Some love for Arcanum?

[venerablejai]

Two out of the Troika are currently affiliated with Obsidian.
Isometric RPGs are experiencing a massive comeback.
The original game is selling well on GOG and Steam.

It's time. In the opinion of some players: it's passed time.

But I have hope and think that a sequel, or a new game in the same vein would be very successful. What does everyone else think?

[Nonek]

I doubt that Activision (I think?) will let go of the license, and to be honest I doubt that any wise manager would let such an ambitious game be made now. The amount one can miss in a single playthrough is astounding, for instance in my second playthrough my Human technologist tried to kill Nasrudin in the hopes of removing an impediment to his ascension in the Panari, and was promptly banished to the Void. Thus I missed a massive amount of content from the end of the game, a brave implementation of real reactivity, and one most other firms would shudder at even the thought of implementing.

 

Both of my first two playthroughs completely missed the Thieves Guild quests, and all of the content spread out over Caladon and Tarant, they also failed to invoke the full blessings of the Old Gods, and find all of the deities altars. Of course I am not deluded enough to not see any faults, the game was fundamentally broken on many levels including the combat, but there was so much to do and see outside combat for once, and i'd rather see such an ambitious project brought to fruition than grind through another "safe bet" by a studio. The revelations and realisations that litter the narrative are absolutely superb, my jaw almost hit the ground several times during my first playthrough.

 

One thing that I do not see praised often enough were the lesser companions: Gar the worlds smartest Orc, Torian Kel, Zan Alurin, Geoffrey etcetera, they were all very interesting characters and it is only a pity that they were not mechanically of more use. Indeed it is one of the few games where an "evil" playthrough is just as satisfying as a "good" one.

 

If somebody were to remake Arcanum in the ToEE engine however, well to quote the gentleman in Robocop, i'd buy that for a dollar.

[WorstUsernameEver]

If somebody were to remake Arcanum in the ToEE engine however, well to quote the gentleman in Robocop, i'd buy that for a dollar.

 

You are aware that they are on the same engine, right?

[LittleRose]

Arcanum 2 is one of my most wanted games, but I don't think they'll ever make it. I love Arcanum. On my last playthrough, I convinced the bandits at the bridge, that they were talking to an important member of the Thief's Guild of Tarant, so I could pass without any further trouble. That was fun.

[Nonek]

 

If somebody were to remake Arcanum in the ToEE engine however, well to quote the gentleman in Robocop, i'd buy that for a dollar.

 

You are aware that they are on the same engine, right?

 

 

Yes, but you know what I mean.

[Labadal]

Arcanum 2 with ToEE combat.

[Fenixp]

Arcanum with -any- different combat system, really. I'd easily settle to original Fallout's level of polish and complexity, which is what Arcanum tried to go for in the first place and failed. Oh well, I'm sure Arcanum 2 will do a lot better when it comes out. It will come out, right?

[WorstUsernameEver]

 

 

If somebody were to remake Arcanum in the ToEE engine however, well to quote the gentleman in Robocop, i'd buy that for a dollar.

 

You are aware that they are on the same engine, right?

 

 

Yes, but you know what I mean.

 

...not really? "Engine" seems to mean widely different things to different people, so I usually just stick to the actual definition.

[ShadySands]

What is love?

 

Baby don't hurt me... don't hurt me

 

...no more

 

 

 

I could definitely go for another steampunk with magic game but it wouldn't be one of my top choices

Edited October 28, 2016 by ShadySands

[Labadal]

I mean, Leonard Boyarsky said that he'd love to do another Arcanum game.

[Hurlshort]

I'd just dig them reviving the character creation options.  

[Oerwinde]

I doubt that Activision (I think?) will let go of the license, and to be honest I doubt that any wise manager would let such an ambitious game be made now.

Activision revived Sierra to do smaller budget titles by indie developers. If they put up say 5 million, and Obsidian ran a Fig campaign to get another 5 from outside investors and crowdfunding, they may be able to pull off a decent sequel with minimal risk from Activision (compared to say spending 200 million on another Call of Duty.)

[Hurlshort]

I just don't think they necessarily need the Arcanum licence.  Obsidian showed they are plenty capable of creating a complex world from scratch.  If they want a steampunk/fantasy game, they make their own.  

