Bard's Tale The Bard's Tale IV Pre-Release Thread [RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[IHaveHugeNick]

Active character faces the player so the player knows who is the active character. I don't see what the problem is exactly.

They just think it's dissonant that the characters face towards the enemy (unlike in standard blobbers) ostensibly for the sake of realism, yet when they perform their attack animations they face towards the player.

Why the assumption that it's for realism? The way I see it, they've made all the party members look forward, precisely so when they flip one face towards the player, he instantly knows who takes next action. I seriously doubt it had anything to do with looking at the enemy. More llkely they wanted to make the whole thing easier to process for the console crowd.

 

[Dorateen]

Just for comparison sake, Might & Magic X. Active character has a yellow highlight, and a nice aesthetic flame burning above his portrait. But I guess that is too subtle for the console crowd.

Spoiler

 

[Zombra]

Why the assumption that it's for realism? The way I see it, they've made all the party members look forward, precisely so when they flip one face towards the player, he instantly knows who takes next action. I seriously doubt it had anything to do with looking at the enemy. More llkely they wanted to make the whole thing easier to process for the console crowd.

"How will we show which character's turn it is?"
"I got it! Everybody else will only show the back of their heads."
"Uh. Innovative. OK guys, you heard the man."

... Maybe.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

Why the assumption that it's for realism? The way I see it, they've made all the party members look forward, precisely so when they flip one face towards the player, he instantly knows who takes next action. I seriously doubt it had anything to do with looking at the enemy. More llkely they wanted to make the whole thing easier to process for the console crowd.

"How will we show which character's turn it is?"
"I got it! Everybody else will only show the back of their heads."
"Uh. Innovative. OK guys, you heard the man."

... Maybe.

Worth remembering that during the campaign, even some people on Kickstarter had trouble understanding what kind of genre this is going to be. We played blobbers so we get it. But for a modern gamer, a party-based game with first person view might just be too bizarre of a concept to comprehend.

So given that these games need to sell at least decently to get post-launch support worth a damn, are small UI concessions aimed for the modern audience really worth this much drama?

 

[Russia is over. The end.]

It's true that their communication has always been pretty crap, but this "all they have to do is write an article explaining this one thing" is ridiculous. Really?

Nobody implies writing an article. A rationale of 2-3 sentences is what's being asked here.

If they explain this one decision then you'll be satisfied and never ask anything again? Or will you continue to expect a formal response every time you feel the urge to complain about anything?

This decision is a giant turd. Yeah, I expect explanations for each giant turd. So far, they only made one giant turd, so it's not like I'm asking for anything more than 2-3 minutes of their time once every 3 years of development. Considering their useless impotent kickstarter updates, it's really nothing as dramatic as you try to make it look.

Besides, I can tell you that explaining your gameplay design decisions is much more fun than talking about what cereals you eat for breakfast for some stupid devblog update.

 

[Zombra]

Given that these games need to sell at least decently to get post-launch support worth a damn, are small UI concessions aimed for the modern audience really worth this much drama?

Concession to what? Is looking at the backs of heads supposed to be more understandable than having a character lit up like in MM10, or having the "it's your turn unicorn" sitting in their lap? Are console players known to be "back of head" enthusiasts?

As for whether it's this huge dealbreaker, obviously it's not; it's just a visual thing. But. I am going to be looking at the UI for approximately 100% of my gameplay time, so I would prefer it to look more pleasant than obnoxious.

It's not like I'm asking for anything more than 2-3 minutes of their time once every 3 years of development.

Cool. I'll be sure to let them know that explaining the rationale for a cosmetic UI decision on art that isn't anywhere near final yet is the single most important piece of PR they can do for this project, and once they've done that, they can blow off doing any more updates ever, because you and the huge market slice you represent will no longer need to follow development, secure in the knowledge that the game will meet your high expectations on every front.

Besides, I can tell you that explaining your gameplay design decisions is much more fun than talking about what cereals you eat for breakfast for some stupid devblog update.

Funny how some devs don't do exactly what you demand all the time then. Oh well, I guess there must be no reason for it, they're just jerks.

 

[grimace]

So given that these games need to sell at least decently to get post-launch support worth a damn, are small UI concessions aimed for the modern audience really worth this much drama?

Modern audience or teenage audience waiting for a Steam Sale? Many of the fans who want to play the game have already paid for the game on Kickstarter.

This Bard's Tale IV title may need to change to reflect modern times and cut ties to past Tale's games. Has InXile given us the subtitle of Bard's Tale IV?

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

Given that these games need to sell at least decently to get post-launch support worth a damn, are small UI concessions aimed for the modern audience really worth this much drama?

Concession to what? Is looking at the backs of heads supposed to be more understandable than having a character lit up like in MM10

That's what my guess is, yeah. It's a concession between making it look like in the old days for the sake of staying faithful to classic blobbers, and making it more readable and intuitive for the audience most of whom wasn't even alive when the first game came out.

So given that these games need to sell at least decently to get post-launch support worth a damn, are small UI concessions aimed for the modern audience really worth this much drama?

Modern audience or teenage audience waiting for a Steam Sale? Many of the fans who want to play the game have already paid for the game on Kickstarter.

Just because they paid for it, doesn't mean they know what they'll be getting. Forum polls way back when made it clear that a lot of people didn't play Wasteland, and BT is even older than that.

