Suggestion: Make a pure turn-based combat RPG

[LlamaGod]

Muahaha.

[Saint_Proverbius]

The majority of RTWP games have succeeded

You can keep on saying this, but by your criteria of selling millions of copies, the majority of them have failed and failed miserably. In fact, all the ones that BIS have produced in house have failed to sell more than half that amount.

 

If you rule out all the ones made by BioWare, all of them have failed to do this. Every single one of them.

• Let's list some of the the "flops" since 2001:
   
  Prince of Qin (Though it did well in China)
  Gorasul (Sucked even in Germany)
  Soldiers of Anarchy (Post Apoc dungeon crawler)
  Weird War (Polish CRPG with a WW2 theme)
  Another War (Similar to the above)
  Icewind Dale 2 (Even though it had that gold dust D&D license)
  Freedom Force (You've heard of this one)
  Summoner (BIG BOMB!)
  Evil Islands
   
   
  
• CRPGs with real time with pause that did "okay" since 1999:
   
  Dungeon Siege (Though the expansion crashed and burned)
  Divine Divinity (Similar to NWN in terms of combat)
  Icewind Dale (BG with less BS party banter and more snow)
  Planescape Torment (Really neat game, though linear)
   
   
  
• CRPGs that did SUPAH DUPAH with real time with pause since 1998:
   
  Baldur's Gate (BioWare)
  Baldur's Gate 2 (BioWare again)
  NWN (Yet another BioWare game)
  KotOR (BioWare did this too, OMFG, a TREND!)
   
   
  
• Addendum: Games similar to CRPGs that have failed miserably with the real time with pause combat since 2001:
   
  Star Trek Away Team
  UFO: Aftermath
  Desperados
   
   
  
• Addendum 2: Games similar to CRPGs ... that did well since 2001:
   
  NONE
  

What does this all show? Well, the odds of Obsidian, a company that is not BioWare is more likely to make a flop by using real time with pause - 4:9 against for CRPGs, and 1:3 against for similar isometric tactical combat. If I draw the line at CRPGs since 2001, the odds are 1:3 that the game won't flop. If we just stick to tactical combat, the odds drop further to 1:4 it won't flop. If they don't make a flop, then they're likely to make a small profit.

 

So, your argument that the majority of the real time with pause games make billions of dollars is flat out horsecrap.

 

You're been pwn3d. Take a bow.

[Hell Kitty]

Desperados may have failed miserably (I wasn't aware this was so), but it's getting a sequel.

[Saint_Proverbius]

Desperados may have failed miserably (I wasn't aware this was so), but it's getting a sequel.

Note the sequel is an action shooter for PC/XBox/PS2 instead of a real time with pause tactical game for the PC.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

@Greatjon: Theres no workaround that will diminish it, and adding more workarounds in a system which is already a major workaround to two different systems will start compromising its integrity. If you state that an RTWP system is useful in allowing players to get more control in everything during combat, then you can't approve of removing control (in this case, the inability to cancel already activated actions) because that is one of the ideas behind a RTWP system. The main aspect we should realize here is that when you pause, you're effectively disrupting combat pace for your own reasons, sacrificing realism. If you take realism as a rule, a turn is unrealistic, but so is pausing, as its also an abstraction of realistic combat. One can't approve one and disaprove of the other based on which is more realistic.

 

As for the rest...

 

I agree with all those lines, except with point #7. Not because I dislike realistic combat, but because I don't see a reason as to why CRPGs should have realistic combat. Also, #7 and #1 will always conflict, and there is rarely, if ever, an acceptable middle ground.

[Revolver]

The majority of RTWP games have succeeded

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.

Not one TTB game in the same time period has succeeded.

Did you understand a single thing I typed before???

So I suppose the ultimate question is "Why would you make a TTB game" ?

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)

[Revolver]

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)

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I find JRPGs quite irrelevant to this. The would-be "greatness" or "usefulness" of ATB is purely subjective. In the "old days", ATB had 2 options: Active and Wait. Wait made it so it actually simulated turns (allowing for characters to only be attacked after they inputed their orders); Active made it so characters would be attacked even before they made their decisions. The main problem with it is that planning was rather mundane: few combat options, time limit defining when it was a characters' time to act (very bad imitation of turn), and the worse - no movement. It was even more boring and less interactive than a CRPG's TB.

[Hell Kitty]

mkt?

[Revolver]

mkt?

market. sorry...

[roshan]

i want a hard core open ended turn based role playing game, with some french fries and pizza on the side!!!!!!!!!!

[Volourn]

Just because a game doesn't sell as much as ther Sims, Diablo, or Bioware games doesn't make them failures. SP, youa re silly in all that. The Fos eries while not selling millions of copies was successful. Why? It sold 100s of thousnads, it led to a sequel and two toher games that used the FO name to seel them. PST was also successful.

 

You don't have to make a game that sells a million + copies to make money and stay profitable. I would think that much is obvious cosndieirng that a very small percentage of games do that.

[Spook]

I'm sure they do their research. If you took this board as a typical population you would get the impression that 90% of people supported TTB strategy games and likely the other 10% didnt mind either way.

 

Got to love IF  B) 10% might be a bit high. But in luie of figures I would guess that the top selling TB CRPG would hover at 100,000.

I'm sure IP did some sort of "research" before booth Lionheart and FOBoS.....So much for that reseach.

 

As you said it is your guess only.

[Spook]

The only way BIO can crash, and burn is if they really screw up (like they would be if they followed through with that silly "rumoiur"). Hehe.

 

I dont see how making an MMPORG would cause them to crash and burn as you put it. It might ruffle a few feathers but thats nothing new Jade did exactly the same thing.

