Developer Story Time with Old Man Davis

[Grimlorn]

How long was Kotor 2's development time and how long was Kotor 1's?

New Vegas was developed in 18 months right? That's pretty quick. I'm guessing Bethesda spent at least a few years on Fallout 3. So why does Obsidian get these deals where they have to develop games in a short time compared to the game before it? Bethesda spent 5 years on Skyrim.

Why did FO3 get better reviews than New Vegas if they both had the same bugs? Was Bethesda spending a lot of money on resort trips for reviewers with FO3 and not New Vegas? You'd think Bethesda would have done Q&A for the game so it wasn't as buggy so the game would be more successful. I've heard both games had the same bugs because of the engine. FO3 fixed those bugs by the time New Vegas was being released and would have been easy to fix for that game as well right?

The fact of the matter is Lucas Arts destroyed the franchise. There was no interest in a Kotor 3 after Kotor 2 failed to do well, so it was turned into a MMO. Or word of mouth was so bad with Kotor 2's reception that they thought a Kotor 3 wouldn't do well.

Part of it is that Obsidian usually reuses assets and code for its sequels, which shortens the workload a huge amount.

Still there is twice as much invested in the game before that than in the sequel that is on track to sell just as well. Seems like bad business not to invest more time and only spend half of what was spent on the earlier game on a sequel. This is about building a brand and keeping it successful through high quality products and consumer recognition.

I was hoping Davis could answer some of my questions.

 

[Mrowak]

How long was Kotor 2's development time and how long was Kotor 1's?

New Vegas was developed in 18 months right? That's pretty quick. I'm guessing Bethesda spent at least a few years on Fallout 3. So why does Obsidian get these deals where they have to develop games in a short time compared to the game before it? Bethesda spent 5 years on Skyrim.

Obsidian primarly made sequels and used ready engines with already available assets. This stuff is actually most time-consuming and expensive to make.

Why did FO3 get better reviews than New Vegas if they both had the same bugs? Was Bethesda spending a lot of money on resort trips for reviewers with FO3 and not New Vegas? You'd think Bethesda would have done Q&A for the game so it wasn't as buggy so the game would be more successful. I've heard both games had the same bugs because of the engine. FO3 fixed those bugs by the time New Vegas was being released and would have been easy to fix for that game as well right?

Actually I recall that FO3 was pretty decent game on the release date. Its DLCs and expensions were immensely buggy, however. Now I have personally had some major issue with New Vegas on the release.

 

[Grimlorn]

Why did FO3 get better reviews than New Vegas if they both had the same bugs?

My take on this:

My hypothesis re: Obsidian and bugs, is that in Obsidian-style games, bugs are more destructive to the experience being conveyed.

What is a bug in a Bethesda game? It's just some weird thing to laugh at while you ride around on your horse killing things. You can just walk away from it.

My guess is reviewers were either bribed or prevented from talking about bugs before the game was released and Bethesda didn't support New Vegas at all, but got a sequel that sold well and was developed in a year and a half. Look at Skyrim, sold 10 million copies and was developed in 5 years. New Vegas sells 5 million copies and is developed in 1/3 the time.

 

[Volourn]

"More party based games should use it."

HELL THE FUCK NO.



p.s. Great thread.

 

[Infinitron]

Grimlorn It should be about building a brand, but it seems these days it's more often about cashing in.

 

[Mrowak]

Why did FO3 get better reviews than New Vegas if they both had the same bugs?

My take on this:

My hypothesis re: Obsidian and bugs, is that in Obsidian-style games, bugs are more destructive to the experience being conveyed.

What is a bug in a Bethesda game? It's just some weird thing to laugh at while you ride around on your horse killing things. You can just walk away from it.

My guess is reviewers were either bribed or prevented from talking about bugs before the game was released and Bethesda didn't support New Vegas at all, but got a sequel that sold well and was developed in a year and a half. Look at Skyrim, sold 10 million copies and was developed in 5 years. New Vegas sells 5 million copies and is developed in 1/3 the time.

