Dungeon Siege III Interview
-
Category: InterviewsHits: 18190
Article Index
David: I started early playing role-playing games, too. I've been playing them since I was little, and when I was I'm dating myself again, I think when I was ten or so, I started with D&D and Advanced D&D. I had my own maps, created my own little graph paper maps, total nerd. I loved it. And I still love it even today. That's why I'm here doing what I do.
GB: Yeah, I spent much of my youth DMing various Dungeons & Dragons campaigns, and in the CRPG space, I initially cut my teeth on Wizardry: Proving Grounds of the Mad Overlord on an old Apple II, The Bard's Tale on a Tandy 1000, and Dungeons of Daggorath on a TRS-80.
David: Yeah, I still have my Apple IIe at home with all my five and a quarter inch disks, double sided thanks to a hole puncher.
GB: Good times, good times.
David: Oh, good times for sure, man. I have the old Infocom stuff too. So I'm right there with you. We're old school.
GB: It's good to hear that I'm not the only one with such fond memories of the classics. [laughter] Back on topic, when did you originally approach Obsidian Entertainment to develop a western RPG?
David: I think it was two years ago. Yeah, something like that. It seems like ten years ago. So much has happened since we first approached Obsidian. I basically just said, (Look, Square asked me to make a list of suitable studios that I thought could handle producing a AAA RPG, or action RPG,) and it wasn't easy.
A lot of the studios are purchased already, or their core strength isn't in action RPG. And that's really important to Square - we want to focus on the core strength and to really build upon it, and so I identifid a number of studios. Obsidian was at the top of my list.
So I called over here and spoke to Feargus. We talked a little bit about it. He was like, (Yeah, sure. Come on down.) He didn't know me from Adam. We didn't have a prior relationship. There was no buddy-buddy, let's get together and make a game, nothing like that. I came down and took a tour of his office. We talked a little bit about what kind of game he was currently working on and what they wanted to do in the future because that's really important to Square too when we're talking to external studios.
A lot of people come to me and say, (Well, Dave. What do you want? Tell me what you want and I'll make it for you.) And then I think about it and I say, (If I tell you want I want and you make it for me, then I'm going to get a plain white fence. Let's say I'm asking you to build me a fence. I'm going to get a plain white fence, and it'll suit my needs. It'll do what the purpose of the fence is supposed to do. But is it going to be anything special? No, I don't think so.) It's more about, (What do you want to make, Obsidian? What are your strengths and how can you take this particular IP, in this case Dungeon Siege, and make it gravitate way past a white fence?) That's how we started the conversation.
Once we came to an agreement in terms of what we wanted to do, and what their strengths were, and how it would work in an action RPG, I informed Square Japan. We actually had some high-level executives including Wada-san himself come out here, sit down with the team and the executives here at Obsidian, and really just kind of just talk about it and about how we make RPGs versus how the west makes them. We were really interested to compare notes on that. Wada-san even made the comment that Obsidian seemed like Square did in its earlier days. That felt like a memorable statement to me personally because I really value and respect Wada-san, and if he identified Obsidian as a fledgling Square, that could mean great things for the future of Obsidian. So it just kind of naturally evolved from there.
GB: Was the Dungeon Siege IP specifically what you were looking for initially? Or were you originally hammering out ideas to see what would be the best fit for a partnership?
David: We did not talk about Dungeon Siege originally. Obsidian had I don't know how much they want to me say, but they had a very, very cool original design, and I was personally pretty excited about it. And that's what we were talking about at first, and then it just kind of naturally evolved into an opportunity that came about within Square between Square and GPG to acquire the Dungeon Siege IP, and it seemed almost like a natural fit to say, (You know what? The original idea is fantastic, but I think we can mitigate risk and have a lot of success if we instead build Dungeon Siege III."
And to Obsidian's point of view, I think they were very excited about either/or. And because either/or fit their proprietary engine and what it was really designed to do, which was to build an action RPG with a dungeon-crawling emphasis.
GB: If Dungeon Siege III is a commercial success, would you consider pursuing that other title that you mentioned or would you jump to a Dungeon Siege IV?
David: Everything's on the table right now. We've worked really closely with Obsidian Entertainment. We've had a great working relationship with them. Not only from North America, but Europe as well, as Square Japan is also interfacing to a certain extent with Obsidian. So we all have a great respect for each other, and we would love to continue business here in the west, and we would like to continue business with people that we worked with initially.
I told the executives here at Obsidian that when Square looks to employ a studio to develop a title for us, we don't necessarily want to do what's commonly referred to as a one-off. We would like to have a long-term relationship if the synergy between the companies is conducive to a long-term relationship. To be honest, working for or with a Japanese publisher can be different as opposed to working for or with an American or EU publisher. There are some cultural differences, but at the same time, I think Obsidian and Square have both had no issues in that regard.
