Atari loses D&D License

[octavius]

LOL @ anyone who defends AD&D and rages against 4th ed. I don't particularly like 4th ed., but at least it doesn't contain an almost auto-level-up system with next to no choice or modularity.

2nd ed. was good because it was what we had back then, but character customization is about choice; about customizing your character in different ways. For this purpose, 4th ed. beats AD&D with ease.

I dunno. For me AD&D, at least the computer version, is about a party of highly different characters with specific roles combining their strengths to overcome their problems.
While the later editions make for more customization of the individual characters it seems they tend to end up more generic and less specialized then the characters of earlier versions.
I actually like the restrictions and unique abilitites of the classes in earlier versions. For me that was what made it AD&D and not som generic RPG.

Wat

How is limiting each class to being standard (that is, a fighter is a fighter and a mage is a mage) more fun? If it's just different tactical roles you want there's no need to play an RPG - different units with different abilities is the core of most strategy games.

Character customization is fun, I can't see why you'd want less of it on purpose.

For single character games - yes.

But AD&D is (or was) at heart a party based tactical combat game, which is more fun if the different "pieces" are really distinct. If one character can do everything, then you need only one character.
I thought BG2 had the right balance. The classes were distinct, but there was still quite a bit of customization possible. In IW2 the different classes felt less distinct and more generic.

But maybe you have a point. I'm definitely more into tactical combat than story.

 

[Grunker]

"If one character can do everything"

If this is your claim in Pathfinder, 4th edition and 3.5e you have a very limited understanding of them. In 3.5e there are so many choices each choice disconnects you from tons of others. You need a party with a good spread of the options available. In 4th ed, each class is very narrow in their role; some classes never gain good AoE, while some gain almost only AoE or control-stuff. I'm sorry to say it, but it sounds kindda like you're talking out of your ass.

Add to this that a fighter is strictly inferior in ALL way (tankyness, damage, you name it) to a mage after level 10 in AD&D (at which point they have access to both Stoneskin and Mirror Image). Essentially, after level 10 all differences between classes in AD&D are negated except for spell variations between Cleric/Druid and Wizard. Also, Thieves get to remove the odd trap or pick the odd pocket now and then (the rest of the thieving skills become useless pretty early on, since a mage or cleric can take care of all of those). This is a problem after level 15 in 3.5e too (only for core fighters) sadly, but this is remedied in the Book of Nine Swords.

And I'm not talkiing about story for christ sakes. I'm talking about making meaningful choices in character customization. Where did you get that what I was saying had anything to do with story?

 

[octavius]

"If one character can do everything"

If this is your claim in Pathfinder, 4th edition and 3.5e you have a very limited understanding of them. In 3.5e there are so many choices each choice disconnects you from tons of others. You need a party with a good spread of the options available. In 4th ed, each class is very narrow in their role; some classes never gain good AoE, while some gain almost only AoE or control-stuff. I'm sorry to say it, but it sounds kindda like you're talking out of your ass.

I'm not claiming anything, just saying what my impressions are.
My only real experience is with IW2, which I didn't like much. But I will give it another chance some time.

Add to this that a fighter is strictly inferior in ALL way (tankyness, damage, you name it) to a mage after level 10 in AD&D (at which point they have access to both Stoneskin and Mirror Image). Essentially, after level 10 all differences between classes in AD&D are negated except for spell variations between Cleric/Druid and Wizard. Also, Thieves get to remove the odd trap or pick the odd pocket now and then (the rest of the thieving skills become useless pretty early on, since a mage or cleric can take care of all of those). This is a problem after level 15 in 3.5e too (only for core fighters) sadly, but this is remedied in the Book of Nine Swords.

What you don't take into account is that Stoneskins and Mirror Images are limited, while a Fighter can fight at full strenght as long as he has at least one HP left.
Unless you rest after every encounter the mages' greater powers are balanced by them starting out weak and that their powers are limited.
How can Clerics and Mages take care of the thieving skills? Again, unless you rest after every encounter you can't afford to waste spells slots on spells like Detect Trap (or whatever that Cleric spell is called). And thieves have an ability that is unlimited - Backstab - which often is just as effective as a mage's Power Word - Kill.

Fighter and Thief basic abilities are unlimited, while Cleric and Mage spells are limited. Unless you rest after each battle, that is where the balance is.

And I'm not talkiing about story for christ sakes. I'm talking about making meaningful choices in character customization. Where did you get that what I was saying had anything to do with story?

I didn't. I was just explaining where I 'm coming from.

 

[Disconnected]

If one character can do everything, then you need only one character.

Like Grunker said, you've got this all backwards. The two big differences between 4E & everything that came before, are that the rules are one coherent & fast-playing system, and that the character classes are now distinct in terms of the actual gameplay & none of them are auto-gimped or auto-gods.

4E actually works as a strategy RPG system. All of the previous editions were craptastic strategy RPG systems, despite being strategy RPG systems. 4E might not be the best in the world, but it is much more flexible, requires far less bookkeeping, and is much better balanced than any of the previous versions were. Oh and, the 4E rules are consistent. It doesn't require you to try to remember ten radically different systems-inside-the-system. You only need to remember one.

Sure, the earlier versions work reasonably well for video games, but video games handle all the mechanics for you, level-cap your ass, are immune to whining when they brutally nerf a character class for the sake of game balance, and they give you multiple characters to play with. And even so, I have no doubt 4E is better suited for strategy CRPGs than any previous version.

I'm definitely more into tactical combat than story.

Then you should probably torrent a copy of the books & take the system for a test-crawl. Trust me, if tactical combat is what matters to you, you will be amazed at how much of an improvement 4E is. You'll probably also like how much simpler it is to design crawls for.

 

[octavius]

I'm definitely more into tactical combat than story.

Then you should probably torrent a copy of the books & take the system for a test-crawl. Trust me, if tactical combat is what matters to you, you will be amazed at how much of an improvement 4E is. You'll probably also like how much simpler it is to design crawls for.

I'm not really into PnP gaming anymore.
But if what you say is correct than I really hope we can see a 4th edition Ad&D party based computer game with turn based or RTwP combat.
But I fear who ever holds the license will only use its name to make yet another RT click fest or a single character behind-the-ass-camera game with henchmen instead of characters you can control.

 

[Grunker]

We agree at least in so much as a turn-based or RTwP-game in the old style using actual implementations of just about ANY set of rules would be an incline, but we're not even like to see that.

It's a sad fact...

 

[jagged-jimmy]

Why pay money for a licence to make a game with complicated rules? By todays standards any idiot can come up with a "modern", "streamlined" RPG system.

Companies get the D&D license for the brand, not the rules.

Yea, but what i mean is - why? I cannot imagine some consoletard expecting a D&D logo on his interactive shooter. Maybe thats some psychological PR trick, like the interest in a sequel even if you dont know any of the originals.

 

[catfood]

Why pay money for a licence to make a game with complicated rules? By todays standards any idiot can come up with a "modern", "streamlined" RPG system.

Companies get the D&D license for the brand, not the rules.

Yea, but what i mean is - why? I cannot imagine some consoletard expecting a D&D logo on his interactive shooter. Maybe thats some psychological PR trick, like the interest in a sequel even if you dont know any of the originals.

Well, they hope that by combining the D&D logo and consoletard gameplay they will attract both D&D nerds and consoletards. It's mostly for attracting nerds because the others will buy any consoletarded shit that comes up anyway.

 

[Shannow]

Why pay money for a licence to make a game with complicated rules? By todays standards any idiot can come up with a "modern", "streamlined" RPG system.

Companies get the D&D license for the brand, not the rules.

Yea, but what i mean is - why? I cannot imagine some consoletard expecting a D&D logo on his interactive shooter. Maybe thats some psychological PR trick, like the interest in a sequel even if you dont know any of the originals.

That's something I've been wondering about for years. Smacking brands on stuff or making sequels to stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with the original brand or game and would have probably been better off just being its own IP (FO3, DS3, Daggerdale, NWN online stuff, the X-Com shooter, etc.).
So far, nobody has been able to offer a rationale that I could understand/follow. Supposedly sheeple like big numbers and like stuff that is popular (even if it's woth a completely different crowd).

