Lionheart Official Site updated with perk info

[Spazmo]

Tags: Lionheart: Legacy of the Crusader

The <a href="http://lionheart.blackisle.com">official Lionheart website</a> has been <a href="http://lionheart.blackisle.com/special.html#perks">updated</a> with some info on perks in the game, as well as a partial list of the perks availible to players and details on the perk rate, which differs wildly from Fallout's as seen here:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>A character will gain a perk at Level 2 and at every third level after that unless they have a Trait or Perk which changes this. Therefore, they receive Perks on levels 2, 5, 8, 11, etc.</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
With all the tinkering <a href="http://reflexive.com/index.htm">Reflexive</a> is doing with our beloved <b>SPECIAL</b> system, it'll be interesting to see how Lionheart plays. Look for a demo next week.
<br>
<br>
Spotted at <A HREF="http://rpgvault.ign.com" target="_blank">RPG Vault</A>

 

[POOPERSCOOPER]

hey

What do you mean by demo?

 

[Skorpios]

Reflexive made up a playable demo for Interplay, and it looks like it will be released. Not sure of the timing though.

 

[Whipporowill]

Now is that all perky!

Well... there is rumours of next week, from what I've seen. Interesting. Although from what I gathered there isn't much dialogue in the demo... ?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Look for a demo next week.

This is the best news for the last...*counting* ...gotta be at least 6 months.

Love this perk:
Dark Majesty
Last night you had the strangest dream. A shadowy being approached you with an offer that sounded too good to be true. For simply signing a blank piece of paper, he will make you a warrior of unparalleled puissance. You gain +3 skill points in all of your melee skills, +10% to poison resistance, +1 skill points per level, and a house in a very warm climate in your old age.

 

[Voss]

I hope there are more perks you can take a level 2. That list has maybe 10.

A demo. A demo. Promising...but sadly from what they've said its mostly hard-core combat. I want to be sure its got interaction, story and plot. I know it has combat.

 

[Skorpios]

That is the problem with RPG demos though isn't it? Either they use some truncated part of the plot which gives away major spoilers (and we all know how much you hate things that spoil quests!) or they have to create a whole new plot with dialogue trees just for the demo - thus taking away resources from the main game and putting them into a demo that is given away for free!.

No rushed collection of dialogues and quests is every going to accurately reflect the plot in the main game anyway so why bother?

Fans demand demos but then get grumpy when the demo bears only a passing resemblance to the final game and rant and rave about being ripped off! It's a no-win situation for developers that's for sure.

As for the perks list - it is alphabetical but stops at the letter 'M'. Also, one perk mentions another: 'Pyromania' which is not listed so there is at least one more perk. I think these are just a semi-random collection showing that there are some old favourites as well as some new twists coming in Lionheart's version of SPECIAL.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

The <a href="http://lionheart.blackisle.com">official Lionheart website</a> has been <a href="http://lionheart.blackisle.com/special.html#perks">updated</a> with some info on perks in the game, as well as a partial list of the perks availible to players and details on the perk rate, which differs wildly from Fallout's as seen here

Those differences are huge! A perk at level 2! OMFG!!11!

Why though? Is the game so hard that you need a boost that low?

 

[Spazmo]

Apparently. Reflexive has been doing a lot of buggering with SPECIAL, partially just to fix it and partially to adapt it.

 

[GreenNight]

A demo. A demo. Promising...but sadly from what they've said its mostly hard-core combat. I want to be sure its got interaction, story and plot. I know it has combat.

Well, if I wanted to be into Lionheart I would really apreciate the demo. It's a way to make sure the game will work with your PC.

 

[Voss]

Eh. I've only ever had one problem along those lines. Main reason to get a demo to see if the game is any good.

Ah, Skorp. The game is gold. They wouldn't be taking away resources from the main game right now, now would they?

And theres got to be some dialogue chunks and areas that got cut (knights of saladin stuff, anyone?) that could be tweaked and modified to put in a demo. Even if it isn't quite as good as the stuff in the actual game, it could be used to showcase other game elements as well as combat.

 

[Jed]

That is the problem with RPG demos though isn't it? Either they use some truncated part of the plot which gives away major spoilers (and we all know how much you hate things that spoil quests!) or they have to create a whole new plot with dialogue trees just for the demo - thus taking away resources from the main game and putting them into a demo that is given away for free! No rushed collection of dialogues and quests is every going to accurately reflect the plot in the main game anyway so why bother? Fans demand demos but then get grumpy when the demo bears only a passing resemblance to the final game and rant and rave about being ripped off! It's a no-win situation for developers that's for sure.

Skorpy, your attitude toward demos is strange; you act if they should considered a perk. If I were to buy a car, should I feel privileged to give it a test drive? Should I be grateful for movie trailers? Am I lucky to hear a song on the radio before I buy a CD? What about television commercials? It is in the publisher's own interest to make a demo--one that is as appealing and representative as possible--to attract as many buyers as possilbe. This is a really simple marketing concept.

 

[Skorpios]

Skorpy, your attitude toward demos is strange; you act if they should considered a perk. If I were to buy a car, should I feel privileged to give it a test drive? Should I be grateful for movie trailers? Am I lucky to hear a song on the radio before I buy a CD? What about television commercials? It is in the publisher's own interest to make a demo--one that is as appealing and representative as possible--to attract as many buyers as possilbe. This is a really simple marketing concept.

I'm just using YOUR arguments guys. You dislike the icons because 'they do nothing' - I see only limited use for a RPG demo because what does it do? Possibly showcase the graphics, some combat features, give a dash of character creation (if that is included and you aren't just handed a 'saved game' with a fixed character). All the factors that you have been telling me DON'T really make a RPG! Does it give a decent indication of the depth of dialogues and plot lines that you are all so concerned about? No - for the reasons I gave above.

XJEDX - if you want to buy a car, do you break into the factory, sit in the aluminium shell and say, "I'll take it!". Do you buy a song based on the soundchecks the band do before recording it? Due to the very nature of RPGs, a demo is only a portion, barely even finished properly, of the game. Also, why is a demo an OK marketing concept, yet you all seem so against every other type of game marketing? Is it just because you get a piece of a game for free? Can it be that simple? Is a demo a valuable marketing tool? Of course - I'm just saying with games that depend on as MANY factors as RPGs, even a demo is limited in how much of the game it can present properly.

I've read comments from many designers of RPGs who describe the difficulty of creating a demo that is "appealing and representative" as possible. In a limited area what can you do except throw in some combat encounters and basic 'Fedex' style quests and related dialogue? Any more than that will be MUCH more work than is worthwhile for a chunk of game you are giving away for free.

Ah, Skorp. The game is gold. They wouldn't be taking away resources from the main game right now, now would they?

And theres got to be some dialogue chunks and areas that got cut (knights of saladin stuff, anyone?) that could be tweaked and modified to put in a demo. Even if it isn't quite as good as the stuff in the actual game, it could be used to showcase other game elements as well as combat.

If you followed the announcement of the demo on the boards, you would see that the demo had been created at least a couple of months ago to give to Interplay. So it WAS worked on concurrently with the game, Voss. As you say, the game is gold - that means they've finished working on it - maybe even moving on to their next project. So chances are work on the demo would be squeezed around preparations for the next game, again making it more difficult. These guys don't have endless free time, just to throw together a demo or three - it has to be fitted into their schedules somewhere, even if the game has gone gold.

As for 'dialogue chunks', as I said before - a few 'chunks' thrown together in some sort of mish-mash is supposed to represent the final game? That will give a good impression to hardcore gamers trying to judge the quality of a game, won't it! It would be like a movie trailer made up of stuff that hit the cutting-room floor! Come on, how is that good marketing?!

Also, as far as I know, the bulk of the Knights of Saladin stuff is still in the game, they just aren't joinable any more, so all that has been cut out I assume is the top level quest to become a Knight of Saladin. Wouldn't the inclusion of that quest give some gamers a misleading impression of the place of the KOS in the game? Won't they be hitting the boards once they buy the game screaming, "What happened to the KOS?! They rule! Now I can't join them! You suck!"??? Is that a useful thing for a demo to do? Mislead players about the game's content?

From what Cabal has said, there is some dialogue in the demo, but it isn't the focus of it, and I can understand that. I just hope after playing the demo you guys don't start calling Lionheart "Diablo 3", or "BG for morons".

 

[Voss]

Thats what were arguing against, really. Its in their best interest to have the demo be represent the whole game, not just combat. Because a demo thats just combat will get people thinking that it is just a diablo clone. Particularly if they're casual gamers downloading off gamespy or the like with little more info... which is likely to be the majority of the cases.

 

[EEVIAC]

The demo will definately be usefull, seeing as the RT combat is one of the major concerns I have with the game. If the game succeeds purely on the strength of the combat, I will buy the game. If I can bear the combat while not particularly enjoying it, I'll probably take a risk and buy it for the setting and the potential roleplay, knowing that I can avoid many combat situations.

