i'm slightly surprised how little BT4 talk the internet has.

For all Bard's Tale IV discussion that does not fit elsewhere, suggestions, feedback, etc. No spoilers allowed.

Moderator: Bard Hall Bouncers

User avatar
Crosmando
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5136
Joined: January 3rd, 2013, 8:48 am

Re: i'm slightly surprised how little BT4 talk the internet has.

Post by Crosmando » February 24th, 2018, 5:36 pm

Goddamnit stop it with the awful suggestions Gizmo, just let BT4 be a first-person blobber. Why must you have such shit taste in everything. That mock-up literally does look like JRPG combat-view to a tee.
Matthias did nothing wrong!

User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3704
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: i'm slightly surprised how little BT4 talk the internet has.

Post by Gizmo » February 24th, 2018, 8:35 pm

Crosmando wrote:
February 24th, 2018, 5:36 pm
Goddamnit stop it with the awful suggestions Gizmo, just let BT4 be a first-person blobber. Why must you have such shit taste in everything. That mock-up literally does look like JRPG combat-view to a tee.
...And it's the one I'd prefer; by far. ;) (But it has nothing to do with JRPGs... not any more than Fallout or Gauntlet did.)

I never considered BT as having blobber/FPP combat; not like Eye of the Beholder, or Dungeonmaster. Can you point to an example of it if it does?

Honestly I think it has more in common with Realms of Arkania or the SSI Goldbox titles, than it does Akalabeth or other such title. More in common with Darklands than Doom or Heretic; or even Thunderscape.

**And why do you care about an optional camera angle?

User avatar
Crosmando
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5136
Joined: January 3rd, 2013, 8:48 am

Re: i'm slightly surprised how little BT4 talk the internet has.

Post by Crosmando » February 24th, 2018, 9:06 pm

Gizmo wrote:
February 24th, 2018, 8:35 pm
Crosmando wrote:
February 24th, 2018, 5:36 pm
Goddamnit stop it with the awful suggestions Gizmo, just let BT4 be a first-person blobber. Why must you have such shit taste in everything. That mock-up literally does look like JRPG combat-view to a tee.
...And it's the one I'd prefer; by far. ;) (But it has nothing to do with JRPGs... not any more than Fallout or Gauntlet did.)

I never considered BT as having blobber/FPP combat; not like Eye of the Beholder, or Dungeonmanster. Can you point to an example of it if it does?
Because it's a natural evolution. You show any layman the BT games and then ask them what it's more similar to, they'd point to Might & Magic, Wizardry or to a lesser extent Dungeon Master-likes. The only sliver of credibility your viewpoint has is that when combat begins in BT, the actual background the level behind the enemy isn't shown, that's it, and the only reason that was probably done is because the hardware of that time probably couldn't handle having an animated enemy plus the background street behind it at once (at least not at the detail level BT had). If you look at the BT enemy portraits:
Image
Image
Image
Image
You can clearly see that the viewpoint is first-person, ie you are looking at the enemy face-to-face, not from above or from an isometric or bird's eye perspective like RoA or Gold Box combat.
Honestly I think it has more in common with Realms of Arkania, than it does 'Akalabeth: World of Doom' or other such title. More in common with Darklands than Doom or Heretic; or even Thunderscape.
I honestly cannot comprehend how anyone could ever come to this viewpoint. I'm gonna have to just assume again that you just prefer this camera view and that's why you're pushing for it. FFS Darklands has real-time-with-pause tactical isometric combat and you think it has more to do with BT than fucking Wizardry or early-M&M?! You're insane.
**And why do you care about an optional camera angle?
Because it's awful and changes the entire feel of the game. BT4 wouldn't even feel like Bard's Tale-like if you had that option.
Matthias did nothing wrong!

User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3704
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: i'm slightly surprised how little BT4 talk the internet has.

Post by Gizmo » February 24th, 2018, 10:05 pm

Crosmando wrote:
February 24th, 2018, 9:06 pm
The only sliver of credibility your viewpoint has is that when combat begins in BT, the actual background the level behind the enemy isn't shown, that's it, and the only reason that was probably done is because the hardware of that time probably couldn't handle having an animated enemy plus the background street behind it at once (at least not at the detail level BT had).
The hardware of the time could run full motion video a with sound... not that you'd find much of that, but it could—it's been shown.
If you look at the BT enemy portraits:
You can clearly see that the viewpoint is first-person, ie you are looking at the enemy face-to-face, not from above or from an isometric or bird's eye perspective like RoA or Gold Box combat.
I'd call this irrelevent. SSI Gold box games have the same style of portraits as BT, in both conversation and combat encounters... Not only that, their combats can start with an animated first person charging attack.

