I'd want Obsidian to make it...after all, most of Black Isle studios is in Obsidian now.
Since those are the guys who committed NWN2, that would almost certainly be an instant no for me.
As for the Engine I think the Source Engine would do, as it's Modular, Flexible, tools are easily available for modding nuts(a great bonus), Has vertex Deformation (great stuff, like Morphing PC models, or Configurable PC Models), and usable on PC and Mac.
It's also a thousand years old.
It looked really awesome when it first came out, but it's been almost seven years since its release, and as far as I know they didn't improve on it much.
Reminds me that they need to do a Source2 (or another follow-up).
Dude. CS. Best computer game ever. I started on beta 4 I think, and I still play sometimes.
B4? Laggard! I started with alpha! :P
But I don't play it any more. It was fun, though - and showed that mods can really make an impact.
I have always imagined a game where you play in turn-based for combats but afterward could view a cinematic that replays your party's moves in a realtime setting to show the combat realistically.
I had that idea, too! I thought about this for a Heroes of Might and Magic game, where you don't get to see your whole army - you have your commander standing off the actual battlefield and then 7 stacks, which represent one or more (can be thousands) critter of the same exact type. So the difference between a small army and something you can conquer worlds with isn't really a visual one, except when you look at the numbers.
So I thought it would be fun to have a cinematic round-up of the fight after the fight, the way they sometimes have fighting scenes in the cut-scenes.
Wasn't there a replay feature like that in the game Commandos?
First you were sneaking around, backstabbing, sabotaging with each of your guys and after that it was replayed in normal time. Or something like that?
Well...being thousand years old didn't stop Portal 2 from being the best computer game since, errr, Half-Life 2 ;-)
Agreed. Though I'd say that HL2 has nothing on Portal 2.
Still, I'd say that a Pathfinder CRPG would have to be perfect, and that means really shiny graphics.
Though that's if we're talking about a professional job. For a fan project, Source would be fine. Fan projects couldn't make their own engines and I don't know if any of the other engines out there are (that) open for modding.
|
plenty of NPCs going and doing things than just standing there waiting
Yes, please! Too many games have characters that just stand around, or perform activities in a predictable loop.
I have always imagined a game where you play in turn-based for combats but afterward could view a cinematic that replays your party's moves in a realtime setting to show the combat realistically. It could be a cool gimmick to get people interested. I would like to see the 10-15 minutes of turn-based condensed into the 45-60 seconds of combat and see how it would play out.
I've played a few turn-based strategy games that do similar things. Usually people (in a multiplayer environment/if they're trying to grind through) just skip cutscenes like that if they have the option.
I am an avid supporter of 4th edition but I wanted to congratulate you on your success. I like WotC products but I am very glad to know that another company is having great success. I don't like the notion of just D&D owning the lion's share of the market. You have great products (from what I've seen at my FLGS) and good products deserve success.
I am also a big supporter of 4e and D&D in general (however I do own most of the PF hardcover books and hope to play it eventually) and I am glad to see PF do well, but to me it is really just D&D vs D&D. I like all editions of D&D and count PF as part of that group.
Like I said I own several PF books and many 4e books so I am glad to contribute to the success of 4e and PF.
I'd want Obsidian to make it...after all, most of Black Isle studios is in Obsidian now.Since those are the guys who committed NWN2, that would almost certainly be an instant no for me.
Mask of the Betrayer is one of the best fantasy games to come out in over a decade, hth.
Still, I'd say that a Pathfinder CRPG would have to be perfect, and that means really shiny graphics.
Though that's if we're talking about a professional job. For a fan project, Source would be fine. Fan projects couldn't make their own engines and I don't know if any of the other engines out there are (that) open for modding.
And on this I agree. Using that engine, or something like the NWN2 engine, a fan-mod for Pathfinder wouldn't have bleeding-edge graphics. But if it could cleave close to the PFRPG rules and have an excellent story/sideplots, the fans would eat it up. And that would demonstrate to the established game studios that there is a definite market for a commercial PFRPG game... especially if fans could use tools to mod the commercial game to build their own mods (like NWN's & NWN 2's tools, only easier).
|
Are you talking to me, eh, rotboy? ;PRotboy.....Hmmmmm....I think I smell a new alias....literally!
