| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| ZeshinX |
Posted - 23 Aug 2010 : 15:51:19
Looks like the new D&D based CRPG is on the way (4e Realms).
http://kotaku.com/5619535/return-to-neverwinter-in-2011 |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Diffan |
Posted - 21 Feb 2011 : 03:50:22
quote:
Originally posted by The Curt Jester
I've glanced at news and stuff about Neverwinter before, but it doesn't spark an interest at all. First off, I'm not a DnD fanatic (probably will get stoned for saying that on here), so learning a new set of rules and a new setting is something I really don't want to go into after learning 2nd and then 3rd. Learning two editions was plenty for me. Plus, everything I hear about 4th I don't like the sound of (with the exception of a couple things).
With any sort of game, from FPS to 3rd person adventure the rules are built into the system. I'm fairly certain you won't need the 4E player's handbook to create your character as I didn't need the 2E player's handbook to play Baldur's Gate. Much of 4E is the same as 3E in terms of character generation. You have point buy, stats (all the same), Skills, and Feats. In 4E, you'll also have some "power" options that define what you character can do in combat. And ta-da, done.
As for the game mechanics of 4E spilling into the C-RPG, I'm sure a lot of it can be well intergrated into game-play that won't "showcase" itself much. For example, I lothe (and I mean really hate) 2E/AD&D mechanics. Yet I find Baldur's Gate, Baldur's Gate II: Shadow of Amn, Throne of Bhaal, and the Icewind Dale games exciting and fun to play. That's because I'm not rolling dice, focuing so much on my 5 saving throws  and instead I'm immersed into the story. I think Neverwinter will be much like this.
quote:
Originally posted by The Curt Jester
Secondly, it's an MMO. I don't think an MMO can really get the feel of the DnD game world with DMs running storylines, plots, events, and whatnot. Plus, in my own opinion, getting to "know" whom one is playing with makes the gaming experience better. With an MMO, that's going to be impossible with the exception of a few people, perhaps, or a group of real life friends who play with you.
I prefer playing a game with a small group of players who know each other. Less problems, less mess, and more fun. However, that's my opinion. To each his own.
I think this game has MMO components, but not fully considered one. I've a hunch that this will resemble the game Guild Wars or Diablo where you meet with people in a town square/village/bar and venture into the game with them. This is where it turns into an adventure and becomses what WoW people call "Instances". Here, no outside forces can interfere with your storyline or game. I think this works much better in this setting to be honest.
I'm not trying to change your opinion, just giving you some food for thought and to keep an open mind.
Happy gaming! |
| The Curt Jester |
Posted - 18 Feb 2011 : 22:04:51
I've glanced at news and stuff about Neverwinter before, but it doesn't spark an interest at all. First off, I'm not a DnD fanatic (probably will get stoned for saying that on here), so learning a new set of rules and a new setting is something I really don't want to go into after learning 2nd and then 3rd. Learning two editions was plenty for me. Plus, everything I hear about 4th I don't like the sound of (with the exception of a couple things).
Secondly, it's an MMO. I don't think an MMO can really get the feel of the DnD game world with DMs running storylines, plots, events, and whatnot. Plus, in my own opinion, getting to "know" whom one is playing with makes the gaming experience better. With an MMO, that's going to be impossible with the exception of a few people, perhaps, or a group of real life friends who play with you.
I prefer playing a game with a small group of players who know each other. Less problems, less mess, and more fun. However, that's my opinion. To each his own. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 16 Feb 2011 : 03:14:54
The game will most likely be 3rd person, like Dragon Age and the older NWN games and WoW. Nothing really wrong with this, it's just the current form seen in games of today. I'm more worried about storyline, graphics, and how they intergrate 4E into a virtual C-RPG.
The bigger question I have is will they, at some point, intergrate Essential character into the game? |
| idilippy |
Posted - 16 Feb 2011 : 02:23:14
I would like it to be close to Baldur's Gate or Icewind Dale, but between the MMO aspect and the very limited character selection I highly doubt the new NWN will be anything like the great Infinity Engine games. |
| Tarrok of Halruaa |
Posted - 13 Feb 2011 : 17:28:45
I for one am looking forward to the release of Neverwinter MMRPG in November, although I do hope it is more akin to Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale than the previous Neverwinter Nights installments. I had hours and hours of fun on those old Baldur's Gate PC games - the storylines and the gameplay were both excellent. Wasn't very impressed with the Atari releases. |
| Ionik Knight |
Posted - 17 Sep 2010 : 15:01:04
I have a different perspective on the upcoming game than most. I don't care for 4th Edition rules, but I won't judge this game based on that. Because I predict that this game will only vaguely resemble D&D in any fashion whatsoever. That's because I'm familiar with Jack and Cryptic from City of Heroes and Champions Online. Jack is not interested in player/customer critiques or desires. He doesn't care about the existing game mechanics either. He will have his own "vision" for the game and will follow it come hell or high water.
Here are the things I expect to see from this game. Graphics and character model customization will likely be better than any existing C-FRPG. Team play is likely to be very fluid and balanced in PVE. Storyline will probably be excellent. Whatever you like about 4th Edition PC design will be destroyed. Solo play will be challenging with a power-gamer build and impossible with a role-play build. Jack's in-game avatar will be the most ridiculously uber character in the game, and will be Lawful-Good in all the worst (and most narrow-minded) ways.
In the end I will probably buy this game, and use it to make screen shots of characters for pen and paper games (since my art skills are terrible). |
| bladeinAmn |
Posted - 28 Aug 2010 : 05:49:34
@ Kilvan
-Gotcha, now that you've cleared it up. As far the 4e FR art is concerned, I like the graphic program they used for the map, and the pictures in the 4e Monster Manual. But I don't find anything awe-inspiring about the 4e Realms, whereas I felt that so thoroughly in the pre-4e Realms.
-Ah, Ke$ha. Like KFC, she's a guilty pleasure. That's not the compliment she wants, but at the moment that's the one she gets.
-That's exactly what the Realms fanbase is divided upon. A number of us are okay w/the new lore, and a number of us don't like it at all despite the things WotC kept in it, as the overall feel is completely different, lacking in what we wanted and got in the previous editions. So some like you will say that the Realms are still the Realms, and others like me will say its not the Realms we loved (hence you likening 4e FR to Metallica's Load and Reload, and me likening it to Metallica doing something that makes no sense at all). I'm inclined to be fully pursuaded I'm the one in the right here, as there's been a long standing debate about this ever since 4e FR came out (I don't believe there would be this longstanding debate, if folk felt more like you than they do me about this). But at the same time, to each his own, and good your creativity is flexible enough to play fullfilling sessions in the 4e Realms. I find it hinders me in every which way, not even being able to come close to the pre-4e Realms atmosphere that I try to create, yet I find so present in the previous editions lore.
-I don't know how much Atari contributed to the previous AD&D titles they got thier logo on, so I can't comment.
-No worries about comin off like you're tryna sell me on 4e, Kilvan. We're having a healthy discussion. I've taken a good look at the 4e Realms, and simply didn't like anything I saw. And the things I felt some inclination to like (Laerakond), I juss couldn't b/c of all the other things I liked being taken away. And regarding not sentencing 4e products before they come out, I understand what you mean, but that's my default setting, not towards the book artists, but towards WotC, as I can't find any non-criminal merit for the reasons behind the changes that 4e brought about.
And again regarding not sentencing 4e products before they come out, my other way of looking at it is that I can consider purchasing a Downshadow book by Erik, as he's a good writer and his characters don't have major roots in most of the grand scheme of things in pre-4e FR (and I can thus easily set his characters and events in my homebrew, which is currently in 1375 DR, w/no Spellplague on the horizon b/c the good, neutral, and evil pantheons don't see what's so good about letting such a thing happen), but I won't consider buying any of Ed's 4e Elminster novels or RA's 4e Drizzt novels, if you can understand my way of thinking on that. This despite Ed and RA being 2 of my 3 favourite novelists in all novel genres, and knowing that many folk that don't like the 4e Realms have bought and thoroughly enjoyed Elminster Must Die.
@ Diffan
-I've already stated a few times in this thread what I think of WotC's imitation, so no point me doing that again.
-As far as our differing opinions on the 'why's' behind the changes, I still don't see it as you see it, especially since no matter what they did (doing 4e as it was done, or continuing to perfect 3.5e), it'd look like a money-grab. Moreover, I don't see how anyone can put a positive or even a neutral spin on doing completely away w/a product that had given them more revenue that the previous two editions. Internal power-grab is the only thing that I could come up with.
