I was talking about buggy games that they didn't have time to finish.
*edit* Are these new proposals going to be self published? I thought that's what they're doing with Pillars of Eternity.
Those bug issues have more or less been solved for some time now, but people keep insisting that "Obsidian LOL bugs #YOLO".
The last few games have not been buggy in any distinguishable way, compared to other things being published.
It would be nice if they could expand the Eternity franchise into other genres of games. A turn based strategy game similar to King's Bounty or Heroes of Might and Magic would be nice, and it wouldn't be that expensive to make. 2D hack n' slash and roguelikes could work too.
It is probably a scale issue.
Obsidian could continue being a small focused company. But that isn't really what it has been in the past, it worked on pretty large projects.
If the top likes their employees, they may choose to take on another large project that is otherwise out of their scope.
I would be very happy if they could have another Bethesda contract for instance, as long as they are able to negotiate time and the reward structure a little better. Because I want another Obsidian Fallout game.
And if it's not Bethesda, the question is then, who would hire them. EA flags all their RPG business under Bioware and does it in house, Activision only makes Call of Duty + Blizzard franchises, and I'm not aware of Ubisoft having any external games either.
Yeah and they're just about to release their biggest project. (South Park no doubt has the biggest budget)
So what are those people going to do?
Not disagreeing
Also for now, being assigned to Pillars of Eternity and the Next-Gen Project as well as the upcoming Kickstarter project. Afterwards whatever project will make the cut of those 9 proposals.
Btw. I don't know if South Park was/is their biggest budget. Fallout and Alpha Protocol are strong contendors.
I have every hope for Pillars of Eternity being a huge success, just so that Obsidian will have a successful IP fully in their control, that they can continue to build upon.
It'd be nice to have those guys able to do things without IP owners dicking around too much in the dev business.
I have every hope for Pillars of Eternity being a huge success, just so that Obsidian will have a successful IP fully in their control, that they can continue to build upon.
It'd be nice to have those guys able to do things without IP owners dicking around too much in the dev business.
I honestly think it'll be a success just because there are so many pc gamers that really want the old school crpg fix. Throw it up on Steam and GOG and start printing money. Especially GOG, they've got a pretty big consumer base just from nostalgia factor alone.
Not to mention I just found out the other day that one of their biggest goals is for allowing lower end/older machines to be able to play the game, which honestly makes me feel better, since the temp computer I got can barely play even NWN2 without graphical glitches.
Not to mention I just found out the other day that one of their biggest goals is for allowing lower end/older machines to be able to play the game, which honestly makes me feel better, since every pc ever can barely play NWN2 without graphical glitches.
I was talking about buggy games that they didn't have time to finish.
*edit* Are these new proposals going to be self published? I thought that's what they're doing with Pillars of Eternity.
Those bug issues have more or less been solved for some time now, but people keep insisting that "Obsidian LOL bugs #YOLO".
The last few games have not been buggy in any distinguishable way, compared to other things being published.
I have to really disagree here, their last 3 games published were DS3, New Vegas, and Alpha. I didn't play DS 3 so can't speak about it but Alpha was a huge mess when it was released and Vegas also had all kinds of problems. I beleive Vegas was fixed relatively quickly, I can't actually remember, but at release it was fucked up.
EDIT, the big fix patch didn't come for 2 months, they released a small one a week after release.
I'll give you AP, which was pretty buggy (even if half the things people complained about being bugs was really just poor design decisions). But new Vegas wasn't really any more buggy than FO3 or any other gamebyro Bethesda game.
At launch the framerate was half what it was supposed to be on a ton of systems and savegames routinely corrupted. A large chunk of the scripting did not work correctly. It was easily the buggiest game released with gamebryo, I mean compared to the bethesda ones.
The save corruption was steamworks integration, which was fixed in a week or two. I never had any FPS problems, even with a dinky c2d and 8800. And scripting errors are par for the course for Bethesda
Alright, you motherfuckers have kept posting in this thread so if it gets closed you'll either have to wait a few days for me to be unjailed (FREEDOM IS SO CLOSE I CAN TASTE IT) or get along without me. But here's some stuff (make sure to go to YouTube and read the video description for the question first):
Sympathetic villains are the best because you know they still possess some humanity and could have the potential to change their ways. These are weaknesses that you can exploit to break them or emotionally manipulate them into bowing before you.