Glad to be of help, but surely you realize that you cannot adopt this new name without paying royalty fees to the Church of Asmodeus? So, mr. The-Undead-Formerly-Known-As-Aberzombie-And-Soon-To-Be-Known-As-Rotboy, dish out those dollars on a monthly basis, and you're good to go. ;)
The biggest problem is that Pathfinder may be very successful in the RPG market, it is not a household name. Most non-gamers have heard of D&D. Very few have heard of Pathfinder. Big computer game companies want broad name recognition. Give Pathfinder a few more years to build its reputation.
|
|
I have always imagined a game where you play in turn-based for combats but afterward could view a cinematic that replays your party's moves in a realtime setting to show the combat realistically.
I had that idea, too! I thought about this for a Heroes of Might and Magic game, where you don't get to see your whole army - you have your commander standing off the actual battlefield and then 7 stacks, which represent one or more (can be thousands) critter of the same exact type. So the difference between a small army and something you can conquer worlds with isn't really a visual one, except when you look at the numbers.
So I thought it would be fun to have a cinematic round-up of the fight after the fight, the way they sometimes have fighting scenes in the cut-scenes.
Unfortunately, I don't think a cinematic replay can work out - turn-based combat is inherently different from simultaneous combat. One creature changes position on the battlefield, and this informs how the next creature is going to act. It simply isn't possible to portray this in a way where everyone is moving at the same time.
The tactical richness of turn-based combat would need to be diminished to evoke the excitement/realism of simultaneous combat. Unfortunately in this situation, there truly is a give-and-take.
That's also why you can't "flip the switch" between true turn-based combat and real-time combat. Games like Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights used a pause-and-play mode that also altered the strategy of tabletop D&D combat. Still, those games were big successes... just wanted to point out that once you're talking cinematic replay or simultaneous movement then PFRPG combat becomes a different beast.
If I remember correctly parts of the OGL can be used and apply to software.
IANAL, so it's possible someone who knows better may correct me, but according to my understanding:
There is nothing in the OGL that forbids its application to software. There is nothing in the OGL that disallows the creation of a computer game using Open Game Content.
Now, there was such a clause in WotC's now discontinued d20 license -- or more specifically the d20 System Trademark Guide it referenced -- explicitly denying its application to "Interactive Game[s]". But the d20 license was separate from the OGL. (All that meant is that you couldn't use the d20 logo on such a product, or advertise it as compatible with the d20 system.) Similarly, the Pathfinder Compatibility License explicitly specifies "printed books, electronic books, and freely available websites", so you presumably couldn't make a computer game under the Pathfinder Compatibility License either. However, all that means is that you couldn't use the Pathfinder logo and the Pathfinder name in your advertising. You can still use all the Pathfinder rules (at least, all the Pathfinder rules that have been released under the OGL); you just couldn't actually advertise that your product was Pathfinder compatible.
And you would, of course, have to distribute a copy of the OGL (with Section 15 appropriately amended), but that's not a big deal. You could probably include it in the documentation, or in a text file in the game directory, or viewable in-game in the options menu -- I'd probably do all three, just to be on the safe side.
The only obvious possible sticking point I am aware of in the OGL is section 8, which states that "If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Game Content." This could conceivably be interpreted to imply that the game's Open Game Content -- including Open Game Content from the PRD -- must be present in human-readable format. However, even if that's the case, there are ways around it; I've seen it suggested that things like stats, class level advancement tables, etc. could be read by the game from (human-readable) text data files, for instance. Possibly even this isn't necessary, and just having a text file (or PDF file) included in the game directory reprinting all the Open Game Content used in the game would be sufficient to comply with this section.
So... yeah, under the OGL, you could absolutely make a game using Pathfinder rules; you wouldn't need a specific license from Paizo. However, you couldn't call it a Pathfinder game, or use any Pathfinder logos or trademarks. And, as Vic Wertz mentioned way back on Page 1 of this thread, you couldn't actually mention Golarion, or Abadar, or any other specific Pathfinder setting elements that aren't released as Open Game Content -- you'd have to restrict yourself to what's in the Pathfinder Reference Document (and possibly Open Game Content released by third-party publishers, if you wanted to use it). You'd probably have to use your own homebrew setting (or leave it completely setting-neutral and not mention any gods or countries by name). But as far as just making a game using the Pathfinder rules... Sure. Go nuts.