-Gotcha on the Pathfinder changes. I've only been doin a full study and tinkering thereof w/3e and 3.5e since I fired up NWN1 in December. At the same time, in accordance w/the discussion we're having, I don't see why management couldn't do similar changes to 3.5e as PF has. Morover, 3e/3.5e only had an 8yr run, despite it being so lucrative for the company.
-I was juss tryna humor you w/that true story that happend. But at the same time, I meet and see more gamers of my age and college age that play previous editions or PF, than they do 4e. This in my city and on the internet. Though yes, I don't frequent the wizards website forums. At the same time, I also find that you find a truer litmus test of all things (not juss what we're talkin about on this thread) away from official websites, and instead on fansites. I literally never go on official websites when I'm looking for something, be it in gaming, sports, news, entertainment, software/hardware research etc.
-Regarding lore, everyone between veteran DM's to rookie DM's know they can pick and choose what lore they keep and what they don't, especially since AD&D of itself w/o a campaign setting sourcebook pretty much encourages the DM to create thier own world, cities, etc. I for one increase the population of all the biggest Realms cities to be at least in the million range, didn't like the lore about the Thornwood and Mintar so I changed it all to my liking, and other sorts of things. The point of me saying all that is that there was no need to do away w/all the old lore, or to make it ancient history as was done by the timejump, seeing everyone from veterans to noobs all knew to pick and choose of the lore for thier own homebrews. Really, if they wanted a world w/less lore that they could push, Eberron seemed like a great place, or juss push Dark Sun again like how they're doing now, or revive another one of thier old settings. W/doing any of those things, they wouldn't have to suffer now of the divide that 4e has brought amongst Realms fans.
-Ah, to each his own regarding what we find more interesting, Diffan. They could've had the best of both worlds, pushing the pre-4e Realms and pushing this new type of lore in reviving one of thier old settings, or furthering Eberron lore.
-Good that they've done something different from Blizzard, as you've pointed out. But the fact remains, they used to pretty much rule thier own turf in 3e/3.5e, but are now on Blizzard's turf, opening themselves to be beaten at Blizzard's own game as I pointed out. Another way of saying what I wanted to say is that WotC's margin for error in competing for audiences has gotten than much smaller. I feel WotC needs to hope Blizzard slips up or gets lax (fat chance) in thier game development, in order to have a chance at staying even on par w/them. I feel they would've had a better shot in doing so, had they juss worked on perfecting 3.5e game mechanics and FR lore continuing from that timeframe.
-Oh no, I wasn't implying the NWN1 & 2 communities not batting an eye at the 3rd game. Remember I said that I don't question that the 1st Qtr sales of when this game comes out, will inevitably be positive, via the Neverwinter brand's name, courtesy of Bioware and Obsidian. But seeing the satisfaction that modders get from the NWN1 & 2 toolsets, and IIRC Dragon Age having thier own toolset, this new NW game's toolset is gonna have to be pretty outstanding in order to compete w/what's already out there.
-Ha! I was juss again tryna humor you w/my push for the games this new Neverwinter game will be competing against.
---------------------
I think we've explored this discussion from every aspect I can think of. This was a great discussion, but I feel very strongly in my assessment of it, and I think my participation further in this will juss lead to more 4e bashing from me, and then the mods will have to take over, and that won't be cool for the rest of yall who are very excited about this new game (and I haven't played NWN1 in a few nights and wanna get back to it!). So in closing from me, I'll juss reiterate that I don't believe WotC management has what it takes to compete w/the premier fantasy PC game makers, don't believe there was any non-criminal justification for rippin up the pre-4e FR lore or doin away w/3.5e gm mechs, and I think Drizzt's presence changes everything in terms of the staying power of this new NW game. And CK seems like the first internet forum I've ever been on, where a difference in opinion doesn't end up becoming an e-pissing contest! So good on the 3 of us, Kilvan and Diffan! Wooly and Sage have us thoroughly cowed! Ha! J/k! |
| Diffan |
Posted - 27 Aug 2010 : 15:17:11
quote:
Originally posted by bladeinAmn
@ Diffan
The e-prank is imitating how you see folk on WoW servers speak to eachother, and how it filters on to the other forums on the 'net that they frequent (Re: LOLS @ you!!!!111 Pwnage!!!!11111onesss you suck!!!11111ones).
Oh, yea L337 speak (or leet-speak) and yes it's ususally annoying, lol.
quote:
Originally posted by bladeinAmn
The prospect of WoW mechanics and Diablo's sounds intriguing. Not tryna sound redundant, but I think it'd be even more intriguing if it was Blizzard proposing such a game. This b/c WotC is tryna copy them, and it was Blizzard's ideas, so I think they know their system better than what any thief...I mean, competitor, can pull off!
Well imitation is the greatest form of flattery. And besides, I'd enjoy a game with those two mechanics PLUS being set in the Realms.
quote:
Originally posted by bladeinAmn
Re: "Sure, 3.5/PF still has a market for those who don't care for 4E, but I feel thats because the following of D&D post 2000 was almost threefold what it was the previous decade and prior with AD&D/2E. So on that note, the fan base was much larger and therefore a bigger room for dissent."
That's part of the thing, Diffan. They had a product that was providing more revenue than what was coming in during 2e, and they've done completely away w/it in 4e. It makes no sense from a fan perspective, managerial perspective, or financial perspective!
Yes, Pathfinder has made changes to 3.5e, but I wouldn't call'em sweeping changes. I think my saying that 'WotC was good at making 3.5e' does make sense, seeing that's where they made thier most revenue.
Sure it makes sense. They were pretty much through with supplements and adding anything more would've unbalanced the game further (just see the amount of people who complain about the Tome of Battle ). So instead of revising the edition a 3rd time they went with a new direction. I feel they were pretty much stuck between a rock and a hard place. They could've revised it, put out another set of Core books but that would've just made it seem like yet another money-grab.
And pathfinder re-tooled each and every base class in the PHB, revised how some feats worked, added feats all their own, modified the skill list and how people aquire skills, changed much of how spells originally worked, modified PrC's save progression in addition to giving them abilities at each level and ending with a capstone. Those are some pretty BIG changes and the only thing that really remains the same is the basics (d20 + modifier > DC = effect) which isn't that far from 4E.
quote:
Originally posted by bladeinAmn
And true story, today after I finished doing some errands, I found myself in a gaming store in a middle class-to-rich neighborhood (meaning the people thereof don't have to think as hard as what they should spend thier money on, as those less fortunate have to do). It has 2 full shelves for 4e AD&D sourcebooks, and 1 for Pathfinder. They are all right beside eachother.
I was looking at the Pathfinder stuff, when a lady w/her 11-12yr old son walked near me, saying "Look at all the Dungeons and Dragons books they have here!" as they walked to the shelf. They left w/o buying anything, but that's besides the point (especially as I did the same, today), but I do feel a little bad as I think they didn't check out Pathfinder, as I appeared to be looking intently at it, and she didn't wanna get in my way.
But the point is, this lady didn't look like someone well versed in the current gaming market (this instance I'm addressing lasted about a minute). She appeared as someone who is aware of the AD&D brand, but nothing of the changes to FR lore, but the products do look modern!
Saying all that to say that I think I now know where 4e is getting most of thier patronage! (Snicker!)
So because you saw 1 kid (11-12 yr old range) "almost" buy 4e you generalizing the patronage of the market? I suggest you check out the 4E boards over at WotC and try to gauge the age of average posters there to get a better understanding of the market's range.
quote:
Originally posted by bladeinAmn
Really? I think there's so much lore in the pre 4e sourcebooks (even those there for free d/l on the Wizards website; LoI is my favourite), that the adventures were endless, to the point that in my 7yrs of loving the Realms, not once has it ever felt stale for me! And I'm not someone who keeps up w/reading Realms novels either. I read sourcebooks, go here to CK, used to read some lore on wizards, and research FR's wikia site when I wanna do specific research (or find the answer here on CK).
No, there are LOADS of lore in pre-spellplague Realms but that's an issue too. There are some who enjoy playing in exact-canon Realms and with the amounts of Lore in the pre-spellplague can easily overwhelm those individuals. There are others who'd like to keep things more vague but it's just not possible in the Realms where every NPC is statted, every town full developed (exaggerations, I know) but it's the principle. You can't create your own stuff with-out stepping on Canon's toes in 3e/2e/1e. With 4E, the setting is less detailed for this reason.
quote:
Originally posted by bladeinAmn
LOL! @ despising Unther, Maztica, and Mulhorand and likin'em get nuked! You could've juss ignored'em, buddy!
