Is this REALLY a Bard's Tale sequel ???

[_noblesse_oblige_]

Plenty of attacks against those who like the game have come from those who don't like the game, so attacks are happening from both sides.

Haven't seen many from my side of the fence. But, feel free to call them out if you do see them. Doesn't change anything about me wondering about the motivations of those who love the game who are making the attacks.

Also, looking over the Steam reviews, there are not that many reviews in relation to those who expected something closer to the 1980s games and the ones that do exists vast majority of them are from people who didn't buy it from Steam which means their review is not even being used for the percentage on Steam since the percentage only represents people who bought the game from Steam (rather than getting a key from somewhere else and activating it on Steam).

Not sure what argument you are trying to make here. If you are saying that a lot of people got their Steam keys from CrowdOx or Xsolla and that their reviews are not being counted as part of the percentage, then I'm not sure what relevance I'm supposed to draw from that. Doesn't that still mean that, of those who purchased on Steam directly, there are still 48% who hold a negative view? (Is it your claim that those who got their Steam keys from elsewhere are not properly represented by the statistically significant sample of those who did get their keys on Steam?)

I suspect that once the technical issues are fixed, that we'll see it go up to the 70s.

I'm not much given to prognostication, so I have no idea about the longer term trend. But, if people are on the fence about whether to try the game now, it is probably not going to help them choose to try it later when they see the large pile of negative views, even if there are some folks saying "hey, the game is totally patched now - it is a joy to play, you should try it out". Given the rapid churn of titles in this industry, Barrows Deep will most likely be mostly forgotten under a pile of newer, better games before it is fully patched.

[Gizmo]

"I think there's something inherently destructive about sequels in general," Rogers points out. "Because if you liked the Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers the next book can't actually be Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. Something has to change. A character has to die, new characters have to be introduced. You have to be in a new land. There has to be a new problem. You can't advance a series without changing it."

Not really. Lord of the Rings IS primarily considered a trilogy.

LOTR is just one book; published in three volumes, because it was difficult to bind a book with that many pages—but single bound hardbacks do exist.

[_noblesse_oblige_]

Hey @theBruce - that's an excellent rebuttal to the article. Nice work fella.

Seconded. Was about to write a rebuttal, then saw the rebuttal, and didn't really have much to add.

Really have to drive home the point that the game was pitched a certain way and they took money based on the way it was pitched. To make something so utterly different than the set expectation, hiding in the sheep's skin of "we need our creative license", is what has so many backers rankled. Trying to say we're all high on nostalgia is a miss. Also, the fact that they thought releasing the BT1 remaster before Barrows Deep would somehow remind us of what things had been like, and why they needed to change, completely backfired. Yes. it reminded alright and made the craving for a new Bard's Tale game that much stronger. (Nostalgia amplification rather than nostalgia killing.) And, it also showed how the series could be "modernized" without compromising its heart, soul, mechanics, and charm. I saw more than one comment of people saying that the BT1 remaster is what BT4 could have been and they meant it in a completely positive and sincere manner.

I disagree with this. I don't know how people didn't understand that that BT4 was not going to be like the originals when the campaign page and the 2 Q&A videos with Fargo released during the campaign showed that it wasn't going to be the same as the originals.

No one (that I know) expected it to be the same. We did expect it to be a Bard's Tale game in the spirit of the originals and to be a recognizable evolution of the originals. There was not sufficient information early on to make a determination that the game was going to turn out anything close to what it did. There was plenty of promising verbiage that strongly suggested they were making another Bard's Tale game though.

For myself, had they showed it was going to be like the originals I would not have ever backed it. I nostalgically love the originals, they were great fun in the 1980s, but it is not, nor close to, what I would want in games now days.

Sure, and I can respect that preference, even if I don't share it.

[Jalis]

grossly inaccurate and simplistic straw men

I generally agree with the things you are saying, noblesse_oblige, but while making a case about the people who fanboy the game being the main ones calling dissenters of the game names... don't do the same thing yourself. "Simplistic straw men" can easily be taken as negative and name calling. (In fact, I just contributed myself with the somewhat negative connotation of "fanboy"... but I'm going to keep it because I consider myself a non-apologist type of fan boy of Brian Fargo and this series, if not inXile.)

I think Bruce said it best about how this mirrors left/right politics. In the end... it's silly to always make excuses for inXile's poor decisions, and to completely thrash the game as if it does not have any positive advancements.

[Gizmo]

Here's the thing: you can't ever go back to 1985.

