The YouTube Critics

[Medromeda]

Have you seen some of the mud that this game is being dragged into by some of the people on YouTube?

It always seems to be the same criticisms, as if, and that is my suspicion, they copy each others words. 

It's

Avowed is fine, but not great.

Obsidian should do better, considering how great they once were.

The world is too static.

The writing is bad. 

 

They don't seem to mention or do so in a way that downplays the features value, that Avowed probably has the best mechanics regarding combat, hero and item management in any RPG to date, nor that it probably has awesome graphics and level design. 

To be fair, I also think Avowed writing could be better. Sometimes I am unsure of whether I am playing an RPG or attending a psychotherapist. 

"Talk to Marius, but be understanding."

I think there is a lot of political correctness hidden in the writing, which I guess fits in a colorful fantasy theme like this. The game also seems to get better the further you get into it. Sometimes it even felt as if the "bad" writing was a hurdle between me and the good content. 

But the criticism of the world being too static I can't understand. The focus is on combat, dialogue, management and exploration/parkour. Not every game needs to be a simulation. Maybe more simulated aspects like moving NPCs would distract you and create a less streamlined experience which I think is what Obsidian was going for. 

I don't think more simulation would be bad, I just don't think it's a valid criticism. 

All in all I think this game is what modded Skyrim always wanted to be and it does so amazingly. And I can say this, even though I have a fair share of criticism to offer for this game. 

I don't know what these YouTube critics want to achieve. It seems many of them focus on a few aspects that they present as bad, which don't really seem that important and try to convince the viewer that because of this, the game is not that good.

I even heard one reviewer say something along the lines of: 

Avowed tries to create a lifelike simulated world, but it fails to do so, because the world is too static. 

I doubt those people understand what Avowed tries to be.

I just have to say, good job Obsidian. Thank you for making a great product which I can enjoy.

[Mungrul]

I honestly don't get why people are so desparate to compare it to Skyrim. It plays completely differently and I don't think it's even trying to be the same type of game. Much like how I didn't understand people comparing The Outer Worlds to Fallout New Vegas.

In fact, I think the more valid comparison, and the way to view how Obsidian are evolving as a developer, is to compare The Outer Worlds and Avowed, as they're obviously based on the same overall game design philosophy (let alone engine). And Avowed has clearly learned a LOT of lessons from TOW and improved upon it.

[Medromeda]

1 hour ago, Mungrul said:

I honestly don't get why people are so desparate to compare it to Skyrim. It plays completely differently and I don't think it's even trying to be the same type of game. Much like how I didn't understand people comparing The Outer Worlds to Fallout New Vegas.

In fact, I think the more valid comparison, and the way to view how Obsidian are evolving as a developer, is to compare The Outer Worlds and Avowed, as they're obviously based on the same overall game design philosophy (let alone engine). And Avowed has clearly learned a LOT of lessons from TOW and improved upon it.

"Avowed was originally going to have multiplayer components, similar to that of Destiny where players could walk around in a massive world.

In an interview with Bloomberg, director Carrie Patel said that Obsidian Entertainment pitched Avowed as a cross between Destiny and Skyrim to prospective buyers, which ended with Microsoft purchasing the studio. Avowed's development started in 2018 but went through two reboots, which led Obsidian to scrap its multiplayer component."

[ekt0]

I have not bought and played the game yet, but I had played Pillars of Eternity 1 and 2 for multiple times. From what I have seen from Cohh's playthrough (a popular streamer for CRPG), I agree with most critics that the game dialogue is noticably downgraded from its predecessors.

[Medromeda]

32 minutes ago, ekt0 said:

I have not bought and played the game yet, but I had played Pillars of Eternity 1 and 2 for multiple times. From what I have seen from Cohh's playthrough (a popular streamer for CRPG), I agree with most critics that the game dialogue is noticably downgraded from its predecessors.

 

I agree with that notion. It often times feels as if I was attending psychotherapy instead or playing an RPG. Often times I feel that the dialogue options with when you talk to the voice (no spoilers) are similar to questionaires you get from a psychotherapist. Often times your companions seems to act as if to give an example, presenting values which can be found in what I will call psychotherapy culture. I have my suspicions that this is the reason the dialogue feels downgraded.

[Wormerine]

22 hours ago, Medromeda said:

It's

Avowed is fine, but not great.

Obsidian should do better, considering how great they once were.

The world is too static.

The writing is bad. 

 

They don't seem to mention or do so in a way that downplays the features value, that Avowed probably has the best mechanics regarding combat, hero and item management in any RPG to date, nor that it probably has awesome graphics and level design.