The portraits in Bard's Tale are representational archetypes of the entities encountered; same as the PC portraits. Which do you think would better depict the described scene of 5 Kobolds at 10' and 10 sorcerers at 90'? FPP or Isometric?
Honestly I think it has more in common with Realms of Arkania, than it does 'Akalabeth: World of Doom' or other such title. More in common with Darklands than Doom or Heretic; or even Thunderscape.
I honestly cannot comprehend how anyone could ever come to this viewpoint. I'm gonna have to just assume again that you just prefer this camera view and that's why you're pushing for it. FFS Darklands has real-time-with-pause tactical isometric combat and you think it has more to do with BT than fucking Wizardry or early-M&M?! You're insane.
Curse a lot don't you? :D

What I said (and what you ignored), is that BT was closer to RoA/SSI than Akalabeth, D00M/Heretic, or even Thunderscape. The later four of these have FPP combat; only one has party based combat. RoA , SSI, and Darklands each have a full party, and most are turn based. Of the latter four, Thunderscape is closest to Bard's Tale (and that's a stretch); I'd still say that it's close enough that I'd have been fine with BT4 being a clone of Thunderscape—built with Unreal.
**And why do you care about an optional camera angle?
Because it's awful and changes the entire feel of the game. BT4 wouldn't even feel like Bard's Tale-like if you had that option.
I understand exactly what you mean—I don't agree, but I do understand, because I felt the same way about the silliness that is FO3—and how it ruins the series for it's egregious differences that contradict the basic premise of the Fallout series... But an optional Iso mode does not contradict the gameplay of the BT series IMO—certainly not if it were entirely optional. You might not know it, but the Witcher played in three different camera modes; high & medium range Isometric (that were Point-N-Click controlled), and close third person mode (WASD controlled).
Image
How does the option of either affect players that don't even know about it?
(And could any of them say that the other modes were not like the Witcher? Or were somehow detrimental?)

User avatar
Crosmando
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5136
Joined: January 3rd, 2013, 8:48 am

Re: i'm slightly surprised how little BT4 talk the internet has.

Post by Crosmando » February 24th, 2018, 11:05 pm

Gizmo wrote:
February 24th, 2018, 10:05 pm
Crosmando wrote:
February 24th, 2018, 9:06 pm
The only sliver of credibility your viewpoint has is that when combat begins in BT, the actual background the level behind the enemy isn't shown, that's it, and the only reason that was probably done is because the hardware of that time probably couldn't handle having an animated enemy plus the background street behind it at once (at least not at the detail level BT had).
The hardware of the time could run full motion video a with sound... not that you'd find much of that, but it could—it's been shown.
If you look at the BT enemy portraits:
You can clearly see that the viewpoint is first-person, ie you are looking at the enemy face-to-face, not from above or from an isometric or bird's eye perspective like RoA or Gold Box combat.
I'd call this irrelevent. SSI Gold box games have the same style of portraits as BT, in both conversation and combat encounters... Not only that, their combats can start with an animated first person charging attack.
That's probably because even Gold Box were trying to emulate M&M and Wizardry, in their own way, despite having the overhead combat. GB is also a good example of how the transition from first-person to overhead combat is so janky, instead of just sticking of just one view.
The portraits in Bard's Tale are representational archetypes of the entities encountered; same as the PC portraits. Which do you think would better depict the described scene of 5 Kobolds at 10' and 10 sorcerers at 90'? FPP or Isometric?
I could imagine having an overhead portrait of the enemies would still work, they chose the first-person enemy portraits because it's a more natural transition from the first-person exploration.
Honestly I think it has more in common with Realms of Arkania, than it does 'Akalabeth: World of Doom' or other such title. More in common with Darklands than Doom or Heretic; or even Thunderscape.
Curse a lot don't you? :D
Hey I'm not the one who compared Darklands to Bard's Tale.
What I said (and what you ignored), is that BT was closer to RoA/SSI than Akalabeth, D00M/Heretic, or even Thunderscape. The later four of these have FPP combat; only one has party based combat. RoA , SSI, and Darklands each have a full party, and most are turn based. Of the latter four, Thunderscape is closest to Bard's Tale (and that's a stretch); I'd still say that it's close enough that I'd have been fine with BT4 being a clone of Thunderscape—built with Unreal.
Doom and Heretic are fast-paced FPS, so they have almost zero comparison to RPGs.
I don't see how BT is close to RoA or GB combat. BT1 doesn't even have movement, while BT2-3 have movement in the sense of a straight line, while RoA/GB have a full tactical grid.