 

[Grotesque]

I like the fact that the characters face the enemy. The player is like a commander that issues orders during combat to his minions!

What I don't like are those 2D representations with no animation whatsoever and the fact they turn to face the player during combat.
They need to be 3D modeled.

Maybe they took the 2D concept drawings and used them as a placeholder but also maybe they also ran out of money again and there are no resources for a proper representation.

At least make something 2D along the lines of Endless Space 2

 

[grimace]

Just because they paid for it, doesn't mean they know what they'll be getting. Forum polls way back when made it clear that a lot of people didn't play Wasteland, and BT is even older than that.

True!

The expectation seems to be that Bard's Tale IV will functionally play like the original Bard's Tale Trilogy.

Unless it's more in line with The Bard’s Tale: Remastered and Resnarkled (which I have not yet played).

 

[Kem0sabe]

Codex is like the inxile battered wives club...

 

[Zombra]

I like the fact that the characters face the enemy. The player is like a commander that issues orders during combat to his minions!
What I don't like are those 2D representations with no animation whatsoever and the fact they turn to face the player during combat. They need to be 3D modeled.

This is the problem. It's neither one thing nor the other. Either the PCs should be "first class" inhabitants of the environment, fully modeled and interactive, or they should be "second class" UI portraits. This "1.5" stuff is the worst of both worlds imo.

 

[Russia is over. The end.]

Given that these games need to sell at least decently to get post-launch support worth a damn, are small UI concessions aimed for the modern audience really worth this much drama?

Concession to what? Is looking at the backs of heads supposed to be more understandable than having a character lit up like in MM10, or having the "it's your turn unicorn" sitting in their lap? Are console players known to be "back of head" enthusiasts?

As for whether it's this huge dealbreaker, obviously it's not; it's just a visual thing. But. I am going to be looking at the UI for approximately 100% of my gameplay time, so I would prefer it to look more pleasant than obnoxious.

It's not like I'm asking for anything more than 2-3 minutes of their time once every 3 years of development.

Cool. I'll be sure to let them know that explaining the rationale for a cosmetic UI decision on art that isn't anywhere near final yet is the single most important piece of PR they can do for this project, and once they've done that, they can blow off doing any more updates ever, because you and the huge market slice you represent will no longer need to follow development, secure in the knowledge that the game will meet your high expectations on every front.

Besides, I can tell you that explaining your gameplay design decisions is much more fun than talking about what cereals you eat for breakfast for some stupid devblog update.

Funny how some devs don't do exactly what you demand all the time then. Oh well, I guess there must be no reason for it, they're just jerks.

Can you be any more of an ass kisser?

 

[theSavant]

Why didn't they make portrait slots like in Lords of Xulima (in combat)? I think they nailed it pretty well. Easy to understand, not gimmicky, and not a weird mishmash.

 

[Russia is over. The end.]

Why didn't they make portrait slots like in Lords of Xulima (in combat)? I think they nailed it pretty well. Easy to understand, not gimmicky, and not a weird mishmash.

Why? How dare you ask WHY? Funny how people don't just dance to your tune and do whatever you want huh! Their PR will decide what to talk about, not you, you got that, pal? Besides, it's highly unfinished! The final product may be entirely different, and be a good game! You just can't know until it's out and it's 63 on metacritic.

 

[theSavant]

Are console players known to be "back of head" enthusiasts?

Damn, now that you mention it - yes they are. With the consoles coming most games were developed in 3rd person view instead of 1st person. And most of these console gamers claim that this (looking at the back of the character???) is better than 1st person. So yeah...

 

[SausageInYourFace]

They probably thought portraits alone are static and boring.

If they wanted to do what I think they wanted to do, which is making it so that players retain first person perspective but can still enjoy a full view of their characters and the way they look, they could've done something like Shining the Holy Ark (and probably many other blobbers) did and have the characters jump into view when they perform an action, then have them jump back out of view once the action is performed.

Like so:



This has the added benefit of being more immersive since your view (the player characters) remains FP while you still can enjoy looking at your party doing cool things. No artificial stuff like someone facing the cam.

 

[agris]

I would have been much happier with Doomguy-esque expressions based on states.

 

[Sacred82]

I don't think it's meant to be realistic at all.

It's neither fully realistic nor not realistic. It's blatant committee design. Let's have the characters facing the enemies as if they're "really" standing there, but then do a bunch of other wacky things to ruin that illusion, such as make them face away from the enemies when taking action.

I think they should do it in the Might & Magic style instead ... in M&M it's clear that the portraits are UI only and not "part of the world". There is no such clarity here.

It's probably more of a compromise between portraits and the actual battlefield look they promised in the kickstarter.

Personally I would have gone for animated paper dolls à la Wizards & Warriors. Pretty fucking neat IMO.

 

[Cross]

Leave it to InXile to make a game with less convincing attack animations than turn-based blobbers that are several decades old.

That sword slash (or whatever it's supposed to be) appears to be coming out of her breasts.

 

[Immortal]

Bahahahhahaha

 

[Jimmious]

Are you guys seriously talking about realistic attack animations in a blobber?

 

[Morblot]

No animations at all would look better than whatever this farce is supposed to be :D

 

[Viata]

What is this fucking shit game? I thought Wasteland 2 was just InXile on drugs, but no, they had to prove they are indeed retarded and can't do rpg games anymore.

 

[Luzur]

Bahahahhahaha

But, thats just a throbbing character pic.