|
I can't find the thread, but I believe Paizo has not displayed interest in a game based on Neverwinter nights (some sort of "engine"). Man I really wish I could find this thread! Anyway, they may do some kind of game if a professional developer approaches them and the offer is sweet, but I can't really remember much more. (There was some fan project talk, but there was also a lot of dissension, so I don't think anything happened.)
Edit: Why didn't I think of this before? Also you could ask AM BARBARIAN or James Jacobs.
|
Hi
The reason I thought it might happen is the software 'engine' you spoke of.
Sure, the basic program would have to be tweaked because of the CMB/CMD thing, but biggest changes would be things like Character Classes, Feats & Spells, all data sets, and easier to deal with.
The Community Expansion stuff would also add value to the game. I still play the original NWN for the CEP 'Prisoner of the Mists'. A Ravonloft style setting, set up by fans.
Thanks
Paul H
|
|
I think it highly unlikely at this stage.
The only existing RPG engine which could be readily changed to Pathfinder RPG is that which was used by Obsidian for NWN2. That engine, in turn, incorporates a fair bit of code from the Aurora Engine used for NWN1, now owned by EA (BioWare).
If a third developer did the game, the license fees alone to Obsidian and EA both would each be very significant and that cost would stop the project in its tracks. EA has no interest in doing IPs it does not own.
That means you are left with dealing with Obsidian, or creating an entirely new RPG engine at a prohibitive cost. Obsidian has had moderate success with some of its titles and the design staff there is knowledgeable; however, the problems with module development intrinsic to the NWN2 toolset and engine were never adequately fixed and you would be left with an ad hoc game with toolset that is too difficult to use for the community to create modules for your game.
In order to rework those mod tools to be up to speed and support a Pathfinder game, the development costs would certainly be at least $5-8 million for even a moderate AA title.
And PC only titles are an extremely hard sell right now. I wouldn't do it; no way. WAY too much risk and not enough reward. Worse, you end up essentially being forced to sell through Steam and that does bad things to your net revenue per copy.
While you might find that sort of development money available for a D&D title, I doubt it. The spectre of piracy is so large that the new forthcoming Neverwinter title has essentially moved entirely to a client/server model. Ostensibly to support multiplayer play, the real point of their technical design is actually all about copy protection. That model is not present in the NWN2 engine and it is cost prohibitive to attempt to add it in. Might as well start more or less from scratch.
So now your development budget for a new title would be $8-10 million PLUS it requires a whole backend of Blade servers to support the game at a very significant additional cost. All of this for an IP that, while it is very well known among active role-players, has almost no brand recognition at all among those who formerly played D&D.
To compete against Diablo 3, SW: The Old Republic, WoW and the host of free to play PC fantasy MMOs out there?
Bad bet. I'd never make that bet -- and to be honest, if you can't convince someone like me with a deep and passionate interest in both Pathfinder and Neverwinter -- you'll never, ever convince the people with the cash to invest it who are less emotionally attached to the properties.
In another 8-10 years, assuming Pathfinder as a brand continues to be successful, there will probably be enough former tabletop gamers in the market who will know of the brand that it might be a valuable enough property to attempt a game based upon it. Right now, however, that audience is too small to attract the necessary mainstream attention to be worth the risk.
Sadly, there is much more money in a bad D&D title than a good Pathfinder one.
How would everybody feel about a facebook or Google+ game?
There is a MUSH/MUX out there that uses Pathfinder, although not set in Golarion. If you're into text-based RP. But I know they run adventures and stuff.
http://tenebraemush.net/index.php/Main_Page
If anyone not familiar with MUSH/MUX needs advice on what client to use, etc I'm happy to help.
I think it highly unlikely at this stage.
The only existing RPG engine which could be readily changed to Pathfinder RPG is that which was used by Obsidian for NWN2. That engine, in turn, incorporates a fair bit of code from the Aurora Engine used for NWN1, now owned by EA (BioWare). ..
NWN1 is the better of the two.
|
|
NWN1 is the better of the two.
