Armee Troika

[Dark_Raven]

Regardless if it's true, that is some loyal dedication on the former employees part.

[Darque]

Yup.

 

Like that guy that ported that Call of Cthulhu game.

[Spider]

There is no way any company can actually sit around on a game, it's just not possible, activision wouldn't allow it, and nobody in the industry would be happy to do such a thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There exists many scenarios where a developer may be more or less forced to sit on a game. The one most likely to apply here (not saying it does, but it could) is that the publisher no longer wanted to fund further development of the game, but couldn't release it before Half-Life 2 due to using the source engine. Sure, Troika would probably have been allowed to work on the game if they wanted to, but would have done so without pay and in that case it makes more sense (for a struggling company) to try and land a new contract.

[Walsingham]

Much interesting stuff. I can see most of the stands taken, but here's my angle:

 

When a games company is forging ahead and attempting to do neat stuff. When a games company gives me some credit for intelligence. When a games company feeeds me creepy darkness and humour into the mix. This is the time when I quit bitching about small bugs.

 

Boo bloody hoo someone is clipping into a rock, or a keycard isn't obvious, or it feels as if I'm stuck. I've been given an adventure that takes me into another world, and gives me new choices, and makes me think new things. That's a goddamn rpg, not bashing a console. It's a whole package.

 

And EA obviously make what people want. I don't buy their games like I don't shop at IKEA. It's a personal choice and you're free to do as you like.

 

I just think that as what amounts to connoiseurs we owe it to our own community to point out the successes in origianl challenging games rather then dwell endlessly on the easy points. It's like criticising Einstein for not being able to spell.

[Volourn]

Oh please. You make it sound like Troika were geniuses that were simply misunderstood. Their games were far from perfect nor were they as complex as people claim. No more complicated than the average RPG, imo.

 

To comapre them to Einstein is laughably hilarious. And, Troika doesn't have a history of small bugs. Their bugs are often huge, and game breaking.

 

I like Troka games overall (2 out of 3, anyways); but they are from being classics. They haven't come close to making FOs-BGs-MVP 2005s-Ultimas-NWNs. Those are the true classics of gaming.

 

I will determine what I point out as a clasic or as comparable Einstein. No one will tell me what I think is a classic. Thanks.

 

Game over.

Edited September 21, 2006 by Volourn

[Meshugger]

Oh please. You make it sound like Troika were geniuses that were simply misunderstood. Their games were far from perfect nor were they as complex as people claim. No more complicated than the average RPG, imo.

 

To comapre them to Einstein is laughably hilarious. And, Troika doesn't have a history of small bugs. Their bugs are often huge, and game breaking.

 

I like Troka games overall (2 out of 3, anyways); but they are from being classics. They haven't come close to making FOs-BGs-MVP 2005s-Ultimas-NWNs. Those are the true classics of gaming.

 

I will determine what I point out as a clasic or as comparable Einstein. No one will tell me what I think is a classic. Thanks.

 

Game over.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sure Troika had very unpolished and buggy games, but one can not hide the fact that they had very interesting concepts and ideas in gamedesign. Too bad their marketing and business model was of the quality highschool C-student.

 

Bloodlines is a better game than Jade Empire though

[alanschu]

They did have interesting ideas. But the thing is, I agree with Volourn that often times the bugs weren't "minor."

 

 

Having said that, I loved Bloodlines and it sounds like I got lucky. I did hit one gamestopping bug at the end, but fortunately I enjoyed the game enough I actually didn't mind restarting the game.

[Slowtrain]

I think Arcanum was one of the best single player crpgs. If it hadn't been so buggy and unbalanced and had such poor combat it could have been the best.

 

Even in that state I got a lot of enjoyment out of it.

 

They did have interesting ideas.  But the thing is, I agree with Volourn that often times the bugs weren't "minor."

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Definitely not minor. Arcanum was so buggy upon release it was almost unplayable for many people. It took them seveal months to finally got out the 1.74 patch, which fixed many of the bugs, but still not even close to all, but by then most people had moved on.

Edited September 21, 2006 by CrashGirl

[Volourn]

"Bloodlines is a better game than Jade Empire though"

 

Believe it or not, I really want to agree with you on this. BL has some things that ar every, very good (writing, role-playing, and atmosphere); but its combat is beyond dreadful, the garbled endings which was nearly all that poor combat, and bugs/slowdowns up the wazoo drops it drown to being a good game.

 

BL is a game that should have easily been in my top 10 if not my top 5; but BL screwed Bl so it's not.

 

As for Arcanum, I like the game. In fact, I think I overrated it ebfore. I loved the game. Even the combat which people whine about, I actually like for the most part... but, it has its flaws too.

 

TOEE has a great combat system. But, that's it. Otherwise, it's just whatever.

 

Troika made games with potential that may or may not have been fun. But, theyw ere not top teir. Neither was their games 'Einsteinish' or 'too complicated' to understand.

