Review Gamerz Edge praises ToEE

[Azael]

And we all know the reason for that: Atari

I'm not so sure, I doubt Atari twisted Tim Cain's arm and forced him to include four (or is it five?) cheesy marriage quest in Hommlet. Can't say that the dialogue in the removed brothel is very good (or was that written by the Co8 guys?) either. I can excuse the game for a lot of things, but most the dialogue pre-Temple was just plain awful

 

[Rosh]

The whole dialog in ToEE really reeks of someone having to go back through and cut parts of NPC speech out or edit them into a more non-offensive way. That could take a significant amount of time in development, DU and others here know generally how Troika's speech scripting is done (which isn't that bad at all), so imagine having to pick through that and have to do a rewrite, maybe on the fly. You can chat up the real owner of the bar in Nulb, but only to go for "walkies".

Another possibility is that they weren't deviating much from the original module but had to put in side quests and such, but many of the NPCs you can talk to are simple village folks and therefore unlikely to be exciting at all. It also would have been very hard to flesh out many NPCs without using a good deal of artistic license.

 

[Volourn]

Well.. About deviating from the original module.. the whole point of pnp modules is for the dm (in this case Troika) TO "deviate" (or change things) from the module. I don't mean totally rewrite the modules's main story; but write the dialogue for the various npcs and such as it is very much kept vague for that reason. The dm is supposed to tune it for the party in question, and use their strengths to enhance the module. I know when I dmed pnp modules in the pasts I certainly didn't follow it verbatim; and I'm sure most others would say the same.

 

[Gromnir]

"Gamerz Edge posted this ToEE's review awhile ago, but since it's very positive I felt obligated to share this unbiased opinion with you."

can only assume that this was meant as self deprecating sarcasm.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Voss]

There really wasn't much 'original dialogue' in Hommlet in the original module anyway.
A few tie ins (the evil traders, a couple other things), but that was pretty much it. Hell, most of the villagers didn't even have names.

I think the biggest problem with ToEE was the big one: time. As in
time = work = money.

If there is a sequel, I would also like to see something original and definitely not the GDQ series - Against the Giants, Drow and Queen of Spiders. Which I don't think would work well in a CRPG format, . Too big. Several cities, lots of travelling through mountains, then into the Underdark, and then up Lloth killing in her giant spider-space ship. Its even more vague and empty of than TOEE.
I'd rather see something that works off some of the major plot hooks in the temple (unlike Lareth randomly being a human Lloth worshipper) like the other major power involved in the temple Iuz. He's fun evil. Or at least as fun as evil gets in Greyhawk.

 

[Sol Invictus]

And we all know the reason for that: Atari

I'm not so sure, I doubt Atari twisted Tim Cain's arm and forced him to include four (or is it five?) cheesy marriage quest in Hommlet. Can't say that the dialogue in the removed brothel is very good (or was that written by the Co8 guys?) either. I can excuse the game for a lot of things, but most the dialogue pre-Temple was just plain awful

The dialogue in the brothel was not written by any of us though one of our members suggested we write graphic sex scenes involving whips and Mary's lamb. Needless to say, it was not taken lightly.

 

[Vault Dweller]

"Gamerz Edge posted this ToEE's review awhile ago, but since it's very positive I felt obligated to share this unbiased opinion with you."

can only assume that this was meant as self deprecating sarcasm.

HA! Good Fun!

I thought it was customary to say Hi, although obviously the introduction isn't necessary. Anyway, to answer your question, no, it wasn't sarcasm as I hardly see anything in the review that could be described as biased one way or another. If you disagree please provide examples.

 

[Transcendent One]

Well he did say that sound was nothing special compared to Final Fantasy :wink:

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Yeah - I think people forget that POR2 spent a couple of week's as the #1 PC game in the US before sales dropped away sharply, whereas TOEE peaked at #5 and IWD2 #7, if I remember correctly. Now I would say catagorically that both of the later games were way better than POR2, but maybe a lot of people got their fingers burned with POR2 and held back and read the reviews before committing on the later titles.

ToEE was #5 and then #4 on the Top Ten Sellers list. IWD2, I'm thinking it was in the low tens the first week, then it was in the Top 30s, then dropped off the Top 50 Sellers list by the third week.

I'd say IWD2's problems weren't PoR2, but rather NWN which only came out a few months before it. People were still playing NWN at the time, and IWD2 used a horribly out of date engine and didn't offer much to the casual eye that NWN didn't already have or could do. Hell, the only new feature that IWD2 could boast to lure in people was 3.0 rules, and NWN had that plus the DM multiplayer thing, editors, and growth. IWD2 couldn't really even offer nostalgia, because IPLY flooded the market with IE based games over the four years prior to IWD2. It was just too little, too late compared to NWN.

Does anyone know how TOEE went in terms of profit? It would be nice to see a sequel if only to see what a game built on a stbale version of the same engine would be like.

Atari's decided to nix most of their D&D titles in production lately, so that'd be doubtful. Tim Cain wasn't too happy with Hasbro's editting so late in the game development either.

 

[Spazmo]

That's right. Don't expect anymore D&D games from Troika and Atari. I suspect The Publisher Previously Known As Infogrames has joined Interplay on Tim Cain's list of publishers never to come near again.

 

[Voss]

What about Sierra? They on that list too?

 

[Psilon]

Here's hoping Activision doesn't screw them over.

 

[Volourn]

Always the victim...

 

[Gromnir]

the fact that you ain't joking makes more funny.

you felt "obligated" to post an "unbiased" review... and reason you give is 'cause the review was "positive."

nobody else see the humor?

*shrug*

you got a fun little board and we thanks shadowstrider for pointing it out to us. you do try to keep current with news and you seem pretty diligent in your efforts to inform, but you kids is a wacky bunch who seems to makes no attempt to maintain even the illusion of objectivity.

we read this board/site for same reason we read the Executive Intelligence Review... for the chuckle value.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Jinxed]

you felt "obligated" to post an "unbiased" review... and reason you give is 'cause the review was "positive."

What? When did he say 'cause the review was "positive."?

Ah, wait, you're Gromnir. You don't need to make any sense.

 

[Gromnir]

"Gamerz Edge posted this ToEE's review awhile ago, but since it's very positive I felt obligated to share this unbiased opinion with you."

says right there that he felt obligated to post 'cause it was positive. you gotta learns to read a little better son 'fore you spout off, else you end up looking a bit foolish... or more foolish.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Jinxed]

"Gamerz Edge posted this ToEE's review awhile ago, but since it's very positive I felt obligated to share this unbiased opinion with you."

says right there that he felt obligated to post 'cause it was positive. you gotta learns to read a little better son 'fore you spout off, else you end up looking a bit foolish... or more foolish.

HA! Good Fun!

All reviews are posted, whether good or bad. Believe it or not if it was 4/10 it would still get posted. But those usually get bashed. It's up to you to decide how this reflects on the site.

The codex has a nifty database and all news posts related to ToEE can be found under the "more info about" link. Check out some of the news on this site about the game. What Vault Dweller put in into his post was just the usual fill in the news item, nothing more.

 

[DemonKing]

I'd say IWD2's problems weren't PoR2, but rather NWN which only came out a few months before it. People were still playing NWN at the time, and IWD2 used a horribly out of date engine and didn't offer much to the casual eye that NWN didn't already have or could do. Hell, the only new feature that IWD2 could boast to lure in people was 3.0 rules, and NWN had that plus the DM multiplayer thing, editors, and growth. IWD2 couldn't really even offer nostalgia, because IPLY flooded the market with IE based games over the four years prior to IWD2. It was just too little, too late compared to NWN.

Yeah - you're right Proverbius - I seem to remember that IWD2 was originally supposed to come out in February 2002, but got pushed back and when it did emerge about 6 months later (I believe a lot of the delay was party of Vivendi's marketing "strategy")after NWN it was no longer competitive in terms of technology.

