Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Michael_Galt

  1. That is a good point. When looked at cumulatively, POE 1 + Deadfire doesn't do poorly at all. As a case in point, I wasn't really a fan of POE, but I DO like Deadfire (it was my number 3. After POE, wasn't sure if I was going to buy Deadfire. Conversely, after Deadfire, I will LIKELY buy the next in the Eora saga, if they continue with it. I keep hearing this. Are Naughty Dog and Guerilla teaming up on games because they are both owned by Sony? Hence... the question... Answering a question with a question is not an answer. That is you trying to say that based off a single anecdote, that universally it shows that it is NOT possible. I'm asking, do studios ever actually do joint ventures, when they are parts of a larger corporation? My bet is YES... because if you don't have 1 studio that is big enough in isolation to do a large project, but you have 2 studios, that if they COMBINED their resources, COULD do that project... then you would. As an example in a completely different but related industry... Apple phones feature SAMSUNG chips. Manufacturing is very different from making creative entertainment, but it shows that even huge rivals can work together to accomplish the same goal- sales. I am not even asking if it is probable. I am asking if anyone knows of any examples in which 2 different video game studios worked together on a single game. Answering the question with a question is the answer. Parent companies don't force daughter companies to co-produce (and I'm not just thinking video game companies here). Anyone who took a second to think about this would acknowledge this fact. Hence why I can't wrap my head around the question that *lots of people* (not just you) are asking. FWIW, it's been my experience that congomerates not only *don't* result in weird mash-ups, but actually create *rivalries*. Except, it isn't. Let me give you an example. I ask, "Can 2 men have sex?". You answer, "Have you ever seen 2 men having sex? I live in Butte, Montana, and I have never seen it." If you lived in San Francisco or West Hollywood, you would probably answer, "Hahaha! Is it POSSIBLE? What rock do you live under?!?" Sure, YOU haven't seen it, in YOUR experiences, but that does NOT mean it isn't possible. Using a single anecdote is not evidence which represents the whole. I think it is UNLIKELY, but I FEEL like I have read about various studios working together on a single project in the past. I might be mistaken. I could see why 2 studios would not WANT to work together... but I could also imagine the following scenario. Microsoft owns an awesome IP. Microsoft owns lots of stuff, so this is LIKELY. Microsoft wants a HUGE game based on this IP. Microsoft goes to BOTH Obsidian and inXile with it and says, "I want this to be your next project. You haven't declared any follow on projects yet. I will pay you both lots of money to develop this IP for me. I will split the earnings 50/50 between you. Obsidian takes lead on story-writing. inXile takes lead on level design. You divvy up the rest of the tasks as you see fit. Deal?" This sounds reasonable to me, and if I was either studio, it might even be appealing. If both love the IP, and they aren't going to make 2 different games with 2 different studios, why not make 1 game with 2 studios? And I am fine with them continuing to operate completely independently, but size DOES matter. Having 2x as many writers, 2x as many animators, 2x as many artists... opens up potential projects that would otherwise be impossible. Comparisons? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD_Projekt 800 employees https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BioWare 800 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethesda_Game_Studios 400 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsidian_Entertainment 170 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InXile_Entertainment 70 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larian_Studios 130 When you compare those different RPG oriented studios, it becomes obvious what the benefits of size are. Even with the combined resources of Obsidian and inXile, they do not "equal" Bethesda or CD Projekt Red. That is FINE, unless you want to release a game which will directly compete with the games of those studios. These are arguments based on numbers, facts and logic, not just blanket statements of opinion. If, factually, 2 studios NEVER work together on 1 project... fine. That is what I want to know. Has it happened? Or has it not happened? If it HAS happened, when? What was the result?