 

LOL :D

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

There is no way any company can actually sit around on a game, it's just not possible, activision wouldn't allow it, and nobody in the industry would be happy to do such a thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There exists many scenarios where a developer may be more or less forced to sit on a game. The one most likely to apply here (not saying it does, but it could) is that the publisher no longer wanted to fund further development of the game, but couldn't release it before Half-Life 2 due to using the source engine. Sure, Troika would probably have been allowed to work on the game if they wanted to, but would have done so without pay and in that case it makes more sense (for a struggling company) to try and land a new contract.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't agree in the case of finding a new contract. If you're known for producing a bad product or an unreliable product then eventually you find yourself stuck without a publisher.

 

In the case of trokia, from what I am aware of they couldn't afford as a company to work on the product anymore, finding a new contract would be pretty unlikely at that point.

 

The only time a company would sit on a game is if there was no publisher, or the publisher can't or won't publisher.... Baldurs Gate for the playstation springs to mind.

 

The only reason I replied in the first case was down to the implied post that trokia opted to sit in the game.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

Oh please. You make it sound like Troika were geniuses that were simply misunderstood. Their games were far from perfect nor were they as complex as people claim. No more complicated than the average RPG, imo.

 

Vol, most devs are certainly very gifted, some are indeed geniuses, your a gamer and a very dedicated one at that. Have you ever made a game Vol? Ever been involved in a project even remotely on the same scale? I assume, no. Your a mouth Vol.

[Volourn]

"Vol, most devs are certainly very gifted, some are indeed geniuses, your a gamer and a very dedicated one at that. Have you ever made a game Vol? Ever been involved in a project even remotely on the same scale? I assume, no. Your a mouth Vol."

 

What does this have to do with what you quoted?

 

The fact that I'm a gamer who hasn't made a professional game is not relevant. At least no more or no less than most of those who are disagreeing?

 

I never said the Troika devs were untalented, did I? No.

 

However, I have no problem saying that the Bethesda devs are, by and large, untalented compared to most other dev houses. The proof is in the pudding.

Edited September 21, 2006 by Volourn

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

"Vol, most devs are certainly very gifted, some are indeed geniuses, your a gamer and a very dedicated one at that. Have you ever made a game Vol? Ever been involved in a project even remotely on the same scale? I assume, no. Your a mouth Vol."

 

What does this have to do with what you quoted?

 

The fact that I'm a gamer who hasn't made a professional game is not relevant. At least no more or no less than most of those who are disagreeing?

 

I never said the Troika devs were untalented, did I? No.

 

However, I have no problem saying that the Bethesda devs are, by and large, untalented compared to most other dev houses. The proof is in the pudding.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Vol, I never said you said they were untalented.

 

I stated that for the most part, I'm sure that they were atleast a few extremely gifted/genius dev's at Trokia. I'd say that about most development studios, Bethesda included. If you knew half as much as you make out you know about games, you'd never say half of what you do say, and the other half you'd spend a long time thinking on.

 

As for what it has to do with anything? Well Vol your a mouth you say alot, yet you don't know the half of what you speak about, at the end of the day you're going off your own opinion of a said game, for example to you a particle effect for a spell is just a spell effect. That's my point, you know what a particle effect for a spell is? you've seen pleanty of them. You'd be damned to make one yourself, you don't understand you just play the games, for you a cool effect is just something of a bigger picture, but ya know it most likely took a day or so to put it togeather, it was thought about and constructed, changed, revised, reworked, polished etc... You wouldn't know the difference between something thrown togeather in five minutes or something thrown togeather over a few days.

 

Your quick to insult, but you never see anything good about anything, I never looked at a game and saw black or white. A game can suffer from extremely poor gameplay mechanics and have some absolutely awesome technical achievements, or it could be perhaps a buggy piece of crap, but the mechanics are so accessable it brings a new gamer into the fold, dungeon lords is a prime example of this, it suffers from poor collision detection, poor combat, poor PC models and poor PC animations, and or code personally i think it sloppy coding but that's something else, anyroad my g/f wouldn't even entertain gaming, she saw a friend playing Dungeon Lords and never looked back, she finished it and now she's hooked.

 

Dungeon Lords is not the best game in the world, but it has some redeaming factors in that it's interesting enough, and easy enough to grasp and play that an absolute n00b can pick it up and play it.

 

<_< I'm sick of your know nothing mouth disrespecting devs. I have always had and always will have a very simple attitude, think you can do better, think you know better, proove it go do it, otherwise shut the hell up.

Edited September 21, 2006 by @\NightandtheShape/@

[Dark_Raven]

"Bloodlines is a better game than Jade Empire though"

 

Believe it or not, I really want to agree with you on this. BL has some things that ar every, very good (writing, role-playing, and atmosphere); but its combat is beyond dreadful, the garbled endings which was nearly all that poor combat, and bugs/slowdowns up the wazoo drops it drown to being a good game.

 

BL is a game that should have easily been in my top 10 if not my top 5; but BL screwed Bl so it's not.    

