http://sugarbombed.com/forums/threads/chris-avellone-interview-part-1.21018/

 

So basically Chris implies that he was unhappy with upper managment because they were clearly looking to be bought out, and some project leads have felt this attitude has affected their decisions during development.

 

This interview really bums me out. I love Obsidian as a studio and I figured the crowdfunding and sales for Pillars of Eternity was enough to stave off becoming another beloved studio just looking to sell out at the top. This seems to be a cyclical pattern within the industry. A team of developers starts pushing out games I love and coming into their own, upper management sells them, they push out maybe one or two good games, then you wait for the talent to slowly quit as the new structure destroys their enthusiasm. Then you have to wait a year or two for your favorite talent to start or find a new studio that will after a few projects, sell out again. 

 

Is this a cycle we are damned to, or am I perceiving a pattern that does not exist? 

I think it's mostly just perceived trends with perhaps some truth to it (but a lot of truth about the video game industry is obscured to us mere consumers). 

 

My best friend works in the 'biz and from what I've observed and from what we've talked about, one of the defining traits in that industry is Ego, at every level, from studio leadership down to the grunts in the trenches.  I wouldn't be surprised if part of this perceived trend is that Ego is driving many leaders to think that if they aren't in the same league as the "Triple A's", then it's just treading water in the minors until a Triple A "calls them up" (i.e. buys them out).

 

Of course that's my own wild speculation that likely puts too much mustache twirling in there. 

 

Honestly, I think perhaps Obsidian once thought as Mr. Avellone describes during Obsidian's "dark times", but they really seem to want to embrace being THE leaders in the retro-PCRPG niche.  Of course that could be just another perceived trend.

Well, this is capitalism - what did you expect? Vision and creativity must come second and fit in the shoes of marketing and sales. Sad... but true.

Seemed to be mainly about Fallout if you ask me.

 

I'm inclined to agree with ZenshinX that if Obsidian did have that mindset they don't currently, if they did sell the company hopefully it'd be to someone who would appreciate the legacy of reinvigorating the isometric RPG genre.

Who is big enough to buy Obsidian and care about iso-rpgs still? I can't think of anyone.

Every time Chris Avellone says anything, there's always a bunch of people who for some inexplicable reason overanalyse and agonise until I can't figure out how they got from A to B.

 

The only relevant quote from MCA I see on that interview is this:

 

 

 

SB: Hypothetically, if Obsidian were to make a hypothetical new Fallout spinoff, would you hypothetically want to go back to obsidian and have some involvement with it being that Fallout is so close to your heart?


CA: No. While I like the developers and wish them all the very best, there's too many other problems at the higher managerial level to ever consider stepping back, especially when you could make a step in a direction that mattered for the franchise. Even leads at Obsidian have said as much (most after departing), and they told me they felt helpless in their roles to do what they felt was the right decision.

 

From which I gather, (A) MCA has zero intention of returning to Obsidian, (B) MCA thinks Obsidian has various unspecified higher management problems.

 

Not sure where the "looking to be bought out" comes from, for example. Given that Obsidian has had the same owners since their founding ten years ago (minus MCA now), it would be informative if we could ever learn, say, how the decision-makin gprocess has cahnged over the years in terms of producers, external publisher contacts, amongst the owners, between Feargus and lead devs, etc.

 

---

 

Edit; OK, I see buried near the bottom the bit about bought out:

 

 

 

They [bethesda] didn't buy Obsidian, though, even though Obsidian is eager to be bought based on recent interviews.

 

So MCA's speculating on this eagerness based on media interviews - does anybody know what he's referring to? 

Edited November 2, 20169 yr by Tigranes

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/90028-chris-avellone-hates-obsidian/

As Infinitron tries so subtly to point out, it's old news (existing thread in his linl)

 

Besides the interview is mostly about Fallout and Obsidian and not much (if anything to do with Pillars of Eternity).

Avellone might be right, or he might be wrong, and I won't know for certain unless Obsidian do, in fact, get bought up. Until the point (and quite possibly beyond it) I'll happily enjoy any and RPGs (particularly old school isometric ones) that they happen to release.

So MCA's speculating on this eagerness based on media interviews - does anybody know what he's referring to?

It's most likely based on this interview with Feargus: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2016-07-18-obsidian-entertainment-survival-success-and-independence

 

Though, to claim that Feargus specifically wants the company to be bought based on the wording there would be a specific interpretation of what he says.

Based on the interviews I'd say Feargus is just trying to be too nice to get to make games like NV and AP again while still staying independent. Apart from Armored Warfare, Obsidian is doing similar games as InExile but you can't see Feargus shunning publishers like Bryan does. As I still like Obs for what it stands for, I find MCA's Obs-related comments irritating since he left the company. f.i. He is criticizing Vegas choice as a Fallout game setting in this interview; wasn't he one of the founders back then? Didn't he have any credit to speak out? Didn't he have a say? And why didn't he back then? and now he's criticizing it...

 

He's also contradicting himself; in one of his interviews he said he likes clear hierarchy and he clearly doesn't like when the the guy who's calling the shots, shots him down for whatever. Why didn't he have such a big role in a game since Planescape? I'm guessing he never asked for it, if he did, a guy in his position in the company with his rep would have got it... then he criticizes decision makers, makes those decisions contributing factors of his departure. Again I might be wrong and Obs could be the bad guy in this, this is just what I think based on my observations.

 

And Obsidian is not a new company I'm sure they had many chances to get bought out.

Edited November 3, 20169 yr by Quillon

Storm in a t cup time. Hasn't said much. Bottom line - only people who actually know the real story are the people involved - and there is always 2 or more sides. Regarding Obs selling out - well if it's the owners right to sell the company if they can or want to. It could be good or bad, it's impossible to say now.  To be honest this interview is not really newsworthy, nothing has actually been said of any import.

I like Avellone and Obs and as long as they make games I like, I'll be happy regardless of where they end up. If they change their market I won't go with them though. I will still appreciate the work they have produced now and in the past.

Tbh, the only think I care to know about this interview is how CA envisions the perfect rpgs. And I have to say, I like what he thinks about that. Why he left Obsidian is something we'll never know and we shouldn't care about. As soon as his contribution to later titles is for the better of the genre, I'm just fine.

Sorry, meant to close the thread with my previous post. Lets keep the discussion in the existing thread