 

[tindrli]

Uuuufffffffff. Thanx god to INDIE!!!!

 

[Excidium]

Supposedly sheeple like big numbers and like stuff that is popular (even if it's woth a completely different crowd).

Exactly!

 

[Spectacle]

Why pay money for a licence to make a game with complicated rules? By todays standards any idiot can come up with a "modern", "streamlined" RPG system.

Companies get the D&D license for the brand, not the rules.

Yea, but what i mean is - why? I cannot imagine some consoletard expecting a D&D logo on his interactive shooter. Maybe thats some psychological PR trick, like the interest in a sequel even if you dont know any of the originals.

That's something I've been wondering about for years. Smacking brands on stuff or making sequels to stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with the original brand or game and would have probably been better off just being its own IP (FO3, DS3, Daggerdale, NWN online stuff, the X-Com shooter, etc.).
So far, nobody has been able to offer a rationale that I could understand/follow. Supposedly sheeple like big numbers and like stuff that is popular (even if it's woth a completely different crowd).

I think it's about getting media attention. Slap an old and loved name on your generic shooter and the gaming press will feel obliged to report about it extensively. Combine that with gaming journalist's reluctance to write anything remotely critical in a preview, and you get lots of PR where your new target audience will see it.

 

[Kaanyrvhok]

Why pay money for a licence to make a game with complicated rules? By todays standards any idiot can come up with a "modern", "streamlined" RPG system.

Companies get the D&D license for the brand, not the rules.

Yea, but what i mean is - why? I cannot imagine some consoletard expecting a D&D logo on his interactive shooter. Maybe thats some psychological PR trick, like the interest in a sequel even if you dont know any of the originals.

Put a D&D log on this and you are selling in the mills even after Atari's abuse http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NzoZxeeZpU

Another thing you have to realize is shooters have stats so you can use the brand and the rules in a shooter.

 

[Kaanyrvhok]

Why pay money for a license to make a game with complicated rules? By todays standards any idiot can come up with a "modern", "streamlined" RPG system.

Companies get the D&D license for the brand, not the rules.

Yea, but what i mean is - why? I cannot imagine some consoletard expecting a D&D logo on his interactive shooter. Maybe thats some psychological PR trick, like the interest in a sequel even if you dont know any of the originals.

That's something I've been wondering about for years. Smacking brands on stuff or making sequels to stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with the original brand or game and would have probably been better off just being its own IP (FO3, DS3, Daggerdale, NWN online stuff, the X-Com shooter, etc.).
So far, nobody has been able to offer a rationale that I could understand/follow. Supposedly sheeple like big numbers and like stuff that is popular (even if it's woth a completely different crowd).

FO 3 obviously benefited from the FO. Daggerdale was horrible and was still a top seller for a number of weeks so again the brand seems to have helped. If you want to answer that question then you have to remove the assumption that they would have probably been better off without the brand accept that the brand matters.

Brands are associated with positive images. When people heard Fallout they thought of an old classic first, second they thought of setting. Most gamers and even RPG heads didn't play Fallout but they had heard of it. Even many that had played FO were ok with a FPS style take knowing that it would fulfill a current trend and would likely sell a lot.

 

[Surf Solar]

Why are so many people thinking that FO3 is the first in the series and the "3" is just there for the lulz?

FO3 benefited from the fact that they did Oblivion before and the Bethestards bought it like shit. That, plus the facts that it's another Beth game, but in relatively "modern" setting was the reason, imo.

 

[Xor]

I don't think anyone seriously thinks Fallout 3 was the first game in the series. I'd say most people just don't care.

 

[Stinger]

Yep, Oblivion with guns was the primary selling point for Fallout 3...that shit should've just been called "Capital Wasteland" with all Fallout references removed and it'd sell just as well I'd think.

 

[Spyronoid]

Yep, Oblivion with guns was the primary selling point for Fallout 3...that shit should've just been called "Capital Wasteland" with all Fallout references removed and it'd sell just as well I'd think.