www.joystiq.com/2010/02/11/wizards-of-th...
Since Bioware has gone another direction with the RPG games (Dragonage: Origins), it might be a while for another taker. It would be good to see a computer game based on the 4th edition rules though.
-Hasbro Files Suit Against Atari Over Dungeons & Dragons Deal-
Related to the subject, if Atari's deal is still active and applies to 4E, that might just count Bioware out. Though Obsidian is still possible. And there's always the possibility a relatively unknown studio making one.
I hope Hasbro wins and recover the rights for more appropriate hands.
(assumin you are talkin bout Star Trek Online)
That being said. Atari isn't exactly good hands for D&D anymore. It's time to move it on to someone more competent.
Sadly, it's been decades (as in, more than one) since Atari was competent. Combine that with WotC's complete inability to manage this newfangled "digital" medium, and we're past 1.5 years of 4E without even a hint of a PC game coming out.
Why should there be a 4E game out? RPGs these days (aside from the big titles like Dragon Age and FInal Fantasy) are *very* niche titles. Would it really be worth the cost to try to get something developed?
Why should there be a 4E game out? RPGs these days (aside from the big titles like Dragon Age and FInal Fantasy) are *very* niche titles. Would it really be worth the cost to try to get something developed?
Niche?
Is Fallout 3 niche?
Is Mass Effect Niche?
Is Kotor niche?
Is Oblivion Niche?
the Baldur's gate games niche?
Neverwinter?
If those are your ideas of Niche games then there's no such thing as Mainstream in your mind.
Yes it's worth the cost. Infact a D&D nameplate would automatically pretty much generate more sales on the nameplate alone than most games ever get.
You have to remember less than 30 percent of games are estimated to really profit their companies as it is.
Dead Space was a totally new IP and a risky move. There was ZERO established fanbase before it's release. And they did it. It's huge.
Something like D&D on a videogame? Can we say No Brainer? If your attitude is reflective of Wizard's then they really need to get out more. Finish the lawsuit already and get on with it.
Wizards is shooting themselves in the foot by not collecting any royalty funds off of a fresh Videogame. That's also to say nothing of the new gamers they could snatch by videogames.
Case in point Dawn of War. Dawn of War was the best thing that ever happened to Warhammer 40k because it brought in new gamers en mass for the first time in twenty years.
Ps mudbunny if Wizards does decide it's time. I have a handful of game companies that would probably be good to work with, and would release a quality product. (I figure I might as well give a list since they are still hooked up with Atari which just shows how behind the times they are :-p)
Electronic Arts, Bethesda, Valve, heck Epic. Those immediately come to mind.
As a side note. They should also release a console game. More console gamers than pc gamers now are out there.
Cryptic? ... the guys who created CO and STO?
I hope Hasbro wins and recover the rights for more appropriate hands.
I agree. The last thing you want is Cryptic/Atari working on a D&D product. Cryptic's combat is dynamic and can be fun. But everything else is hampered by their company and development team size and restrictive budgetary constraints, their odd business model for MMOs, and their terrible marketing.
The gameplay in Champions and Star Trek is fun. But horribly repetitive. They don't seem to have the staff or the money available to develop content with any depth. And their marketing people tend to not communicate the benefits of their products very well. Those things would kill a D&D product from them for most people interested in D&D video games.
And they can't do what this thread wants ... make 4E rules into a game. They share their engine/system between their games (which is why movement controls in champions have been broken the entire time Star Trek has been up and running, it's really kind of funny until you log into Champs and try to fly forward, heh). So they'd ignore how 4E works and end up with just a re-skinned D&D-looking Champions type of system.
Cryptic ... needs to be nowhere near a D&D video game. At least that's been my experience with their games.
I would probably pee myself if Valve made a 4e game. Do they have any RPG experience though? The only thing that comes to mind are their popular FPS games.
Valve could do it. They are one of the few companies I do infact put total faith in that way.
Why should there be a 4E game out? RPGs these days (aside from the big titles like Dragon Age and FInal Fantasy) are *very* niche titles. Would it really be worth the cost to try to get something developed?
Niche?
Is Fallout 3 niche?
Is Mass Effect Niche?
Is Kotor niche?
Is Oblivion Niche?
the Baldur's gate games niche?
Neverwinter?
If those are your ideas of Niche games then there's no such thing as Mainstream in your mind.
I would argue that KOTOR, NWN and the Baldur's gate games are not recent enough to be any sort of indication on the current market. I admit I did forget about FO3, Oblivion and ME. Having not played ME2, I don't know how much of the RPG elements have been trimmed out of it though, if any.
That being said, how realistic would the translation of the 4E rules to a computer game be? It is arguable that said translation would result in a game that is not really that close to 4E. It woulod be 4E in spirit, but not necessarily an accurate representation of the game.
In addition, you also need to look at all of the RPGs that are put out these days that are relegated to niche markets. The games that you mention above are, for my opinion, the exceptions that prove the rule.
Yes it's worth the cost. Infact a D&D nameplate would automatically pretty much generate more sales on the nameplate alone than most games ever get.
You have to remember less than 30 percent of games are estimated to really profit their companies as it is.
Dead Space was a totally new IP and a risky move. There was ZERO established fanbase before it's release. And they did it. It's huge.
Something like D&D on a videogame? Can we say No Brainer? If your attitude is reflective of Wizard's then they really need to get out more. Finish the lawsuit already and get on with it.
Wizards is shooting themselves in the foot by not collecting any royalty funds off of a fresh Videogame. That's also to say nothing of the new gamers they could snatch by videogames.
If the game is good. Also, what is the risk of people playing the CRPG, coming to try the PnP game and then being toally turned off because it "isn't like the computer game". (Granted, that would be an amusing difference from the regular flames that 4E is too much like a computer game.)
I would argue that KOTOR, NWN and the Baldur's gate games are not recent enough to be any sort of indication on the current market. I admit I did forget about FO3, Oblivion and ME. Having not played ME2, I don't know how much of the RPG elements have been trimmed out of it though, if any.
That being said, how realistic would the translation of the 4E rules to a computer game be? It is arguable that said translation would result in a game that is not really that close to 4E. It woulod be 4E in spirit, but not necessarily an accurate representation of the game.
In addition, you also need to look at all of the RPGs that are put out these days that are relegated to niche markets. The games that you mention above are, for my opinion, the exceptions that prove the rule.
If the game is good. Also, what is the risk of people playing the CRPG, coming to try the PnP game and then being toally turned off because it "isn't like the computer game". (Granted, that would be an amusing difference from the regular flames that 4E is too much like a computer game.)
NWN still has more players playing it on multiplayer than many games that are released NOW can boast.
To put RPGs into perspective. Square Enix makes their bread and butter almost exclusively off of RPGs. They release other title types rarely. (Infact I can pretty much count the other title types and still have digits left over, since the PS1 days) Square also pretends very hard that pc gamers don't exist. So they aren't even catering to a large market and obviously are still a Big Name in gaming. (even if they are the but of so many jokes at this point)
Obviously loads of people are playing RPGs. Particularly on the Consoles. (which is where you SHOULD be releasing your games anyway.) More than enough, for a company to release rpgs and sustain themselves almost exclusively upon them.