Personally, I happen to sort of agree with Scott Betts that it's unlikely that such a project made by a disorganized group of fans (or even a somewhat organized group of fans) will ever be finished with the quality that could be achieved by a well-funded studio. But if you disagree, well, go ahead and prove us wrong. Nothing's stopping you.
|
|
Personally, I happen to sort of agree with Scott Betts that it's unlikely that such a project made by a disorganized group of fans (or even a somewhat organized group of fans) will ever be finished with the quality that could be achieved by a well-funded studio. But if you disagree, well, go ahead and prove us wrong. Nothing's stopping you.
I think most posters would agree with the bolded statement. The disputes are over things like the probability of fans making a (successful) game, whether or such a game should be made, and what engine to use/how to write it.
I think most posters would agree with the bolded statement. The disputes are over things like the probability of fans making a (successful) game, whether or such a game should be made, and what engine to use/how to write it.
The reason I felt it necessary to make the bolded statement was because there had been some posts earlier in the thread that seemed to me to be rather explicitly arguing the opposite. On rereading the posts in question, though, yeah; I'd kind of glossed over some parts of them, and they weren't saying quite what I'd initially thought they were saying. My bad.
Still, revising that statement to be more in line with the first of the disputes you enumerate, I'd argue that Scott Betts is right that the probability of fans ever making a successful game are fairly low. Having been involved myself in the days of NWN with a very high-profile fan project that seemed to show great promise at first and ended up just kind of petering out and fading away, I have some firsthand experience with fan ambition overstepping actual accomplishment.
But anyway, that wasn't the main point of my post. My main point was that you can make a game using the Pathfinder rules under the OGL without needing a license from Paizo; you just can't call it Pathfinder compatible, use the Pathfinder logo, or use non-open content (like Golarion).
So I guess my main point was in reference to the second dispute you list: whether or not such a game should be made. To which my answer is, why not? You don't need Paizo's permission (though I'm pretty sure as long as you conform with the aforementioned legalities about not using Paizo trademarks or intellectual property, they wouldn't mind). Do I think such a project is likely to succeed? No, not really. Does that mean I think it's not worth trying? Not at all. Go for it.
|
Come over to my place for BBQ. We'll have beer-braised chicken, beer pork steaks, and beer corn on the cob. There will also be cole slaw, but it's beer free.See if I ever cook for any of you :PMarked as favorite!You don't like beer, CJ, so clearly your taste buds cannot be trusted.Marked as favorite!
After working my first job at LJS I have come to detest slaw. The rest sounds good.
|
The biggest problem is that Pathfinder may be very successful in the RPG market, it is not a household name. Most non-gamers have heard of D&D. Very few have heard of Pathfinder. Big computer game companies want broad name recognition. Give Pathfinder a few more years to build its reputation.
I'm not sure this is really a necessity. After all, Dragon Age wasn't an existing franchise, and it blew up big enough not only to get a sequel, but even to make a tabletop RPG for. Pathfinder is really no different, in that it has NO presence in the video gaming industry.
The biggest problem is that Pathfinder may be very successful in the RPG market, it is not a household name. Most non-gamers have heard of D&D. Very few have heard of Pathfinder. Big computer game companies want broad name recognition. Give Pathfinder a few more years to build its reputation.I'm not sure this is really a necessity. After all, Dragon Age wasn't an existing franchise, and it blew up big enough not only to get a sequel, but even to make a tabletop RPG for. Pathfinder is really no different, in that it has NO presence in the video gaming industry.
