Company News New D&D games in Q1 2005?

[Volourn]

Which is just more evidence of Interplays retardedness..

 

[Voss]

Whip is right. Remember in all the ToEE interviews when they were asked "WHY TB OMG" and Tim Cain would reply "Well, D&D is TB, so why the hell wouldn't we do it in TB?" This, I think is a good reason to not give it to Troika, really. Any BG3 should be a game designed to appeal to the fans of the original two games. Those fans are quite happy with the combat system from those games, so why give them something they don't want? If we'd bitch about Saywer having to put Fallout 3 into real time, it seems hypocritical to me to not be somewhat critical if they put BG3 into turn based because that's not what the core fans want.

Spaz, thats an amazingly schizophrenic argument. While, the second part makes a fair amount of sense, the first part doesn't, considering how badly they've hacked up the Vampire rules to stuff them into RT FPS bloodlines. And its now pretty damn odd that he said those things in the first place, since he had to have known the direction Bloodlines development was heading.

 

[Calis]

Yeah, well, the thing is, the pen&paper V:TM rules deserve to be hacked up. Preferably with something that hurts White Wolf lots and lots, because the system really, REALLY is an unbalanced piece of crap that makes no sense whatsoever, statistically. Try playing out a combat scene D&D-style using the Storyteller system, and tell me how you like it.

(And before any Vampfans reply OMG ITSNOTMEANTFORMUNCHKINHACKANDSLASH ITSADRAMAGAME: Yes. I know that. Try turning *that* into a computer game and see how much it sucks.)

 

[Voss]

Its a game system. They all have their strengths & weaknesses. D&D style fights don't work with the ST system- its a completely different style, and a very different emphasis. A single gun shot in the ST system can cripple or even kill a normal person (or even a PC, in some systems). D&D is more heroic-oriented, with scads of hit points flying about. You don't get D&D style fights in Shadowrun or Cyberpunk either. Next you'll want to dogfight with tanks instead of airplanes.

But in any case, your personal dislike of the system doesn't really come into it. Neither does my acceptance of it. Point was Tim's 'no point in changing the game system' quote seems a bit hypocritical in retrospect, since there is no way he'd be clueless as to what was going on with Bloodlines.

 

[TFVanguard]

Does Atari make a new D&D game set in an existing series (frex, BG3 or NWN2) or do they set in the new WotC setting (Eberron)? I would think the latter would draw in the rabid Eberron fanbois,

What? All two of them? Eberron doesn't have a following to drag people to it, really. An Eberron game just wouldn't have any real name recognition, and 'D&D' or 'd20' isn't much of a sales force anymore.

(Proof? Go look at your Icewind Dale and Baldur's Gate boxes.. you'll see 'Dungeons and Dragons' in tiny little type at the bottom, along with the developer. Obviously something not meant to be a sales point to the mass audience.)

 

[TFVanguard]

"I doubt Atari would want BG3 to be turnbased so that makes it less likely to be Troika."

You know, considering the timing of the announcements, and the dev time being discussed. I'm wondering if this promised BG3 isn't actually 'Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance:3' instead?

 

[TFVanguard]

That would indeed be a license violation since Interplay still owns Dark Alliance, just not Baldur's Gate.

WOTC, then Hasbro, can simply transfer the license if they wish. Interplay may have sold the rights to collect on some much-needed cash for the short term as well. Remember, the final authority on the license of D&D content is not Interplay, it's Hasbro, and they would rather see product they can profit from than a dying parrot of a game company scrape something that together for quick cash that could ruin their franchise.

 

[Briosafreak]

Interplay has the "Dark Alliance" name branded and registered TFVanguard, they simply can`t use it with Baldurs Gate or any D&D license. they evn cancelled FOBOS2 and Exalted at one point to make a Dark Alliance game, with a new setting, but that was put on hold too, since the absence of offices, workers and money doesn`t seem to help the development of games

 

[TFVanguard]

Interplay has the "Dark Alliance" name branded and registered TFVanguard, they simply can`t use it with Baldurs Gate or any D&D license.

True, but it ignores a few things.

A) A new 'Dark Alliance' game could just be branded with 'Baldur's Gate', still making it the third game in the series.