Have you played Dragon Age? It wasn't even intending to be 4e and frankly it plays more like D&D than any D&D pc -or- console game released to date. Remember the comment I made about Atari not being exactly competent? Same with Snowblind. (the two companies that have gotten the Lions Share of pc and console D&D games) They aren't that good frankly. I could think of alot of easy ways for it to play like D&D, mimicking Dragon Age among them. The other easier route is to make it turn based.
Most games that get released period are going to be Niche unless they are successful beyond belief. (Which happens when a product is particularly good) Like it or not D&D right now is a Niche. P&Pgaming is not what the majority thinks of when they think of RPG.
Alot fewer than you'd think versus the number of people that try out the game buy the books and enjoy the experience if the job on the Electronic counterpart was even half way competent. Case in point again is Dawn of War.
I also know alot of people that were converted to D&D after they played NWN. They stayed too. Even if some of them did note that NWN was actually better designed than the parent system it was inspired by.
Mass Effect 2 is very much an RPG. There is no denying or pretending otherwise. It's been streamlined and alot of the awkwardness of ME1 is no longer present, while keeping everything that was good about the first game and in most cases IMPROVING it. They didn't turn it into a shooter with customizing options.
No it's pure RPG.
Infact a D&D nameplate would automatically pretty much generate more sales on the nameplate alone than most games ever get.
I'll have to disagree with that heavily. Most D&D games sell for different reasons than D&D being in their title. In fact, the two most popular franchises (Neverwinter Nights and Baldur's Gate) had D&D nowhere in the title. They actually had Forgotten Realms, instead.
The games that did have D&D in their title didn't tend to do that well as far as I'm aware. DDO is probably the exception. Tactics, Dragonshard, and Heroes are not games you're going to find overly many people recognize by name.
Infact a D&D nameplate would automatically pretty much generate more sales on the nameplate alone than most games ever get.
I'll have to disagree with that heavily. Most D&D games sell for different reasons than D&D being in their title. In fact, the two most popular franchises (Neverwinter Nights and Baldur's Gate) had D&D nowhere in the title. They actually had Forgotten Realms, instead.
The games that did have D&D in their title didn't tend to do that well as far as I'm aware. DDO is probably the exception. Tactics, Dragonshard, and Heroes are not games you're going to find overly many people recognize by name.
Unless I'm mistaken there is a D&D logo on those games.
I know that Baldurs gate dark alliance has the D&D logo on the back.
Here's the thing. A D&D game would best be served by releasing by it's setting. Emblazen Eberron, or FR's name on the front, and put the D&D logo below it or on the back of the box.
The thing with the FR games (as I call them) is they aren't true to their parent systems, because Atari is incompetent at doing anything with existing material. Also, up till now frankly the parent rule system wasn't really capable of being ported. Because it was convoluted at the best of times as it was.
4e would be a pretty easy port. Even in a non turn based game. (Thanks to MMO mechanics being so refined and established. Again see DragonAge for what I'm talkin about)
I admit I did forget about FO3, Oblivion and ME.
Don't worry, most Fallout wants want to forget about FO3.
I admit I did forget about FO3, Oblivion and ME.
Don't worry, most Fallout wants want to forget about FO3.
Funny I don't even think about the first two Fallouts when someone says Fallout to me.
I instantly think of 3. to me the other two are more like curiousities that I need to check out. But really I can't envision Fallout being played any other way.
Fallout 3 is a fantastic game.
I used to love the original Legend of Zelda. By todays standards its graphics are childlike but yet in my opinion it still remains a great game. An open game world with hours of exploration and puzzle solving.
What I want is a game where you create a full party using 4E D&D creation system and a turn based combat using small miniature figures that represent your characters without going into great detail that involves faces or voices. I more enjoy outfitting a full party with D&D gear while exploring dungeons.
Thats just my opinion and wishlist but the kind of game I would enjoy doesnt require tons of hours and money on super computer animation and movie scenes.
I too want to see a 4E D&D pc game. But I am really not interested in the way current games are these days like Dragon Age and Morrowind or any MMO out there. In fact I would love for graphics and hour long scenematic scenes to take a back seat to exploration and combat tactics.
I used to love the original Legend of Zelda. By todays standards its graphics are childlike but yet in my opinion it still remains a great game. An open game world with hours of exploration and puzzle solving.
What I want is a game where you create a full party using 4E D&D creation system and a turn based combat using small miniature figures that represent your characters without going into great detail that involves faces or voices. I more enjoy outfitting a full party with D&D gear while exploring dungeons.
Thats just my opinion and wishlist but the kind of game I would enjoy doesnt require tons of hours and money on super computer animation and movie scenes.
You could probably make it for a handheld, or on XBox Live arcade (actually there are dev kits for just that that Microsoft sells. Just sayin)
Most gamers want a set cast for their games. I want to have a Shepard as a D&D character. I think that'd be bad ass. (notice I said nothing about Mannequin Age's protagonist :-p)
Besides Dragonage is all about tactics and strategic play. (at least the console version is) It's not Xenosaga or Final Fantasy which place a Cinema First everything second mindset over well everything else.
Dragon age has some wicked good gameplay. And a very deep and involving story. (though Mass Effect in my opinion, your choices matter alot more)
I'd like to see a turn-based 4e game as well, something like Final Fantasy tactics blended with Kotor and battle for wesnoth. More 3-d isometric than whole map wesnoth/ogre battle style with one party.
I think going with an established setting (like eberron or FR) is a must, all that content and tie in with published books can't be ignored.
I would argue that KOTOR, NWN and the Baldur's gate games are not recent enough to be any sort of indication on the current market. I admit I did forget about FO3, Oblivion and ME. Having not played ME2, I don't know how much of the RPG elements have been trimmed out of it though, if any.
There are people who swear until they're blue in the face that ME2 got rid of all the RPG elements and that it's a horrible game because of that. They're wrong, but they exist. ME2 is definitely still a RPG.
Also, technically WoW, WAR online, STO, the future Old Republic, and pretty muc every other MMO are RPGs.
I admit I did forget about FO3, Oblivion and ME.
Don't worry, most Fallout wants want to forget about FO3.
Wrong. Fallout 3 is a great game. The only people that want to forget about it are the idiots at No Mutants Allowed, who love to spend their time whining or trolling about FO3.
Needless to say, I am pretty burnt out on MMO's, single player RPG's are only marginally better, however, they do get rid of the one thing that MMO's seem to be unable or unwilling to avoid: Grind. Their stories are still pretty linear with all roads leading to the same ending... but that is largely mitigated by the communities that form around the games themselves with user generated content keeping the games alive for YEARS... just take a look at TES Nexus to get an idea.
So, while I would love another Balders Gate or Neverwinter nights, I truly believe that the best bet for licensing the next D&D title should be something that allows people to play solo or in groups of various sizes and allow for user generated content to be created, distributed, rated and filtered in an attempt to create a more interactive RPG experience that takes advantage of networking technology but without being an MMO in the World of Warcraft/Everquest/Guild Wars sense. It would effectively be putting a very user friendly set of developer tools in the end-users hands in order to create content which would then be hosted and distributed to and for the community.
Obviously, this could get into Open Source or Proprietary issues at the core of the games development, I personally believe that if the a solid foundation is provided by the developer and a robust and user friendly toolset is provided to the community, I believe that the core of the game and distribution of various modifications and addons can be kept proprietary (and profitable) while the user generated portion would be communally owned or immediately in the public domain. The developer really would only need to provide technical support of the tool set and not really have to bother with maintaining a constant and consistent digital world, while still making money from users that are not only playing the game but generating content as well. In my mind, that is the ultimate digital representation of what D&D is and the role it plays in its gamers lives.