That's not quite true. Pathfinder is an existing franchise, just not in video game land. Dragon Age came about when Bioware decided they wanted to create their own IP for their next fantasy roleplaying game project. Bioware was in control of everything. That can be very appealing to a developer who has been chained to someone else's IP for most of its lifetime. It's also worth noting that Bioware is enormous, very successful, and is one of those happy few developers that can basically do whatever the hell it wants (Valve and Blizzard being two other noteworthy examples of this).
|
|
That's not quite true. Pathfinder is an existing franchise, just not in video game land. Dragon Age came about when Bioware decided they wanted to create their own IP for their next fantasy roleplaying game project. Bioware was in control of everything. That can be very appealing to a developer who has been chained to someone else's IP for most of its lifetime. It's also worth noting that Bioware is enormous, very successful, and is one of those happy few developers that can basically do whatever the hell it wants (Valve and Blizzard being two other noteworthy examples of this).The biggest problem is that Pathfinder may be very successful in the RPG market, it is not a household name. Most non-gamers have heard of D&D. Very few have heard of Pathfinder. Big computer game companies want broad name recognition. Give Pathfinder a few more years to build its reputation.I'm not sure this is really a necessity. After all, Dragon Age wasn't an existing franchise, and it blew up big enough not only to get a sequel, but even to make a tabletop RPG for. Pathfinder is really no different, in that it has NO presence in the video gaming industry.
Agreed.
Heck, just look at the first thing they did when they created their own IP. Their fantasy world is a dark, gritty, mature story and world to explore. It was a bloody fun ride from start to finish for me. And part of the reason they could tell the story as they did was because they were able to do whatever they hell they wanted to their own world.
Even world aside though, I'm sure D&D video games have a requirement that the game never be rated M. After all, they're still aiming for a general family accepted game. I imagine Pathfinder would require the same thing in that the game likely wouldn't make it past a T rating if one did come out, no matter who published it.
Their most (debatable I'm sure) popular IPs of Dragon Age and Mass Effect were both rated M and told whatever story they wanted. They're epic, world/galaxy/land changing events that don't have to ask permission to kill this guy or blow up this town. Freedom ... I'd be surprised if Bioware ever went back to anything they didn't own.
Most non-gamers have heard of D&D.
Not true. Whenever I mention it to non-gamers, I get blank stares.
Unfortunately, I don't think a cinematic replay can work out - turn-based combat is inherently different from simultaneous combat. One creature changes position on the battlefield, and this informs how the next creature is going to act. It simply isn't possible to portray this in a way where everyone is moving at the same time.
The way M&M:H combat works, this shouldn't be a problem.
And remember that it's supposed to be a cinematic replay. Not necessarily a 1:1 re-enactment of the action, but summing up the valient points in a more action-packed manner.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
IANAL
Apple has gone too far.
Even world aside though, I'm sure D&D video games have a requirement that the game never be rated M. After all, they're still aiming for a general family accepted game. I imagine Pathfinder would require the same thing in that the game likely wouldn't make it past a T rating if one did come out, no matter who published it.
I can't imagine a Pathfinder CRPG with a rating other than PEGI 18.
|
|
Even world aside though, I'm sure D&D video games have a requirement that the game never be rated M. After all, they're still aiming for a general family accepted game. I imagine Pathfinder would require the same thing in that the game likely wouldn't make it past a T rating if one did come out, no matter who published it.I can't imagine a Pathfinder CRPG with a rating other than PEGI 18.
Yup... especially if it features dancing, hairy and naked Chelaxian dwarves! >:D
|
|
My personal preference for a ToEE turn-based system aside, I think that the first studio-produced CRPG product with the Pathfinder brand on it would need to be a pause-and-play simultaneous combat system. I think that's part of the reason why the Baldur's Gate series, which pioneered this style of play, resuscitated the CRPG genre and opened it up to a broader audience of gamers. Most CRPGs since have adopted this style, and it allows for more action-oriented D&D noobs to jump in without the high learning curve that the ToEE/D&D 3.x system demands.
This first, if only to "break open" the industry again to allow for rich, BG-style storytelling again and to establish the Pathfinder brand as a major contender. Then, a subsequent product can appeal to the smaller audience that is clamoring for turn-based tactics.