Oh, I ignored them completly. And now with their destruction, there are more interesting locations and cultures to visit. I thought it was rather stupid to have an Egyptian theme in a mostly medieval society/technology. I didn't think it meshed well and i thought their pantheon was sub-par in almost every aspect.
quote:
Originally posted by bladeinAmn
I personally think building on the success of 3.5e would've been a better way pull people who didn't like WoW after trying it. As far as pulling in people who haven't had the WoW experience, attracting parents of 11-12yr olds by the legendary AD&D brand's name is a good start.
While I love Mass Effect and enjoyed NWN 1&2 (and KotR) I think being forced to only do those sorts of games is close-minded.
quote:
Originally posted by bladeinAmn
I personally think its silly - especially for a business as successful as WotC was w/3e - to invest in a game akin to WoW. They run the risk of coming off as posers (I know that sounds jeuvenile, but given WotC's decisions, I think its a solid fit), and the risk of WoW beating them now at thier own game. And that's juss from a fan perspective. From a financial perspective, the prognosis could be absolutely dire; the risk being far more probable than any potential long-term reward.
WoW will always be the major factor, and they'll always be top-notch in that department and yet games like Guild Wars still compete and are fine with coming not in 1st place. But this game isn't geared like WoW in that it's not Instance-based but relying on server-play much like Diable (at least thats what I took from the article). That alone makes it different in style and play ability.
quote:
Originally posted by bladeinAmn
I was thinking Drizzt may be a major part, as for the 1st time, the Realms signature adventurer is in the Realms signature city (I thought it was Waterdeep, but now in 4e they're making it Neverwinter). As for the proposed game standing on its own merits, you're right. Time will tell. B/c of the Neverwinter brand, I never doubted the initial sales for when it'll come out, juss the games' staying power. Aside from the other points I've argued, I think another thing to think about is that I believe the NWN1 modding community is still larger than the NWN2 modding community, despite NWN2 having been out for 4yrs now (but is still thriving in its own right). Add to that, I believe Dragon Age also has its own modding community via that game's toolset.
But your implying that people in those communities won't bat an eye or attempt to play the Neverwinter game. Mods can only take you so far and often Gamers become bored. When a new game like this comes out, many often try it out and go from there. So your right, initial sales will be very high and lets hope the Mod-community can make the game just as good as the old NWN games.
quote:
Originally posted by bladeinAmn
And I think you'll like Dragon Age more than the new proposed Neverwinter game! They're comin out w/a sequel too! Juss in time to compete for sales w/that new Neverwinter game!
Hopefully I'll enjoy both equally and have just as much fun fighting dragons in Dragon Age and slaying thieving pirates along side Drizzt in Neverwinter. |
| Kilvan |
Posted - 27 Aug 2010 : 13:09:36
quote:
Originally posted by bladeinAmn
So there can almost be no 'slight' difference, given what FR patrons were used to. There can be 'slight' differences from 2e to 3e lore due to the RSE's, but they're slight b/c the lore - and 2e vs. 3e gaming mechanics - were all very compatible w/eachother, making for a relatively smooth transition to 3e. But there is little, if any, slightness in the transition to 4e, especially regarding the lore.
Well to be fair, there is no easy transition between 3.X and 4e in terms of game mechanics, I agree. But rules are just rules, and are secondary IMO. And from what I've heard, 4e game mechanics are actually pretty good (without having XX pages of house-rules to balance things out, like I do in 3.X)
As for the emphasis (bold), well, see below.
quote:
Originally posted by bladeinAmn
Relating to Metallica, 4e FR isn't at all Load and Reload: its Metallica putting out two albums full of country songs, tryna sound like Dwight Yoakam, and perhaps putting a total of 4 metal songs on those 2 albums, juss to say "Hey! Look we're still Metallica! Hee haw!"
Now I have to completely disagree with you here. If you look at it objectively, the Realms are still the Realms (and not like Metal turning to country). All the major cities are there, important NPCs (non-immortal-humans), polytheism and all the major and minors organizations (good and evil).
There's ALOT of new stuff (Abeir) and alot that can't be used anymore (anything related to a particular human). And I'm not trying to start another scroll about every single things that changed/retconed, it's been done before, often (heck, I participated in a few of them, sounding much like you do now).
If I look back to my 10 years of D&D, as a player or as a DM, every campaign I played in the Realms COULD have been set post-spellplague without affecting that much. So I think it is not fair to say that the Realms are no longer the Realms we loved (even though we might love it less than before).
quote:
Originally posted by bladeinAmn
I understand. And the point I was trying to make w/my earlier posts in this thread is that I don't have faith in WotC, judging by thier recent and historic business practices and decisions, that they have what it takes to compete vs. the elite in the fantasy PC gaming market - unless of course Drizzt is a feature NPC in this new game, as I said before.
I do not think WotC will have that much of an impact in this new game. They'll pay Atari to make the game, using 4e mechanics and lore, and possibly a list of stuff they'd like to appear (i.e Drizzt). If the game is bad, Atari will be more to blame IMO. And if you look at it that way, Atari had BETTER not mess this up, as all their franchises are pretty much dead (Unreal... that's about it!). It'd be a sad day for gaming if Atari shut its doors (kinda like a grandfather dying). So, WotC turned to Atari in the past, and it worked well, so no reason for them not to do it again, plus the fact they Atari can be afforded, unlike going straight to Bioware (as they are now amongst the big players of the industry)
Now I look back at the lasts posts, and I sound as if I'm trying to sell 4e to you, I'm not. I'm simply asking you to be objective, and not to sentence anything with the 4th ed tag to failure before it even comes out. As Eric said, it's not fair. Even better would be to actually give it a shot when it does come out. |
| Kilvan |
Posted - 27 Aug 2010 : 12:24:14
quote:
Originally posted by bladeinAmn
At the risk of sounding ignorant and shallow, why would a blind person ask someone for art (other than to furnish one's house for those who can see)? I'm not exactly sure I understand the point you're trying to make here.
Because music is art, and so is culinary art, and so is perfume making. To me, art is something that will make you feel sensations, emotions, through your senses. Good art is when you enjoy those feelings and sensations, and bad art is KFC and Ke$ha (please, no jokes about you liking the 'sensations' Ke$ha makes you feel ).
So someone blind can ask for art, just not the visual type.
Sorry if that wasn't clear. |
| bladeinAmn |
Posted - 27 Aug 2010 : 07:35:26
@ Kilvan (Re: 1st reply).
I now see better from where you're coming from. And yeah I know marketing isn't always evil! I like the way how some people market (ie-I personally like how Guild Wars used classy sex appeal to break into the market 5yrs ago; it wasn't trashy, over the top, stupid, and it stayed true to the game's story and fantasy setting).
Re: "The fact is that while Atari could try bring a new face to RPGs, and completly re-invent what we know, would that sell? And I don't mean if YOU would buy it (I would), I mean will it be lucrative? Probably not, sadly. So prepare so see 100 new Gears of Duty and Call of war again this year."
I understand. And the point I was trying to make w/my earlier posts in this thread is that I don't have faith in WotC, judging by thier recent and historic business practices and decisions, that they have what it takes to compete vs. the elite in the fantasy PC gaming market - unless of course Drizzt is a feature NPC in this new game, as I said before.
I wanna address the last line in that post of yours: "Not listening to your future clients would like painting the Mona Lisa for someone blind because he asked you art, it may be good, but its not what he wanted."
At the risk of sounding ignorant and shallow, why would a blind person ask someone for art (other than to furnish one's house for those who can see)? I'm not exactly sure I understand the point you're trying to make here.
@ Kilvan (Re: 2nd reply).
I see the point you're trying to make. But at the same time, many feel the 4e Realms *is* a bad world, given what it *used* to be. The standard was set high, and was inexplicably lowered, as the explanation of removing the old lore so to create new via LFR or your own table doesn't and shouldn't sit well w/people (And ignoring the emotions of the fanbase for a minute, doing such as was done doesn't make any financial sense from a fundamental business perspective at all; it's like 2-time champion LA Lakers trading in-his-prime Pau Gasol in exchange for some backup power forward, for to make more room for young Andrew Bynum to reach his full potential, even though Pau is in his prime and justifies his big contract more than Andrew does and neither put LAL in the financial red - and even though the Lakers system works, juss like 3e FR 'worked').
So there can almost be no 'slight' difference, given what FR patrons were used to. There can be 'slight' differences from 2e to 3e lore due to the RSE's, but they're slight b/c the lore - and 2e vs. 3e gaming mechanics - were all very compatible w/eachother, making for a relatively smooth transition to 3e. But there is little, if any, slightness in the transition to 4e, especially regarding the lore.
------
Ha! I actually have never heard a Metallica song that I didn't like, but yes, I did like thier older stuff more than those two albums. But continuing to digress for awhile on this subject, I think Metallica deliberately changed thier sound (and thier hair!) around that time, b/c they saw that their fanbase from the 80s till that time were all growing up, having families and having to cut thier hair for to do what they can to maximize thier earning power in the real-world, and thus Metallica thought it best to 'change thier sound' for to aid the change they perceived thier core fanbase was goin through, even unto
taming thier sound some, so that thier fans could raise thier kids while still listening to Metallica, and the little new Metallica fans would understand that Ride the Lightning needs to be tempered w/more ummm....softer songs, or at least more 'tame' aggression. Thankfully, while St. Anger and Death Magnetic have a sound on thier own from their 1st 5 records, the aggression is back on point to classic Metallica!
But that's the thing. Metallica tried to aid thier core fanbase, whereas 4e is more like a spit in the face to both the consumers who loved and were passionate about Realmslore, and to the loremasters like Ed and his friends, who worked so damn hard (and w/o the benefits that others who give that type of output to thier companies) to give us all that awsome lore, creating such an amazing and present feel to the 1e, 2e and 3e Realms! What's more, Metallica always performed fan favourites from thier previous albums when touring in support of Load and ReLoad. Even if you didn't like those albums, you *knew* you were gonna have an awsome time when they came to your town! A similar thing cannot be said for those not liking 4e FR, at least not that I can think of easily off the top of my head.
Even more, unlike Metallica, the AD&D and FR brands never had a legitimate reason to change the Realms as was done. Thier products were already designed for people of all ages. (And digressing again for a moment, I personally have no problem introducing young children to Metallica, Megadeth, or any of my other favourite metal groups, but I would balance it w/more tame stuff like Kate Bush, Micheal Jackson, Usher Raymond, Destiny's Child, Taylor Swift etc.)
I understand what you're trying to say as you closed that post of yours, but b/c of the context involved, I have to disagree. W/the expectation of a new edition, you expect improvement, especially since Ed and his friends are so skilled and so present at giving us Realmslore. You don't expect all the lore that built the FR brand to be swept out from everyone's feet, yet that's precisely what happend, whereas we were expecting it to be built upon.
Relating to Metallica, 4e FR isn't at all Load and Reload: its Metallica putting out two albums full of country songs, tryna sound like Dwight Yoakam, and perhaps putting a total of 4 metal songs on those 2 albums, juss to say "Hey! Look we're still Metallica! Hee haw!"
@ Diffan
The e-prank is imitating how you see folk on WoW servers speak to eachother, and how it filters on to the other forums on the 'net that they frequent (Re: LOLS @ you!!!!111 Pwnage!!!!11111onesss you suck!!!11111ones).
The prospect of WoW mechanics and Diablo's sounds intriguing. Not tryna sound redundant, but I think it'd be even more intriguing if it was Blizzard proposing such a game. This b/c WotC is tryna copy them, and it was Blizzard's ideas, so I think they know their system better than what any thief...I mean, competitor, can pull off!
Very true. While I'm having lots of fun playing the NWN1-OC, its staying power lies mainly within the toolset, fan created modules and online servers. The OC is very long (I've been playing it since December, and am only not even halfway through Act III), has a limited number henchmen, and thus replayability (to explore other classes, etc) lies mainly within the expansion packs, fan modules, and online servers.
Re: "Sure, 3.5/PF still has a market for those who don't care for 4E, but I feel thats because the following of D&D post 2000 was almost threefold what it was the previous decade and prior with AD&D/2E. So on that note, the fan base was much larger and therefore a bigger room for dissent."
That's part of the thing, Diffan. They had a product that was providing more revenue than what was coming in during 2e, and they've done completely away w/it in 4e. It makes no sense from a fan perspective, managerial perspective, or financial perspective!
Yes, Pathfinder has made changes to 3.5e, but I wouldn't call'em sweeping changes. I think my saying that 'WotC was good at making 3.5e' does make sense, seeing that's where they made thier most revenue.
And true story, today after I finished doing some errands, I found myself in a gaming store in a middle class-to-rich neighborhood (meaning the people thereof don't have to think as hard as what they should spend thier money on, as those less fortunate have to do). It has 2 full shelves for 4e AD&D sourcebooks, and 1 for Pathfinder. They are all right beside eachother.
I was looking at the Pathfinder stuff, when a lady w/her 11-12yr old son walked near me, saying "Look at all the Dungeons and Dragons books they have here!" as they walked to the shelf. They left w/o buying anything, but that's besides the point (especially as I did the same, today), but I do feel a little bad as I think they didn't check out Pathfinder, as I appeared to be looking intently at it, and she didn't wanna get in my way.
But the point is, this lady didn't look like someone well versed in the current gaming market (this instance I'm addressing lasted about a minute). She appeared as someone who is aware of the AD&D brand, but nothing of the changes to FR lore, but the products do look modern!
Saying all that to say that I think I now know where 4e is getting most of thier patronage! (Snicker!)
I like the GW covers b/c I like lookin at pretty girls who are dressed to kill w/sword and spell! But yeah WoW and other games have great cover art too!
I think if NWN1-OC is giving you trouble at high resolutions, you should R-click Properties, click Settings, and then figure out a screen resolution and colour quality that fits your PC. I'm comfortable w/the graphics I see in my gm-play, and suffer no lag. I'm no PC expert, but I did have trouble when 1st loading the game, then me and my pops figured this out, and I've had happy gaming since!
Really? I think there's so much lore in the pre 4e sourcebooks (even those there for free d/l on the Wizards website; LoI is my favourite), that the adventures were endless, to the point that in my 7yrs of loving the Realms, not once has it ever felt stale for me! And I'm not someone who keeps up w/reading Realms novels either. I read sourcebooks, go here to CK, used to read some lore on wizards, and research FR's wikia site when I wanna do specific research (or find the answer here on CK).
LOL! @ despising Unther, Maztica, and Mulhorand and likin'em get nuked! You could've juss ignored'em, buddy!
I personally think building on the success of 3.5e would've been a better way pull people who didn't like WoW after trying it. As far as pulling in people who haven't had the WoW experience, attracting parents of 11-12yr olds by the legendary AD&D brand's name is a good start.
I personally think its silly - especially for a business as successful as WotC was w/3e - to invest in a game akin to WoW. They run the risk of coming off as posers (I know that sounds jeuvenile, but given WotC's decisions, I think its a solid fit), and the risk of WoW beating them now at thier own game. And that's juss from a fan perspective. From a financial perspective, the prognosis could be absolutely dire; the risk being far more probable than any potential
long-term reward.
I was thinking Drizzt may be a major part, as for the 1st time, the Realms signature adventurer is in the Realms signature city (I thought it was Waterdeep, but now in 4e they're making it Neverwinter). As for the proposed game standing on its own merits, you're right. Time will tell. B/c of the Neverwinter brand, I never doubted the initial sales for when it'll come out, juss the games' staying power. Aside from the other points I've argued, I think another thing to think about is that I believe the NWN1 modding community is still larger than the NWN2 modding community, despite NWN2 having been out for 4yrs now (but is still thriving in its own right). Add to that, I believe Dragon Age also has its own modding community via that game's toolset.
And I think you'll like Dragon Age more than the new proposed Neverwinter game! They're comin out w/a sequel too! Juss in time to compete for sales w/that new Neverwinter game! |
| Diffan |
Posted - 27 Aug 2010 : 02:17:54
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
On a side note, is Dragon Age a decent game? I've seen it out for X-box 360 but I decided to go with Mass Effect instead.
Loved it. Lots to do, good difficulty, interesting characters, great story, balanced battle mechanics. Dragon Age 2 is on the way March 2011, its gonna be awesome.
Well looks like yet another game I'm going to have to purchase, lol. I hope it plays like Mass Effect. |
| Kilvan |
Posted - 27 Aug 2010 : 00:45:14
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
On a side note, is Dragon Age a decent game? I've seen it out for X-box 360 but I decided to go with Mass Effect instead.
Loved it. Lots to do, good difficulty, interesting characters, great story, balanced battle mechanics. Dragon Age 2 is on the way March 2011, its gonna be awesome. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 27 Aug 2010 : 00:32:28
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
My main problem is that they went with a different developer than BioWare. Though maybe this new company will do good things.