STO is actually alot of fun.
(assumin you are talkin bout Star Trek Online)
That being said. Atari isn't exactly good hands for D&D anymore. It's time to move it on to someone more competent.
as a long time DDO player, I'd have to agree. Heartily.
It's a bad sign when both the guys you're licensing the name from, and the guys you're publishing the game with, are sueing you for shady practices.
unfortunately, most roads here seem lead to to a high probability of the Dungeons and Dragons: Online community being screwed.
bummer. especially for Turbine, who are working really, really hard to improve DDO and get it's player base up, and doing a great job so far. They got screwed, and they're making the best of it, and the game is still great, and getting better with every update....
dammit.
I mean, they just upgraded the look of the game, again. For the...what, 4th, 5th time? More? Some of those upgrades were heavy duty upgrades. At the highest settings especially, the game now makes the original release look like graphical dung, and yet I can still play it on mid to low settings on my crappy laptop with 1 gig of ram and lack of a "real" graphics card (just have the stock onboard graphics engine.).
klsdjf
sorry. this whole thing just made me need to vent. I really don't want to lose my game, but I also want someone worth giving money to making new dnd games, rather than atari.
It's too bad Turbine isn't a bigger studio with resources to publish things independantly. I'd love to see them make some 4e dnd rpgs, as well as continue doing DDO and LoTR:O.
I would argue that KOTOR, NWN and the Baldur's gate games are not recent enough to be any sort of indication on the current market. I admit I did forget about FO3, Oblivion and ME. Having not played ME2, I don't know how much of the RPG elements have been trimmed out of it though, if any.
That being said, how realistic would the translation of the 4E rules to a computer game be? It is arguable that said translation would result in a game that is not really that close to 4E. It woulod be 4E in spirit, but not necessarily an accurate representation of the game.
In addition, you also need to look at all of the RPGs that are put out these days that are relegated to niche markets. The games that you mention above are, for my opinion, the exceptions that prove the rule.
If the game is good. Also, what is the risk of people playing the CRPG, coming to try the PnP game and then being toally turned off because it "isn't like the computer game". (Granted, that would be an amusing difference from the regular flames that 4E is too much like a computer game.)
just thought I'd through out a few more.
anticipations for the kotor mmo is high enough that it probably reflects at least a decent portion of the market. heck, bioware's entire reputation is built on rpgs.
assassin's creed. AC 2 gets some subpar reviews, but it's still popular.
hmm, ok I'm blanking now. Of course, I don't think I could come up with a greater number of fps franchises/games, or rts's.
Point is, rpgs are a healthy portion of the gaming market.
someone else(too lazy to check who it was): Don't underestimate the value of the PC. It's rising in popularity again, as studios are putting out more worthwhile PC titles, and more people are realizing that you can make better* games for the PC than you can for the consoles, and that will probably never change.
*by better I mean higher graphical quality, more content, easier updates/expansion model, etc. gameplay quality is dependent of platform, for the most part.
Cpt, I disagree that companies should be focusing on consoles. For one thing, the kids that are in school right now now far more about computers (per capita, as it were) than even my generation, and I only graduated 7 years ago. They know that PCs have better graphical potential, and every year, PC games become more popular. Also, PCs have gotten to a point in price where you can have someone build you a workable gaming rig for 500 dollars, if you shop around, and for less than a grand, a damn near top of the line rig. Those numbers aren't likely to get higher as time goes on, and computers have far more uses than consoles, in general. most people have, or want a computer in their homes, and given a direct choice will buy a computer before a console.
these trends don't seem likely to reverse themselves any time soon, so companies should definately be looking at PCs, if they aren't already.
as an example of why PCs are superior, and gamers know it: oblivion, and it's predessor morrowind, and dragon age. All three games are much better, in multiple ways, on the PC. In obvious ways, even. it's practically a no contest. I can't play oblivion on a console any more, it drives me nuts. and dragon age...don't get me started on it's console version. bleck.
Consoles right now are a bigger market than PC gaming is.
(or was the last I checked a year or so ago)
You don't want to be stupid and forsake the console market.
Mass Effect and it's sequel I could not imagine playing on a PC that would be total
I also frankly couldn't imagine Fallout 3 on the pc.
As far as I'm concerned Wasd movement can go shove itself up it's **** and die :-p
Consoles I think are much more portable than pcs which give them alot of uses over pcs. Consoles are also still far cheaper than pcs (as you pointed out if you BUILT A PC YOURSELF you could have a decent workable gamin rig for 500) but consoles are 400, and are typically far better than -any- pc you can buy at that price level. You'd be looking at 800 vs 400 (now 299 really).
Consoles are the cheaper thing to get into. Also, most people can't build their own computer (won't rather cause a blind monkey could do it nowadays). So the low cost is really alot higher cause they have to pay someone else to build it for them or buy one premade, and hope it has a Real Graphics Card.
actually I prefer the console versions of those games.
Consoles right now are a bigger market than PC gaming is.
(or was the last I checked a year or so ago)
You don't want to be stupid and forsake the console market.
Mass Effect and it's sequel I could not imagine playing on a PC that would be total
I also frankly couldn't imagine Fallout 3 on the pc.
As far as I'm concerned Wasd movement can go shove itself up it's **** and die :-p
Consoles I think are much more portable than pcs which give them alot of uses over pcs. Consoles are also still far cheaper than pcs (as you pointed out if you BUILT A PC YOURSELF you could have a decent workable gamin rig for 500) but consoles are 400, and are typically far better than -any- pc you can buy at that price level. You'd be looking at 800 vs 400 (now 299 really).
Consoles are the cheaper thing to get into. Also, most people can't build their own computer (won't rather cause a blind monkey could do it nowadays). So the low cost is really alot higher cause they have to pay someone else to build it for them or buy one premade, and hope it has a Real Graphics Card.
In my experiance, the majority of gamers either can build a rig themselves, or is friends with at least one person who can. Even amongst all the console gamers I know, and they are many, I know exactly one guy who is a complete computer noob, and he was stereotypical jock for most of highschool, before an injury and the star wars roleplaying game saved him from growing into a total D-Bag. (by his own admission.) and even he, having recently been talked into getting more into computers by his wife, has asked another friend to build him a decent gaming rig.
As the saying in the PC gaming world goes "Not even noobs buy a Dell. Their grandmothers might, but even noobs aren't that new."
it's a bit tongue in cheek, of course, and certainly a bit of hyperbole, but there is a grain of truth in it.
and of course, if you already have a computer, but it isn't gaming ready, you'll be spending even less on a new pc, unless you insist on a new monitor, keyboard, mouse, and sound system. If your friend the computer guy is willing to go through the trouble(not much, honestly) you can even reuse the old case, generally without any problems. same thing with dvd drives a lot of the time.
so, 500-600 is a good baseline for someone who isn't that savvy, and needs someone else to build it for them.
the average end user probably still just goes out and buys a computer from best buy, but we're talking about gamers, and gamers tend to know better. mostly they know that they're getting royally gipped when they go out and buy a dell. (and don't get me started on the dell windows installs...I'll say things that will get me banned. i'm already having trouble keeping myself from going into a rant on the subject....)
wasd+mouse is, to me, a far more elegant control system. Pause systems work better on PCs, generally. Graphical quality is superior, and yet you can play most game with the graphics turned down if you are on an older rig.
