The RPG Identity Crisis: Why Obsidian Isn’t Chasing Baldur’s Gate 3 – And Why That’s Smart
The gaming world is buzzing about RPGs. From the sprawling landscapes of Baldur’s Gate 3 to the grounded realism of Kingdom Come Deliverance 2, players are spoiled for choice. But a recent critique leveled at Obsidian Entertainment, developer of the highly anticipated The Outer Worlds 2, highlights a fundamental question: what does it mean to be an RPG in 2024, and what role will Obsidian play in shaping its future? Daniel Vávra, creator of Kingdom Come Deliverance, publicly questioned whether Obsidian, despite its pedigree and Microsoft’s backing, is innovating enough, sparking a debate about systemic depth versus narrative focus.
The Core of the Criticism: Simulation vs. Story
Vávra’s criticism isn’t about The Outer Worlds 2’s quality – it’s about its ambition. He argues that Obsidian, once renowned for titles like Fallout: New Vegas and Knights of the Old Republic 2, hasn’t introduced a truly novel game mechanic in over 15 years. He yearns for “living, simulated worlds” where player choices have cascading, unpredictable consequences, a far cry from what he perceives as the “static and scripted” nature of modern RPGs. This isn’t simply a call for more features; it’s a plea for a return to the intricate, reactive systems that defined earlier RPGs.
Obsidian’s Counterpoint: Defining the “Obsidian RPG”
Obsidian isn’t dismissing Vávra’s concerns, but they’re framing their approach differently. Instead of trying to replicate the successes of Baldur’s Gate 3 or Cyberpunk 2077, they’re focused on solidifying what Marcus Morgan, Obsidian’s VP of Operations, calls the “Obsidian RPG.” This means prioritizing strong narratives, meaningful choices, and cohesive worlds – even if those worlds aren’t fully open or endlessly simulated. They’ve consciously chosen a path that emphasizes player agency within a defined framework, rather than aiming for limitless systemic freedom.
The Risk of Chasing Trends
Obsidian’s decision to double down on its strengths is a strategic one. The industry is littered with studios that lost their identity chasing the latest trends. Attempting to build a sprawling, fully simulated world requires immense resources and carries a significant risk of scope creep and technical challenges. For a studio like Obsidian, known for its writing and character development, focusing on those areas allows them to deliver a consistently high-quality experience.
The Two Paths of RPG Development
Vávra’s critique and Obsidian’s response highlight a growing divergence in RPG development. One path, exemplified by Baldur’s Gate 3 and Kingdom Come Deliverance 2, prioritizes systemic depth and emergent gameplay. These games offer unparalleled freedom and reactivity, but often require significant player investment and a willingness to experiment. The other path, favored by Obsidian, focuses on delivering a compelling narrative experience with meaningful choices within a more curated environment. Both approaches have merit, and both cater to different player preferences.
The Future of RPGs: Specialization and Audience Segmentation
The future of RPGs likely lies in specialization. We’re already seeing a clear segmentation of the market. Players who crave expansive, reactive worlds will gravitate towards titles like Kingdom Come Deliverance 2. Those who prioritize narrative and character development will find a home with Obsidian’s offerings. This isn’t a zero-sum game; there’s room for both types of RPGs to thrive. The key is for developers to understand their strengths and cater to a specific audience.
This trend mirrors developments in other gaming genres. The first-person shooter landscape, for example, is now divided between tactical simulators like Rainbow Six Siege and fast-paced arena shooters like Call of Duty. Each subgenre caters to a distinct player base, and both are commercially successful.
The Impact of Microsoft’s Acquisition
Microsoft’s acquisition of Obsidian adds another layer to this discussion. With the backing of a major publisher, Obsidian has the resources to pursue its vision without compromising its core values. This allows them to focus on refining the “Obsidian RPG” formula and delivering experiences that are uniquely their own. It also provides a safety net, allowing them to take risks and experiment without fear of financial ruin.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the “Obsidian RPG”?
The “Obsidian RPG” refers to Obsidian Entertainment’s signature style of role-playing games, characterized by strong narratives, meaningful choices, and well-developed characters, often within a more focused and curated world compared to sprawling open-world RPGs.
Is Obsidian abandoning systemic depth entirely?
Not entirely. Obsidian is prioritizing narrative and choice, but they still incorporate systems and reactivity into their games. They’re simply choosing to focus on depth within those systems rather than breadth.
Will we see more RPGs with different design philosophies in the future?
Absolutely. The RPG market is becoming increasingly segmented, with developers catering to different player preferences. Expect to see more games that prioritize either systemic depth or narrative focus.
What does this mean for The Outer Worlds 2?
The Outer Worlds 2 will likely deliver a compelling story with impactful choices, set in a vibrant and engaging world, but it may not offer the same level of systemic freedom as games like Baldur’s Gate 3 or Kingdom Come Deliverance 2.
Ultimately, the debate surrounding The Outer Worlds 2 isn’t about which approach to RPG design is “better.” It’s about recognizing that there’s room for both. Obsidian’s commitment to defining its own identity is a bold move, and one that could pay dividends in the long run. The success of The Outer Worlds 2 will be a crucial test, not just for Obsidian, but for the future of RPGs as a whole. What kind of RPG experience will players ultimately choose?
