algroth

Can you say... Ludonarrative dissonance? I don't necessarily agree that the games ring false, but I do agree with the criticism that the game doesn't exactly do its best job at recognizing or reacting to the milestones of power you break along the way, even if Deadfire does have a degree to which it responds to some of your past deeds (you're known as the Lord of Caed Nua, as a dragonslayer and so on - but again, this also signifies little for its own narrative arc). I expressed some disappointment with the first game with how acquiring Abydon's Hammer generated no response from the followers of Abydon either in Defiance Bay or Stalwart. Again, I like that the story's focus is elsewhere, that it isn't fixated in being a power trip and so on, but at the same time it's as you say, there's a disconnect between the capabilities of your character and the settings' recognition of the same.

I've heard good things about Subnautica, might check that out. It's just not a style of game that attracts me much, but we'll see!

I think it's more that a lot of people, myself included, set the expectations for the reveal to be another RPG since that is almost exclusively what Obsidian's done before. I don't play survival games nor am I a fan of co-op in general (I tend not to have many friends who are into the same games as I, so it's always either a bit of a wasted feature for me or a struggle or barrier for enjoying a game specifically designed with it in mind), so the fact that it's also a kind of project I wouldn't get much out of regardless is a bit of a disappointment. Had it been something else, like a strategy game or a shooter or a metroidvania or an action/adventure game or whatever, I might have responded differently. Nevertheless, with it being a small project that seems to be worked on in parallel to other bigger and more traditionally "Obsidian" ventures, I certainly don't mind it.

