Preview New Bard's Tale revealed

Re: wait and see

That's true, but how many console players do you know will buy a game that needs extra hardware? Furthermore, how many companies do you know will spend time creating complex yet functional and non-obtrusive interfaces for a game genre that isn't even the most lucrative, when they can go with a simplified formula of the same?

 

I think that's exactly the case, RP. Consoles may have mouse and keyboard, but how many developers do you know that would actually develop something for a mouse and keyboard for a console? Hell, most computers have had DVD-ROMs standard for years now, and you don't see developers actually taking advantage of that technology and it's more wide spread than PC style I/O devices are for the consoles.

 

None, because they're stupid. (what im not allowed to say something immature?)

I 'assume' that the companies are waiting many years (6+, forgive my assumption of time but thats a 3rd of my life) till these features are absolutely as-standard on pcs before they entriely change development. I get the feeling (rather paranoidly) that if all pc games were designed for dvd then many developers would actually have to produce that much material, as opposed to just 1 or 2 cds. Then as for consoles, well they just suck for rpgs !!die final fantasy, die!!!

But seriously....why bother converting? pc are falling rediculously in price, everyone should/will have one capable of playing any game (not requiring dos)

 

Re: wait and see

if it seemed that way, then my bad, it wasnt intended that way. my personal feelings can maybe described best as "hopeful and eager but wait-and-see".

i see what you mean, and id agree if we were talking about porting, say, a complex sim like steel beasts to a console. but we're talking about bards tale. what characteristics of that original do you think cannot be implemented with a modern console? bards tale was actually a very simple game by modern standards.

the jist of what you say, that i would definitely normally agree with, is when you say "put it into a platform that can only sell games if...". yes, console games are usually dumbed down because it is believed that console gamers prefer them that way, thus its the only way to sell them. but theres no technical reason for that, its just how things have been done up until now. and here fargo pretty much made it clear he wanted to challenge that belief, how he (too) was bored of the dumbed down nature of console rpg's. thats gives me reason to hope that this WONT be just another one of those. so my hat's off to him, good luck, and i hope you succeed.

i guess thats the problem, that most people here have assumed "aha, he's going to dumb it down like all console games are dumbed down". thats not what i understood from the interview. i thought he specifically was complaining about that. so just cause its not going to be an old-school crpg doesnt mean it has to be a "new-school" linear action/adventure console rpg.

 

none, just as it should be.
if they can make a first person shooter like halo work with a console controller such that everyone even praises it (a fact i still cant understand), then i really dont see why a rpg couldnt work in a perfectly satisfactory manner with that controller too.

true, but the difference here is that DVD isnt really offering developers anything new. theres not really anything you can do much better on dvd than 1-3 cds (as most games these days are). most of us do full installs anyway.
it was pretty radically different moving from floppies to cd. it really offered new possibilities, so developers embraced it real eagerly. (which was unfortunate, as the ensuing FMV fascination proved).

 

It didn't take that long for CD-ROM software to come out, and this was well before CD drives were affordable. Besides, it isn't that hard to convert to a DVD format from multiple CDs. Most games already fall into one of two categories:
- Multiple install CDs, everything dumped to hard drive: InstallShield and Windows Installer both can support copying all the install files to one location and installing from there (often seen in network installs). Even the Windows 3.0 installer let you swap files between floppies if you made a minuscule change to SETUP.INI.
- Multiple game CDs, selectable install levels: Trivial. The game's already set up to check the HD and then removable media.

The only technical glitch would be in getting SecuROM to recognize either CD#4 (no, NEVER CD #1) or DVD#1. Since SecuROM is nothing but a technical glitch and worthless to boot, I don't see any problem.

As a result, there is no reason to delay a move to DVD. Hell, RAM and video card requirements force an upgrade every 3 years, so why not get people to drop their aging 8X CDROM drives for a less-than-$100 DVD-ROM? Keep the old drive for ripping crappy copy-protected audio CDs.

 

The overal context of gameplay. If we're talking of a technical point of view, next-generation consoles obviously can replicate Bard's Tale better than the NES ever could (hell, Wizardry is an example, and some Ultimas are as well). But the problem is in the gameplay. How many console gamers do you think would enjoy a D&Desque rolling of characters, and classes? How many do you know won't whine because of large dungeons with devious traps? I mean that console Ultima clone, Dragon Warrior, changed so much from its original concept so it could catch up with times its beyond recognition. What's left of it? The name, only. In an age where players want to see all their party members on screen, with flashy clothes and in-your-face magic, will giving them a game that has you mapping dungeons by hand be easy? That kind of gameplay concepts are hard to swallow by console gamers nowadays.

