Could the overhaul of NWN:EE happen in NWN2 engine or HD remake in older engine? And what about NWN3? When will this happen?
NwN3 or an equivalent should be done either from Beamdog or Obsidian. I don't trust anyone else with it. But I'm leaning towards Obsidian since they made a deal with Paizo (Pathfinder's publisher).
I'm not sure if NwN1 is worth it. Unlike BG or IWD, NwN1 is all about the modules. Releasing a newer version means that compatibility will break across the board.
I would rather see Icewind Dale II and Planescape: Torment EEs first. They need it more than NwN1.
Hell, I would love EE of Fallout 1 + 2 as well, first. Those games came before Baldur's Gate I. Fallout 2 actually came two months before BG1.
Could the overhaul of NWN:EE happen in NWN2 engine or HD remake in older engine? And what about NWN3? When will this happen?
You could recreate NWN OC in the NWN2 engine (and I think it has been done) there really isn't a whole lot of point. It was the toolset and the user created content that made it great, the OC was decidedly mediocre.
As for NWN3, setting aside the legal hurdles to using the name, and the inevitability of 5th edition rules, the real obstacle is the business model. All that user created content didn't make any profit for the developers or the publishers. It will be made when someone figures out a way of making money out of user created content.
@Fardragon Mods drive business even if they're free. Who buys Arma III just to play the base game? They buy it to play DayZ and other mods.
It's been pretty much shown that doesn't make a significant contribution. Many more people buy a AAA game without mods at full price, than buy a moddable game (Arma what?!), and when they do buy it, they wait for the price to drop so low that no significant revenue gets back to the developers.
If you add into that the cost of supporting the community, as they did for a long time with NWN, what you end up with is a money sink, not a cash cow.
I agree that mods for "Most games" are not the driving factor in increased sales revenue. However with games like NWN and Arma III, modding definitely contribute. And just because the company doesn't 'See a lot of revenue' from them, they definitely gain through brand recognition and game popularity. There's more to the sales game than the bottom line (though not every marketing exec sees the peripheral revenue streams).
At the end of the day NWN will remain in the history books not because the OC was terribly memorable, but because of all of the Modding that went on. That historical footnote actually has monetary value to the original developers.
@Fardragon Mods drive business even if they're free. Who buys Arma III just to play the base game? They buy it to play DayZ and other mods.
It's been pretty much shown that doesn't make a significant contribution.
Reference required
No reference needed. If it was profitable NWN3, or something very much like it, would have already been made, along with a horde of clones.
Tell that to a Dr Who fan or better still, a firefly fan. Just because something is profitable doesn't mean that 'The powers that be' choose to see it as such.
@Fardragon Mods drive business even if they're free. Who buys Arma III just to play the base game? They buy it to play DayZ and other mods.
It's been pretty much shown that doesn't make a significant contribution.
Reference required
No reference needed. If it was profitable NWN3, or something very much like it, would have already been made, along with a horde of clones.
Tell that to a Dr Who fan or better still, a firefly fan. Just because something is profitable doesn't mean that 'The powers that be' choose to see it as such.
The BBC is a public service broadcaster, it's remit is to "entertain and inform", not make a profit. But Dr Who was getting very poor when it was rested, and is looking in need of another rest now.
Firefly has never made much money. Having a fanatical fanbase doesn't make a profit, you need to be mainstream for that.
The BBC is a public service broadcaster, it's remit is to "entertain and inform", not make a profit. But Dr Who was getting very poor when it was rested, and is looking in need of another rest now.
Firefly has never made much money. Having a fanatical fanbase doesn't make a profit, you need to be mainstream for that.
The very specific reasons why Dr Who was "Put on hiatus" were "It was not seen as financially profitable". This despite it clearly and specifically having singlehandedly kept BBC afloat for many years running. It was also a cheap show to run and the merchandizing was gangbusters more than enough to justify it's existence. It was later revealed that the "Actual" reasons for it's demise had zero to do with the finances and everything to do with one individual within the BBC who didn't like the show.