The fact is, ignoring either market completely is a mistake for any gaming company other than square enix, and really, they'd be making even more money if they started porting their games to the PC.
A PC at, say 500-600 dollars is a much better general value than a pc at 400, and even at 300, imo. You can do relatively little with a console outside of gaming, and everything you can do on a console you can also do on a pc.
\aside:The only things pcs are missing is support for multi-player on a single rig, which will come in time. Already it's becoming far more common to hook up a media center PC to your livingroom pc, and there're already PC ready console controllers. While completely invalidated all functions of the console is a way off still, it's only because no one has really been working on it yet. Microsoft sure isn't going to invalidate the usefullness of their console, and none of the other console makers do general computer stuff.
that's all that's keeping consoles alive. By the time I'm buying birthday presents for teenage children or nieces and nephews, (ten years or so) there will be no reason to choose a console over a pc, I'm betting.
/aside
back to the present, a 500 dollar pc can play all but the newest games, and if you do it right, can be tweaked for those as well sometimes, and you can more easily access the internet, in a better format. you can later install both a dvd and blue ray drive, and of course the ever popular torrented movies, shows, etc. however you feel about torrenting, it has a far from negligible effect on the electronic entertainment market. for two hundred dollars(assuming 300 dollar consoles) more you get roughly twice the general usefullness, and if you can afford a 6 or 7 hundred dollar machine, you get everything you would from a console (minus console exclusive games, which are becoming more and more rare) at noticably better graphical quality, and often better gameplay due to the greater versitility of PC control schemes, plus a host of options not available on a console, or simply done better on the PC.
And, of course, most households already want/need a PC if they don't already have one, whereas a console is exclusively a luxery item, unless you're a game tester.
hell, for a couple hundred more, at most(in terms of minimum cash for value. obviously, if money isn't an issue you can spend well over a grand on a PC, and have something truly epic, similar with laptops) , than the PC, you can get a good gaming laptop, making LAN parties a simple matter of chucking your laptop in your bag, buying snacks and beer, and you're good to go.
My buddy's house right now has a PC he threw together from spare parts hooked up to the big screen in the living room, and uses the PC sub and speakers for sound, wireless keyboard with built in mouse (thumbwheel. could have gotten one with a mousepad, but he liked the thumbwheel model more). all his media is stored on the server in his garrage, but mostly that's because he has it anyway for lans, and it allows him to keep his crappiest little hard drive in the media center PC. The other day, we were playing one of the old street fighters, using cheap third party 360 controllers and an emulator. If he were to upgrade the media center PC, we could do a lot more. I think you can probably convert a lot of the modern pc games to use a console style controller in the settings, but I haven't tested it.
I just don't see any reason to ever spend money on a console. To me, it's half the cost of the most expensive PC I'd be willing to build for myself right now, for maybe a quarter of the use.
not to mention that in a few years that console will be outdated, and a new console from the same company will be out, whereas my currect gaming rig will still run some new games with adjusted graphics, and I have plenty of room to upgrade the ram, graphics card, etc, all for less money than buying a new console.
-I really can't see how anyone could ever prefer playing dragon age on a console, having played both. the control scheme is terrible in comparison. and the pause system...ack. no thanks. it's like the developementally challenged little brother of the PC version, IMO.-
and while console games may still have a larger percentage of the market right now, not certain either way on that one, PCs have been steadily climbing for the last few years. Particularly the last two years, with no signs of slowing down.
seriously, though, how can you hate wasd? I mean, it doesn't make a huge difference in prgs if both versions are well made (the main difference in such games is the graphics and availability/ease of aquisition of mods), but in an fps...ouch. I'd hate to sacrifice the freedom of movement and moving accuracy of wasd+mouse.
just a matter of preference, I guess. just confuses me.
by the way, I really don't mean to tear down your love of consoles, or even consoles themselves, really. I greatly prefer PCs, and see them as the future of gaming, unless something completely new presents itself.
But between the original price of the game, and getting all the DLC when they came out ... yeah, I can't justify going and buying the PC version too.
It's not like we are talking about Mac here (yeah I just went there.)
Regarding this, I can only say that modern TV's generally are PC-ready and can be hooked up easily. Also, computers are incredibly more versatile. You not only can play with them, you can also do office work, 3d modelling, programming and about ten million other things, which consoles are not capable of.
Also, if you buy yourself a good PC (say around 1000$) you can make use of that machine for at least 3 years in full capacity. A friend of mine purchased his PC two years and a bit more ago and he installed Dragonage and ran it at maximum graphics at easily 40 fps.
So yeah, PC's cost a bit more but allow you do to a billion things more than any console can.
This. A million times, this.
at a grand, you're not only going to be able to keep using it at full capacity for 2 or 3 years minimum, but you will most likely have more room than you'll need to upgrade later on.
at that price range you're looking at a motherboard that supports 4 sticks of high capacity ram with dual(quad?) channel, has an onboard graphics "card" built in with it's own ram, and room for one or more after stock graphics cards, one of which slots will be fitted with a card that at least approaches top of the line (and honestly, you damn near never need top of the line graphics cards. one step down will pretty much always cover you just fine.), a quad core processor at a good to great speed, and a good capacity hard drive. all those good to great/almost top of line ratings will be increased if you are reusing a monitor, sound system, etc.
as long as you don't become poor in that time, you'll be using the same rig to run every game that comes out for a good 5 years, without turning anything down.
as for portability, you should check out some of the case designs that are becoming popular. I'm eyeing a media center PC from the store at which my friend works that is about the size of a VCR, and can do everything I need a media center PC to do, for 500. pre-built.
I'll probably just end up spending that money on a gaming PC, though, since my laptop is low-grade and "my" gaming rig is actually a friends, and I play on it all the time, because his computer room have 4 gaming rigs set up. (same friend with the server and media center, and who works at the store, unsuprisingly.) probably use my laptop as a media center, since it has all the right ports, and if I transfer the games and such on it to a desktop, it'll have plenty of room. and of course, networking the laptop and pc will be pretty easy.
yeah, I'm definately never going back to consoles.
might get a wii, but that's it. there aren't any console games I'm excited about that aren't on either the wii, or the PC. the wii is cheap enough, and unique enough, that it's worth it if I have the spare cash lying around. 360 and ps3? Wouldn't bother even if I had enough money that my bank account wouldn't even notice the expenditure. Why bother?
I have FO3 on the console, and there are times I wish I had gotten it on PC instead. Not because of the controls, but because the PC version can be modded. Man I wish I could use that one mod that expands the GNR playlist with a lot more 30s & 40s songs.
But between the original price of the game, and getting all the DLC when they came out ... yeah, I can't justify going and buying the PC version too.
bummer, man.
Have you looked into Steam at all?
store.steampowered.com/
between the demos, previews, deals and the fact that when you register a game with steam you never lose it...there's no reason to pc game without an account. and accounts are free.
You can buy games through steam, and you can register games you already own with steam. either way, if your rig crashes, or what have you, you can redownload the game for free with the steam client.
also, demos. and previews. and gaming news.
it's pretty damn sweet.
