Another Icewind Dale kickstarter?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

I think Obsidian's next kickstarter will more than likely be in a different genre than PoE, but I think a Sci-Fi combat heavy tactical RPG would be pretty fun.

My head is mashing Mass Effect and Xcom Enemy Unknown together, and I want it.

I do too. Implementing isometric turn-based would make squad-based combat pretty damn fun, IMO.

[Piccolo]

If you want party based Diablo, I am OK with that, but please do not dignify it with the term "Role Playing Game." Icewind Dale was not a RPG. Temple of Elemental Evil was not an RPG. There are third person shooters that are closer to being RPGs than those.

Sounds to me like you don't even know what an RPG is.

 

A lot of ignorant IE-era kiddies do this. They base their definition of an RPG on what they like about RPGs released decades after the genre started.

[Nonek]

To me the strengths of IWD were the combat (though there was perhaps a little too much of it) the soundtrack of course, the very unique and interesting setting, and the plot which was quite nice and coherent. What I wanted while playing the game was more interaction, more exploration and more depth and reactivity. The multiple self created party members was not in particular an attraction, as they did not take the place of fellow pen and paper players as well as the characters in Torment did, thus I saw no particular benefit in them, other than for combat purposes.

 

That said I thought the setting was an interesting part of Faerun, as opposed to the overused Sword Coast, and think there was solid groundwork to build upon there. Auckney seemed to be an area the devs were interested in.

[Jarrakul]

I'd love to see IWD get a spiritual successor. Of course, I'm more excited for PoE and the new Torment, but nonetheless IWD is really cool and there should be more of it. Because you know what? Even if it's totally linear and has little-to-no non-combat player input, I love me a good dungeon crawler with a plot worth playing through. Unfortunately, precious few games have lived up to my standards in that regard since the original IWD, very much including IWD2, even though quite a few have tried. So I would be somewhat skeptical about backing such a project, even though I would want it to succeed.

[Karkarov]

I would say efforts better spent elsewhere.  IWD was just  combat game with a pretty par story slapped on it.  It wasn't bad at all but I would rather they work on RPG's that are more narrative and character focused.  Also if they want to go full on combat strategy style game ....  Well other posters already said it.  They need to go pure turn based and look at a different setting all together and probably build up the classes/rules/world from there.

[Sarex]

I would say efforts better spent elsewhere.  IWD was just  combat game with a pretty par story slapped on it.  It wasn't bad at all but I would rather they work on RPG's that are more narrative and character focused.  Also if they want to go full on combat strategy style game ....  Well other posters already said it.  They need to go pure turn based and look at a different setting all together and probably build up the classes/rules/world from there.

 

Why? When IWD obviously worked. At the time it sold even more then the lauded Torment.

[rjshae]

The combat-centric and generally serial nature of the IWD series lowered the replay value for me, although the scenery was beautiful and some of the battles enjoyable.

[Quetzalcoatl]

 

I would say efforts better spent elsewhere.  IWD was just  combat game with a pretty par story slapped on it.  It wasn't bad at all but I would rather they work on RPG's that are more narrative and character focused.  Also if they want to go full on combat strategy style game ....  Well other posters already said it.  They need to go pure turn based and look at a different setting all together and probably build up the classes/rules/world from there.

 

Why? When IWD obviously worked. At the time it sold even more then the lauded Torment.

I can assure you that an Icewind Dale spiritual successor Kickstarter wouldn't raise nearly as much as Torment did. The Icewind Dale games don't seem to have as enduring a legacy as the other Infinity Engine games.

 

Of course, this game has full-party creation and they could always set the expansion or sequel in a part of the world with a cold climate.

Edited April 1, 2014 by Quetzalcoatl

[khalil]

 

If you want party based Diablo, I am OK with that, but please do not dignify it with the term "Role Playing Game." Icewind Dale was not a RPG. Temple of Elemental Evil was not an RPG. There are third person shooters that are closer to being RPGs than those.

Sounds to me like you don't even know what an RPG is.

 

A lot of ignorant IE-era kiddies do this. They base their definition of an RPG on what they like about RPGs released decades after the genre started.

 

I assume this is the point where you argue that Rogue is an RPG? It's not. In order to be a ROLEPLAYING game, a game has to include roleplaying. Rogue does not, so it gets dumped into the dungeon crawler bin.

Same thing goes for Ultima 1-3ish,  Diablo, and yes, Icewind Dale.

Also, since you brought it up, I base my definition of RPG on tabletop roleplaying games as a whole, whereas you seem to have based your definition on RPGA modules.

[Sarex]

I can assure you that an Icewind Dale spiritual successor Kickstarter wouldn't raise nearly as much as Torment did. The Icewind Dale games don't seem to have as enduring a legacy as the other Infinity Engine games.