I was project lead at DLA and I was the Producer on Wyvern Crown of Corymr. Cloaks, rideable horses, jousting, all the TNO tilesets, etc. and virtually all of the content in patches 1.68 and 1.69 of NWN1 was developed by my crew. We did more content for Wyvern Crown of Cormyr and patch 1.69 than was included in both of the prior expansions to NWN1, combined.
So yes, I'm pretty familiar with the title and the Aurora engine.
Regrettably, in terms of development money, PC Gaming essentially died in 2006/2007. Anything that has been produced since then has been developed through self-funding, was part of a cross-platform product -- or both.
Sad, but there you have it.
So, old, but still relevant. I was glad to find that it hadn't changed much from where I'd left it and was, in fact, still on the page. :)
EDIT:
Just checked, and the first link to a thing was modified yesterday (as of this posting) and the second only a month ago. So that's encouraging.
NWN1 is the better of the two.
The Aurora tool set had an excellent 'ease of use' factor, so that programming and design novices (like myself) were able to create vibrant and living persistent worlds.
Thousands of worlds went online, and many found great success. With no monthly fees. This is where the game really shined. I haven't played anything since that compares favorably for providing a virtual RPG experience with GM client and custom world building.
With the right group of people NWN could ~almost~ be like playing a real table top session.
At this point I would rather see a solid program like D20 pro mated with an Aurora engine like utility which would allow for full 3-D style visuals and more complex scripting capabilities, with accurate virtual table top mechanics.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone else remember the old Atari Temple of Elemental Evil game? That game has probably the best D&D engine I've seen. I would love to see some sort of Pathfinder port for it -- probably wouldn't be too difficult, as the rulesets are similar. (Relatively speaking, of course. I know that any sort of development on that scale is still huge.)
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Anyone else remember the old Atari Temple of Elemental Evil game? That game has probably the best D&D engine I've seen. I would love to see some sort of Pathfinder port for it -- probably wouldn't be too difficult, as the rulesets are similar. (Relatively speaking, of course. I know that any sort of development on that scale is still huge.)
I agree - that was the best CRPG system made to date. I'd love to see more games made along those lines, whether Pathfinder, 3.5, custom D20 based, or even an entirely new rules system that was turn based. The only one I've found since is the indie game Knights of the Chalice, which is a custom spin off of 3.5. It's graphics and sound are more in line with the OLD SSI Gold Box games though, nowhere near as pretty as Temple of Elemental Evil.
You might wish to read these relatively recent discussions of the matter as well:
Plans for Pathfinder Computer Game
There's also an older thread somewhere with some dev commentary but I couldn't find it in the archives.
I've thought about this a lot, and have often spoken deeply in favor of a Pathfinder CRPG of some kind... and yet as these discussions move on... of the things that seems clear to me is that everyone's got their own idea of what a Pathfinder game should be, which is a big problem. Even if a Pathfinder VRPG came out that had high production values, few bugs, and was faithful at least as much as possible to the mechanics and settings, there would be something "wrong" with it according to a number of Pathfinder fans. If it was very party-tactics based, other people would be annoyed at not having a good single player or story experience--and if it was about a single hero's story, people would be mad it wasn't party tactics based. If it was single player, people would want it to be multiplayer, and vice versa. Some people would be fine as long as it was accurate Pathfinder mechanics but not setting, and some people would want a Golarion game, who cares about the game mechanics. If it was isometric it should be FP3D and if it's FP3D it should be isometric or over the shoulder... and so on. This is very much an area of unpleaseable fanbase and I'm not sure if there could be a result where the majority of Pathfinder fans would be happy AND the game would be accessible to non TTRPGers, which is a big factor. You want the game to be able to market the TTRPG to non players--but that will probably require compromises that the hardcore TTRPG fans will be outraged about, no matter how relatively small the compromises are.
