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

[Lady_Error]

Gothic 1 and 2 and Risen 1. All other first-person games

Oh, I remember now, is Lady Error the one that claimed Gothics are FPS games ?

No, it was you actually - see above.

Yeah, I meant FPS games as in games where you explore the world from a "personal" perspective as opposed to a tactical zoomed out view. It doesn't matter to me if the camera is actually first person or over-the-shoulder/ 3rd person.

That sounds kind of familiar....

Now I see how my original post made for a nice stab at Lady Error in context...I should have taken the credit.

You didn't say FPS, you said "first person games" like Gothic 1 and 2. Since you meant it unironically, what exactly are you trying to take credit for?

If you consider me to be a dumbfuck, what are you then? A double-dumbfuck?

 

[Diablo169]

Any ETA on when the campaign goes live yet?

 

[Infinitron]

Any ETA on when the campaign goes live yet?

Summer.

 

[Zombra]

Point is not which of those gives you more control, but that both are completely different (discrete vs continuous) systems that require equally different approaches to basic combat design in the first place. And just like in case of TB vs RTwP, neither discrete nor continous exploration is a mere update of the other.

This is what I don't see. Other than being more simplistic, how is the approach to grid design different? What are its strengths?

Since you fail to see how the abstract, "node"-based exploration is a completely different design compared to continuous, free movement exploration, with neither being reducible to the other, I'm comparing you to people who fail to see how turn-based combat is anything other than an outdated version of RTwP that brings nothing distinct to the table.

That's fine, but in this case I can actually describe TB's strengths. I won't bother to perform the exercise since obviously you know that TB has strengths that RT lacks.

I haven't seen anyone defend the strengths of grid or 'node' exploration - I see many declarations that they are there ... but ... what are they?

[throws my own statement back at me]

Again, I can actually reply to this if you want me to go through the motions. Can someone please actually reply to my criticism of the grid instead of just claiming it goes both ways without explaining why? Honest, I'm prepared to have an open mind about this. If grid exploration does have clear advantages, it shouldn't be hard to state them.

 

[Crooked Bee]

You don't get it - I'm not trying to "prove" or "defend" anything to you. You're the equivalent of a RTwP fan trying to get TB fans to "prove" to you that TB is not just an outdated simplistic version of RTwP. Sorry, but I'm not going there. Maybe you'll find some other victim for your trolling / flaming / "open-mindedness".

 

[Infinitron]

Where was that Gozma post...ah yes:

Here's the ultimate argument for a fully quantized and turnbased game: everything that doesn't need interaction from the player can be skipped. I will never hit the autorun key and then watch for fifteen uneventful seconds in a full TB game, nor will I click on the far side of the jpeg and then wait to gather my party before venturing forth. If I have quantized controls (as in one button press makes one thing happen) I can play as fast as I can process whats on the screen.

 

[Zombra]

You don't get it - I'm not trying to "prove" or "defend" anything to you. You're the equivalent of a RTwP fan trying to get TB fans to "prove" to you that TB is not just an outdated simplistic version of RTwP. Sorry, but I'm not going there. Maybe you'll find some other victim for your trolling / flaming / "open-mindedness".

That's fine, but at least the TB vs RT discussion has been had. If nobody is willing to even have the grid vs. continuous exploration discussion, can I really be blamed for not seeing the other side's point of view? I'm sorry, but "Trust me, there are reasons but I refuse to discuss them" doesn't cut it. Bluntly, if you're unwilling to have the conversation, butt out.

Where was that Gozma post...ah yes:

Here's the ultimate argument for a fully quantized and turnbased game: everything that doesn't need interaction from the player can be skipped. I will never hit the autorun key and then watch for fifteen uneventful seconds in a full TB game, nor will I click on the far side of the jpeg and then wait to gather my party before venturing forth. If I have quantized controls (as in one button press makes one thing happen) I can play as fast as I can process whats on the screen.

Nice one, thanks, and that's a good argument for total TB. I think it falls apart a little with Bard's Tale because I don't remember BT processing instantaneously. It still took you 15 seconds to go down the hall or whatever; you just had to tap a button x number of times instead of pressing and holding. In fact I remember in at least a couple blobbers, once I'd memorized a dungeon section I would often cross through it by buffering keys ... like I'd press right-forward-forward-forward-left-open door-forward-forward-right-forward and then sit there for a while and watch the game perform the actions. Not to mention the blobbers that have animations for every step. To me these examples do not represent a significant difference from continuous movement. Honestly I can't remember if this was true of BT or not, but if it was, then this argument definitely doesn't apply for the people saying "Don't change Bard's Tale".