 

Of course, this game has full-party creation and they could always set the expansion or sequel in a part of the world with a cold climate.

 

That is why it was mentioned that it should be self funded. As for the Torment kickstarter, what that games turns out to be, remains to be seen. I am not very optimistic, but hey, I am also not very interested in it too.

[rjshae]

 

 

If you want party based Diablo, I am OK with that, but please do not dignify it with the term "Role Playing Game." Icewind Dale was not a RPG. Temple of Elemental Evil was not an RPG. There are third person shooters that are closer to being RPGs than those.

Sounds to me like you don't even know what an RPG is.

 

A lot of ignorant IE-era kiddies do this. They base their definition of an RPG on what they like about RPGs released decades after the genre started.

I assume this is the point where you argue that Rogue is an RPG? It's not. In order to be a ROLEPLAYING game, a game has to include roleplaying. Rogue does not, so it gets dumped into the dungeon crawler bin.

Same thing goes for Ultima 1-3ish,  Diablo, and yes, Icewind Dale.

Also, since you brought it up, I base my definition of RPG on tabletop roleplaying games as a whole, whereas you seem to have based your definition on RPGA modules.

 

As always, this is a futile discussion. The definition of a role-playing game gets trolled to death. Endlessly. It's always going to be a fuzzy term that means different things to different people. Just like religion or politics.

[khalil]

As always, this is a futile discussion. The definition of a role-playing game gets trolled to death. Endlessly. It's always going to be a fuzzy term that means different things to different people. Just like religion or politics.

[joke]Yes, and just like religion and politics, I am right and everyone else is wrong. [/joke]

On a more serious note, I do realize that is a big problem with arguing over the definition of RPG, but I just really hate seeing someone say "this is a RPG because it has classes and item management", even though if that's all you need to count as a RPG, than TF2 counts as one.

[Jarrakul]

Could we not argue about the definition of RPGs? Yes, it's a vague term and people don't often agree about what it means. We get it. The thing is, people always talk about this as though it matters for the evaluation of a specific game. As though there's some inherent quality that something gains if we can call it an RPG. But that's not how genres work. Genres define terms, which is useful, but they don't add quality to the things in them. So please, please stop arguing over whether something is an RPG and start arguing over the relative merits of what the game actually has or does not have to offer. It doesn't matter, from a game quality standpoint, whether IWD is an RPG or something else. It matters what IWD brings to the table, and what it does not.

[Pipyui]

I think it's quite too early to be pining for another IE reboot yet.  PoE and Torment:Tides haven't even released yet; there's no reason to flood the market all at once with more cRPG reboots.

 

Let Obsidian show that they can produce a quality IE throwback in PoE before we start expecting them to produce another.  It's good business sense and good PR (or rather, another kickstarter for IWD before PoE has been released would be bad PR), presuming the market for cRPGs doesn't fall out.

Edited April 1, 2014 by Pipyui

[Bryy]

If you want party based Diablo, I am OK with that, but please do not dignify it with the term "Role Playing Game." Icewind Dale was not a RPG. Temple of Elemental Evil was not an RPG. There are third person shooters that are closer to being RPGs than those.

Oh, please, do explain.

[Piccolo]

 

 

If you want party based Diablo, I am OK with that, but please do not dignify it with the term "Role Playing Game." Icewind Dale was not a RPG. Temple of Elemental Evil was not an RPG. There are third person shooters that are closer to being RPGs than those.

Sounds to me like you don't even know what an RPG is.

 

A lot of ignorant IE-era kiddies do this. They base their definition of an RPG on what they like about RPGs released decades after the genre started.

 

I assume this is the point where you argue that Rogue is an RPG? It's not. In order to be a ROLEPLAYING game, a game has to include roleplaying. Rogue does not, so it gets dumped into the dungeon crawler bin.

Same thing goes for Ultima 1-3ish,  Diablo, and yes, Icewind Dale.

Also, since you brought it up, I base my definition of RPG on tabletop roleplaying games as a whole, whereas you seem to have based your definition on RPGA modules.

 

I base my definition on the history of the video game genre and hard facts. Not on tabletop roleplaying (which is a vastly different experience) or the literal definition of playing a role (which would basically make 99% of all games RPGs).

 

The simple fact is that the only defining and essential feature of an RPG that separates it from action games and adventure games is character development through the use of numbers or stats. It doesn't matter whether the experience is limited to a simple dungeon crawl, as long as the character development system is fleshed out enough to allow for unique characters whose progression has a significant impact on gameplay. Your characters then fulfil "roles" based on what their stats are.

 

An RPG doesn't need to have storyline or dialogue choices, because those are adventure game features. In fact an RPG doesn't even need a storyline at all. These are just things that enhance the experience for some, much in the same way that having an open world may enhance the experience for some.

