Jump to content

Magister Lajciak

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Magister Lajciak

  1. Without a doubt, a proper, single-player KOTOR 3 would be the Star Wars game I would wish for. A distant second would be another game in the Jedi Academy series (like somebody already mentioned, a proper Jedi Academy 3). I am not really interested in seeing any other game in the Star Wars setting, though I could be persuaded by other single-player RPGs, single-player shooters and possibly even by strategy games if they promised high quality storylines and gameplay. I am not interested in playing any online games, regardless of whether they are Star Wars or something else.

  2. On top of that 4E is so meh-tastic, and removed from D&D, that maybe it's all over.


    Yeah, I almost certainly would pass on a 4E CRPG. Since, WotC is unlikely to allow any more 3.5E games to be made, I have to hope that Obsidian will use some other license (KOTOR 3 would be best, but unlikely...).

  3. There is a version which is confirmed as not having SecuROM- the Steam one (maybe the Gamersgate or D2D versions too, though I've never seen it confirmed for them)


    Yeah, if you hate intrusive DRM then logically you loathe Steam. Amazing how many people seem to think just because it's Valve and they made omghalflifebestgameeverexcepthalflife2!!!! it somehow isn't intrusive though.


    Despite my sig, I don't actually dislike SecuROM. What I dislike is online activation in all its forms (and some new games using SecuROM use online activation, Mass Effect included), as it essentially means you are renting a game (until the EA (in case of Mass Effect, which unfortunately has this anti-feature) takes its servers down or they stop supporting activation) rather than buying it. As such, you are correct that I would not buy anything through Steam. I have no problem with disk checks, be they based on SecuROM or other DRM.

  4. It's news to me, but despite my sig and avatar icon, I don't actually dislike SecuROM as such, so long as it sticks to disk checks and such. I dislike the implementation of SecuROM (or any other DRM) that requires you to activate games online and limits the number of installs. NWN2 never had that implementation of SecuROM, so I never had a problem with it. :(

  5. I would definitely purchase a Pathfinder CRPG if it were done by Obsidian (barring some red flags, of course, such as it being a MMO and so on). Heck, I advocated a Pathfinder CRPG already during the playtest process before the Pathfinder RPG was even released.


    As the licenses make clear, legal issues would not be a problem. I think a bigger issue is whether some CRPG developer (such as Obsidian :) ) would want to license the CRPG from Paizo. Paizo is not a huge company, albeit growing pretty fast, and Pathfinder is probably not as popular as some other franchises and certainly not as popular as D&D or 4E. That said, Pathfinder is rapidly gaining in popularity and seeing unexpected sales - the core book that just came out had the biggest print-run Paizo has ever made and it sold out before it hit the street. Currently, they are in the process of doing a second print run. Hence, the game is clearly succeeding beyond expectations and selling very well. That does give some hope for the possibility of a future Pathfinder CRPG game.

  6. Why is everyone so in love with d20 anyway? A system using dice pools is more realistic and just generally better.


    What I meant is that it makes the critical failures make sense. So everyone doesn't automatically fail once out of every 20 tries on average and someone who isn't very skilled has a much higher chance of screwing up really bad.


    I'm not saying that dice pools will make anything magically more realistic, but almost every cRPG that has dice rolls has the d20 system for no good reason.


    Well, highest and lowest values are the only places where a dice pool is more realistic. Even there, simple rules can get rid of automatic success or automatic failure - for example, I have implemented exploding dice upwards and imploding dice downwards.


    The d20 die has the advantage of the right level of granularity and easy decimal calculation (each point on a die is equivalent to 5%). These are important features.

  7. I'm sure there will be a crack for the online check two weeks after the game is released. Not that I mind, I don't plan on playing D3 lan or offline, but I'm sure it will be possible.


    It's not an online check - there's simply no LAN capability. If you want MP play, you need to go through B.net.


    That's what they said originally and I too thought it hadn't changed, but apparently it might have. Read the article linked above.

  8. Actually you can play it on LAN, just everyone needs a copy and you need to validate on Battle.net before you can play.


    At least you can SC II, I presume D3 will use the same system.


    Where have you read this? Last time I checked Blizzard said multiplayer can only be played on Battle.net. Then again, I haven't been following the issue for about two months now, so it could have changed, but can you link me to the source? Thanks! :)

    That's not a done deal. ...And since it was short and only to correct me, Purkake's response to my post doesn't count. :p




    There's the link above. I don't know if we can count that as LAN. I'm thinking a game where can play independent of an internet connection. *shrug* Actually my point was only that it wouldn't matter. Even if we all share a T1 connection, we'll be just fine. The big thing is being able to have a private room for five or six people.


    That's pretty much what I was talking about. It's LAN with DRM.


    OK, well, it is an improvement over the no-LAN-at-all possibility, but it still sucks in a major fashion. Better than the previous policy I guess.

  9. Although if you read the software FAQ, they talk aabout not allowing anyone to use the D&D rules in games, because the d20 license doesn't allow that. I don't think the actual rules are published as Open Game Content. If it was, any computer game could just use the D&D rules and that would be a terrible business decision.


    The software FAQ: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123i


    The software restrictions in the FAQ only apply to the d20 License. The rules of the game are published as Open Game Content (the one exception I recall, being the XP chart, so you have to use a different chart with different amounts of XP for each level in OGL games, which is really not a problem). In fact, 3.5E is almost entirely Open Game Content (at least the core books are, some of the later books less so), the only exceptions being a handful of names, which are product identity. These names include D&D, the Drow, the Illithid/Mind Flayers, Displacer Beasts, Beholders, Aasimar, Genasi, the names of the Greyhawk gods and a couple of others. You cannot use these names in open gaming products, but you can use everything else and even use the rules to create the statistics behind the creatures protected by product identity. This is, in fact, done pretty frequently and for example the Drow are simply called Dark Elves in many products that use the Open Gaming License (OGL).


    The d20 License is different from the OGL, the d20 License being vastly more restrictive than the OGL. For example, the d20 License (but not the OGL) prevents you from including any character-creation or character-advancement rules in your products (this is so as to encourage the buyers of the product to also purchase the D&D core rulebooks to get this information). So what was the advantage of using the d20 License instead of the OGL? It was that you could use the d20 Logo on your product to indicate its compatibility with D&D, whereas you couldn't do so on OGL products. Initially, this was viewed as a big advantage, so you saw many more products using the d20 License than the OGL License. As time went on, more and more companies transitioned to using the much more flexible Open Gaming License, no longer so worried about not being able to indicate compatibility with D&D using the d20 logo.


    A few more things worth mentioning:

    1) The d20 License does not exist any more. It has been rescinded by the Wizards of the Coast.

    2) The Open Gaming License is in perpetuity and cannot be rescinded by the Wizards of the Coast or anyone else.

    3) I suspect one of the reasons for the huge changes introduced by 4E was to make a game sufficiently different, so that it cannot be reverse-engineered from 3.5E's Open Gaming License, so that WotC can regain complete control of D&D in that edition and (probably) future editions. 4E does not have an Open Gaming License - it has an STL license, which is similar to the d20 License (is limited in what it includes, can be pulled by WotC at will and so on and so on).


    Sorry about the long posts, but I have been following the licenses and their development for a long time, so I sometimes post excessively about these issues.

  10. Actually you can play it on LAN, just everyone needs a copy and you need to validate on Battle.net before you can play.


    At least you can SC II, I presume D3 will use the same system.


    Where have you read this? Last time I checked Blizzard said multiplayer can only be played on Battle.net. Then again, I haven't been following the issue for about two months now, so it could have changed, but can you link me to the source? Thanks! :p

  11. Guess we both have to wait, Barnes and Noble sent me an email the other day stating the release date was pushed back.


    well, nothing else to go do...


    It has been released already, but the problem is that the first print run already sold out, because the scale of the demand was unanticipated (even though according to the Paizo CEO, this has been the largest print run of any Paizo product [possibly apart from the Dragon and Dungeon magazines - I no longer remember precisely how the CEO phrased it]). They are in the process of doing the second printing now.

