Incline Chris Avellone Appreciation Station

[agentorange]

chris "fraudster" avellone

 

[Sensuki]

gay emptyquote because this XenForo update sucks

Even if the game locks you into pursuing that option, at least you have multiple reasons for finding and killing Sarevok - he kills Gorion and tries to kill you. In BG2 - Irenicus captures you, steals all your shit and does experiments on you and Imoen and whisks her away to Spellhold. Both very solid reasons for pursuing the main plot.

Pillars of Eternity - some robed guys do a thing that turns some people to dust, but not you and you see ghost people on the first wilderness area of the game (but no other areas) and when you sleep you see the same video over and over and when you get fatigued the screen goes blurry - dat player agency.

 

[Jedi Exile]

And then you meet Maerwald who explains to you that you will become mad like him if you don't find a cure. I am not saying PoE story is good, but it is at least not much worse than BG2 with its stupid Irenicus.

 

[Sensuki]

Well the thing is you don't know that for sure/doesn't seem to matter and you have about zero reason to care about the antagonist for at least half of the game, and the gameplay only provides benefits for being the watcher/awakened combo - which is the exact opposite of what probably should happen.

BG2 has a similar part where you have to get your soul back from Irenicus and the consequences of not doing it are very well reinforced by the story AND the gameplay.

Pillars of Eternity to me comes across as trying way too fucking hard and failing miserably.

BG2 in comparison - simple and effective.

 

[Roguey]

Even if the game locks you into pursuing that option, at least you have multiple reasons for finding and killing Sarevok - he kills Gorion and tries to kill you. In BG2 - Irenicus captures you, steals all your shit and does experiments on you and Imoen and whisks her away to Spellhold. Both very solid reasons for pursuing the main plot.

Pillars of Eternity - some robed guys do a thing that turns some people to dust, but not you and you see ghost people on the first wilderness area of the game (but no other areas) and when you sleep you see the same video over and over and when you get fatigued the screen goes blurry - dat player agency.

If you're lawful, the game forces you to break a promise for no particular reason other than Plot and to go against the law of the Cowled Wizards, for no particular reason than Plot.

 

[Sensuki]

Sure it's silly/an oversight but it's not something that bothers me personally.

 

[Lockkaliber]

Sure it's silly/an oversight but it's not something that bothers me personally.

Surprise surprise, cherrypicking-kun.

 

[Sensuki]

Depends if you give a fuck about alignment. I never have and I always took the situation with Tamoko as you will not kill him if you can avoid it ... and you can't.

 

[Fairfax]

I still find it very strange that MCA didn't stamp more authority on POE. By the same token what the fuck is the point of having the man on staff if your not going to let him take creative control on projects?

Bizarre.

From what I've seen in other companies I worked with (not game devs, but with large creative projects too), it takes a vote from all partners to make that kind of decision. In some companies, replacing a project director had specific conditions. When said director/lead is another partner, it makes it even more difficult to change things, and I in one case I remember they needed a unanimous vote from the rest of the partners to remove the person from the project entirely.
I suspect this is what happened with Alpha Protocol. Chris Parker was making a mess, so the board vote for an intervention and replaced a few roles, and that's why MCA became lead designer, writer, etc. What's odd about it is that Sawyer and MCA have implied it was Parker's fault, plus the former employee leak, but he remained project director regardless. I think it's because he was a partner and removing him would've been contentious.

Anyway, perhaps Obsidian's internal structure would've allowed him to intervene without a vote, but he said in a few interviews that he believes the project director should have the final say in everything, otherwise things fall apart.

 

[Ninjerk]

It's a pretty legitimate complaint, whether it's something that bothers you personally or not.

 

[Roguey]

Depends if you give a fuck about alignment. I never have and I always took the situation with Tamoko as you will not kill him if you can avoid it ... and you can't.

But you can. You're not forced to go into the maze after him. After the big scene at the place, you can just go do whatever until you get bored, but if you want to see that ending cinematic and the credits, you have to go down there and take him out.

Additionally, ignoring alignment, BG2's plot doesn't work if your PC is a paladin. They're supposed to smite evil on sight, and yet you end up working with a very clearly evil thieves guild who leave their instruments of torture out for you to see.

Meanwhile, in Josh Sawyer's Icewind Dale II, you either have to kill or dismiss your paladin if you want to infiltrate the Yuan-ti temple in disguise because they will in fact smite evil on sight.

I suspect this is what happened with Alpha Protocol. Chris Parker was making a mess, so the board vote for an intervention and replaced a few roles, and that's why MCA became lead designer, writer, etc. What's odd about it is that Sawyer and MCA have implied it was Parker's fault, plus the former employee leak, but he remained project director regardless. I think it's because he was a partner and removing him would've been contentious.

Avellone defended Parker, and Patrick K Mills, another AP guy, said whoever left that anonymous negative comment was just plain wrong and likely someone with an axe to grind who always hated what they were doing with AP. Avellone also never replaced someone as lead designer because AP never had a lead designer to begin with, just Mitsoda as a creative lead.

 

[Fairfax]

But you can. You're not forced to go into the maze after him. After the big scene at the place, you can just go do whatever until you get bored, but if you want to see that ending cinematic and the credits, you have to go down there and take him out.

Additionally, ignoring alignment, BG2's plot doesn't work if your PC is a paladin. They're supposed to smite evil on sight, and yet you end up working with a very clearly evil thieves guild who leave their instruments of torture out for you to see.

Meanwhile, in Josh Sawyer's Icewind Dale II, you either have to kill or dismiss your paladin if you want to infiltrate the Yuan-ti temple in disguise because they will in fact smite evil on sight.



Avellone defended Parker, and Patrick K Mills, another AP guy, said whoever left that anonymous negative comment was just plain wrong and likely someone with an axe to grind who always hated what they were doing with AP. Avellone also never replaced someone as lead designer because AP never had a lead designer to begin with, just Mitsoda as a creative lead.

Forgive for not taking your word alone, but he's listed as Lead Designer along with Raymond Holmes, check the credits if you will.

 

[Roguey]

Forgive for not taking your word alone, but he's listed as Lead Designer along with Raymond Holmes, check the credits if you will.

http://www.lightspeedmagazine.com/n...ris-avellone-game-designer-fallout-new-vegas/

It didn’t have a Project Lead or a Lead Designer for a chunk of its early inception and production, and then at the two year mark, Chris Parker became Project Director and I volunteered to become Lead Designer on it in the absence of a Lead Designer.

 

[Fairfax]

http://www.lightspeedmagazine.com/n...ris-avellone-game-designer-fallout-new-vegas/

And? I said he became AP's Lead Designer. He did.

 

[Roguey]

And? I said he became AP's Lead Designer. He did.

You talked of roles being replaced, I said those roles weren't, because they didn't exist to start with. AP was a disaster of a production. All the owners of Obsidian are to blame for it.

 

[J_C]

Even if the game locks you into pursuing that option, at least you have multiple reasons for finding and killing Sarevok - he kills Gorion and tries to kill you. In BG2 - Irenicus captures you, steals all your shit and does experiments on you and Imoen and whisks her away to Spellhold. Both very solid reasons for pursuing the main plot.

Pillars of Eternity - some robed guys do a thing that turns some people to dust, but not you and you see ghost people on the first wilderness area of the game (but no other areas) and when you sleep you see the same video over and over and when you get fatigued the screen goes blurry - dat player agency.

Why does it havet to be about the player? I always thought that there are adventurers who see some problem in the world and try to solve it. In PoE you see that some powerful guy is messing with the souls of the world, so since you are a curious guy, you try to get to the end of it. Being a watcher also helps encourage you.

 

[Ninjerk]

Everyone is messing with souls, why not kill them all?

 

[J_C]

Everyone is messing with souls, why not kill them all?

When I say messing I don't mean using them in magic and science, the bad guy actually mass murders people.

 

[Xeon]

There is backgrounds in PoE and you had that girl at the start asking you about your reason of being here, you can be an escapee or an coward or something. I am not sure there was any real reason to get involved until you met Maerwald and warned you about going nuts.

 

[Talby]

In general, it's a good idea to have the inciting incident in a story involve the main character in a meaningful way. (you find out later in PoE that it's important, but the opening suffers for it) If it doesn't, then you should consider who the main character is even supposed to be. Imagine if in New Vegas, the Courier was some other guy that you hear about being shot and you decide to investigate on your own. It doesn't ruin the story but it does take away that personal connection.

 

[Sensuki]

But you can. You're not forced to go into the maze after him. After the big scene at the place, you can just go do whatever until you get bored, but if you want to see that ending cinematic and the credits, you have to go down there and take him out.

Additionally, ignoring alignment, BG2's plot doesn't work if your PC is a paladin. They're supposed to smite evil on sight, and yet you end up working with a very clearly evil thieves guild who leave their instruments of torture out for you to see.

Eh, one could say that "in Icewind Dale you have to kill Belhifet, there's no way around it" as well, as that is the only way to complete the game IIRC. That's no different from the only ending in BG1 (or BG2) being killing Sarevok or Irenicus.

I appreciate that RPGs aren't all like that but that's also not something that bothers me. I care about gameplay more than choices.

Meanwhile, in Josh Sawyer's Icewind Dale II, you either have to kill or dismiss your paladin if you want to infiltrate the Yuan-ti temple in disguise because they will in fact smite evil on sight.

Yes, and it's no surprise that Josh is super anal about stuff like that.

Why does it havet to be about the player? I always thought that there are adventurers who see some problem in the world and try to solve it. In PoE you see that some powerful guy is messing with the souls of the world, so since you are a curious guy, you try to get to the end of it. Being a watcher also helps encourage you.

Well you're not even from that part of the world, you have no investment at all in the conflict really other than "something has happened to you". The only thing I could remotely bring myself to care about in the game is the Hollowborn plot. The writing of secondary characters was ridiculously bland for the most part - a lot of technically well written dialogue but absolutely nothing that made me care about those characters, the quests or what was happening in the game.

You do have a bit of a point that it's expected that you just follow the story because that's what you do in games but it's not a good excuse for a bad plot.

 

[Lacrymas]

In general, it's a good idea to have the inciting incident in a story involve the main character in a meaningful way.

That is what being the protagonist is all about though. If he/she/it isn't involved in the main plot then what's the point of following this character? One of my biggest gripes about "make-your-own-protagonist" stories is that game writers use this as an excuse to not give the protag a meaningful (read: any kind of) motivation in the story. This leaves us with an incoherent character in-universe and a totally disconnected element from our perspective. It largely remained this way for the entirety of the game, Mearwald is the only thing people cite for relevancy, but it was horribly cheap, we didn't actually see our character go mad and Mearwald could just be lying or too insane to realize that he was loony the entire time. He came too late in the story for our protag to care to get to him in the first place. The companions in PoE were like this as well, no-one had any kind of involvement in the plot at all. Durance and Grieving Mother were the only ones who came close, but their content was ultimately cut, so so much for that.

Why does it havet to be about the player?

It's not about the player, it's about the protagonist. Playing second fiddle could be interesting, but it has to be done well, like (and I hate to cite this) DA2's Hawke, it turned out that Anders was the mover and shaker of this plot. This could've been done very well if Bioware were competent. If the perspective is suddenly changed for dramatic effect at the end (with build up) it could be interesting.

 

[Roguey]

Eh, one could say that "in Icewind Dale you have to kill Belhifet, there's no way around it" as well, as that is the only way to complete the game IIRC. That's no different from the only ending in BG1 (or BG2) being killing Sarevok or Irenicus.

Well yeah, Belhifet is a demon determined to destroy/rape/conquer everything. Killing him's the thing to do. Killing Irenicus also makes sense once he's stolen the PC's soul. However, in BG, going after Sarevok is kicking a guy when's down. He retreats down into that temple because he has nothing (except a few loyal companions) and even his own organization is sending assassin squads after him. He's been (relatively) defanged and doesn't have to be your problem.

 

[Sensuki]

He's performing a ritual when you arrive though, to try and summon Bhaal or something, and you stop him. It's not like *you've won* after you 'beat him off' from trying to kill Belt and Lia Jannath.

 

[Roguey]

He's performing a ritual when you arrive though, to try and summon Bhaal or something, and you stop him.

That would have been an ineffective ritual because Bhaal is dead.

Fortunately someone's already posted relevant dialogue elsewhere.

Oh, Sarevok is not intent on hiding. You have stripped him of any pretense; there is no longer any point in him maintaining his respectable veneer. Only the most fanatical or fearful of his allies stand by him now. He will gather what resources he can and move on. Of course he knows that you must come to confront him and that it is to his advantage to choose the battleground. There is an altar in the Undercity; it was to be where the ritual would take place, but now serves as his last refuge. If you do not go to him, he will strike at you at his leisure.

See, was.