Author
|
Topic: NDA is up. This board goes public. (Read 68105 times)
|
Murgos
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7474
|
There was a Star Wars RPG plenty of material for SOE to work with. It was actually a decent little system.
|
"You have all recieved youre last warning. I am in the process of currently tracking all of youre ips and pinging your home adressess. you should not have commencemed a war with me" - Aaron Rayburn
|
|
|
Samwise
Moderator
Posts: 19324
sentient yeast infection
|
There was a Star Wars RPG plenty of material for SOE to work with. It was actually a decent little system.
I haven't played the Star Wars RPG so I can't be certain, but I very much doubt that it has anything in common with SWG apart from the setting. Am I wrong? (edit) My point, in case it's not clear, is that there's a huge difference between trying to adapt lore into a game and trying to adapt a game into a game. SWG was an example of trying to adapt lore into a game - worse, it was an example of trying to adapt lore into a pre-existing set of game ideas that had nothing to do with the lore. Had SWG been an adaptation of the pre-existing Star Wars RPG rather than a new game based on an existing movie license, I'm betting it wouldn't have had problems like, say, half the Smuggler skill tree being either useless or nonexistent. DDO is an example of adapting a game into a very similar type of game. Worlds of difference. The amount of "lore" that needed to be translated into the game was minimal, which is exactly why the setting they used was Eberron rather than something more well-known like Forgotten Realms. Forgotten Realms has mountains of novels and pre-established settings that people would want to see faithful in-game recreations of; Eberron has very little lore associated with it and hence provides a lot of freedom to establish new lore.
|
|
« Last Edit: January 27, 2006, 07:12:31 PM by Samwise »
|
|
|
|
|
Margalis
Terracotta Army
Posts: 12335
|
The requirement of putting Jedis into SWG had a great effect on the design of that game.
We are talking about DDO. A while ago I worked on a design for a Hasbro-licensed title. I have lots of ideas for what I think are fun games. I couldn't use most of them for that, however, as they don't work with the licensed property (and in the end, playing well with the license is more important to the people with money than being fun).
So your professional opinion is that making people run the same quest multiple times was done because running a quest only once did not work with the D&D license, EVEN THOUGH THAT IS HOW D&D ACTUALLY WORKS? It's telling that neither of your examples is actually related to what we are talking about. DDO - remember? Your opinion is that combat sounds are goofy because good sound effects are not compatible with the license? Your opinion is that every dungeon is a basement with stacks of boxes in it because that is what the license says, even though D&D itself is not like that? Why not choose the very obvious answer? When was the last time Turbine made something good? They don't make very good games - that's really all there is to it. AC2 didn't have any sort of restrictive license. What was the excuse there? They were held down by AC1? The answer his is lack of vision, lack of talent. It's that simple. The D&D license doesn't force the modellers to make armor look spray-painted on to bare skin. In D&D you don't enter a quest by going into a sewer grate which is 10 feet away from a door leading to another quest and 10 feet away from a warehouse leading to yet another quest. That has nothing to do with the license. Maybe they were overly concerned with making the license work out exactly? That's possible, but that IS NOT A RESTRICTION OF THE LICENSE. Unless you can show us the actual legal document that says what you say it says I'm going to go with common sense here and claim that the license probably doesn't say that combat sound effects have to be bad. WE, THE LICENSEES, AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING: 1: All armor must be poorly modelled and look 2 dimensional 2: All quests must be run multiple times 3: There should not be enough quests 4: Quests shall re-use the same graphics over and over again 5: It will always be raining 6: Combat sound effects must be bad 7: Combat must feel off etc etc THOSE are restrictions. "You cannot invent feats that are not in D&D" are restrictions. Bad sound effects? No, I really doubt those are codified in the legal doc. DDO has a lot of the same problems as AC2. Coincidence? Remember how in AC2 there were three newbie dungeons, they were all exactly the same and looked awful...yeah.
|
vampirehipi23: I would enjoy a book written by a monkey and turned into a movie rather than this.
|
|
|
Merusk
Terracotta Army
Posts: 27449
Badge Whore
|
The artwork for DDO I can't really lay at Turbine's feet either. With D&D 3rd Edition and beyond they started using a staff artist by the name of Lockwood. He's got a distinct style and you can definitely see that influence in DDO.