Bioware has been rolling on gold lately, maybe they are now too expensive for Atari. I recall some dispute between WotC and Bioware over the Dragon Age, which was was 'supposed' to be some kind of Baldur's Gate 3, and Bioware didn't gain the rights to the realms. Thats just rumours of course.
On a side note, is Dragon Age a decent game? I've seen it out for X-box 360 but I decided to go with Mass Effect instead. |
| Kilvan |
Posted - 26 Aug 2010 : 21:27:35
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
My main problem is that they went with a different developer than BioWare. Though maybe this new company will do good things.
Bioware has been rolling on gold lately, maybe they are now too expensive for Atari. I recall some dispute between WotC and Bioware over the Dragon Age, which was was 'supposed' to be some kind of Baldur's Gate 3, and Bioware didn't gain the rights to the realms. Thats just rumours of course. |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 26 Aug 2010 : 20:43:08
My main problem is that they went with a different developer than BioWare. Though maybe this new company will do good things. |
| Kilvan |
Posted - 26 Aug 2010 : 17:38:32
Wooo, lots of interesting arguments, from both you And Diffan, but let me take on this one
quote:
Originally posted by bladeinAmn
My problem w/the 4e Realms is that it doesn't at all have the atmosphere of the 1st 3 editions, to the point that its juss a shadow of what it used to be, feeling like a completely different setting. I think great stories are still capable of being told (by all accounts thus far, everyone loves "Elminster Must Die") by virtue of the great writers, but not great stories in a great world. I think this makes a world of difference, Kilvan.
I think you've hit one of the sweet spots on this whole 4e Realms discussion (even from the other scrolls). Maybe, just maybe, people are seeing a lesser world by looking at the post-spellplague, so they convinced themselves that it is a bad world. See the slight difference?
Lets take Metallica for example, because that's what I thought about while reading your post. It is the general opinion (not consensus  ) that their albums Load and Reload are genuinely horrible. Why? Because at least 4 of their 5 albums at this point were considered masterpieces by heavy-metal fans. So, with Load being average at best, it is absolute dung compared to what Metallica can do. But what if a younger Metallica had done Load as their first or second album? People would have thought it wasn't so bad, many would have loved it.
My point is that many are dissappointed in 4e, because they loved the pre-4e so much, so they think 4e is genuinely horrible. Is it? No it is not, but I do think it is a step backward from the 3.X era. But a few steps backward from a masterpiece is still pretty good! So I still think it is a great world, but as a D&D player, I have the power to choose the Realms I want at my gaming table, so I choose the 3.X era. For CPU games and novels, I cannot, but I won't deprive myself of those products just because it could have been better. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 26 Aug 2010 : 16:50:09
quote:
Originally posted by bladeinAmn
@ Diffan
1st, upon reviewing what I wrote, I hope you weren't offended by my mimick of WoW fans! I hope you're in on that e-prank as so many web-heads are! Gotta point that out b/c things always get lost in translation when discussing things on the web. Juss tryna keep things civil. Now, on to proving you completely wrong and me undenyably right.....
Though I'm not up to speed on the e-prank, I'm not offended. As I said, I'm no longer a WoW player for the various reason I mentioned above and even though WoW does have the "staying" power and it's a game millions love, I just couldn't get into it. It didn't have any feeling of an RPG (which I really don't believe it is) but more of a button-mashing feeling of (wait for the re-charge...) sorta play.
quote:
Originally posted by bladeinAmn
Everyone has varying opinions on WoW, but the fact remains that its the biggest moneymaker in fantasy video game history, and is followed only by Diablo, which is made by the same company! So kudos to them, even though I'm not gonna play either of'em! The bar is now set very high, as they do have artistic merit, and not juss financial merit.
True enought. Having played both Diablo and WoW, a combination of the two "seems" to be what this new Neverwinter game is hoping to accomplish. A combo of easy on-line play and storyline style of Diablo with the customization and mechanics more akin to WoW. They've said as much, encounter/daily powers will work in real time being split between minutes=encounter powers and hours=daily powers. I think that would work reasonably well and prove for a great game.
quote:
Originally posted by bladeinAmn
I hope you don't think I questioned your love for the Realms, be it 3e or 4e. The fact that you're on CK instead of another forum is testament to that enough. As for as me believing the 4e Realms fanbase is larger than I think, perhaps you're right. Mind you, I didn't say that sales of this new game are gonna completely bomb. Nothing of this magnitude ever does (but on the same hand, PT Barnum once said "There's a sucker born every minute." Or 'customer' ). I simply said I don't believe there's any justification to yet believe that this game will have any of the staying power that the elite fantasy C-RPG's of today, or even yesteryear, have enjoyed. (But as I said earlier, if Drizzt is a major player in this new video game, then that changes everything; I think then it'll surely have staying power, simply based on the Drizzt brand.)
I think Drizzt is just a simple use of a "buzz-word". It instantly attacts people attention, be it people who know of the guy or just people who say "what the hell is a drizzit?!". The styaing power this game provides is obviously the "Forge", an interactive tool-kit people can create and put their friends through. Just look at the older NWN game. It's ONLY staying power was the dungeon making tool-kit (which was amazing). The storyline was compelling, but with a finite goal, it requires expansion packs.
quote:
Originally posted by bladeinAmn
Yes, I said the 4e rules are decent, but I also said I believe they're inferior to that of WoW's, as it looks to me that they were doing away w/ thier own 3.5e game, in favour of WoW's system, which was and still has been making the most money. This despite the massive success 3.5e was having in thier own right in tabletop and PC gaming (NWN series) BECAUSE, IMO, it was different (and the success Pathfinder is having w/their modified d20 rules is testament that there was still a market for 3.5e gaming; literally sales that WotC could've had, if they continued w/3.5e). It looks to me that WotC stopped what they were good at (3.5e) in order to make what's become a 2nd-rate WoW, IMO.
Even NWN/NWN 2 doesn't use the exact rules of 3.5 and I'm not suprised because there were some obvious flaws with them espically when you translate that to the C-RPG world. Sure, 3.5/PF still has a market for those who don't care for 4E, but I feel thats because the following of D&D post 2000 was almost threefold what it was the previous decade and prior with AD&D/2E. So on that note, the fan base was much larger and therefore a bigger room for dissent.
You say that WotC was good at making 3.5 which doesn't make sense looking at the sweeping changes made by Pathfinder. 3.5 (IMO) is inferior to Pathfinder on almost every aspect (Feats, Skills, PrCs, classes/class-features) though I can see why you'd say that seeing as it was build from that system. But when I compare PF to 4E the reasons why I switched originally are still there. Power curves, heavy reliance on magical items, and a stall in excitement for non-spellcasting classes in higher levels of play.
quote:
Originally posted by bladeinAmn
Yeah that's why I said technicolor in reference to WoW's graphics! LOL! And I think GW's game graphics are deliberately sexy (thier game covers even more so!) and I don't mind; I love the Aurora Engine for NWN1, and I haven't loaded my NWN2 copy on my PC yet, have only seen NWN2 gmplay on youtube. Hopefully I have all that's needed to get it working when that time comes!
Ah, yea I feel that GW's graphics were much better overall than the cartoon-ish style of WoW. Cover designes I'll have to give to WoW though (love the Lich King pic). The game engine for NWN isn't bad, yet it does feel clunky at times espically at high resolutions even with a great graphic card (something that's pretty much required to play).
quote:
Originally posted by bladeinAmn
Like I wrote to Kilvan, I think by virtue of the storytellers talents, stories in 4e can still be good, but I feel the atmosphere is totally cut-rate in comparison to the lore before 4e, to the point that the Realms are not improved at all. I don't feel continually in awe when lookin at the 4e Realms like I was in my years studying the Realms before 4e came out (and still in awe as I continue to study the plethora of old lore). And in fact I feel kind of sick, as if I'm supposed to 'like' putting my 2e/3e PC, who was a young elf in 1373 DR, all of a sudden timewarped 106yrs into the future, where all his local human friends are dead, all his business contacts from Halruaa are dead, and entire lands inexplicably destroyed or on other planes. Nevertheless, to each his own, Diffan.
Agreed, to each his/her own. I think the resaons I like the post-spellplague Realms more is because to me it was starting to become...stale. Unless you read the novels, the supplements really didn't advance the story of FR or it's environs. I also despised the lands of Unther and Maztica and Mulhorandi so to see their destruction was espically satisfying to me. I also use quite a bit of lore and source material from previous supplements to enhance my Realms experience.
quote:
Originally posted by bladeinAmn
And in accordance w/what I was originally addressing, from a fan POV and financial management POV, I don't see how this new proposed game has the staying power that the previous NW titles had, mainly due to the people managing it. I think they've failed to pass the bars naturally set for them by fans of their previous successful products, by competitors (I personally would've juss tipped my hat to WoW, and work on maximizing my own product, which was already damn good; Paizo's now the one proving that), and completely boggle my mind regarding the managerial and financial principles and fundamentals I was raised and educated on.