B) As a trademark identified with a licensed product, the trademark itself may be invalidated. Atari could challenge for it, and Interplay would not be financially able to counter the suit. (If this was 'old' Atari, I would lay money on this option. )

C) Interplay could sell or lease the trademark to raise cash. Very likely, considering their current financial situation.

D) Interplay itself could be doing a licensed BG3:DA game as a dev-house property, with Atari publishing it, as a cost-cutting more.

 

[Briosafreak]

A) A new 'Dark Alliance' game could just be branded with 'Baldur's Gate', still making it the third game in the series.

Nope, it`s in the agreement between Atari and Interplay that everything with Dark Alliance in the name can only be made by Interplay

B) As a trademark identified with a licensed product, the trademark itself may be invalidated. Atari could challenge for it, and Interplay would not be financially able to counter the suit. (If this was 'old' Atari, I would lay money on this option. )

Eheheh that would be fun, but again the agreement is pretty clear about that

C) Interplay could sell or lease the trademark to raise cash. Very likely, considering their current financial situation.

Yeah that`s true

D) Interplay itself could be doing a licensed BG3:DA game as a dev-house property, with Atari publishing it, as a cost-cutting more.[/quote]

They hate eachother, so Atari would never dream of giving more money in any circunstance to Interplay, but who knows what the future might bring.

 

[TFVanguard]

Nope, it`s in the agreement between Atari and Interplay that everything with Dark Alliance in the name can only be made by Interplay

An agreement that Interplay is already in breach. I wouldn't stake too much on the existing agreements, which Interplay is in no position - at all - to defend their position. I could easily see a strongarming from Atari or Hasbro, considering how desperate Interplay has become.

Yeah that`s true

Assuming 'Dark Alliance III', I would say it's the most likely option. Again, Interplay needs cash desperately, and Atari is looking to secure D&D completely under it's roof. It works, and both parties have some vested interest in this outcome.

They hate eachother, so Atari would never dream of giving more money in any circunstance to Interplay, but who knows what the future might bring.

Business decisions cannot be personal, else you go out of business. As I said, Atari wants to lock up electronic rights, and interplay needs cash. Even if they hate one-another, a quick deal would aid them both in their goals quite well.

 

[Calis]

But in any case, your personal dislike of the system doesn't really come into it. Neither does my acceptance of it. Point was Tim's 'no point in changing the game system' quote seems a bit hypocritical in retrospect, since there is no way he'd be clueless as to what was going on with Bloodlines.

Hell no. The point is that the ST system *isn't meant to be used as an actual game*. They just provided that so that, well, they'd have a system. This isn't about my personal likes or dislikes. This is about the ST system not being a system that's suited *at all* for a game that is in any way centered on dice rolls or combat or whatever. If you want to play a game (as in: "win or lose", rather than "sit around a table and act like a bunch of angsty goths"), you need to have a decent ruleset to determine whether or not you're gonna win. ST doesn't have that. Therefore, it's useless in a computer game. Whereas entire generations of people have had loads and loads of fun using the (A)D&D ruleset for pure-game, none-of-this-freeform-theatrics-stuff games.

Don't get me wrong. In p&p, I don't think there's anything wrong with either way of gaming. (I personally get annoyed by D&D min/max munchkins, but that's just because I'm too lazy to look into the rules as deeply as they do.)
I'm just saying that while D&D has a large base of gamers that enjoy the game for its system (as a win-or-lose game), V:tM doesn't. At least, I haven't met any (and yes, I've been to conventions and such). Therefore, doing a completely faithful V:tM rules adaptation in a computer game would be useless and silly.

Please note that I am not trying to defend Troika here. I think trying to do a completely faithful p&p rules adaptation in a computer game is silly no matter which game you're trying to bring to life in full high-res mouse-and-keyboard-driven glory. The goal should be to make a good *computer game*. I just think that the parallel you're trying to draw is entirely wrong.

 

[Voss]

Calis, surprise, surprise, thats still just your opinion. The ST rules work just fine. You may not like the statistical representation of the dice rolls, but they are functional. (and there are a lot of game that are just as bad or worse)

And oddly, I've never played D&D as 'win or lose' either. Not in 18 years of playing its various incarnations. The only people I've met that come close to doing so are the min/max munchkins that seem to annoy you.