Yeah, but I mean... none of those are not true. Avowed is fine. If you walk into it expecting the "Obsidian RPG" you will be disappointed. The world is static and uninteractive. Writing is... well, I wouldn't call it bad, but it is uneven and I don't think it's game's strength.

The tricky thing is that while Avowed combat is surprisingly satisfying it is good compared to... what? Highly systemic Bethesda RPG? Previous more story rich Obsidian games? Sure, Avowed combat system is far more robust than Outer Worlds - but would I necessarily recommend Avowed over Outer Worlds as a package?

If you argue that Avowed is actually just open world action adventure, focusing on combat and exploration - from that standpoint I also think the game isn't delivering on all cylinders . I am not very deep into 2nd area and combat already looses its luster - loot isn't interesting nor transformative, enemy variety starts running a bit thin.

So yeah Avowed is fine. It is exceeding my expectations in some areas, but misses in others. It is enjoyable enough romp through Eora, but as PoE fan, I also bring investment with me, which others players might not have. At this moment I am not sure if I will ever want to return to it - the game feels to be spread a bit thin. Still, there is stuff one can appreciate and praise, which most reviews I looked at did.

[Medromeda]

4 hours ago, Wormerine said:

Yeah, but I mean... none of those are not true. Avowed is fine. If you walk into it expecting the "Obsidian RPG" you will be disappointed. The world is static and uninteractive. Writing is... well, I wouldn't call it bad, but it is uneven and I don't think it's game's strength.

The tricky thing is that while Avowed combat is surprisingly satisfying it is good compared to... what? Highly systemic Bethesda RPG? Previous more story rich Obsidian games? Sure, Avowed combat system is far more robust than Outer Worlds - but would I necessarily recommend Avowed over Outer Worlds as a package?

If you argue that Avowed is actually just open world action adventure, focusing on combat and exploration - from that standpoint I also think the game isn't delivering on all cylinders . I am not very deep into 2nd area and combat already looses its luster - loot isn't interesting nor transformative, enemy variety starts running a bit thin.

So yeah Avowed is fine. It is exceeding my expectations in some areas, but misses in others. It is enjoyable enough romp through Eora, but as PoE fan, I also bring investment with me, which others players might not have. At this moment I am not sure if I will ever want to return to it - the game feels to be spread a bit thin. Still, there is stuff one can appreciate and praise, which most reviews I looked at did.

Writing isn't bad. There were times when I had good interactions. But other times... well I mentioned it already in a previous post. Calling it uneven is probably a good choice of words. 

The combat is a definitive evolution to what Skyrim and modded Skyrim after that tried to achieve. It worked on all the problems that game had and added some extra flavour to it. I'd say the combat is the main attraction of the game. To be honest, I think it's the best combat I've seen in any RPG to date. Saying it loses it's luster after a while is understandable to a point. But I like to make the comparison to non-videogames in that matter. Take soccer for example. It's always the same and it doesn't become boring (if you like it). With videogames people somehow have the expectation that it needs to change over the course of the playthrough or it will become boring. Maybe that's the wrong way of approaching videogames. I am having a lot of fun with the combat and trying different builds. I see it as a nice pasttime. I made a first playthrough and got stuck in the last bit of the game and started a new character now on hard difficulty. I am really enjoying it. Now I am playing the game as it is supposed to be played, I think, with exploring the whole map, upgrading my gear to be able to fight monsters appropriately. I feel like I can see why Obsidian made certain design choices. I like the item upgrade system, as it always seems to leave something you can work towards, even until the very end of the game. Also it feels as if exploration and finding chests is typical RPG design and feels very well done in this game. It kind of all fits together. Mobs make you want to upgrade your gear -> makes you want to find materials -> makes you want to explore to find chests -> makes you use the parkour system. I feel like Obsidian made a lot of really good design choices with this game. If you think the combat becomes boring I feel as if no game can really satisfy you in that regard, because the combat really is the best I have ever seen in an RPG. 

Seeing Avowed as an action adventure focusing on combat and exploration actually seems like it is not such a bad idea. I often find the dialogue, spoken by your companions, to be a good method to pass empty stretches of traveling meaningfully or to give flavour to the game and your environment.

I have a problem with people saying Avowed is just "fine". I mean, I don't have a problem with the people, but with the statement. Avowed makes a lot of good design choices. The combat is the best I have seen in any RPG, specifically first person, the writing is a mixed bag but it's good at times, parkour elements and exploration seem like natural evolution to Skyrim, the spell, character and item system are also full of good design choices, imo, although the upgrade system seems to become a little too nested in the end. 