Lets stick with the C-RPG aspect of this discussion, of which Paizo has had NO influence what-so-ever. The management is looking to pull in people who've maybe not had the WoW experience or has had it and found it wanting (like myself). It's using a logo (FR) to draw in people who've loved their games in the past and hoping they give this a try too. For myself, I've played pretty much every big-name FR game to day (didn't do Planescape or BG: Dark Alliance 2 becuase that game is still $60 - 70 damn dollars). They'd be stilly NOT to invest in a game that's akin to WoW (which I thin it does slightly) and draw in those players.
quote:
Originally posted by bladeinAmn
I could be wrong, but I doubt it. In fact, I will be wrong if this new game piggybacks itself onto Drizzt's back, which is something the BG series and NWN1 + 2 and expansion packs didn't have to do, simply due to the sheer strength they offered to customers!
Only time will tell, but I think Drizzt is only a minor part in this game and it'll stand on it's own merits namely the 4E rule-system, great storyline, great setting, and the create your own Dungeon feature. |
| Kilvan |
Posted - 26 Aug 2010 : 16:37:57
quote:
Originally posted by bladeinAmn
And I don't agree at all w/following the flow of what people like in order to sell one's own product. I think thats peurile development and marketing, even setting a company up to be open to plagarism lawsuits. And if it pretends to be something else while having traces of copying a greater established product, then it brings down and dilutes the market as a whole, which in turn can ruin the profitability for all parties involved in the long run if it becomes a staple of the industry! This all b/c some company in 2nd, 3rd, or 4th place or beyond wanted to have a peice of the 1st place company's genius, instead of maximizing their own. I'm literally reminded of an instance where this basketball coach had stolen two players from another team, only to find that this same thieving coach didn't know how to use those stolen players even half as well as the coach who developed them, en route to the stealing team finishing thier season well below the expectations that were set for them.
I can see how my opinion on the matter can lead to disagreement, so allow me to explain a bit more. As a conceptor myself (not in the gaming industry, but software nontheless), your main goal is to create a product that people will prefer over its competitor (of course). To achieve that, you take into consideration 3 things:
- what people like about what already exists in current software
- what people DON'T like about what already exists in current software
- what people would like their software to do, something that no conceptor has thought/been able to do before
And by people, I mean the users of the existing products. So lets head back to RPGs. It is perfectly normal to take 'inspiration' (I don't like the term stealing on this matter, I think it is not) from existing successful RPGs (in our case, WoW) to know what current gamers want. WoW did the same with MMORPGs before it, so they offered more flexibility, full single-player campaign, PvP, Flying, and they did it faster and better than their competitors. WoW is a great game, which managed to take the best, erase/diminish the worst from the then-current leaders of the market (FFXI and Ultima I think), and on top of that they brought innovation, not pure genius creation. They did nothing complicated, just every single little things that players wanted. So yeah, to be successful, you gotta sell what people wanna buy.
Yes, there are surprise here and there, that nobody asked but ended up loving. Nintendo is the god of those things, currently having the 5 most lucrative NEW franchises (warcraft is not new) of the last 10 years *
- Wii Series (148.23 Millions)
- Brain Academy(34.10 Millions)
- Nintendogs (23.80 Millions)
- Mario & Sonic at the Olympics (18.62 Millions)
- Imagine series (17.56 Millions)
Then we have Assassin's Creed (Yay Montreal ) with 17.30 Millions. So yeah, innovation can sell, but I digress.
The fact is that while Atari could try bring a new face to RPGs, and completly re-invent what we know, would that sell? And I don't mean if YOU would buy it (I would), I mean will it be lucrative? Probably not, sadly. So prepare so see 100 new Gears of Duty and Call of war again this year.
Whoa, I wanted to comment on more of your points here (that'll be for another post later today I guess), didn't think I'd write so much about this one. So to conclude, don't mix plagiarism and simple marketing. And no, marketing is not always evil  , it is necessary. Not listening to your future clients would like painting the Mona Lisa for someone blind because he asked you art, it may be good, but its not what he wanted.
* link to my source http://gamrfeed.vgchartz.com/story/81575/the-20-biggest-new-video-game-franchises-of-the-current-era/ |
| bladeinAmn |
Posted - 26 Aug 2010 : 05:45:44
@ Kilvan
True, we can all have our differing opinions on 4e. Juss like we all have different faces, we all also see things differently while lookin at the same thing in question.
I love healthy discussions (as this one is turning out to be, IMO), I'm tryna see things from your POV, but I must slightly disagree w/you saying that RPG evolution stole from AD&D, b/c I half-agree and half-don't agree. I half-agree b/c face value, you're 100% correct. But I half-disagree b/c Gary Gygax is widely known as the founder of OD&D and AD&D, but he had a falling out w/TSR before D&D really began to take off. I'm saying all that to say (and hope I'm not coming off as uppity while doing so!) that I think its more accurate and prudent to say that all RPG's take from Gary's dice system and game lore. In this thread here where we're discussing the merit of a new NW computer game vs. all the great stuff already out there in the market, I juss think its important to show how dissension among the ranks can ruin what can be a good product, and then we see how companies that have great chemistry among eachother find ways to make things work, unto making great games w/staying power and stuff. I juss think its important to throw this out there.
And I don't agree at all w/following the flow of what people like in order to sell one's own product. I think thats peurile development and marketing, even setting a company up to be open to plagarism lawsuits. And if it pretends to be something else while having traces of copying a greater established product, then it brings down and dilutes the market as a whole, which in turn can ruin the profitability for all parties involved in the long run if it becomes a staple of the industry! This all b/c some company in 2nd, 3rd, or 4th place or beyond wanted to have a peice of the 1st place company's genius, instead of maximizing their own. I'm literally reminded of an instance where this basketball coach had stolen two players from another team, only to find that this same thieving coach didn't know how to use those stolen players even half as well as the coach who developed them, en route to the stealing team finishing thier season well below the expectations that were set for them.
My problem w/the 4e Realms is that it doesn't at all have the atmosphere of the 1st 3 editions, to the point that its juss a shadow of what it used to be, feeling like a completely different setting. I think great stories are still capable of being told (by all accounts thus far, everyone loves "Elminster Must Die") by virtue of the great writers, but not great stories in a great world. I think this makes a world of difference, Kilvan.
Sincere thanks for pointing out to me that I should've written 'Opinions' where I wrote 'Consensus!' Thanks for the heads up, and my apologies for not able to think of better wording last night! Ha!
I'm having loads of fun playing NWN1 right now, but b/c I come from the BG series community first, I think I'll have more fun when I begin playing NWN2, as that game is party based while NWN1 is duo based (PC + henchie), despite most people I see all around the interweb liking NWN1 more. I hear you out on the lack of NPC development in NWN1, but I actually think its fitting for that particular game: This b/c of the intensity of Neverwinter being hijacked and murdered from within, the apprehension of not knowing who Desther's superiors were, the betrayal of Aribeth, Nasher holing himself up in his castle instead of being more hands on and visible for the survivors to be inspired some, so many enemies to deal with while tryna stay one step ahead of an unseen enemy, etc. I think b/c of all this, it makes sense that the NPC's are rather guarded, especially since you can only take one henchie at a time. I think it makes some sense that they're guarded, and need to know the PC overa period of time (ie- leveling up) before they reveal more of themselves to you. Yeah its different, but I think it fits. But that's juss me!
LOL! From all I gather, 3e sourcebooks and novels were always selling (in gaming stores and mainstream bookstores!), even in 2007, yet they decided to do away with it anyways. Thier decision to do so makes no non-criminal sense to me from any POV I try to look at it from (as a fan, as a fan of competing products, or from the perspectives of accounting management and marketing management). Given that they tossed all of that great old lore in the corner in those circumstances, I wouldn't trust the decision makers farther than I could throw'em. All that and what I see from the competing companies (from me as a fan's POV and from my principles of financial management POV) makes me sincerely believe that its a product that won't reach any heights of note, falling away from people's positive memories like that of FR-Demon Stone, Temple of Elemental Evil, and other fantasy titles that fell short of expectations. Unless of course, signature Realms characters like Drizzt play an ever-present role in this new game. That'd change the dynamics completely. But I'm speaking my opinion on the premise that they're trying to make a game that doesn't rely on well-known Realms characters, juss like the best selling FR C-RPG's.