Yes, but you forget all those sales on Steam where you could get base NV for $15 just half a year after its release. Skyrim, on the other hand, still costs $29.99 and the dropdown in the price from original $49.99 (or your regional equivalent) came only after two expansions.

 

[Grimlorn]

Grimlorn It should be about building a brand, but it seems these days it's more often about cashing in.

And that why we get shit games. You can't run the gaming industry like other businesses, because games require creativity. You have to be constantly creating for every game being produced and creativity is unpredictable. Publishers have to budget in extra time and money for games just in case developers fail to meet deadlines. I know this is difficult with low budget or indie games, but it should be important for franchises that are selling well and can be invested in more like Kotor and Fallout.

Corporations will always stifle creativity, and the only way they can do well is by purchasing ideas or new products that do well and cashing in on them until they are no longer successful, then move on to the next idea/new product.

 

[Random]

Part of it is that Obsidian usually reuses assets and code for its sequels, which shortens the workload a huge amount.

Still there is twice as much invested in the game before that than in the sequel that is on track to sell just as well. Seems like bad business not to invest more time and only spend half of what was spent on the earlier game on a sequel. This is about building a brand and keeping it successful through high quality products and consumer recognition.

I was hoping Davis could answer some of my questions.

I do agree that even sequels that reuse the same assets and such should be given as much time as they need to make a good sequel, but the time needed to make a good sequel in this circumstance really shouldn't be that much in comparison. Half the time should be plenty.

 

[Tigranes]

I like all the "in my personal experience x game was more buggy" stuff. Like that matters for anything. I virtually never ran into gamebreaking or even big/serious bugs on any Obsidian game, but I don't live under the delusion that all those games were bug-lite. There are specific instances where FNV had same bugs as FO3 then reviewers go "OMG LOOK OBSIDIAN BUGGY", though one can assume this is because reviewers too were playing the "hey I didn't see it in FO3 so it didn't exist rite" card. I don't know how many game reviewers would do research on the community to figure out roughly how prevalent which bugs are for a given game.

The fact of the matter is Lucas Arts destroyed the franchise. There was no interest in a Kotor 3 after Kotor 2 failed to do well, so it was turned into a MMO. Or word of mouth was so bad with Kotor 2's reception that they thought a Kotor 3 wouldn't do well.

I don't know where this is coming from, since K2 met sales expectations and fanbase support for K3 has been palpable ever since then. Seemed like it had more to do with LucasArt's financial troubles and swerving direction.

 

[tuluse]

Then blame it on Obsidian who did make it in time. At the very least they are as responsible as LA (if not more - remember the painter case?).



Quite frankly I am not business savy - I just use common sense. I find hard time to solely blame LucasArts for what happened, because it all stems from every group doing what was in their best interest.

I remain a gamer through and through - I am not pleased with the state KotOR was released in... but these days, knowing how IT projects are made and managed I find it harder and harder to stick to the side of the "poor, abused developers", seeing that often they are themselves to blame.

Really? Lucas Arts acted in it's best interesting by changing the release date twice leading to an unfinished game that sold poorly because of that? That's an interesting definition of self interest.

 

[HobGoblin42]

New Vegas was developed in 18 months right? That's pretty quick. I'm guessing Bethesda spent at least a few years on Fallout 3. So why does Obsidian get these deals where they have to develop games in a short time compared to the game before it? Bethesda spent 5 years on Skyrim.

It's not pretty quick. Creating an add-on for an existing game (that already comes with an engine, toolchain and assets) is not comparable to creating a game from the scratch (like Fallout 3). I'd rather expect a shorter development time for New Vegas. Although, they've created pretty much new content (that was extraordinary good) in form of dialogues, quests, NPCs, etc.

 

[Anthony Davis]

My thread ... What have you done?

I suppose it was just a matter of time.