The thing is though you'd be incredibly stupid to not release console versions of the game. No matter how pro pc you are. Consoles sell loads of games.
It's not like we are talking about Mac here (yeah I just went there.)
Admitted. In fact, I stated in one of my posts that it's a bad idea for most companies to ignore either platform right now. Consoles sell not only to actual gamers, but also to casual users, and PCs sell more than just the original copy of the game. expansions are very popular for any reasonably popular game, and by allowing mods and putting out expansions you can keep a game alive and profitable for a suprising length of time. all of which is easier for PCs.
either way, I'd personally rather see a PC game ported to consoles than the other way around, and it would be a mistake to ignore either.
wasd+mouse is, to me, a far more elegant control system.
Personally, I'd claim that ESDF + mouse is the best / most elegant control system. Everyone who has into Starsiege Tribes knows that ;)
Really, with ESDF you have a whole column of keys more you can access at highest speed (q/a/y). This enables you to make use of even more buttons without having to lift your hand from the usual movement keys.
A fair bit of games don't need it, but it sure is incredibly helpful.
I've no objection. I figure wasd works because people are so used to it, but that doens't need to be the case forever.
Either one of these retains most, if not all functionality of using a standard keyboard with increased comfort and a much wider range of customization. Combined with a g15 (or similar gaming keyboard) and you have more than enough assignable keys and macro functionality... and you just can't get that with a console.
The plus side of consoles though is that it forces a number of developers to use the same or similar standards... Graphical quality is pretty consistent on a console from game to game and used/bargain bin console games are VERY cheap. You can get a game for 5-20 bucks around a year after its relase on console, whereas with a PC game, you are looking at still paying 20-40. Also, there is no such thing as Secure-ROM on a console... and let me just tell you, I hate Secure-ROM. Software demons like EA are pushing the limits of plausibility with their claims of what rights they have as copyright holders... but that is an issue for another topic.
That said, I game on both PC and console simply because each has games it does better than the other... but if part of the problem with giving PC gaming a fair shake has to do with the interface options, there are reasonably cheap perifrials that can make your life much easier and open up a whole new world of gaming with (generally) better graphical quality and the wide world of game mods.
I am an old Atari VCS (2600) player, and bought consoles from then on. I really dispised Nintendo for a long time, first for stealing and co-oping Tetris from Tengen, and the other is all the games on the console (with rare exceptions) was turned into an exploration game even if it wasn't one in the arcade/puter version. Then I heard about the licensing exclusives, preventing popular games from being put published on the 5200 (or 7800, the brief system released for a bit) or the Genesis.
Now it has evolved. It is mostly FPS now, with an occasional port of a PC game (Like Dragon Age:Origins) and several Pitfall/Mario games to fill out the quota. When Microsoft came into it, making a cheap computer into a stiff console with a fat, wonky controller. The Game Cube, with it's more focused gaming content and a controller that I feel was the best of the joypads of all the consoles, was the best fit for gaming even though it had less of the power of the other two (Sony PS2 and Xbox).
I plan on getting the Wii soon, and the PS3 for FFXIII (I will never lower myself to get any version of the Xbox)
The Computer will always have the better advantage over the consoles, but the consoles now have a comparable graphics engine, though once they start age computers surpass their capabilities, or already were equal in power in the case of the Xbox/Xbox 360 when they were released. The advantage they have, over the computers, is portability and being able to plug and play from the box.
What the future holds is the question. Nintendo will have a console first, the Wii being a novelty for now, and that will wear off. It will most likely be backwards compatible with the Gamecube and Wii, and hopefully have the option to have controllers (bring back the GameCube joypads, please) instead of the wave sticks.
The PS4 will most likely still have Cell tech, but have a graphics system that will be it's own, instead of the hastily pasted in 3D card the PS3 has now. Blu Ray will still be there, as well as the next version of movie distribution (even though it won't be Sony's baby). The Xbox 720 will be just like the one before, a new box with current puter innards, equal to the current puters (or slightly less than top of the line) with no backward compatibility.
I will take computers over consoles these days, considering WIN7 is more stable than anything before it and it has taken out the stupid from Vista. The next battle, however, is the viruses call DRM (Starforce in particular) that needs to be purged from our games.
:D of course, it seems that I'd agree with you, so it wouldn't start out too bad, but it would turn bad, and somewhere around page 132 I'd find myself wondering where it all went wrong...and then I'd remember. Oh yeah...I should have just said..yeah.
so,
yeah.
:D
But I don't think that there will be a serious 4E video game anytime soon.
- The Hasbro lawsuite. While that one is ongoing, all development on a D&D title is on ice or at least on the backburner.
- It seems to me that the interest is swinging more towards science fiction again and away from fantasy. There have been some big sci-fi releases in both movies and games (Star Trek movie, Avatar, Star Trek online, Mass Effect 2) and many high profile sci-fi video games have been announced (Star Wars MMO, Starcraft 2, Dawn of War 2 Addon,...). Fantasy on the other hand did only get one major release in the near past (Dragon Age) and most stuff is rather unknown/regional (Risen, Drakensang). The only big announcments I can think off is the Dragon Age Addon and Diablo 3 (which isn't really known for its setting and story, so not much fantasy hype there). That means that if Hasbro puts up the D&D license for sale again, there will be less interest in it.
- The 4E system does not translate well into real time combat. It has too many interrupt powers etc. for that. This means the combat system would need a pretty big rewrite. Turn based games would be an option, but those games don't sell really well on the mass market. And you have to sell more games than normal because you had to pay for the expensive D&D franchise
- Most traditional RPG companies have their own IPs and are currently occupied. Bioware has Dragon Age, Mass Effect and the Star Wars MMO, Obsidian has Alpha Protocol (and works for Atari, which means license problems during the lawsuit), Bethesda has Fallout and Elder Scrolls and Square/Enix likely isn't interested in a western rpg IP. There really isn't a studio, known for their RPGs, free to make an D&D RPG. Giving a unproven studio a valuable IP can work (see Batman: Arkham Asylum), but more often it doesn't
- The D&D brand doesn't mean success. There are quite some not well received D&D games out there (Dragonshard, DDO,...). That means the brand doesn't have that much of a Hype attached to non PnP video gamers. That lessens the value of the IP. Also, as the new game would use 4E, it means that you have to create a new brand of D&D game and can't simply reuse the better known D&D brand names (Baldurs Gate, Neverwinter Nights) as fans likely won't accept a different rules set.
translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev...
Looks someone is making a D&D like free2play asia MMO. The translator might not be perfect, but I don't think it puts words like "Beholder" and "Illithid" in there by accident, which are copyrighted D&D creatures. Somehow I doubt that they have WotCs blessing to use them. Not that something like this stopped the chinese before.
4E is not my cup of tea for PnP gaming, but I would like to see an rpg video game (as nearly all problems I have with 4E do not apply for a video game, or don't matter).
But I don't think that there will be a serious 4E video game anytime soon.There have been one mention of a possible D&D game, but its likely not something you want to see.
- The Hasbro lawsuite. While that one is ongoing, all development on a D&D title is on ice or at least on the backburner.
- It seems to me that the interest is swinging more towards science fiction again and away from fantasy. There have been some big sci-fi releases in both movies and games (Star Trek movie, Avatar, Star Trek online, Mass Effect 2) and many high profile sci-fi video games have been announced (Star Wars MMO, Starcraft 2, Dawn of War 2 Addon,...). Fantasy on the other hand did only get one major release in the near past (Dragon Age) and most stuff is rather unknown/regional (Risen, Drakensang). The only big announcments I can think off is the Dragon Age Addon and Diablo 3 (which isn't really known for its setting and story, so not much fantasy hype there). That means that if Hasbro puts up the D&D license for sale again, there will be less interest in it.
- The 4E system does not translate well into real time combat. It has too many interrupt powers etc. for that. This means the combat system would need a pretty big rewrite. Turn based games would be an option, but those games don't sell really well on the mass market. And you have to sell more games than normal because you had to pay for the expensive D&D franchise
- Most traditional RPG companies have their own IPs and are currently occupied. Bioware has Dragon Age, Mass Effect and the Star Wars MMO, Obsidian has Alpha Protocol (and works for Atari, which means license problems during the lawsuit), Bethesda has Fallout and Elder Scrolls and Square/Enix likely isn't interested in a western rpg IP. There really isn't a studio, known for their RPGs, free to make an D&D RPG. Giving a unproven studio a valuable IP can work (see Batman: Arkham Asylum), but more often it doesn't
- The D&D brand doesn't mean success. There are quite some not well received D&D games out there (Dragonshard, DDO,...). That means the brand doesn't have that much of a Hype attached to non PnP video gamers. That lessens the value of the IP. Also, as the new game would use 4E, it means that you have to create a new brand of D&D game and can't simply reuse the better known D&D brand names (Baldurs Gate, Neverwinter Nights) as fans likely won't accept a different rules set.
translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev...
Looks someone is making a D&D like free2play asia MMO. The translator might not be perfect, but I don't think it puts words like "Beholder" and "Illithid" in there by accident, which are copyrighted D&D creatures. Somehow I doubt that they have WotCs blessing to use them. Not that something like this stopped the chinese before.
Mostly I don't take posts like this seriously, because I have little to no faith in anyone speaking on the internet predicting such things. It's not a bash on you, just sayin. They've published dnd games when fantasy wasn't the big thing before. Some did well, some didn't. Most of the things in 4e that don't seem like they'd transfer well can be converted to speed bonuses or penalties, whether to movement or attack speed. interrupt attacks can be clickies that cause mobs that hit you(or your friend) to take a small amount of damage, said effect lasting a small amount of time.
There are plenty of ways to do it.
anyway, point of clarification: DDO is doing fine. There was a middle period where things went pair shaped, but it looks like most of that was atari's doing. before that turbine was popping out updates very regularly, undating the graphics and textures far more often than is common for MMOs, etc. They're back to those habits now, and have reported huge success with their in game store model.
4E does have a lot of things which don't work in a quasi real time environment. Interrupts and precise pushes are the main things. And they are a rather important part of how the 4E combat system is designed.
Sure, you can adapt it for video games, but that is additional effort. And when a game producer looks at the 4E combat system and says "that wouldn't work" it doesn't really help with getting him to make a 4E game.
Another thing which might be problematic is 4Es party diversity requirement. Imo, 4E does require, more than previos editions, that all roles in a party are covered. That would mean that there must be more NPCs to recruit so that you can be sure to fill this positions, no matter what the main character is.
It could be solved by generating a whole party instead of a single character, but in the times of Dragon Age and Mass Effect that wouldn't look good.
And DDO might have recovered, but among PC gamers it doesn't have the best reputation. Thats important to remember, a D&D video game wil not be marketed primarily to D&D PnP gamer but to video gamer because they are simply the larger group with more money.
Mass Effect and it's sequel I could not imagine playing on a PC that would be total
I also frankly couldn't imagine Fallout 3 on the pc.As far as I'm concerned Wasd movement can go shove itself up it's **** and die :-p
Well, I tried ME, CoD and Resistance on consoles and it always felt like heaven to get back to the PC and be able to aim with a mouse.
If the console companies ever accept keyboard+mouse as a fully supported option for shooters on their consoles I might be tempted to switch, until then I will only play shooters on my friend's consoles once in a while to remind me how awful control could be
[i]Edit: Given it further thought, it's not only shooters. The vast majority of games available on consoles and PCs are so much worse to control in their console version. Just comparing Dragon Age on PC and Console seems like two completely different games, I wouldn't have the stomach to merely finish the origin chapter if I had to do it with the limited console control.
Well, I tried ME, CoD and Resistance on consoles and it always felt like heaven to get back to the PC and be able to aim with a mouse.If the console companies ever accept keyboard+mouse as a fully supported option for shooters on their consoles I might be tempted to switch, until then I will only play shooters on my friend's consoles once in a while to remind me how awful control could be
[i]Edit: Given it further thought, it's not only shooters. The vast majority of games available on consoles and PCs are so much worse to control in their console version. Just comparing Dragon Age on PC and Console seems like two completely different games, I wouldn't have the stomach to merely finish the origin chapter if I had to do it with the limited console control.
Gaming gods gave us analogue sticks for a reason. :-p much more intuitive way to move around and aim.
I don't like the Twitch Factor in my shooters. (I hate Quake for that very reason) I think the aiming of a weapon shouldn't be so instantaneous as it is on a pc game it's unrealistic. (Of all the complaint's I know) Yes head shots are harder on a console and rightly so. Headshots are a *** in reallife. it's not just a twitch away. And that's why I don't like PC shooters. It's too easy that way. IMO also consoles are better at maintaining SA.
Also Pc's are utterly TERRIBLE at racing games, and adventure games.
Even in a Console's worst form of Racing, using the Sticks, and triggers (for throttle and brake) it's infinitely better than using a mouse and keyboard. Console Wheels are also much better than pc wheels.
Flight games and mech games are also better on the console.
RTS is really the only game I will wilingly play on PC over a console.
In addition, you also need to look at all of the RPGs that are put out these days that are relegated to niche markets. The games that you mention above are, for my opinion, the exceptions that prove the rule.
So... the majority of D&D games made in the last decade are the exceptions that prove the rule? ... yeah, can't see why that looks like a good idea...
Also Pc's are utterly TERRIBLE at racing games, and adventure games.
Even in a Console's worst form of Racing, using the Sticks, and triggers (for throttle and brake) it's infinitely better than using a mouse and keyboard. Console Wheels are also much better than pc wheels.
Flight games and mech games are also better on the console.
RTS is really the only game I will wilingly play on PC over a console.
What? Ever tried playing a racing game with an actual steering wheel (common PC accessoire). And flight games better on the console than on the PCs? Consoles don't have flight sims which come anywhere close to Falcon 4 and Il2 Sturmovik
Same for Mech games. Consoles can't beat Mechwarrior 2 with a joystick and keyboard. Ok, there is Steel Battalion, but that uses a custom controller anyway.
And PCs made Adventures great. Just look at the old Lucasarts and Sierra Adventures. Are there even real Adventures on the console?
[
What? Ever tried playing a racing game with an actual steering wheel (common PC accessoire). And flight games better on the console than on the PCs? Consoles don't have flight sims which come anywhere close to Falcon 4 and Il2 Sturmovik
Same for Mech games. Consoles can't beat Mechwarrior 2 with a joystick and keyboard. Ok, there is Steel Battalion, but that uses a custom controller anyway.
And PCs made Adventures great. Just look at the old Lucasarts and Sierra Adventures. Are there even real Adventures on the console?
Been there done that. Console wheels are > pc ones. Also the pc racers for whatever reasons don't get the really awesome cars that I want to drive.
Who cares about sims? I want arcadey sims like Ace Combat.
Please. I've played Mechwarrior 2-4.
And mech warrior doesn't have Jack Crap on Armored Core.
Yep. Console has plenty of awesome platformer adventures. Ever hear of this franchise called Tomb Raider? How about Legacy of Kain? Prince of Persia ring any bells? Then of course you have action games. Like God of War obviously.
When's the last time you played a console game 1999?
My thing with pc gaming is it's more expensive just to have an enjoyable experience. Keyboards are not controllers no matter how many times WASD is tried to shove down our throats. Just to have an enjoyable experience on a PC you have to blow serious cash for gaming periphals. (Usually 50 bucks and up for anything good too) Just to have anything even PLAYABLE with racers for example there's another 100 bucks down the drain or more. Then of course you gotta have the Real Estate to store all of your periphals. I don't want to waste more than half a room worth of space just to be able to game with any kind of proficiency, to say nothing of the constant hassel that comes with switching between periphals.
Same with flight games.
mech games (the good ones. Not Slug pace mech games like MW).
Platformers.
Fighting Games
None of those are designed with a keyboard in mind. All of those game types are pick up and playable, with a great deal of proficiency of a Controller. Especially since console controllers are pressure sensitive, which is something else a majority of PC game controllers lack. Pc game controllers also tend to not be nearly as durable as their console counter parts.
Keyboards for gaming for me at least (because I haven't forced myself to give myself carpel tunnel and learn to work around the sheer awkwardness) also lack the proper feel for gaming. Hell I'm buying a new mouse just so I have keys 1-0 on my mouse, and thus easily hittable with my thumb while I work the mouse because there's frankly no point in trying to force my fingers to traverse a full keyboard when split second decisions make the difference between life and death as it is, and make the difference between having a squad under quick key control or not.
Another thing which might be problematic is 4Es party diversity requirement. Imo, 4E does require, more than previos editions, that all roles in a party are covered. That would mean that there must be more NPCs to recruit so that you can be sure to fill this positions, no matter what the main character is.
It could be solved by generating a whole party instead of a single character, but in the times of Dragon Age and Mass Effect that wouldn't look good.
And DDO might have recovered, but among PC gamers it doesn't have the best reputation. Thats important to remember, a D&D video game wil not be marketed primarily to D&D PnP gamer but to video gamer because they are simply the larger group with more money.
Honestly, the diversity requirement is an illusion, as far as I can tell. Playing without a defender or controller is easy, most defenders and some controllers can make up for a striker, especially if more than once character is doing so. Leaders are the only role that's really hard to do without, but even that can be done.
Now look at dragonage. All a game studio would have to do is introduce secondary characters like they do in dragonage, making sure that the player has all the rolls available to put into his party, no matter what class he/she chooses.
It's really not a big deal. It's pretty much already how it's done.
[
What? Ever tried playing a racing game with an actual steering wheel (common PC accessoire). And flight games better on the console than on the PCs? Consoles don't have flight sims which come anywhere close to Falcon 4 and Il2 Sturmovik
Same for Mech games. Consoles can't beat Mechwarrior 2 with a joystick and keyboard. Ok, there is Steel Battalion, but that uses a custom controller anyway.
And PCs made Adventures great. Just look at the old Lucasarts and Sierra Adventures. Are there even real Adventures on the console?
Been there done that. Console wheels are > pc ones. Also the pc racers for whatever reasons don't get the really awesome cars that I want to drive.
Who cares about sims? I want arcadey sims like Ace Combat.
Please. I've played Mechwarrior 2-4.
And mech warrior doesn't have Jack Crap on Armored Core.
Yep. Console has plenty of awesome platformer adventures. Ever hear of this franchise called Tomb Raider? How about Legacy of Kain? Prince of Persia ring any bells? Then of course you have action games. Like God of War obviously.
When's the last time you played a console game 1999?
My thing with pc gaming is it's more expensive just to have an enjoyable experience. Keyboards are not controllers no matter how many times WASD is tried to shove down our throats. Just to have an enjoyable experience on a PC you have to blow serious cash for gaming periphals. (Usually 50 bucks and up for anything good too) Just to have anything even PLAYABLE with racers for example there's another 100 bucks down the drain or more. Then of course you gotta have the Real Estate to store all of your periphals. I don't want to waste more than half a room worth of space just to be able to game with any kind of proficiency, to say nothing of the constant hassel that comes with switching between periphals.
Same with flight games.
mech games (the good ones. Not Slug pace mech games like MW).
Platformers.
Fighting Games
None of those are designed with a keyboard in mind. All of those game types are pick up and playable, with a great deal of proficiency of a Controller. Especially since console controllers are pressure sensitive, which is something else a majority of PC game controllers lack. Pc game controllers also tend to not be nearly as durable as their console counter parts.
Keyboards for gaming for me at least (because I haven't forced myself to give myself carpel tunnel and learn to work around the sheer awkwardness) also lack the proper feel for gaming. Hell I'm buying a new mouse just so I have keys 1-0 on my mouse, and thus easily hittable with my thumb while I work the mouse because there's frankly no point in trying to force my fingers to traverse a full keyboard when split second decisions make the difference between life and death as it is, and make the difference between having a squad under quick key control or not.
What awkwardness? I don't believe you own a computer, enjoy your nintendo. :P (obviously, jk with the second part.)
PC joysticks are vastly superior to any console controller ever made.
Ever played assassin's creed on the PC? It handles fine, and honestly I feel more in control than I did playing it on the 360.
As much as I love God of War, it doesn't hold much weight with me, because it just isn't a terribly good game. It's repetitive, simplistic, and in places even trite. For all that, I love playing it, because I enjoy just grinding thoughtlessly through hundreds of random monsters.
And everyone knows it.
Meh I had the opposite experience really. I like pressure sensitivity on my controls. I also like the rumble.
I just can't go back to a non rumble equipped controller. I also love the ease of use of the console. (Like I said I don't enjoy having fifteen periphals just to enjoy a game experience that I could have enjoyed by popping a given game into my console)
That being said if you -really- want a fix on a console there are joysticks wheels and arcade pads that come out for them because of specific game times. The Ace Combat 6 controller for the 360 is top notch and I've never used anything better in ANY flying game. It feels right, and looks authentic. (which also makes it look flat out BAD ASS on the entertainment desk)
Then you have the various racing wheels for the consoles which are all also full of win. particuarlly the Forza 3 wheels and the Logitech Drivnig Force series. What makes the two different is ease of playability. on a console you don't have to buy the spiffy peice of periphal just to have the ability to play the game at all with any kind of proficiency. Buying one just makes the experience that much sweeter when you do.
Where as the PC? for me at least it's all but Mandatory.
Yep. Console has plenty of awesome platformer adventures. Ever hear of this franchise called Tomb Raider? How about Legacy of Kain? Prince of Persia ring any bells? Then of course you have action games. Like God of War obviously.
That might be a missunderstanding, since none of the games you mentioned would be called "adventures" by PC gamers. Adventures are games like "Maniac Mansion", "Day of the Tentacle" or "Monkey Island". You're talking about glorified jump n runs.