The problem that these sequels and "spiritual successor" games have is that they're not trying to duplicate a game from 1985; the challenge they face is making you feel like you did when you were playing a brand new game in 1985, which is different.

This was hashed through on the Bethsoft forums, with the attempted Fallout sequels that Bethesda released. The same argument was tossed about (and accused with), but no Fallout fans wanted a clone of Fallout 2, they wanted a Fallout 3 that was built upon the series foundation...

I'd hold that the same was true for the fans of Bard's Tale (except for Krellen).





...to base it on the series notable features of appearance, gameplay intent, and mechanics.

Interestingly, Fallout (a Wasteland derivative title, where Wasteland was a Bard's Tale clone) had similar standout features like the animated detail faces during encounters; all three of these games had that. A modernized version could have offered faces par with the Nvidia head demos.

Bethesda wasted that option for FO3, by using the regular heads on the NPC combat/world models, instead of a high-poly detail face—despite them pausing the game world, and having a much larger polygon screen budget during conversations.

We could have had something like this:


But instead we got this...[crap]


And where we should have gotten something similar to this:


...we got this [crap].


FO3 totally ignored all that made Fallout —Fallout, and focused purely on dressing up an Oblivion 2.0 with the iconic aspects of the Fallout IP; a re-skin that offered nothing of the series' experience, and held none of its tenets—while contradicting many of them. It was a terrible [ie. servile] RPG, whose main purpose was merely to simulate an extrapolated sandbox for the customer.
_____________

With the new BT, it's not as bad as FO3 was at being a sequel, but it still looks and plays like a reskin of a different game; and equally discards the series' tenets... and like with FO3, the question is 'Why make it at all—if you are going to make it something entirely unrelated?'.

The sad answer is mass-market-appeal, but a BT sequel—funded by BT fans that paid in advance— is not a project that should consider alterations for better mass-appeal; its design process should have only considered the fans of the original games.

[eisberg]

The sad answer is mass-market-appeal, but a BT sequel—funded by BT fans that paid in advance— is not a project that should consider alterations for better mass-appeal; its design process should have only considered the fans of the original games.

Problem is, which fans though? I am a fan of the series, and what they did with this game I feel is fantastic, that it is pretty much what BT14 would have been had they continued making the series and evolving things as they go. 30 years is a long time, and so many things have been learned about game play design, and I feel they did a great job at evolving BT series.

They couldn't make a game for the fans, because not all fans are the same and not all fans what something that more resembles the old games.

[Gizmo]

Problem is, which fans though? I am a fan of the series, and what they did with this game I feel is fantastic...

Name something it has from the series; or anything reminiscent of it?

They couldn't make a game for the fans, because not all fans are the same and not all fans what something that more resembles the old games.

And these are fans of the old games?

There is a difference between being a fan of a game, and being a fan of the fiction used in a game. There must be a dozen Warhammer video games, and they all use the same fictional universe, but that doesn't make one a fan of each and every game; that doesn't auto-justify making a sequel to Dawn of War, that plays like Spacemarine, or like Fire Warrior. IMO that doesn't justify making a BT sequel that plays like Frayed Knights.

Personally, I think that a game must stand on its own without any fiction at all, before adding a story to it; and a series sequel should be recognizable as one—even without continuing the game fiction.

[_noblesse_oblige_]

grossly inaccurate and simplistic straw men

I generally agree with the things you are saying, noblesse_oblige, but while making a case about the people who fanboy the game being the main ones calling dissenters of the game names... don't do the same thing yourself. "Simplistic straw men" can easily be taken as negative and name calling. (In fact, I just contributed myself with the somewhat negative connotation of "fanboy"... but I'm going to keep it because I consider myself a non-apologist type of fan boy of Brian Fargo and this series, if not inXile.)

There's some fairness to that, but I what I meant by "simplistic" was not that they were being simple-minded, but that these straw men are projecting our arguments in greatly over-simplified terms to make it seem as if we have shallow or simplistic philosophies. So, I wasn't calling those creating the straw men as being simplistic but rather that they are attempting to project a simplistic nature on those that criticize the game,

I think Bruce said it best about how this mirrors left/right politics. In the end... it's silly to always make excuses for inXile's poor decisions, and to completely thrash the game as if it does not have any positive advancements.

Sure, you'll find emotionally-invested extremists on both ends of any spectrum. But, I haven't seen too many people completely trash the game across the board. Even those that dislike most of it will still say nice things about the music. (I've personally not even written a Steam or Gog review yet, because I'm withholding final judgment until after some patches and the appearance of the so-called Legacy Mode.) Another thing to note is that a lot of people, who find the game to be a complete fail as a BT sequel, will still give it a passing (though not good) grade as a RPG overall.

[eisberg]

Problem is, which fans though? I am a fan of the series, and what they did with this game I feel is fantastic...

Name something it has from the series; or anything reminiscent of it?

They couldn't make a game for the fans, because not all fans are the same and not all fans what something that more resembles the old games.

And these are fans of the old games?

There is a difference between being a fan of a game, and being a fan of the fiction used in a game. There must be a dozen Warhammer video games, and they all use the same fictional universe, but that doesn't make one a fan of each and every game; that doesn't auto-justify making a sequel to Dawn of War, that plays like Spacemarine, or like Fire Warrior. IMO that doesn't justify making a BT sequel that plays like Frayed Knights.

Personally, I think that a game must stand on its own without any fiction at all, before adding a story to it; and a series sequel should be recognizable as one—even without continuing the game fiction.

Turn based, party based, First person view, Dungeon Crawling RPG with Puzzles set in the same world.

Fans of the games are fans of the games, being fan of the mechanics vs being fan of what the over all games are (Turn based, party based, First person view, Dungeon Crawling RPG with Puzzles set in the same world) are still both fans of the games. There are fans, like me who wanted that Turn based, party based, First person view, Dungeon Crawling RPG with Puzzles set in the same world but without many things that are not good game design, in our opinion, anymore.

And I disagree with your last sentence, a sequel is more about keeping to what it is in essence, again Turn based, party based, First person view, Dungeon Crawling RPG with Puzzles set in the same world, and not the specific mechanics.

[Gizmo]

Another thing to note is that a lot of people, who find the game to be a complete fail as a BT sequel, will still give it a passing (though not good) grade as a RPG overall.

True, and the same is true of WL2, and even FO3; each have merits... each are a bit off the mark—one is waaay off the mark.

[Themadcow]

Interesting Article: https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/bards-tal ... ertainment

You really have to wonder what inXile was thinking when they gave Creative Lead to someone who has been in the industry less than a decade and whose main achievement was working on a budget MMO shooter.

I don't blame they guy for taking the job - but inXile royally screwed the fanbase by choosing someone with no appreciation for the blobber genre.

For me a valid comparison is Dragon Age: Origins and Dragon Age 2. Two games just a couple of years apart, but in DA2 the devs ripped out what fans of Origins loved and replaced it with game systems that they felt were "more modern" and what the mass market wanted. I loved DA:O but could barely stomach 2 hours of DA2. It was in the same universe, party based and shared some mechanics... but my god it was a completely different game.

As a big BT1-3 fan, I still wanted evolution. Just as Dragon Wars evolved BT, and Wizardry 6-8 evolved the genre further - I expected no less from BT4. However, all those games retained recognisable core gameplay that continues in series like Etrian and other similar Japanese titles like Elminage. BT4 is clearly not in the same thread of evolution.

[eisberg]

Interesting Article: https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/bards-tal ... ertainment

You really have to wonder what inXile was thinking when they gave Creative Lead to someone who has been in the industry less than a decade and whose main achievement was working on a budget MMO shooter.

I don't blame they guy for taking the job - but inXile royally screwed the fanbase by choosing someone with no appreciation for the blobber genre.

For me a valid comparison is Dragon Age: Origins and Dragon Age 2. Two games just a couple of years apart, but in DA2 the devs ripped out what fans of Origins loved and replaced it with game systems that they felt were "more modern" and what the mass market wanted. I loved DA:O but could barely stomach 2 hours of DA2. It was in the same universe, party based and shared some mechanics... but my god it was a completely different game.

As a big BT1-3 fan, I still wanted evolution. Just as Dragon Wars evolved BT, and Wizardry 6-8 evolved the genre further - I expected no less from BT4. However, all those games retained recognisable core gameplay that continues in series like Etrian and other similar Japanese titles like Elminage. BT4 is clearly not in the same thread of evolution.

Are you talking about David Rogers? He isn't over the whole project, he is the Lead systems designer, he was over one specific area of the game, and not over the whole design of the game. I'll have to look at the credits for the game, but he isn't the one that was overseeing the whole project, he wasn't the director of the game, he is only the lead systems designer, and not the creative Lead designer at all.

Will have to look who was the Lead creative designer is in the credit, who was over the whole project, but it sure wasn't David Rogers. David Rogers is farily new to the industry, since 2010, and he worked on Firefall, the free to play MMO shooter, as well as America's Army prior to that.