 

[Spazmo]

TFVanguard, Atari publishing anything for Interplay is highly unlikely. What Atari wants to do is precipitate the bankruptcy of Interplay so they can pick the meat off the bones afterwards for next to nothing instead of publishing a game that'll undoubtedly stink (though Atari seems to like publishing less than fantastic titles anyhow).

 

[TFVanguard]

TFVanguard, Atari publishing anything for Interplay is highly unlikely.

I don't think Atari's all that concerned. It makes more sense for Atari to buy out some still mildly lucrative D&D properties from a dying-off-anyway interplay than let the properties slip into legal limbo.

As I said, the more logical option would be to secure the trademarks, assuming BG3 is just Dark Alliance III.

 

[Calis]

Calis, surprise, surprise, thats still just your opinion. The ST rules work just fine. You may not like the statistical representation of the dice rolls, but they are functional. (and there are a lot of game that are just as bad or worse)

And oddly, I've never played D&D as 'win or lose' either. Not in 18 years of playing its various incarnations. The only people I've met that come close to doing so are the min/max munchkins that seem to annoy you.

Yes. It is indeed my opinion that taking over half an hour to play out a simple combat scene with the entire "roll a pile of d10's and count successes, then roll again for damage, then soak" system is crappy and entirely non-functional *if you're looking to play out combat scenes*. I don't think White Wolf ever even denied this, since the game was made in the "we want to role-play, not roll-play or rule-play" era.

Saying that it works or that there are other systems just as crappy might be true for you, but this doesn't change the fact that *nobody* I've met that plays Vampire does so for the system and the dice rolls, while for D&D gamers, the tactics & dice rolling holds a large appeal for a large group of gamers that I've met.
(This doesn't mean anything in terms of what you should do with your CRPG, by the way: the worst min/maxing rule-manipulators that I've met enjoy BG and NWN just as much as ToEE)

Perhaps your experiences are different, and you've actually managed to track down the ever-elusive Vampire crowd that's in it for the tactics & the dice rolling, but I sure as hell haven't.
I'm just wondering: have you ever tried to do a by-the-rules game of V:tM?

 

[StraitLacedDeviant]

The system sucks for combat, but the settings are some of the best. I don't personally go crazy over vampire but exalted is great, I wish somebody would make something out of that.

 

[Voss]

<snip>

Perhaps your experiences are different, and you've actually managed to track down the ever-elusive Vampire crowd that's in it for the tactics & the dice rolling, but I sure as hell haven't.
I'm just wondering: have you ever tried to do a by-the-rules game of V:tM?

Why yes, yes I have. It isn't hard.
I've even been subjected to an intensive combat session dungeon crawl (which I objected to because the premise was both stupid and didn't fit the setting, not because of the combat system).

Yes. It is indeed my opinion that taking over half an hour to play out a simple combat scene with the entire "roll a pile of d10's and count successes, then roll again for damage, then soak" system is crappy and entirely non-functional *if you're looking to play out combat scenes*.

I'm frightened by the amount of time it must take you to roll dice. Anyway, I've never had problems with it, and I'm not sure how it makes it non-functional. The worst I've ever heard people claim about multiple die rolls is cludgy and lacking in elegance... but it does work.

Anyway, this back and forth is getting nowhere. You've your opinion and I've mine. Given that people still play the game, and do combat with it, its hard to see why you're so hung up on it being non-functional, but whatever. Enjoy your issues with it, they seem to give you great pleasure.

 

[Spazmo]

The system sucks for combat, but the settings are some of the best. I don't personally go crazy over vampire but exalted is great, I wish somebody would make something out of that.

Interplay has the rights to Exalted, so, yeah.

As for the cludgyness of Vampire: well, okay, so the system is cludgy and takes too long to determine the results of actions in PnP. But since we're talking about a computer translation, a computer being a glowing electric box that can handle all the dice stuff in about a milliseond, is the cludginess relevant anymore? I more or less agree with Calis since the V:tM system is pretty much something they tossed together as a chewing-gum-and-paperclips solution to hold their game together, but fucking Rolemaster would work great on a computer since it takes all the burdensome arithmetic away from the player.

 

[Voss]

Actually, Rolemaster isn't bad once you start playing. Creating the characters that is the bitch and a half. Once that's done, all the modifiers are all worked out for you in their final forms, so it's just roll dice and add.
The problem, of course, is that characters can die at the drop of a hat (literally, even) so you have to go through that damn creation process all over again.