@ Diffan
1st, upon reviewing what I wrote, I hope you weren't offended by my mimick of WoW fans! I hope you're in on that e-prank as so many web-heads are! Gotta point that out b/c things always get lost in translation when discussing things on the web. Juss tryna keep things civil. Now, on to proving you completely wrong and me undenyably right.....
Everyone has varying opinions on WoW, but the fact remains that its the biggest moneymaker in fantasy video game history, and is followed only by Diablo, which is made by the same company! So kudos to them, even though I'm not gonna play either of'em! The bar is now set very high, as they do have artistic merit, and not juss financial merit.
I hope you don't think I questioned your love for the Realms, be it 3e or 4e. The fact that you're on CK instead of another forum is testament to that enough. As for as me believing the 4e Realms fanbase is larger than I think, perhaps you're right. Mind you, I didn't say that sales of this new game are gonna completely bomb. Nothing of this magnitude ever does (but on the same hand, PT Barnum once said "There's a sucker born every minute." Or 'customer'). I simply said I don't believe there's any justification to yet believe that this game will have any of the staying power that the elite fantasy C-RPG's of today, or even yesteryear, have enjoyed. (But as I said earlier, if Drizzt is a major player in this new video game, then that changes everything; I think then it'll surely have staying power, simply based on the Drizzt brand.)
Yes, I said the 4e rules are decent, but I also said I believe they're inferior to that of WoW's, as it looks to me that they were doing away w/thier own 3.5e game, in favour of WoW's system, which was and still has been making the most money. This despite the massive success 3.5e was having in thier own right in tabletop and PC gaming (NWN series) BECAUSE, IMO, it was different (and the success Pathfinder is having w/their modified d20 rules is testament that there was still a market for 3.5e gaming; literally sales that WotC could've had, if they continued w/3.5e). It looks to me that WotC stopped what they were
good at (3.5e) in order to make what's become a 2nd-rate WoW, IMO.
Amazon.com is great. I'm lucky though. I live in a big city where there's plenty of gaming stores, and even people selling good stuff used! Glad you and your friend have such an arrangement of either playing 4e which you like, or Pathfinder!
Yeah that's why I said technicolor in reference to WoW's graphics! LOL! And I think GW's game graphics are deliberately sexy (thier game covers even more so!) and I don't mind; I love the Aurora Engine for NWN1, and I haven't loaded my NWN2 copy on my PC yet, have only seen NWN2 gmplay on youtube. Hopefully I have all that's needed to get it working when that time comes!
Like I wrote to Kilvan, I think by virtue of the storytellers talents, stories in 4e can still be good, but I feel the atmosphere is totally cut-rate in comparison to the lore before 4e, to the point that the Realms are not improved at all. I don't feel continually in awe when lookin at the 4e Realms like I was in my years studying the Realms before 4e came out (and still in awe as I continue to study the plethora of old lore). And in fact I feel kind of sick, as if I'm supposed to 'like' putting my 2e/3e PC, who was a young elf in 1373 DR, all of a sudden timewarped 106yrs into the future, where all his local human friends are dead, all his business contacts from Halruaa are dead, and entire lands inexplicably destroyed or on other planes. Nevertheless, to each his own, Diffan.
And in accordance w/what I was originally addressing, from a fan POV and financial management POV, I don't see how this new proposed game has the staying power that the previous NW titles had, mainly due to the people managing it. I think they've failed to pass the bars naturally set for them by fans of their previous successful products, by competitors (I personally would've juss tipped my hat to WoW, and work on maximizing my own product, which was already damn good; Paizo's now the one proving that), and completely boggle my mind regarding the managerial and financial principles and fundamentals I was raised and educated on.
I could be wrong, but I doubt it. In fact, I will be wrong if this new game piggybacks itself onto Drizzt's back, which is something the BG series and NWN1 + 2 and expansion packs didn't have to do, simply due to the sheer strength they offered to customers! |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 25 Aug 2010 : 22:58:38
quote:
Originally posted by ZeshinX
Well for me it's not a question of an open mind. I tried the 4e system and did not like it at all (bought the core rulebook set and the FR Campaign Guide, played 8 6-hour sessions, and decided Pathfinder was the way to go).
Oh sure--well giving it even that much chance is quite generous of you.
My statement was mostly for those folks who are on the fence about it, or have otherwise decided sight-unseen to have nothing to do with it.
Cheers |
| Diffan |
Posted - 25 Aug 2010 : 19:46:09
quote:
Originally posted by ZeshinX
Well for me it's not a question of an open mind. I tried the 4e system and did not like it at all (bought the core rulebook set and the FR Campaign Guide, played 8 6-hour sessions, and decided Pathfinder was the way to go).
I applaud your attempt to at least try out the system for a while before making your decision. And the Pathfinder rules are really well done and revise 3.5 to a degree that i don't grimace when I play it. Additionally, I find myself really liking Golarion as a setting and love they way their adventures can get extreamly....detailed in ways of the gore and grotesque.
|
| ZeshinX |
Posted - 25 Aug 2010 : 18:52:40
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
And for those who don't like 4e/4e FR, I hope you'll give it a try and see or at least keep an open mind. From what I know about the game (which admittedly isn't much), I'm optimistic that it'll be awesome. Regardless, bashing it before it's even come out is premature and unfair.
Cheers
Well for me it's not a question of an open mind. I tried the 4e system and did not like it at all (bought the core rulebook set and the FR Campaign Guide, played 8 6-hour sessions, and decided Pathfinder was the way to go).
I made the decision then that I would not be supporting 4e, in any form (manuals, novels, video games, etc), with my patronage. They decided to go down a road I had no desire to follow. I wish WotC all the best with its D&D brand and hope it continues to flourish for them and for others. Hopefully, the future will see our paths cross again. Until then, Paizo.
I'm sure this new game will be successful for WotC.  |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 25 Aug 2010 : 17:28:29
As far as I understand it, Ed's contract stipulates that whoever owns the FR property has to offer him a full-length novel for publication every year, or the Realms reverts. (It might extend to sourcebook material, but my understanding is that it's worded for fiction.)
And while I'm sure many folks here would love to see the Realms entirely under Ed's control, it wouldn't necessarily be a good thing for publishing concerns. As noted above, Ed's hardly a wealthy guy, and taking away the serious infrastructure a company like WotC provides might spell the end of publishing for the FR entirely. You're not happy with how much comes out *now*, imagine what it would be like if no one got paid to write anything in the Realms entirely. Not that we don't love it and want to write in it, but we have financial responsibilities, to ourselves and our families, and I imagine most of the writers and designers in the setting would jump ship pretty much right away.
Not to speak for Ed, but I imagine he'd try to sell the property to someone else with the money, resources, and infrastructure to make it a publishing success.
It's hard to imagine a better potential vehicle for FR than D&D, however. I like seeing the FR and D&D labels associated, partly because I like playing D&D but also because I think D&D does a LOT for publicizing and marketing FR. If FR ended up published without the D&D label (by a company such as Paizo or Green Ronin, for example), I'm not sure it would enjoy as much exposure as it has now, and that would probably decrease how much comes out by a substantial margin.
Not, of course, that this has anything to do with the upcoming Neverwinter CRPG, which I hope is a resounding success and provides much needed FR fixes to fans everywhere.
And for those who don't like 4e/4e FR, I hope you'll give it a try and see or at least keep an open mind. From what I know about the game (which admittedly isn't much), I'm optimistic that it'll be awesome. Regardless, bashing it before it's even come out is premature and unfair.
Cheers |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 25 Aug 2010 : 16:14:57
I agree that Hasbro will never give up the D&D IP (did they drop Transformers, GI Joe or My Little Pony when those lines weren't making any money?); but D&D has spawned the entire gaming industry and, even though you probably won't see specific characters or places, you WILL see many companies mimicking those people & places in their own version of the games.
And, in the case of the Realms, it's in Ed's contract that if they ever go a year without publishing Ed (I believe it's fiction or sourcebook material--check with the Lady of the Hood), the Realms property fully reverts to his ownership. |
| ZeshinX |
Posted - 25 Aug 2010 : 16:11:07
quote:
I'm not saying you should buy things you won't like, I'm saying should not say/think you are sure to not like it just because it has the 4th edition tag on it.
No way I'm gonna buy something not worth its cost, Realms or not.
Ah, I see what you mean. I still won't be touching this game though, as I massively dislike the 4e system. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 25 Aug 2010 : 16:06:26
To be honest, I doubt WotC will ever go backwards in terms of edition or rules. If the current Realms fail or 4e for that matter, I can easily see WotC just dropping the D&D line (yet not giving the rights or properties to anyone else). That day would be a very very sad day.