Yeah, I don't understand why some people don't like sympathetic villains. Waaaaaaay better than the alternative. Complete psychos/assholes like the Joker or Sauron only work when done rarely.
Ambiguity is interesting, especially when it represents multiple aspects of relatable emotional states.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
I think it's due to the way we're taught to look at history. Heroic figures are often shown as flawless while villains are just straight up evil. It's a cozy little worldview that infects our story telling. Complexity makes things more difficult.
Yeah, I don't understand why some people don't like sympathetic villains. Waaaaaaay better than the alternative. Complete psychos/assholes like the Joker or Sauron only work when done rarely.
Ambiguity is interesting, especially when it represents multiple aspects of relatable emotional states.
And if you go back far enough, even the Joker and Sauron have sympathetic elements. Sauron's basically a fallen angel, an engineer-type seduced by the setting's Satan figure promise that he could create order and eliminate disharmony. The Joker (depending on whose telling the story) is usually hinted to be a normal guy who had "one bad day" and went permanently batshit.
0
Options
BrocksMulletInto the sunrise, on a jet-ski. Natch.Registered Userregular
edited February 2014
See, one of my favorite things about the Joker, in most of the versions I've seen, is that deep down, under the lunacy, and the face paint, and the theatrical violence, and the obsession with Batman, and the bad jokes, is that he's just a dick.
He's mostly unique in the Rogues gallery for that reason. I usually prefer villains who believe they're doing the right thing, or who logically pursuing power and wealth, over evil for evils sake, but the Joker's a jerk done right. He's got all sorts of facets and angles, but he's still a pretty straight forward baddie.
It's good to have that occasional monster who has forgone everything that was once human about him/her, or have a villain who was never human to begin with. The type of scum who hates everything in the world, and sees you as nothing more than a pest to crush under his heel. Sympathetic villains have been kinda overdone as of late.
I never bought into the pure evil archetype. People are not one dimensional; no one is, even broken individuals who do horrible things because of how they are born and raised. A serial killer is a person, as is the violent dictator and anyone else who commits terrible acts. I don't believe in evil, I believe in people. For me, a villain must be a person on some level if he or she is to be compelling in any way. All of this applies to heroes as well. Life is too goddamn complicated for lazy concepts like evil to serve as a viable explanation for terrible actions. That's why villains need redeeming qualities or introspection or at least motivations that make fucking sense.
Gul Dukat from Deep Space 9 is an excellent example of a villain done right.
I never bought into the pure evil archetype. People are not one dimensional; no one is, even broken individuals who do horrible things because of how they are born and raised. A serial killer is a person, as is the violent dictator and anyone else who commits terrible acts. I don't believe in evil, I believe in people. For me, a villain must be a person on some level if he or she is to be compelling in any way. All of this applies to heroes as well. Life is too goddamn complicated for lazy concepts like evil to serve as a viable explanation for terrible actions. That's why villains need redeeming qualities or introspection or at least motivations that make fucking sense.
But things don't have to be that way in fiction, especially fantasy and sci-fi. In fantasy, there are gods who are physical manifestations of evil and gain power from slaughter and violence. In sci-fi, there are malfunctioning/rebellious AI bent on destroying all life.
Gul Dukat from Deep Space 9 is an excellent example of a villain done right.
See, one of my favorite things about the Joker, in most of the versions I've seen, is that deep down, under the lunacy, and the face paint, and the theatrical violence, and the obsession with Batman, and the bad jokes, is that he's just a dick.
He's mostly unique in the Rogues gallery for that reason. I usually prefer villains who believe they're doing the right thing, or who logically pursuing power and wealth, over evil for evils sake, but the Joker's a jerk done right. He's got all sorts of facets and angles, but he's still a pretty straight forward baddie.
