just how violence-focused games are, we could do better. And when I think of Obsidian games, it's never the COR VIOLENCE I'm thinking of, but the brilliant moments of story and choice. Vault 34, for example... Vault 34 was one of your greatest moments. It was truly a triumph of storytelling, of atmosphere, and it was so, so clever.

 

Why do we need such a focus on combat? When we think of a wildly original fantasy world, is the only thing that the average person can think of is how many new and different species they'll be able to stick their mansword into? Because that's more than a big repugnant, really. I want gaming to be about more than "That thing where stupid manchildren hit virtual boogaboos with virtual sticks."

 

So I'm hoping that in this game, combat won't have a huge focus.

Just promise to make an old school RPG with no modern consessions or mechanics... and ABSOLUTLEY no controller/console support.Thats worth $60 to me.

 

Well said. I'd put money on it with the condition that it be enormously ass backwards and counter intuitive to play with a controller.

This comments thread is making me depressed. You all want to play yet another 2D turnbased RPG with magic and elves and dark fantasy.. for the umpteenth time.****.

 

I agree with the magic, elves and dark fantasy part. 2D or 3D are both fine with me. But turnbased is something you rarely see these days anymore and that's something I would very much appreciate having.

what's so great about turn based. I mean aside from the nostalgia factor. Option to pause or slo mo to give orders is better IMHO.

what's so great about turn based. I mean aside from the nostalgia factor. Option to pause or slo mo to give orders is better IMHO.

 

If you don't know the difference no amount of explaining will help.

I'd support whatever you guys want to do, personally. The appeal of having a game funded using kickstarter would be that we know that you wouldn't have to deal with publishers/be free to make the game you want to make. That's enough for me.

 

Also, it would be great if, in addition to using kickstarter, you could set something up with paypal for those without credit cards to hand.

what's so great about turn based. I mean aside from the nostalgia factor. Option to pause or slo mo to give orders is better IMHO.

 

No nostalgia factor involved with me, TB is not an obsolete relic of the yesteryears despite not being offered much at the moment. I just happen to like that sort of gameplay much better than RTwP, and I absolutely loath slowmo stuff. And there really are too few of 'em turnbased games in the market.

It would be rather refreshing to see the fantastical species (elves, dwarves etcetera) ejected in favour of different races of humans, and add an all too needed amount of racial diversity to the genre. I'm a little sick of the white skinned, dark haired, blue eyed hero with varying degrees of facial hair who seems to be an omipresent factor in almost all games.

I think people gave Double Fine money because they want to see what adventure game they will make. People in the commens here seems to make Obsidian's kickstarter to turn into "fulfill my disillusioned fantasy game and I give you $10."

 

This needs to work the other way around. Obisidan should have a game that they really want to make, but can't because of risk and lack of unconditional funding.

Most importantly, use an innovative setting. In my opinion, the best recent examples of these include Planescape and Arcanum. Arcanum would be my ideal choice if only existing IPs are taken into account. But I can say for sure that I would trust Obsidian with creating a new setting, just make sure it's something entirely new.

 

I would prefer the game to be an RPG (that almost goes without saying), ideally with RTwP combat. Story is more important than game mechanics, though.

 

Another interesting option would be a collaboration with an unique indie developer, for example ACE Team who made Zeno Clash. I guess people out there have lots of other suggestions here, though.

 

EDIT: Oh cack, forgot that maybe you are not allowed to use Planescape without using D&D rules. Seeing how 4th Ed. messed up the alignment system, that's never going to work.

I'd support whatever you guys want to do, personally. The appeal of having a game funded using kickstarter would be that we know that you wouldn't have to deal with publishers/be free to make the game you want to make. That's enough for me.Also, it would be great if, in addition to using kickstarter, you could set something up with paypal for those without credit cards to hand.

 

Just FYI, Indie Devs have had copious ammounts of problems with Paypal - see: Minecraft, Project Zomboid, etc.

I think people gave Double Fine money because they want to see what adventure game they will make. People in the commens here seems to make Obsidian's kickstarter to turn into "fulfill my disillusioned fantasy game and I give you $10."This needs to work the other way around. Obisidan should have a game that they really want to make, but can't because of risk and lack of unconditional funding.

 

Isn't MCA specifically asking what would we like to have funded in the hypothetical situation of "Obsidian+Kickstarter"? I'd say the question'd need to be changed if the case was that Obsidian had a game they wanted to make and they were asking if we'd like to fund that specific project. I'm sure, if this ever comes to reality, the game they deside to make, will be a game they want to make.

 

I'd think they either have something in mind and this question is just to compare their idea to ours to see if we'd actually be willing to put some money in it; or, that they have a concept and want to know how we'd like to see it made; or, that they're just plain curious.

what's so great about turn based. I mean aside from the nostalgia factor. Option to pause or slo mo to give orders is better IMHO.

If you don't know the difference no amount of explaining will help.

It never ceases to amaze me how worked up people get about this. The difference is pretty self explanatory, now tell me why it's better. You can get your stat counting chess master kicks with or without.

Non-action, turn-based RPG is the watchword for me.

