I am guessing that you never played the Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Dranor game.
Shhh, noone talks about this game. It's the black sheep of recent DnD games. Daggerdale and the Neverwinter MMO don't count. Those are in another abysmal league of their own.
Personally, I can totally see Planescape:Torment getting an EE. Better engine, cleaner UI, correcting bugs, adding zoom feature, adding the unfinished quests (if there are any), more translations, Android/iPad support (not necessary though).
No new quests or NPCs, they are not needed. And we already a pretty diverse cast. Githzerai, Succubus, Tiefling, construct, flaming spirits, the-whatever-the-knight-thing-is etc.
I think that's one reason that we get only one new NPC for BG2EE. The much needed evil thief. We don't need any more diversity in Torment.
For example in the BG saga we got a Blackguard, a Monk, a Sorcerer, a Wild Mage and an animal, as well as an evil Thief. We only "lack" a Barbarian NPC but it's not needed. We already have Dorn and Korgan as well Sarevok and Minsc. Adding another pure heavy melee NPC would be superfluous.
But a Temple of Elemental Evil EE or Icewind Dale I/II EE would be awesome. And they can go wild with new content.
I'd personally like a PS:T:EE just to have it on mobile devices. Playing Baldur's Gate on my long train commute has been great! I'm also not a big fan of the interface of PS:T. That radial wheel thing is such a hastle to use (and would probably have to be totally removed to make it playable on a touch screen).
I really don't think they would be able to convert Torment to mobile devices. And if they somehow manage with it i'm sure most of the 'magic' of the game would have been lost.
Torment is not something you play on your mobile device, it's something you play on your computer with a drink and a few hours put away to enjoy the game.
I wish the game hadn't tanked so that we could have had many good campaigns with that engine.
I 100% share this sentiment.
The Co8 team has done a fantastic job of fixing most of the major issues with ToEE. If you are fan of ToEE and have not played with their patch, I highly recommend it. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that they did 80-90% of the 'EE' portion already.
And that might be a bad thing. Either someone else would have to replicate all of that work, or they would have to get some kind of waiver to use it. That could get sticky, and with Hasbro, they may not want to wade into those waters (again).
I'm willing to cut a game released for MS-DOS in '89 some slack.
Ruins of Myth Drannor was released in 2001 and people are not bothering with it at all. At least Temple of Elemental Evil was extremely faithful to 3.5E rules and the fans thought it was a rough diamond. If it was garbage, the Co8 team wouldn't even bother to restore it.
I cannot remember PoR: Ruins of Myth Drannor mentioned in recommended RPGs on various fora. While Arcanum, Fallout, Icewind Dale, Planescape Torment, Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines, NwN2: Mask of the Betrayer and Temple of Elemental Evil are quite often.
I think TOEEEE (TO4E?) would be a good project for BD -- greyhawk seems to fit with the sort of writing they want to do and if they could improve the looting system it could be a decent game. While I prefer the 2.5 rules I had fun making a party that could kill Iuz . . .
PoR: ROMD on the other hand is probably the worst D&D game ever made -- part console, part PC and no idea of what it was. Even the final battle was buggy -- the big boss sat by and did nothing while my party killed the dragon. I think of it whenever someone suggests making PC / console hybrids . . .
The art was good -- once you got out of the first dungeon. I wonder if someone could grab the backgrounds for another game?
@Ygramul - I don't follow your logic regarding ToEE:EE. What evidence is there that it would not make money or that it is a foregone conclusion? Just take a look at all of the community effort that went into the Co8. That alone would seem to suggest that there is interest. Add to that the Renascence that we are seeing with BG, I'd think that there was a pretty good case for it being profitable.
Keep in mind that the initial problems with the game were largely due to very little marketing, some very sour grapes surrounding Pool of Radiance: Ruin of Myth Dranor and a game that was released far before it was ready (plus some bad press about some of the changes that were mandated in the 11th hour). It was effectively the perfect storm.
Sans all of that, and a proper execution, I think there is every hope that it would be, if not as profitable as BG:EE then at least significantly in the positive category.
And Really? X-Com:EU level graphics? I thought they were quite cartoonish and not all that great.
@Ygramul - I don't follow your logic regarding ToEE:EE. What evidence is there that it would not make money or that it is a foregone conclusion? .... And Really? X-Com:EU level graphics? I thought they were quite cartoonish and not all that great.
