As Always, Assume Spoilers

The Thoughts in Question

Priors

Some excessive months back, a buddy of mine bought me Avowed. Turns out life was going to intervene, so I only just got around to it. Shame, as I’d been looking forward to it for a while - throughout my foundational years, Black Isle and Obsidian studios were a huge influence on me. To me, an Obsidian game represented a jank wrapper around a larger ambition than they could deliver - but no one else was bringing to the table what they brought. New Vegas has been canonized as a classic, and I’ll go to bat hard for Alpha Protocol (yeah, that’s right, me and three other fuckers remember that game!). In a land of homogeneity, a fresh (often biting) voice feels refreshing and the price of entry being the entire scaffolding being rickety. I had also done my time in the Bethesda mines, starting with Morrowind and getting increasingly disappointed with the direction the studio has been taking. So I went in not expecting the world, but I was intrigued to see Obsidian do an interesting riff on the classic structure. Well, I got something.

Further Caveats:

  • I played Pillars of Eternity 1. Wasn’t a huge fan, it didn’t do much for me. It felt pretty by-the-numbers (especially as someone who played the original Infinity Engine games), and the world (while complex) didn’t feel particularly compelling.
  • Never played Pillars 2. I’ve heard it’s more interesting than PoE1, but look, I ain’t got time for that anymore (All y’all BG3 lovers can go to hell, I respect the resurrection, but I am old).
  • I played Avowed after 2.0 patch. I’m not sure entirely what changed, but I know there were balance tweaks and a new face system.

Positives

  • Combat felt decent. It’s not top-tier or anything, but within the context of open world games it feels more interesting than a Bethesda game.
  • I appreciate a limited open world format, argued for it for years. It reminds me of VtM: Bloodlines and I think allows the devs to provide a greater density of content, as well as allow for some reactivity. The Witcher 2 also struck this balance. I would love to see more of this in design!
  • Several of the plot themes appeal to me on a personal level - a voice in your head you can’t trust? Faction based moral ambiguity? Made for me.
  • The idea of the political setting is a good setup. Empire encroaching on independent territory (none of whom get along) allows for a range of hooks and conflicts. I worry that the Millennial frustration with post-colonialism is leading to this being a played out setting, though.
  • There is this absolutely genius moment in the second chapter - while stumbling around exploring, I ran into an hidden army camp run by the Steel Garrote. Nothing guided me here other than my own curiosity. And in breaking in and slaughtering them all (very heroically, I assure you), I managed to trigger a very large plot change and save Fior. Reactivity and discovery in one go? Be still my beating heart! (Well, technically I guess I stilled theirs.) This is such a high point that I want to rub it in every developer’s face and yell “GIVE ME MORE”.
  • Kai is a good companion who felt like a real person to me. Best writing of all the companions by a long shot.

Negatives

  • This really kills me to say, but the writing is awfully ham-fisted and completely awkward. There seem to be several reasons for this:
    • The writing feels oddly weightless, such that things of great import happen without feeling truly impactful. Example: early in the story, the player character dies to an effectively random assassin. It just kinda happens, they immediately get up, people ooh and ahh for a few minutes, and then it kinda never comes back after Act 1? You would think that “the bastards killed me, but I’m the Jesus of the Living Lands” would be more emphasized, but it’s just kind of random guy sniping you. “The Envoy who came back from the dead” feels like a legend that should be directly contrasted with the undead Lödwyn, but this kinda falls by the wayside. See also: Lödwyn takes off her mask at the halfway point for no real reason? It’s unclear why she removes it or what it means that she did.
    • The writers are resisting the ambiguity baked into the premise. They really struggle to not make “side against the Empire” the correct path - which feels insane after chapter 2. In the eyes of the writers, the Living Lands are good and the Aedyr Empire is bad. Which, sure, I’m as anti-colonialist as the next guy, there’s no good way to make imperial forces positive at any scale. However, there’s this temptation to make the world reflect the morality of choices in outcomes (I might have to write a future essay on this, it’s somewhat a foundational irritation of mine). Karma becomes king - which, bluntly, is wish fulfillment rather than moral ambiguity. Example: In the endings where you side with the Empire to make the Lands either a full colony or a semi-autonomous “territory,” you are presented with mixed outcomes - tradeoffs are what make for moral ambiguity, after all. If you get everyone to band together for independence, the ending just presents a positive outcome. This is done DESPITE the narrative emphasizing that if the Lands resist, the Empire is planning an invasion - which conveniently goes unmentioned. The writers are trying to reward “correct” choices. I personally find this completely uncompelling, but regardless, if you don’t want to write moral ambiguity then don’t try. Don’t write good vs evil and call it “murky”.
    • Facts aren’t established until the middle of choices (or after!). This makes it hard to make a decision, because the meaning or stakes aren’t clear. Example: every dream sequence where you get to decide how some historical figure reacted to an event - it doesn’t feel like the choices have meaning because there’s zero context (or payoff).
    • The rules of the world are unclear. I couldn’t tell you how the Dreamscourge works - if you deal with Sapadel, the Dreamscourge ends. But also it continues to be a problem for the folks in Shatterscarp. So . . . is the Dreamscorge fixed? No one else seems to care about it. If that’s true, how should I make choices as a result? What are we doing here and why?
    • Characters feel weirdly not human in how they react. At a bird’s-eye view, everything makes sense. In practice, emphasis is odd and reactions are extremely muted. It never quite feels right. It’s a hard thing to describe, but when the Giatta turns out to have her transmuted parents in the basement, she just says it makes her feel bad. We never see her try to do anything or react as if that happened - she doesn’t try to fix it through greater experimentation, she doesn’t fear forces that meddle with the beyond, that kind of thing. If she didn’t have this in her backstory, no part of her character would change. I would challenge you to find someone who doesn’t take some action based on a loved one’s death as a result of feelings, rather than “just feel the things.” See also: Lödwyn is an UNDEAD SKULL LICH KNIGHT and is just sorta treated like a normal annoying lady? No one around seems to be unsettled by her presence as a supernatural being. When Vader walks in a room, the generals get quiet. When Lödwyn enters a room, people go “ah, this bitch again.” The sapient undead are clearly rare, given the shock of the PC’s resurrection, right?
    • It deeply saddens me to say this, but the Obsidian narrative spark no longer appears present in the last several games of theirs I’ve played (Outer Worlds, Grounded, Avowed - Pentiment is still fuckin’ fantastic, though). There’s still a certain creative texture where what they build feels playfully different (Grounded is still a delightfully fun concept and setting), but there’s no depth behind that.
  • Every Act until the endgame has the exact same structure. Main quest chain, a couple of side quests, N bounties, and a totem to build. Second verse, same as the third.
  • The Dreamscourge is a boring concept to me. World eating plant zombies! I’m bored by zombies on most days, I prefer a more human villain. This is a general problem with High Fantasy - got to have a source of killable mooks, and people love an existential threat. I don’t (it flattens everything into a single boring plot), but I’m likely to lose this fight every time.
  • Stealth is weak and feels bad. Game designers have trauma from the Skyrim stealth archer build, clearly, but the way that it’s so limited here without what seems to be an extremely specific build renders stealth feeling like an afterthought.
  • By chapter 3, several of the fights get padded with an excessive amount of adds. It starts to become a real damn chore to bury the bastards. Especially when a bunch of those adds are clearly spawned from nowhere, meaning that you can’t plan around them in advance. This diminishes the value of an open world game, which feels like it needs to have some immersive sim elements to justify the structure.
  • Reminder: the more fantasy proper nouns you add, the worse your writing.

