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

[Dorateen]

but forcing them to make the whole party at once is democratic, enlightened liberation. Got it.

First of all, Zombra, the devil's advocate act doesn't impress me.

Forced to make the whole party? Really? In all the classic party-based computer role-playing games I know, the player is allowed to create up to (x) number of characters. Be that one, four, six or eight. So, yes, one side does allow customization based on the player's preference. A forced single adventurer start does not.

 

[Zombra]

Forced to make the whole party? Really? In all the classic party-based computer role-playing games I know, the player is allowed to create up to (x) number of characters. Be that one, four, six or eight. So, yes, one side does allow customization based on the player's preference. A forced single adventurer start does not.

At last count, Bard's Tale IV will allow the player to create a full party of PCs. I don't know where you're getting anything else.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

I guess we are discussing the whole issue only on a gameplay basis? Because there can be narrative reasons to support both choices.
For example in WL2 it makes sense to start with your squad

You could start with 4 generic adventurers that only have generic abilities to attack wait or move and then they all level up after the tutorial and you get to pick a class.

All this information should normally be available in a manual.

It was never available in any manual ever made in entire history of human civilization.

Some of us veteran RP gamers don't need or want a handholding tutorial.

An veteran RPG gamer would know, that no amount of veteran RPG experience and no amount of reading manuals front to cover, is ever going to prevent you from sometimes making a bad MC or even hating your entire party in an unfamiliar system played for the first time. We've all done it, and if you claim you didn't, you're full of shit.

If a design makes even experienced players sometimes restart and make a party from scratch, it's a shit design. Period.

So you can roleplay this hardcore gamer who won't back from no challenge, but in reality you're exactly the kind of person who starts crying like a bitch on official forums when they end up making a shitty party.

 

[Zombra]

I guess we are discussing the whole issue only on a gameplay basis? Because there can be narrative reasons to support both choices.
For example in WL2 it makes sense to start with your squad

Sure. Narrative reasons can go either way. Obviously you can start the story with the characters all hanging out together like we're all used to, or start a day or week earlier before they've all joined up. Wasteland 2 could easily have started with one recruit getting a radio call saying congratulations, you're a full Ranger now, your first mission is to go round up the other 3 graduates currently at these 3 dangerous tutorial locations and get them all here in time for the badge ceremony.

 

[V_K]

No manual is going to tell you that physical attacks are kinda better than magic spells for cleaning out grunts, or that knockback attacks are so common that even giant rats use them so having lots of archers that can shoot from anywhere will make things way more convenient.

So basically what you're saying is that one shitty design (not allowing full party creation at the start) is there to counter another shitty design (having heavily imbalanced classes and encounters). I'd prefer my game shit-free, thank you very much.

but "it's old" is insufficient proof that something is better. Why are manuals superior to tutorials?

As has been pointed many times in this thread, the old design is simply more flexible. You can create a full party or fewer characters. You can swap out characters that aren't working at a later stage. You can even go with a default party if building it is teh hard. None of this flexibility is present in the new design, it's simply punishing oldschool players for the benefit of dumb casuals.

 

[Zombra]

So basically what you're saying is that one shitty design (not allowing full party creation at the start) is there to counter another shitty design (having heavily imbalanced classes and encounters).

Not at all. Having a game that you can't predict in its entirety by reading the manual isn't shitty design, it just means that you get better at the game as you play, i.e. every good game ever.

Can you seriously tell me that the first party you made in any RPG was well optimized just from reading the manual?

As has been pointed many times in this thread, the old design is simply more flexible. You can create a full party or fewer characters. You can swap out characters that aren't working at a later stage. You can even go with a default party if building it is teh hard. None of this flexibility is present in the new design, it's simply punishing oldschool players for the benefit of dumb casuals.

Until now no one has brought up the idea of refitting your party as you go along, they've all been saying that making the whole party all at once is the wtg. Those are two different things. So I guess we're talking about this now.