  2. I keep hearing this. Are Naughty Dog and Guerilla teaming up on games because they are both owned by Sony? Hence... the question... Answering a question with a question is not an answer. That is you trying to say that based off a single anecdote, that universally it shows that it is NOT possible. I'm asking, do studios ever actually do joint ventures, when they are parts of a larger corporation? My bet is YES... because if you don't have 1 studio that is big enough in isolation to do a large project, but you have 2 studios, that if they COMBINED their resources, COULD do that project... then you would. As an example in a completely different but related industry... Apple phones feature SAMSUNG chips. Manufacturing is very different from making creative entertainment, but it shows that even huge rivals can work together to accomplish the same goal- sales. I am not even asking if it is probable. I am asking if anyone knows of any examples in which 2 different video game studios worked together on a single game. Whatever the reasons, out of all the votes cast so far [80], 14% picked as POE as one of their favorite Obsidian games versus 19% who picked Deadfire. Admittedly, the gap has closed quite a lot, but it still looks like there is a preference for Deadfire versus the original (which, logically speaking, is what you would hope to happen with a sequel, since that means that it SHOULD have been improved from the 1st). Also, again out of the total of 80 votes across all 3 options, nearly 50% of people picked one of the Obsidian sequels to other IP as one of their favorites. I guess that is actually good news/bad news for Obsidian? Only 50% of people prefer Obsidian IP to other IP, even if they love Obsidian games? That's what the results of the #1 favorite game seem to indicate- ~60% of people have their favorite game from Obsidian being a game that was NOT Obsidian IP. Then again... Obsidian IP games only account for 40% of the total games that they have worked on up until this point, so I guess it means that it is about what you would expect, proportionately. The only information which seems solidly negative is that only 2 out of 26 people picked either Tyranny or Alpha Protocol as their FAVORITE Obsidian game... though they did seem to put far fewer resources into both making and marketing those games.
  3. What's really interesting to me, is that even with the still small sample size, 2/3s of people said that it was one of the Obsidian sequel games that was their favorite Obsidian game. And thus far, despite seeing lots of people who are really vocal about how Deadfire is inferior to/worse than POE 1... it clearly LOOKS like most people preferred Deadfire over POE 1 (equal number chose either for their favorite Obsidian game, but 3x as many people have chosen Deadfire over POE for their 2nd or 3rd favorite Obsidian game).
  4. Paradox isn't making Werewolf. They aren't even publishing it. The developer is Cyanide and the publisher is Focus Home Interactive. Of late, I remain unimpressed by either. Deathwing was a broken mess and the publisher's stubborn radio silence during the whole thing was just appalling. Styx bored me to tears. And the new Cthulhu game is not very good, from what I've read. FHI seems to have completely abandoned Battlefleet Gothic in favor of just pumping out a sequel, and the game's fans weren't happy at all. Pump 'n' dump seems to be their motto. A Harebrained WoD game looks good on paper, but they probably just don't have the resources to make something on the scale of Bloodlines, especially if they are going to keep supporting BATTLETECH. I'd settle for something the size of Dragonfall, with turn-based combat, but I reckon I'm in the minority and that's the kind of thing companies don't do because it devalues IP or whatever. Straight from the Wikipedia article on Paradox: "Paradox Interactive purchased White Wolf Publishing's assets, including World of Darkness and Vampire: The Masquerade, from CCP Games in October 2015.[11] White Wolf became a self-operating subsidiary of Paradox Interactive with its own management and goals.[12] In January 2017, White Wolf announced its partnership with video game publisher Focus Home Interactive for the video game adaptation of Werewolf: The Apocalypse, a tabletop role-playing game set in the World of Darkness. The game will be developed by the game development studio Cyanide and released on PC and consoles. [13][14]" I'm not saying that I am optimistic either... because the complete lack of news indicates that there isn't anything worth sharing, and neither Cyanide nor Focus Home Interactive have done anything that even remotely interests me... or even gotten good reviews. I personally would LOVE that WoD game... but I think the scenario that you laid out is the ONLY way that it could actually work. Then again... Harebrained DID show that they are capable of doing 3D games with Battletech (which isn't something that I would normally be interested in, but bought just to support the studio and DID enjoy enough to playthrough almost 2 times). So... it might open up other possibilities. They could even potentially go a Larian path, where it is still turn-based, just a different form of it. All this really just means that I truly have no idea what Harebrained is going to be doing next, and there is a really good chance that I won't be interested. I mean, a similar case in point was inXile. I really enjoyed Torment: Tides of Numenera as well as WL3: Director's Cut... but have zero interest in Bard's Tale 4. Looking forward to WL3... but have no idea what they are going to do after that. Perfect world? Joint venture between inXile and Obsidian to make some ULTRA RPG to compete with CD Projekt Red, who looks ready to blow people out of the water with Cyberpunk 2077. The likelihood of these 2 studios doing a joint project? Probably very low. But... since they WERE both acquired by Microsoft... maybe it is possible?
