Editorial GameSpy on Troika and publishers

[Otaku_Hanzo]

I understand that I may be an idiot, but you should realize that not everyone is quite as bright as you.

Yeah. Most of them are brighter.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

I understand that I may be an idiot, but you should realize that not everyone is quite as bright as you.

Yeah. Most of them are brighter.

 

[Shagnak]

Whats with the double psotiong?

Ive seen it befoer, and I thoguht Id lower my guard (due to imbibing copious amounts of shit) and just ask: Whats with the double psotiong?

I'd bother to edit my spekkuing if i thought i was sober enuff

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Here's the catch. People who cant afford to download 3 gigabyte games probably dont have the computers capable of running them in the first place, so they are NOT an issue. You might like the idea of dumbing a game down to 20mb for your game, VD, but most people who want to play your game can probably download a couple hundred megs without breaking a sweat. I don't know why you want to cater to the people with 200mhz computers when they dont even come to the Codex.

I have a cable modem, and I'm not that interested in downloading 3GB worth of game when I can get it in twenty minutes by driving to one of the many retailers here.

 

[Hajo]

The difference in monetary value is 20 dollars, but what you get is a performance increase that can range from 1000% (56k -> 512kb ) to 5000% (2.5mbit)

20 dollars = 5 hot meals

It can make a difference, Ex!

But at some point my modem connection was unbearable, and after many months of saving money, I now switched to a broadband connection, too. One year contract so far.

 

[Kthan75]

Troika did fuck up. They made a game nobody wanted to play. It has little to do with the quality of game, per se, though that did contribute quite a bit to the game's lack of appeal. It's just that I don't know anyone who's particularly interested in playing a dumbed down FPS/Action game cum RPG-lite in an idiotic gothic vampire setting.

I enjoyed the game, dispite it was flawed. I agree that It wasn't what I wanted them to make, but I played the game and it was a nice experience (with some exceptions, of course). I would play Vampire 2 if Troika still existed and decided to make another one.

 

[Vault Dweller]

ToEE was a fuck up for Troika - I'm not going to make stupid statements like it was 100% Troika's fault- but it was a fuck up for Troika.

Nobody argued about that, and if that was your point then I agree. However, keep in mind that ToEE was never supposed to be anything more than an IWD-style combat game. Also, ToEE did reasonably well, according to Troika it was their best selling game, so that's not what killed them.

The fact that you've made so many posts consisting of "Troika's only mistake was not making dumbed down console games" makes you a fanboy.

Well, Troika was a niche developer. Did anyone really expect them to make a blockbuster game? Even Fallout didn't do very well comparing to BG, Diablo, and KOTOR.

If publishers are only interested in dumbed down mainstream titles, how did ToEE get funded in the first place?

They fund it to make it a quick hack-n-slash combat heavy game, inspired by Bio DnD success. Unfortunately, most people had way too many problems with turn-based rules, and preferred the RT Bio bastardization. Most reviews stated that the game was too difficult, that it was NOT for casual players, that it's like a puzzle, and that it's only for hardcore players and rocket scientist. That killed the game much faster than the bugs.

Sure Troika was on a short schedule and budget, but that doesn't mean Troika didn't mis-manage their time.

Meaning what? That they could have made a BG out of it? Sure, there was some mismanagement, and Troika admitted that. There could have been less bugs (although Atari did screw up with the builds), better voices, and better story. The question is: would that have ensured better reception and sales? I doubt that.

Not many. So I'd say the solution is to take a critical look at Troika's mistakes so the next startup will do better. Your solution is that since Troika failed, it's impossible to make hig production RPGs.

It's not a solution, it's a fact. It was said many, MANY times that publishers won't fund a game that doesn't have a console twin, and you know what console means - dumbed down gameplay. Or if it's an action game. Good RPGs never made a lot of money. That's why they call it a niche genre these days. Hence, the publishers' reaction and position on that.

I'm pretty sure Troilka's admitted that they had management issues. By definition, a rushed byt well managed software products would be missing features, but the existing features would be solid. ToEE was obviously poorly managed.

What definition is that? Anyway, ToEE was one of the best TB dungeon crawlers in years. Yeah, sure, they put a lot of feats and way more spells then was planned originally. There were some bugs, but you know, I'd rather have a game with 200 spells that have some issues but support tactical gameplay and dfferent builds, then KOTOR, which was also very buggy, but had 3 attacks and a handful of feats and powers.

We realize that publishers are corporate ass holes, and we realize Troika made mistakes as well. You don't have to be correct to participate, but you do have to open you mind a little.

Yeah, sure Troika's made many mistakes. Never claimed otherwise. BUT, and that's a big but, none of the mistakes was big enough to put them out of business. Their choice of games plus publishers' fuck ups put them out of business, but you know, I'm glad they gave it a shot and gave us some decent games to play.

You're wrong because you aren't able to look at Troika critically.

That's your opinion, not a fact.

It's not about being right, it's about thinking about the situation and discussing your findings with others.