So... I said in my previous posts that I'd try to expand a little more on some personal thoughts I have on the series and why Deadfire may not have been as successful. I do think that the factors to blame are most likely due to lack of awareness, poor marketing, disinterest in/ignorance of the IP and so on, but I do think these have all been touched already so I'll just set them aside for this post. For the next couple of reasons I'll add the caveat that I don't necessarily think they're the biggest or sole contributors to Deadfire's dip in sales, I'm mentioning them mostly as food for thought and so on. So, without further ado... Deadfire as a streaming experience Earlier in the thread, @ekt0 brought up the issue of influencers and streamers and their role both in spreading awareness of a game and also in acting as "tastemakers" for specific parts of the gaming community. There's no doubt that people like Joe Vargas, Yahtzee Croshaw, Jim Sterling, CohhCarnage, Forsen and many other big personalities have an influence on what their followers consume and how the consume the same - but they also have a role promoting games and do so by showcasing them as videos or live shows, and essentially showcasing their games on a pure audiovisual level instead of an interactive one. I think isometric CRPGs in the style of the IE games especially suffer in this medium: they're usually text-heavy and involve conversations seen from an overhead view that often pause all action and animation, and can even do away with voice-acting altogether; they often make of combat a relatively secondary element to the experience that can be sparse enough to not come into play for stretches of *hours* at a time, and which is often made pretty stilted as a visual experience either due to turn-based or paused mechanics; and they involve plenty of systems that are often complex and abstract enough for the uninformed viewer to not make heads or tails about. The player's experience in games like these are night and day relative to the experience of those watching, and I feel that many that take a quick look at Deadfire in any such video or stream without prior knowledge of isometric RPGs or without the right context to understand the systems may feel confused, alienated, and simply bored and disinterested. It is simply too static a game as a viewing experience, and this, in a day and age where streaming has become as big a form of game consumption and advertisement as it is today, really plays against this subgenre of games regardless of how interesting or fun they are once the viewers actually play the game themselves. Josh says this could be a result of the games being 2D or isometric, but I feel it's more the combination of elements that make the aesthetic of an isometric RPG that becomes the issue - in comparison the Supergiant games for example are far friendlier games for streaming because on a visual level at least the action is more fluid and consistent, and these rarely ever contain long stretches of dialogue, or scripted interactions composed entirely of text and static 2D images, or numerous complex sheets for characters, inventory, quests and abilities, or the likes. It's less a single component and more the addition of all these to make for a poor non-interactive audiovisual experience, regardless of how great it is an interactive one. Setting I don't have much to say on this one but I think it's a point worth making, that despite Deadfire not being a "pirate game", enough people have been left with that impression either after playing it or simply from early word of mouth, marketing and buzz. No matter how one might argue otherwise or how gross and incorrect a simplification of the setting it may be, it unfortunately hasn't prevented people from believing this and holding to this perspective. Why would a pirate setting be a problem is something of a mystery for me, as I figure there's enough pirate games out there that did well enough or seemed to be interesting enough to an audience so as to not be such a detractor, and yet I feel like I only ever see this characteristic spoken in a negative light and with plenty of frequency as well. I would posit the following two possibilities: The pirate setting is perceived to be too modern and divorced to the traditional medieval European fantasy setting that the Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale and Neverwinter Nights games as well as most fantasy RPGs are set in, and a game or game subgenre that is primarily banking on nostalgia depends very strongly on the familiar, which this setting was not. Pillars itself downplayed the fantasy Renaissance setting enough to have been assumed by most players to be a bleaker take on a medieval setting instead, and thus the more colourful, modern and adventurous appearance of Deadfire felt like a tonal whiplash to what came before. An interesting point about Baldur's Gate II is that it itself was meant to be a small departure from the first game's setting to a more Byzantine one instead - yet personally I can't say I noticed until someone else pointed it out to me years later. This might be my own stupidity or unawareness talking of course, but I feel Baldur's Gate II still felt like more of a traditional medieval European fantasy setting than Deadfire ever did - and likewise, it's not uncommon to find comments referring to Pillars' setting as "medieval", or even complaints about the inclusion of firearms in it as anachronistic and the likes. I can see in that sense that maybe expectations were set for a particular tone or aesthetic for the saga that Deadfire then in some way broke, and alienated a part of its audience in turn (I reiterate, however, that I would never say it's the sole or main reason for the substantial drop, just maybe a contributing factor). Story Last but not least, there's the franchise's story, or rather, the kind of story the franchise has developed over these two chapters. Many issues have been brought up about the story for both games according to different reads of the same: some felt the first game was too ambiguous, lacked any real hooks and didn't adequately portray the stakes or communicate why the player should care about their condition as a Watcher or about the whole Hollowborn crisis; meanwhile, others complained that Deadfire had a very linear and short story, that they didn't feel they had any agency in the game, that there was a strong premise but nothing was done with it, etc. I think that some of these criticisms are valid but don't really explain why the story or the franchise failed to stick with people so as to cause such a massive drop. So I got down to thinking about all of the other comparable Western RPGs out there which were frequently praised for their story, and think there's something curious about the Pillars franchise when compared to these others, in that it stands as a rather separate and unique case in that it doesn't really stick to a monomythic hero's journey or attempt to indulge the players' power fantasies quite like so many other games of this genre do. What leads me to think of this is mostly certain characteristics I've noticed about some of the most frequent complaints I've seen about Deadfire's story here and, most importantly, on Steam. While not so frequently seen here, a complaint I ran across on Steam time and time again - one which made absolutely no sense to me - was that people were actually disappointed that they couldn't ascend to godhood at the end of the game. Some also were disappointed that they couldn't fight Eothas, or really stop Eothas from doing what he was doing. Some felt they had no agency and were just witnessing a story they had no real part in. I feel like the common thread across all these complaints was that the player, or the Watcher, didn't attain the power to be able to stand up to the gods by the end of this game - a game in a genre that is ridiculously full of stories about adventurers becoming heroes, kings and even *gods* by the end of their journey, who are literally taking down other kings, other foul evils threatening the realms, or other gods and so on. The Watcher's feats, in comparison, aren't quite so clear-cut heroic, and arguably his most heroic deed - that of bringing Thaos down and learning the truth of the gods - is one that is pretty shrouded in obscurity since no one really knew who Thaos was anyways, and it's not like you managed to find a way to share the gods' secret across Eora somehow either. Despite the Watcher growing into a strong and arguably powerful figure by the end of either game, the franchise is never about the Watcher's heroic or villainous feats, the franchise isn't so much about an individual's journey so much as the cultural shift they help push along and unfold in their journey. I think this makes Pillars a fascinating story, but one which is arguably far removed from the expectations of a playerbase that are pretty decided in the kind of experience they want and the gratification they expect back from a game. I think it could be this stylistic, thematic or tonal mismatch that could have also lessened interest in the saga despite fulfilling a demand for more games of this ilk. Again, I couldn't be sure, but it feels to me that maybe the issue isn't that Pillars and Deadfire are bad games or somehow fail, but rather that they are different in enough ways to be just off of what hooks their niche or the gaming community in general. To all of this I'll make clear, I think the story, setting and aesthetic for the franchise are wonderful. This is pretty much my favorite (hopefully) ongoing saga in the medium right now. This is just me brainstorming on how the game could have failed in others' eyes, or even how a game could have been well-received or well-liked and yet failed to either garner or retain interest in the long run.

Nothing wrong with Luigi's Mansion 3, but yeah, that's otherwise some proper trash.