  5. Um. Yeah, about that... I had seen that they got bought by Paradox, but it sounds like it was genuinely an acquisition that was going to leave Harebrained with all the creative freedom, just that Paradox was going to work the marketing and obviously try to do the "business-side" of things. As far as I am aware... there still has been no word on what Harebrained will work on next. I forgot that Paradox is making the Werewolf game... which I can only HOPE will be good, because the Werewolf Rage setting was really interesting. I think that would be right up Harebrained's alley, given that Shadowrun is set in a sort of similar universe. Rage is also a contemporary setting, with magic, less tech, darker. The company who Paradox originally announced as working on it... did NOT have good credentials... so I can only HOPE that they decided to bring Harebrained in to try to augment that studio and make a genuinely good game... Separately, it is interesting to see the breakdown of the votes thus far (though admittedly a small sample size). Seems like for people's FAVORITE Obsidian game, the older games (F:NV, KOTOR 2, and NWN 2, in that order) definitely beat out Obsidian's newer games. But, when you get to 2nd and 3rd favorite games, their newer games start to "take over". I'm not going to lie, I would love a steampunk/1950s POE game. I know that the current "historical" setting is probably right before the industrial revolution, so it would be great to see Eora at the height of the Industrial Revolution, or around the 20s and 30s, when you had all the socialism, communism and fascism conflicts starting to brew. Man, WW2 in Eora would be great. I mean, set it IN a major war. Not before, not after, like is typically done. Put the protagonist in the "neutral" state, the equivalent of Switzerland, and then let them chose which side they would support. This game kinda hinted at all those cultures being on a collision path... let's start in the middle of the trainwreck! In fact, this could work perfectly. It explains why your character starts out low-level. They are just a farmer, or child of a merchant or something like that. The war starts to kick off, and they want adventure/to defend liberty and freedom/support the religious/political movement of one side or the other. They start fighting their way up the ranks against other "low level" troops. They get hirer levels and then are put into a special unit which hunts the other special units and fights the most dangerous weapons/animals/monsters that the other side has. Then, as they become genuinely high level, they become commanders and generals. They handpick their companions (or they follow them through the whole game, probably better) and they begin the assault against the final enemy strongholds. This ISN'T a strategy game, this is just the context given for their missions. Capturing/killing deserters, bandits, and marauding monsters is the basis of "sub-quests". You can even add things like bringing food to friendly villages/cities, or poisoning the food/water supplies of the enemy as other side quests. How do you justify "special weapons/gear/equipment"? Captured from enemy R&D. Rewarded by friendly government for saving a certain region, defeating a key enemy commander/asset, etc. And then you could leave a late-game opportunity to double-cross that government because one of the enemy governments offers you something really compelling, or shows you information that completely changes your opinion of who you have been fighting for...
  6. https://www.cyberpunk.net/ "Enter the world of Cyberpunk 2077 — a story-driven, open world RPG" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberpunk_2077 "Cyberpunk 2077 is an upcoming role-playing video game developed and published by CD Projekt, releasing for Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 4, and Xbox One." I might be bad at reading, but I THINK that those posts say that Cyberpunk 2077 is going to be a COMPUTER RPG... or, cRPG. But, you know, English is only my 1st language. Since they are a Polish studio, maybe something got mistranslated. Based off what I have read and seen, Cyberpunk 2077 will be very much like F:NV... except not post-apocalyptic. And, last I checked, F:NV is considered a cRPG as well. Is calling someone petty and paranoid abusive? Is that good community conduct? I'm just curious. Really looking forward to seeing how this poll turns out!
  7. Yes, because trolls don't attack other people who post in a thread... or WAIT, they do??? Hmmm. What I said is that I don't want what you want, and didn't attack you, simply said that the nature of your post indicates that you are probably a troll... thank you kindly for confirming that
  8. So, I am going to preface all of this with the statement that I have enjoyed nearly every game that Obsidian has made. My two favorite Obsidian games are KOTOR 2 and F:NV. Yes, I know that those were sequels. I was one of the original backers for POE, but honestly didn't really enjoy it. I felt that it was NOT a spiritual successor to BG. That being said, I enjoyed it much more after the DLC and expansions, though I still don't put it in my top 10. For a variety of reasons, I did NOT back Deadfire... because I didn't really enjoy POE that much and wasn't sure exactly what Deadfire was going to look like. As more information about Deadfire came out, I got more excited, because it sounded like it was going to be much more of a spiritual successor to BG than POE had been. I bought Deadfire as soon as it was out (or maybe preordered it, I can't remember), and have played it through 2 times since then. I'm waiting for all the DLC to come out before embarking on my 3rd and probably final playthrough. If I were to give some % scores to all the Obsidian games that I have played, it would look like this: 1.) F:NV = 93% 2.) KOTOR 2 = 91% 3.) POE: Deadfire = 90% 4.) NWN 2 = 88% 5.) POE 1 = 83% Yes, those are completely BS scores, but I think that for myself, they are pretty accurate. I love F:NV and have put hundreds of hours into the game, and feel like it has so many playthrough options, it is ridiculous. KOTOR 2 got me into the Star Wars universe... and besides Arcanum 2, KOTOR 3 is the other sequel that I dream of (I have given up on another epic D&D game, and there are plenty of good "traditional" fantasy games). POE: Deadfire is a game that I would give a higher score... if I were to actually like any of the companions more than a little bit. NWN 2 kinda falls into that same category- I absolutely HATED the companions, and the fact that you were basically stuck with them, and so while I enjoyed the REST of the game... just can't give it an "A" rating. And POE? I recognize that it was a totally new and original IP, and give it credit for trying to do something new, I just don't like "grimdark". I also didn't really like any of the NPCs very much, which severely decreases the replay and enjoyment value for me. So, this was a ton of writing. HERE is the point. I like/love Obsidian games. I think that F:NV is the best Fallout game (after the Bethesda purchase of the IP) and that KOTOR 2 is the best Star Wars game. I think that NWN 2 is the 2nd best D&D game (counting BG as an entire series, the way that it is meant to be played). I loved Morrowind, I sort of enjoyed Skyrim, and I have hated everything else that Bethesda has made. I loved Mass Effect and really enjoyed the majority of Bioware games... until the newest Mass Effect and Anthem. Basically, I HAD 3 favorite cRPG companies: Bioware, Obsidian, and Bethesda. Now, it is Obsidian, inXile, HareBrained Studios and looks like it will be CD Projekt Red. That SOUNDS like a good thing, right? MORE options? Except, inXile AND Obsidian have been bought out by Microsoft, and so now I can only HOPE that Obsidian and inXile do not become failed "big studios" like... Bethesda and Bioware. If that happens, then I will basically be left with HareBrained Studios and CD Projekt Red... While I love the Shadowrun games and greatly enjoyed Battletech... I have no idea what Harebrained is doing next, and it might not be an RPG. Heck, they might go out of business or get bought out as well. And while I am incredibly pumped for Cyberpunk 2077... that might not even happen until the end of next year, or even 2020. While I think that game might very well become my #2 game... only time will tell. What that also means, is that even if it IS an awesome game... it might take them another 2-3 years to make a new game, and I might not even like that game. So, please don't become Bethesda or Bioware, oh Obsidian. If that happens, that might very well be the death of quality cRPGs with great and interesting stories. As far as I am aware, the only cRPGs (that I would qualify as such, and I admit that I am a purist) coming out any time soon are Wasteland 3 and Cyberpunk 2077. That is 2019 and maybe 2020. I have heard of no other games being planned by any of the studios that I mentioned, including Obsidian. *I edited the poll to remove the word "most" from "most favorite". That is redundant and perhaps confusing for your 2nd and 3rd favorite games.*
  9. All I have to say is that is exactly what I do NOT want. While I strongly suspect this was just meant as a form of trolllery... Still have to say it. Don't do this, Obsidian (not that there is any evidence or reason to think that this is in the works, but still).
  10. Red panty night for Obsidian?? https://www.gamespot.com/articles/xbox-acquires-fallout-new-vegas-star-wars-knights-/1100-6463175/ I hope that this is good news for Obsidian AND inXile. I expect that WL3 will be published according to plan. Hope this means that both will have the potential to launch more ambitious projects which require larger teams with greater financial backing, and not needing to launch Kickstarters and Fig campaigns. I just hope it doesn't mean that they are going to be forced to pursue projects that they don't want to do...
  11. None of their games actually suck. I think they oversell them. I really enjoyed Wasteland 2: The Director's Cut. To me, the storyline was actually pretty good, with some very serious reactivity depending on how you play. I think it had some cool themes and concepts, in regards to technology, humanity, and how to restore a civilization. Similar in many ways to F:NV, but different spin. I wish there were more NPC companions that you could recruit, but honestly liked the ones which were available and thought they each contributed something valuable to each play through that I did. I really liked it, to be honest. I'm REALLY looking forward to WL3... NOBODY really does freezing as a post-apocalyptic setting. I'm curious as to how they will explain people being able to eat, since that type of environment obviously limits your options quite a lot. I very much enjoyed it. I can say many of the same things about this as what I said above about WL2. It definitely dealt with a "weird" setting. I liked the idea of the Tidal Affinity and thought their classes were interesting. All about steampunk and cyberpunk, so this was definitely a unique universe, which no one else has really done. I just wish that their had been more NPCs to interact with. The map sizes with NPCs that you could interact with were not very large and there typically weren't that many people with anything to say. This might not be uncommon in RPGs... but I felt like it was more noticeable in this game. The whole theme of, "What would you be willing to do to survive?" was cool. And the basis for you being the protagonist was pretty original! Kind of BGesque... but with very different implications. Unfortunately, VERY limited number of NPC companions available. That definitely limited the replay value, as well as how linear the story is. You can have very different results from playing it different ways... but you are going to be going to the same places, in the same order, largely doing the same things over again. At least with POE 2 and WL2, you have more freedom to explore and choose what you will and won't do.
  12. Awww yeaaaaaaa. Eder CAN pet it! Does this now mean that you can have 2 pets?? I am patiently awaiting the final DLC before resuming my 3rd playthrough, but I'm liking what I'm seeing so far!
  13. I only have 2 things to say... *heavy breathing* "Go for the eyes Boo!" Ok, 3 things... "Please?"
  14. If you haven't played it... I would give Arcanum a shot. One of the only games that I feel gets pickpocketing right (besides Fallout).
  15. Too bad my first two playthroughs were with a ranger/cipher and then a shifter/monk... So I'm sort of Galawained out. My next character will likely be a mage/rogue... or berserker/paladin... I was thinking probably an adherent of Berath, and then one of Magran, in that order. Not that gods which are all about death and warfare couldn't take a trip to an island to kill a bunch of stuff, I suppose Wael? Well, know... puns intended I tried to read that little novel about Wael and just lost interest. Seems like you would have to be a crazy person to put your faith in a diety like that.
  16. Give me the POE steampunk. I mean, the time period we are in is almost there. Or, make it cyberpunk, though I don't think that they want to enter that territory, what with Cyberpunk 2020 coming out. Maybe some super futuristic spacepunk? Meaning, cyberpunk on steroids? Instead of just in the future, we get godlike in space, using magic and magical level technology.
  17. I forget exactly when I did the second playthrough. I think I finished 3-4 weeks before the new DLC. Sounds like my plan is a good one, then. Wait until all 3 DLCs get released, then replay. If the other DLCs are pretty similar, that will add at least 15 hours to the original game, which is worth the reinvestment of time. I'm a completionist as well, so it could be well over that. Plus, since they seem to be in the habit of converting some of the sidekicks to full companions, that means that I should have more companion options the next time around, which would be welcomed, since I basically used the 2 groups that I actually wanted to use in my 2 playthroughs and don't believe in bringing along sidekicks. If they don't talk, they aren't down for my party
  18. I haven't played in a while now- I played through POE 2 once right at release, then played through it again a few months later. So, haven't played Beast of Winter or with the newest patch. My plan is to wait until all the announced DLC is released before doing my 3rd playthrough, so that it is a markedly different and fuller experience. That being said, what do you think of this DLC? How much gameplay does it add? Has there been any really massive changes which I am unaware of? I appreciate all feedback. Thanks.