Atari's decided to nix most of their D&D titles in production lately, so that'd be doubtful. Tim Cain wasn't too happy with Hasbro's editting so late in the game development either.

Really - does that mean they might actually sell the D&D licence to someone that won't make an utter hash of it?

We can but dream.

 

[Sabotai]

"Gamerz Edge posted this ToEE's review awhile ago, but since it's very positive I felt obligated to share this unbiased opinion with you."

says right there that he felt obligated to post 'cause it was positive. you gotta learns to read a little better son 'fore you spout off, else you end up looking a bit foolish... or more foolish.

HA! Good Fun!

Isn't it blatantly obvious? You're obviously missing Vault Dweller's humorous self-mocking undertone.

 

[Deathy]

the fact that you ain't joking makes more funny.

you felt "obligated" to post an "unbiased" review... and reason you give is 'cause the review was "positive."

nobody else see the humor?

*shrug*

you got a fun little board and we thanks shadowstrider for pointing it out to us. you do try to keep current with news and you seem pretty diligent in your efforts to inform, but you kids is a wacky bunch who seems to makes no attempt to maintain even the illusion of objectivity.

we read this board/site for same reason we read the Executive Intelligence Review... for the chuckle value.

HA! Good Fun!

You do understand though, that the illusion of objectivity in gaming media is a thin veil at the very least. I can say that I'm proud to be involved in a site that doesn't just serve as free PR to game publishers. Unlike just about everywhere else in the gaming media, people here are not afraid to express their opinions.

However, when such opinion is replaced by overt trolling, with no semblance of a real point, aside from the mocking of the way that things are done here, it takes away from the relatively free interchange of opinion that is seen here.

These forums are pretty much unmoderated (aside from deleting spam), and that's the way we like it here. But when somebody comes in and spouts the shit that you did, people become irritated. So, unless you start having a real opinion, and contribute thoughtfully to these boards, I would like to see you stop posting.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Really - does that mean they might actually sell the D&D licence to someone that won't make an utter hash of it?

We can but dream.

No, because Infogrames owns Hasbro who own Wizards of the Coast, so they effectively have a lock on anything D&D. Scary, isn't it?

 

[Vault Dweller]

the fact that you ain't joking makes more funny.
you felt "obligated" to post an "unbiased" review... and reason you give is 'cause the review was "positive"
...
says right there that he felt obligated to post 'cause it was positive.

Had you bothered to check the news you'd have seen that we post all RPG related reviews, good and bad, written by people who played actual games, and written by people who copied press-release statements, etc. We don't filter the news, picking the ones that we like. You gave Jinxed the advice to learn to read, here is one for you: don't make judgements based on assumptions, "else you end up looking a bit foolish... or more foolish." :wink:

but you kids is a wacky bunch who seems to makes no attempt to maintain even the illusion of objectivity.

And you arrived to this conclusion because...?

 

[Ausir]

No, because Infogrames owns Hasbro who own Wizards of the Coast, so they effectively have a lock on anything D&D. Scary, isn't it?

Not quite. They only bought Hasbro Interactive from Hasbro - the computer game division of the company, and the D&D license with it.

 

[DemonKing]

No, because Infogrames owns Hasbro who own Wizards of the Coast, so they effectively have a lock on anything D&D. Scary, isn't it?

When did Infogames/Atari acquire Hasbro? I always thought it was Hasbro that sold the full D&D computer game rights to Infogames. Seeing as Hasbro owns a lot of the mainstream "classic" boardgame and toy licences plus some lucrative CCG licences, I would have thought would be a pretty expensive acquisition for a predominantly computer game publishing firm to make.

I guess we can now blame Adkinson for taking the money and running then. He saved D&D only to chuck it all away again. *sigh*.

 

[Anonymous]

Yeah. 'Cause TOEE is the *only* game to ever have word count limits.

NWN's moment was when I uninstalled it.