Sidekicks will have no banter

[huang]

 

Which assumes they are competing with Larian

 

 

Yeah, they are definitely trying to sell fewer copies.

[Karkarov]

That has precious little to do with "everyone" really being stunned by full VO and praising it left and right. I haven't played this game either and yet I have read about it having full VO so often, it almost sounds as if this is the game's best feature. Which is a little weird to me, but that changes nothing.

 

Overall it seems as if these RPGs have crossed a corner and a high enough margin of players just expects this now.

 

........................

 

Yeah, they are definitely trying to sell fewer copies.

 

Who is everyone?  Every VO thread I have seen started on this forum was either an official announcement by Obsidian, a Critical Role fan who only cared because Critical Role, or more often than either of the other two.... someone complaining because the game has full VO and that money "obviously" could have been spent better elsewhere.

 

I don't think it is RPG's, games in general have VO.  Grand Theft Auto, Call of Duty, Civilization, World of Warcraft, League of Legends, Resident Evil, Dark Souls, even Overwatch has some VO.  It is just a normal feature.  Maybe if you are an indie  game maker with a staff of 5 no VO is normal, but from a studio like Obsidian with a proven record and lots of games under their belt?  It's expected, has been for a long time.

 

Lastly, video game sales are not sports.  Larian does not "win" if it sells more copies.  Obsidian in Larian are not in a boxing match trying to knock each other out.

 

Call of Duty and Titanfall are competing games.  They are both FPS, they both are multiplayer focused, they both have similar gameplay (outside of the robot thing), they both feature similar progression systems, they are both arena/level shooters, there are a lot of things really similar between these two games.  They blatantly appeal to the same kind of player, it is reasonable to believe someone may buy one, but not the other because the experience is so similar.

 

That is not true with Original Sin and Eternity.  They are not similar at all and like I said appeal for completely different reasons.  Most players will either buy both for different reasons (like myself), or will only one buy one because the other doesn't appeal to them.  That is not competition.  An apple is not competing with an orange.

Edited April 28, 2018 by Karkarov

[Guest 4ward]

From the info I know about PoE2, we have 7 companions and 4(?) sidekicks.

<snip>

 

so that‘s 11, whereas BG2 had 16 so there you have more choice and more replayability. How ‚fleshed out‘ a char is doesn‘t automatically mean you‘ll like him more. There‘s people out there who happily let Jaheira rot in her cell even though she has the most content. Sometimes it‘s just whether you like a char‘s portrait, voice, lines, class whatever that decides it. From the – i believe – 9 chars in Kotor1 i liked only hk-47 and missionvao, the others not so much, it was actually to a certain part a pain going through dialogue to get their quest. So the effort there is really wasted. It‘s also questionable whether it‘s much fun to play a game that lasts 50 hours and from these 50 hours you have 10 hours banter dialogue. BG2 can get up to 150 hours and a good portion of lines are not recorded so you get the feeling that chars had very little banter.

Edited April 28, 2018 by 4ward

[bonarbill]

 

 

 

If you guys want to live in a deluded fantasy realm where you think Obsidian makes major budget choices based on nothing other than "but Larian did it!!!!?!?!?!!" then go ahead.

 

Yeah, it's truly insane to assume that a company would try to be as good (or better) as their competition.

They have completely different gameplay, completely different class systems, completely different tone, completely different stories, the graphics are very different both in style and presentation, one of them is even multiplayer focused while the other is explicitly a single player game.

 

Other than being isometric RPG's they really aren't similar at all.  Many don't like Eternity that much, but loved Original Sin, and vice versa.  They tend to appeal for completely different reasons.  Some people may like both, but that doesn't mean they are competing.  Case in point, I won't play Original Sin unless I have a friend online who wants to play with me.  Because as a single player RPG, I think it sucks.

 

 

Just because both games aren't similar in exact features doesn't mean they're not competing with one another.  That's like saying Final Fantasy and the Tales series aren't in the same genre because they play and look differently.

 

Both Divinity and Pillars are top down western RPGs that focus on gameplay, roleplaying (C&C) and story.  One series has a multiplayer, but the entire game can be played as a single player story driven rpg.

 

Deny it all you want, but they are competing with one another.  Both games always get compared when someone is looking for a CRPG.

[Elerond]

PoE gets its inspiration from Baldur's Gate and other Infinity Engine games, which have their own distinct set of features and themes that determine what kind of gameplay they offer.

 

D:OS gets its inspiration from Ultimate series games, which have their own distinct set of features and themes which determine what kind gameplay experience they offer. 

 

Meaning that even though both are isometric western RPGs they still offer very different gameplay experience. I mean it is like comparing Europa Universalis 4 to Civilization 6 and say that they are in competition with each other because they both are empire building strategy games with historic twist, even though they both offer very different gameplay and thematic experiences.

[Karkarov]

Deny it all you want, but they are competing with one another.  Both games always get compared when someone is looking for a CRPG.

It is funny but no, not really.  I have never seen anyone outside of these fanboi forums compare these two games in anything but the most generic way.

 

Get out of your safe spaces guys.

[tinysalamander]

Whenever I see this thread in the list I always read it as “Sidekicks will have no brain”…

[Big-Ben]

I'm speaking only for myself here but I vastly prefer a smaller group of tightly written characters than gallery of folks I'll never use and engage with. Sidekicks are not the soup de jour but they aren't rush jobs either. It takes time to develop characters and no doubt if we had a smorgasbord of folks to choose from I'm more than certain they'd have several that weren't really all that interesting to many of us.

 

I suppose what I'm saying is that sometimes it's better to have less than more. Having a character you know has some semblance of a background that you'll use strikes me as a better gamble than a character who doesn't have the same level of care as others that people don't like. For instance take a look at Mass Effect 2. Does anyone really like Jacob the same way they do the other companions? He's a character sure but he really doesn't have much use other than exposition. How many remember the companions from Baldur's Gate who weren't popular as well? 

 

My intent is not to be combative but rather to say that resources should be used on things that can be made into great content. Spreading resources on paper thin sidekicks just strikes me as as waste of time. One of the nice things about having a limited budget is that you have to choose very carefully where to spend your resources. 

[evilcat]

Less is more.

 

But in terms of sidekick the expectacions are low, and easy to cover. If sidekick would have 10min of barter that would feel like alot, when in comparison to whole game it is nothing.

 

It is similar to history of items. You can just write lorem ipsum and give that sweet, sweet stats. But some people care about epic story of our boomstick.

Edited April 28, 2018 by evilcat

[huang]

Lastly, video game sales are not sports.  Larian does not "win" if it sells more copies. 

 

Yeah, that's how capitalism works.

[huang]

Meaning that even though both are isometric western RPGs they still offer very different gameplay experience.

 

I've seen comparisons between Pillars 1 and Witcher 3. And these RPGs have even less in common. I mean, I personally don't really do it, because I only care about a game being good or not, but the thing is, that there are maybe 3-4 bigger RPGs coming out each year (it's not that much really). So those usually end up being compared to each other, for no other reason than being in the same genre. Reading more than 1 gaming site usually does the trick.

[Elarie]

 

Lastly, video game sales are not sports.  Larian does not "win" if it sells more copies. 

 

Yeah, that's how capitalism works.

 

Capitalism works if they make money... You don't win capitalism. Even with directly competing products like PC and Apple neither is truly winning against the other capitalism-wise if they both are making boatloads of cash.

[huang]

 

Capitalism works if they make money... You don't win capitalism.

 

 

You might not "win" it like a lottery, but making more is definitely better, you would agree to that, right? Even if they aren't greedy, it still means more projects become possible or they can make fewer projects bigger (which in turn might lead to more sales again and so on) and they won't go bankrupt nearly as easily, if one of their releases shouldn't sell well.

 

JS talked a while ago about all the games he would like to make, but good luck financing them. A huge sales hit would definitely help with that. Isn't that obvious?!?

Edited April 28, 2018 by huang

[Karkarov]

I've seen comparisons between Pillars 1 and Witcher 3. And these RPGs have even less in common. I mean, I personally don't really do it, because I only care about a game being good or not, but the thing is, that there are maybe 3-4 bigger RPGs coming out each year (it's not that much really). So those usually end up being compared to each other, for no other reason than being in the same genre. Reading more than 1 gaming site usually does the trick.

Anyone who compared Witcher 3 to any RPG that wasn't say Skyrim, or a similar exploration heavy open world RPG is an idiot.

 

Beyond similar tone, Witcher 3 and Eternity have even less in common than Eternity and Original Sin.  They are not a good comparison.

 

As for your capitalism comment, I see you don't know anything about business.  So this is how it works.  In capitalism you are competing against 3 things.

1. Cost
2. Demand
3. Companies selling the same product

See if someone sells the same thing you do, say cars, you are competing with them.  Odds are extremely high if someone buys say a Ford F-150, they are not going to turn around and buy Chevy Silverado a month later.  They are the same product.  They aren't similar, they are literally the same thing.

 

Demand is straight forward, people have to actually want to buy what your selling.  If your product has no demand, you better find a new product or drum up some demand.

 

Cost is the ultimate enemy of all business (including Obsidian) and it is complex to determine, but very simple to tell if you beat it once you do.  See cost is how much money you spent to get your product to market.  If there is any one real indicator of "winning" at business, it is Cost.  Because if your product makes more profit, than it cost, than it doesn't really matter if your Chevy and more people bought the F-150.  You made profit, which means you win.

Edited April 28, 2018 by Karkarov

[evilcat]

Are DOS2 and POE2 really competting?

With cars you generally need 1 car, extra cars generate costs like inssurence or parking spot.

Extra single player game have some opportunity costs, but no subscribcion fee.

Unlike online games in SP you dont care about online playerbase.

Single Player games could be more like Tirramisu icecream. If you bought one, there is a chance you will buy more in future.