[Enoch]

RPG fans are notoriously tolerant of poorly thought out, poorly implemented rule systems.  I am not immune to this-- I can have fun playing in some deeply terrible rulesets (e.g., Basic D&D). 

 

But, for me, Arcanum was just too far.  Mechanically broken to the degree that the game was simply not enjoyable. 

Edited October 29, 2016 by Enoch

[Ganrich]

RPG fans are notoriously tolerant of poorly thought out, poorly implemented rule systems. I am not immune to this-- I can have fun playing in some deeply terrible rulesets (e.g., Basic D&D).

 

But, for me, Arcanum was just too far. Mechanically broken to the degree that the game was simply not enjoyable.

Almost anyone that played it knows its combat is a busted mess. However, the world is incredibly crafted, its char gen is among the best (I think it is the best), its reactivity is stellar, and it has some great side quests/companions/content. It's definitely a very flawed gem. It gets a whole lot wrong, but the things it gets right are incredible. If the combat was better implemented... I daresay people would remember it more fondly than many of the classics (Fallout, Baldur's Gate, etc). However, we got what we got, and the world (plus its other positives) is/are well made enough that the IP deserves another shot despite its broken combat.

[Oerwinde]

Yeah, fix the combat (either go with RTwP or Turn Based, not both), and update the visuals and we're good. Ditch the tiles and go with either a Divinity: Original Sin/Wasteland 2 style 3d world, or go with the Pillars of Eternity/Tides of Numenera pre-rendered. Steampunk is an aesthetic that needs decent visuals.

[Ganrich]

Yeah, fix the combat (either go with RTwP or Turn Based, not both), and update the visuals and we're good. Ditch the tiles and go with either a Divinity: Original Sin/Wasteland 2 style 3d world, or go with the Pillars of Eternity/Tides of Numenera pre-rendered. Steampunk is an aesthetic that needs decent visuals.

 

I don't disagree.  However, one of the perks of Arcanum's tile system is that you don't load into buildings, and a byproduct of that is that buildings are to scale.  One of my pet peeves of isometric RPGs is that the scale on the outside is small, and then when you load in you find yourself in a mansion.  Having the buildings more like Arcanum would allow sneaking in through windows and the like without a load screen.  It would give stealthy/thieving gameplay some added umph.  Peek in the window to see if anyone is home, climb through, steal the good china, and make a buck.   I'm sure it can be done with the WL2/DOS systems, but I think it would be easier with tiles.  Maybe a mix.  Something like WL2/DOS for natural environments, and tiled buildings.  It could make modding easy.  Not unlike Shadowrun's tools, but with better terrain.  I dunno how feasible it is.  Just thought I would toss it out there.

[Fenixp]

It not only can be done with a Divinity: Original Sin system, it was done with it. Divinity: Original Sin has no loading screens for majority of interiors, and there are many more 3D, non-tile based RPGs which do that. Now that I think about it I'd actually love to see that effect in an isometric RPG with pre-rendered background, altho it would likely mean generating several layers for each building and creating some sort of fake 3D effect. Hmm...

[Nonek]

Reminds me, has Mr Black Tooth released any new mods or patches lately, I know he swore off continuing to patch the game a few years ago but...

[Enoch]

 

RPG fans are notoriously tolerant of poorly thought out, poorly implemented rule systems. I am not immune to this-- I can have fun playing in some deeply terrible rulesets (e.g., Basic D&D).

 

But, for me, Arcanum was just too far. Mechanically broken to the degree that the game was simply not enjoyable.

Almost anyone that played it knows its combat is a busted mess. However, the world is incredibly crafted, its char gen is among the best (I think it is the best), its reactivity is stellar, and it has some great side quests/companions/content. It's definitely a very flawed gem. It gets a whole lot wrong, but the things it gets right are incredible. If the combat was better implemented... I daresay people would remember it more fondly than many of the classics (Fallout, Baldur's Gate, etc). However, we got what we got, and the world (plus its other positives) is/are well made enough that the IP deserves another shot despite its broken combat.

 

 

The character creation system was bad.  Sure, lots of weird options for flavor, and it had a certain elegance in that a point was a point was a point.  But allowing a lot of options doesn't help you much in my book when a substantial percentage of them get the "ha-ha, non-viable choice!" kick to the balls a third of the way through the game.  (And a few others get the opposite treatment: "Oh, you put a single point in the 'Harm' spell, so the rest of the game is EZ Mode!")  To me, Arcanum is exhibit A to support the proposition that, yes, balance matters in single-player games.