Linkedin profile for David Rogers
https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-rogers-46a85221/
He has himself as Lead systems designer.

[Themadcow]

Oh Eisberg.

The link in the syfy article describes him as Creative Lead and in the video below he describes himself as Creative Director.

https://youtu.be/FVh42apN-ms

But, yeah, I looked him up on linked-in previously as well.

*edit* I'd just like to add that I like a lot of what he had to say in the interview above - and he seems like a genuinely enthusiastic fan of the fantasy genre (in it's many forms). However, what is also incredibly apparent from his interviews is that he's creatively inspired by a lot of different games that simply aren't in this sub-genre of CRPG. Where was the references to later Wizardry games, Etrian Odyssey, SMT: Strange Journey or even modern PC examples like Starcrawlers or Lords of Xulima? OK - there was a shout to M&M X (a slightly different type of game) but that's it. It's a common misconception to think that party + turn based + first person = blobber. It's a lot more than that, and tinkering with too many of the core elements of the sub-genre gives you BT4... a game that superficially resembles the genre, but feels like something else.

[Gizmo]

Turn based, party based, First person view, Dungeon Crawling RPG with Puzzles set in the same world.

Puzzles? Turn Based? The originals were not turn based; the new one is. There plenty of first person dungeon crawlers, many of them with puzzles; that doesn't make them Bard's Tale.
Does it really seem to be the same world to you? I've seen many posts about how it does not seem to be the same world at all.

Fans of the games are fans of the games, being fan of the mechanics vs being fan of what the over all games are (Turn based, party based, First person view, Dungeon Crawling RPG with Puzzles set in the same world) are still both fans of the games. There are fans, like me who wanted that Turn based, party based, First person view, Dungeon Crawling RPG with Puzzles set in the same world but without many things that are not good game design, in our opinion, anymore.

Not good game design huh? In whose opinion? We can easily liken this to the flavor of foods—not a good taste, say some. But that [flavor] is what one should be expect if the product uses the same name. If I see anchovy ice cream on the menu, I should not expect it to taste like anything but... It should not taste like cherry liquorice—regardless if that flavor had become more popular. You buy Bard's Tale to get Bard's Tale; not Hearthstone or Frayed Knights.

If you order (and pre-pay for) Vegemite... Nutella is not an acceptable substitute to be sent in its place...
even if it may look the same to the casual observer; or the person who just wants a bread spread.

It's an acquired taste, and you search it out by name.
_______

I don't think they originally intended it as a Bait & Switch... but that's what this feels like.

And I disagree with your last sentence, a sequel is more about keeping to what it is in essence, again Turn based, party based, First person view, Dungeon Crawling RPG with Puzzles set in the same world, and not the specific mechanics.

Then you've disagreed by agreeing; a sequel is indeed more about keeping to what it is in essence, but you've confused "in essence" with 'in abstract'. The new BT game does not seem to have retained the series in essence, in any way shape or form; nor did FO3 or 4—to give a parallel.

[Spectralshade]

The sad answer is mass-market-appeal, but a BT sequel—funded by BT fans that paid in advance— is not a project that should consider alterations for better mass-appeal; its design process should have only considered the fans of the original games.

Problem is, which fans though? I am a fan of the series, and what they did with this game I feel is fantastic, that it is pretty much what BT14 would have been had they continued making the series and evolving things as they go. 30 years is a long time, and so many things have been learned about game play design, and I feel they did a great job at evolving BT series.

They couldn't make a game for the fans, because not all fans are the same and not all fans what something that more resembles the old games.

considering you have done nothing but talk about how crap you felt the trilogy was, I find it hard to believe you are honest when you claim to be a "fan" of the series.

[ZiN]

Considering you have done nothing but talk about how crap you felt the trilogy was, I find it hard to believe you are honest when you claim to be a "fan" of the series.

There are people who were fans back in the 80's "when games used to be terrible", but since then they have "grown-up, matured and evolved". Also putting on real glasses instead on "nostalgia" ones.

[eisberg]

The sad answer is mass-market-appeal, but a BT sequel—funded by BT fans that paid in advance— is not a project that should consider alterations for better mass-appeal; its design process should have only considered the fans of the original games.

Problem is, which fans though? I am a fan of the series, and what they did with this game I feel is fantastic, that it is pretty much what BT14 would have been had they continued making the series and evolving things as they go. 30 years is a long time, and so many things have been learned about game play design, and I feel they did a great job at evolving BT series.

They couldn't make a game for the fans, because not all fans are the same and not all fans what something that more resembles the old games.

considering you have done nothing but talk about how crap you felt the trilogy was, I find it hard to believe you are honest when you claim to be a "fan" of the series.

Seeing the faults of the series in the eyes of 30 years of game development progress, isn't talking crap about it, its looking at it objectively. That type of game play was great for its time and gave me a whole lot of enjoyment at that time, but that time has passed.

[eisberg]

Turn based, party based, First person view, Dungeon Crawling RPG with Puzzles set in the same world.

Puzzles? Turn Based? The originals were not turn based; the new one is. There plenty of first person dungeon crawlers, many of them with puzzles; that doesn't make them Bard's Tale.
Does it really seem to be the same world to you? I've seen many posts about how it does not seem to be the same world at all.

Fans of the games are fans of the games, being fan of the mechanics vs being fan of what the over all games are (Turn based, party based, First person view, Dungeon Crawling RPG with Puzzles set in the same world) are still both fans of the games. There are fans, like me who wanted that Turn based, party based, First person view, Dungeon Crawling RPG with Puzzles set in the same world but without many things that are not good game design, in our opinion, anymore.

Not good game design huh? In whose opinion? We can easily liken this to the flavor of foods—not a good taste, say some. But that [flavor] is what one should be expect if the product uses the same name. If I see anchovy ice cream on the menu, I should not expect it to taste like anything but... It should not taste like cherry liquorice—regardless if that flavor had become more popular. You buy Bard's Tale to get Bard's Tale; not Hearthstone or Frayed Knights.

If you order (and pre-pay for) Vegemite... Nutella is not an acceptable substitute to be sent in its place...
even if it may look the same to the casual observer; or the person who just wants a bread spread.

It's an acquired taste, and you search it out by name.
_______

I don't think they originally intended it as a Bait & Switch... but that's what this feels like.

And I disagree with your last sentence, a sequel is more about keeping to what it is in essence, again Turn based, party based, First person view, Dungeon Crawling RPG with Puzzles set in the same world, and not the specific mechanics.

Then you've disagreed by agreeing; a sequel is indeed more about keeping to what it is in essence, but you've confused "in essence" with 'in abstract'. The new BT game does not seem to have retained the series in essence, in any way shape or form; nor did FO3 or 4—to give a parallel.

Your link you provided is a link about different typess of Turn Base, phase base being a type of Turn base.
The other FPS dungeon crawlers are not set in the same world, therefore they are not sequels.

Not really sure how an analogy with food really helps here. Game design has gone through evolutions for the last 30 years, many things learned through 30 years of progress, anchovies haven't evolved in our life time.

I still disagree, the essence of Bard's Tale is Turn based, party based, First person view, Dungeon Crawling RPG with Puzzles set in the same world. I didn't confuse anything.

[Gizmo]

Seeing the faults of the series in the eyes of 30 years of game development progress, isn't talking crap about it, its looking at it objectively. That type of game play was great for its time and gave me a whole lot of enjoyment at that time, but that time has passed.

New games (of all types) are welcome... it is the making of follow-ups to an old game, and making them unrecognizable in the name of ~proper progress~ that tends to seem more like defacement. The better choice is not to make a follow-up to an old game, if one cannot come to terms with making an old game; because making a [totally] new game—that just uses the old name... is selling on a reputation that is rarely delivered upon—take Fallout for instance, it was used to sell FO3 in the same way.

[Themadcow]

Seeing the faults of the series in the eyes of 30 years of game development progress, isn't talking crap about it, its looking at it objectively. That type of game play was great for its time and gave me a whole lot of enjoyment at that time, but that time has passed.

Japan disagrees.

30 years of game development in the sense of Bards Tale should have meant:

• How can we improve the graphics while keeping the grid based feel?
  How can we expand the existing classes to make them more interesting (e.g. Paladin spells, Rogue poisons, Prestige classes)
  How can we improve the UI (clue: not the current inventory system)
  How can we make random encounters more interesting (add damage resistances, special abilities, group synergies, rare random 'bosses')
  How can we add new and rewarding systems (such as the clever way Etrian rewards rare crafting materials if you kill enemies a certain way)
  How can we improve the summoning/binding system to make summons as useful as party members (e.g. find and bind a specific monster that has a resistance or spell that's particularly useful in major encounter)
  How can we introduce side quests and a sense of overarching narrative without damaging the core gameplay (fast moving combat and exploration)