So I really don't understand people's ill-will or ill-wishing that WotC's D&D products (be they Novels, Miniatures, RPGs, or Video games) fail when it could possibly end the +25 years franchise. |
| Kilvan |
Posted - 25 Aug 2010 : 15:38:31
quote:
Originally posted by ZeshinX
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
Alot of people have been mad at WotC ever since 4th ed came out, and are flaming everytime news come out of their new realms products. I do not think all this negativity is helping our cause at all. You want more Realms, you want product pre-spellplague? Guess what, they'll need to think the Realms have money to be made, or they'll toss them in a corner (we don't want that, no?).
I always have difficulty with this way of thinking. You propose that we need to buy FR products we do not like, in the hopes they will start making things we do like.
In any case, I wish WotC success with their new 4e Neverwinter game (and the 4e D&D system as a whole).
In the meantime, I can only hope some developer/publisher approaches Paizo and offers to work with them to create a CRPG based on Pathfinder (a CRPG in the vein of Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Dragon Age, and so on).
I'm not saying you should buy things you won't like, I'm saying should not say/think you are sure to not like it just because it has the 4th edition tag on it.
No way I'm gonna buy something not worth its cost, Realms or not.
|
| ZeshinX |
Posted - 25 Aug 2010 : 15:26:08
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
Alot of people have been mad at WotC ever since 4th ed came out, and are flaming everytime news come out of their new realms products. I do not think all this negativity is helping our cause at all. You want more Realms, you want product pre-spellplague? Guess what, they'll need to think the Realms have money to be made, or they'll toss them in a corner (we don't want that, no?).
I always have difficulty with this way of thinking. You propose that we need to buy FR products we do not like, in the hopes they will start making things we do like.
In any case, I wish WotC success with their new 4e Neverwinter game (and the 4e D&D system as a whole).
In the meantime, I can only hope some developer/publisher approaches Paizo and offers to work with them to create a CRPG based on Pathfinder (a CRPG in the vein of Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Dragon Age, and so on). |
| Diffan |
Posted - 25 Aug 2010 : 15:06:40
quote:
Originally posted by bladeinAmn
I didn't mean that if you play one game that you can't branch out. What I meant is that its highly doubtful this new Neverwinter game will have the staying power that the elite games today have now enjoyed for years. Given the way the market for PC games are, how Blizzard and other great companies have built and continue to build their brands, and contrast that w/how WotC has, for all intents and purposes, destroyed thier own via 4e Realms timejump and 4e rules (which are decent when you look at them of itself, but when you look at the entire picture, its a watered down variation of the WoW game mechanics; akin to a clone, a wannabe WoW--they didn't even mask thier intent by goin after Guild Wars game mechanics!), I don't believe at all that they have what it takes to make the established PC game companies do more than chuckle. Ditto the hardcore fanbases thereof, at the prospect of playing a WoW wannabe instead of the real thing.
Couple of things: 1st, I played WoW for over 8 months and got bored. The game was fun (for a time) but, for me, had NO story element what-so-ever and I didn't have the time required to play the game to it's fullest. I have friends who complain that the game is very elitist in that if you don't do so much DPS or your Defenses aren't this high they won't take you with them on quests. And it was all grind, grind, grind. It had no over-reaching goal to obtain except to gain another character level. I feel (and hope) that the new Neverwinter game has some over-arching story line or goal to obtain besides that next level (much like Diablo has). 2nd, WoW stole elements of D&D for their game and turn-about is fair play, but I feel the ONLY element that the two share is how each class has selectable powers, a simple skill list, and monster "rankings". That's it. 3rd, to use WoW requires a monthly sub-scription and that is a huge detractor for me (and for many others as well) so I hope they go the Diablo or Guild Wars route and only have to pay for the game itself. 4th, because I "do" love the Realms is why I'd give the game a try over Guild Wars (which I wasn't impressed with honestly). It's a setting with HUGE amounts of history that I find exciting. And I feel the fan-base for 4eFR much larger than what you think.
quote:
Originally posted by bladeinAmn
The elements that make a successful C-RPG or MMO are gameplay, graphics, compelling storyline, and genuine marketing (y'know, the direct opposite of the 4e marketing campaign that told us that "the game remains the same!"), as people who play C-RPG's tend to be less into fluff, garbage, and accepting misdirection than common folk (and that's being honest - it can hit you like an epiphany!), and thus won't take kindly to being mislead by marketing into having wasted money on 'this' video game when they could've bought 'that' video game.
Obviously you don't like 4E but what exactly makes D&D? Is it diverse races? Is it customizable character classes? Or is it purely the mechanics of the game? Because I feel 4E has great elements of all 3 which could easily be placed into any style of C-RPG. I think the marketing will focus on the merits of the game such as utilizing the 4E rules (in your own words "which are decent"), and the setting of the game being in the Realms (which IMO are vastly superior to pre-spellplague Realms) including building on a city that has been iconic in C-RPG over the last decade.
quote:
Originally posted by bladeinAmn
*snip*
...do any of you have cordial discussions w/the people who own your local gaming store(s)? This wherein you can trust them to give you honest answers if you dare ask if 2yrs after it originally came out, if 4e is doin as well as the 2yrs after 3e came out? Or more recently, if they do better business in 4e or Pathfinder? I'll tell you right now, its not just the consensus here on CK that Pathfinder is a better game than 4e.
Honestly, I do most of my shopping for D&D books at Amazon.com. I often find better prices there than I would at my local gaming store (which is in a crap-mall filled with Thug-gangsters). And without actual things called facts, I don't put much stock into who's doing better Pathfinder or 4E. And as for consensus's if you look on the WotC boards, i'm sure you'll find people who'll endorse 4E over previous editions. Personally, I love Pathfinder and 4E for different reasons but I only have enough $$ for 1 so I buy 4E and my friend buys Pathfinder. Works out great. (Though I prefer 4E).
quote:
Originally posted by bladeinAmn
I wrote all that to illustrate my point that the 4e gameplay, of itself, doesn't at all stand out against the competition.
In terms of graphics, all fantasy games have good graphics nowadays. This new Neverwinter game isn't gonna outshine WoW's technicolor, Guild War's sexiness, NWN1 & NWN2's outright awsomeness, Infinity Engine games' intensity to compliment their storylines, and Elder Scrolls vastness. I write this to illustrate my point that there's nothing significantly new that this game can offer graphicwise.
WoW's features are rather cartoon-ish if you ask me. GW's sexiness? really? and the NWN 2 game is laugh-able. I have it, I played it, and I found the graphics and system requirements completly unnecessary, espically for what we got in that game. The game play is fun, but the encounters can range SOO vastly in difficulty that I found myself saving before every battle, which got sorta frustrating.
quote:
Originally posted by bladeinAmn
In terms of compelling storyline, c'mon man. This is a 4e Forgotten Realms game. The strength of FR C-RPG's have always been their rich depth, a world within a world. W/the timejump alone, most of that is all gone, as most of our favourite human Realms characters are dead. And it'd be absolutely bogus if they used this game to lift this and that NDA to say so and so is still alive in 1479 DR by way of magic, seeing the Spellplague ruined magic to such degrees. It'd end up being a game that made no sense at all if they went in this direction. And 'no sense' goes against the feel of the Realms, which Ed and his friends worked so hard to perfect.
I feel there is just as much depth and compelling storyline in the 1479 Realms as in previous editions. Everything feels new and everything is exciting WITH the history still there. As for the spellplague ruining magic...how so?
quote:
Originally posted by bladeinAmn
Given the lack of compensation to those who built the FR brand (w/o whom they wouldn't have sold all those 2e & 3e FR sourcebooks and novels), how easily their work was disposed of in the 4e Realms, do you really think such people can come up w/compelling storylines?
Have you even read a novel since the jump of 4E? I admit that I've been busy and not had the time to commit to reading novels, but the Rich Baker novels Swordmage and Corsair (which I'm reading right now) are pretty damn impressive and I'm vastly enjoying them. Heck, even people not privvy to 4E have found the novels a good read.
And it's funny that while reading your post, it really came down to an issue you have with 4E and 4eFR. You've stated multipul times that 4E is a failure (yet I have not seen this to be so). As for RA writing, he's not touching the game at all, just creating a trilogy that is set near/in/around Neverwinter which might co-inside with some game elements. I think the game can stand on it's own merits (espically the create your own adventure tool-box) of being a competitive C-RPG. |
|
|