[Sven_]

On 2/25/2025 at 2:28 AM, Medromeda said:

 

But the criticism of the world being too static I can't understand. The focus is on combat, dialogue, management and exploration/parkour. Not every game needs to be a simulation. Maybe more simulated aspects like moving NPCs would distract you and create a less streamlined experience which I think is what Obsidian was going for. 

 

 

This they'd probably brought upon themselves. And it all started early... (Imagine a picture of Feargus having a bunch of Dollar signs flying over his head -- like back at Interplay, when he sold the idea to Bioware that they should turn Battleground Infinity, the demo they pitched to him, into a D&D game).  

 

Given that even Obsidian regulars (including me) had no robust idea what the game was gonna be like until like it actually released, some of that Skyrim still sticks. It's even still mentioned in numerous press reviews. Even after the reported reboot way back, at which point it was all apparently scaled back. And made more similar to The Outer Worlds (in terms of world structure, either way). At one point early on Avowed was going to be a co-op game as well. Compare that to Pillars, where there was zero doubt about what the game was gonna be from day #1. Both for the devs as well as the public.

A part of marketing and PR is setting expectations. Bethesda may have failed to do that as to Starfield themselves. Lots of people clearly expected there to be an actual space simulation in there, like actual travel. However, similar type of games or features are always going to be compared. See also Cyberpunk 2077, where people compared it unfavourably to the open world sandbox of GTA 5. The same to some extent had happened to the Mafia games before as well, which were more focused on a narrative in an open world-ish setting, as opposed to a sandbox. However, Cyberpunk was hyped up to be the biggest, most immersive, most real thing ever. So real you'd forget you'd play a game... that's the impression you got from all the buzz either way. People would have always put that to the test.

And the ACTUAL next GTA better live up to it all, or else...  

Edited 13 hours ago by Sven_

[Medromeda]

23 minutes ago, Sven_ said:

 

This they'd brought upon themselves. And it all started early... 

 

Given that even Obsidian regulars (including me) had no robust idea what the game was gonna be like until like it actually released, some of that Skyrim still sticks. Even after the reported reboot way back, at which point it was all apparently scaled back. And made more similar to The Outer Worlds (in terms of world structure, either way). 

I feel that both genres have their validation. Avowed is definitely more focused on you, as the player. Your companions are good tools, but they are not nearly as strong nor valuable as you are. In a classical isometric CRPG you have a group of roughly equivalent people. The difference in perspective also offers different options regarding mechanics and tactics. I'd love to see more games like Avowed, but also more games like Pillars.

[Wormerine]

6 hours ago, Medromeda said:

To be honest, I think it's the best combat I've seen in any RPG to date. Saying it loses it's luster after a while is understandable to a point. But I like to make the comparison to non-videogames in that matter. Take soccer for example. It's always the same and it doesn't become boring (if you like it). With videogames people somehow have the expectation that it needs to change over the course of the playthrough or it will become boring. 

(...)

Also it feels as if exploration and finding chests is typical RPG design and feels very well done in this game. It kind of all fits together. Mobs make you want to upgrade your gear -> makes you want to find materials -> makes you want to explore to find chests -> makes you use the parkour system. I feel like Obsidian made a lot of really good design choices with this game. If you think the combat becomes boring I feel as if no game can really satisfy you in that regard, because the combat really is the best I have ever seen in an RPG. 

(...)

I have a problem with people saying Avowed is just "fine". I mean, I don't have a problem with the people, but with the statement. Avowed makes a lot of good design choices. The combat is the best I have seen in any RPG, specifically first person, the writing is a mixed bag but it's good at times, parkour elements and exploration seem like natural evolution to Skyrim.

FromSoft comes to mind that did actionRPG combat far far better. Also Arcane be with with Messiah of Dark and Magic, or Dishonored/Prey (I wouldn't call none of those games RPGs, but neither would I Avowed. The issue I have with "combat is better than Skyrim" is that Skyrim (and other RPGs) offer much much more beyond combat. You don't play those games FOR combat, while you have to play Avowed combat. So to me the question isn't "is Avowed combat better than those games that offer a wider range of experiences", but "is Avowed combat good enough to carry what seems like a very long game". And I think it is just ok. If you want a game to be carried by a single gameplay loop it can't be just good - it has to be exceptional. Avowed combat would be amazing if it was a smaller part of a more rounded game. As a main feature though? It's ok.

The games need variety or depth to remain compelling. You either create a simple system and a lot of variety (FromSoft games) or you create a very deep system that can be interacted with and mastered to a high degree (fighting games, DMC, Dooms etc.). Avowed is none of those, and that's fine. But that also limits how engaging the system is in the long run. 