The lackluster critical and commercial reception to Dragon Age 2 -- the sequel to the game now seen as the flagship game in the CRPG industry, the one that "represents CRPGs" -- leaves things open for a quality CRPG to jump in and attract the same media hype that DA:O attracted. IMHO, DA:O's limitations were somewhat glossed over in the "true successor to BG" hype that accompanied its release, showing that both the industry and gaming media really wanted so much to revive interest in what in the computer gaming industry was once its most important genre way back in the day. I think the time's very ripe for another player to enter the arena.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yup... especially if it features dancing, hairy and naked Chelaxian dwarves! >:DEven world aside though, I'm sure D&D video games have a requirement that the game never be rated M. After all, they're still aiming for a general family accepted game. I imagine Pathfinder would require the same thing in that the game likely wouldn't make it past a T rating if one did come out, no matter who published it.I can't imagine a Pathfinder CRPG with a rating other than PEGI 18.
Hairless naked dancing dwarves are evil distilled down to it's purest form of evil extract.
Most non-gamers have heard of D&D.Not true. Whenever I mention it to non-gamers, I get blank stares.
It is true. Market research a few years back demonstrated a 90%+ brand awareness with Dungeons & Dragons - that goes beyond "most" and into "vast majority" range.
Now, this study may have been confined to the United States market, but it's still a better source of information than "non-gamers I've talked to".
There is no need not to include both options at a flip of a switch. Myself, i prefer turn based combat the likes of ToEE. But there are some people who don't. So why not include both?
Increased development time and budget.
|
|
Most non-gamers have heard of D&D.Not true. Whenever I mention it to non-gamers, I get blank stares.It is true. Market research a few years back demonstrated a 90%+ brand awareness with Dungeons & Dragons - that goes beyond "most" and into "vast majority" range.
Now, this study may have been confined to the United States market, but it's still a better source of information than "non-gamers I've talked to".
I agree, I can't actually recall the last time I mentioned DnD and the people I was talking to didn't know at least the name. Granted many of them didn't know exactly what it was, but they had heard of the name and knew it was a game of some sort.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow how did this post end up here. I posted in a different thread. At least I thought I did
It's an irritating bug on these boards. If you have multiple threads open, and you make a post, it puts it in the most recently refreshed thread, not the thread that you typed it into.
If there were to be a Pathfinder game, it would need to be like Neverwinter Nights 1 with better graphics and the pathfinder ruleset to be particularly good (Bioware did it). Obsidian dropped the ball on NWN2 in many ways, and the game never really took off because of it. The original KOTOR was Bioware (and used the same engine as NWN1 - I've seen people use models and textures and animations and stuff from KOTOR1 and they work fine in NWN1 with little effort for conversion) and KOTOR 2 was Obsidian (though I never played that one).
If a pathfinder game like NWN1 was released (you need the full DM kit and a full toolset at minimum, with support for single player AND online multiplayer) I'd buy the thing. and all the expansions. Just make sure you make it viable to add new classes and races and subraces and spells and shit to the game. NWN had too much of that stuff hardcoded. Server-side mods and building something like nwvault/nwconnections into the game would just make it the best game ever.
You get it made, I'll buy it, and I'll start playing videogames frequently again. Keep making expansions and modules and new content for the game, adding new races and classes and graphics and stuff, and I'll keep buying those too. You might be able to licence the aurora engine from bioware (or have something similar).
...I've been toying with the idea of modding the hell out of nwn1 to upgrade as much of the rules as possible to pfrpg rules, but it's alot of work, and some of it simply can't be done without rewriting chunks of the game engine.
|
Well, i don't know much about coding, but i know people who do and i know what a hassle is to make a graphics engine. I've seen my friends work for days to produce someting not worthy of a quake 3. So it is difficult.
Anyway, the point is that video games nowadays have ENORMOUS budgets. Some can rival hollywood movies easily.
@TOZ Try Kotor 2, it's better then 1, story wise and mechanics wise. I love it.
|
|
For those who mentioned the idea of doing it via a free mod, NWN has several things floating around to make it more visually contemporary.
NWNCQ and NWShader update the graphics engine and tilesets a great deal, nwvault has a texture section which is largely filled with higher res textures, and then there are also projects around right now that are upgrading some of the 3d models like Project Q.
The fan project nwn 1.7 updates the game engine itself a bit.