Of course, since his style sucks hard, IMO, this isn't a positive thing. His artwork further suffers from a minimal palette of colors that's more appropriate for an Emo/ Gothy angst-ridden setting like Vampire than High Fantasy. He's no Parkinson, Caldwell, Brom or Elmore.
|
The past cannot be changed. The future is yet within your power.
|
|
|
Samwise
Moderator
Posts: 19324
sentient yeast infection
|
I do miss Tony DiTerlizzi. His art is a large part of what made Planescape pop.
|
|
|
|
Righ
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6542
Teaching the world Google-fu one broken dream at a time.
|
I haven't really seen DDO except for over Signe's shoulder once or twice. By saying that Todd Lockwood's style is all over it, does this mean its going to have as miserable a palette as Morrowind?
|
The camera adds a thousand barrels. - Steven Colbert
|
|
|
Samwise
Moderator
Posts: 19324
sentient yeast infection
|
|
|
|
|
Margalis
Terracotta Army
Posts: 12335
|
Even the beach looks dingy.
What's funny is that when you exit the game and it give you the "buy this, coming soon!" screen that screen looks more colorful than anything in the actual game - I guess the marketing guys have a better grasp on what people want than the actual content designers.
|
vampirehipi23: I would enjoy a book written by a monkey and turned into a movie rather than this.
|
|
|
Samwise
Moderator
Posts: 19324
sentient yeast infection
|
Even the beach looks dingy.
TO be fair, most beaches (outside of Club Med) are.
|
|
|
|
Righ
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6542
Teaching the world Google-fu one broken dream at a time.
|
Or perhaps Venice Beach, Copacabana, Ipanema, Waikiki, Bondi Beach, Nassau Beach...
There's even shite beaches like Blackpool Pleasure Beach that are colorful. Most of those screenshots look like the toilet scene of Trainspotting.
|
The camera adds a thousand barrels. - Steven Colbert
|
|
|
Margalis
Terracotta Army
Posts: 12335
|
Even the beach looks dingy.
TO be fair, most beaches (outside of Club Med) are. You are missing the whole "game" and "fantasy" aspect of fantasy gaming.  I want a nice, sunny beach with crystal blue water, not a NYC beach with medical waste washing up on it. I suppose in real life most suits of armor look pretty much the same - then again real life doesn't have Orcs.
|
vampirehipi23: I would enjoy a book written by a monkey and turned into a movie rather than this.
|
|
|
StGabe
Terracotta Army
Posts: 331
Bruce without the furry.
|
So your professional opinion is that making people run the same quest multiple times was done because running a quest only once did not work with the D&D license, EVEN THOUGH THAT IS HOW D&D ACTUALLY WORKS? No, it is because the priority of the team wasn't on creating lots of fun content, it was on fulfilling a license. And when they got near the release date they gave to funding the project, they had to make compromises like requiring that quests be done multiple times. What you are mentioning is actually a good example of exactly the point I am trying to make. They put their effort into trying to fulfill a license. And failed. In manners exactly like your example: every quest isn't unique. If instead of trying to fulfill a license as their first priority, they had gone out with the goal of trying to make the most fun game, accepting certain limitations that they were under, they would have made a more fun game. You seem to be under the impression that a dev team just magically conjures the content of their choice, that creating content is a simple choice, not a task that takes quite a bit of time and money and must be juggled with other tasks. My point, in case it's not clear, is that there's a huge difference between trying to adapt lore into a game and trying to adapt a game into a game. Which is exactly what my example was: adapting a Hasbro GAME to be a mobile GAME (in this case, a game where the player can win real prizes). Any license, be it a game, a movie, a book, whatever, implies both a lot of limitations on the design and a lot of requirements that need to be met whether they make the game more fun or less fun.Adapting D&D to a game like the original SSI titles is one thing: it's a pretty 1-1 conversion. And even then, most of what makes D&D fun at home is missed in the CRPG. An 3D MMO however is a very different setting. And in this case I think the license got in the way a lot more than it helped. That's my opinion. Take it as you will.
|
|
|
|
Margalis
Terracotta Army
Posts: 12335
|
No, it is because the priority of the team wasn't on creating lots of fun content, it was on fulfilling a license. And when they got near the release date they gave to funding the project, they had to make compromises like requiring that quests be done multiple times.
