Sure is quiet 'round these parts.

A week of blog silence. With E3 coming up, this really should not be the case. I'll try and cover some stuff here in rapid order just to lay down some foundations before the show really beings. Will split it up just to keep those tags and labels clean.

So first, news breaks of Obsidian Entertainment taking up Gas Powered Game's Dungeon Siege franchise to the new Dungeon Siege III. I can't help but feel a little underwhelmed. I enjoyed the Dungeon Siege series, and while it clearly hasn't been garnering much buzz in recent years, I fail to understand why Obsidian needs to work on this IP.

For a little background, Obsidian as we know it has worked on, or is working on, the following titles - Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II, Neverwinter Nights 2 (and associated expansions), Alpha Protocol, Fallout: New Vegas, and now Dungeon Siege III. Only one of these big-name titles (Alpha Protocol) originate from Obsidian as we know it, the rest are sequels of games developed by others (if we exclude the fact that Obsidian is composed of remnants of the long gone Black Isle Studios - those behind the original Fallout games). 

KOTOR II was a thoroughly weak and bugged experience compared to the first in the series (and now being succeeded by Bioware's MMO iteration - Star Wars: The Old Republic), Neverwinter Nights 2, though a good attempt, was also a bit diluted on flavor. Many of the fans of the original games cannot safely say that these follow ups were much satisfying at all. Alpha Protocol is an original game, and while it does seem to succeed in a few notable areas like narrative and voice acting, is terribly marred by some fundamental gameplay issues. This worries me for both Fallout: New Vegas and the known-by-name-only Dungeon Siege III.

It makes me wonder why Obsidian is so involved in developing sequels of other IPs. While these types of arrangements do not happen without agreement or cooperation between developers/publishers (at least in a legal sense), it too easily causes strife in the fanbase. Unless developers approach a sequel with the exact same direction and attitude as the former team, zealous and expectant fans have open opportunities to flame vigorously. Without letting a new wind blow through its sails, sequels are only lateral reiterations, featuring no innovation. The evolution of critically acclaimed titles, with improvements and refinements, should be done by the original developer - the developer who knows their product and IP best, the developer that has had to face the brunt of criticisms with which improvements are required. It's this disconnect when a sequel swaps hands, where a game can be fumbled and left disappointing.

There are many instances of this. The Call of Duty franchise, first developed by Infinity Ward, has been the metaphorical bong, being passed by its publisher Activision to Treyarch and now Sledgehammer Games for its full-feature titles, and Amaze Entertainment, Rebellion Developments and n-Space for its ports and offshoots. Speaking of Activision, they also own Neversoft, the folks who took up the Guitar Hero franchise after Harmonix left (and subsequently produced genre-rival Rockband).

Of course, a franchise that changes developers is not destined to fail. Fallout 3, while still much despised by a seething loyal underground fanbase, has had fantastic reviews, despite being a sequel developed by Bethesda Softworks, rather than the initial developers, Black Isle Studios. (Which is of course, being again passed down to Obsidian Entertainment.)

I don't want to come off as too negative towards Obsidian Entertainment. Alpha Protocol, though flawed (and in honesty, borrowing of Bioware's Mass Effect), is a good effort. Fallout: New Vegas also seems to fill in spaces that Fallout 3 missed out on. Dungeon Siege III, perhaps we will hear something about come E3. I just hope that the guys at Obsidian decide to spend more care in play-testing, bug-control and general QA. Perhaps find confidence in original IPs. That would do them many wonders.