((And just as an aside, this is posted by someone who hated the Aurora Engine (NWN), loved the Electron Engine (NWN2) and found it much easier to use (*for single player game design; never ever touched multiplayer on NWN or NWN2 and actually forgot it was an option until someone brought it up in one of those discussions I linked above), and thought TOEE was a boring, buggy abomination with a horrible interface and a hideously clunky too-strict clinging to tabletop rules, so we can see how easily we can agree on those games of the past. This is my opinion on these matters to show an example of how widely preferences vary even amongst a small set of gamers, and I am not looking to debate these preferences. If you loved TOEE, I'm sure as hell someone didn't feel like they wasted their money on it.))
I think it's still possible to do, and even do well, but it's a huge boulder to push up a steep hill.
Link!
Oh, MAN, DQ, you have been so ninja'd. By me! I never ninja people! Bam! (Sorry, I have to enjoy it while I can... I'm slow, you see. :D)
unpleaseable fanbase
I see your point, but I don't really think that it's as impossible as you think. NWN (and NWN2) did a pretty good job of this. What I'd recommend: multiple camera modes (taking care of the perspective), and a tool set along the lines of both of the NWN games. With a few free online-only (or downloadable) modules that focus on party tactics, while one main campaign focuses on single-player, you've got both problems solved. Alternatively, although it was imperfectly implemented due to A.I. issues, the buddy system in both NWNs (with "henchmen"... which is a terrible name) worked pretty well to require (or at least suggest) party tactics. Also the NWNs covered single and multiplayer pretty well.
The one major difficulty, I'd see, is porting it between PC and non-PC platforms, however to solve that, I'd say: make it for the PC, however translate many of the options for non-PC things after the game is done, meaning it's a PC game, but you still gain access to non-PC gamers.
Alternatively, releasing two different games, which isn't as rare as it sounds. As far as setting, with an OC and a few modules in Golarion, but with an open toolset, that'll handle basically all the complaints or wants.
Now, to be clear, I'm not saying this is cheap or in any way easy. Both NWNs were heavily delayed for all the things they did in them, and both were a bit buggy and incomplete even when released, requiring numerous patches. I agree with you: it will be difficult and expensive, but I think it would be doable. Just not really feasible for a brand/company like Pathfinder/Paizo in any sort of a timely manner. Even the D&D games were released rather late in the life of the systems they were supposed to be imitating.
Make it for consoles. Once I got my 360 I only ever play wargames on the PC. The console you never have to worry about video cards or hardware. I gave that headache up long ago. I have played mass effect on PC and console, I still prefer console.
|
|
Can Paizo be allowed to make a Pathfinder computer game?
Pathfinder is based off of the 3.5 SRD. IIRC the SRD does not allow 3rd parties to use it for computer/ video games. Only WOTC/ Hasbro is allowed to license games from the 3.5 ruleset.
Not trying to be a downer. I'd love to see a Pathfinder computer game. But not sure it could happen.
Can Paizo be allowed to make a Pathfinder computer game?
Pathfinder is based off of the 3.5 SRD. IIRC the SRD does not allow 3rd parties to use it for computer/ video games. Only WOTC/ Hasbro is allowed to license games from the 3.5 ruleset.
Not trying to be a downer. I'd love to see a Pathfinder computer game. But not sure it could happen.
This post might help. If the poster's interpretation is true, I imagine that's why you haven't seen some of these games coming forward or advertising via traditional/community venues.
Anyone else remember the old Atari Temple of Elemental Evil game? That game has probably the best D&D engine I've seen. I would love to see some sort of Pathfinder port for it -- probably wouldn't be too difficult, as the rulesets are similar. (Relatively speaking, of course. I know that any sort of development on that scale is still huge.)
Old?! Huh... But it came after 2000... It would be old if it was released in early ninties, but 2000+? Nah, it's not old, it's just lost it's new trait.
But yes, it was fine implementation of 3.5 rules with horribly borring story. I wonder who owns it's game engine rights now.
I see your point, but I don't really think that it's as impossible as you think. NWN (and NWN2) did a pretty good job of this.
Really? NWN did alright (there was the one small matter that people were ticked off because in Baldur's Gate II they advertised you could import your character into NWN which turned out not to be the case--and was probably a silly thing to plan for). But it also has its detractors--a lot of people didn't like the engine (most people who like TOEE don't like NWN and vice versa), or its only "loose" use of 3.0 rules.