 

[Infinitron]

I think you're missing the point a bit. Your computer might be slow, but the fact that you CAN "buffer keys" like that already means you're interacting with the game in a way that's not possible in a continuous free roamer. One keypress-->one quantum of action. And if there animations, those can be skipped, because they're essentially cosmetic - though it's possible that the game might not support that.

 

[Zombra]

I think you're missing the point a bit. Your computer might be slow, but the fact that you CAN "buffer keys" like that already means you're interacting with the game in a way that's not possible in a continuous free roamer. One keypress-->one quantum of action. And if there animations, those can be skipped, because they're essentially cosmetic - though it's possible that the game might not support that.

Good point. I can see that.

Old schoolers: is this the reason you want grid-based for BT IV?

 

[Lord Andre]

This is ridiculous! The fuck you guys talking about ? one keypress, one quantum of action ? WTF? Behind all that pretentious jargon the reality looks like this: either you tap-tap-tap to get from A to B, or you hold down "W" and navigate with mouse or "A"/'D". There is literally 0 gameplay difference. The only direct implication is which one feels more natural to you. I personally enjoy free movement as opposed to playing "green light ! red light!" but maybe that's just me. As for indirect implications, free movement (preferably on all 3 axis) allows for designing more interesting maps with cool secrets and twists while grid-movement allows for "systematically walk over every square and fight/ use skill when prompted".

Come to think of it, I'll raise the troll bar a bit higher and state that those pure blobbers some people keep gushing over are so shallow gameplay-wise that the afore mentioned fans enjoy them precisely because they are devoid of complexity and can simply play them on auto-pilot. tap-tap-tap, click-click-click... might as well log on to google play - there are plenty of games there where you click to watch numbers go up.

 

[Metro]

ONLY TINY SCREEN DO NOT MAKE MY PRECIOUS INTO SOMETHING NICE TO LOOK AT

Because one is a visual/UI issue and the other is a gameplay mechanic? Talk about reductio.

 

[Zombra]

Lord Andre
I agree that the gameplay difference isn't worth all this handwringing about the series losing its way, but please don't say "literally zero" unless the difference is literally zero.

ONLY TINY SCREEN DO NOT MAKE MY PRECIOUS INTO SOMETHING NICE TO LOOK AT

Because one is a visual/UI issue and the other is a gameplay mechanic? Talk about reductio.

Sooooo what's the difference in gameplay mechanics? I'm curious to hear your take. Is it Gozma's quantum of action thingy? Anything else?

 

[Lord Andre]

Lord Andre
I agree that the gameplay difference isn't worth all this handwringing about the series losing its way, but please don't say "literally zero" unless the difference is literally zero.

It is literally zero unless you take into account dodging projectiles and firing back in free-mode ala MM6-8 but that's because those games allowed fighting outside of TB mode. (a rather bad design decision of course).

But in a game where combat is strictly TB, the gameplay difference is literally zero. That is Newtonian physics by the way. On the quantum level however, as some esteemed posters have pointed out, zero can mean anything including infinity...

 

[Zombra]

No, but this isn't a hill I care to die on.

 

[Zeriel]

Where was that Gozma post...ah yes:

Here's the ultimate argument for a fully quantized and turnbased game: everything that doesn't need interaction from the player can be skipped. I will never hit the autorun key and then watch for fifteen uneventful seconds in a full TB game, nor will I click on the far side of the jpeg and then wait to gather my party before venturing forth. If I have quantized controls (as in one button press makes one thing happen) I can play as fast as I can process whats on the screen.

Yeah, this is what I was talking about, although I still think a Demise video would be nice to show people how much of a difference it makes, there's no feeling in the world like traversing 100 tiles in 10 seconds because you can. It's just a pity most grid-based titles these days seem to go in for the whole "we need immersive animations you can't skip!" nonsense.

This is a mechanical advantage. There are of course leagues of "because I like my feels" reasons to prefer grid-based that are tied into nostalgia and non-objective material, analogous with "omg I can't play this game because I can't freelook", both arguments that are devoid of mechanical advantages.

MMXL is a recent (though very limited) example of why animation skipping feels amazing:

It had pauses in between tile movement, but combat animations for the player were all "skippable". The result was that combat on the player's turn felt ridiculously smooth and awesome... followed by godawful unskippable monster animations that slowly chipped away at your sanity. I guess I'm kind of a grognard crusader for animation skipping in first person RPGs. I would happily die on any hill if it guaranteed all blobbers henceforth used or allowed standardized animation skipping.