XJEDX - if you want to buy a car, do you break into the factory, sit in the aluminium shell and say, "I'll take it!". Do you buy a song based on the soundchecks the band do before recording it? Due to the very nature of RPGs, a demo is only a portion, barely even finished properly, of the game.

Possibly not the two best analogies. You can tell a lot about a car by its shell. If its a micro, you could stand in the frame and get a decent idea of where the seats would be and come to the realization that you couldn't comfortably drive it, no matter how good the turning circle was, or the fuel economy. Also with a song, hearing a band play it at soundcheck would be the best way to gauge a song's quality. You see the design and construction at a base, untainted level. If the song is merely made "in the mix," with studio chicanery, why would I bother wasting time/money on it when I can listen to band whose songs I enjoy and appreciate? (I do listen to bootlegs, some of them made by myself with a dictaphone tucked into my coat. The music is still good.) The same is true for games to a certain extent. Examing the engine, seeing how well it runs, examing the rudimentary gameplay gives a good idea to how well its designed. Nothing is certain in art (including games) but quality usually begets quality.

It would be difficult for an RPG to prove to me through a demo that it provided a good role playing experience (unless its something like Geneforge, the size of the free game being prohibitive for commercial releases.) What it can do is prove to me that its a fun game to play. I'd walk a thousand metres over the sharp, broken shards of BG disks to play Diablo, then sit down with that crumby IE game again, even though BG probably provides a better role-playing experience.

 

[Skorpios]

Thats what were arguing against, really. Its in their best interest to have the demo be represent the whole game, not just combat. Because a demo thats just combat will get people thinking that it is just a diablo clone. Particularly if they're casual gamers downloading off gamespy or the like with little more info... which is likely to be the majority of the cases.

And that is my argument also - no demo can adequately represent the whole game. Either it spoils a huge chunk of the actual game or involves an impossible amount of extra work, in effect making the game twice. So it probably would be in their best interests to have no demo at all in that situation. Or at least release the full game first so that users of the demo have reviews and other sources of info on what is actually IN the game.

And EEVIAC has just thrown a spanner into your argument about a 'combat-heavy' demo because he WANTS to see how Lionheart's combat works!

Possibly not the two best analogies

I never said they'd be perfect - I was responding to the statement that I treat demo's as 'privileges' rather than simple marketing tools. And I do. In my examples, wouldn't it be a privilege to see a car in production or to go backstage to see a band tune-up? Also, wouldn't that 'back-stage' privilege only really reward the expert fan? If you didn't know much about cars, then sitting in the shell wouldn't help - and if you knew nothing about music then a back-stage experience would be wasted on you. That is my point - how does a demo that doesn't reflect the whole game help those who aren't experts in the genre already? All it can really do to the general gamer is highlight whatever features ARE included (such as combat).

So if you are basing your purchase decision on roleplaying content, the demo could very well give you the wrong impression. Especially if you've been reading posts about dialogue icons.

 

[EEVIAC]

And that is my argument also - no demo can adequately represent the whole game. Either it spoils a huge chunk of the actual game or involves an impossible amount of extra work, in effect making the game twice.

It will only spoil a storyline if its part of the main storyline - a simple fix is to write a new short story, (its not that hard and they're professionals.) I'm sure there's a wealth of historical ideas they could use. This would have no effect on the main story but would still demonstrate what the game engine can do.

So it probably would be in their best interests to have no demo at all in that situation. Or at least release the full game first so that users of the demo have reviews and other sources of info on what is actually IN the game.

Not at all, if they made a quality vignette/module for the demo, a lot of people would have more faith in laying down $50 for the full game. Having a person play and enjoy a demo is possibly the most effective method of marketing - if the gamer enjoys the demo you've almost ensured yourself a sale. Better still, if my understanding of the game industry is correct, it costs you very little (being absorbed into the development cost which is paid by the publisher (like I said, I'm guessing so correct me if I'm wrong) and IGN, Gamespot, Gamespy and every magazine with a coverdisk sell your games for you.

And EEVIAC has just thrown a spanner into your argument about a 'combat-heavy' demo because he WANTS to see how Lionheart's combat works!

I want to experience the combat but a three level dungeon populated with increasingly difficult beasts is not acceptable. Bad demos can really hurt games, Devastation comes to mind instantly. Most people assumed that the poor quality of the demo showed that Devastation was a poor quality game. And they were right.