NWN2--mention it in any gaming forum and you get an immediate s~&@storm of fanwank about it. People who liked it really liked it but a LOT of people didn't, especially folks who wanted to play multiplayer, which I hear (I never played multiplayer in either game) was terrible in NWN2, to the point that multiplayer NWN players tend to talk about Obsidian and NWN2 like they savagely beat their own mothers to death (and t'other thread we both linked to has examples of that, though I might be hyperbolizing just a tad. And I'm sorry I didn't see your link, by the way, it was not intended as a slight.).
To me NWN is the possible exception that proves the rule. And the one Western fantasy RPG I can think of that might have been more popular in the mainstream (NWN was not mainstream) all around is Dragon Age, which Bioware made specifically using their own IP because licensing became such a pain in the arse--there was no existing fanbase to have to please. And I really am not confident it could be done again. NWN came at the magical early 2000s when there was less market crunch and instability and there wasn't much competition (unless you count Diablo II, which was a very different kind of fantasy adventure game).
The one major difficulty, I'd see, is porting it between PC and non-PC platforms, however to solve that, I'd say: make it for the PC, however translate many of the options for non-PC things after the game is done, meaning it's a PC game, but you still gain access to non-PC gamers.
Porting between PC and XBox is pretty easy for gameplay itself because XBox is basically a Windows machine. If you wanted to make an NWN-like game, you could at least port the actual gameplay aspects to XBox (remember KoTOR was based on the NWN game engine, and that came out for both PC and console), but you couldn't port the toolset.
Now, to be clear, I'm not saying this is cheap or in any way easy. Both NWNs were heavily delayed for all the things they did in them, and both were a bit buggy and incomplete even when released, requiring numerous patches. I agree with you: it will be difficult and expensive, but I think it would be doable. Just not really feasible for a brand/company like Pathfinder/Paizo in any sort of a timely manner.
I think something on the scope of NWN would be nearly impossible these days with what resources are available. But maybe I'm just in a cynical mood. I think a basic adventure game would be possible but you could never ever design one that would make all existing Pathfinder fans pleased, of that I am absolutely certain. And maybe not even most Pathfinder fans. Does that make it not worth looking into? Probably not. But as I said earlier, it's simply an uphill climb.
Even the D&D games were released rather late in the life of the systems they were supposed to be imitating.
Now I'm just being pedantic, but the first D&D game was dnd and it came out in 1975. And there was a good bit of D&D licensed stuff starting as far back as the early 80s. Thing is, software and software marketing was a hell of a lot simpler back then.
For some reason these boards refuse to let me quote you accurately, so I'll have to manually copy and paste.
I think something on the scope of NWN would be nearly impossible these days with what resources are available. But maybe I'm just in a cynical mood. I think a basic adventure game would be possible but you could never ever design one that would make all existing Pathfinder fans pleased, of that I am absolutely certain. And maybe not even most Pathfinder fans. Does that make it not worth looking into? Probably not. But as I said earlier, it's simply an uphill climb.
This is wrong.
Making something akin to NWN now would require less work now than back then. It is not a complicated engine we are dealing with. Implementing the graphics engine nowadays would be far easier, as would sound and everything else basically.
The major hurdle would be design and graphics which would depend a lot on how advanced the game should be visually.
Gameplay wise I would prefer something more like Baldur's Gate because I the one-single-character thing NWN had going never made me play the game for more than a few minutes before giving up. I want my party of heroes.
First: I'm not slighted in the least! Link away! I just feel nice that I actually ninja'd someone. Now the shoe's on the other hand! ... wait.
Really? NWN did alright (there was the one small matter that people were ticked off because in Baldur's Gate II they advertised you could import your character into NWN which turned out not to be the case--and was probably a silly thing to plan for). But it also has its detractors--a lot of people didn't like the engine (most people who like TOEE don't like NWN and vice versa), or its only "loose" use of 3.0 rules.
The thrust of your argument seems to be: "it was okay, but imperfect".