 

After all the work you (Chris) have already done, I trust you on the story/setting without any input from me. Just don't make me have to click or move my mouse frantically to fight and I'm on board.

Turn-based it's not appreciatively better than real-time, it's just different, and it's generally less served by the market, and really mostly only by indies.

 

Turn-based IS better than Real-Time With Pause, since that started as a compromise on the mechanics to make them more appetizing, and the moment you have to make too many tactical choices, you'll find yourself pausing all the time anyway.. at that point it's just better to have more control, and that's what turn-based gives you.

Oh, and the idea of Obsidian making a game inspired by Dwarf Fortress/Minecraft/Starflight/Pirates! is also thrilling.

Chris, u're the great artist. Ps:T - pure masterpiece of art. So u shouldn't ask us what u must do. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. U should be free from greedy stupid publishers. And from stupid fans (like me) as well.

 

P.S. but if I have to choose... it should be Arcanum 2 )

I will donate in every case, but personally I want to play in RPG with Planescape setting. It will be very interesting to take a look at Sigil created with modern technologies.

 

P. S. Excuse me for bad English.

A spiritual or direct successor to Planescape - Torment, please. Pleasepleaseplease, pretty please. With a cherry on top.

I want a game that has the literary/thought-provoking ambitions of PS:T, in a world that is at least as interesting as PS:T's - and when I say 'interesting', that could include contemporary times, just something that's fascinating and well thought out. Beyond that, I'm happy to give MCA and crew free-reign. In PS:T, I found the combat boring and often would cheat to raise wisdom, intelligence and charisma to max levels just so i could get the dialogue and choices - so I can't cast a vote behind using those gameplay mechanics again. But the world, characters, story and quality of writing made it one of the greatest games of all time.

 

Do that again, please... And get Mark Morgan to do the soundtrack. Also, if Tim Cain and Leonard Boyarsky are up for it, involve them as well

The difference is pretty self explanatory, now tell me why it's better. You can get your stat counting chess master kicks with or without.

 

It is better because you can make a clever plan and execute it perfectly. What's the point of combat, if it is not challenging, interesting and satisfying, but largely a chore?

RTwP was introduced as a compromise to quickly deal with trash enemies, which were deemed necessary to keep action constantly going.

But in this hypothetical Obsidian game there is no reason to have trash action - just give us the good bits and the system most suitable to enjoy them!

 

And BTW, I am not a TB-grognard and I have only played, maybe 3 turn-based RPGs (2 Fallouts + Wizardry VIII) on PC + Civilizations. But iOS(!) games really made me appreciate how enjoyable a decently made TB combat system can be.

I too would wish to see a ToEE-like (Knights of the Chalice is also great) quality turn based combat, but without any filler combat, just a several dozen hand-crafted encounters. A fully controlable party of up to 8 characters, isometric camera.

 

Setting would preferably draw inspiration from any or each of: Planescape, Arcanum, Wasteland.

 

You should also play all Bioware games after BG2 to plainly see elements NOT to be included.

There have been some pretty good ideas posted so far. One that I liked was going with a very modern sci-fi setting. Something post- or near-Singularity, showing off the absurd variety and social upheaval that comes along with that, with flavors of Accelerando, Stand Alone Complex, Transmetropolitan, and Eclipse Phase. Gaming is weirdly slow to acknowledge that sci-fi written after Neuromancer exists.

 

I'd think 2d would work best. It'd fit well with the budget constraints, for one thing. I honestly don't think that full 3d adds that much, especially when current-gen AAA games with massive budgets still haven't managed to pull off many locations that immerse me as much as the environments in Infinity Engine games.

 

I think the big thing for me would be hitting that sweet spot between Planescape: Torment and Alpha Protocol, having the player's relationships with NPCs be a big thing that heavily impacts the plot. Throwing in AP-style plot variability based on that would also be cool, and that would lend itself well to being a relatively short, heavily-replayable game that would probably be easier to fit within the budget constraints. Set it up a system where, with the right choices, I can end up allied with the guy I fought as my end boss the last time I played, without oversimplifying the plot to accommodate it, and I'll love you forever.

 

Alternatively, another thing I'd love to see is a game about power and the consequences thereof. Every other game has you claw your way up from being a nobody; I want a game where I start out with world-shaking power, and the real challenge is sorting out the dilemmas that come with that. If every other modern game is a power trip, I want a game that's a responsibility trip, where the player has to weigh the possible consequences of every action they take, knowing that they'll affect thousands of lives. This isn't necessarily incompatible with having lots of fights, either, and 'a sandbox game of world-shaking demigods' has a pretty awesome feel to it in my head.

Any dark, gritty and mature fantasy RPG with an engine as good as Dragon Age: Origins' engine will do. Torn, for example. I hesitate to say Planescape Torment 2, because I suspect you will have licensing problems.

 

When Dragon Age: Origins came out, I was pretty sure you guys would make a game using that engine. Sadly, you didn't.

Nevertheless, I'd love to play an Obsidian RPG with an engine as smooth as DA:O engine. I really liked NWN2 and the two expansions, but the engine just didn't work.

An Obsidian RPG with Skyrim engine would be good, too.

 

Whatever you do, just don't make Alpha Protocol 2.