I have to agree. Making a MMORP will not make them hated enough to crash and burn.

 

But making a bad MMORP will probably leave an impression that they are messing with stuff they don't know anything about. It might also lower the money they have for making games if it flopps, but with a very high probability not enough for a C&B.

[Brother None]

Just because a game doesn't sell as much as ther Sims, Diablo, or Bioware games doesn't make them failures. SP, youa re silly in all that. The Fos eries while not selling millions of copies was successful. Why? It sold 100s of thousnads, it led to a sequel and two toher games that used the FO name to seel them. PST was also successful.

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.

[Spook]

So I will ask you again. Where is your evidence that a such a game would not cause Obsidian harm ? Because you have yet to present a shred of it. Only excuses as to why similiar games have failed to sell.

 

1b . False. I said that the D&D logo also boosted NWN's and BG sales over what they would have been if they were not D&D games. Real time or TB the D&D name is gold dust.

 

2a. Thats true. The SW name is valuable. But many SW games have sunk without a trace. Dont see a problem with that.

You yourself still refuses to give evidence why RT could not cause Obsidian harm.

 

1b: POR2 comes to mind.

 

2b: And many DD games never sold that much. On the other hand SW games have also sold well, and we do have SWG now that seams to be a somewhat success (even if I find it lacking in content at release). If DD games can rise or flop, and SW games can rise and flop, I do find 1b and 2b without to much weight in this discussion.

[Spook]

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.

Ok. So why is it such a stretch to believe that people might follow a trend which is far more likely to make those sorts of figures. Than one which will just keep them going ?

 

Your basically asking someone to do someting you yourself wouldnt do.

 

Obsidian have the quality to play with the big boys. Why shouldnt they do it ?

Should the options not be:

 

Do you make a clon game and maybe get 1.000.000$, and maybe loose 100.000$, or do you go for nich market and probably make 100.000$+.

[Revolver]

[quote (Volourn @ Feb 12 2004, 06:49 AM)

Just because a game doesn't sell as much as ther Sims, Diablo, or Bioware games doesn't make them failures. SP, youa re silly in all that. The Fos eries while not selling millions of copies was successful. Why? It sold 100s of thousnads, it led to a sequel and two toher games that used the FO name to seel them. PST was also successful.  "

 

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.

[Spook]

But please dont try to fob us off with some TB games are a really great business move.

You're putting words in my mouth.

I asked for one TTB RPG that was successful you couldnt provide one. That really should tell you a lot dont you think ?

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

:D

 

Great links.

[Atreides]

Maybe but you still didnt answer the question.

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.

Actually the people that you might want to convince would be publishers. Either ones that subcontract games out (like BIO) or people that OE would go to with an idea. OE might be intrested in doing a TB game but whether they're allowed to do so is another question.

 

The conception (right or wrong) is that pure TB mostly panders to a hardcore niche, so to cater for a wider audience (larger sales potential) you might want to have an alternative, if not ditch TB entirely. In that sense the publisher would pick the system with a larger potential audience to their best knowledge.

 

TOEE had many things that would have appealed to the so called hardcore niche - it was pure TB, good graphics, "hardcore" developer Troika, Troika/Fallout fans mostly, well known D&D module etc. Note that I'm certainly not claiming that all of the TB group would have purchased ToEE (dislike of D&D?), but it's mostly true that the usual faces asking for TB bought TOEE. Addditionally, it's very likely that sales were negatively influenced by the notorious bugs, but still it's a good case study to see the behaviour of the TB group, which really wanted to like this one. ToEE probably made a profit but it wasn't that great. If a publisher were to consider KOTOR2 vs ToEE2 (or whatever module they pick), most would go for KOTOR2.

 

Now, assuming that a developing house came in with an offer of a TB game with a forecasted profit of X, and the publisher had another offer with a forecasted profit of which was Y, the publisher would most of the time poick the larger of the two. If we were to stretch it a bit and say the publisher thought that the TB game would be worth a go even if X were lower, how much would the publisher be willing to sacrifice in terms of profit (Y-X)? $100k, $200k? For that matter how much would you be willing to sacrifice to see a TB game?

[Spook]

ToEE was one of the worse modules I ever played in ADD. Never understod why they made a game on an old bad modul in a setting that is not used very much today.

[LlamaGod]

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?

It's a personal preference, but I like to have alot of tacticle options and stuff, makes combat fun and interesting. I played through ToEE about 5 times just for the combat and trying different parties.

[LlamaGod]

ToEE was one of the worse modules I ever played in ADD. Never understod why they made a game on an old bad modul in a setting that is not used very much today.

Seeing how Greyhawk is now the default setting of D&D, i'd be wise to say many many people play it and just dont realize it.

 

And Living Greyhawk f***ing owns faces.

 

Down with Forgotten Realms!

 

ToEE was good because it was the basis of D&D, dungeons, loot and monsters, which is what the intial design of Greyhawk was, too.

[Volourn]

TOEE was bad due to ph@t lewt (+6 strength gloves WOWSERS!!!), + 3 weapns up the wazoo before even half way through game, horrible storym, unmemorable characters, no depth, frivlous opening vignettes that don't add to the gamer's experience, bugs up the wazoo, agood combat vsystem ruined by easy battles and the 75% of ther fights involved bugbears. yeah, tell me again, how that game is the best D&D game evEr?

[Judge Hades]

Also add the fact the game had no story to it as well has major design issues. ToEE is one DnD game I wished that I didn't purchase. It had good combat, but thats about it. Good combat doesn't make a CRPG.