What I'm arguing is that "okay but imperfect" is all that it needs. NWN had a strong, rather thriving online community with a number of persistent worlds filled with multiple players in those worlds (although, IIRC, it was limited to 60-something? Which might be a detraction. I don't know for sure, as didn't ever get much into that scene myself.)This was partially accomplished via the release of the tool set. I really think that such a thing would solve many issues. Also, if there's a single player campaign with strongly-written characters to collect to assist you, it can more easily be designed around party tactics than soloing (something NWN2 did well).
Interestingly, from what I could tell of them, NWN2 was, for all its flaws and shortcomings, even closer to 3.5-ish style rules than NWN was to 3.0, even with most of NWN's later upgrades (although those upgrades helped tremendously).
I'd agree: you won't please all fans. But on that note...
Now I'm just being pedantic, but the first D&D game was dnd and it came out in 1975. And there was a good bit of D&D licensed stuff starting as far back as the early 80s. Thing is, software and software marketing was a hell of a lot simpler back then.
Have you seen some of the "grognard" posts? Silly DQ, that's when D&D died (... the first time)! :D
But that's kind of my point. One could hardly call dnd a faithful representation of D&D, even if it managed to copy a number of elements from the D&D rules set. Ergo, if its as faithful as possible, people will play it, so long as it isn't a pile of bugs (which, while I love the story and even much of the game play, NWN2 was a pile of bugs, which is where a lot of the hate actually comes from, even if people cite other reasons).
But yes, I'd agree it'd be hard at best. I also agree that it's not likely. But for the latter I more blame the leeriness of companies to invest into an existing license rather than the infeasibility of it succeeding, if created. After all, Planescape: Torment, Balder's Gate, Balder's Gate II, Pool of Radiance, Temple of Elemental Evil, and even Eye of the Beholder all did okay, even though they weren't exactly perfect representations of the world/system/whatever they were supposed to be. Especially the first three.
And on PC/other system: yes, it could be done, but the game needs to be designed for the PC from the ground up, otherwise there'd be no way to create the toolset, for reasons you mentioned. With that in mind, I'd suggest building it for the PC, then porting it to other game systems. And the porting it to other game systems was part of Dragon Age's success - the access to the X-Box market is important. The hardest thing, however, would be making it feel like it belonged on the XBox, if, (and they should) they make it with a "full" PF compatibility. That's what I mean about translation: spell books/memorization, item customization - it all works differently on a computer than a platform. They'll need to switch the way that it handles things between the two. It'll just be one more step... which is what my fear/problem is with it, even though I think, to succeed, it needs to happen.
Tacticslion:
The main hurdle is the interface. The underlying game does not need to change much. The only real difficulty of porting it is because console input devices are generally inferior to PC input devices. No console so far has a reliable high-precision twodimensional input device.
The game would ideally be turnbased, because that would eliminate most of the need for a mouse. You don't need to be fast and precise if its turn based.
Tacticslion:
The main hurdle is the interface. The underlying game does not need to change much. The only real difficulty of porting it is because console input devices are generally inferior to PC input devices. No console so far has a reliable high-precision twodimensional input device.
The game would ideally be turnbased, because that would eliminate most of the need for a mouse. You don't need to be fast and precise if its turn based.
Actually, that's also a problem: you'll quickly run into all sorts of weirdness such as "when are you turn-based, when are you not", "battle screens v. none", and "how big is a battle area". When you have turn-based combat, it's difficult to use stealth. When you have combat-based on initiative, at what point does initiative start. How large are visuals? How big is a battlefield? Can one leave a battle? How does that work? If battle is related to when initiative is rolled (switching "modes" on the same map), it becomes very difficult to make a surprise encounter, as enemies or heroes will either roll initiative immediately upon locating a potential enemy, OR initiative will have to be fluid enough that it rolls after the first attack... which is another difficult thing when you have literally "wandering" enemies (instead of random "battle mode" pop-ups), which is necessary for immersion.
Basically, it's not a bad idea to make it turn-based, but that's part of the problem.