Because ToEE DID NOT make money upon release. What I think as a fan (and I am fan) is different than the harsh reality of the market.
BG:EE was a good idea because BG was successful. ToEE:EE is a bad idea because ToEE was a failure. (Again, this is contrary to my own feelings on the matter as a fan.)
Regarding, X-Com: I care little about graphics quality. But it was a SUCCESSFUL title, based on robust engine & gameplay. So, it is proof-of-concept that it is possible to have a successful turn-based title in this day and age. This is a non-trivial statement that publishers would not have believed prior to X-Com.
@Ygramul - You can't look at the fact that ToEE was a failure without looking at (a) the reasons WHY it was a failure and (b) if there are any factors that have changed since launch which might alter that outcome.
As @SionIV indicates, other games have been failures on launch, but now are considered classics.
I don't dispute that: I would rebuy Torment today gladly with nothing but a little polish on it for $60.
But if you put your thinking cap on with the perspective of developers/publishers it would not be an intelligent investment to do either Torment or ToEE.
A spiritual successor like "Torment: Tides of Numenera"? Absolutely. I very much hope it will succeed.
But we don't want one of the few studios working on in-depth CRPGs (i.e. Beamdog) to tank because they wasted time on a title that won't bring in cash to them.
I quite disagree. From that perspective, it didn't make any sense for developers to work on BG:EE. Although the original BG was successful, it was a 10 year old game with very dated graphics and a very niche market. In today's market there are a lot of 'Developer' market reasons why it should not have been a success. it was.
I think that 'Torment' and 'Eternity' and the success of BG:EE all point to the fact that there is a market for that sub-genre of games.
ToEE, although it was a failure at launch, has proven a quite avid following in the form of C08 project and other community add ons. They have even worked on a 'Sequel' in the form of "Keep on the borderlands". Community driven, but still. It represents a potential market and depending on the size of the market and the effort involved to pull it all together, that can equal profit.
If putting on the "Developer" thinking cap, once again you have to ask "Why did it fail?" and "Do those conditions still prevail?". You can't merely say "It failed so it will never make money." You have to do the post mortem.
Look at Star Trek. Three years into their "Five year mission", the show got canceled. A failure. Who wouldn't laugh at that today? Look at Doctor Who? 'On permanent hiatus' in 1986 because it was 'A failure'. Now look at it. Look at Firefly. it totally bombed, but is now considered one of the BEST Science Fiction TV programs on DVD and they got a movie out of it all.
I'm sorry but BG, the original, sold a lot of copies. BG was still selling 15 years after release.
It was, of course, a good idea to do an EE on it!
That just isn't the case with the other titles mentioned. I wish it was, but it is not. Wishful thinking will only lead to failure, which a small studio like this cannot afford.
I'm not saying "Don't do a big new leap of an exciting project". Quite the contrary. I'm saying "Don't waste your limited resources on stillborn ventures". And ToEEEE -the actual literal ToEEEE not "something in the spirit of ToEEEE" like I suggested above- is a very obvious stillborn venture.
@Ygramul -I am apparently not getting through to you.. but that's fine. it's OK that we have different opinions on this. Back to the regularly scheduled thread.
I can't talk for ToEE but Torment failed because of bad marketing and wrong release date, nothing more nothing less.
Well there's also the clunky interface, awkward combat, bizarre setting, unrelatable protagonist, atypical narrative, and the fact that it's incredibly text-heavy. I love the game, but I'm not convinced that it ever had a real chance for mass market appeal. Although I don't think it was technically a failure, as I think they did make some money on it (just not a lot of money).
I can't talk for ToEE but Torment failed because of bad marketing and wrong release date, nothing more nothing less.
I wish that were true, but unfortunately part of Torment's failure was that it was... cerebral.
The reasons why *we* love it so, is that it is the singular best example of a narrative in a game. Bar none.
Gameplay was okay, but the dialog and the effect of choices were what made Torment a spectacular success artistically, only matched by its spectacular failure financially.
*We* are a minority. Twitch-based game play with "Awesome-button" and DPS and pay-to-play and nerf-the-monk and raids and dungeon instances make more money than... "What can change the nature of a man?"