I have. Many times. Was called a fanboy every time, despite my arguments and my BL review.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Nobody argued about that, and if that was your point then I agree. However, keep in mind that ToEE was never supposed to be anything more than an IWD-style combat game. Also, ToEE did reasonably well, according to Troika it was their best selling game, so that's not what killed them.

The feedback they received from the abundance of 'bugs' in ToEE certainly damaged their reputation as a quality developer, so it would be ignorant to think that it didn't contribute in some way to the company's eventual demise.

Well, Troika was a niche developer. Did anyone really expect them to make a blockbuster game? Even Fallout didn't do very well comparing to BG, Diablo, and KOTOR.

We've gone over this many times, VD. Saint's gone over it with every newbie who said Fallout was a poor seller. Realize that Fallout was released in 1997, and it was a block buster at that time. You must remember that development costs back then were only a quarter of what they are now, so the amount of copies they sold back in 1997, not including the copies they sold over time, made the game an enormous success. After all, Fallout 2, Fallout Tactics and FOBOS would have never been made if Fallout was not a success.

They fund it to make it a quick hack-n-slash combat heavy game, inspired by Bio DnD success. Unfortunately, most people had way too many problems with turn-based rules, and preferred the RT Bio bastardization. Most reviews stated that the game was too difficult, that it was NOT for casual players, that it's like a puzzle, and that it's only for hardcore players and rocket scientist. That killed the game much faster than the bugs.

Bullshit. That's not what killed the game. You say that as if you have actual facts to back it up, which you don't.

It's very convenient to blame the customers and say the lack of interest in turn-based combat due to its supposed 'complexity' was the reason the game failed. I don't think so. Final Fantasy is a turn based game and it certainly successful. Heroes of Might and Magic was New World Computing's most successful game before they decided to branch out and release slipshod action spinoffs, draining the company of all its resources instead of focusing on the games that make them the most money.

Most reviews stated that the game's TB combat was its only redeeming feature, marred by a lack of storyline, short and relatively dull campaign and an abundance of bugs.

Sure Troika was on a short schedule and budget, but that doesn't mean Troika didn't mis-manage their time.

Meaning what? That they could have made a BG out of it? Sure, there was some mismanagement, and Troika admitted that. There could have been less bugs (although Atari did screw up with the builds), better voices, and better story. The question is: would that have ensured better reception and sales? I doubt that.

If they didn't mismanage their time (they got an extention from Atari, after all), they would have likely been on better terms with Atari after the game was released. A lot of people bought TOEE expecting a Baldur's Gate, seeing Troika's past reputation with making in-depth RPGs like Arcanum. What they got was a dumbed down dungeon crawler with 6-7 hours of gameplay. It was hardly worth anyone's 49.95.

Not many. So I'd say the solution is to take a critical look at Troika's mistakes so the next startup will do better. Your solution is that since Troika failed, it's impossible to make hig production RPGs.

Good RPGs never made a lot of money.

Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 proves you wrong. You can debate all you want about the 'shittiness' of BG or even try to argue pointlessly about how it ISN'T an RPG , because that's what some people at the Codex do, but that is completely besides the point.

What definition is that? Anyway, ToEE was one of the best TB dungeon crawlers in years.

So? Nobody wanted Troika to make a dungeon crawler, much less a turn-based dungeon crawler with no storyline and 6-7 hours of gameplay, complete with bugs and no safe areas in the Temple itself. It's really enjoyable, having to walk back to Hommlet or Nub, just to refresh your spells. That, and many other ill-conceived features (e.g. Identify doesn't even give you item descriptions) turned people off the game.

Yeah, sure, they put a lot of feats and way more spells then was planned originally.

That's called feature creep. Feature creep kills schedules.

There were some bugs, but you know, I'd rather have a game with 200 spells that have some issues but support tactical gameplay and dfferent builds,

To steal a line from Patrick: O RILLY?! Claiming that there were 'some bugs' is a fucking understatement. Never mind that playing a bard song while changing areas caused the game to CTD, but hey, that bug doesn't exist so long as you don't have a bard in your party so why even bring it up, right? I remember when all of my characters had their movement permanently slowed down to a crawl because some buggy spell (I think it was Earth-to-Mud) wouldn't wear off. Hey, it's no big deal, in the future don't cast that spell, n00b.

I really don't know what you refer to by 'tactical', but I assume you aren't referring to having a group of enemy mages cast Bull's Strength and Endurance on all my characters because their AI's too poor to do anything else. Face it, there weren't that many enemies and killing a monster with a magic missile is no different than killing him with a sword. I'd hardly call that 'tactical gameplay' or 'support for different builds'.

then KOTOR, which was also very buggy, but had 3 attacks and a handful of feats and powers.

No one denies that KOTOR was buggy but its problems were minor and afflicted only a handful of users, and even so those bugs were fixed within less than a couple of weeks, unlike TOEE, which still manages to CTD on a variety of hardware configurations. I'd rather play KOTOR with its silly storyline, area variety, character interaction and cinematics over a hackneyed dungeon crawler with little lasting appeal. They could have at least added some mod tools or made the game tile-based. That would have been fun at the very least, allowing players to configure their own dungeons and all. Isn't that the heart of Dungeons & Dragons?

It makes me laugh when I hear people talk about what a 'great adaptation of D&D' TOEE was. Where's the DM, then? Sure, it was a great adaptation of D20 rules, but it was a horrible adaptation of D&D. Big difference.

Yeah, sure Troika's made many mistakes. Never claimed otherwise. BUT, and that's a big but, none of the mistakes was big enough to put them out of business. Their choice of games plus publishers' fuck ups put them out of business, but you know, I'm glad they gave it a shot and gave us some decent games to play.

Their choice of games was their mistake; nobody else's. So who's mistake was it?

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

Whats with the double psotiong?

Well, I have no idea what psotiong is, but I can say that the reason for the double posting is unknown. That's twice it's happened to me today and I never hit submit more than once on either occassion.

 

[Volourn]

Anyone who thinks TOEE failed because of TB combat is simply drunk. Period. Like Exitium stated, the reviews pretty much said that was the best part of the game. And, from what I saw everuwhere, most people who played the game agreed. It was the lack of story, lack of decent characters and role-playing along with the bugs that scared people away; not the TB combat.

I also never said that publishers ar eeprfect. They arne't. They make their share of mistakes; but they aren't responisble for Troika's success; Troika is... unless you feel developers should be treated with kid gloves.


"Well, Troika was a niche developer. Did anyone really expect them to make a blockbuster game?"

Bullshit. If Troikawas really a niche dveloper then why were they developing such hyped up games like TOEE, and Vampire? If they wre a niche devloper why were they such graphic whores in their games?

R00fles!

 

[Vault Dweller]

Anyone who thinks TOEE failed because of TB combat is simply drunk. Period. Like Exitium stated, the reviews pretty much said that was the best part of the game.

Yes. For rocket scientists.

And, from what I saw everuwhere, most people who played the game agreed.

Most people? How many is that? 10? 50? 200? It's nothing comparing to target sales numbers.

It was the lack of story, lack of decent characters and role-playing along with the bugs that scared people away; not the TB combat.

Lack of decent characters? You mean they didn't have a memorable nut who carried a rodent in his ass? As for the role-playing comment - lol. Most people are confused when presented with choices and that explains why Bio games are doing so well.

I also never said that publishers ar eeprfect. They arne't. They make their share of mistakes; but they aren't responisble for Troika's success; Troika is... unless you feel developers should be treated with kid gloves.

Let's play the IF game. What would have happened if Sierra didn't sit on Arcanum for months, if Atari didn't fuck up with the build, and if Activision didn't release the game on the same day as HL2? Hmm, I wonder....

Bullshit. If Troikawas really a niche dveloper then why were they developing such hyped up games like TOEE, and Vampire? If they wre a niche devloper why were they such graphic whores in their games?

ToEE was a niche game on account of TB. Simple as that. Vampire was a step toward the mainstream and that's where I've lost my interest in Troika.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Lack of decent characters? You mean they didn't have a memorable nut who carried a rodent in his ass? As for the role-playing comment - lol. Most people are confused when presented with choices and that explains why Bio games are doing so well.

All the characters in TOEE were fucking crap. They had awful voiceovers and even worse dialogue. Where were the role-playing options in TOEE, really? Bioware and Obsidian games have more roleplaying options than TOEE, don't delude yourself by thinking otherwise.

if Activision didn't release the game on the same day as HL2? Hmm, I wonder....

It still wouldn't have sold. It still would have been a buggy heap, as the gold master was sitting on a shelf for 2 months, after all. It still nobody would have wanted to play it anyhow because nobody wanted a half-assed FPS/RPG-lite in a vampire setting anyhow.

 

[Volourn]

"Yes. For rocket scientists."

LOL That explains why a retard like me found the combat easy.


"Most people? How many is that? 10? 50? 200? It's nothing comparing to target sales numbers."

And? How do you know the 'masses' would disagree? Heck, just do a little search on the BIO baords. Most BIO fanboys agree - the TB combat was fun; the rst of the game was not. You know, if the idiots who enjoy NWN can like TOEE's combat that illustrates that it was NOT the TB combat that made TOEE fail. And, don't tell me I have no proof; because neither do you.


"Lack of decent characters? You mean they didn't have a memorable nut who carried a rodent in his ass?"

A. I'm not the biggest Minsc fan; but yes; at least he was memorable. I cna't remember ANY of the TOEE npcs name. None. Zilch. Zero. Nadda. They have perosnality to speak off.


"As for the role-playing comment - lol. Most people are confused when presented with choices and that explains why Bio games are doing so well."

Yeah, because BIO games have lots of choices and options. Nice try with the attemtp to get away with another lie.


"Let's play the IF game. What would have happened if Sierra didn't sit on Arcanum for months, if Atari didn't fuck up with the build, and if Activision didn't release the game on the same day as HL2? Hmm, I wonder...."

Sure. I'll play this stupid game sicne I don't have to pay for it.

A. Arcanum would have still been a mix of sloppy Rt and Tb combat, and a convuted character system. That's not my opinion; but that seems to be the opinion of those who played the game including the Codexers. nice try; though.

B. TOEE still would have been lacking story, role-playing, and good characters.

C. Bloodlines would still have been buggy, and retarded combat.


"ToEE was a niche game on account of TB. Simple as that."

Bullshit. If thatw ere true, FF would have be a 'niche' series. You lose. TOEE is not a niche prodocut - no more niche than any other D&D game that's for sure. Stop the bullshit, and come live in the real world.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

Yeah, because BIO games have lots of choices and options.

 

[Volourn]

Yes.

 

[Vault Dweller]

The feedback they received from the abundance of 'bugs' in ToEE certainly damaged their reputation as a quality developer, so it would be ignorant to think that it didn't contribute in some way to the company's eventual demise.

I don't think anyone cares about quality these days. Bio made many buggy games. Obsidian didn't impress anyone with their QA, yet somehow I don't doubt that will get KOTOR 3 contract and Atari won't pull the NWN2 dealio.

We've gone over this many times, VD. Saint's gone over it with every newbie who said Fallout was a poor seller. Realize that Fallout was released in 1997, and it was a block buster at that time. You must remember that development costs back then were only a quarter of what they are now, so the amount of copies they sold back in 1997, not including the copies they sold over time, made the game an enormous success. After all, Fallout 2, Fallout Tactics and FOBOS would have never been made if Fallout was not a success.

Enormous success? BG and Diablo were "enormously successful" games. Fallout wasn't. It didn't suck, but it was never a blockbuster, and that explains why FO3 was always delayed and cancelled in favor of pretty much anything else.

Most reviews stated that the game was too difficult, that it was NOT for casual players, that it's like a puzzle, and that it's only for hardcore players and rocket scientist. That killed the game much faster than the bugs.

Bullshit. That's not what killed the game. You say that as if you have actual facts to back it up, which you don't.

Well, I don't have a big shiny fact that says "TB pseudo-complexity killed the game", but I have bunch of little facts that pretty much say the same thing. Let's see:

GameSpot: http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/greyhawk ... iew-2.html
"And, in general, the game assumes too much familiarity with the Dungeons & Dragons source material. When choosing new feats, skills, or spells for a character, you'll find yourself scrolling through long, purely text-based lists of the available options.

As a result, if you don't already know enough about post-3rd Edition D&D to know that "cleave" is an extremely useful feat for a fighter, or that any wizard worth his salt should learn "fireball" at his or her earliest opportunity, then The Temple of Elemental Evil will be very difficult or even bewildering as you slog through the character-building process.

An interactive tutorial, a comprehensive manual, and a text-driven in-game help system should collectively provide someone with all the information they need to play and enjoy the game, but The Temple of Elemental Evil is certainly skewed toward those who already know their way around a Dungeons & Dragons game"

GameSpy: http://archive.gamespy.com/reviews/sept ... dex2.shtml
"Of course, every silver lining has a stinking cloud. Gamers who are unfamiliar with D&D (version 3.5 or otherwise) are going to get lost in the litany of rules. I'm not just talking about knowing the difference between a cleric and a sorcerer. I'm talking about knowing what the heck to make of terms like "ready vs. approach," "improved initiative," "flat-footed," or "+1 on attack rolls." The complexity is great if that's what you want, but newcomers are going to be lost without reading at least parts of the voluminous manual or the ubiquitous in-game help screens.[/quote]

ActionTrip: http://www.actiontrip.com/reviews/thete ... evil.phtml
"The sheer complexity of the game clearly guarantees some serious RPG fun. But, the problem is that there's a great deal of gamers out there that never bothered to research the intricate 3.5 AD&D rules. The fact is that during the game, newcomers will surely find themselves tangled up in a sea of RPG details. Such players might have a hard time deciding what feats and skills should be improved

All of its shortcomings aside, it's safe to say that the hardcore D&D pen-and-paper crowd will find what they want in Troika's latest CRPG achievement. Certain inconvenient moments in the gameplay might draw back average gamers."

GamesDomain:
"Recent computer RPGs like the Baldur's Gate series and Neverwinter Nights, while strongly based on the traditional pen-and-paper Dungeons and Dragons rules, all made quite a number of alterations to the core rules. They had their reasons, too, as a complete interpretation would probably put off a lot of casual players. Undaunted by these concerns, Troika has made the brave move of bringing the newly published 3.5 edition D&D rules to the PC without adulteration."