Progression system is just not very compelling. You gather materials and upgrade your weapons by exploring and killing Xourips, to be able to explore area and kill Xourips of a higher level. As far as I am concerned the progression might as well not be there - except that in this case Avowed would need to have more of actually compelling things to find, rather than scattering chests in random locations around the map and calling it a day. I am sounding very negative right now, and I don't mean to. Avowed is fine. It's a gamepass game. Pay couple quid, download it, play it every couple few days when I don't have brain power to play something more demanding. It's a time killer rather than an experience.

edit. When I say “fine” I mean American fine. I am happy with it. Not British “it’s fine” which is quite often has derogatory connotations. 

Edited 8 hours ago by Wormerine

[slotharingia_1]

I've stopped paying attention to most "critics" out there. The vast majority just jump on whatever bandwagon is trending and repeat the same nonsense ad nauseam to get clicks, then armies of anti-gamers spend all day, every day repeating what they said in various public internet spaces. Content creators who go against whatever is the popular opinion are ripped to shreds.

Apparently, all that matters now is collecting arrows, shooting them into the air and expecting this game to be like Skyrim. You could do all sorts of stuff in ancient, free, ascii-based games you can’t do in games nowadays, too  - stuff that was a lot more fun than collecting arrows or getting caught nicking stuff. I guess we should all just go back to them, then.

But anyway, the problem with this type of negative hysteria, is it drowns out proper, first-hand criticism from people who play the game and have opinions that are their own, and trivialises actual issues

 

[Medromeda]

2 hours ago, Wormerine said:

FromSoft comes to mind that did actionRPG combat far far better. Also Arcane be with with Messiah of Dark and Magic, or Dishonored/Prey (I wouldn't call none of those games RPGs, but neither would I Avowed. The issue I have with "combat is better than Skyrim" is that Skyrim (and other RPGs) offer much much more beyond combat. You don't play those games FOR combat, while you have to play Avowed combat. So to me the question isn't "is Avowed combat better than those games that offer a wider range of experiences", but "is Avowed combat good enough to carry what seems like a very long game". And I think it is just ok. If you want a game to be carried by a single gameplay loop it can't be just good - it has to be exceptional. Avowed combat would be amazing if it was a smaller part of a more rounded game. As a main feature though? It's ok.

The games need variety or depth to remain compelling. You either create a simple system and a lot of variety (FromSoft games) or you create a very deep system that can be interacted with and mastered to a high degree (fighting games, DMC, Dooms etc.). Avowed is none of those, and that's fine. But that also limits how engaging the system is in the long run. 

Progression system is just not very compelling. You gather materials and upgrade your weapons by exploring and killing Xourips, to be able to explore area and kill Xourips of a higher level. As far as I am concerned the progression might as well not be there - except that in this case Avowed would need to have more of actually compelling things to find, rather than scattering chests in random locations around the map and calling it a day. I am sounding very negative right now, and I don't mean to. Avowed is fine. It's a gamepass game. Pay couple quid, download it, play it every couple few days when I don't have brain power to play something more demanding. It's a time killer rather than an experience.

edit. When I say “fine” I mean American fine. I am happy with it. Not British “it’s fine” which is quite often has derogatory connotations. 

Thank you for your input, dear Sir.

I actually think that Avowed does combat better than Fromsoft games, but I can see that a lot of people would probably disagree with me, because those games have a very hardcore fanbase. Dark Messiah of Might and Magic and Dishonored and Prey seem good examples, which Avowed probably has a lot of similarities to. I honestly don't know how they could've made the combat, given the premise of having tactical CRPG combat merged with action-oriented first-person gameplay, any better. Positioning, line of sight, crowd control abilities, all of this plays a role in combat and I think they really made the right choices in balancing as well, which is the most important part (giving the right weight to all of your actions). 

I am not understanding the criticism of the progression system being not compelling. I feel like it serves the combat system as it is and does so very well. Like I mentioned before, because it is designed as an RPG, it needs to have a progression, which means higher difficulty mobs, which means you need to be able to upgrade your gear. And how you upgrade your gear was directly linked to the exploration and parkour system, which I like. I tend to compare the game with Skyrim, because Obsidian said multiple times that this was intended to be a Skyrim-like game. And if you do so, all these things I just mentioned, Avowed does better than Skyrim. I feel that the upgrade system is also just complex enough so you wouldn't be bothered by it too much. No skill grinding, as you had in Skyrim, for example. I think Avowed is very streamlined and so is the upgrade system. Maybe this is a new kind of gamedesign philosophy, or maybe it's an old one, but it feels like they made the right choices here, atleast to me.