Further, organizing all sorts of differences between preparing spells, choosing spells, and interface in general is tough. On the PC, I like using my mouse, as it's easy (though I'm increasingly favoring touch-screen, thanks to the iPad I received for my birthday!). Forcing me only to use poorly-mapped keys is frustrating.
So it can be done, but it's still difficult to make all these decisions in ways that won't irritate the fanbase, but still work for a video game.
AAA PC-only games do not really happen anymore unless they are MMOs.
That's not entirely true. By way of example, Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 are both inarguably AAA titles, and neither is an MMORPG (one is a real-time strategy game, the other is an action roleplaying game).
The real decision makers here are whether the developer believes the game can be handled faithfully on a console platform, whether a platform-limited game can generate the revenue the company is looking for, and whether console platforms offer the amount of longevity the developers plan for the game (for instance, many MMORPGs last through multiple console cycles, which introduces challenges to maintaining/growing your subscriber base unless you release for PC only).
Of course, PC-only is not the same as "PC game also on consoles but very well supported on PC."
Deus Ex 3 might not be "PC only," but that doesn't stop it from being an incredible AAA PC game.
Blizzard are the exception because anything they produce sells millions of copies.
That doesn't sound like much of a reason for exception. Yes, Blizzard produces games that are the critical and commercial equivalents of sunshine and rainbows, but you asked for AAA titles; AAA titles tend to sell millions of copies.
Except they are applying MMO-like pricing schemes to their PC games too; sell full-priced SC2 expansion packs
Full-priced expansion packs are not exclusive to MMOs, or even to PCs. Heck, the downloadable content associated with many games ends up the equivalent price and content of a full-priced expansion pack anyway (see: Fallot: New Vegas, and its nearly $50 of DLC).
Not to mention the onerous online copy protection, D3 is practically an MMO at this point.
You're free to argue that (perhaps with some success), but the industry consensus is that it is not an MMORPG, or even an MMO.
Look, my point is simply this: there are qualities inherent in the PC game market that make it more attractive to developers of certain AAA games, and those games are not limited to MMORPGs. The retail PC video game market is not as strong as the console market; that's almost certainly true. And consoles definitely have a lot of room to develop, especially with regards to connectivity and integrated functionality. But five years ago the PC market was limping along in a bad way and a lot of people were wondering at whether or not it still had a place to call its own. Then Steam came out and gave it a new direction and a new lease on life. So we'll see.
Blizzard isn't going to sell the SC2 expansions at prices comparable to the purchase of the initial game. They will be priced as expansions.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The one major difficulty, I'd see, is porting it between PC and non-PC platforms, however to solve that, I'd say: make it for the PC, however translate many of the options for non-PC things after the game is done, meaning it's a PC game, but you still gain access to non-PC gamers.
As long as they don't do what DC Online attempted to do, and try to kludge together a single interface for both PC and console gamers.
The uncanny ability of Sony to take a license to print money (franchises like Star Wars or the DC Universe) and set it on fire and dance around it, boggles my mind.
|
|
AAA PC-only games do not really happen anymore unless they are MMOs.That's not entirely true. By way of example, Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 are both inarguably AAA titles, and neither is an MMORPG (one is a real-time strategy game, the other is an action roleplaying game).
Blizzard does not put out AAA games -- they put out AAAA games. They are the exception to the rule and their titles are still stocked on the shelf NIB ten years after release. Their exceptional status goes beyond all rules which otherwise plainly apply in the industry.
I would note, however, that Diablo 3 is not a PC only game; it's cross-platform. Starcraft 2 was the last such PC only game to be published, and I expect there will not be another one.
The party ended long ago in PC land. There is no money for development of expensive PC only games unless they are essentially MMOs in terms of copy protection.
The one major difficulty, I'd see, is porting it between PC and non-PC platforms, however to solve that, I'd say: make it for the PC, however translate many of the options for non-PC things after the game is done, meaning it's a PC game, but you still gain access to non-PC gamers.
As long as they don't do what DC Online attempted to do, and try to kludge together a single interface for both PC and console gamers.