People should really play a game like Demise, even if they hate it, just to experience crossing 4 massive dungeon levels in the time it would take you in Skyrim to walk to the next building. I find it hard to believe someone would say, "Eh, this isn't much of a difference at all, doesn't matter" after experiencing it firsthand. It sounds really trivial, but its more important to moment-to-moment gameplay than anything else I can think of.

 

[Zombra]

Seems weird to me that skipping the artwork is the hallmark of a great game, but I guess it makes sense in the context of RPGs that feature a lot of repetitive combat. My recent example of cranking Dead State's animation speed to maximum to reduce the tedium makes this argument convincing.

My dream game would lack the grinding that makes this a good solution, but even I wouldn't suggest that trash fights be designed out of a Bard's Tale sequel.

 

[Lady_Error]

Come to think of it, I'll raise the troll bar

and state that those pure blobbers some people keep gushing over are so shallow gameplay-wise that the afore mentioned fans enjoy them precisely because they are devoid of complexity

Then for you chess-players must be some of the most simple-minded people.

Again, grid-based blobbers are somewhat like chess in that they are more abstract. However, the beautiful thing about blobbers is that you get to use your imagination, which increases immersion.

And speaking of complexity, have you ever played a blobber like Wizardry 7?

 

[Zeriel]

Seems weird to me that skipping the artwork is the hallmark of a great game, but I guess it makes sense in the context of RPGs that feature a lot of repetitive combat. My recent example of cranking Dead State's animation speed to maximum to reduce the tedium makes this argument convincing.

My dream game would lack the grinding that makes this a good solution, but even I wouldn't suggest that trash fights be designed out of a Bard's Tale sequel.

It's an emphatic plus in a game of large size or scale. If you only ever see an area/model/texture/monster once and then the game ends, you'd have a good point, but most of my favorite games involve at least some backtracking. Demise as an example involves moving through a massive dungeon and having to return to town to resupply and whatnot. There's plenty of games that involve that dynamic.

 

[Sceptic]

"real bards tale sequel" that isn't grid-based? Might as well just call it another game at that point, it would be like if they had Kickstarted Wasteland 2 as an Infinity Engine style game instead of turn-based.

TBH I think it worked pretty well for MM6-8, once I got past the initial "where's mah grid" feel when MM6 came out it quickly became my favourite game in the series. The problem more specifically with BT is one octavius pointed out: the one thing BT (specifically BT2) did better than almost any other game is the mapping challenge. The only game that beats BT2 in this respect is WIz 4 IMO. Remove that and you remove the essence of what makes BT so good. This might leave us with an Ultima Underworld like free-roaming blobber, or maybe an Arena-like, or even better a Battlespire-like dungeon crawler, which would be great, but it won't be BT.

Anyway, as usual with Kickstarter absolutely nothing is known about the game and everything we're saying is pure speculation based on taking some quotes that were meant to be taken out of context out of context. I'm going to wait to see something substantial before thinking about this much.

 

[Zeriel]

"real bards tale sequel" that isn't grid-based? Might as well just call it another game at that point, it would be like if they had Kickstarted Wasteland 2 as an Infinity Engine style game instead of turn-based.

TBH I think it worked pretty well for MM6-8, once I got past the initial "where's mah grid" feel when MM6 came out it quickly became my favourite game in the series. The problem more specifically with BT is one octavius pointed out: the one thing BT (specifically BT2) did better than almost any other game is the mapping challenge. The only game that beats BT2 in this respect is WIz 4 IMO. Remove that and you remove the essence of what makes BT so good. This might leave us with an Ultima Underworld like free-roaming blobber, or maybe an Arena-like, or even better a Battlespire-like dungeon crawler, which would be great, but it won't be BT.

Anyway, as usual with Kickstarter absolutely nothing is known about the game and everything we're saying is pure speculation based on taking some quotes that were meant to be taken out of context out of context. I'm going to wait to see something substantial before thinking about this much.

Do we really expect inXile to build a game of the size and quality of Might & Magic 6, though? M&M 6-8 era NWC traded mechanical excellence for content excellence (well, mostly), but 6-8 with mediocre content would have been pretty awful. You see that in some of the criticisms of 8, and by modern standards I'd argue 8 had great content, but compared to 6 and 7 it was panned.

I agree, however. At this stage, 'tis nothing but speculation. And I really want to be wrong in some manner--either that BT 4 ends up having some mechanical merits, or that it is an enjoyable game regardless.