It could be interesting in perspective of the future of SP games in general. You risk less with SP games.

Edited April 28, 2018 by evilcat

[huang]

 

Because if your product makes more profit, than it cost, than it doesn't really matter if your Chevy and more people bought the F-150.  You made profit, which means you win.

 

LOL. "Here is how it works". Good one. Actually, if you spend more than you get back, then it's not profit at all. That's automatically a loss.

 

Also, no yo don't just "win". It actually does matter a lot how much profit you make. Businesses cancel products all the time, if their are even more lucrative ones on the horizon.

[huang]

Are DOS2 and POE2 really competting?

 

Probably yeah. I mean, strictly speaking all RPGs are competing to a degree. This isn't just about a player's money, but also their time. Many people play like 1 bigger RPG a year, because they don't have the time to play all of them, even if they can afford them. So unless you manage to make your game this one pick, you don't have a sale. And even if someone buys an RPG years later, games are much cheaper by then.

[kmbogd]

I think that DOS and PoE are competing but not directly, rather Larian and Obsidian are. What are they competing for? Well, they are competing for having the upper hand in getting their name visible to publishers in the RPG genre. Remember the Larian Kickstarter update with Wizards of the Coasts (or something like that)? The "between the lines message" that I got was that they were looking for a potential future cooperation. I bet that Obsidian would have been interested as well.  Among other things, a major point of  impressing a publisher/IP owner is how well your latest games sold. From this point of view it looks like Larian definitely did some things right (right in the sense that they took decisions that brought them more copies sold). I believe that Obsidian is looking at what Larian did and tries to replicate those decisions which also make sense for them. 

Edited April 28, 2018 by kmbogd

[Big-Ben]

Less is more.

 

But in terms of sidekick the expectacions are low, and easy to cover. If sidekick would have 10min of barter that would feel like alot, when in comparison to whole game it is nothing.

 

It is similar to history of items. You can just write lorem ipsum and give that sweet, sweet stats. But some people care about epic story of our boomstick.

 

Writing lines for people who don't really have much character doesn't really add much in my opinion. I'm very much of the opinion that if a writer can get their point across with less dialogue and descriptions the better. Action is character too. 

 

Is this realistic? Certainly not. Having sidekicks that act like stoic antiheroes in Spaghetti Westerns all the time is silly but I'm more prone to that than some guy who mopes around and tells me endless expository diatribes about how much the world sucks or something. It's not that exposition is bad it's just that I'd want the dialogue coming at me to be good and not armchair philosophy. You can't do that all the time and you most certainly can't do it on a budget. A smaller set of very defined companions fits that role perfectly in my opinion.

 

I want to make it clear I get what you're saying it's just that I feel it's too much to do on a budget. Stoic dude in the corner is better than Bootleg Schopenhauer etc etc.

[Karkarov]

 

 

Because if your product makes more profit, than it cost, than it doesn't really matter if your Chevy and more people bought the F-150.  You made profit, which means you win.

 

LOL. "Here is how it works". Good one. Actually, if you spend more than you get back, then it's not profit at all. That's automatically a loss.

Do you read what other people post before you reply to them?

[Erik Dirk]

Correct me if I'm wrong but scripted dialogue for each individual sidekick would take very little effort from a coding perspective (We know the writers have spare time as they're already working on the DLC), however inter party banter would take more considerable effort.

Something to keep in mind is that this is unlikely to Obsidians last RPG, Maybe they don't really want to do full voice acting, but if they do it now then when releasing stand alone DLC's or pillars 3 they can make a big deal about how this allows them to freely add additional content, more lore, character interactions etc. Let them emphasis how they initially produce a high quality game and have a strong record of continuing to listen and polish after relase

[fgalkin]

It makes sense. In PoE2, the banter is based on the relationship system (so you don't get the standard dialogues of PoE, but multiple versions depending on how the characters feel about each other). Sidekicks are not included in the relationship system, so they cannot have banters. Giving them banters would involve including them into the relationship system, and that would make them full companions. 

[ArmyP]

The conversation of DOS2 vs Pillars 2 is more interesting than the OP.

[fgalkin]

I haven't played either of those two games, so that's not a discussion I can contribute to 

 

EDIT: Well, ok, I played the PoE2 beta, but that's hardly a meaningful game experience

Edited April 30, 2018 by fgalkin

[Guest 4ward]

 

Player: ‚Hey Fessina, you‘re really intriguing and i‘d like to know if -‘

Fessina: ‚Stop! There‘s no relationship, there‘s only peace.‘

Player: ‚What?! Hey Ydwin, i‘m really curious, do you think we could -‘

Ydwin: ‚SHHHH! There‘s no banter, there‘s only silence. Silence is golden.‘

Player: ‚Rekke, what‘s going on here?!‘

Rekke: ‚A geh weida, lern‘ erst oamal boarisch.‘

Player: ‚Konstanten, you‘re my last hope….‘

Konstanten: ‚?‘