The uncanny ability of Sony to take a license to print money (franchises like Star Wars or the DC Universe) and set it on fire and dance around it, boggles my mind.
This is basically my point. Trying to have a singular interface for both PC and console is a terrible idea. The first thing is to build it for the PC. Then make it for a console with a refined interface for that console.
Blizzard isn't going to sell the SC2 expansions at prices comparable to the purchase of the initial game. They will be priced as expansions.
I wouldn't be so sure about that.
Blizzard does not put out AAA games -- they put out AAAA games. They are the exception to the rule and their titles are still stocked on the shelf NIB ten years after release. Their exceptional status goes beyond all rules which otherwise plainly apply in the industry.
If you say so.
I think that making up new rankings in order to justify calling something an exception is probably a little weak, though.
I would note, however, that Diablo 3 is not a PC only game; it's cross-platform.
No, it's not. Blizzard has discussed the possibility of bringing D3 to consoles, but nothing has been announced. It was originally conceived of as a PC-only game, and it is, as of now, a PC- (and Mac-) only game.
I don't know whether they deserve their own ranking, but that is what I meant. They are the single, solitary exception; everyone else is following the rule. Former PC stalwarts like Bioware, iD, Bethseda, they are all about consoles now. You can't give a single example of a huge developer still putting out PC-only retail titles,
Call me boring, but I'd be happy with the Baldur's Gate engine.
One could use stealth a lot in that, yet play it turn-based if desired.
NWN was a big disappointment, a step down in quality on all fronts, even graphics. So much beautiful art sacrificed for 'great' 3D effects that were mundane at best, with little effort in story or excitement.
And I liked ToEE too.
It doesn't seem like it'd be that hard to license unused engines.
Paizo wouldn't even need to develop the whole shebang. Tweak the engine to handle PF changes, and put the engine out there with a GM's toolkit. The fans will create the rest...I know I'd love to.
Oooh, how I so wanted to control the Baldur's Gate Engine, had lots of cities and plans and monsters and...but no, I got NWN instead...sigh...
Did anybody ever find an answer to whether it was legal under Open License to develop d20 computer games?
In response to the original question:
No, but I predict there will be another thread just like this one within the next three months; they keep popping up.
If that is what you want, then make one. Settle for tile-based, and see where you end up. Make no mistake, though, the days of big name PC games is over. At least for now. The consoles ARE looking older and older today, and the PC system is outstripping their graphics capabilities pretty rapidly. Even so, a game of supreme graphics isn't what is likely to bring you a new Pathfinder game.
I don't know whether they deserve their own ranking, but that is what I meant. They are the single, solitary exception; everyone else is following the rule. Former PC stalwarts like Bioware, iD, Bethseda, they are all about consoles now. You can't give a single example of a huge developer still putting out PC-only retail titles, because none of them can sell nearly as many as Blizzard does.
I may be wrong on the MMO angle in the long run, as more inventive ways are designed for PC games to sap large amounts of revenue. But the explosion of small-budget indie steam games is not going to ever produce a real Neverwinter Nights experience that is both accessible to as large an audience as said games, complex enough to at least pretend it is following 3.5 rules, and not be locked down with some serious copy protection like say, logging into a purchased account, as well as some other subscription or microtransaction model to keep paying as you go.
Bioware is NOT all about consoles now. Consider Knights of the Old Republic. Bioware is great at translating licensed property correctly, and KoToR MMO MAY be the competitor WOW has been waiting for.
KoToR I imagine will turn out to be the Pathfinder of the MMO industry. It will be tough for it to reach #1 but it certainly COULD in a couple years.
Still the PC games have mostly gone the route of MMO's for that you are correct. I prefer to play RPG's on consoles, but PC's still reign supreme for Wargames like TOTAL WAR, CIVILIZATION, and the RTS empire builders.
I have an old 2005 PC that runs Medieval Total War II just fine, and Sid's PIRATES!, so that is all I need. I gave up on other PC games long ago and pretty much just play on consoles. I give the uber PC to my wife for her WOW and KoToR fix.