Furthermore the Bard's Tale is undoubtfuly a game that could use an improvement of its gameplay, picking on its elements and expand them. But i'm afraid i'm not seeing that, for now at least. All i'm seeing is an evocative party-based, story-oriented dungeon crawl with great atmosphere being turned into a single-player console action/rpg. With 50% more humour. The sense of "adventure" found in a console RPG is cutscene after cutscene. Its a fact, console players don't care for interactivity and reactivity in what they call RPGs.

There is a technical reason for that, its called sales figures. Console gamers like certain products to behave in a certain way. They wont' stop liking it overnight. Thats why, like i pointed out, after years of crticizing PC RPGs, they now go "Whoa" at things like KoTOR and Morrowind. But they harped against CRPGs for years, and loved games with a much lesser freedom in most every department for years, and thats what they got. Its their fault they got "dumbed down" games, they go to great lenghts defending said dumbing down.

And i sincerely hope he is succesful in his venture, both from a personal and commercial point of view.

 

Re: wait and see

The famous "let's not trash the game till it's done" argument. While, I hope that new and, unfortunately, improved BT would not be that bad, there are plenty of information already available for us to form opinions. We can argue about what we know, and we can accept that a lot of things could and would change during development, but let's not say that "we won't know till it's done". For example, do you really need to play FOBoS to know what kinda game it is. I don't think so.

As for BT, if Brian wanted to make a totally new cool game and introduce some kewl PC things to the console, he shouldn't have used BT name that A - is lost on concole users, B - would piss off old skool PC users, C - is associated with a certain gameplay that wouldn't be present in the new game. So, what's the point then? It's like FOBoS, which could have avoided all the negative rep had it been continued as a non-Fallout, generic post-apoc game.

However, Brian Fargo did some pretty cool things in the past, and I hope he hadn't lost it, so I wish him well. One thing is for sure though, consoles have a lot of limitations, both hardware and mentalware. That makes it an inferior game by default, but I hope that console gamers like it.

 

but what are you seeing? only a brief interview or two, thats my point. we dont really know jack about the game. im only opposed to the idea that some people here are assuming that a game built on the BGA engine _must_ be crap. i believe a good enough game can transcend its medium and genre, as proven (proven to me anyway) by the brilliance of half-life, and the longevity of games like the ultimas.

it sounds to me like youre proving my point here. before halo, everyone wouldve said a FPS wont make it on a console - the controls dont work. before KotOR and morrowind, people wouldve said you cant make an rpg on a console - console gamers want linear action. now here's someone with talent saying he wants to re-invent the action/rpg genre, and youre saying console gamers wont buy it. im saying HOORAY, give it your best shot, and lets hope it happens. god knows the action/rpg genre needs some serious re-inventing. may it be to console action/rpg's what morrowind was to console rpg's, and halo to console shooters.

yes, if at least for no other reason than it would make wasteland 2 possible, which (fargo has implied) would be a more old-school style rpg.

 

I thought that most of the criticism is due to the fact that this game has little to do with the original BT

It seems to me that you're the one who reads too much into the info available. Brian Fargo isn't trying to take old BT to the new level, he's making a better console game, which even if he's successful still wouldn't be as good as a PC game due to many reasons listed here.

Who cares what MW was to console rpgs since it was so boring on PC? It was actually a step back, not a revolution.

Suppose BT kicks ass and praised as the next best thing, what do you want to bet that wasteland2 is going to be a console game?

 

I haven't got anything against the BGA engine itself. From what i've seen, it's snappy, fast rendering, and has good particle effects. The problem is that the game is being tailored to the engine, and not the reverse.

As far as i see it, i believe his intentions might be good, but if the game's essence is being changed to accomodate an engine's limitations, its a bad start.

They did? :shock: I never heard that. I did hear however, that conversions were bad (blatant example: Deus Ex - The Conspiracy). I mean FPSs can work in consoles and have been proven to work. Turok (N64). Goldeneye and Perfect Dark (N64), and they were originals. The original Medal of Honor (PSX). Quake 2 and Tenka (for PSX), even if lackluster, also did their job.

Well when you look at the sales of games like Shadowrun and all PC conversions of CRPGs for SNES and Genesis (from Might and Magic to Fairy Tale Adventure), when compared to things like Final Fantasy and Vagrant Story, i think its visible what people like. Everytime something slightly more complex comes slong, people balk at it. Morrowind took some blows from long-standing console players as well.

The reason i'm not jumping around when someone says they're out to reinvent the genre is because that person is not the first, and won't be the last.

 

PLus there doesn't seem to be that much reinventing going on.
Snarkiness? Not-a-hero?
These aren't new thing.

and urgrue, considering that console games live and die by their camera angles and the BGA engine's is utter crap, it is a major concern.

 

Re: wait and see

genre does not equal quality. yes we can know already (to some degree anyway) what KIND of game it is...but we dont know yet if its the next messiah or the next Messiah (as in the boring 3d shooter that wanted to be different but was just boring).

its like when a great book spawns a film (and sequels), a TV series, a comic book series, etc. why should we get so pissed about that? nobody's ruining our original book (or game), thats still ours to treasure. yeah i'd PREFER a proper sequel to the book but thats not being offered to me.
at least that universe/story is being kept alive, as this can bring new fans to the old games, as well as revive possible interest in a genuine sequel.
i think people who, for example, refuse to see LotR because "its not the book" are just limiting themselves from enjoying life to the fullest. LotR is a good film, it doesnt make a difference if there is a book out there that is better or worse, its a separate product.
i understand people dont often see it that way (as is evident from this thread), but i think they should. it would improve their own capability to enjoy things without prejudices.

 

i didnt say he was. i said he's trying to bring the BGA type of so-called rpg to a new level, he's just happening to use an old character and setting that he was involved with in the past.
its like aliens as opposed to alien. alien was a suspense thriller with very little action and gore. aliens was an action film with bullets and blood all over the place. they are completely different films, but most people love both, and that includes most fans of the original.

actually, the console has nothing to do with it. he's making a game that is going to be available for PC as well as consoles, just like, say, morrowind. if you want to jump to conclusions about the game, do so at least based on the one truly relevant fact we know: that its going to be based on the BGA engine. not just cause its going to be made on a console. like i said, you could port fallout to consoles and it wouldnt be much different, it would still be one of the best RPGs ever.

it was for console gamers, you just said so yourself.

i dont care if he makes a console port, as long as there's a version for the PC. and i think its pretty safe to assume there would be.

 

then i guess you're privvy to some design docs or interviews that i'm not aware of. all ive seen is a few-page interview. for all i know, they might be totally gutting the engine "tailoring it to the game" as we speak, or even re-writing it from scratch. what reason do you or i have to assume theyre just going to make a TC for the DA engine?

the game's essence isnt being changed to acoomodate an engine or platform. its being changed to accomodate inXile's design. they didnt WANT the essence of the original BT. this is clear from the first couple paragraphs of the gamespy interview.

halo was the first console FPS that the majority of PC FPS gamers didnt laugh off condescendingly. halo was the first one that PC gamers WANTED for themselves.

so you're saying: others have tried and failed, thus we can criticize fargo for trying too.
if you think thats okay, then fine. i dont. i think "trying" should always be encouraged, because sooner or later, someone's gonna succeed.
i'd rather have 29 games that tried something new, and failed, and 1 game that really succeeded and is truly great, than 30 mediocre "lets play it safe and do it like its always been done" games.

 

Im not privvy to anything their making. On the other hand, i'm looking at the pictures and i can tell you the engine isn't suffering modifications. At least, not on any significant level. I haven't seen any picture depicting an improvement over Dark Alliance's usage of the engine.

Oh and lets not forget one curious similarity - BGA was a one-player hack fest. The Bard's Tale only appears to be one. If there was any kind of conversion of DA's engine to have a full party usage, i might be able to accept that. If its being taken from a party-based system to a single-player system, with an engine that only supports a single-player system, and hasn't shown it can do more. Now, what is a person supposed to think when he looks at pictures, depicting the same kind of graphical quality, using the same single-player system? Surely you can't expect me to think they're modifying the engine?

The praise that Goldneye got was quite high, and silenced many PC gamers. Of that i remember.

What i think is that there isn't a need for unfounded optimism, thats for sure. Second of all im not criticizing Fargo for trying. If anything i'm criticizing, is that Fargo is doing what many people have tried before. He may want to change the way that kind of game is seen and played, but if he starts using a formula that's been beaten to death, you damn well expect me to criticize it. Its not the intention i criticize, its the means.

Don't forget the chances you take when buying your software are not the same chances a company takes when publishing it. I like experimentation being made in games, as well as new ideas, but lets be honest - how many games managed to overcome the bad implementation of good ideas? I certainly won't buy games because of nice ideas they presented, if they don't present it well. I like games for the final product, not guidelines that hint at some greatness that falls underachieved.

 

Re: wait and see

You'd prefer it, but since you can't have it, you'll just happily accept whatever vaguely related crap is shoveled at you?
And generally speaking, most spinoffs tend to be horrible pieces of crap.

As for your second bit there, marketing doesn't work that way. I'm afraid. This isn't going to bring new fans to the old games (except perhaps a handful of uber-geeks) its not going to affect sales of the old games (since they're dead and gone) and will only provide reasons to do a sequel to the current project.

 

Re: wait and see

no, not if its crap, as you say. if its good, then yes im happy with that.
and i cant know whch it is until its done.

yes but there are SO many exceptions that you simply cant automatically assume the next one will be crap as well.

regardless, if BT became a successful game, our chances of seeing a proper BT4 would certainly only be greater than now. that was my point. so even old-schoolers should look at the bright side here, that the possibility of a future BT4 just increased a little bit.

 

come on, we've only seen a handful of screenshots. yeah it can look like DA, but you dont know anything about the AI, the game depth, the storyline, whether its linear or non-linear, how frequent or infrequent battle is, how battle even works, how dialogue works, or anything of the sort.
How about these, all look very similar in screenshots (except for age differences) but are totally different games in terms of everything else: Myth, NWN, Icewind Dale, Braveheart, Golden Axe

but since when is that relevant? fallout was single player.

why on earth not? does half-life look very different from quake 2? or a much better example: does thief look very different from system shock 2? same engine, same looking screenshots, totally different games.

yes, admittedly, goldeneye at least didnt get laughed at, but i dont think it made PC gamers green with envy, like halo did.

if i sound that way, its only a devil's advocate reaction to the pessimism ive seen so far. im neither optimistic or pessimistic about BT. im mostly neutral leaning a bit on the hopeful side.

me too. i didnt mean id BUY these 29 game i mentioned. i mean id rather see 29 people try and fail and 1 succeed, than 30 not try and only make something average thats just like everything thats been before.

 

While i don't consider those very similar at all, i agree that i don't know how those afforementioned factors work. But what i said still makes sense. I still haven't seen anything, nor have i heard anything, indicating its being changed. And i stated that, from the pictures seen, i haven't seen changes. And also those factors above cannot be seen in pictures, thus increasing the speculation.

I believe its relevant if you try to strike up a comparison between Fallout and Fallout: BoS. The first is a single-player (even if a party can be assembled) CRPG. The second is a single-player shooting fest. Now, it might just be me, but i'm looking at Bard's Tale 1 to 3, and am seeing the same kind of consoleesque transition - party-based dungeon hacking becomes a single-player hack-fest. Not in terms of quality (as obviously both titles aren't yet released), but curiously two game designers claim they are trying to make a certain franchise more "accessible" or are going to "revitalize"/"take it to the next level", and the end result, for both (and this is known by what they say in interviews and feature lists), is that the gameplay is being cut short of its original intention.

I do give more credit to this next version of TBT than i'm giving Chucky's half-assed attempt, though.

I'd say no. Then again, the gameplay of Half-Life and Quake 2, barring some minor differences, also isn't that different. From a grunting character shooting it out against demons to a cientist shooting it out with aliens... HL wins on the drama, sure, but overall, the gameplay is pretty much the same.

Actually it does. Medieval stealth shooting with bows vs. space ship scenario shooting with hi-tech weaponry does count as different in my book.

I don't remember if the engine was the same.

Hence, why im being critical of The Bard's Tale.

 

Re: wait and see

Really.
The LotR movies are the only decent one that come to mind, and thats only if you take a lot of changes as given based on the cultural differences between 1940s Britain and today's Hollow-wood.
Other than that, I can't think of any exceptions. Care to share?

Heh.
I don't really consider 0.0000001% to be all that much greater than 0.
The original Bard's Tale games are dead and gone, and only remembered by a niche market of a niche market.
And when you get right down to it, even though I remember them rather fondly, they aren't RPGs by current standards. So much would have to be added that it would simply be better to start from scratch and even a BT 4 would essentially be an entirely new game. hack, hack, level, level, nuke, nuke, level level --> endgame doesn't make for a sellable game anymore. At the very least you have to add dialogue, the illusion of choice and some fancy eye-candy.
Theres a reason why might & magic is dead, and wizardry essentially so.

 

I admit, i agree with Voss on that. The game then was for a very niche market. That, and the current viewpoint of what is an RPG is severly changed, both from the platform BT started on (PC), to the platform it's heading (console). Trying to revitalize the series means going trough a series of design decisions which have to break out the original mold in some key points, which will quite probably turn it into something that will not work in terms of sticking to its promises. I mean, can Fargo really keep the balance in the game design, considering that the core market and fan base of the game are still in the PC world, and that the console world really doesnt't know it that much (if at all)? We already know the party-based system is ditched - what next? In fact, other than the humour and dialogue, what can it offer those that remember the game, and those that never heard of it? Furthermore, can it compete with other factors of other games that sold a lot? Can it compete to the addictiveness of Diablo 2 character progression, for instance? I mean, i believe Fargo's intention is not to compete, but to do something different - the problem is when the difference alienates the product from the audience, either because its badly done, or because its, regardless of quality, already been done.

 

Re: wait and see

We don't know yet? So what features stand out as promising and interesting for you? Because, imo, the screens look like crap, the story is a cliche, characters are a joke, the setting is an insult to every Fallout fan, etc. (we are taking about FOBoS here, just so the rest of the folks know)

Wrong analogy. A better analogy is when a great book for adults spawns a sequel that is written for kids, and then an adult version of the book would be based on the kids version. I don't think many people would like that very much.

Please, what universe? and who would want to see a "genuine sequel" if this game is successful? No, for real, let's imagine a hypothetical situation, this game rocks, 90% of its fanbase are people who like it as is and never played the old BT, they like playing a smart ass guy who summons stuff. Why do you think they would be interested in a party-based game that might not even have this guy and have a totally different gameplay?

LotR is based very closely on the book. I'm sure you would like it less if the main char would have been Fry from the Futurama, and that is the point. It's not about different media, it's about it being completely different game and some dissapointments about it.

Fine, let's take a look at Morrowind which was developed separately and is still half-a-game that Daggerfall was. They said it themselves that they had to simplify a lot of things to make it console-friendly. Just like DX2 is going to be much simplier because of the console version, etc.

I highly doubt that

No, he won't make a console port, he would make a PC port, and there is a huge difference between a game developed for PC and ported to PC.

 

that was exactly my point. youre speculating that those factors (AI etc), that you cannot discern in a screenshot, havent been changed. im only saying you cant speculate anything yet.

here are two games that are very similar (engine, gameplay, basic idea (shoot aliens)), yet are two completely different kinds of experiences. quake is mindless rambo-esque running around, half-life is a gripping suspense story.
my point is precisely that engine and even gameplay doesnt determine the quality of a game. half-life is, in essence, just another quake 2, but nobody would argue it didnt takeg the FPS genre to a whole new level. even lots of people who hate FPS games (like myself) loved half-life.
my point was only: the engine is the canvas, and maybe we can say the gameplay, genre, etc, are the paints you use. but what you do with it can be excellent, or junk, either way.

that wasnt the point. if you swapped thief into a sci-fi setting, would it suddenly be just like system shock? no way, its a totally different game.
you simply cannot tell from a lousy screenshot or two what kind of game we're talking about. you can take a guess, but you cant know jack.

 

i dont get it. here you and voss both argue that an old-school BT wouldnt make it, then you complain how the new BT isnt going to be old-school.

personally i just think its wrong to assume somethings gonna be crap just because the basic style is action/rpg instead of say BG2-style.
god knows ive seen enough shit RPGs in any style, and great RPGs in any style, to know it doesnt count for much.
and likewise i dont think it proves anything to point out how most action/rpg's suck. most everything sucks, and that includes PC RPGs. a great game is always an exception in a mass of mediocrity.