Edited April 1, 2014 by Piccolo

[Bryy]

In IWD, you create your entire party at the very start.

 

What the what is going on here.

[khalil]

 

If you want party based Diablo, I am OK with that, but please do not dignify it with the term "Role Playing Game." Icewind Dale was not a RPG. Temple of Elemental Evil was not an RPG. There are third person shooters that are closer to being RPGs than those.

Oh, please, do explain.

 

Sure: Every pos game that included a moral choice system because all the other kids were doing it, and then gave three choices instead of two. That seriously gives more opportunities for roleplaying than ToEE did (Which just went with the generic good/evil checklist). Also

[joke]mass effect[/joke].

 

The simple fact is that the only defining and essential feature of an RPG that separates it from action games and adventure games is character development through the use of numbers or stats. It doesn't matter whether the experience is limited to a simple dungeon crawl, as long as the character development system is fleshed out enough to allow for unique characters whose progression has a significant impact on gameplay. Your characters then fulfil "roles" based on what their stats are.

You know what game lets you advance characters via the use of numbers and stats? TF2: MVM mode. You get money from shooting the robots, and then spend said money on upgrades to jump height or whatever. Is TF2 an RPG? Bioshock Infinite let you upgrade your guns and plasmids vigors. Is it a RPG?

Edited April 1, 2014 by khalil

[Sarex]

You know what game lets you advance characters via the use of numbers and stats? TF2: MVM mode. You get money from shooting the robots, and then spend said money on upgrades to jump height or whatever. Is TF2 an RPG? Bioshock Infinite let you upgrade your guns and plasmids vigors. Is it a RPG?

 

Are you saying those game are the same as IWD? IWD is pretty much the same as BG, other then it being linear. I don't think there is anything in BG that you couldn't/didn't do in IWD.

Edited April 1, 2014 by Sarex

[Bryy]

So, just because you don't like the game's RPG mechanics means it's not an RPG.

 

Yeah, okay.

Edited April 1, 2014 by Bryy

[khalil]

Are you saying those game are the same as IWD? IWD is pretty much the same as BG, other then it being linear. I don't think there is anything in BG that you couldn't/didn't do in IWD.

 

No, I was saying that his definition of an RPG would classify obviously non-RPG games as RPGs, and thus his definition must be invalid. (This is assuming we all agree TF2 isn't an RPG, but that's a fairly reasonable assumption)

So, just because you don't like the game's RPG mechanics means it's not an RPG.

 

Yeah, okay.

I consider the role playing bit to be more important than the mechanics, and ToEE and IWD were lacking in that regard. Edited April 1, 2014 by khalil

[Bryy]

You know what game lets you advance characters via the use of numbers and stats? TF2: MVM mode. You get money from shooting the robots, and then spend said money on upgrades to jump height or whatever. Is TF2 an RPG? Bioshock Infinite let you upgrade your guns and plasmids vigors. Is it a RPG?

 

Yes, those are RPG elements. But those are not the primary styles of gameplay.

[khalil]

 

You know what game lets you advance characters via the use of numbers and stats? TF2: MVM mode. You get money from shooting the robots, and then spend said money on upgrades to jump height or whatever. Is TF2 an RPG? Bioshock Infinite let you upgrade your guns and plasmids vigors. Is it a RPG?

Yes, those are RPG elements. But those are not the primary styles of gameplay.

 

What about say... Deus Ex? I've seen arguments for and against it being an RPG. The primary style of gameplay seems to be pointing at the bad men and making them fall down, but it does have extensive character building options. Also, System Shock. Edited April 1, 2014 by khalil

[Bryy]

What about say... Deus Ex? I've seen arguments for and against it being an RPG. The primary style of gameplay seems to be pointing at the bad men and making them fall down, but it does have extensive character building options. Also, System Shock.

 

Yes, that has RPG elements, too. I'd go as far as to say it is more RPG than FPS.

 

But once again, you're not making a very good case (or any case) besides "I don't like it so it's not". Which is all good and fine, but for some reason you seem to want to "win the argument".

[khalil]

 

What about say... Deus Ex? I've seen arguments for and against it being an RPG. The primary style of gameplay seems to be pointing at the bad men and making them fall down, but it does have extensive character building options. Also, System Shock.

 

Yes, that has RPG elements, too. I'd go as far as to say it is more RPG than FPS.

 

But once again, you're not making a very good case (or any case) besides "I don't like it so it's not". Which is all good and fine, but for some reason you seem to want to "win the argument".

 

What I intended for my case to be is "these two games that we can agree are not RPGs (TF2 and Bioshock) are considered RPGs under the definition proposed by Piccolo. Thus, his definition is not valid." Sorry if I did not make that clear enough.