If that is what you want, then make one. Settle for tile-based, and see where you end up. Make no mistake, though, the days of big name PC games is over. At least for now. The consoles ARE looking older and older today, and the PC system is outstripping their graphics capabilities pretty rapidly. Even so, a game of supreme graphics isn't what is likely to bring you a new Pathfinder game.
IF you can afford that High Graphics machine and its maintenance.
The Consoles are actually not that old looking. Consider the difference between Skyrim and Oblivion. I don't think the developers in 2007 of ANY game new the capacity of the XBOX 360 console (I imagine it applies to PS3 as well). The New games for the 360 practically feel like another generation of gaming. The games for 360 and PS3 have evolved far more from their beginning phase, than the time of 6th generation XBOX or PS2.
So the nice thing about the console is with the new games coming out you KNOW your system will run them without problem. I don't have to upgrade. if I do it will mean the 8th generation is here and I need to spend $600 for a new console every 4-7 years. The video cards are about $400. And you cannot run anything on them without all the other components of the PC.
So YEs the PC's certainly can amaze with graphics. But if your a schleb that cannot build your own computer for $1500 to get that machine, your stuck paying Dell or Alien $4000 for that machine.
Yay you can word process on it too.
I like the console now. I NEVER have a headache, of being excited for a game only to find out there is a conflict with my security program. Or my vid card has to be adjusted.
|
|
I despize consoles, i vehemently refuse to play on them...i know that that is a dumb attitude, but i hate the fact that PC gaming is suffering because of them. PC has been and will always be the ultimate gaming platform. There is nothing a console can do that a PC can't do better.
The only console i see myself playing is perhaps Wii...
I despize consoles, i vehemently refuse to play on them...i know that that is a dumb attitude,
If you know it's a dumb position, why do you continue to hold it?
but i hate the fact that PC gaming is suffering because of them. PC has been and will always be the ultimate gaming platform.
PC gaming is suffering precisely because it is not the ultimate gaming platform. It is a gaming platform, and it has its strengths and weaknesses. If it were the be-all, end-all of gaming, the market would look very, very different right now.
There is nothing a console can do that a PC can't do better.
Standardization, broad online connectivity, affordable pricing, and local multiplayer all spring to mind.
Because all consoles of the same platform contain identical (or roughly identical) hardware, they are much more straightforward to develop for than PCs.
Because consoles of the same platform all come from the same manufacturer, that manufacturer can provide a comprehensive online platform that is both ubiquitous and ideally-tailored to their own platform.
Because console hardware is dedicated and standardized, it can be produced very affordably. Additionally, because consoles encourage continued sales from the console manufacturer of peripherals, proprietary games, online services, and other add-ons, they can incorporate loss-leader marketing strategies to further reduce the entry cost to consumers.
Because consoles have an accepted position as tethered to the family television - typically a significantly larger screen than a monitor, designed to be experienced by multiple people at the same time - and because that television is typically located in one of the household's social hubs, consoles are better-suited than PCs as platforms of certain social games - especially locally social (as opposed to online social) games.
The stance that consoles have nothing to offer compared to PCs is simply unsupportable. Period.
So YEs the PC's certainly can amaze with graphics. But if your a schleb that cannot build your own computer for $1500 to get that machine, your stuck paying Dell or Alien $4000 for that machine.
An enthusiast gaming PC does not cost $1500 to build, nor does it cost anywhere near $4000 to get one built for you. I assembled one not two weeks ago for well under $900, including some "above-and-beyond" luxury components like a solid state drive to handle the OS and other common apps. It runs Battlefield 3 at full HD resolution with graphics options set to Ultra, and it's smooth as silk.
Does that compare to consoles? No, certainly not. I can go out and buy a $200 console that will run Battlefield 3 at full HD resolution (with much less impressive graphics, mind you) and have a very playable experience. But the astronomically high costs you're citing are not anything close to what a solid gaming PC costs.
And really, learning how to assemble a PC is not hard. I'm hardly an IT professional, and I hadn't built a PC in ten years, but it didn't take me more than an afternoon to get it put together, with no hiccups. There are guides online, and every component will come with instructions.