Is this Game going to Live Up to Expectations?

[Gizmo]

'Heroes of Monkey Tavern' was done with off-the-shelf assets.
(I can't vouch for the game though; I never played it.)

[ZiN]

I never played the 2004 installment - it occupies the same mental oubliette as those unspeakable three three Star Wars movies - but BT4 piqued my interest enough for me to back it.

Only two are unspeakable for me (R1 was decent).

One of the strengths of crowdsourcing is that games like this can get made at all.

The true power of "crowdsourcing"... You can spend the money on anything you want, unlike publisher funding. Get 1.5M to "finish" ToN, and make Occulus exclusive VR game (which in turn is also funded by Occulus), then spend that money + use assets of said game on BT4.

One of the drawbacks is that backers often have some sense of entitlement about the game being made exactly to their tastes, which just isn't a realistic expectation.

It's not a real drawback though, since the "crowd" can't legally hold you accountable and won't cut your funding if you don't show any progress and keep silent. That "drawback" is easily circumvented by simply ignoring the "crowd" (eg. your fans). At least for a while...

Crowdsourcing, just like Hollywood, helped me greatly to learn to "vote with my wallet".

I can count on one hand the games I'm looking forward to. BT4 is one of them.

The other was T:ToN.

[demeisen]

It's not a real drawback though, since the "crowd" can't legally hold you accountable and won't cut your funding if you don't show any progress and keep silent. That "drawback" is easily circumvented by simply ignoring the "crowd" (eg. your fans). At least for a while...

Legally, no, but if you just drop the ball and walk away, they won't back you again.

I've tossed a few $ to 1-3 man indie studios making their "dream game", which I consider more or less as a donation. If they come through with something fun, ok cool - nice bonus. If not, fine, as long as it was an honest attempt. Better a dozen of those of which two make a cool little game, than Yet More AAA-Studio Pulp.

For more mainstream studios with track records though, like Obsidian or InXile, I have very little doubt they're going to ship the game.

The other was T:ToN.

Besides BT4, the others are WL3 (also InXile - I enjoyed WL2:DC), Phoenix Point (Snapshot Games - they've got Julian Gollop on board), and Pathfinder:Kingmaker (Owlcat Games). I'd probably come up with another one or two if pressed, but there isn't a lot.

[nambulous]

Well, compared to Fallout or Planescape Torment style games, definetely less difficult/costly. There are dungeon crawler blobbers out there made by one person on budgets close to nothing, the main cost are the graphics.

Perhaps. But even if that was the case, the community would call for their heads, if they delivered a game looking like one made by a single guy. Everyone expects something a lot better than that and here we are again with something that isn't easy.

I don't understand how they make these games anyway. They only got 1.5 M this time around. How is a professional dev with more than 2 people on the staff supposed to do anything with that measly amount. It's crazy.

[SuperDave17]

I'm not sure if it's possible, and that's a source of concern for me.

This particular series is trying to leapfrog and somehow please two very different sets of expectations.

The earlier games appealed to older generation gamers where dungeon-crawling, mega-combat, and figuring out the puzzles while mapping out on graph paper was what made the games fun.

The current markers are intricate stories that confront the player with morally complex choices, cutscenes, and fleshed out NPCs who have their own agendas for joining a put upon main protagonist.

Other series at least got to watch their series morph in steps over the years, Ultima, M&M, D&D Gold Box to the SS games (Ravenlofts and Dark Suns) to the BG series and onwards.

Bard's Tale may suffer from attempting a rather sudden necromancy on a series that was in the grave for almost three decades, and that admittedly has me worried.

I've heard rumors and suggestions that they're going to pretty much dump the lore from the 1st and 3rd games. If that's true, I think that's a huge mistake. If anything could possibly bridge the primitive yet enjoyable aspects of the original trilogy, and the modernized expectations of today, it's that lore. It provides a foundation for getting into complex world development and story telling, while providing some kind of excuse for heavy combat and dungeon crawling.

[Gizmo]

This particular series is trying to leapfrog and somehow please two very different sets of expectations.

Indeed it is, and so did Wasteland 2; which turned out to be a great game, but one far, far removed from what I'd have wanted, or expected as an official Wasteland sequel.

BT4 is taking the same route.
(I expect an enjoyable game from it, of course (and I'm glad that I'll have it); but it's already not the game I had hoped that I'd signed up for.)