 

[tuluse]

Anthony, can you talk about Alpha Protocol's development? We know that about half way through SEGA wasn't happy with it and demanded big changes in gameplay. What was the game going to play like originally?

 

[Infinitron]

Okay so I've dug up the email in which Chris replied to my question re: the rumor that Obsidian devs were prohibited from posting on or giving interviews to the Codex:

Obsidian employees can post anywhere they want, do interviews with whoever they want, and draw cartoons for whoever they want.

Hmm, technically it says "can", not "could", so Chris could've been referring to the situation as of 5/4/12 (the date of the email). In which case, he didn't really answer my question so I guess technically that doesn't contradict what Ziets said.

We'll see if George replies to my comment on Formspring.

Heh, he's confused: http://www.formspring.me/GZiets/q/324247055109221453

I wasn't there for that conversation between Avellone and Anthony, but I still recall the company meeting at which we were told we could not post on the Codex. Maybe it wasn’t for realz? I dunno.

 

[Crooked Bee]

My thread ... What have you done?

I suppose it was just a matter of time.

I hope this doesn't diminish your enthusiasm for answering more questions, Anthony! This thread was a great idea.

If you want I can move the publisher discussion to a different thread.

 

[Crooked Bee]

Okay so I've dug up the email in which Chris replied to my question re: the rumor that Obsidian devs were prohibited from posting on or giving interviews to the Codex:

Obsidian employees can post anywhere they want, do interviews with whoever they want, and draw cartoons for whoever they want.

Hmm, technically it says "can", not "could", so Chris could've been referring to the situation as of 5/4/12 (the date of the email). In which case, he didn't really answer my question so I guess technically that doesn't contradict what Ziets said.

We'll see if George replies to my comment on Formspring.

Heh, he's confused: http://www.formspring.me/GZiets/q/324247055109221453

I wasn't there for that conversation between Avellone and Anthony, but I still recall the company meeting at which we were told we could not post on the Codex. Maybe it wasn’t for realz? I dunno.

Hahah. Eh, I'm pretty sure George remembers it right and MCA got it wrong for whatever reason; he may have forgotten about it or simply wasn't paying attention since F:NV wasn't one of "his" games. In any case, the urban legend lives on

 

[Kirtai]

I remain a gamer through and through - I am not pleased with the state KotOR was released in... but these days, knowing how IT projects are made and managed I find it harder and harder to stick to the side of the "poor, abused developers", seeing that often they are themselves to blame.

The real problem is that totally unrealistic schedules are endemic throughout the computing industry. It's not just games that get hammered by this, they're only the most visible since failed internal projects are not seen by outsiders anyway.

I do agree that even sequels that reuse the same assets and such should be given as much time as they need to make a good sequel, but the time needed to make a good sequel in this circumstance really shouldn't be that much in comparison. Half the time should be plenty.

I'm not so sure about that. Design, creation of all the game logic, testing and so on takes a lot of time. Plus while they didn't have to create the engine and assets they also weren't familiar with them either.

Anthony Davis, can you give us any information on how much asset creation and engine development impacts the development time? Are they done (mostly) in parallel with the rest? Would it really double the time taken?

 

[Mrowak]

Then blame it on Obsidian who did make it in time. At the very least they are as responsible as LA (if not more - remember the painter case?).



Quite frankly I am not business savy - I just use common sense. I find hard time to solely blame LucasArts for what happened, because it all stems from every group doing what was in their best interest.

I remain a gamer through and through - I am not pleased with the state KotOR was released in... but these days, knowing how IT projects are made and managed I find it harder and harder to stick to the side of the "poor, abused developers", seeing that often they are themselves to blame.

Really? Lucas Arts acted in it's best interesting by changing the release date twice leading to an unfinished game that sold poorly because of that? That's an interesting definition of self interest.

Officially they didn't change it twice - it all went according to the plan and the game was released in accordance with the schedult. Honestly we know too little about the specifics of this case to put the definite blame on LA. It's easy but also lazy. I think there was more to it than this.

From my experience, asking for extra time is itself a "red alert" event, especially when Christmas period is in question, because it signifies tremendous cost increase. I honestly cannot think of any valid reason to lend ear to Obsidian's pleas for time (and money).

This is my pure conjecture so don't quote me on this, but what might have happened was simply miscommunication, for example the promise given to Obsidian by LA was one-man's decision which unconsulted with anyone was later scrapped by LA's CEOs, because it didn't fit their Christmas publishing plans, and it was too late for them to back down. Since "officially" Obsidian didn't really secure the extension it was forced into tricky gambit. That's why it's very important to have everything consulted affirmed in writing.

 

[Volourn]

"I deserved a complete game."

KOTOR2 was a complete game, you fucknutz. Beginning. Middle. End. DONE.

 

[Tigranes]

My thread ... What have you done?

I suppose it was just a matter of time.

Anthony, I might have read this elsewhere and forgotten, but how does pitching new game ideas work at Obsidian? Did someone like you have any scope to throw in ideas? Can you mention any ideas on new or existing game pitch/ideas from you or otherwise that were interesting?

 

[Mrowak]

My thread ... What have you done?

I suppose it was just a matter of time.

Sorry bro. I didn't mean to.

 

[Grimlorn]

New Vegas was developed in 18 months right? That's pretty quick. I'm guessing Bethesda spent at least a few years on Fallout 3. So why does Obsidian get these deals where they have to develop games in a short time compared to the game before it? Bethesda spent 5 years on Skyrim.

It's not pretty quick. Creating an add-on for an existing game (that already comes with an engine, toolchain and assets) is not comparable to creating a game from the scratch (like Fallout 3). I'd rather expect a shorter development time for New Vegas. Although, they've created pretty much new content (that was extraordinary good) in form of dialogues, quests, NPCs, etc.

I agree and that wasn't my point. My point is when you have a popular brand why not put a few extra months into Q&A to fix bugs so a game is more well received and the brand is better established. I looked up FO3, it took 4 years and 3 months to develop, almost 3 times the development time of New Vegas. It seems odd not to protect your IP in this way when it is likely to have sales similar to the original game that took 3 times the development time and money to create.

My thread ... What have you done?

I suppose it was just a matter of time.

Well my questions were for you. I don't know if you can answer them or not. Some of this stuff just seems odd to me.

 

[Monty]

My thread ... What have you done?

I suppose it was just a matter of time.

Somewhere out there Jaesun is looking in from his 'sabbatical'. And laughing.

 

[Anthony Davis]

Anthony, can you talk about Alpha Protocol's development? We know that about half way through SEGA wasn't happy with it and demanded big changes in gameplay. What was the game going to play like originally?

I hesitate to talk too much about Alpha Protocol for the following reasons:

1. I actually loved the game. I enjoyed it both times I played through it. I know that puts me in the minority and risks luring out more troll posts.
2. I don't think SEGA did anything wrong, they were very patient.
3. I hope with all my heart that Obsidian someday gets the chance to apply what they learned from the mistakes and gets to make Alpha Protocol 2: Protocol Harder. I know this is a slim hope at best, but stranger things have happened.
4. A lot of people I respect and love worked on that game, but either weren't good fits for the type of game we were making, or were confused on the final game vision. I would not want to write anything negative about someone who worked their ass off on that game.

I know all of that sounds like a cop out, but no offense, I love Obsidian too much to risk a future dream project.

 

[Anthony Davis]

My thread ... What have you done?

I suppose it was just a matter of time.

I hope this doesn't diminish your enthusiasm for answering more questions, Anthony! This thread was a great idea.

If you want I can move the publisher discussion to a different thread.

I'm ok.

Thanks for the offer, but it wouldn't be the Codex if great peeps weren't allowed to argue over stuff they are both right about.