Confusing

  • The companions are sorta flat
    • Companions ranking: Kai > Dirty-Minded Furry Aunt > Generic Nice Science Lady > Cardboard Dwarf
  • Spellcasting is very strange. I both loved finding tomes in order to learn spells, but also those spells being tied to the level tree felt in opposition. Feels thematically mixed, unsure how it shakes out in my brain.
  • This game had more endings than LotR. I think the ending itself is a 3 Act structure in and of itself!
  • Sapadel’s endings are . . . odd. Happy if free, dead if dead, and clingy and controlling as a body-rider. What is Sapadel’s personality? It’s unclear why you get such different outcomes as a result, and it’s not clearly tied to her character or changed as a result of the choice. Why would body-sharing Sapadel be controlling and clingy but free Sapadel be neither of these things? This could be answered but the text doesn’t seem to want to.
  • When did dwarves move from Scottish drunkards to Russian Jews (Tradition!)? I feel like I’ve seen this characterization elsewhere, but can’t put my finger on where.
  • I like the idea of the dialogue popup boxes to revisit keywords, but I think it was relied upon overmuch to make sense of an overcomplex world rather than introduce things naturally.

Misc

  • Build:
    • Wizard with a very minor side of stealth
    • Kit 1: Lightning Spell Book and Shock Pistol (stun and shoot!)
    • Kit 2: Fire Spell Book and Flame Dagger (for when lightning doesn’t land)
    • Dialogue options chosen tended towards the tired, neutral, and snarky. Shocking, I’m sure.
  • My major choices:
    • Let the rebel leader live
    • Saved the animancer city because I found the secret army
    • Sacrifice a bunch of civilians to seal a zombie tomb
    • Let the dwarven fortress be Boatmurdered (destroyed by lava)
    • Share my body with the god when letting them out of prison
    • Shank-o-matic the Skull Knight
  • What does the name “Avowed” have to do with the story? I don’t remember swearing no oaths. Pretty much avoided it whenever I could.
  • I had to respec a LOT in the first Act, building around the tomes I could find. Made playing Wizard rough, although I was able to lock into something by mid-Act 2 that I didn’t deviate from.
  • If this game had only been a tight three acts rather than three acts and three more halves - it wouldn’t have worn out it’s welcome.

Close to Greatness

All in all, it’s very strange to play Avowed. The bones of the game feel incredibly solid - they gave themselves an extremely flexible foundation. And yet . . .

  • The hooks and direction of the story are solid and intriguing. Unfortunately, the writers feel like they dropped the ball hard on execution in the beat by beat moments.
  • I liked Chapter 1 and felt very positive towards the game up front. But when the time came to move on, they just . . . tried to redo the exact same thing again. Which feels less fresh, and I was tired of the same thing by Act 3.
  • Gameplay is improved over the Skyrim model, but there’s a definitely a cap on the growth that ends around beginning of Act 3.

I try to judge a piece of media by its ambitions or highs, but it’s very weird to look at every piece as “great idea, weak execution.” There was one great high point with no attempt to replicate it. The rest of the experience was unfortunately so bland. How do you judge “we set ourselves up for success and choked hard?” It would be so very possible to create a sequel that took this structure, refined it slightly, and built an all-time classic (Avowed: New Paradis). I fear that they would instead hew too closely to the exact same structure and replicate the weaknesses all over.

“Why I play games” results

  • Story - Argh, so many cool ideas wasted in execution! I want to like it, but I was so cold by the end due to lack of proper story context
  • Aesthetics - It’s cute. Nothing special, though. Bit bright and cartoony for my tastes.
  • Flow State - Bits and pieces of exploring, but never quite hit it.
  • Exploration - This wasn’t too bad, I just wish that every interesting location wasn’t signposted by a quest.
  • Discovery - So close, but fell short mostly due to predictable repetition.
  • Emotional Invocation - Nope, the writing whiffed it.
  • Player Expression - Unsuccessful, though I acknowledge the attempts.