Possibly not the two best analogies

I never said they'd be perfect - I was responding to the statement that I treat demo's as 'privileges' rather than simple marketing tools. And I do. In my examples, wouldn't it be a privilege to see a car in production or to go backstage to see a band tune-up? Also, wouldn't that 'back-stage' privilege only really reward the expert fan? If you didn't know much about cars, then sitting in the shell wouldn't help - and if you knew nothing about music then a back-stage experience would be wasted on you.

Seeing a car in production or seeing a band tune up would be more akin in the game world to watching a developer write tools, or skinning models. I don't want to play a beta, I want to play a module that is indicative of the game, and more to the point, indicative of the developer. Yes its work for the developer, but its work that gains respect (and game-fans have long memories.) If they ship out a crumby demo and say "well, that's all we had time to do," what does that say about the standard of work in the actual game? Conversely, if the release a cunning, well thought out, well designed module, what does that say about the standard of the final game?

That is my point - how does a demo that doesn't reflect the whole game help those who aren't experts in the genre already? All it can really do to the general gamer is highlight whatever features ARE included (such as combat).

Demos answer a few questions for the grognard and the neophyte alike :

Does this game run well on my computer? Do I enjoy this game? Do I want to buy this game? A "yes" in response to the first question can shift units alone.

 

[Skorpios]

Have there been many RPG demos actually that good? Especially if the process is so simple? I mean, it seems obvious when you explain it like that.

Alas, I can't check my memories of Cabal's comments on the demo, because the Interplay forums seem to be down, but from memory the demo doesn't seem anywhere near that complex. Also I can't remember whether the demo was Reflexive's idea or a request from Interplay. Whether the complexity of the demo is a reflection of the overall standard of the game or not I'll leave to your individual judgement (although I have a sinking feeling what the majority response will be on this board at least).

Planning a demo right from the beginning of development does sound a logical move and fairly easy as you suggest, but I'm not sure if it applies to this case or not. The whole process of making games seems to be an exercise in making sacrifices - for good reasons and bad - so how high up the priority list should the demo be? Taken to the extreme, should game content be sacrificed for the sake of the demo? Do designers have the choice of veto on a demo they believe is substandard?

Well, I'll guess we'll find out in the next week or so.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

And that is my argument also - no demo can adequately represent the whole game. Either it spoils a huge chunk of the actual game or involves an impossible amount of extra work, in effect making the game twice. So it probably would be in their best interests to have no demo at all in that situation. Or at least release the full game first so that users of the demo have reviews and other sources of info on what is actually IN the game.

Usually there's a reason games have no demos, because the publisher doesn't want to show you what you're getting. IWD2 demo anyone?

Also, the demo doesn't HAVE to spoil part of the game. It is actually possible to make a demo where the full version can load the save games from the demo, you know. That way, you're just playing the first part and can then continue on your merry route you started with the demo.

 

[Psilon]

The Fallout demo was pretty cool, showing you basics of gameplay, combat, and dialogue in a non-spoiler setting. Scrapheap conveyed some of the flavor of the game without making a single supermutant reference.

The Daggerfall demo hooked me almost instantly as I could wander around a medium-sized island (Betony?) and experience the random quest generator and other features of the game.

Geneforge had a great demo, because it was essentially the first third of the game. You knew precisely what you were getting, you could transfer your saves over, and yet the whole Geneforge plot remained hidden. The old Apogee/Id shareware strategy (download an episode for free, get the rest for pay) worked for a very good reason.

 

[Skorpios]

Hmmm, you all make good points. I guess I am stuck in a rut of 'defend Lionheart at all costs' simply because everywhere I turned it seemed to be under attack, and I still feel the game is worth defending...or at least its potential is.

Plus I just enjoy a good stoush! I think your 'Don Quixote' reference is more apt than you realise Saint_Proverbius! Apologies to all who suffered from my not-so-righteous wrath. (Except for you Saint_Proverbius, I still disagree with what you did to Dorkle!)

After recent revelations by Saint_Proverbius it does seem more and more ilkely that I've been flogging a dead horse - which has disappointed me greatly. So I'm off to don my sackcloth and ashes.

See you guys in around a week!

 

[EEVIAC]

RPG's don't generally have demos before release, which is a shame really. I don't see why there should be one set of rules for FPS' and another for RPG's. I'm taking a wild stab in the dark here, but perhaps RPG's would sell better if they had impressive demos appearing on the front of game magazines and in the top 10 of popular download sites.