As far as Firefly, it was financially viable enough to have a movie made not to mention several Kickstarter campaigns designed around bringing it back. It is also singlehandedly the best selling cult classic Sci Fi show given that it only existed one season. So established fan base, significant merchandizing and secondary market revenue streams and several notable people (including Nathan Fillion) who have expressed interest in picking up the franchise. That seems, if not "Mainstream" at least a very solid business reason to pick it up.
Neverwinter Nights:EE is on indefinite hold due to the licensing rights around the Neverwinter name. I can't see us creating an HD or EE version in the near future. As for re-creating the original campaign, I wouldn't do it, for an NWN:EE I'd wanted to do a "Director's Cut" and delete about half the content. I think we were all very focused on the tools during the NWN development and the story suffered as a result. I'm proud of the Hordes of the Underdark story as we actually managed to do it well. -Trent
It was no secret at the time that Micheal Grade killed off Dr Who, but it was also apparent that the stories and acting had been deteriorating for some time, and it couldn't afford current fx. All in all it had nothing to do with money, and thus is irrelevant to this discussion either way.
It's notable that the Kickstarter bids to revive Firefly failed, and the film, though not actually a flop, made only a small profit in comparison to how much it cost to make, hence the lack of a sequel. Business people are not stupid, despite what the fanboys think (and I would count myself a huge fan of Dr Who, Firefly, and Neverwinter Nights).
It was no secret at the time that Micheal Grade killed off Dr Who, but it was also apparent that the stories and acting had been deteriorating for some time, and it couldn't afford current fx. All in all it had nothing to do with money, and thus is irrelevant to this discussion either way.L
To tie this all together, your argument was "If it is financially a success, there will be a continuation of some sort" (paraphrasing your own argument). The statement of fact is that Dr Who was financially viable and had proven itself repeatedly over decades to be thus. It was financially viable and it did not continue until Russell brought it back in 2005. Michael Grade did want it dead, it's true. This despite the fact that it was financially a success. The fact that stories and acting had gone down hill were as a result of budget cuts and direction "From on high" (read Michael Grade and others) for direction changes, presumably to facilitate killing off the show. In other words, it took an attempt to KILL the show that was HUGELY profitable and then finally a blanket decision irrespective of the facts to bring it down. Yet it didn't come back as you surmised would be the case, until MUCH later.
It's notable that the Kickstarter bids to revive Firefly failed, and the film, though not actually a flop, made only a small profit in comparison to how much it cost to make, hence the lack of a sequel. Business people are not stupid, despite what the fanboys think (and I would count myself a huge fan of Dr Who, Firefly, and Neverwinter Nights).
None of which actually even speaks to the premise that the original program and movie showed financial profitability yet the show is not back.
If it was profitable NWN3, or something very much like it, would have already been made, along with a horde of clones.
I suspect that had more to do with the legal squabbles between Atari and Wizards of the Sword Coast than anything else. Not to mention Atari's financial problems.
If it was profitable NWN3, or something very much like it, would have already been made, along with a horde of clones.
I suspect that had more to do with the legal squabbles between Atari and Wizards of the Sword Coast than anything else. Not to mention Atari's financial problems.
Hence the "something very much like it". It would be easy enough to create a NWN clone using Pathfinder or otherwise taking advantage of the D20 open licence, bypassing any licencing issues.
It's not like the D&D brand is worth anything nowadays anyway.
It was no secret at the time that Micheal Grade killed off Dr Who, but it was also apparent that the stories and acting had been deteriorating for some time, and it couldn't afford current fx. All in all it had nothing to do with money, and thus is irrelevant to this discussion either way.L
To tie this all together, your argument was "If it is financially a success, there will be a continuation of some sort" (paraphrasing your own argument). The statement of fact is that Dr Who was financially viable and had proven itself repeatedly over decades to be thus. It was financially viable and it did not continue until Russell brought it back in 2005. Michael Grade did want it dead, it's true. This despite the fact that it was financially a success. The fact that stories and acting had gone down hill were as a result of budget cuts and direction "From on high" (read Michael Grade and others) for direction changes, presumably to facilitate killing off the show. In other words, it took an attempt to KILL the show that was HUGELY profitable and then finally a blanket decision irrespective of the facts to bring it down. Yet it didn't come back as you surmised would be the case, until MUCH later.
It's notable that the Kickstarter bids to revive Firefly failed, and the film, though not actually a flop, made only a small profit in comparison to how much it cost to make, hence the lack of a sequel. Business people are not stupid, despite what the fanboys think (and I would count myself a huge fan of Dr Who, Firefly, and Neverwinter Nights).
None of which actually even speaks to the premise that the original program and movie showed financial profitability yet the show is not back.
It was no secret at the time that Micheal Grade killed off Dr Who, but it was also apparent that the stories and acting had been deteriorating for some time, and it couldn't afford current fx. All in all it had nothing to do with money, and thus is irrelevant to this discussion either way.L
To tie this all together, your argument was "If it is financially a success, there will be a continuation of some sort" (paraphrasing your own argument). The statement of fact is that Dr Who was financially viable and had proven itself repeatedly over decades to be thus. It was financially viable and it did not continue until Russell brought it back in 2005. Michael Grade did want it dead, it's true. This despite the fact that it was financially a success. The fact that stories and acting had gone down hill were as a result of budget cuts and direction "From on high" (read Michael Grade and others) for direction changes, presumably to facilitate killing off the show. In other words, it took an attempt to KILL the show that was HUGELY profitable and then finally a blanket decision irrespective of the facts to bring it down. Yet it didn't come back as you surmised would be the case, until MUCH later.
It's notable that the Kickstarter bids to revive Firefly failed, and the film, though not actually a flop, made only a small profit in comparison to how much it cost to make, hence the lack of a sequel. Business people are not stupid, despite what the fanboys think (and I would count myself a huge fan of Dr Who, Firefly, and Neverwinter Nights).
None of which actually even speaks to the premise that the original program and movie showed financial profitability yet the show is not back.
Doctor Who wasn't HUGELY profitable at the time it was killed off. It became HUGELY profitable afterwards, when the DVD market took off and it was syndicated in the USA. The business side of the BBC hardly existed in those days. But irrespective of Michael Grade the show was stale. Nothing can run continuously for 25 years and not be.
There is a difference between "not making a net loss" and being a good investment. It is the net return that is important. I.e. if it is cheep to make, a modest profit is acceptable, but if it is expensive to make, nothing but a huge profit makes it worth while. Otherwise you are better off investing your capital elsewhere. Science Fiction is, by it's nature, inherently expensive to make. (Although CGI has brought the cost down somewhat - this is what really enabled Dr Who to return). There is also the timescale to consider. You want to make a profit as quickly as possible, otherwise it is eaten up by interest on your loans. DVD sales 10 years down the line is no good, since most production companies and game developers are permanently teetering on the edge of imminent financial disaster. Waterworld made a profit eventually. I expect John Carter will turn a profit eventually. But it's no good when the banks have already foreclosed on your mortgage.
@Fardragon - and this pretty much ends the discussion as far as I am concerned. We agree to disagree. I see no reason to continue debating when we clearly don't see eye to eye on this.
The Aurora Toolset is the best thing ever created in gaming industry. I still use it. It would be awesome to have a toolset like that (with improvements), in a new game. It doesn't have to be NWNEE, it could be something completely new from scratch -with the AuroraEE build in : )
I don't think Neverwinter Nights really NEEDS an enhanced edition regardless. I'm not even entirely sure the Infinity Engine games did, though I'm glad we have them, but that's mostly just because it saves alot of modding set-up. I think it's much preferable in Beamdog does what they do best and focuses on the direction they are going, which is making original adventures in the Infinity Engine.
I couldn't ever see this happening, largely for two reasons (setting aside issues such as the difficulty of obtaining the legal rights to NWN):
- 3D graphics generally age much more poorly than 2D graphics. BG, BG2, and IWD still look "good enough" today, but NWN's graphics now appear extremely dated. An updated re-release would have to include a new graphics engine if it's to have anything but niche appeal, and it goes without saying that coding a modern graphics engine requires a lot of work. Using a pre-existing engine like Unity might ameliorate that somewhat, but even then, the job of creating environments, models, textures, and other game assets is no small task.
- The general consensus is that NWN's official campaign is rather dull and not terribly memorial; of all of NWN's original content, only Hordes of the Underdark really stands out. NWN's appeal lay in its toolset and online connectivity, which in turn allowed for a wealth of user-created content and persistent worlds. A new edition of NWN wouldn't be compatible with pre-existing content or persistent worlds, which would dissuade a large portion of people from buying it.
While "Hordes of the Underdark" is easily the best official module produced for NWN1, I'd be remiss in not pointing out that "Shadows of Undrentide", while not fantastic, does the job of introducing Deekin as well as setting up the premise of HotU - for continuity purposes, I'd consider them one "campaign", as it were.
Act 1 of Shadows of Undrentide is pretty good. After that my enjoyment lessened considerably, but yeah I would call it a requirement to play through it as well.
Undrentide is very short as well, so it's not like you're looking at a huge time investment between that and HoTU.
I'd agree that they are more or less part 1 and part 2 of the same campaign. And I'd second that Hoards is by far the better but that both have some fun in them.
Any of the premium mods are very good. Darkness over Daggerford, Wyvern Crown, Pirates of the Sword Coast, whatever the hell else they managed to get into the GOG edition (I know there is one called Witch's Wake that is a pretty novel idea but ends on a cliffhanger and was never finished). Even Infinite Dungeons, if you truly want it to be more Diablo-like while playing actual D&D.
Neverwinter Nights:EE is on indefinite hold due to the licensing rights around the Neverwinter name. I can't see us creating an HD or EE version in the near future. As for re-creating the original campaign, I wouldn't do it, for an NWN:EE I'd wanted to do a "Director's Cut" and delete about half the content. I think we were all very focused on the tools during the NWN development and the story suffered as a result. I'm proud of the Hordes of the Underdark story as we actually managed to do it well. -Trent
Good day, Mr. Oster! You've recently mentioned you want to create a ''Director's Cut Edition'' for Neverwinter Nghts original campaign, where you're going to take away almost the half of the actual content (in case all the problems with rights ownership will be solved). I'd love to know some details. Could we expect smth new when it comes to companions? Do you want to increase their role in the original plot, or, at least, make more interesting system of relations between the main protagonist and the members of the party, as it was in NWN2? It should be mentioned, that such companions as Linu or Sharween... well, the ability to have romance with one of them is... much to be desired, to be honest. Especially in comparison with Lady Aribeth, in case of which I'm pleased and suppose I should really say ''thank you'' a lot of times. I have other questions as well. I really love your enhanced editions of Baldur's Gate, especially when it comes to the new add-on, a necessary and important link between the original Baldur's Gate and the sequel. Are you planning to create smth like this for NWN? It may be a good idea to connect the plot of the original campaign and the plot of the Hordes of Underdark closely, than it is now. I was pretty disappointed, when I understood, that the Hero of Neverwinter from the original campaign... well, he actually disappeared, and we do not know what happened to him, and how he had become an exile. The final part of the original plot is telling us nothing about this. The new add-on could bring the light on some particular events, such as Aribeth's trial, new danger, that awaits the protagonist (as it was mentioned by the old lizardwomen at the final part of the game), the tensions between the protagonist and Lord Nasher, and so on. And what is more, could you give us the ability to make choice, whether we want to start the new Hordes of Underdark session as a Hero of Neverwnter, as well as the Hero of SoA? I suppose that such useful feature could definitely change the game process and the plot for the better. Best wishes and thank you for your answers in advance.
Isn't HotU supposed to continue from the first expansion, Shadows of Undrentide?
Yeah, that's true. But... personally I think that the Hero of Neverwinter was wrongly, undeservingly forgotten. The HoU campaign is actually connecting the plots of original campaign and SoU - that's why I think the Hero of Neverwinter should have a chance to become the main protagonist. I suppose it would be better for the plot of the HoU campaign.
Comments
But I'll grovel if that's what I have to do to get it...
And what about NWN3? When will this happen?
But I'm leaning towards Obsidian since they made a deal with Paizo (Pathfinder's publisher).
I'm not sure if NwN1 is worth it. Unlike BG or IWD, NwN1 is all about the modules. Releasing a newer version means that compatibility will break across the board.
I would rather see Icewind Dale II and Planescape: Torment EEs first. They need it more than NwN1.
Hell, I would love EE of Fallout 1 + 2 as well, first. Those games came before Baldur's Gate I.
Fallout 2 actually came two months before BG1.
As for NWN3, setting aside the legal hurdles to using the name, and the inevitability of 5th edition rules, the real obstacle is the business model. All that user created content didn't make any profit for the developers or the publishers. It will be made when someone figures out a way of making money out of user created content.
Mods drive business even if they're free. Who buys Arma III just to play the base game? They buy it to play DayZ and other mods.
If you add into that the cost of supporting the community, as they did for a long time with NWN, what you end up with is a money sink, not a cash cow.
At the end of the day NWN will remain in the history books not because the OC was terribly memorable, but because of all of the Modding that went on. That historical footnote actually has monetary value to the original developers.
Firefly has never made much money. Having a fanatical fanbase doesn't make a profit, you need to be mainstream for that.
As far as Firefly, it was financially viable enough to have a movie made not to mention several Kickstarter campaigns designed around bringing it back. It is also singlehandedly the best selling cult classic Sci Fi show given that it only existed one season. So established fan base, significant merchandizing and secondary market revenue streams and several notable people (including Nathan Fillion) who have expressed interest in picking up the franchise. That seems, if not "Mainstream" at least a very solid business reason to pick it up.
-Trent
It's notable that the Kickstarter bids to revive Firefly failed, and the film, though not actually a flop, made only a small profit in comparison to how much it cost to make, hence the lack of a sequel. Business people are not stupid, despite what the fanboys think (and I would count myself a huge fan of Dr Who, Firefly, and Neverwinter Nights).
It's not like the D&D brand is worth anything nowadays anyway.
There is a difference between "not making a net loss" and being a good investment. It is the net return that is important. I.e. if it is cheep to make, a modest profit is acceptable, but if it is expensive to make, nothing but a huge profit makes it worth while. Otherwise you are better off investing your capital elsewhere. Science Fiction is, by it's nature, inherently expensive to make. (Although CGI has brought the cost down somewhat - this is what really enabled Dr Who to return). There is also the timescale to consider. You want to make a profit as quickly as possible, otherwise it is eaten up by interest on your loans. DVD sales 10 years down the line is no good, since most production companies and game developers are permanently teetering on the edge of imminent financial disaster. Waterworld made a profit eventually. I expect John Carter will turn a profit eventually. But it's no good when the banks have already foreclosed on your mortgage.
Well, that's my dream anyway ; )
- 3D graphics generally age much more poorly than 2D graphics. BG, BG2, and IWD still look "good enough" today, but NWN's graphics now appear extremely dated. An updated re-release would have to include a new graphics engine if it's to have anything but niche appeal, and it goes without saying that coding a modern graphics engine requires a lot of work. Using a pre-existing engine like Unity might ameliorate that somewhat, but even then, the job of creating environments, models, textures, and other game assets is no small task.
- The general consensus is that NWN's official campaign is rather dull and not terribly memorial; of all of NWN's original content, only Hordes of the Underdark really stands out. NWN's appeal lay in its toolset and online connectivity, which in turn allowed for a wealth of user-created content and persistent worlds. A new edition of NWN wouldn't be compatible with pre-existing content or persistent worlds, which would dissuade a large portion of people from buying it.
Undrentide is very short as well, so it's not like you're looking at a huge time investment between that and HoTU.
I have other questions as well. I really love your enhanced editions of Baldur's Gate, especially when it comes to the new add-on, a necessary and important link between the original Baldur's Gate and the sequel. Are you planning to create smth like this for NWN? It may be a good idea to connect the plot of the original campaign and the plot of the Hordes of Underdark closely, than it is now. I was pretty disappointed, when I understood, that the Hero of Neverwinter from the original campaign... well, he actually disappeared, and we do not know what happened to him, and how he had become an exile. The final part of the original plot is telling us nothing about this. The new add-on could bring the light on some particular events, such as Aribeth's trial, new danger, that awaits the protagonist (as it was mentioned by the old lizardwomen at the final part of the game), the tensions between the protagonist and Lord Nasher, and so on. And what is more, could you give us the ability to make choice, whether we want to start the new Hordes of Underdark session as a Hero of Neverwnter, as well as the Hero of SoA?
I suppose that such useful feature could definitely change the game process and the plot for the better.
Best wishes and thank you for your answers in advance.