The PRC is still updated, but it's pretty messily assembled in some places, and it includes virtually every 3.5 splat in existence. I wouldn't recommend working with it. Do a separate PFRPG Mod - but pretty much any mods that would be difficult have now been figured out. (The only really big one I've seen is how it is difficult to make more caster classes beyond the number already hardcoded into the game- a custom spell engine would likely need to be written, or the spell engine would need to be altered).
http://nwvault.ign.com/View.php?view=Hakpaks.Detail&id=7848This shows some of the graphical upgrades that have become available since the game became discontinued. The downside is that these upgrades do need to be collected and installed individually - though you could always make an installer and install all the packages at once.
So it's possible to do it as a mod, though it would take active effort.
Well, i don't know much about coding, but i know people who do and i know what a hassle is to make a graphics engine. I've seen my friends work for days to produce someting not worthy of a quake 3. So it is difficult.
Anyway, the point is that video games nowadays have ENORMOUS budgets. Some can rival hollywood movies easily.
@TOZ Try Kotor 2, it's better then 1, story wise and mechanics wise. I love it.
And those enormous budget games have the IP or developer name recognition to back them up. Paizo doesn't have the money to fund a game of that nature and tie up millions of dollars for a couple years, and their name probably isn't big enough to attract a developer who does (only a handful can). Nor does their name have the recognition outside board-gaming circles to justify those developers wanting support.
|
|
Oh yes, now's an awesome time to be a gamer...one of the greatest after the 80s...
A) Dark Dungeons
B) Mazes and Monsters
C) Dungeons and Dragons Cartoon
I'll take today over the 80's anytime. At least kids today can crack open a rulebook without the school's guidance counselor calling up their parents in a panic...
Oh yes, now's an awesome time to be a gamer...one of the greatest after the 80s...A) Dark Dungeons
B) Mazes and Monsters
C) Dungeons and Dragons Cartoon
I'll take today over the 80's anytime. At least kids today can crack open a rulebook without the school's guidance counselor calling up their parents in a panic...
Agreed. It's better to be a gamer today than it has been at any point in history.
Mind you, it's also better to be a human being today than it's ever been.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
REALLY? Who are you talking with? You need to start talking to people Jr High age or older then.Most non-gamers have heard of D&D.Not true. Whenever I mention it to non-gamers, I get blank stares.
There is no Jr High age here. Because there is no Jr High here.
People outside of America have mostly not heard of D&D. Thankfully, it wasn't satanized either.REALLY? Who are you talking with? You need to start talking to people Jr High age or older then.Most non-gamers have heard of D&D.Not true. Whenever I mention it to non-gamers, I get blank stares.
Yeah, people here stopped believing in goblins and demons a few decades/centuries ago. :D
And those enormous budget games have the IP or developer name recognition to back them up. Paizo doesn't have the money to fund a game of that nature and tie up millions of dollars for a couple years, and their name probably isn't big enough to attract a developer who does (only a handful can). Nor does their name have the recognition outside board-gaming circles to justify those developers wanting support.Well, i don't know much about coding, but i know people who do and i know what a hassle is to make a graphics engine. I've seen my friends work for days to produce someting not worthy of a quake 3. So it is difficult.
Anyway, the point is that video games nowadays have ENORMOUS budgets. Some can rival hollywood movies easily.
@TOZ Try Kotor 2, it's better then 1, story wise and mechanics wise. I love it.
I wouldn't rule it out altogether. You're right that it isn't the most obvious choice of IP, but I think it could be made to work.
Not least of which because Paizo's reputation has been earned by adventure content more than rules, and content is more important than rules when transitioning from P&P to computer gaming.
I dunno... being a sheik at the turn of the last millenium had it's moment's. I have it on good authority that harem's are pretty awesome....Agreed. It's better to be a gamer today than it has been at any point in history.
Mind you, it's also better to be a human being today than it's ever been.
I don't know. Harems are okay, but I really like this modern toilet thing. And all the medical treatment stuff you can just go and get today. I think those sheiks you talk about couldn't just go to a hospital and get themselves treated for stuff that would otherwise have killed them within days, or even hours. And then it did.
So I'll take today over that distant past. Not just because my time machine is broken just now (isn't that ironic?), but also because I prefer not dying from stuff over having a harem.
Plus, I can still get a harem if I want (well, it will just be for rent), but that sheik can't get the medical stuff. Sucker. :)