If we want to change the nature of the gaming industry we need to think about how much we are willing to pay (how about $100 for a superbly constructed artful title as a project supporter?).
Torment was art.
Art is never cheap.
Common denominator will never support art. Art needs patrons willing to support it selflessly.
@Ygramul -I am apparently not getting through to you.. but that's fine. it's OK that we have different opinions on this. Back to the regularly scheduled thread.
*nod* I think we are both on the same side in this, actually.
When Torment was released, it's gameplay and everything else was still on the high top of what other titles came out around those year. There were so many horrible Diablo clones and other failures around the CRPG.
Even with all the small flaws Torment had, it was a well made game with amazing story. I read an article somewhere where it was mentioned that it was bad marketing, and it was released at the same time as other very popular games.
And when it comes to marketing, did anyone here HEAR about Torment? I had played Baldur's Gate but never heard about Torment until i saw it on a shelf somewhere. I heard about Icewind dale a year later, it had much better marketing than Torment had.
It was smack dab in the middle of many other strong release before and after christmas.
It got a very high score and the magazines that reviewed it held the same high opinion with a few exceptions. Some even nominated it for the best RPG of the year, and it was released the same year as : Ultima IX, Pokemon Gold and Silver, Chrono Cross, Asheron's call, Baldur's Gate - Tales of the sword coast, Everquest, Final Fantasy VIII.
There were so many strong titles released in 1999 and 2000 that i heard about, but Torment never got mentioned, at least not where i lived.
Gamespot and Computer gaming world gave it the best RPG of the year (1999).
IGN gave it the title best game of the year (1999).
There were many very good games released in 1999, not just RPG's.
Now some ratings.
Gamerankings - 90.63% Metacritic - 91/100
Allgame - 5 ½/6 stars Gamerpro - 5 ½/6 stars Incite PC gaming - 4/5 Next Gen - 5/5 Eurogamer - 7/10 . 8/10 after patch Gamespot - 9/10 IGN - 9.2/10 PC Zone - 8.7/10 Gamespy - 90/100 PC Gamer US - 93% Game revolution - A-
You don't get those scores with horrible gameplay. It might not have been as good as Baldur's Gate, but it was in no way bad gameplay.
Arcanum had horrible gameplay, and it suffered from it.
Nobody said PS:T had horrible gameplay, just that the gameplay isn't what made the game great. What made the game great was the story and writing. However, experiencing the story and writing means reading boatloads of text, and there's plenty of people out there who aren't interested in reading a novel's worth of text in order to play a game (and I don't think there's anything wrong with that). So the benefit of the fantastic writing is mitigated for those people, and without that writing I'd say that PS:T would become an unremarkable game.
Edit: I probably should have said "Nobody in this thread said PS:T had horrible gameplay [...]" I have seen cases elsewhere where I think people really exaggerated how poor the gameplay was.
@SionIV - I agree that Torment was horribly marketed. The only place I saw it advertised was during the install for BG2, but never again.
@Ygramul does have one thing right in that it was more cerebral than the mainstream gamers wanted and that was strike two for the game.
I think the landscape has changed somewhat in recent years such that 'more cerebral' is back in. No, wait. What I actually think has happened is that all of the consumers that loved those types of games back in the day are now all grown up and have more disposable cash to spend on these types of games. Add to that the fact that they are introducing the next generation of gamers (their children) to these types of games. Finally, it is more socially acceptable to be into these types of games. So you have unique opportunity.
I'd personally love to see PS:T:EE. I think there's significant potential. I think that ToEE:EE is also a very well worth (and financially viable) project. On top of that, I LOVE the ToEE engine. I much prefer to be able to turn based target spells, abilities and skills instead of being only as good as the click of a mouse button.
In both cases, as with BG, you are talking about a much lower start up cost than it would take to develop a new engine. In that, and in the fact that a lot of the work has already been done, I'd think that there is significant opportunity for profit. Plus it would be another relatively easy (and presumably quick) win for the folks at Beamdog. We can always hope.
I wish I knew what the reality of the video gaming market most likely is. I make assumptions about BG because it was a successful game in the late 90s and is still considered by many critics to be the best RPG ever made. But I have to admit that I honestly don't know what the newer generations raised on a diet of MMOs and console systems are willing to try. And whether they'd appreciate a BG style gaming experience, if they did. My own perception is so colored by my own love for the game, and D&D, and the Forgotten Realms, that I really can't be objective.
I wish I knew what the reality of the video gaming market most likely is. I make assumptions about BG because it was a successful game in the late 90s and is still considered by many critics to be the best RPG ever made. But I have to admit that I honestly don't know what the newer generations raised on a diet of MMOs and console systems are willing to try. And whether they'd appreciate a BG style gaming experience, if they did. My own perception is so colored by my own love for the game, and D&D, and the Forgotten Realms, that I really can't be objective.
I think the secret sauce is sincerity. One of things that Bioware did right when making the BG series is to hire people who genuinely liked D&D and that sincerity was reflected in the game.
I think spending too much time tailoring a game (or anything) towards an abstract notion of people who are unlike you and you don't really know guarantees that you will produce a lackluster product. I think this applies as well as to music as to video games -- music composed by suits who follow demographic trends will never be a good as good as *insert favorite independent band here*.
(Of course sincerity isn't everything -- it is only the sauce)
Like you I don't really *know* what people want but I've seen predictions of this won't work fall down time and time again -- Firaxis bringing back turn based strategy games for example. And I have also seen games fail because of a "we must do this because it's what people want" attitude -- the Ultima series failing after deciding that no one wants to play an isometric game for example. BG itself did what others said couldn't / shouldn't be done -- the conventional wisdom of the time said that the shooter perspective makes combat that much more compelling .
The point on my long post on all the good reasons to abandon 2D games for 3D games was this: even the best reasons fall before the weight of evidence; the infinity engine has proven to be more popular than anyone would have guessed.
So my best guess on how to proceed is:
1. Look to what has worked in the past
2. Put people who genuinely like the game on the task.
That's why I think Beamdog should stick with the infinity engine and start making modules. Lets take a new protagonist down the sword coast.
Comments
Daggerdale and the Neverwinter MMO don't count. Those are in another abysmal league of their own.
Personally, I can totally see Planescape:Torment getting an EE.
Better engine, cleaner UI, correcting bugs, adding zoom feature, adding the unfinished quests (if there are any), more translations, Android/iPad support (not necessary though).
No new quests or NPCs, they are not needed. And we already a pretty diverse cast.
Githzerai, Succubus, Tiefling, construct, flaming spirits, the-whatever-the-knight-thing-is etc.
I think that's one reason that we get only one new NPC for BG2EE. The much needed evil thief. We don't need any more diversity in Torment.
For example in the BG saga we got a Blackguard, a Monk, a Sorcerer, a Wild Mage and an animal, as well as an evil Thief.
We only "lack" a Barbarian NPC but it's not needed. We already have Dorn and Korgan as well Sarevok and Minsc.
Adding another pure heavy melee NPC would be superfluous.
But a Temple of Elemental Evil EE or Icewind Dale I/II EE would be awesome. And they can go wild with new content.
I would LOVE to see ToEE as an EE. (ToEE:EE). In fact, I think a whole host of games could be made using that engine. I'd pay at $20.00 a pop.
I wish the game hadn't tanked so that we could have had many good campaigns with that engine.
And, you know what, while we are day-dreaming here...
I want ARCANUM with ToEE engine! (... but totally re-written, of course.)
Torment is not something you play on your mobile device, it's something you play on your computer with a drink and a few hours put away to enjoy the game.
The Co8 team has done a fantastic job of fixing most of the major issues with ToEE. If you are fan of ToEE and have not played with their patch, I highly recommend it. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that they did 80-90% of the 'EE' portion already.
And that might be a bad thing. Either someone else would have to replicate all of that work, or they would have to get some kind of waiver to use it. That could get sticky, and with Hasbro, they may not want to wade into those waters (again).
Ruins of Myth Drannor was released in 2001 and people are not bothering with it at all.
At least Temple of Elemental Evil was extremely faithful to 3.5E rules and the fans thought it was a rough diamond.
If it was garbage, the Co8 team wouldn't even bother to restore it.
I cannot remember PoR: Ruins of Myth Drannor mentioned in recommended RPGs on various fora.
While Arcanum, Fallout, Icewind Dale, Planescape Torment, Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines, NwN2: Mask of the Betrayer and Temple of Elemental Evil are quite often.
PoR: ROMD on the other hand is probably the worst D&D game ever made -- part console, part PC and no idea of what it was. Even the final battle was buggy -- the big boss sat by and did nothing while my party killed the dragon. I think of it whenever someone suggests making PC / console hybrids . . .
The art was good -- once you got out of the first dungeon. I wonder if someone could grab the backgrounds for another game?
As much as I'd love to see ToE^4, such a thing would not be profitable for BD. (The original ToEE was not for Troika.)
Though the existence of the new X-Com as a success shows that it IS possible to make much profit with a solid turn-based (RPG-like) tactical game.
So, perhaps, a Pathfinder-based turn-based CRPG in the manner of ToEE but with gameplay/graphics similar to X-Com.
Now that would be FUN and PROFITABLE.
Keep in mind that the initial problems with the game were largely due to very little marketing, some very sour grapes surrounding Pool of Radiance: Ruin of Myth Dranor and a game that was released far before it was ready (plus some bad press about some of the changes that were mandated in the 11th hour). It was effectively the perfect storm.
Sans all of that, and a proper execution, I think there is every hope that it would be, if not as profitable as BG:EE then at least significantly in the positive category.
And Really? X-Com:EU level graphics? I thought they were quite cartoonish and not all that great.
What I think as a fan (and I am fan) is different than the harsh reality of the market.
BG:EE was a good idea because BG was successful. ToEE:EE is a bad idea because ToEE was a failure.
(Again, this is contrary to my own feelings on the matter as a fan.)
Regarding, X-Com:
I care little about graphics quality. But it was a SUCCESSFUL title, based on robust engine & gameplay. So, it is proof-of-concept that it is possible to have a successful turn-based title in this day and age. This is a non-trivial statement that publishers would not have believed prior to X-Com.
As @SionIV indicates, other games have been failures on launch, but now are considered classics.
But if you put your thinking cap on with the perspective of developers/publishers it would not be an intelligent investment to do either Torment or ToEE.
A spiritual successor like "Torment: Tides of Numenera"? Absolutely. I very much hope it will succeed.
But we don't want one of the few studios working on in-depth CRPGs (i.e. Beamdog) to tank because they wasted time on a title that won't bring in cash to them.
I think that 'Torment' and 'Eternity' and the success of BG:EE all point to the fact that there is a market for that sub-genre of games.
ToEE, although it was a failure at launch, has proven a quite avid following in the form of C08 project and other community add ons. They have even worked on a 'Sequel' in the form of "Keep on the borderlands". Community driven, but still. It represents a potential market and depending on the size of the market and the effort involved to pull it all together, that can equal profit.
If putting on the "Developer" thinking cap, once again you have to ask "Why did it fail?" and "Do those conditions still prevail?". You can't merely say "It failed so it will never make money." You have to do the post mortem.
Look at Star Trek. Three years into their "Five year mission", the show got canceled. A failure. Who wouldn't laugh at that today? Look at Doctor Who? 'On permanent hiatus' in 1986 because it was 'A failure'. Now look at it. Look at Firefly. it totally bombed, but is now considered one of the BEST Science Fiction TV programs on DVD and they got a movie out of it all.
BG was still selling 15 years after release.
It was, of course, a good idea to do an EE on it!
That just isn't the case with the other titles mentioned.
I wish it was, but it is not. Wishful thinking will only lead to failure, which a small studio like this cannot afford.
I'm not saying "Don't do a big new leap of an exciting project". Quite the contrary. I'm saying "Don't waste your limited resources on stillborn ventures". And ToEEEE -the actual literal ToEEEE not "something in the spirit of ToEEEE" like I suggested above- is a very obvious stillborn venture.
The reasons why *we* love it so, is that it is the singular best example of a narrative in a game. Bar none.
Gameplay was okay, but the dialog and the effect of choices were what made Torment a spectacular success artistically, only matched by its spectacular failure financially.
*We* are a minority.
Twitch-based game play with "Awesome-button" and DPS and pay-to-play and nerf-the-monk and raids and dungeon instances make more money than... "What can change the nature of a man?"
If we want to change the nature of the gaming industry we need to think about how much we are willing to pay (how about $100 for a superbly constructed artful title as a project supporter?).
Torment was art.
Art is never cheap.
Common denominator will never support art. Art needs patrons willing to support it selflessly.
I think we are both on the same side in this, actually.
Even with all the small flaws Torment had, it was a well made game with amazing story. I read an article somewhere where it was mentioned that it was bad marketing, and it was released at the same time as other very popular games.
And when it comes to marketing, did anyone here HEAR about Torment? I had played Baldur's Gate but never heard about Torment until i saw it on a shelf somewhere. I heard about Icewind dale a year later, it had much better marketing than Torment had.
It was smack dab in the middle of many other strong release before and after christmas.
It got a very high score and the magazines that reviewed it held the same high opinion with a few exceptions. Some even nominated it for the best RPG of the year, and it was released the same year as : Ultima IX, Pokemon Gold and Silver, Chrono Cross, Asheron's call, Baldur's Gate - Tales of the sword coast, Everquest, Final Fantasy VIII.
There were so many strong titles released in 1999 and 2000 that i heard about, but Torment never got mentioned, at least not where i lived.
Gamespot and Computer gaming world gave it the best RPG of the year (1999).
IGN gave it the title best game of the year (1999).
There were many very good games released in 1999, not just RPG's.
Now some ratings.
Gamerankings - 90.63%
Metacritic - 91/100
Allgame - 5 ½/6 stars
Gamerpro - 5 ½/6 stars
Incite PC gaming - 4/5
Next Gen - 5/5
Eurogamer - 7/10 . 8/10 after patch
Gamespot - 9/10
IGN - 9.2/10
PC Zone - 8.7/10
Gamespy - 90/100
PC Gamer US - 93%
Game revolution - A-
You don't get those scores with horrible gameplay. It might not have been as good as Baldur's Gate, but it was in no way bad gameplay.
Arcanum had horrible gameplay, and it suffered from it.
Edit: I probably should have said "Nobody in this thread said PS:T had horrible gameplay [...]" I have seen cases elsewhere where I think people really exaggerated how poor the gameplay was.
@Ygramul does have one thing right in that it was more cerebral than the mainstream gamers wanted and that was strike two for the game.
I think the landscape has changed somewhat in recent years such that 'more cerebral' is back in. No, wait. What I actually think has happened is that all of the consumers that loved those types of games back in the day are now all grown up and have more disposable cash to spend on these types of games. Add to that the fact that they are introducing the next generation of gamers (their children) to these types of games. Finally, it is more socially acceptable to be into these types of games. So you have unique opportunity.
I'd personally love to see PS:T:EE. I think there's significant potential. I think that ToEE:EE is also a very well worth (and financially viable) project. On top of that, I LOVE the ToEE engine. I much prefer to be able to turn based target spells, abilities and skills instead of being only as good as the click of a mouse button.
In both cases, as with BG, you are talking about a much lower start up cost than it would take to develop a new engine. In that, and in the fact that a lot of the work has already been done, I'd think that there is significant opportunity for profit. Plus it would be another relatively easy (and presumably quick) win for the folks at Beamdog. We can always hope.
Temple of Elemental Evil: Enhanced Elemental Evil Edition
I think spending too much time tailoring a game (or anything) towards an abstract notion of people who are unlike you and you don't really know guarantees that you will produce a lackluster product. I think this applies as well as to music as to video games -- music composed by suits who follow demographic trends will never be a good as good as *insert favorite independent band here*.
(Of course sincerity isn't everything -- it is only the sauce)
Like you I don't really *know* what people want but I've seen predictions of this won't work fall down time and time again -- Firaxis bringing back turn based strategy games for example. And I have also seen games fail because of a "we must do this because it's what people want" attitude -- the Ultima series failing after deciding that no one wants to play an isometric game for example. BG itself did what others said couldn't / shouldn't be done -- the conventional wisdom of the time said that the shooter perspective makes combat that much more compelling .
The point on my long post on all the good reasons to abandon 2D games for 3D games was this: even the best reasons fall before the weight of evidence; the infinity engine has proven to be more popular than anyone would have guessed.
So my best guess on how to proceed is:
1. Look to what has worked in the past
2. Put people who genuinely like the game on the task.
That's why I think Beamdog should stick with the infinity engine and start making modules. Lets take a new protagonist down the sword coast.