Just under all that, huh? And I think you mean AND a dick. :P
Fantasy and sci-fi are often exaggerations of the real world. Gods almost always take on human attributes and serve as symbols of human behavior. That's why there are gods of wisdom, war, sex and just about any other human phenomena. When non-human villains that lack human attributes are involved, like AI, they often serve as a reflection of humanity. AI might not have human characteristics but it is the result of hubris. In that regard humanity becomes the real villain by creating the means of our own collective destruction. It should not be surprising that many narratives involving rogue AI often focus on human behavior as the reason for the machine going kill crazy. Either through arrogance or aggression on our part.
My point is, even in non-human villains you will find elements that could be applied to any other villain.
Posts
"We have years of struggle ahead, mostly within ourselves." - Made in USA
*edit* Are these new proposals going to be self published? I thought that's what they're doing with Pillars of Eternity.
They are publisher proposals.
XBL: GamingFreak5514
PSN: GamingFreak1234
Those bug issues have more or less been solved for some time now, but people keep insisting that "Obsidian LOL bugs #YOLO".
The last few games have not been buggy in any distinguishable way, compared to other things being published.
Obsidian could continue being a small focused company. But that isn't really what it has been in the past, it worked on pretty large projects.
If the top likes their employees, they may choose to take on another large project that is otherwise out of their scope.
I would be very happy if they could have another Bethesda contract for instance, as long as they are able to negotiate time and the reward structure a little better. Because I want another Obsidian Fallout game.
And if it's not Bethesda, the question is then, who would hire them. EA flags all their RPG business under Bioware and does it in house, Activision only makes Call of Duty + Blizzard franchises, and I'm not aware of Ubisoft having any external games either.
Actually, Obsidian is as big now as its ever been.
Yeah and they're just about to release their biggest project. (South Park no doubt has the biggest budget)
So what are those people going to do?
Not disagreeing
Also for now, being assigned to Pillars of Eternity and the Next-Gen Project as well as the upcoming Kickstarter project. Afterwards whatever project will make the cut of those 9 proposals.
Btw. I don't know if South Park was/is their biggest budget. Fallout and Alpha Protocol are strong contendors.
It'd be nice to have those guys able to do things without IP owners dicking around too much in the dev business.
South Park? :rotate:
XBL: GamingFreak5514
PSN: GamingFreak1234
Fixed that for you.
XBL: GamingFreak5514
PSN: GamingFreak1234
I have to really disagree here, their last 3 games published were DS3, New Vegas, and Alpha. I didn't play DS 3 so can't speak about it but Alpha was a huge mess when it was released and Vegas also had all kinds of problems. I beleive Vegas was fixed relatively quickly, I can't actually remember, but at release it was fucked up.
EDIT, the big fix patch didn't come for 2 months, they released a small one a week after release.
EDIT: I should point out I mean for PC.
Ambiguity is interesting, especially when it represents multiple aspects of relatable emotional states.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
They definitely need to be the exception, not the rule.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
And if you go back far enough, even the Joker and Sauron have sympathetic elements. Sauron's basically a fallen angel, an engineer-type seduced by the setting's Satan figure promise that he could create order and eliminate disharmony. The Joker (depending on whose telling the story) is usually hinted to be a normal guy who had "one bad day" and went permanently batshit.
He's mostly unique in the Rogues gallery for that reason. I usually prefer villains who believe they're doing the right thing, or who logically pursuing power and wealth, over evil for evils sake, but the Joker's a jerk done right. He's got all sorts of facets and angles, but he's still a pretty straight forward baddie.
Steam: BrocksMullet http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197972421669/
Yeah, even a good pure evil villain can be ruined if used too often or if used in a story right after another story with a pure evil villain.
Although, this is more of a problem in serials, especially comic books, but not that big of a problem in games.
XBL: GamingFreak5514
PSN: GamingFreak1234
Gul Dukat from Deep Space 9 is an excellent example of a villain done right.
But things don't have to be that way in fiction, especially fantasy and sci-fi. In fantasy, there are gods who are physical manifestations of evil and gain power from slaughter and violence. In sci-fi, there are malfunctioning/rebellious AI bent on destroying all life.
Until the last season.
Just under all that, huh? And I think you mean AND a dick. :P
My point is, even in non-human villains you will find elements that could be applied to any other villain.