Netjack:
"Even if all these problems are fixed, the game will remain inaccessible to a wide audience of players. The designers tried to follow the 3.5 rules as closely as possible, which resulted into one of the steepest learning curves in the history of computer role-playing games. The manual, while giving you an enormous amount of information, is still not sufficient to cover all aspects of the game, and those who are not familiar with the 3.5 rules will struggle with such things as telling what some special items do, how various feats work when combined, and how important certain statistics are to various character classes. Being familiar with the second edition rules, which I use up to this day when playing pen-and-paper RPGs, I still needed to visit the official forums to learn how to use the various character attributes to my advantage. A person who grew up without playing the pen-and-paper version may find it very hard and frustrating to beat the game, even in its patched form.

Anyway, it's fun to look at the old review, but do I need to continue?

It's very convenient to blame the customers and say the lack of interest in turn-based combat due to its supposed 'complexity' was the reason the game failed.

See above.

Most reviews stated that the game's TB combat was its only redeeming feature, marred by a lack of storyline, short and relatively dull campaign and an abundance of bugs.

See above

A lot of people bought TOEE expecting a Baldur's Gate, seeing Troika's past reputation with making in-depth RPGs like Arcanum. What they got was a dumbed down dungeon crawler with 6-7 hours of gameplay. It was hardly worth anyone's 49.95.

6-7 hours, huh? I heard one guy beat Fallout (or was it FO2) in like 15 minutes. What a crappy game that was! As for some people expectations, there was this funny WoW review where the guy was pissed off that it's not an RTS. Go figure.

Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 proves you wrong. You can debate all you want about the 'shittiness' of BG or even try to argue pointlessly about how it ISN'T an RPG , because that's what some people at the Codex do, but that is completely besides the point.

I said GOOD rpgs. Ok, let me specify, HARDCORE rpg, to avoid a long debate about BG role-playing qualities.

So? Nobody wanted Troika to make a dungeon crawler...

I doubt that Troika was crazy about it either, but that's what was on the table. In the end, it wasn't a bad game. Now, in regard to your compaints, 6-7 hours gameplay is untrue, unless you rush to beat it; there is no need to walk back to towns to refresh your spells, you can rest everywhere (true, there are no safe areas in the temple, as it should be, but you can still rest there); identify could have been handled better though for the mass market.

That's called feature creep. Feature creep kills schedules.

But often make better games. In the tactics department, ToEE is the best TB game ever, due to those extra feats and spells. KOTOR, on the other hand, has the most boring combat ever. Take your pick.

To steal a line from Patrick: O RILLY?! Claiming that there were 'some bugs' is a fucking understatement.

What was I supposed to say? That everything was fucked and absolutely unplayable? That every character, every build, every spell was bugged?

Face it, there weren't that many enemies and killing a monster with a magic missile is no different than killing him with a sword. I'd hardly call that 'tactical gameplay' or 'support for different builds'.

Try playing the game with all rogue party (you can multiclass though, but rogue should be the highest class, i.e. no rogue 1, fighter 9 scenarious), and you would understand. Tons of supporting spells, feats, and abilities that you wouldn't even use with other builds.

I'd rather play KOTOR with its silly storyline, area variety, character interaction and cinematics over a hackneyed dungeon crawler with little lasting appeal.

I respect your choice

That would have been fun at the very least, allowing players to configure their own dungeons and all. Isn't that the heart of Dungeons & Dragons?

Not really

Their choice of games was their mistake; nobody else's. So who's mistake was it?

I'd hardly call that a mistake.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Yeah, because BIO games have lots of choices and options. Nice try with the attemtp to get away with another lie.

The choice of colors doesn't count. Nice try though.
From the GDC 2005 thread: They (Bio) also don't like adding morally ambiguous decisions because they don't want the player to make a "bad" choice and be confused.

Sure. I'll play this stupid game sicne I don't have to pay for it.

I meant sales-wise, not what kinda games they would have been - obviously the same. Duh!

A. Arcanum would have still been a mix of sloppy Rt and Tb combat, and a convuted character system. That's not my opinion; but that seems to be the opinion of those who played the game including the Codexers. nice try; though.

If Arcanum managed to sell at least 234k for 8.8 mil AFTER it had been warezed for 6 months, then it's safe to assume that it could have done MUCH better and attracted more attention to hardcore RPGs.

Bullshit. If thatw ere true, FF would have be a 'niche' series.

You are funny.

 

[Volourn]

"From the GDC 2005 thread: They (Bio) also don't like adding morally ambiguous decisions because they don't want the player to make a "bad" choice and be confused."

Yo, idiot. Not preferring to have morally ambiguous choices is NOT the same of having no choices. What a moron. Are you retarded or just stupid?


"then it's safe to assume that it could have done MUCH better and attracted more attention to hardcore RPGs."

No, afterall, most warez THIEVES always make the exuse that they only warez games they wouldn't buy to begin with. LOLOLOLOLOLLIPOP


"You are funny."

Maybe. However, the facts remain. You state that TOEE was uato niche becaus eit was tb. FF proves that is bullshit. On top of that, TOEE is a D&D game. That's as far as a niche game as you can get. TOEE is as niche as POR2, NWN, or BG was so stop the bullshit.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Yo, idiot. What a moron. Are you retarded or just stupid?

What a wonderfully witty response! You sure showed me.

Not preferring to have morally ambiguous choices is NOT the same of having no choices

In your own words, yo, idiot, what part of "the choice of colors doesn't count" did you miss? If I have to explain, that means every other cosmetic and pointless choice you may find in Bio games.

No, afterall, most warez THIEVES always make the exuse that they only warez games they wouldn't buy to begin with. LOLOLOLOLOLLIPOP

First, no, second, did someone tell you that this LOLOLOLOLOLLIPOP thing is retarded?

Maybe. However, the facts remain. You state that TOEE was uato niche becaus eit was tb. FF proves that is bullshit.

FF proves nothing other than your stupidity. Use your brains, whatever's left of them.

On top of that, TOEE is a D&D game. That's as far as a niche game as you can get. TOEE is as niche as POR2, NWN, or BG was so stop the bullshit.

Wow. You really are stupid, aren't you? True DnD has always been a niche thing. For proofs see those reviews I posted above. Bio games has nothing to do with DnD other then some common themes, monsters, and spells.

 

[Volourn]

"If I have to explain, that means every other cosmetic and pointless choice you may find in Bio games."

The more you lie; the more you lie.


"First, no, second, did someone tell you that this LOLOLOLOLOLLIPOP thing is retarded?"

LOLOLOLOLOLLIPOP


"FF proves nothing other than your stupidity. Use your brains, whatever's left of them."

FF is TB. FF can't really be considered a niche series. This proves that TOEE being TB does not make it niche. Period.


"Wow. You really are stupid, aren't you? True DnD has always been a niche thing. For proofs see those reviews I posted above. Bio games has nothing to do with DnD other then some common themes, monsters, and spells."

The more you lie, the more you lie.

 

[Sol Invictus]

I don't think anyone cares about quality these days. Bio made many buggy games. Obsidian didn't impress anyone with their QA, yet somehow I don't doubt that will get KOTOR 3 contract and Atari won't pull the NWN2 dealio.

Oh, they care. KOTOR2's bugs didn't bug me the way Bloodlines and TOEE's bugs did, and I would assume that the bugs in KOTOR2 weren't as big an issue as you make them out to be to a lot of other people who enjoyed the game as I did, either. It's ridiculous to compare the bugs in KOTOR2 to that of Troika's games and claim that they are at the same degree of seriousness.

Enormous success? BG and Diablo were "enormously successful" games. Fallout wasn't. It didn't suck, but it was never a blockbuster, and that explains why FO3 was always delayed and cancelled in favor of pretty much anything else.

Wrong. Fallout was a big success and it spawned a multitude of games including a sequel. It wouldn't have if not for its popularity (Fallout and its sequel are often regarded by most gaming magazines as two of the best games ever made) and initial success. Fallout 3 was always delayed and cancelled because Herve Caen is a fucking moron, or did we fail to establish that fact years ago, VD? Bethesda wouldn't have bought the Fallout license if they didn't see any profit in it, or are you just now deciding to go against your previous insinuations that Bethesda was only in it for the profit? So which is it? Did Bethesda buy the Fallout license because they are 'fans' or is it because they see a huge amount of profit to be made? Make up your mind.

Well, I don't have a big shiny fact that says "TB pseudo-complexity killed the game", but I have bunch of little facts that pretty much say the same thing. Let's see:

GameSpot:

I'm afraid you're wrong in this case - GameSpot said absolutely nothing about the game's turn-based combat. The paragraphs you quoted highlighted the game's confusing character creation module and not the combat. You are employing a straw man argument, VD. Perhaps you will have more luck with the next few quoted websites:

GameSpy:

Again, their complaints had little to do with the turn-based combat (You'll notice that GameSpy drooled over Silent Storm in their review of the game). GameSpy's concerns were about the inherently draconian terms like Improved Initiative, Flat-Footed, or Ready vs. Approach and they didn't say anything along the lines of, "Oh my god, turn based combat is so slow and confusing! I can't figure out how to move my characters!" A good tutorial or a manual would have definitely helped with these rules.

ActionTrip:

Once again, no mention of the turn-based combat, only the character creation.

GamesDomain:

Where does it say anything about the turn-based combat being bad? It's not in here, VD.

Netjack:
and those who are not familiar with the 3.5 rules will struggle with such things as telling what some special items do, how various feats work when combined, and how important certain statistics are to various character classes.

I readily concur with this. Identify was completely useless, and yet, the developers insisted it was 'working as intended'. The game had a skinny manual and the in-game help wasn't of much use, either. But again, there's no mention of the turn-based combat being bad or a turn-off.

Being familiar with the second edition rules, which I use up to this day when playing pen-and-paper RPGs, I still needed to visit the official forums to learn how to use the various character attributes to my advantage. A person who grew up without playing the pen-and-paper version may find it very hard and frustrating to beat the game, even in its patched form.

Character creation. Not turn-based combat. Where's your argument, Vault Dweller?

See above. x3

Straw. Man. Arguments. I thought we were talking about the complexity of the turn-based combat and not of the character creation? You're pretty fucking obnoxious for ignoring the fact that all of the reviews you quoted had bad things to say about the game's storyline, characters, horrible AI and the abundance of bugs. They liked the graphics, and on top of that they also had a lot of praise for the game's combat. Let's take a look, shall we? Good points are highlighted in red.

At any rate, the game clearly tries to stick as close to the book as possible, and purists will certainly appreciate this. The turn-based combat system faithfully incorporates most all the facets of pen-and-paper D&D. Not only that, but this is an interesting and complex game system in its own right, seemingly conceived with computer role-playing in mind. For example, each character moves in order of his or her initiative rating, and faster characters like monks and barbarians can move further in a round than others. Characters whose hit points are depleted in battle do not necessarily die outright (depending on how hard they were hit) but may find themselves at death's door--only if their wounds are tended to by an ally or if the battle is swiftly resolved will they be saved. Also, larger characters such as ogres, or characters with longer weapons such as spears, gain an attack of opportunity against incoming foes with smaller arms, discouraging their enemies from charging headlong into them. Characters may also use some unique tactical options, such as attempting to trip their foes, or trading their ability to move in one round for an additional attack. In all, these are just a few of the many complexities of the turn-based combat system of this game, which has plenty of strategic depth, making the relatively slow-paced combat anything but boring.

These players will most quickly notice the bugs in the game, but they are also the least likely to be overly disappointed by them. The bugs here generally aren't showstoppers, and they simply mean that certain skills, spells, or items won't work as you'd probably expect them to. But some--such as how monsters encountered while resting may spawn inside solid walls--are pretty annoying. In addition, the game has some AI problems. Pathfinding issues occasionally cause your party to become split up, especially in the temple's tight corridors, which can be really bad if just a couple of your characters blunder into an encounter. Also, some enemies will occasionally ignore your party members as you walk right into their midst, killing off some of their companions. And, in general, the game just seems rough around the edges, mostly on account of the unwieldy interface, and in some other details such as how spells and arrows seem to fly forth from characters' heads rather than their hands. Most all these issues could be resolved by a patch or two, but their presence in the retail version still means most players' experiences with The Temple of Elemental Evil will hit a few snags.

Too bad about that, because The Temple of Elemental Evil otherwise looks really great.

The result is a hack-and-slash game that's made entertaining by its complex combat system and great graphics and that suitably rewards your efforts as you survive numerous, difficult encounters to find your characters becoming much stronger. It's too bad that the game is rather rough around the edges, as ]issues with the interface and gameplay can occasionally undermine the fun.

Thus, it's fortunate that while imperfect, the dungeon crawling part of the game is fairly well done. You get to hack, stab, and blast your way through the temple in search of whatever it is you're looking for, fighting dozens of different creatures along the way. The turn-based combat, it turns out, is one of the main reasons why you should be interested in ToEE.

Unfortunately, there are a few blemishes on the gameplay despite its accomplishments. While enemies are often crafty in their use of battle tactics, I frequently encountered artificial intelligence that was just plain broken. Enemies would remain passive while I chopped up their comrades just a few feet away, not reacting until I turned my blade or spellbook on them. Other creatures would just run around the battlefield spastically.

ToEE's other major shortcoming is that its storytelling is somewhat lacking. You're given a different barebones plot at the beginning depending on your alignment, but from there on out it's just pretty much dungeon crawling. You occasionally talk with creatures you encounter in the temple, but it's rare and the story seems to progress pretty much the same way no matter what you do. ToEE has smatterings of the elements that go into good storytelling --- conversations with non-player characters, some backstory, the occasional mystery, side quests -- but it just fails to stitch all these scraps together into a richer tapestry. It's not as minimal as Diablo or Dungeon Siege, but it's definitely short of other RPGs like Baldur's Gate or Morrowind.

I'm happy to say that ToEE excels in graphics and sound. The environments are marvelously detailed, their inhabitants are cunningly animated, and spell effects are colorful and dazzling. Changes to your characters' equipment are also reflected onscreen. If you equip a red cloak in the inventory screen, your character model shows it.

PROS: Incredible complexity; satisfying, strategic combat; lots of nostalgia.
CONS: Sketchy interface; shallow storytelling; no multiplayer.

I'd point out more of the same from all the other reviews you posted, but that would take up too much space and you have no doubt read them (and ignored them).

6-7 hours, huh? I heard one guy beat Fallout (or was it FO2) in like 15 minutes. What a crappy game that was! As for some people expectations, there was this funny WoW review where the guy was pissed off that it's not an RTS. Go figure.

What the hell does that have to do with this argument?

I said GOOD rpgs. Ok, let me specify, HARDCORE rpg, to avoid a long debate about BG role-playing qualities.

Nice try, but TOEE wasn't even a fourth of the RPG Baldur's Gate was. Calling it a hardcore RPG is ridiculous.

So? Nobody wanted Troika to make a dungeon crawler...

I doubt that Troika was crazy about it either, but that's what was on the table. In the end, it wasn't a bad game. Now, in regard to your compaints, 6-7 hours gameplay is untrue, unless you rush to beat it; there is no need to walk back to towns to refresh your spells, you can rest everywhere (true, there are no safe areas in the temple, as it should be, but you can still rest there); identify could have been handled better though for the mass market.[/quote]
6-7 hours of gameplay is true. I managed to end the game INADVERTANTLY (e.g. I had no intention of ending it) just by finding the Golden Orb and venturing down into the throne room in my first play through. The boss was a complete pushover.

Troika screwed the pooch on 'identify'. I had to download the free SRD just to figure out what most of the items in the game did, as I'm sure a lot of other people did. It was even linked on the Atari TOEE forums because everybody kept asking what so and so item did. In retrospect do you think it was fair to Troika and Atari's customers be forced through that kind of bullshit?

But often make better games. In the tactics department, ToEE is the best TB game ever, due to those extra feats and spells. KOTOR, on the other hand, has the most boring combat ever. Take your pick.

Let's see. TOEE's excellent combat + inane storyline + dull characters + horrible VO + limited areas VERSUS KOTOR's boring combat + good storyline + interesting characters + excellent VO + lots of areas + 30 hours of gameplay. Hmmmmmmm. That's a tough one!

What was I supposed to say? That everything was fucked and absolutely unplayable? That every character, every build, every spell was bugged?

Well, every build was bugged to a lesser or greater degree. You can't deny this. Allow me to highlight the following issues:

*Paladin used Constitution instead of Charisma due to a bug.
*Fighter's Greater Weapon Specialization didn't work as intended.
*Numerous buggy Mage spells, some of which CTD the game or cause saves to become corrupted. Metamagic doesn't work with some spells or causes CTDs.
*Cleric's spheres of power (e.g. Law, Nature, Death) are completely fucking bugged.
*Bard's song causes the game to CTD during transition screens. Tim Cain lies about having played through the game from start to finish with 5 halfling bards called the "Spice Girls". The game is incompleteable with 5 halfling bards, even without the bug. Know why? Bards suck and there's only one instrument in the entire game - the one you start with.
*Barbarian's fast walking ability is bugged.
*Various bugged Druid spells.
*Bugged ranger abilities.

Am I missing anything?

Try playing the game with all rogue party (you can multiclass though, but rogue should be the highest class, i.e. no rogue 1, fighter 9 scenarious), and you would understand. Tons of supporting spells, feats, and abilities that you wouldn't even use with other builds.

Okay, you got me there, but the game was too easy by far, in any case.

Their choice of games was their mistake; nobody else's. So who's mistake was it?

I'd hardly call that a mistake.

They picked the games that sold poorly because nobody wanted to play them. How was that not a mistake? From a business standpoint, it certainly is.

 

[Vault Dweller]

The more you lie; the more you lie.

New retarded catch phrase? Nice to see that you are making some efforts to update your vocabulary.

LOLOLOLOLOLLIPOP

Yes, I know, a great line like that ALWAYS works!

FF is TB. FF can't really be considered a niche series. This proves that TOEE being TB does not make it niche. Period.

Keep thinking, you will get it eventually.

The more you lie, the more you lie.

Hey, this one is different! You used a comma here, instead of a semicolon in the one above. Does that imply different meanings?

 

[Volourn]

"Try playing the game with all rogue party (you can multiclass though, but rogue should be the highest class, i.e. no rogue 1, fighter 9 scenarious), and you would understand. Tons of supporting spells, feats, and abilities that you wouldn't even use with other builds.

Okay, you got me there, but the game was too easy by far, in any case."

Actually, Exitium he doesn't. This si the equivelant of me saying I can make the KOTOR2 combat hard by nerfing my character by taking the most retarded stuff ever. Besides, I'd wager an all rogue aprty would kick all sorts of ass espicially against creaturss that weren't immune to sneak attack and sense in VD's scenario you can multi class; it would be even eaiser.

 

[Vykromond]

Exitium posted:
INADVERNTANTLY

Owwwwww.

Volourn posted:
This si the equivelant of me saying I can make the KOTOR2 combat hard by nerfing my character by taking the most retarded stuff ever. Besides, I'd wager an all rogue aprty would kick all sorts of ass espicially against creaturss that weren't immune to sneak attack and sense in VD's scenario you can multi class; it would be even eaiser.

I don't think you understood what Vault Dweller was saying. He was saying that playing a rogue-class party makes the gameplay fundamentally different than playing with other classes, not that it makes it more difficult.

 

[Volourn]

But, that simply isn't true. The gameplay will basically be the same.

Example:

1. Witha group of fighters you rush your 80th group of bugbears.

2. With a group of rogues you rush your 80th group of bugbears.

*yawn*