Either way I think you are mistaking strict gameplay mechanics that exist under the hood with the actual look and feel of the game. For example, regardless of actual gameplay mechanics, if I were to play a game that's supposed to be a sequel to the old BT games and I saw this:
Image
I would instantly think "This looks nothing like Bard's Tale to me".
**And why do you care about an optional camera angle?
Because it's awful and changes the entire feel of the game. BT4 wouldn't even feel like Bard's Tale-like if you had that option.
I understand exactly what you mean—I don't agree, but I do understand, because I felt the same way about the silliness that is FO3—and how it ruins the series for it's egregious differences that contradict the basic premise of the Fallout series... But an optional Iso mode does not contradict the gameplay of the BT series IMO—certainly not if it were entirely optional. You might not know it, but the Witcher played in three different camera modes; high & medium range Isometric (that were Point-N-Click controlled), and close third person mode (WASD controlled).
Image
How does the option of either affect players that don't even know about it?
(And could any of them say that the other modes were not like the Witcher? Or were somehow detrimental?)
Witcher is never a first-person game so the comparison isn't valid. You can guarantee if Witcher had a first-person mode it would feel different.

You know I've recently made it a point not to get into internet arguments anymore, but gosh you make it hard when you post things like that combat mock-up.
Matthias did nothing wrong!

User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3704
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: i'm slightly surprised how little BT4 talk the internet has.

Post by Gizmo » February 25th, 2018, 8:39 am

Crosmando wrote:
February 24th, 2018, 11:05 pm
That's probably because...
Can you prove this?

*They were not, btw.

...even Gold Box were trying to emulate M&M and Wizardry, in their own way, despite having the overhead combat.
The fact is (as per what I've read) that SSI actually prototyped their first TSR demo by trying to one-up The Bard's Tale—at least to show that they could... not necessarily as the basis for what they would eventually produce. It was to get the license.

GB is also a good example of how the transition from first-person to overhead combat is so awful, instead of just sticking of just one view.
In fact, SSI was a design house known for tactical military games; they landed the TSR license and —you guessed it... they made tactical D&D games. And lest you forget that D&D also started out as a war game.

...they chose the first-person enemy portraits because...
Again, can you prove this?
You didn't answer the question: Which do you think would better depict the described scene of 5 Kobolds at 10' and 10 sorcerers at 90'? FPP or Isometric? I am inclined to think that using a first person corridor view of an enemy that is 80 feet behind another enemy, is less than ideal.

Hey I'm not the one who compared Darklands to Bard's Tale.
Neither am I; you invented that yourself. I said that BT was closer to Darklands than Alakabeth or D00M; not that they were themselves comparable or even related. You can consider that similar to stating that a manatee is closer to an elephant than to a whale—and it is.

Doom and Heretic are fast-paced FPS, so they have almost zero comparison to RPGs.
Not the point either. D00M & Heretic had FPP viewports for the purpose of immersing the player in the game world; same as BT, RoA, and the GB titles; but combat in the shooters was not abstracted like in the RPGs. The RPGs were party based, and were not depicting the player in personal combat.

I don't see how BT is close to RoA or GB combat. BT1 doesn't even have movement, while BT2-3 have movement in the sense of a straight line, while RoA/GB have a full tactical grid.
It is close(er) to RoA, in that once combat begins, the game shifts to a dedicated combat mini-game, where each character gets an action during the round; from among those suited to their abilities/ or skillset.

Either way I think you are mistaking strict gameplay mechanics that exist under the hood with the actual look and feel of the game.
Strict game mechanics are all that matter to me. That's a MAJOR reason why FO3 sucks IMO; not their writing, or even the FPP view.

You know I've recently made it a point not to get into internet arguments anymore, but gosh you make it hard when you post things like that combat mock-up.
I'm glad it sparks conversation... but you don't mention why you believe that having multiple cameras would be harmful. The first example I gave was King's Bounty, the game grid is partially rota-table, but you don't have to rotate it to play the game. It is entirely the player's option.

___

BTW: That is not the Realms of Arkania that I mentioned, but looking at it does actually remind me of the BT2 wilderness, and how combat might have looked from above.

This is Realms of Arkania:
Image

User avatar
Lord of Riva
Adventurer
Posts: 964
Joined: October 14th, 2014, 10:18 am

Re: i'm slightly surprised how little BT4 talk the internet has.

Post by Lord of Riva » February 25th, 2018, 10:45 am

to be fair both (or rather all four) of (the realms of arkania) Das Schwarze Auge: Nordland Triologie games share the same mechanics of first person exploration and isometric combat. Afaik there is no difference between the versions that said the "remake" IS a travesty so maybe crosmando shouldnt go down to such depths :D

User avatar
Crosmando
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5136
Joined: January 3rd, 2013, 8:48 am

Re: i'm slightly surprised how little BT4 talk the internet has.

Post by Crosmando » February 25th, 2018, 7:31 pm

I used a screenshot of the Star Trail remake simply because it's a modern 3d game and probably better representative of what a modern RoA-style game would look like.
Matthias did nothing wrong!

User avatar
ZiN
Adventurer
Posts: 670
Joined: January 27th, 2015, 7:57 am

Re: i'm slightly surprised how little BT4 talk the internet has.

Post by ZiN » February 27th, 2018, 3:40 pm

One thing that was impressive in the RoA remakes, was the portraits. They have painted all of them based on and closely resembling the originals. Sure they were not animated, but still impressive.

Now BT4 is replacing nicely animated portraits, with popping, bobbing and flipping cardboard figures. Needless to say, it's not too impressive.

ps. BTCS also had cool portraits:
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Lord of Riva
Adventurer
Posts: 964
Joined: October 14th, 2014, 10:18 am

Re: i'm slightly surprised how little BT4 talk the internet has.

Post by Lord of Riva » February 28th, 2018, 8:27 am

ZiN wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 3:40 pm
One thing that was impressive in the RoA remakes, was the portraits. They have painted all of them based on and closely resembling the originals. Sure they were not animated, but still impressive.

Now BT4 is replacing nicely animated portraits, with popping, bobbing and flipping cardboard figures. Needless to say, it's not too impressive.

ps. BTCS also had cool portraits:
ImageImageImage
here is hoping that they still change it. That said the feedback on Torments Combat system did not really change through the feedback.

I wonder if there is someplace else they get their feedback on and there are a lot of people that like the approach they currently use. Is someone more inclined to use social media channels?

Serjo
Explorer
Posts: 327
Joined: January 27th, 2017, 2:28 pm

Re: i'm slightly surprised how little BT4 talk the internet has.

Post by Serjo » February 28th, 2018, 9:32 am

Lord of Riva wrote:
February 28th, 2018, 8:27 am
I wonder if there is someplace else they get their feedback on and there are a lot of people that like the approach they currently use. Is someone more inclined to use social media channels?
I just took a look. The BT4 tumblr has been discontinued and the official subreddit has had five comments over the past year, so those can't be relevant. Twitter and the Kickstarter comment section seem like they're being used by the same people who post here, criticising the portraits and asking for a release date on the remasters.

That leaves Facebook, which gets almost a dozen comments per month. But the convos aren't about mechanics or portrait design - it's fluff like asking people who their favorite fantasy characters are, and discussing whether the Brewmaster should be called "Drinky McDrink Face".

From my cursory glances, it seems that almost all of the BT4 discussion is going on in this forum, and you're not missing anything relevant by ignoring other channels. Interest generally seems much lower than for Torment, but maybe there's a big PR push coming.

User avatar
thebruce
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1875
Joined: February 17th, 2015, 8:46 am
Contact:

Re: i'm slightly surprised how little BT4 talk the internet has.

Post by thebruce » February 28th, 2018, 9:37 am

As for twitter, I keep an eye on key words and phrases, like Bard's Tale, Bards Tale IV, and numerous variants. There's not a lot of discussion, but a decent amount of daily reference to BT in general, and many regarding BT2004. A few "I just backed" auto-tweets for BT4 as well each week. Definitely not a lot of content discussion like we have in these forums.
Visit BardsTaleOnline.com - your community Bard's Tale classic RPG resource!
Twitter: @BardsTaleOnline / Facebook: Bards.Tale.Online
@thebruce0

demeisen
Explorer
Posts: 300
Joined: July 11th, 2015, 9:59 am

Re: i'm slightly surprised how little BT4 talk the internet has.

Post by demeisen » March 2nd, 2018, 11:38 am

Lord of Riva wrote:
February 28th, 2018, 8:27 am
ZiN wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 3:40 pm
Now BT4 is replacing nicely animated portraits, with popping, bobbing and flipping cardboard figures. Needless to say, it's not too impressive.
here is hoping that they still change it.
I hope so too. Of course I have no information about it, but my gut feeling is that what we've seen so far are mock-ups. That's my guess in part because of some things they've said in backer updates (e.g, about being aware that the animations are off-putting), and in part from intangibles that make it not appear to be finished art.

As for how much it might change... who knows. My hope is on 2D GUI elements for party members (see update discussion in other forum), which I'd think lies more towards the cosmetic end of the scale, rather than the end that impacts many other cascading systems such as 3D in-env would do.

Perhaps if we get lucky enough, some of this will even be community moddable. Of course such things take non-zero development effort, so who knows. If it is though, I imagine some artistically talented players will supply alternatives.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests