Revolver

I always wanted to play a mongol horse archer in a RPG.. It would be cool if there was some historical game where you could choose between warriors from different asian cultures.

well, the last post was by a mod saying, "Lets try to keep it civil" even though I thought it was already pretty civil with one exception. But I don't think "cry more noob" is grounds for deletion Edit: I posted w/o seeing the above post

I own the BG series and all the NWN expansions, but I didn't get TOEE b/c 1) I wasn't familiar w/ the module or the Greyhawk setting 2) The story didn't focus on a single character 3) When I first heard of it, all the bad reviews about the bugs and lack of roleplaying were already out

Depends no how much you invest in it. Making profit on a game is not enough. The stock-market is rough, and the return on a game needs to be pretty big if you want to live. Fallout was in a way a failed project because the investment was pretty big. However, it can't be considered a real failure because of the fanbase it built up, which was used to coin in on the built-on-original-engine-hence-cheaper game we all know and love; Fallout 2 And take Fallout:PoS, this only took some underskilled halfwits to work on (like Chucky), since it was basically a modification of an existing engine Interplay did make a return on the Fallouts and PS:T, but a big enough return to please the shareholders? I don't think so. I'm glad that Obsidian is not tied to a company like Interplay. I usually champion corporate governance, but I don't think it should interfere with creative decisions and day to day business- the focus is just too narrow. Besides, Fallout sold pretty damn well for being a mature rated game in what was then a dead RPG market- as well as the profit, it built up the brand name as well as industry acclaim, as well as perhaps the rights to do the even more lucrative Forgotten Realms games- I'd say it's investment costs were well covered. And before SP tries to use your statements as an argument, like we said above, the simple act of developing a real-time RPG is no guarantee of financial success. Only a project like KOTOR 2 w/ a proven license and support of a company like Bioware is as close to a guarantee as we can get. And the guarantee of financial failure is investing on building an engine from the ground up, start several projects and never ending up with a finished product, all the while being jacked by your dishonest CEO.

Replayability, good mature writing, and play style and/or character differentiation.

market. sorry...

As a side question for everyone: what do you think are features for TB games that needed to be included to bring back a revival in the mkt? (unrelated: SOA is really a real-time strategy game w/o resource mining, sorta like Myth, the Fallen Lords- maybe it belongs in the UFO Aftermath section- game was underrated though)

I was going to ask you to qualify that, because you're the one trying to make the definitive statements, and it's time to shift the burden of proof to you- but since St. Prov is all over you on that one, I'd rather not hear your nonsensical excuses. Did you understand a single thing I typed before??? Since you've obviously lost on the quantitative side of things, its good that we can move on to the qualitative reasons for why Obsidian should make one- here are a couple simple ones: 1) There hasn't been a quality turned based RPG since Fallout & Fallout 2 2) Since F1 & F2 are what gave these developers their reputation, it follows that they have a good chance of making such a quality turn- based RPG. 3) As you admit, there's a niche market, that provides a safety net even if the game is not as good as planned 4) Furthermore, there's a lack of real competition in that market so it is really up for grabs (2 games in the last 5 years) 5) Theres also a chance for a revival in the market. Remember that before Fallout, RPGs were going through a really bad drought. People thought that the RPG market was dead. Along came Fallout, and more developers followed suit, paving the way for the games u worship, BG and KOTOR. Sound familiar? Oh wait, they shouldn't have made any of those RPGs because RPGs were obsolete right? (Waiting for SP to bring up JRPGs b/c of course they are relevant for this argument, and not the other one)

You're putting words in my mouth. Yeah, it tells me 1) you're completely ignoring my argument above and 2) you need to read this: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/b...n-of-proof.html edit: this is a more applicable one: http://esgs.free.fr/uk/log02.htm

You know why I asked whether you know anything about statistics? Because in arguing for "evidence" you have violated every rule of statistical justification. Let me show you: Out of the multitude of RT RPGs that have been released the past 2 years, many have failed and some succeeded. Out of that groups, you picked 3 to make your point: NWN, KOTOR, and BG. But ah, they share some very powerful external factors, like having powerful licenses like the Forgotten Realms, and Starwars, as well as ALL being released by the same company. But of course you throw out those factors. So first we have extreme population bias and second, extreme factor multicollinearity- go look them up if you don't know what they mean. Another example of tampering data and extreme population bias are your continued attempts to throw away things that belong in the RT vs TB financial viability argument like "its a fringe company", "its from Europe", and the awe inspiring "you can't pause"- however of course the factors like brand name (very important when you're talking about sales!) are acceptable. Now we come to the dataset about TB game. Here we have a population set of 4- oh wait, 2 because of your great 3 year time frame. All that can be proven out of a dataset of 2 is that neither of the 2 was as big a hit as NWN. That's something we all knew already, so you've proven NOTHING. Of course the FACT that you can never empirically prove something (only DISPROVE) means that your cries for empirical proof are completely ridiculous.

I said Fallout. You said that it didn't count. Why? Because it was 5 years old. Was TOEE unprofitable? I doubt it. You think turn based is outdated because there's no example of a Turn-Based chart topper in recent history. There have been only 2 turn-based RPGs in recent history because people like you think turn based is outdated. And you're trying to use sales figures to make your point? Ever take statistics? And you're still dodging my Lionheart example.

You want me to answer the question? Ok. I'd take the million dollars over the $100,000. Congrats, you've managed to convince yourself that the design decision to have the characters fight without turns is +900,000 dollars in the bank. Or +900% profit. Another shining example of Shadow Paladin rhetoric. If thats the only thing you find wrong, than the point still stands.

So you should realize it's absurd to ask things like: Because you're implying that real-time with pause is a million dollar slam dunk Part of the reason behind this thread is that few developers have tried a real TB RPGs since Fallout. That's why I was calling for Obsidian to step forward. I was criticizing the industry's use of the same faulty logic that you're using. Do you know how ridiculous your argument is? Exclude every TB RPG that doesn't fit your exact criteria, and include only Bioware related games with big licenses. Everything thats not Bioware related becomes a "fringe developer." Of course making games is a business- I never said anything contrary to that. I did say in the first post, that I conceded that their first game is probably KOTOR 2 and has to be real time, and is probably going to rake in huge bucks based on name alone. But if you ran the company, the only games you'd think would be worth making is KOTOR 3 4 5 6. Everything else is too much of a risk huh? Why do we call this company Obsidian anymore, it should be called KOTOR X instead. Let me give you the only only example that matters. We've beaten this to death, but you're not getting it: the last time these very same developers tried to copy a "money making formula" without the support of a large license, it was Lionheart.

1) The promise it won't hurt comment was made tongue in cheek- even a fool would realize that. All I have to do is show that making a TB RPG is by no means more of a financial risk than making a RT RPG. 2) You want an example? I gave you one- the Fallout series, which overcame the twin hurdles of being from an original world and having a mature rating- was it profitable? yes, enough to warrant a sequel AND reinforce the brand name. You want an example of RT RPGs being financially risky? I gave you a list- reference my earlier post. 3) Like I said, I gave you an example- but I'm not sure that its compatible with your dreamworld in which game developers have been writhing in pain everytime a game sells less than KOTOR or NWN. Why don't you respond to my earlier post too?

Where did you get the notion that it would be dual platform? Iolo posted above:

Here is the grand summary for ShadowPaladin's arguments (some quotes, some paraphrases)- In the sales figures matter (only when they support my case) category: 1a) TOEE is being carried by the D&D name. "That TOEE owes most of its sales to the D&D logo really cant be disputed. " 1b) Saying that popular licenses like Forgotten Realms and Starwars were responsible for the high sales of NWN and SW is just making excuses 2a) KOTOR sales were PROBABLY helped by the Star Wars license- but a lot of Star Wars games have failed 2b) A lot of RT games have failed but they aren't IE games so they don't count. 3a) "Well you could go on (about the uselessness of sales figure comparisons) I doubt you could find comparable sales figures (between real time and turn based) even if you look on consoles where STB games are far more common. " 3b) "I dont happen to have any figures for TOEE do you ? What is the highest selling STB CRPG ?" 4a) "Using FF (which has wracked up in the region of 60 million sales) to support an arguement for an STB game selling well, is a fallacy. " JRPGs are turn-based and sold well, but you cant move your characters in combat so they don't count. 4b) Diablo clones bombed, but they aren't IE games that use RTWP, so they don't count 4c) IE RTWP clones like Prince of Qin and Gorasul that failed don't matter because I don't know anything about them 4d) Lionheart doesn't apply, because it moved too fast 4e) Quote: "Again your making excuses for the poor sales." In the watch me contradict myself category: 1a) I'm going to stick to RPGs since the original author was refering to TB RPG's not TB games in general. 1b)If you look at something like MechCommander which also runs in real time. You have a much more measured combat pace and the targetting interface is via the numpad which means you dont need multiple icon clicks to find it. 1c) JA2 and SS's sales figures are hardly worth Obsidian's time In the WTF are you talking about category: 1) "The thing with STB games is you have so much time to analyse while your waiting for something to happen it makes spotting bugs incredbly easy. " 2) FF7's sales can be only be used to justify why its not risky for Obsidian to make a JRPG