  12. Here is the full text of the Open Gaming License: http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/OGLv1.0a.rtf


    OPEN GAME LICENSE Version 1.0a


    The following text is the property of Wizards of the Coast, Inc. and is Copyright 2000 Wizards of the Coast, Inc ("Wizards"). All Rights Reserved.


    1. Definitions: (a)"Contributors" means the copyright and/or trademark owners who have contributed Open Game Content; (b)"Derivative Material" means copyrighted material including derivative works and translations (including into other computer languages), potation, modification, correction, addition, extension, upgrade, improvement, compilation, abridgment or other form in which an existing work may be recast, transformed or adapted; © "Distribute" means to reproduce, license, rent, lease, sell, broadcast, publicly display, transmit or otherwise distribute; (d)"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity. (e) "Product Identity" means product and product line names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content; (f) "Trademark" means the logos, names, mark, sign, motto, designs that are used by a Contributor to identify itself or its products or the associated products contributed to the Open Game License by the Contributor (g) "Use", "Used" or "Using" means to use, Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative Material of Open Game Content. (h) "You" or "Your" means the licensee in terms of this agreement.


    2. The License: This License applies to any Open Game Content that contains a notice indicating that the Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License. You must affix such a notice to any Open Game Content that you Use. No terms may be added to or subtracted from this License except as described by the License itself. No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License.


    3.Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You indicate Your acceptance of the terms of this License.


    4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.


    5.Representation of Authority to Contribute: If You are contributing original material as Open Game Content, You represent that Your Contributions are Your original creation and/or You have sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this License.


    6.Notice of License Copyright: You must update the COPYRIGHT NOTICE portion of this License to include the exact text of the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any Open Game Content You are copying, modifying or distributing, and You must add the title, the copyright date, and the copyright holder's name to the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any original Open Game Content you Distribute.


    7. Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. The use of any Product Identity in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product Identity. The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity.


    8. Identification: If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Game Content.


    9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.


    10 Copy of this License: You MUST include a copy of this License with every copy of the Open Game Content You Distribute.


    11. Use of Contributor Credits: You may not market or advertise the Open Game Content using the name of any Contributor unless You have written permission from the Contributor to do so.


    12 Inability to Comply: If it is impossible for You to comply with any of the terms of this License with respect to some or all of the Open Game Content due to statute, judicial order, or governmental regulation then You may not Use any Open Game Material so affected.


    13 Termination: This License will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with all terms herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses shall survive the termination of this License.


    14 Reformation: If any provision of this License is held to be unenforceable, such provision shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable.



    Open Game License v 1.0 Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.


    I see nothing against computer games in the text.

  13. Not going to happen. Wizards wouldn't allow it due to licensing constraints.

    how do you figure that??


    Pathfinder is d20 System using the 3.5e Open Gaming License which states that no company can create an independent interactive gaming environment using the d20 System rules. They can make d20 System reference software, but not games.


    If it is d20 or DnD related it has to go through Wizards and Hasbro in a separate licensing agreement.


    This is incorrect. Pathfinder does not use the d20 license. It does use the Open Gaming License (the two are not the same, but many gamers confuse them, because they seemed so similar during the supported lifetime of 3.5E). The OGL license is vastly less restrictive than the d20 license.


    Now on the note of the petition: I would love to see a Pathfinder RPG CRPG and especially from Obsidian Entertainment! >_<

  14. In other interesting Pathfinder RPG news, the popularity of the RPG is exceeding Paizo's expectations. The first print has already been sold out* and the book is not even out for a few more days yet (and according to Paizo, it was their biggest print ever)! The second print has already been ordered.


    *I am sure it will still be available in stores (though perhaps not for long) - I suspect the stores did much of the pre-ordering, but I am back in Slovakia at the moment, so I will probably have to wait for the second print to get it. I might just get the $10 PDF of the book, not to have to wait.

  15. That is the biggest problem... as Magister Lajciak said, there are many ISP in my country which do not allow to connect more than 1 PC itno their internet unless you pay higher programme... That in other words means, that if you bring a router and connect 7 your friend into your internet account there is high probability, that next month you get penalty of around 1000 EUR for breaking the rules of your connection...


    No LAN for SC2 is aswell no buy for me unless they release the SC2 Battlechest with all Single Players Campaingns in a single box... Diablo 3... i still have to think about it... i actualy never played Diablo 2 on LAN nor batlle.net so this might not be an issue for me... SC and War was in 95% cases pure LAN game for me with 4 to 10 people in one place on almost daily basis...


    Never heard of that before, sounds crazy.


    My ISP has those rules too - there are many like that around here.


    How can they stop you from using a router/switch?


    Computing is not my field, so I don't know: they might or might not be able to stop you in practice. Than again, what can Blizzard or another game company do to stop you from simply downloading its game and using a LAN hack to play it locally? I am sure you see my point - regardless of whether they can stop you in practice, it is illegal to do so.


    Anyway, who carries their computer around anyway? Just play from the comfort of your own house with voice chat?


    Well, we like to play and socialize at the same time in the same room and that's pretty much the only way we play multiplayer. We have little interest in gaming long-distance without face to face contact. Besides, I also like to play games with the rest of my family, including those members who live in the same house as me. :down:

  16. I hate them both equally.


    I have read neither and thus have no feelings on either.


    Back to the topic, I would love the new project to be another expansion to Neverwinter Nights 2, but if it is not then I hope it is a unique Obsidian RPG, in their own setting using an engine made in-house.


    On this topic, I agree on both counts. Another expansion for NWN 2 would be great, but I probaly wouldn't be intereted in a new D&D CRPG, because it would likely be 4E, so I would prefer a unique setting or some other license instead.

  17. Yeah I was just about to come on here and post this thing. LAN is important to me. Ad hoc LAN parties in my friends connectionless basement make up a significant portion of my gamer memories.


    Are they still connectionless? It's part of my memories too, but that was 10 years ago. Broadband penetration is a bit better now, even in the U.S.


    EDIT: It's also worth mentioning that South Korea has incredible broadband penetration.


    Broadband penetration is rising, but in many countries it is still not near-universal. In Slovakia, for example, almost everybody has a computer, but only about 11% percent of households have broadband internet (the figures are from 2006, so it is surely more people than that by now, but penetration is still nowhere near universal).


    Besides that, connections are often restricted in such a way that you are not legally allowed to invite your friends over to connect their computers at your place using your connection. In parctice, I am not sure the ISP could control it much, but going against that contract is not really different from pirating games.


    To top things off, even if all my friends and family had broadband, I wouldn't game online with them. We prefer to game and socialize at the same time, in the same room. LAN is essential functionality for that.


    Finally, the issue with internet-only multiplayer is similar to online authentication in the regard that if those servers are ever taken offline, the gamers are stranded, just as users of DRMed Walmart music, Yahoo music and Microsoft music got stranded once these companies (I believe it was these three, but I have read the relevant stories some time back) have decided to take down their servers. I never purchase games or music where this can happen (My wider family had some attrocious experience with Sony's music DRM) - so any game with online-only multiplayer is a game I will treat as a single-player game only when making my purchasing decision. Any game that requires online connection/authentication/whatever even for single-player, I automatically won't purchase.

  18. I don't think this is about the piracy. I'm guessing they are just trying to get more people on BNet. It still seems like a retarded decision, though.


    Well, they did explicitly cite fighting piracy as a reason behind the move, along with the 'providing a better experience' cover. ;) That said, there could be auxiliary reasons for their decision. Battlenet 2 is being created and even though it will remain free to play, there are rumors that it could contain some services for a charge - one example given by Bashiok (one of Blizzard's community managers) as a possibility was resurrecting hardcore characters in Diablo 3 for a fee. So yes, an auxiliary reason could be to gain extra revenues from Battlenet 2 by forcing everybody to use it.


    Blizzard has decided to not include LAN support in Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2 as an anti-piracy measure.


    I notice the article you linked to didn't mention piracy at all.


    Deraldin already pointed out that the article does indeed mention it. It has also been mentioned several other times by Blizzard staff posting on the Battlenet boards.

  • Create New...