Obsidian - Feargus Interview @PCGamer

[Silver]

PCGamer interviews Feargus Urquhart about the future of RPGs.

PC Gamer: How exactly would you define "role-playing game", right now?

Feargus Urquhart: For me, role-playing is what it has always been. It's about choice. It's about letting players do what they want to do, and having the game react to their particular way of playing the game. In the early days of CRPGs it was mostly about party choice. Players could choose to have certain classes in their party, but there were always more classes than party slots. So, players made choices, and then had to fight their way through the game with that party. In modern RPGs those choices have become much more about what type of role the player wants to play - are they good, evil, male, female, straight, gay, violent, charismatic, stealthy, etc... We talk a lot in the industry about AR and VR, but often look at the best RPGs as the best way to escape from reality, and immerse yourself in another world.

PCG: What do you think have been the most important role-playing games of the past few years? Which games have inspired you?

FU: It's probably been more than a few years, but I was always impressed with the Mass Effects. You have to play a more specific role, but they really fulfill the feeling of being James T. Kirk in many ways. More recently, the Witcher 3 did an incredible job of creating a very living world, and it's cool to play an RPG with a bit more of an action slant. When it comes to Fallout 4, no one does it better than Bethesda in creating a visually dense environment helping to really put you in the post nuclear world of Fallout. I'd also like to point out Spider, another RPG developer, who is still learning the craft, but has made some interesting games with Mars: War Logs and Technomancer. I'm interested to see where they go in the next few years.

More information.

 

[HiddenX]

Mass Effect ? - no.

D:OS 2 is the vision for the future.

 

[Silver]

Mass Effect ? - no.

D:OS 2 is the vision for the future.

I'd definitely go with that assessment.

 

[rjshae]

Mass Effect ? - no.

D:OS 2 is the vision for the future.

Well he was talking about the past, not the future. In that respect ME has been a major factor.

 

[Maylander]

Yes, and he also specifically mentioned The Witcher 3, which really did set a new standard for modern RPGs.

 

[you]

Do choices really matter in Witcher 3?

 

[Maylander]

Yes, though not to the same extent as in The Witcher 2, which was mighty impressive in that regard.

 

[azarhal]

Do choices really matter in Witcher 3?

There is two cases (Skellige ruler and state of Temeria/Redenia/Novigrad) that is affected by which side quests you do or don't do. Only affect what is said in the post-game text epilogue and who shows up in Kaer Morhen battle (if they are asked).

Ciri's faith is based on 5 Geralt's "personality conversation choices" to her and the Emperor through out the game and if you did or didn't go see the Emperor in a specific quest. She had 3 endings based on that.

Romance is picking between two persons.

Keira and The Baron have different endings (aka dead or gone somewhere) based on Geralt doing their side quests and what he tells them. If Keira is present at Kaer Morhen, that can affect Lambert's faith (if he doesn't die in the battle).

 

[Maylander]

Romance is picking between two persons.

Or trying to pick both, which I did the first time I played it. Not doing that again. It was fairly interesting though..

 

[beldurax]

I really have no respect for Teargas Burphart, he's an Obsidian talkinghead, absolutely nothing more. I had to change my drawers after reading the line "no one does it better than Bethesda in creating a visually dense environment helping to really put you in the post nuclear world of Fallout". What crap.

 

[joxer]

What exactly is crap? In past couple of years, who made a better (sci fi) sandbox?
And who, after so many broken nostory openworlds, released one that is not buggy like hell?

Is it really Bethesda's fault noone wants to compete with them in sandbox design and Feargus gave them credit for it?
I'm not sure what Elex and Cyberpunk will play like, but maybe in the future a similar interview skips Bethesda if there is a competitor good enough. Today not mentioning Bethesda in general RPG chatty would feel like being deleberately ignorant. You may hate them even more than I do because of bugs (which is not very likely), but they deserved a mention.

Hidden already mentioned another name we expect more RPG "epicness" from Feargus forgot. But he didn't forget Spiders so there.

 

[beldurax]

Labelling Fallout 4 a "sci-fi sandbox" is a bloody hoot
Sure, Bethesday deserves a mention, a mention for leaving the Fallout franchise in utter RUINS.

I will give Teargas one kudo though - his studio did give us the prolly the best iteration of Fallout seen to date (NV).

What exactly is crap? In past couple of years, who made a better (sci fi) sandbox?
And who, after so many broken nostory openworlds, released one that is not buggy like hell?

Is it really Bethesda's fault noone wants to compete with them in sandbox design and Feargus gave them credit for it?
I'm not sure what Elex and Cyberpunk will play like, but maybe in the future a similar interview skips Bethesda if there is a competitor good enough. Today not mentioning Bethesda in general RPG chatty would feel like being deleberately ignorant. You may hate them even more than I do because of bugs (which is not very likely), but they deserved a mention.

Hidden already mentioned another name we expect more RPG "epicness" from Feargus forgot. But he didn't forget Spiders so there.

 

[luj1]

Labelling Fallout 4 a "sci-fi sandbox" is a bloody hoot

Cant rly disagree.... its closer to roguelike if anything

 

[Couchpotato]

Mass Effect ? - no.

D:OS 2 is the vision for the future.

I'd definitely go with that assessment.

Nope sorry the potato does not agree with you both.

My future includes all types of RPGs and not just D:OS clones. Also I hope for more games like Mass Effect, as BioWare is the only deveolper to do so in the last few years.

TLDR: I want more Space Opera RPGs.

Hidden already mentioned another name we expect more RPG "epicness" from Feargus forgot. But he didn't forget Spiders so there.

I'm glad another developer finally acknowledged Spiders . As I always said with a different publisher beside Focus Home, and more funding their games will only get better.

 

[azarhal]

TLDR: I want more Space Opera RPGs.

Yes, yes, yes, yes.

And hopefully they are good.

I really don't understand why we have so few of them...

 

[Couchpotato]

Yes, yes, yes, yes.

And hopefully they are good.

I really don't understand why we have so few of them…

My guess is the cost of making Space Opera RPGs is to high. Though you could still make a decent one with lower graphics, and pay to use someone else's game engine.

 

[rjshae]

My guess is the cost of making Space Opera RPGs is to high. Though you could still make a decent one with lower graphics, and pay to use someone else's game engine.

I don't know why the cost would be any higher than for a fantasy RPG. Sure the assets would be different, but its similar requirements overall. Personally I'd like to see somebody bring the old Star Frontiers RPG to life.

 

[Silver]

My guess is the cost of making Space Opera RPGs is to high. Though you could still make a decent one with lower graphics, and pay to use someone else's game engine.

The reason it is difficult is because science fiction doesn't have as many readily accessible touchstones like fantasy has. Every time you come up with science fiction you have to explain the technology, the world the characters inhabit, the tensions and the politics which are all very different to the world we inhabit and come from a different philosophical and practical basis. Everyone knows a dwarf from an elf and no one has to explain a wizard.

Its a lot of upfront work to develop a cohesive world not to mention explain it to people in a seamless way. Given the standard of writing in games is it any wonder that most rpg designers can't do it or rather give up on it as too hard. Fantasy is the safe bet.

In short fantasy has it easy because every explanation for anything is magic which is a wishy washy concept that can explain away anything. This is why science fantasy games make more sense to develop (like Star Wars) compared to science fiction games. Mass Effect started out as science fiction but became more science fantasy as the games progressed.

There emerged lots of discrepancies about how things worked and why, not to mention the rule of cool over-riding the fiction because the plot needs to progress here. Just check out the Twenty Sided blog for a better explanation.

P.S. I'd love to see a Space rpg done right. I hope Larian will do one because I think it would really suit their strengths.

 

[Maylander]

Indeed Silver, I imagine creating a proper sci-fi setting that works well in every aspect must be incredibly challenging. In addition to the reasons you mentioned, there's also a requirement of understanding technology, physics and evolution, or the setting will quickly fall apart.

Almost every sci-fi setting I've encountered feels a bit flat, due to the lack of coherent lore. When the authors do get it right though, I personally enjoy it more than any other type of setting (ME1 is a good example, before the shift away from hard sci-fi).

 

[rjshae]

The reason it is difficult is because science fiction doesn't have as many readily accessible touchstones like fantasy has. Every time you come up with science fiction you have to explain the technology, the world the characters inhabit, the tensions and the politics which are all very different to the world we inhabit and come from a different philosophical and practical basis. Everyone knows a dwarf from an elf and no one has to explain a wizard.

Well I'd counter that argument by saying the developers of Baldur's Gate didn't have to create the world lore; they just licensed it. There's plenty of sci-fi space opera fiction and PnP RPGs around to base it upon.