Again your making excuses for the poor sales. Really just show me one CRPG with a TB combat system and with tactical (my bad that one) movement that even comes within sniffing distance of lets say Dungeon Siege since its an original property. Or even outline your plan on why you think making a TTB game rather than an RTWP game is a sound financial move. How is summarizing the flow of your ever changing arguments making excuses? And wake up, the question is whether it would hurt the company, not whether its going to make some top ten list. (really done for the night) Want a very profitable company? Look at Krispy Kreme. Does that mean Obsidian should quit out the CRPG business and start making donuts? Just because something else is profitable doesn't mean that turn-based is not. You make enough crappy real time games, eventually you're going to get 1 or 2 that stand out. KOTOR and BG. And you can't even be sure if thats not all because of the super popular licenses they had. Thats why I listed the number of unreasonable assumptions that go with your need for a bulls*** example of a top ten TB RPG. Lets look at the argument from the other side. Find an example of a TB game in recent years that hurt the company that released it. Remember, the argument is about financial RISK. I can think of one maybe- Pool of Radiance 2. Now look at how many RT games hurt their developers. St. Proverb has given you a couple. Gorasul. Lionheart. A few other names I can't remember, but you read back on. Now, from your line of biased empirical reasoning, RT games are more of a financial RISK. Do you see why your arguments suck?

Again your making excuses for the poor sales. Really just show me one CRPG with a TB combat system and with tactical (my bad that one) movement that even comes within sniffing distance of lets say Dungeon Siege since its an original property. Or even outline your plan on why you think making a TTB game rather than an RTWP game is a sound financial move. How is summarizing the flow of your ever changing arguments making excuses? And wake up, the question is whether it would hurt the company, not whether its going to make some top ten list. (really done for the night)

Saying that Obsidian would do well by making a JRPG b/c FF7 did well, shows a severe lack of rational thought. Well lets talk about making a Diablo clone- all Diablo clones have failed. Diablo sold magnificently well. Where does that leave your brand of arguments? (Done posting for the night)

So judging from this entire thread, I see your argument is that there is no recent record for a CRPG with a turn based combat system with strategic movement without a best selling license selling as well as two games with extremely popular licenses, one being marketed on national TV, therefore Obsidian would be taking a huge financial risk with the simple act of creating a turn-based RPG. Good job- I think you'll convince Feargus of this for sure....

I suppose if I did manage to find the highest grossing TB RPG, you'd post the sales figure of KOTOR or BG- FR and Star Wars games. But wait, didn't FF7 make a boatload of cash? But no, that doesn't count because of your STB ATB qualification- which sounds like an EXCUSE if I ever heard one. And you never answered my question whether FF7 would have taken a sales dive if strategic movement was allowed. Of course there is. Do you actually think FO and FO2 hurt Interplay and BIS? They did pretty damn well for being M-rated games in an unknown setting. EDIT: Yes he did reply to my question about FF7, but he didn't answer it. What he said was "I wouldn't attribute the sales to the lack of movement but, blah blah" That was not what I asked about.

1) Yes, when I quote you, the words directly underneath USUALLY refer to what I'm replying to... 2) I NEVER asked you for sales figures 3) Didn't I spend the last 3 pages carefully explaining why the sales figures of disappointing games like TOEE and heavily marketed games w/ popular licenses are useless in evaluating whether is it still financially viable to release a RPG w/ turned based combat??? Go back and read- especially the parts you chose not to respond to. 4) For your last sentence, are you referring to the topic subtitle? Yes it means that the company won't be hurt financially by making a turn-based game. You know what can hurt a company? Lionheart. *sigh* Spook, I see what you mean...

Sure, I brought those two games up in the first place, but my question was aimed at countering this: You bring up sales records, and I was simply asking you to put things in perspective. In perspective of what ? As I said I didnt bring those games up and I dont have figures for them. Look at your own goddamn quote. "However neither sales record of those games I would consider worth Obsidians time." And I said that you can't make that statement because they belong in the market for computer squad based tactical games. Read the whole thing over again. What's so damn hard to understand?

You should try the full game- you can pick it and the sequel up for pretty cheap these days. It's very likely you wont be disappointed. Of course, unlike JA2 and SS, combat isn't all (or even a little) of what Fallout is about. If you took the combat system for any RPG (like Baldur's Gate for example) and stuck it into the Fallout demo, I doubt you would have found it interesting.

It's not the next day, but oh well... Sure, I brought those two games up in the first place, but my question was aimed at countering this: You bring up sales records, and I was simply asking you to put things in perspective. --- Regarding FF Tactics- it was a Playstation 2 version, but I'm not sure about the specific one. I played one battle- though I only controlled one character, I had to wait an eternity for my turn, as the NPCs not only took a year to decide what to do (menu navigation and everything), the attack animations were boring and time consuming. Plus everything was on a damn bland rectangular grid. And finally, everyone was a cartoony midget. In Fallout, where, unless you were attacking an entire town, there was never waiting around, the NPCs attacked unhesitantly, the animations were either quick or sadistically amusing, and the great combat feedback and taunts kept me interested throughout.