 

[Lord Andre]

and state that those pure blobbers some people keep gushing over are so shallow gameplay-wise that the afore mentioned fans enjoy them precisely because they are devoid of complexity

Then for you chess-players must be some of the most simple-minded people.

See now, comments like this is why I insulted your intelligence earlier. Comparing chess to what I called "pure blobbers" is like comparing chess to "connect 4". Take a trip to wikipedia and look up "game complexity" and "solved game" before you declare yourself a fledgling Kasparov.

Again, grid-based blobbers are somewhat like chess in that they are more abstract. However, the beautiful thing about blobbers is that you get to use your imagination, which increases immersion.

First of all let's put the "feelz" aside because those are personal and everyone has a right to their "feelz", I'm not attacking that.

Then let's move to this "abstract" word you keep using. In your mind abstract means deeper, more complex, intelligent, chess etc. Guess what, abstracting something actually means you are making it simpler. That's what abstraction does, it sheds concrete data and keeps the rules of a phenomenon. The more you abstract something the farther it gets from the truth and the simpler it becomes.

Example time: An arcade game with a top down view of a plane that shoots incoming enemies is an abstraction - an extreme one - very simple. A 3d flight simulator with all the physics implemented is also an abstraction - a more functional one - complex relative to the former but still simple compared to the real thing.

Let's wrap it up, your grid-based abstraction is farther from the real thing than a free-move abstraction and thus clearly simpler. The only way that would change is if you add game rules to increase it's complexity but then it's not an abstraction any more, it's a game. And you can always add game rules to free-movement as well so kind of a moot point. Thusly, Grid-movement makes the game more shallow not more complex.

And speaking of complexity, have you ever played a blobber like Wizardry 7?

Let's address first the term "pure blobber". Unfortunately, I keep using the wrong expression to define categories of games in this thread. I meant "ye olde blobbers" from before 1990.

Now, Wizardry 7 is a far departure from those blobbers because of complex character system, tactical combat etc. - everyone knows the games strengths. Grid-movement however is not in my opinion relevant to the game's strengths. If it was free-roam it would have been just as good. Now, would I want it to be ported to another engine and made free-move. No, no I don't. Like I said in my first post, free-move is only better if you take advantage of 3d space and geometry when building the map. A new game could be built with that in mind and made better. This "3d space and geometry" I keep ranting about, if implemented creatively, moves the game down the abstraction scale, bringing it closer to the real thing and making it deeper and more complex. Back to the flight simulator example, if you implement real physics it's awesome, if you don't, might as well make it to 2d because it's not gonna' matter.

So, have I hammered this point enough, is it clear now why free-roaming is better, but if and only if it takes advantage of 3d space ?

Probably not...

 

[octavius]

[
Now, Wizardry 7 is a far departure from those blobbers because of complex character system, tactical combat etc. - everyone knows the games strengths.

Tactical combat? Wiz 7 is not more tactical than other blobbers. Encounter design is even below par.
What really sets Wiz 7 apart from your average blobber is the dynamic NPCs and the interaction with them. And the sheer size of the game, of course.

 

[Lady_Error]

In your mind abstract means deeper, more complex, intelligent, chess etc.

Guess what, chess is an abstraction/simplification (of a battle) and yet playing it is complex even for the brightest minds.

Let's address first the term "pure blobber".

A "term" you made up yourself.

Here is what you don't get:

However, the beautiful thing about blobbers is that you get to use your imagination, which increases immersion.

First of all let's put the "feelz" aside because those are personal and everyone has a right to their "feelz", I'm not attacking that.

This is not about "feelz" - the use of imagination and the resulting immersion in a blobber is what makes all the difference when compared to FPS-style free roaming. Plus, things like faster movement and easier mapping are other advantages of blobbers.

See now, comments like this is why I insulted your intelligence earlier.

It looks like you insulted your own intelligence earlier:

Gothic 1 and 2 and Risen 1. All other first-person games

 

[Lord Andre]

 

[Parsifarka]

TB games are better because there you're God. You can be everywhere, you can know everything going on the screen. Your actions are never submitted to unknown laws, you're one with the law. In grid-movement games the mediations between subject and object vanish; you order and the party acts, the world reacts, all in a single click. When playing Wizardry or M&M you are experiencing the fucking Absolute.
The enjoyment of stepping into every single square and having absolute control of the pace is only matched by the ability to fly in a free-roaming game (and that's very rare).