So to answer your question, we definitely would like to continue a relationship with the studios that we're currently working with, and whether it's revisiting that original idea, or continuing what we've already started, or going in a new direction, right now it's all open for discussion.
GB: How did the original collaboration with Gas Powered Games come about? Did Square approach Gas Powered Games and express interest in the Dungeon Siege license, or was it something that GPG was shopping around and Square jumped on it?
David: Actually, myself, and I guess Square as a whole - we approached Gas Powered Games initially, though we didn't approach them initially for Dungeon Siege. We just approached them because we wanted to meet them, and we wanted to talk about what we might be able to do together, and to see if it made sense for Square from a western perspective. They seemed like very well-respected developers, they had done some great titles, and we were pretty excited to interact with Gas Powered, and we actually started the relationship not with Dungeon Siege, but with Supreme Commander 2. And subsequently we also purchased that IP as well, so we own that.
We felt that Gas Powered's core strength was real-time strategy games. And that's one of the things that people ask me sometimes, (Well, why did you take Dungeon Siege away from Gas Powered?) And it's like, (Well, we really didn't take it away from Gas Powered; we mutually agreed with Gas Powered that their core strength is RTS and that they should continue building on that. And we've had a great experience with Supreme Commander 2 and with the DLC expansion that was released for it, and we're still in communication with them and we're still looking at options with them as well. But we felt that, (Hey, Obsidian would be great with an action RPG,) and here we are.
GB: With the influence that Square Enix has, have you ever tried to get your hands on any other classic RPG franchises, such as The Bard's Tale, Might and Magic, Ultima, and Wizardry? I'm not sure where some of those IPs are at, but has Square Enix ever considered seeing where they're at and potentially rebooting any of those as you're doing with Dungeon Siege?
David: We definitely do consider it, but we're not just looking for RPGs or action RPGs, and that's why we did a game like Supreme Commander 2 so we could do something different. When we first announced it, a lot of people were like, (What? Square Enix is working with Gas Powered on an RTS?) Ah yes, we have some experience with RTS. We've done some of the past Front Missions, but at the end of the day, we are open in terms of genres, and we feel that we definitely specialize in the RPG area, and we feel that we do it very well. But it's not necessarily the only thing that we're looking for by any means.
We're definitely open to all sorts of ideas, all sorts of genres, and all things are being considered for the future of Square Enix. But to drill down and specifically answer your question about those IPs, it's definitely something that I'd like to take a look at and learn more about and see if there are opportunities. I agree with you. I think that Dungeon Siege - a phenomenal IP, great fan base from the past, it's a perfect time to introduce it to consumers on the consoles that maybe haven't experienced it before. And I personally was kind of shocked to find out that there are little to no other games out there like it. Why? I don't get it.
GB: The perception is that there are "so many" action RPGs and Diablo clones on the market already, but I've played most of them, and there are very few that truly provided a stand-out experience. In the past decade since Diablo II, there have only been a few that have seen any real success, too, and even then they didn't incorporate specific mechanics like server-side characters that I feel are important to the longevity of an action RPG. Well-made action RPGs are less common than a lot of people think.
David: Yeah, and Diablo's a great franchise, but to my knowledge it's only on the PC. And hey, Dungeon Siege was mostly on the PC. I think they had a PSP version in the past.
GB: Yep, Throne of Agony.
David: But at the end of the day, why aren't those games more on the console? I think that there's a great audience. I think there's a great market share for them; I think consumers would love it. And I think maybe Square Enix identified an area that was underutilized or not noticed.
GB: I'd agree with you.
David: I'm excited, and I think that once Dungeon Siege III releases and everybody plays it and has a great experience, I think you're going to probably see a lot more titles like it. I don't mind being the leader if that's hopefully what we evolve into. That's not the reason why we did this, though. The reason why we did this was because we really thought (Hey, this would be a fun game. And Obsidian's great at making it. We've got a great fan base and they're expecting some good quality. Let's work together, let's deliver to them, and let's have a great time playing the game together.) That's really what the thinking was about.
GB: Speaking of Throne of Agony, why was the decision made to call the game Dungeon Siege III rather than rebooting the franchise with a fresh subtitle? Something that makes it clear that this is a multi-platform reboot and a different animal than the first two?
David: That's a good question - it has a lot to do with marketing and brand strategy, and we just felt that going with a numbered title followed the formula and kept it true to its heritage, and if we decide to move forward, maybe we'll revisit that thinking and that decision. Ultimately, it's what we all called it and it just kind of stuck.
GB: Alright, I appreciate your time, David.
David: Anytime.
