First thing you learn hanging out with developers is that nothing is ever "very small" when it comes to creating or implementing game assets.

Moderator: Bard Hall Bouncers
First thing you learn hanging out with developers is that nothing is ever "very small" when it comes to creating or implementing game assets.
Well, bear in mind that they wouldn't want to just make 6 player character models and call it good. They'd probably want to have some customization, hair color and interchangeable faces, plus if you put on a viking helmet the player is going to want to see that too. To do it right would indeed be resource intensive.
Yes - agreed. I would certainly be fine with nice, generic 2D animated portraits.Crosmando wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2017, 11:27 amHonestly, the advantage of blobber RPGs is that they can be created quickly and cheaply because of the abstract elements; no need to create models and animations for party members, including race/gender specific clothing and armor etc etc. Why throw away those advantages for something that won't be seen that often? I think the better choice would be to instead spend limited resources on more dungeons/bigger world etc.
Agreed again. While combat was a part of the original series, it was never really some intricate dance full of deep options. I sometimes like deep tactical combat, but not in a Bard's Tale game, where the focus is more on the general adventure and puzzle-solving.Crosmando wrote:Sounds good but the reference to combat as a "puzzle" made me cringe a bit. I hope that the game still has feats/perks or whatever which allow players to build a more traditional "tank and spank" party with super-armored HP sponges at the front and glass cannons at the rear, without having to engage in some of the stuff in that video (like characters swapping places during combat).
This. Though I do realize I'm one of all of 2 people on this forum that supported this. And budget and all.
Pool of Radiance, as well as Blood & Magic (the first licensed D&D RTS title, both had 2D composite PC portraits... Precursors to 3D model avatars like the ones seen in Wasteland 2 (for instance). They allowed for user customized portraits, without the need for processed 3rd party image files.
Yeah. Frankly, a Might & Magic style portrait would be just fine. Especially with facial differences for sick, poisoned, drunk, etc.Crosmando wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2017, 11:27 amHonestly, the advantage of blobber RPGs is that they can be created quickly and cheaply because of the abstract elements; no need to create models and animations for party members, including race/gender specific clothing and armor etc etc. Why throw away those advantages for something that won't be seen that often? I think the better choice would be to instead spend limited resources on more dungeons/bigger world etc.
Really? I mean, if it can be done, what's the harm in making the combat and character system more complex? I seriously doubt that the original BT devs actually intentionally set out to make a "simple RPG", it was just a matter of what could be done with limited time and money and what the technology of the time allowed. Early Wizardry went completely for complex systems and the comprimise was that it had simple wireframe graphics, while BT had music and great graphics but more simple systems._noblesse_oblige_ wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2017, 5:28 pmAgreed again. While combat was a part of the original series, it was never really some intricate dance full of deep options. I sometimes like deep tactical combat, but not in a Bard's Tale game, where the focus is more on the general adventure and puzzle-solving.
I agree... BT1 was a product of 1985, probably written around 83-4. I had played some earlier CRPGs such as Temple of Apshai and similar ones (late 70's) which were much more limited due to constraints of their era. Then BT1 came along and pushed the envelope about as far as it could in its era, and it was a huge step above the 70's CRPG pack. I loved that game, and have fond recollections of late nights playing it instead of doing physics home workCrosmando wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2017, 4:10 amReally? I mean, if it can be done, what's the harm in making the combat and character system more complex? I seriously doubt that the original BT devs actually intentionally set out to make a "simple RPG", it was just a matter of what could be done with limited time and money
Hehe - we may hold different views of the BT1 combat mechanicsBut it is a gameplay preference that is 'old' in that many other styles have come and gone and stuck around, so it's outdated in that it's temporally 'old', but it's certainly not obsolete (the gameplay style, not the graphics and engine - that is certainly technologically out of date)
...
Still pretty divergent from the classics, but less-so than the previous announcement. So I was pleased![]()
A few points:Crosmando wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2017, 4:10 amReally? I mean, if it can be done, what's the harm in making the combat and character system more complex?_noblesse_oblige_ wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2017, 5:28 pmAgreed again. While combat was a part of the original series, it was never really some intricate dance full of deep options. I sometimes like deep tactical combat, but not in a Bard's Tale game, where the focus is more on the general adventure and puzzle-solving.
Just because something can be done, doesn't mean that it should be done. I would not suppose that adding more complexity is necessarily a positive. Just because developers may have been limited by certain technological constraints, which have now been unfettered, doesn't mean that the originals didn't have a character or spirit to them that isn't worth preserving in their alleged sequel.
I certainly agree that BT1 pushed the envelope in the mid-80's. But, just because it was in the vanguard of technological innovation in that era, does not mean that its continued drawing power among fans to this day is due to what it achieved back then. Whether that character derived from designers and programmers working within technological limitations does not matter - what matters is that the games had a certain character or essence, and at least some of us would like to see that essence captured in the new game, which bears the same name.
I would rather see BT4 closely match the originals in terms of mechanics, at first, as that can help recapture the essence of the originals. Then, if inXile shows that it can do that, I would be more amenable to it trying some new things.
It appears so :ugeek: :D
To be clear, as I've said in previous comments, I'm not advocating for AAAADDD mechanics. What I'm advocating for is a mechanic that is keyboard-friendly (most graphic-heavy RPGs are more mouse-oriented, making gameplay slower, or causing a UI overload to bring immediacy to most every common action/command) - that doesn't have anything to do with technological advancement; also for the structure of combat encounters - not necessarily single-dimension combat reports and 1D strategic offense/defense, but the layout of the party/opponent phases and how attacks, defenses, and special abilities play out - again technology is irrelevant there; also for methodology in how the world is traversed and explored - full 3D immersion in a literal environment is certainly not required for a good game, and is a great example of 'just because we can doesn't mean we should'. There were benefits to grid-based maps and movement that had nothing to do with technology (such as mentioned numerous times, puzzle design, player exploration agency with hand mapping, etc).demeisen wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2017, 5:14 pmPersonally I don't see its combat as something to aspire to in a modern game... and I say that with a lot of love for the originals, not meaning that in any way as a slight. Still, many things that were acceptable by 1985 standards would be a pretty hard sell in 2017 (outside a small number of folks looking for a near-reskin), and for good reasons. The BT1 mechanics were quite flawed. They were highly repetitive (AAADDD...), the combat design was excessively simple (1 dimensional, etc), and the enemies felt more like fighting a random number generator than an intelligent, reacting opponent (they couldn't afford much AI on an 8 bit machine with a few tens of kilobytes of RAM). It was as good as anything was at the time, but nostalgia aside, I don't see it as a particularly great system in absolute terms.
I do think some of its choices were good ones though, such as turn or phase based instead of real time. Overall, my vote is definitely aligned with the things they've been saying around making something deeper, more tactically complex, with more variety.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests