kanisatha

I still don't get at all how melee combat can possibly work well in FP anyway. My experience with Skyrim was constantly missing my opponent while constantly getting hit myself, and yet also constantly hitting my own allies next to me including when I couldn't even see them.

This is the kind of game I would have normally completely missed, but which is so right up my alley. Thanks for posting!

If the game is going to have classes, I want them to be true classes (my very strong personal preference). Or else, no classes at all. What I absolutely don't want is superficial pseudo-classes that are classes in name only and have minimal to no differentiation between them, such as the "classes" in the D:OS games. A hard no to a D:OS-like system. Haven't played Tyranny, so can't speak to its system.

Yeah that's where I checked as well.

Yep I noted it only because a gaming journo mentioned it in an article, and then I went and looked out of curiosity and sure enough the Xbox 1 reference was gone.

Also this is a game that MS will want to use as incentive for people to go buy an Xbox X, right? So I don't see why they would want the game to be Xbox 1 compatible. Interestingly, the initial release of the trailer's promotional materials listed Xbox 1 at the bottom as one of the supported platforms. Then a day or so later, Xbox 1 was quietly removed from those promo materials.

Well, hopefully they will at least not exhibit uncontrolled reactions.

Yes, Game Pass is what its all about. Making Game Pass something very attractive to customers was exactly why MS went on that studio-buying spree. They need games to fill out Game Pass and make it worth the money for customers. But it's just not reasonable to expect they can fill out Game Pass quantitatively with huge AAA games. They need filler games. Many, many filler games, but where those (niche) filler games are still of good/high quality. Furthermore, from the pov of Obsidian, Obsidian is the kind of studio that was one weak-sales game away from bankruptcy. But now they are secure. And that means it's only now that they *can* afford to make niche games that don't sell a lot, as long as they're also making big AAA games that do sell a lot. So, if anything, I am willing to go out on a limb and say that MS buying Obsidian is what has actually increased the chances that we will someday see a PoE3, where pre-MS those chances were virtually zero. Now a low-sales niche game like a potential PoE3 is financially feasible for Obsidian so long as they also have games like Avowed (and maybe also a TOW2) that are bringing in plenty of profit for MS.

Why not? They've done it with Grounded. Just because MS wants big, open-world AAA games from their studios does not in any way translate into "no small, niche games." In fact, Matt Booty has publicly said on multiple occasions that he wants the newly acquired MS studios to keep making the same types of games they have been making and are good at making, because that's why MS bought those studios in the first place. Yes, now that they have MS's money, they will make those big-budget games that they simply couldn't before, but no reason at all to think they won't also make small-budget "passion project" games (like Grounded, and a future PoE3), because allowing your talented developers to flex their creativity and work on a range of different types of projects is what will keep them sane and entice them to stay with Obsidian.

Yeah it's in backer beta testing right now. And I agree the devs have been over-ambitious, but at the same time they also seem very dedicated and committed to the game, so eventually we should get a pretty decent game from them.

No, I'm specifically saying these are all subjective claims (including my own). This may be the case with me as well. And since I don't play shooters at all .... Fair enough, and this is true for me too. I have extremely narrow and specific tastes in my video games and as such keep going back to the same very small circle of studios whose games I like. And Obsidian is at the top of my list of studios whose games I love. Yet my list of design factors that appeal to me and your list don't necessarily match exactly (though they probably have quite a bit in common), and neither of our lists is an objective list.

I think the likes of Brandon Adler and Adam Brennecke and others who worked on the DLCs for both PoEs may be interested. I feel their visions for the game were better (my subjective view) than Sawyer's.

But again, isn't this subjective? I already mentioned Skyrim as a game (with both perspectives) where I found the TP perspective to be quite fine. And by that I mean that for me it did not at all come across as half-assed. I had many problems with that game, but TP gameplay was definitely not one of them.

Fair enough. That number was just meant to be a discussion point and not truly literal.

This is how I see it as well. Avowed will become the "flagship" franchise within the Eora setting because it is in a genre of RPGs where sales expectations can be minimum 10 million (DA:I sales), and perhaps a whole lot more (42 million for Skyrim sales). But then, if Obsidian can use the popularity of Avowed to get at least 10% of Avowed fans to give a PoE game a try, that's all they'll need (alongside the core PoE fans) to make a PoE game financially viable.

I have to agree, though for me it is a very ominous and disheartening trend. I wonder if it is because developers are nowadays coming under tremendous pressure to provide every imaginable customization option under the sun based on every single personal identity detail people consider to be important to them. So for the developer, either they ensure their game includes every single one of those literally dozens, perhaps even hundreds, of options, or else have no options at all, because to have some options but not others will surely bring down on them an avalanche of outrage and discrimination accusations. And since they can never have enough options to fully satisfy everyone, they've decided to go with no customization options at all (i.e. first person, where you don't ever get to see your own character in the game). I have zero information or evidence one way or the other on this; I'm just thinking out loud.

Sure. But again you are missing my point. I was not saying character customization *is* Obsidian's brand. I was offering my own subjective example of something I value to highlight that my subjective thing is no different than someone else's subjective thing. The things some other people are claiming *should* be in the game are all subjective personal preferences too. When did Obsidian say first person is part of their brand? Or "solid mechanics"? Or "charm"? These are all subjective wants, and one subjective want is no better than any other.

But who decides what those things are? I've been playing Obsidian games since the studio was founded, and I consider such things as character customization to be a part of their "brand." I'm just pointing out that some people are very subjectively trying to lay claim to that "brand" based purely on what they want. I don't see anything from Obsidian itself claiming that is their "brand."

Oh sure. So Obsidian must cater to the things that are precious to you, just not things that matter to other people.

Yup, I also played Skyrim exclusively in third person, and did not have any issues, problems or concerns with it. I felt no need ever to even try first person. I had big issues with other aspects of that game, but the third person perspective was never an issue in any way.

This is a very interesting discussion for me. I started with and have only played Witcher 3. I loved that game and fully completed it, but abandoned the game upon moving into the DLCs because the combat in the DLCs even at the lowest setting just became a brutal and aggravating slog. I've been wondering about whether it would be worth my gaming time to try either of the previous Witcher games, so you guys' feedback here helps a lot. But also as an added question about the Witcher 3 DLCs, any recommendations on how to handle the combat in them, especially the boss fights?

This can be said of so many things in games. What is a "waste" to you is precious to others.

Again, it depends on the person. My immersion is based on being able to see my character in all of their personal details including what they're wearing and carrying, and not what they see "through their eyes." And my feeling of being there when in third person is just as valid and real as yours in first person.

Exactly. Saying "first person = immersion" is entirely subjective. For me it is the exact opposite. Third person is what gives me immersion, whereas first person kills it. I need to be able to see myself (i.e. my PC) in the game world to feel like I'm there myself. Playing TW3 in third person is what made it possible for me to feel like I was Geralt. By contrast, seeing my hand weirdly and awkwardly sticking out from the bottom of my display is about as fake and artificial as anything can be.

By that way of defining a prequel, any game that is not set in the current year of a setting is a "prequel." And that is most certainly *not* the meaning of that word.