Making a guesswork party at the start, then firing crap characters and hiring new ones as you go? First of all, if manuals are so perfect you'd never have a reason to do that ... ahem anyway I can see the appeal of having a changeable party build, but either way we're still talking about going through a "tutorial period" and making our "real" characters after substantial time spent with the game. I don't see how the one case is "punishing" to old school players but the other isn't.

 

[theSavant]

Starting with 1 character is not a dealbreaker for me, but I understand why it's annoying for some. I'd also like to have *my* party from the start and "synchronized", not trickle in one by one. I disliked joining / losing party members in Lands of Lore 1 already (though it was only at the beginning I was annoyed by that). If the party members stay with you, I guess it's "ok".

 

[aweigh]

I don't understand what is so complicated about having a Training Grounds-equivalent area (could be an Inn or a Guild) where the player can create (hire, whatever) characters? as many characters as the player wants? or they can be limited by gold?

what is the problem with allowing party creation if the player wants it?

Elminage series features a Training Grounds and joinable NPCs that come with pre-set classes and stats. Advanced races or unique classes in Elminage are also locked behind secret events the player must complete before they unlock as options in the Training Grounds.

 

[Zombra]

I don't understand what is so complicated

Who said it's complicated? Obviously they could have chosen to do it the traditional way but decided to try something else.
The burden is on you to show that making characters one by one is problematic.

 

[santino27]

I can see it from both sides. I've never personally had a problem with creating my entire party up front, (and I'm not sure how much I'd want a tutorial to give me the mechanics of the game before doing so), but I also tend to be a serial restarter. From a dev-perspective, I can see that getting people into the actual game world and giving them the story hook ASAP and THEN having them create the rest of the party might be seen as a better approach, or at least less of a possible barrier to entry for some players.

 

[aweigh]

The burden of what? There is no inherent advantage to giving less options to players. My point is simply that there are many ways for the devs to eat their cake and have it too.

Spoiler

One very simple way BT4 can go about things is by having the Training Grounds-equivalent appear after the game introduction/prologue and have races, classes and other parameters gate-kept behind the much vaunted puzzles or other traditional forms of discovery and progression.

They can also lock the amount of party members behind a global parameter such as the hero character's XP Level, OR alternatively employ a Leadership-equivalent talent or skill.

Also the Elminage or Wizardry way of allowing character-creation plus pre-set NPCs that join the party has already become established in RPGs.

Personally I don't really care if they decide to dole out joinable characters dependant on main-quest progression as long as they at least allow the player to customize said characters.

 

[V_K]

Until now no one has brought up the idea of refitting your party as you go along

Reading comprehension check........

Well, if the idea is to let the player learn the systems first, it makes much more sense to let him create a whole party and then if some of the original characters don't work swap them for new ones (or even just change classes)

In a non-shit RPG you launch the game then make your whole party, always been that way. For retards they can add a default party like many games do.

Besides you can still tweak further, if you really don't like one of your character, you just replace it with a new created one.

.....fail.

Besides

Can you seriously tell me that the first party you made in any RPG was well optimized just from reading the manual?

There's such thing, it's called "character development" - precisely for optimizing your party as you get a better hang of the system.

 

[TigerKnee]

How come Wizardry / Might and Magic are allowed to have sequels that are significantly different from their roots while still being in the same genre but Bard's Tale is not?

 

[theSavant]

Makes you think... x 1 List

 

[V_K]

How come Wizardry / Might and Magic are allowed to have sequels that are significantly different from their roots while still being in the same genre but Bard's Tale is not?

Well, maybe because those sequels were an improvent on the original formulas?
And that's bearing in mind that there aren't many things that wouldn't be an improvement on BT's original formula. But inXile seems to have managed to find some. Both times.

 

[theSavant]

Reminds me of how the whole game system was broken from Lands of Lore 1 -> Lands of Lore 2. Not what you expect from a "sequel".

However now I understand why some developers only talked about their games taking place in the "same Universe", but not necessarily be a direct successor of a previous game. They are all just instances, losely coupled together in the same "Universe". Such as Valve's Portal takes place in the same Universe as Half Life, and Dragon Age Inquisition in the same Universe as Dragon Age Origins.

Isn't that awesome? Developers can freely choose if they totally change game mechanics, fuck it up, and still call it a successor even though it isn't a successor.

 

[TigerKnee]

Well, maybe because those sequels were an improvent on the original formulas?

Putting aside that we're talking about those RPGs in hindsight now that they're released and done, I don't think it would be unfair to say that there seem to be a sizable group that seem to be upset that BT4 doesn't literally have the exact same mechanics as the previous games "just with better graphics" (What does that even mean? Will we keep the same UI design complete with a tiny viewport except now it shows HD Graphics?) so they can recreate old memories like 4x99 Berserkers to an exact 1-1 copy with the sort of fervor rivaled only by aweigh.

 

[Dorateen]

Devil Whiskey is what a proper Bard's Tale (I - III) should look like.

But then it would have never been funded.

 

[aweigh]

TigerKnee

What is your obsession with me?

 

[Cross]

How come Wizardry / Might and Magic are allowed to have sequels that are significantly different from their roots while still being in the same genre but Bard's Tale is not?

I'm fairly certain fans of Wizardry or Might and Magic would be just as skeptical if those series started taking inspiration from Hearthstone of all things.

Less than a year before InXile began riding the cRPG nostalgia train, they were giving interviews to the press about how turn-based mechanics only ever existed because of technological limitations. Anything InXile says or implements with regards to RPG mechanics should be taken with a grain truckload of salt.

 

[aweigh]

Wouldn't most Codexers say they want more Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 clones? Isn;t there an entire new wave of KickStarter-RPGs that were predicated on the idea of selling clones of the Baldurs Gate series? This is generally considered something to aspire for.

I dont understand why some wanting new games made with the same design and the same gameplay as the originals (in this case Bards Tale) is somehow different, or somehow ((Wrong)) in comparison?

There is no difference between the people who want a new RPG in the style of Fallout 1/2, or in the same style as BG series as the people who say they want a new dungeon crawler in the style they prefer.

Something being new doesnt make it better it only makes it different. Fallout 3 is the perfect example here as there are many normies who consider it superior to the ((obsolete)) Fallout 1 and 2 games of olde with their out-dated turn-based combat and old top-down view and obsolete mouse and keyboard interface.

For example Devils Whiskey proves there that a real Bards Tale successor not only can be done but is objectively mechanically superior to what is presented here in the Alpha. However most of the people who want dungeon crawlers to change radically dont understand that they want to Fallout 3-ize the mechanics in the eyes of fans.

 

[Lady_Error]

Forced to make the whole party? Really? In all the classic party-based computer role-playing games I know, the player is allowed to create up to (x) number of characters. Be that one, four, six or eight. So, yes, one side does allow customization based on the player's preference. A forced single adventurer start does not.

That's why I'm saying that this is really Fargo's Stonekeep 2 - you started there as a single character too and added NPC's into the party. Even the graphics remind me of Stonekeep.

 

[Dorateen]

Forced to make the whole party? Really? In all the classic party-based computer role-playing games I know, the player is allowed to create up to (x) number of characters. Be that one, four, six or eight. So, yes, one side does allow customization based on the player's preference. A forced single adventurer start does not.

That's why I'm saying that this is really Fargo's Stonekeep 2 - you started there as a single character too and added NPC's into the party. Even the graphics remind me of Stonekeep.

Didn't Stonekeep have a fixed protagonist and all pre-generated characters? As far as I am aware, we will still be able to make our own party. Single adventurer plus joinable NPC's is only one possibility in BTIV.

 

[Zombra]

As far as I am aware, we will still be able to make our own party.

Should be correct. It hasn't been mentioned officially in a while, but last time anyone said anything it was locked at (up to?) 5 created PCs, 1 CNPC, and filling out the grid with summoned creatures.

 

[theSavant]

Hmmm, it came to my mind, that it's probably possible to replace some of the source textures/images of the game. This was also possible in another UE4 game, which had no mod tools included. I'm already considering replacing the weird looking portraits with something else...


The crux of the matter is: why is it that I already think about modding out something, for a game that isn't even released yet???