[Wormerine]

3 hours ago, Medromeda said:

Dark Messiah of Might and Magic and Dishonored and Prey seem good examples, which Avowed probably has a lot of similarities to. I honestly don't know how they could've made the combat, given the premise of having tactical CRPG combat merged with action-oriented first-person gameplay, any better.

Depth and variety I say. First thing that comes to mind is loot - I wish unique weapons had more impactful modifiers. And in case it isn't clear I think Obsidian build a fantastic foundation in Avowed, and I hope they get to build on it in the future - be it in a sequel or just repurpose tech and design from Avowed in another project.

I suspect we agree on many things, we just disagree where Avowed lands on an arbitrary, personal bad-excellent scale. Which is fine, and I happily admit that Avowed is at a disadvantage here due to some of it's core designs not being to my taste, even if they are not objectively flawed.

[thelee]

On 2/25/2025 at 4:40 AM, Mungrul said:

I honestly don't get why people are so desparate to compare it to Skyrim.

With Avowed, something I've realized is that I think for a lot of people, the only RPG they've spent much time on is in fact Skyrim.

There was a Sports Illustrated (?!) preview of Avowed that I found baffling, because it was written by an e-sports commentator who only does RTS's, who admits in their preview that the only RPG they've ever played Skyrim, didn't like it, and their preview of Avowed was "this is kind of like Skyrim... which I didn't like. If you like Skyrim, maybe you'll like it." (I don't mind people having their specialties and genre likes, but for goodness sake, please have some basic familiarity with the genre you're trying to cover for a job. Hilariously, I can't find the article anymore, it only exists on internet archive, so either they or their editor realized what a hack job it was.)

But the more social media commentary I see, the more I see people who are like that journalist where I'm starting to realize they literally have no other frame of reference for an RPG. Whether they like Avowed or don't like Avowed, it's in the context of "it's like skyrim in this way... and that's bad/good" or "it's not like skyrim in this way... and that's good/bad."

There are literally other ways to make RPGs. "NPCs in Avowed don't have their own day to day schedules" my brother in Christ most cRPGs do not do that.

Edited 1 hour ago by thelee

[Medromeda]

8 minutes ago, thelee said:

With Avowed, something I've realized is that I think for a lot of people, the only RPG they've spent much time on is in fact Skyrim.

There was a Sports Illustrated (?!) preview of Avowed that I found baffling, because it was written by an e-sports commentator who only does RTS's, who admits in their preview that the only RPG they've ever played Skyrim, didn't like it, and their preview of Avowed was "this is kind of like Skyrim... which I didn't like. If you like Skyrim, maybe you'll like it." (I don't mind people having their specialties and genre likes, but for goodness sake, please have some basic familiarity with the genre you're trying to cover. Hilariously, I can't find the article anymore, it only exists on internet archive.)

But the more social media commentary I see, the more I see people like that journalist where I'm starting to realize they literally have no other frame of reference for an RPG. Whether they like Avowed or don't like Avowed, it's in the context of "it's like skyrim in this way... and that's bad/good" or "it's not like skyrim in this way... and that's good/bad."

There are literally other ways to make RPGs. "NPCs in Avowed don't have their own day to day schedules" my brother in Christ most cRPGs do not do that.

Well, but it's not just that they only compare it to Skyrim, they do so in a way that takes the least important features of Skyrim and claims Avowed doesn't have that, which makes it then a bad game. But yes, I also thought: most other RPGs don't have more simulated NPCs, especially CRPGs. So you're not only talking about features, which you claim as missing, which are seemingly unimportant to the game as a whole, but also make comparisons in ways which seem very negative for the sake of being negative. There must be a name for that kind of thing, some kind of fallacy, isn't it?

[thelee]

13 minutes ago, Medromeda said:

Well, but it's not just that they only compare it to Skyrim, they do so in a way that takes the least important features of Skyrim and claims Avowed doesn't have that, which makes it then a bad game.

it's also baffling because it's apparent that these people must not have played other big RPGs in the past few years. BG3 has probably changed CRPG gaming forever, and did not have a lot of the things I see raised negatively about Avowed not being skyrim-like (e.g. why doesn't avowed have no level cap, respawning monsters, custom enchantments, NPC schedules, etc). did they bash BG3 for those same flaws? More likely they didn't even play BG3. it's fine for people to not have a lot of genre experience, but I wish people had more curiosity and were willing to try out a game on its own merits.

 

Edited 1 hour ago by thelee