  19. What makes you think that? There's precisely zero reason for either to abandon single-player games. Except for the "not making enough money from it" reason. If you do a quick Google search you'll come across quite a number of articles from the past year or so with direct quotes from game developer company executives saying there's not enough money to be made from single player games anymore. inXile itself has said (in a recent Brian Fargo interview) that their next new game (after Wasteland 3) will be multiplayer (and consoles) focused. Dislike. I mean, I hardly play videogames anymore, since I only play cRPGs... but, sounds like Cyberpunk 2077 and Wasteland 3 might be some of the last games I play (admittedly, I think that will be to "go out on a high note"). Hopefully Obsidian doesn't cave to that pressure, and can still be economically viable doing great single player cRPGs.
  20. That is a good question. I wonder about that as well. It DOES make a difference if you reduce them to 0- from what I observed, it meant that there would be no tough enemies above decks. Meaning, there were multiple times I did this to ships which had higher level captains, and if I DIDN'T eliminate the crew with grapeshot, boarding was a nightmare of getting massacred. If I DID eliminate the crew first, then the only high level individual would be the captain, and I think the captain would often be wounded, as well.
  21. I must say... even a fire godlike doesn't have the correct shade of orange. Much too red. Sad, really.
  22. You call BG's take "more realistic," I call it the same checklist with a patina of nostalgia. I don't concur. I replayed it late last year. It seemed like a real evolution of a relationship, to me. No romance there is "easy", or fast (though, like I said, there should be "easy" and fast ones, since that does happen in real life, obviously). I romanced Aerie, Viconia and Jaheira at one point or another (and Viconia twice). As to it "seeming like therapy", I don't know about you, but most people have flaws of some sort. Most people have insecurity about those flaws or weaknesses. Most healthy romantic relationships are about helping your partner recognize and overcome their flaws, and become better, more complete and whole people. So, that doesn't strike me as being "abnormal". The opposite, actually.
  23. How about like in BG 2, where you had to work for it?? It took a while, you had to help the companion resolve personal issues, and you couldn't do too many things which they disagreed with... you know, like in real life... Make some characters "sluts", who really don't care about serious commitments, and only want loose, informal relationships. Basically, don't make it cookie cutter the same for every character. Also, as "controversial" as it might be, sexual preferences DO exist... so how about everyone isn't automatically bisexual (which, statistically speaking, is pretty uncommon)? You want to "romance" character _ but they aren't interested (or are even offended)? Well, that's life. Don't try to please everyone. That sword bites both ways- maybe I'll end up with a character I would like to romance, but they "just aren't interested". Very well, carry on.
  24. But...you liked KOTOR 2? I'm so confused here. While this appears to be a blatant attempt at trolling.. and isn't particularly on topic... I will assume that isn't the case. There were no grimdark scenarios in KOTOR 2. Kreia might have made an attempt to have you imagine scenarios where "doing the right thing" could actually end up having negative repercussions, but they certainly weren't foregone conclusions. Kreia's purpose in doing that was to make you understand that sometimes what appeared to be the "right" path, might not have the consequences you expected, therefore you needed to CAREFULLY contemplate your choices and try to act in a way which was not based on a simple conception of "right vs wrong", "kind vs cruel". I personally DO believe that people should help themselves, and that no one should be OBLIGATED to help others... but I also believe that people SHOULD help others. Kreia might believe that to never be true, that you should ultimately only look out for your own self interest and the strong will benefit from that and everyone will be made stronger, but Kreia was also a bitter old woman. There is a way to balance and harmonize altruism with individualism, and to encourage people to become stronger and more self-sufficient without sacrificing the weak on the altar of survival of the fittest.
  25. See, the only thing which kinda makes me sad is that it's going to be YEARS before another separate game. I get that there will be expansions, but at this point, I played through it twice, and used different companions each time. So... I do have my third playthrough character sitting on the beach, waiting for the expansions... but, unless they introduce new NPCs, that does reduce my incentive to replay it. I don't know if that was one of the things promised for the expansions, but feel like it wasn't.
  • Create New...