That's simply not accurate. Ken Troop has stated many times that his vision is that players repeat quests over and over again until they master every aspect of them. It wasn't a compromise made towards the end of release - it was the plan all along. Again I would point out that the people designing the systems are different than content designers. The content designers HAVE to make suits of armor - they don't have to make them look bad. They have to make combat sound effects - they don't have to make those sound bad. Going from D&D to some invented world doesn't change the fact that sound effects and suits of armor must be created. And it's not like those guys were busy coding the saving throw rules and hence couldn't spend the time making sound effects sound nice. Now as to the priorities of the team - maybe all they cared about was the license and nothing else. You know what that says to me? Sucky team. If they didn't have the D&D license there would be some other reason the game came out poorly. As I pointed out, AC2 sucked and that didn't have any license restrictions. SWG is much the same way. People blame license problems but the stuff they invented, like HAM, just plain sucked, and they have proven time and time again they are an amateurish development team. And they added a bunch of things like creature handlers that have nothing at all to do with the license. The SW license problems are a red herring. It could have been a good game, it just wasn't. It's that simple. There certainly are cases where you have a great idea but someone says "in Jeopardy there are 2 15 minutes rounds and that's it!" or "in Star Wars Jedi's are rare and powerful." But nobody was saying "In star wars every combatant has 3 pools, and special moves subtract from those pools!" In some cases a license truly is a restriction - in others it is an excuse. Given Turbine's track record, this looks like excuse to me. Things not affected by the license at all (bugs, sound effects, etc) have problems just like other Turbine games have the same problems. Blaming the D&D artist for art design problems is kind of silly when AC2 had many of the same problems. If you get close to an enemy in DDO and they just stop attacking for some reason, that isn't the D&D license at work. That's sucky programming at work. I certainly agree that sometimes a license can hamstring you. People being obsessed with the license is a much more hand-wavy problem, especially when you extend it to things like bugs and modelling that have nothing to do with the license at all. If a company produces two mediocre games in a row, my conclusion is that the company is mediocre.
|
vampirehipi23: I would enjoy a book written by a monkey and turned into a movie rather than this.
|
|
|
Shockeye
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 6668
Skinny-dippin' in a sea of Lee, I'd propose on bended knee...
|
I want a nice, sunny beach with crystal blue water Play Far Cry.
|
|
|
|
schild
Administrator
Posts: 60350
|
Shockeye is right. Also, Margalis I agree with almost everything you said, except the last bit.
The number of dev teams that went from creating something amazing to something totally shitty is an astounding number. As such, this isn't a guilty until proven so thing. This is a "mediocre" until proving us otherwise. The number of dev teams that consistantly make amazing stuff can be counted on one hand for America and two hands for Japan.
|
|
|
|
Shockeye
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 6668
Skinny-dippin' in a sea of Lee, I'd propose on bended knee...
|
The number of dev teams that consistantly make amazing stuff can be counted on one hand for America and two hands for Japan.
That, sir, was a racist statement. Just because the Japanese have smaller hands doesn't mean they need two to equal one of ours.
|
|
|
|
schild
Administrator
Posts: 60350
|
The number of dev teams that consistantly make amazing stuff can be counted on one hand for America and two hands for Japan.
That, sir, was a racist statement. Just because the Japanese have smaller hands doesn't mean they need two to equal one of ours. 
|
|
|
|
Samwise
Moderator
Posts: 19324
sentient yeast infection
|
Even the beach looks dingy.
TO be fair, most beaches (outside of Club Med) are. You are missing the whole "game" and "fantasy" aspect of fantasy gaming.  I want a nice, sunny beach with crystal blue water DOA Extreme Volleyball: MMO Edition?
|
|
|
|
StGabe
Terracotta Army
Posts: 331
Bruce without the furry.