I swear, every time I hear the name of the Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order protagonist, I think of Cal Chuchesta instead.

Please let's not go down this rabbit hole. This board isn't intended exclusively for Obsidian fans or exclusively for praise for that matter. You may choose to disagree with or disregard another poster's opinions, but let's not assume that the poster *has* to like Obsidian or any of their game to be part of the community - and please for the love of Josh don't start hounding people off the boards for the same.

I don't know if this was shared yet but I figured I should do so... https://venturebeat.com/2019/11/14/october-2019-npd-call-of-duty-and-outer-worlds-deliver-solid-month/ We already heard before from Take-Two conferences that the game was exceeding expectations, but to be second as a late-month release, and only behind Call of Duty, is really quite impressive. Nice to see the game being a success!

Doubt that they're already developing The Outer Worlds 2, being that it's been only three weeks since the release of the first game. Is it being considered though? I would reckon so.

Same. Or that Western Diablo.

Very disappointed by this reveal. Nothing for me to see here.

In about two hours from now. 20:00 GMT.

Baby, why do you hurt my feelings so?

I don't mind dialogues not being executed as skill checks as I feel that could promote a more save-scummy playstyle and so on... But as with the [Dumb] dialogue options I wouldn't mind also seeing dialogue options for other stat deficiencies, like [Weak] or [Clumsy] or [Unperceptive] or [Emotional] or the likes.

I'll be seriously disappointed if Deadfire indeed releases on consoles this month. The marketing push has been minimal and is still shying away from sharing a period in which we may expect the game being out. We're hot off The Outer Worlds' release, it was a big success and has been strongly received by critics and users alike. All eyes are on Obsidian, and as such, now would seem the perfect time to ride the hype and promote another Obsidian game on consoles. As things are right now, if it does come out two weeks from now I feel it'll yet again fly under the radar, as Deadfire has in its original release.

I did. Far as I'm concerned there was a time Avellone was the main draw to Obsidian as a company, I saw (and still see) him as an auteur and a really interesting and unique voice within the medium. Torment remains the finest game I've ever played, Fallout 2 isn't that far off either, and he was certainly a driving voice in both of them. Nowadays I retroactively appreciate the work of the whole team a lot more than I did back then, but I still won't deny that he was the main hook for my continued interest in Obsidian following the demise of Black Isle and so on.

GamePass is only available on Xbox and Win 10 though.

Obsidian have also been rather prolific throughout the past five or so years, only failing to deliver a new game in 2017: 2014: South Park: The Stick of Truth 2015: Pillars of Eternity 2016: Tyranny 2018: Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire 2019: The Outer Worlds Stands to reason that they could be announcing a new game for Q1-Q2 2021 if the frequency of their output remains consistent.

I getcha, don't worry. English isn't my native tongue either, I'm from Argentina myself. No judgement passed on my part. I can understand a preference for the first game's dialogue, I think it fits a particular mood the first game is able to capture really well, in terms of it being a grimmer, more desolate experience, finding yourself in a setting that is trying to cope with the loss of an entire generation and possibly of all kith in an eventual future. It's an atmosphere of hopelessness, of desperation, of deep existential turmoil manifesting into social unrest. The dialogue is flatter, more muted, more ponderous, but it largely fits that context and story. I certainly love it, I just wouldn't call it more "stylish", if you catch my drift (I would hesitate to call it "better" either, but I wouldn't oppose an argument in favour of it necessarily either). However, I think we're missing the point here. The question isn't why one would prefer the first game over the sequel, but rather why the sequel didn't sell as well. For the sequel to not have sold as well these thoughts and opinions have to transcend mere personal taste, and I don't think they do with enough frequency so as to affect public prejudice towards Deadfire, and thus its sales. More on this point here... This is very true, nowadays people get informed by video reviews, streamers and influencers, and even engage with games differently than they did in the past. Nowadays *watching* games is as much a means of enjoying a game as is *playing* it, and I reckon Deadfire and CRPGs in general fail inasmuch as they don't provide very good "backseat gaming" experiences the way games like Fortnite or League of Legends might - or even World of Warcraft or Skyrim or The Outer Worlds (whose sales are exceeding expectations) for that matter. But more on this later. The issue I have with this point is that I too like to consume a fair bit of YouTube channels, Twitch streams and the likes and see how other people play these games and what their thoughts on them are. See, Cohh himself played Deadfire at the time of release... And he loved it. He thought it was an excellent game, praised the writing, praised the setting and quest design and so on. Other channels and reviewers like Worth a Buy, gameranx, ACG et al. also reviewed the game and praised it to high heavens, in part for all these elements. Even channels and streamers like Stratedgy or Lorerunner, who were less enthused by the first game, expressed very positive opinions for the sequel. Working from memory the only two that seem less enthused by Deadfire overall seem to be Super Bunnyhop - who did find the game to feel shallower and so on, as you did too - and NeverKnowsBest - who was also pretty negative on the first game to begin with. In this regard, I think we can safely say that opinions were once again generally quite positive. Word of mouth, in general, was positive, so again, it couldn't possibly have acted as a deterrant. However, the issue here stands with those people who *didn't* cover the sequel when they did so the first game. Angry Joe, Jim Sterling, The Escapist, and others who reviewed and spoke in depth about the first game didn't cover Deadfire. Why? Did they not enjoy the game? Did they not play it whatsoever? Silence is an even bigger killer than negative reception in the end - at the very least a negative review reminds the reader that the game exists. All in all, whilst it's certainly true that word of mouth will affect sales, and bad games that ride on the success of their franchise or else will drop off sooner rather than later - but one's own opinions aren't necessarily shared by the wider audience out there, and again, there's nothing in the reviews and user scores we have that indicate word of mouth for Deadfire was anything less than positive. Finally, a small bit on this... I'm not a computer engineer or a programmer of any sort, so I'll approach this as a layman. @thelee makes an interesting point bringing up Pathfinder: Kingmaker, a game that allegedly sold better whilst being absolutely, undeniably broken on release. I'd also suggest some other games here too: Fallout: New Vegas was itself a buggy, broken mess upon release, and yet remains Obsidian's greatest hit. KOTOR 2, similarly broken. These games are so broken they even require mods and fan-made patches to be properly enjoyable in this day and age. In comparison to these games Deadfire was nowhere as buggy or broken - I myself was able to finish the game on release with only a few issues here or there, which didn't really affect my overall perception of the game at the end of the day. The issue present with all the above examples is that they all belong to far bigger and more established IPs as well. Pathfinder: Kingmaker may have been a rather average and completely bugged game, but it was still a Pathfinder CRPG, the *first* Pathfinder CRPG as far as I'm aware. Fallout and STAAAR WAAARS (/Rich Evans) are likewise massive IPs. Pillars, in comparison, far less so.

I really don't get it. I don't think it's that big a part of the experience, there's pirates in it but you may as well accuse Baldur's Gate II of having a pirate setting because at one point you head over to Brynnlaw. It's really one faction and a few quests associated with them. Mind, I'm not saying you're wrong in pointing it out, I've also seen such complaints levied a few times. I just think it's overblown and don't get why people have fixated so strongly on that aspect is all - or why they find it so objectionable either.

"Cities: Skylines" is a funny way to spell "Planescape: Torment". Punctuation's right at least.

I'll say that the "grog" mindset is very much in the same category as the likes of hardcore Trekkies and Wookies. It's fun to poke around and attempt to decipher their own particular madness, but it is all at the end of the day senseless and arbitrary.

You compare them to D-list celebrities in Hollywood, but I would compare them to arthouse or cult filmmakers instead. Those who follow arthouse or cult films will immediately recognize who Michael Haneke, John Sayles or Alex Cox are, and will watch films by them just for the sake of their involvement. None of them are making nine figures with their films, they might not be making eight for that matter, but there still exists a niche that consumes their work and pays to see what they do. Pillars doesn't have to compete with Death Stranding, it was always a more niche product, a PC game to put it in your own terms, so being an icon of PC gaming sounds like a great way to start generating interest in a game for that niche.

It depends. I don't think the authorial brand has to be overlooked at all, the author or artist is always a strong pull in the realms of literature, film, plastic arts, music... It feels like video games are pretty exceptional to this rule inasmuch as it's a collective artform that hasn't had an auteur theory shoved right into it - and yet there's also undoubtedly authorial traits one can attach to certain brands and devs, and following that stems from the same. Boeroer brings up Death Stranding in his response, is that not a game whose entire hype is built around it being Hideo Kojima's newest brainchild? All in all I don't think Avellone's name was the sole factor for Pillars' success, or even the main one; but given that it was a project attempting to revive a genre he and a lot of people at Obsidian were basically responsible to popularize in the first place, I do reckon that his name carried a lot of weight for this kind of project in particular. I'm also sure that Avellone's involvement in Degrees of Separation or Into the Breach was probably far less of a talking point. As an aside, I wonder if a mod shouldn't join the threads we have on this subject together into one, like they did with the Epic/Steam debacle with The Outer Worlds.