*Seriously, I would have much preferred a more recognizable sequel; more like Devil Whiskey in fact.

As for the BT4 combat demo: I would have been more impressed and optimistic if it had played out (conceptually) a bit like this instead:


*click for larger version

[Lucius]

As for the BT4 combat demo: I would have been more impressed and optimistic if it had played out (conceptually) a bit like this instead:


*click for larger version

Other than your craptastic art ,looks like a JRPG

[Gizmo]

Other than your craptastic art ,looks like a JRPG

But you've played Bard's Tale (1, 2, or 3)...yes?

[Crosmando]

The way it zooms out when combat begins is utterly awful. Also you have too much free time Gizmo

[Gizmo]

The way it zooms out when combat begins is utterly awful.

I didn't think so. It's a conceptual compromise. I would prefer it closer to BT2 or BT3, but that's just not going to happen. The above concept pulls back from FPP view to show the entire scene play out. Where the player could click on what group the PC targets, and see the PCs make their attacks. Realms of Arkania did loosely similar... though without the transition; it just switched to its isometric TB combat system

Also you have too much free time Gizmo

I just looked at the official screenshot, and used that as my next modeling subject. It's about learning Blender; to be able to make anything that comes to mind.




*click for larger.

I did the same thing when they released the painting of Scorpitron for WL2.



*I had forgotten that the Spoiler Tags don't work here.

[Crosmando]

The way it zooms out when combat begins is utterly awful.

I didn't think so. It's a conceptual compromise.

It's not a "comprimise" though, it's creating a JRPG or RoA-like rather than a FPP blobber. Either way it's a pointless discussion as we already know what the game is going to look like from the combat video.

[Gizmo]

What exactly did (do) you consider BT when in combat? It transitions out of FPP; into an abstracted combat mini-game.

(...just as Realms of Arkania, and most of the Gold Box SSI titles do.)

JRPGs —IIRC, tend to resolve combat statistically, where as BT (and that example gif; though admittedly impossible to read at that size) resolves by player committed intent of each PC for each round. That's not JRPG in my (limited) experience of them; that was the BT series combat—at least until now.

[Crosmando]

What exactly did (do) you consider BT when in combat? It transitions out of FPP; into an abstracted combat mini-game.

While distance in BT2/3 is abstract, when I look at BT 1-3 today, combat reminds me more of Might & Magic or Wizardry, first-person. I'm sure if the BT series didn't "end" at 3 and kept being made into the 90's, it would have naturally evolved into an M&M or Wizardry style game, rather than an overhead tactical RPG. I'm sure if you had a complete layman play BT 1-3, they would conclude that combat is first-person. You seem to be clutching at straws because you personally prefer RoA/Gold Box style RPGs.

If InXile were to make BT4 with RoA/GB style combat, you'd have fans saying things like "Why is this game even called Bard's Tale" or "This doesn't even seem related to the older games".

(...just as Realms of Arkania, and most of the Gold Box SSI titles do.)

Combat in RoA or Gold Box isn't abstract though, it's an overhead tactical map, it's quite literal.

[Gizmo]

You seem to be clutching at straws because you personally prefer RoA/Gold Box style RPGs.

Clutching at straws?
What makes you think that I prefer RoA/Gold Box style RPGs? My post stated that I would prefer something closer to the BT series for a BT sequel. It said that I would have been more optimistic if the combat demo had instead played somewhat akin to the animation I posted. Such a system would afford a larger area, with more combatants in the view, than would a strict corridor style FPP... seemingly like we'll get from BT4.

BT was by no means FPP combat. it was entirely conceptualized, with a posed representative opponent—and written about on a scroll. From what I can tell from the BT4 demo, combat will be a small scale affair with a few opponents each fight; the same problem FO3 had, relative to Fallout 1 & 2.

*And no scroll
(Even WL2 kept the scroll; as did Fallout 1 & 2; but no scroll in BT4, or FO3; a sad disregard for series history IMO.)

**Without the close [realistic] FPP limitation in combat, the fights could have been par with HoMM, King's Bounty, Disciples, Darklands,
Wasteland (1&2), or... Bard's Tale.

Combat in RoA or Gold Box isn't abstract though, it's an overhead tactical map, it's quite literal.

Of course it is abstract; all turn-based, grid-mapped, combat mini-games are abstractions.

For that matter, the rest of the game was abstraction as well. The maps were abstract—the walls had zero depth to them; making them impossible constructs that were entirely representational.

*It's the same with Fallout 1, 2, and FO3; the vaults housed a thousand people... the game maps might have housed twenty five.

[Themadcow]

Something I hadn't considered before someone mentioned JRPG above is that BT4 could do very well in Japan, which still has a sizeable and dedicated Blobber market. The newer Wizardry's, Etrian, Sakura Dungeon...

Just home someone is working on a patch that gives big eyes and giant boobies to the goblins. Ker-ching!

[Lord of Riva]

The whole genre of JRPG are nonsensical. It describes games that come out of Japan, they are as varied as any other CRPG so the whole comparison makes no real sense. I mean i get you mean anime and stuff but yeah, thats as much as a needless generalisation as any.

Im a bit flabbergasted what this bickering is about, while i do understand why Gizmo didnt make it that well that it could be directly implemented in a game it was certainly well done to convey his concept on the other hand crosmando is right that we will practically guaranteed get what was shown already so there is no real point in debating it.

I at least appreciate any "art" or rather concept Gizmo does its always fun to see and a whole different level of explaining his ideas from trying to describe something with words.

So please continue doing stuff like this Gizmo

[Gizmo]

So please continue doing stuff like this Gizmo

The whole genre of JRPG are nonsensical. It describes games that come out of Japan, they are as varied as any other CRPG so the whole comparison makes no real sense. I mean i get you mean anime and stuff but yeah, thats as much as a needless generalisation as any.

I had gotten the impression that the label JRPGs was a generalization used to convey an overall commonality of premise to the mechanics; popularly seen in (enough) Japanese RPGs, for the name to stick.

Specifically meaning that combat is iconized, and statistically resolved, in lieu of frequent, and active minute control. Conceptual combat; in some cases even with character's melee attacking their opponents in place—rather than moving towards them for the action; the choice to attack being the important information.

But... I could have misconstrued the intended meaning of the label. I did not see it as meaning Japanese (roleplaying) games, per se... just the perceived style of them. (IE. Similar to how a meaning is conveyed from the term Rogue-like... when applied to graphical (and even fully 3D) titles. "Rogue-like" tells you the gist of the gameplay.)

[Woolfe]

I did not see it as meaning Japanese (roleplaying) games, per se... just the perceived style of them. (IE. Similar to how a meaning is conveyed from the term Rogue-like... when applied to graphical (and even fully 3D) titles. "Rouge-like" tells you the gist of the gameplay.)

This was my understanding as well.

And indeed I can see why the JRPG label could be applied to what we have seen of the combat in BT4.

Though I had always felt that the JRPG bit also implied a animesque style to the art as well, as many of the "JRPG" features existed in other systems before JRPGs were popularised.

[Drool]

The whole genre of JRPG are nonsensical. It describes games that come out of Japan, they are as varied as any other CRPG so the whole comparison makes no real sense.

Extra Credits has a couple videos on Western vs. Japanese RPGs and why they have the differences they do.

And yes, of course, not every RPG from each region is exactly the same, but it's still a perfectly valid heuristic. It's no more nonsensical than any genre classification. "Oh my God, there's huge differences between Hellraiser and Rosemary's Baby! The whole concept of a 'horror genre' is nonsensical!"

[Lord of Riva]

I know the extra credits video although i watched it quite a while ago. Not all they do is inherently correct though not that i am saying that they do not make good videos.

A few things are attributed to the JRPG genre like no character customisation, linear Story progression, The Artstyle, Random Encounters and somesuch. However not only do they have the same Roots as the Western RPGs there is also a lot of variance in them.

Not only that, there are a vast amount of Blobbers with japanese Origin to boot as the genre never really died down.

In a discussion like this the term is used to showcase how it is not what is wanted and as it is such a incredibly vague description that practically noone really has the same understanding on what that term actually means.

To make it short, All JRPGs are CRPGs its just that not all CRPGs are JRPGs.

I would ask that we stop the genre debate now, it is due to the matter at hand an Unsolvable topic as Genres are always open to interpretation and also change the meaning over time therefore it is not really fruitful for the debate we had before, it was not my intention to derail the Thread with this offhand comment