|
Now as to the priorities of the team - maybe all they cared about was the license and nothing else. You know what that says to me? Sucky team. That's not the sort of decision that is in the hands of the designer. If you include producer/execs in the word "team" then ok. It is my experience that almost EVERY aspect of a game has producers and execs breathing down its neck so that is fair to a certain extent. But generally if you mean by "team" those directly making the game then this misses the point. SWG is a different beast. And a lot of its problems ARE license-related. It just happens that a lot of its other problems had to do with having a fractured identity as a product and not enough time to become finished (and really no one caring to take the time to adequately test drive the combat engine). But a big part of that fractured identity was the "contract" of fulfilling the license. That end is going to be far more interesting to the higher level folk and as such will receive a lot more attention. The more license-focused a title is, the less resources it will get to fun gameplay. Which is why in most cases a licensed title with fun gameplay is an exception and fun/innovative products tend to be unlicensed. From experience I almost always more interested in a title if it doesn't involve a license of some sorts because I know what the license implies to the development process and I know that licenses correlate high with poor design towards fun. Yes there are content designers and systems designers. You'd think that'd make a big difference. But it doesn't. I think somewhere you are just oversimplifying the development process (and ignoring the amount of control that comes from outside the core team). And thereby you are missing the point. Again, just my opinion. I also think that the core game of D&D is not a very fun MMO experience. It isn't even DIKU, where we were 20 years ago. Adding that to the prior discussion of licenses, and hearing devs at E3 stress how they were just trying to nail the core of 3.5 with no bells and whistles makes me very unsurprised that DDO isn't that exciting. Gabe.
|
|
|
|
StGabe
Terracotta Army
Posts: 331
Bruce without the furry.
|
Also, the best fantasy I've read in years has been GRRM. And I just read some Steven Erikson and that's pretty good, but pretty dark stuff too. I think "bright, sunny" fantasy is vastly overrated.
Gabe.
|
|
|
|
Strazos
Greetings from the Slave Coast
Posts: 15542
The World's Worst Game: Curry or Covid
|
The fact that DDO is not fun has nothing to do with the license, or "execs breathing down someone's neck"- it's simply not a good game, end of story.
Margalis pointed out some things, such as the art assets or SFX, which are crap only because they were made that way. There's no reason the graphics had to look mediocre, or the combat had to be lackluster.
A mediocre game is the product of a mediocre production team.
|
Fear the Backstab! "Plato said the virtuous man is at all times ready for a grammar snake attack." - we are lesion "Hell is other people." -Sartre
|
|
|
Arthur_Parker
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5865
Internet Detective
|
That's simply not accurate. Ken Troop has stated many times that his vision is that players repeat quests over and over again until they master every aspect of them. It wasn't a compromise made towards the end of release - it was the plan all along.
DDO has a delayed release and only half the intended levels. Plus there's an interview somewhere from 6 months or so ago where they stated the intention was to release DDO with between 150-200 quests, it's being released with, I think, 133. What else can Ken Troop say about the lack of content? The company line is always going to be something along the lines of "what we have is fun!". I'd agree with you on sucky team & AC2 comments as I think part of the reason it's being released late and content light is due to spending more time on the engine and minor things like chat (heh). Sucky programming directly affects content designers as the tools/documentation for them will generally be the first thing to slip if the project is near/past deadline, so in part, it's a knock on effect.
|
|
|
|
|3o3dha
Terracotta Army
Posts: 33
|
Also, the best fantasy I've read in years has been GRRM. And I just read some Steven Erikson and that's pretty good, but pretty dark stuff too. I think "bright, sunny" fantasy is vastly overrated.
Gabe.
And boy, how right you are.
|
|
|
|
StGabe
Terracotta Army
Posts: 331
Bruce without the furry.
|
The fact that DDO is not fun has nothing to do with the license, or "execs breathing down someone's neck"- it's simply not a good game, end of story. Right. It has nothing to do with the production process. It has to be because "the designer is just dumb" and the "artists suck". BTW: who do you think hires and pays the designers, artists and programmers? As for Ken Troop, he also said: “It’s not always Tank-Mage-Healer combos that win – the D&D class and skill systems provide much more flexibility than most traditional MMOs allowing more creative and hopefully easier party selection. In some cases, it’s possible to complete an entire adventure with only a Rogue and a Cleric, never entering face-to-face combat at all." Sometimes it's just about PR. D&D is the foundation of Diku and EQ. I wonder where he thinks the holy trinity came from if not games that were already heavily reliant on D&D as a model. And as I said, the core D&D game isn't even where Diku was at 20 years ago. It just isn't that interesting as a model for an MMO. What makes D&D interesting in real life is the table-top dynamic, the context of the game, a context which can't be recreated in an MMO. It was a mistake to think that using D&D as a basis was anything but going backwards in time and consumers were mistaken if they bought hype that said otherwise. Oh, sure, they used a slightly different UI. And now most of you know that it's still just a lot of mad clicking on the same old thing. Gabe.
|
|
|
|
Margalis
Terracotta Army
Posts: 12335
|
That's not the sort of decision that is in the hands of the designer. If you include producer/execs in the word "team" then ok. It is my experience that almost EVERY aspect of a game has producers and execs breathing down its neck so that is fair to a certain extent.
Whether or not the "team" includes the producers is a red-herring. If they are affecting the game they are part of the team. Second I find it hard to believe that the producers can tell if saving throw vs. trap is implemented 100% accurately or not. SWG is a different beast. And a lot of its problems ARE license-related.
And most aren't. Concrete examples are not your strong point are they? SWG has (had?) terrible combat - nothing to do with the license. Bugs? Nothing to do with license. Lack of content, randomly generated terrain? Nothing to do with license. Entire classes being broken for months or years? Nothing to do with the license. Raph saying on the beta boards that the game would be ready to ship in 3 weeks when it was in reality 6 months off (and that was 6 months too early) - nothing to do with license. Right. It has nothing to do with the production process. It has to be because "the designer is just dumb" and the "artists suck".
BTW: who do you think hires and pays the designers, artists and programmers?
I don't care. If the artists are bad because they are bad, I really don't care that it isn't their fault because the higher-ups didn't hire good people. Maybe they don't pay enough. I don't know - and I don't care. What I know is that the art design and modelling is bad, just like it was in AC2. Maybe they have some really great people who are being misused, or maybe they suck. I can't say. But the end result is bad. Maybe all the developers and artists are great and it's the money-men who are messing things up. Clearly some of their decision making is suspect. (Think AC2 and the no towns) The bottom line is they aren't making good products. Whether or not that is a function of the "team" vs producers is a pretty meaningless distinction. It just isn't that interesting as a model for an MMO. What makes D&D interesting in real life is the table-top dynamic, the context of the game, a context which can't be recreated in an MMO. It was a mistake to think that using D&D as a basis was anything but going backwards in time and consumers were mistaken if they bought hype that said otherwise.
Well we can agree on that. I wouldn't say it is going backwards, but it isn't going forwards either. And yes, tank/healer/mage and such still apply. (For the same reasons we have tank/mortar/mechanic in the army) I said a long while ago that D&D is basically generic fantasy, and that a D&D license doesn't make a lot of sense. I do think they've managed to make a game that feels a lot like D&D on some level. But I think they've vastly over-estimated how many people really care about that. Arthur Parker said: DDO has a delayed release and only half the intended levels. Plus there's an interview somewhere from 6 months or so ago where they stated the intention was to release DDO with between 150-200 quests, it's being released with, I think, 133. What else can Ken Troop say about the lack of content? The company line is always going to be something along the lines of "what we have is fun!".
That is a good point, but even 200 vs. 133 quests is going to be a lot of repitition. Another thing they didn't count on was people choosing the quests with the best risk/reward and doing them over and over, which should have been obvious. In PSO you run the same quests (or minor variations) a lot of times. But there it works to some extent. Here it doesn't, for a variety of reasons that I am too lazy to get into. I'd agree with you on sucky team & AC2 comments as I think part of the reason it's being released late and content light is due to spending more time on the engine and minor things like chat (heh).
How about the bug where you log in and someone else's quest window appears randomly? And the chat...how long did it take them to get chat working in AC2? Like a YEAR or something absurd like that. And they have chat problems in DDO too. Chat server is NOT supposed to be the hard part! I've never heard of any other game having problems like that.
|
vampirehipi23: I would enjoy a book written by a monkey and turned into a movie rather than this.
|
|
|
StGabe
Terracotta Army
Posts: 331
Bruce without the furry.
|
Well we can agree on that. I wouldn't say it is going backwards, but it isn't going forwards either. And yes, tank/healer/mage and such still apply. (For the same reasons we have tank/mortar/mechanic in the army) I said a long while ago that D&D is basically generic fantasy, and that a D&D license doesn't make a lot of sense. I do think they've managed to make a game that feels a lot like D&D on some level. But I think they've vastly over-estimated how many people really care about that. Exactly the point I've been making all along. I'm glad you could finally admit to agreeing with it. As for the rest. You want the producer to count as "part of the team", or really a part of the creative process, if they influence how the project is created (and actually I have no problem with that characterization) . But you won't allow that the license is just as much a part of the creative process? It is typically a HUGE concern for the producer/execs (and it should be, because unfortunately licenses are a huge part of selling your game). Probably their first concern when they come to view how the work is going. You're going to have to reconcile those two. The sooner consumers can get over licenses and can start to realize that they correlate strongly (if not completely, KotOR's still get made now and then) with poor gameplay, the sooner dev teams can remove that burden from the creative process and move on to concentrating on making FUN games. Gabe.