 

As for Arcanum, I like the game. In fact, I think I overrated it ebfore. I loved the game. Even the combat which people whine about, I actually like for the most part... but, it has its flaws too.

 

TOEE has a great combat system. But, that's it. Otherwise, it's just whatever.

 

Troika made games with potential that may or may not have been fun. But, theyw ere not top teir. Neither was their games 'Einsteinish' or 'too complicated' to understand.

 

LOL :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bloodlines is destined to be a classic.

 

It is better than JE.

[Volourn]

"As for what it has to do with anything? Well Vol your a mouth you say alot, yet you don't know the half of what you speak about, at the end of the day you're going off your own opinion of a said game, for example to you a particle effect for a spell is just a spell effect. That's my point, you know what a particle effect for a spell is? you've seen pleanty of them. You'd be damned to make one yourself, you don't understand you just play the games, for you a cool effect is just something of a bigger picture, but ya know it most likely took a day or so to put it togeather, it was thought about and constructed, changed, revised, reworked, polished etc... You wouldn't know the difference between something thrown togeather in five minutes or something thrown togeather over a few days.

 

Your quick to insult, but you never see anything good about anything, I never looked at a game and saw black or white. A game can suffer from extremely poor gameplay mechanics and have some absolutely awesome technical achievements, or it could be perhaps a buggy piece of crap, but the mechanics are so accessable it brings a new gamer into the fold, dungeon lords is a prime example of this, it suffers from poor collision detection, poor combat, poor PC models and poor PC animations, and or code personally i think it sloppy coding but that's something else, anyroad my g/f wouldn't even entertain gaming, she saw a friend playing Dungeon Lords and never looked back, she finished it and now she's hooked."

 

This is a load of nonsne. i have never disputed the fact that game dev work is ahrd work. And, I have never claimed it's all black and white.

 

Heck, just sticking with Troika. I loath TOEE yet I give it all the credit in the world for its combat system. How is that viewing things in black and white.

 

Before responding to someone's posts at least read what they write. You obviously haven't read my posts.

 

 

"I'm sick of your know nothing mouth disrespecting devs. I have always had and always will have a very simple attitude, think you can do better, think you know better, proove it go do it, otherwise shut the hell up."

 

You have never been me, and until you are me you should never criticize me. So, until you cna prove that you can be a better me then prove it otherwise shut the hell up.

 

R00fles!

 

 

P.S. If you can't tell the above was sarcasm, oh well.

 

P.S.S. All you can do about it is continue to whine about it.

 

P.S.S.S.S Once again, in clear terms, I;m not disputing that dev work isn't ahrd and things take time. However, as a potential customer (or actual customer since I bought all three of Troika's games and liked 2 of them) I have every right to criticize them as I see fit. Just as you have the righ to whine about me criticizing them. Whether or not I have made a professional game is irrelevant.

 

 

"Bloodlines is destined to be a classic."

 

I seriously wish this was true.

Edited September 21, 2006 by Volourn

[Dark_Raven]

"Bloodlines is destined to be a classic."

 

I seriously wish this was true.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It will be. Have faith my good man, have faith!

[Volourn]

"It will be. Have faith my good man, have faith!"

 

The problem is, as it stands, I don't think BLs - as much as I like it - deserves to be a classics. Classics are games that don't have such obvious and nearly overhwelming flaws.

 

I liked BL. I enjoyed it. But, its weaknesses are so mindjarring, it simply doesn't deserve to be labeled a classic.

 

It gets this label: A Could Be Classic.

[Dark_Raven]

The same could be said about the Great Fallouts. They had their flaws, how minor they are, and look where they are now. A beloved game in the hearts of millions of fans. A classic.

[Volourn]

FO had flaws; but they were relatively minor.

 

 

 

"A beloved game in the hearts of millions of fans."

 

LOL I'd be surprised if a million people have even played FO. Haha!

[Tigranes]

Well, Fallout's a classic and its combat was crap.

 

Except I'd argue BL's is even worse, but hey, that's just me.

 

Cult classic then?

[Volourn]

No. FO's combat was NOT crap. It was great (not without flaws though).

 

And, whether or not FO is a 'classic' depends on who you ask. And, I say that despite it being one of my favorite games.

[Darque]

Actually the combat was fantastic.

 

Turn based combat is the best for strategic combats.

[Tigranes]

I've played Fallout over a dozen times. What it did well was a decent implementation of call shots, a faithful PnP implementation and one that was still mostly fun to play for a while despite all the flaws. What it didn't do well was implement cover (which is absolutely crucial), the stupid long delays, crappy AI, the subsequent degeneration of the combat into implementation into two or three very simple tactics per character build, the inability to capture any visceral element (a flaw of all TB, even if i love it) and a really bad mechanism for fleeing from combat. Crap was an exaggeration, I'd say decent but never great. And that's even when I consider it a classic (for me).

[Dark_Raven]

Actually the combat was fantastic.

 

Turn based combat is the best for strategic combats.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You win.

[Darque]