 

As for the setting, the world had an interesting core concept, but they failed to populate it with any interesting characters. 

[Ganrich]

 

 

RPG fans are notoriously tolerant of poorly thought out, poorly implemented rule systems. I am not immune to this-- I can have fun playing in some deeply terrible rulesets (e.g., Basic D&D).

 

But, for me, Arcanum was just too far. Mechanically broken to the degree that the game was simply not enjoyable.

Almost anyone that played it knows its combat is a busted mess. However, the world is incredibly crafted, its char gen is among the best (I think it is the best), its reactivity is stellar, and it has some great side quests/companions/content. It's definitely a very flawed gem. It gets a whole lot wrong, but the things it gets right are incredible. If the combat was better implemented... I daresay people would remember it more fondly than many of the classics (Fallout, Baldur's Gate, etc). However, we got what we got, and the world (plus its other positives) is/are well made enough that the IP deserves another shot despite its broken combat.

 

 

The character creation system was bad.  Sure, lots of weird options for flavor, and it had a certain elegance in that a point was a point was a point.  But allowing a lot of options doesn't help you much in my book when a substantial percentage of them get the "ha-ha, non-viable choice!" kick to the balls a third of the way through the game.  (And a few others get the opposite treatment: "Oh, you put a single point in the 'Harm' spell, so the rest of the game is EZ Mode!")  To me, Arcanum is exhibit A to support the proposition that, yes, balance matters in single-player games.

 

As for the setting, the world had an interesting core concept, but they failed to populate it with any interesting characters. 

 

 

Yeah, the Char Gen is directly effected by the broken combat.  Fix the combat, retain the Char Gen, and you have a winner.  I said that already.   It still doesn't mean the IP isn't worth a revisit.  Just fix the combat, and then you don't have to worry about that level of imbalance in the skills. 

 

As for characters, to each there own.  I found a few to my liking.  Just like any other RPG of the mid-90s to early-2000s you have a mixed bag.  Some characters appeal to some people, and so on.  It could use improvement, but there are worse out there. 

[Nonek]

I found Harm to be almost useless against some of the more dangerous enemies, for instance the Ore Golems of the Black Mountain Clan, there one was far more well served by spells from the school of Force, as well as repeated applications of Worthless Mutt. Harm being a very useful and powerful spell did however fit narratively with "Arronax'" return, as did so many other discoveries one could stumble across.

[Volourn]

Arcanum is awesome. The character system is awesome. The combat is okay but definitely can be better. The music is unstoppable. The main villain is overrated.  The C&C is above average. Balance doesn't matter all that much.  Ability A does NOT need to be equal to Ability B as long as both are fun and useable. of coruse, Arcanum has some  poor done abilities/stats/hatever but no more than most other games. I mean, in BG series (which I love) fighters simply did not need INT or CHR and WIS was of near uselessness.

 

Arcanum is definitely one of the best RPGs there. I do agree that  picking a combat system (TB or RT w/pause) would have made them better off. Or better yet, if you go both,  take the time to playtest both properly.

 

I would LOVE an Arcanum 2.

 

ARC2 > PE2. No contest.

 

 

I paid 250$ for the 'privledge' of playing PE. I won't do the same for PE2. I WOULD be willing to back a ARC2 for 250$ though.

Edited October 30, 2016 by Volourn

[GespenstMkII]

I came here after seeing the Tyranny announcement to make the exact same suggestion.

The world NEEDS an Arcanum 2.

 

Arcanum had a lot of problems, but a lot of that was due to financial reasons for the company and not having the time to fix them.

 

ARC2 could iron out what didn't work and keep and improve on what did work.

[Volourn]

"Arcanum had a lot of problems, but a lot of that was due to financial reasons for the company and not having the time to fix them."

 

As an Arcanum fan, youa re making stuff up. Time isn't the reason why they gave xp for damaging enemies.  Also, if time was such an issue then why did they use what precious time they did have to have TWO different styles of combat? That's illogical. Don't give them credit for the good choices made for the game and try to make excuses for the poor decisions.