|
|
|
|
Righ
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6542
Teaching the world Google-fu one broken dream at a time.
|
Exactly the point I've been making all along. I'm glad you could finally admit to agreeing with it.
In this thread you've "made" (actually grandstanded would be a better word) a few dozen points, the most baseless and contentious of which was that the bulk of problems in DDO and other games were results of their licenses. You don't "win" just because somebody agrees with a fractional part of one of more of your comments. You're coming across like the furry banned onanist that everybody loves to hate.
|
The camera adds a thousand barrels. - Steven Colbert
|
|
|
StGabe
Terracotta Army
Posts: 331
Bruce without the furry.
|
I'm not trying to imply that because Margalis admitted to agreeing on one point that "OMG I won". What does pushing that argument on me and calling me names accomplish? That D&D isn't a very interesting starting point for a game, however, was really my main point (follow my link in my original post) and I think that if Margalis wasn't so busy trying to snipe at me he might have recognized that he agreed with my core assertion a number of posts ago.
I also think that there is a lot be to said for how licenses impair the design process, and I continued to elaborate on that -- if producers/execs count as part of the creative process, how can the license, which is a primary concern these guys, not also count? And how long can one ignore the high correlation of licenses to crappy products? And because I'll get sniped at again, YES, there are other variables. I was just pointing out two such variable: that concern for fulfilling the license (from those paying the bills) often creates onerous design constraints and takes quite a bit of attention away from concern about creating a fun game. That there are other reasons why licenses suck (such as creating a high barrier to entry in the market) doesn't mean that these other two points aren't also quite valid and important.
|
|
|
|
tazelbain
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6603
tazelbain
|
>onanist obscure words ftw
|
"Me am play gods"
|
|
|
Righ
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6542
Teaching the world Google-fu one broken dream at a time.
|
And how long can one ignore the high correlation of licenses to crappy products?
You'll need to do more than throw out more unsubstantiated claims like that to convince me. There are more games not based on licenses than there are games based on licenses. There are more bad games than good games. We could do a statistical survey to see how the proportions married up, but either side would be in danger of either consciously or unconsciously compromising the research by failing to agree on which games were bad and which were good. PS: I didn't call you names. I said you were coming across like somebody who used to post here, who I called names. Reading is hard.
|
The camera adds a thousand barrels. - Steven Colbert
|
|
|
StGabe
Terracotta Army
Posts: 331
Bruce without the furry.
|
You'll need to do more than throw out more unsubstantiated claims like that to convince me. Ok. Go read this. Come back and tell me how many of those are licensed titles. Franchises, mind you, aren't licenses. Can't you guys just concede an obvious point when one hits? Or must it all be uphill? Gabe.
|
|
|
|
Margalis
Terracotta Army
Posts: 12335
|
Exactly the point I've been making all along. I'm glad you could finally admit to agreeing with it.
WTF dude seriously..I've defended you in the past. This is just lame. I said this MONTHS ago, before I had a hint of actual gameplay. The D&D license is not particularly strong and is not something I would base a game around. It doesn't add much. But that hasn't been your point. Your point has been that "license restrictions" have made DDO into a bad game. I've given tons of examples, you haven't given any. You've reached into some Hasbro game you worked on (irrelevant) and SWG, and SWG isn't even a good example. And you didn't have anything concrete to say about SWG either! I want to hear how the DDO license makes the sound effects weak already. I've given you itemized lists. I want to hear how the Star Wars license forced the SWG devs to create the awful HAM system. The sooner consumers can get over licenses and can start to realize that they correlate strongly (if not completely, KotOR's still get made now and then) with poor gameplay, the sooner dev teams can remove that burden from the creative process and move on to concentrating on making FUN games.
They correlate but not for the reasons you think. Most companies that make licensed games make poor games in general. They see licenses as a quick buck. Houses that rely on licenses tend to have low pride in their product, low creativity and be driven by short-term bottom-line. The thing is, these houses would make bad games even without licenses! It's like hollywood retreads. Most of them are bad. The people creating them have no talent and no creativity. If you forced them not to retread they would STILL have no talent and no creativity. Do you think Uwe Boll would make good films if he started with an original script? Good companies do good things with licenses: Batman for NES. - Sunsoft. (Good company at the time) Aliens vs. Predator - Capcom KOTOR - Bioware Super Robot Wars Series - Bandai (?) Gundam fighting games - Capcom (?) XMen Arcade - Konami TMNT Arcade - Konami TMNT (NEST) - Ultra (Konami spinoff) See a pattern? Capom, Bioware, Konami, Sunsoft and Bandai all make good products! Everyone loves TMNT in the arcade! Then you have companies like Activision, Turbine, etc. EA did a terrible job with the Marvel license while Capcom made lots of Marvel-based games that ruled. The difference? EA can't make anything except sports games. Licensed games as a whole aren't any worse than other games IMO, they just get undue press because of the license. But for every absolutely terrible EA Marvel game (Rise of the Imperfects) there is an XMen vs. SF (a good licensed game) or a bad, unlicensed game. It's all in how you use it. TMNT is probably the most popular Final Fight style game of all time.
|
vampirehipi23: I would enjoy a book written by a monkey and turned into a movie rather than this.
|
|
|
Margalis
Terracotta Army
Posts: 12335
|
Ok. Go read this. Come back and tell me how many of those are licensed titles. Franchises, mind you, aren't licenses. You need a lesson in statistical significance.
|
vampirehipi23: I would enjoy a book written by a monkey and turned into a movie rather than this.
|
|
|
StGabe
Terracotta Army
Posts: 331
Bruce without the furry.
|
Ok, give me your statistical analysis. We're looking for quality now, not quantity sold (I won't try and say that licenses don't sell). Besides, you seem to agree with me, again: They correlate but not for the reasons you think. Most companies that make licensed games make poor games in general. They see licenses as a quick buck. Houses that rely on licenses tend to have low pride in their product, low creativity and be driven by short-term bottom-line. The thing is, these houses would make bad games even without licenses! This is just a different way of saying what I was saying. And it leads to the answer to your other question: how does a game get crappy sound because it is a licensed title. It happens because the focus of everyone driving development is the license (which your example is a certain expression of). In the case of sound, sound is VERY often left to the end of the development cycle (there was a great screed about this on Penny Arcade by a sound engineer but I can't find it). This is more likely to happen in an environment where the license is the focus. The producer comes in, sees what's going on, and gives comments -- comments that the team has to follow invariably. If these comments are: "man that sound sucks, I'll get us a better sound guy", then sound is going to get better. If he says, "no, you need to focus more on the licensed content here" then that is what is going to get attention. Attention is a finite resource. A company that is more focused on creating an original product is almost always also one that is more focused on high production quality and original/fun gameplay. In SWG they were focused far too much on Virtual Worldy features that didn't really work AND on the license and combat testing fell through the cracks. Give me a licensed title and I'll tell you how I think the license probably hurt gameplay. This is just lame. I said this MONTHS ago, before I had a hint of actual gameplay. The D&D license is not particularly strong and is not something I would base a game around. It doesn't add much. And I said this 8 months ago after I played a bit at E3. Follow my link. That was my point. The bit about licenses and the development process was an addendum and a further discussion of this. Again, had you not just been looking to snipe at me you might have found that we were coming from the same place.
|
|
|
|
Strazos
Greetings from the Slave Coast
Posts: 15542
The World's Worst Game: Curry or Covid
|
Sorry, Gabe, but the bulk of your argument is just wrong. You're using the D&D license as a sort of crutch to carry your argument.
Using the license as an excuse for DDO being bad is just...sad.
I don't believe D&D is bad source material. I think there could be a good MMO based in FR or Planescape, or even an extra-niche game based in the Burning Sun world. But this would require a competant dev house.
Sorry, but Turbine doesn't fit the bill. DDO is not a good game, because Turbine did not make it so. It's no one else's fault but their own.
|
Fear the Backstab! "Plato said the virtuous man is at all times ready for a grammar snake attack." - we are lesion "Hell is other people." -Sartre
|
|
|
|
 |