Keyboards are not controllers no matter how many times WASD is tried to shove down our throats
Funny, since just a few sentences above you admit how WASD+Mouse is actually superior for controlling shooters. Incidentally that's also one of the arguments the console manufacturers bring against supporting Keyboard+Mouse for console shooters (which the consoles would be perfectly capable of): it would make the players controlling with controllers into target dummies for the players controlling with keyboard+mouse
Been there done that. Console wheels are > pc ones.
particuarlly the Forza 3 wheels and the Logitech Drivnig Force series.
You know that PC and console are actually using the very same wheels?
Electronic Arts, Bethesda, Valve, heck Epic. Those immediately come to mind.
CD PROJEKT RED!
[/patriotism]
And I beg you, let's not argue about platform differences. A platform is only as good as games released on it, let's leave it like that.
Please, please don't argue about that.
Everyone knows that, no matter "who" you are, what "logic" you use, what "facts" you support yourself with, or whatever "opinions" you have; PC & Console gamers always think the other side of the matter is; elitist, crude, uncompromising, illogical and just plain wrong.
These are the facts of life. Me? I use both, 'cause I like 'em both for different reasons. So therefore I am right, and ya'll are wrong.
That might be a missunderstanding, since none of the games you mentioned would be called "adventures" by PC gamers. Adventures are games like "Maniac Mansion", "Day of the Tentacle" or "Monkey Island". You're talking about glorified jump n runs.
Funny, since just a few sentences above you admit how WASD+Mouse is actually superior for controlling shooters. Incidentally that's also one of the arguments the console manufacturers bring against supporting Keyboard+Mouse for console shooters (which the consoles would be perfectly capable of): it would make the players controlling with controllers into target dummies for the players controlling with keyboard+mouse
You know that PC and console are actually using the very same wheels?
Yeah we don't consider those as adventure games. Not in the current sense of the word.
The mouse is versus the second stick. Wasd is inferior for movement. Also, I don't like the unrealistic speed a mouse can aim at.
Since when? at any rate it's also a matter of Optional play versus Mandatory just to have any sort of fun. I can drive the snot out of a car with a controller. Controler is > keyboard and mouse. By far.
You can still cut a good lap with a controller if you know anything about driving cars fast out of the box. PC? Better buy that wheel. Otherwise you're not going anywhere.
I like my Optional Periphals to be just that. Optional.
The best system is the one you have. Everything else is just glitter and sparkles.
Something to remember also is the Wii is not a console :-p no matter how hard it wants to be one.
And everyone knows it.
Meh I had the opposite experience really. I like pressure sensitivity on my controls. I also like the rumble.
I just can't go back to a non rumble equipped controller. I also love the ease of use of the console. (Like I said I don't enjoy having fifteen periphals just to enjoy a game experience that I could have enjoyed by popping a given game into my console)
That being said if you -really- want a fix on a console there are joysticks wheels and arcade pads that come out for them because of specific game times. The Ace Combat 6 controller for the 360 is top notch and I've never used anything better in ANY flying game. It feels right, and looks authentic. (which also makes it look flat out BAD ASS on the entertainment desk)
Then you have the various racing wheels for the consoles which are all also full of win. particuarlly the Forza 3 wheels and the Logitech Drivnig Force series. What makes the two different is ease of playability. on a console you don't have to buy the spiffy peice of periphal just to have the ability to play the game at all with any kind of proficiency. Buying one just makes the experience that much sweeter when you do.
Where as the PC? for me at least it's all but Mandatory.
Bummer. For me, keyboard and mouse is actually easier. if I only ever played one game console i suppose they would be equal, but because I play all three, and even occassionally the game cube(my roomate has one, but I have to go to a friend's house to play the wii.)
There are few racing games with much production value made for the PC, which is unfortunate. They times I've played a well made racer on the PC, I rather liked it. And anything involving flight, I'll take mouse steering over thumbstick steering any day, every time.
for some reason I can't hit a damned thing in console games with flying, without spending more time than I really want to practicing.
And don't get me started on how silly the xbox controller is. either give me a truly unique set up (game cube or wii) or give me symmetry.(ps) assymetrical controls that aren't actually any different in function to their symmetrical rival? f that.
That might be a missunderstanding, since none of the games you mentioned would be called "adventures" by PC gamers. Adventures are games like "Maniac Mansion", "Day of the Tentacle" or "Monkey Island". You're talking about glorified jump n runs.
Funny, since just a few sentences above you admit how WASD+Mouse is actually superior for controlling shooters. Incidentally that's also one of the arguments the console manufacturers bring against supporting Keyboard+Mouse for console shooters (which the consoles would be perfectly capable of): it would make the players controlling with controllers into target dummies for the players controlling with keyboard+mouse
You know that PC and console are actually using the very same wheels?
Yeah we don't consider those as adventure games. Not in the current sense of the word.
The mouse is versus the second stick. Wasd is inferior for movement. Also, I don't like the unrealistic speed a mouse can aim at.
Since when? at any rate it's also a matter of Optional play versus Mandatory just to have any sort of fun. I can drive the snot out of a car with a controller. Controler is > keyboard and mouse. By far.
You can still cut a good lap with a controller if you know anything about driving cars fast out of the box. PC? Better buy that wheel. Otherwise you're not going anywhere.
I like my Optional Periphals to be just that. Optional.
They're optional on the PC. I'm not sure where you get the idea that you can't play a racing game with a mouse and keyboard.
and wasd is most assuredly not inferior for movement. also, wasd is rarely the entirety of the movement system. generally wasd and mouse are used, since the mouse controls directionality. then, a and d strafe, and left click shoots. mouse wheel scrolls through weapons, which is superior to clicking the R1 or equivelent, particularly since you can also hit the appropriate number key if you prefer. clicking the scroll wheel throws grenade, or uses other secondary attack mode. and of course, you can completely change all of that if something else feels more natural. like using esdf, or using the direction keys, and remapping all the secondary stuff to form a semi circle around that. which is what i used to do before i got lazy about it.
Beyond that, PC gameplay can be improved over stock by a much larger margin than console gameplay. A friend of mine has a recliner with his gamepad set into the left arm, and his mousepad and mouse on a flat stabilizer which is set into the right arm. He reclines in a comfortable position while fragging everyone in sight. I got to play on his rig at the last LAN party, and it was glorious. It was like playing video games in heaven.
You've obviously not see some of the console gaming chair rigs then. Nor my gamer chair. (I use a seat out of an actual car. Bucket seat from a mid 70s Datzun Z car. And I have yet to sit in a chair that's as comfortable) You don't have to console game on the couch.
WASD is inferior, especially when you need Stick like movement (see flyers, racers and mech games for example)
Yeah I'll agree to that, if only because there are several genres of game that Keyboard and Mouse do not work for AT ALL. Where as the minimum proficiency capability on the console is much higher in those respective fields.
You've obviously not see some of the console gaming chair rigs then. Nor my gamer chair. (I use a seat out of an actual car. Bucket seat from a mid 70s Datzun Z car. And I have yet to sit in a chair that's as comfortable) You don't have to console game on the couch.
Wait, you're complaining about the controls of a PC when you've gone to that length to make sure you're not playing standard controls on your console? Doesn't that make the point kinda moot? If you wanted to, you could go to the exact same length on the PC and have the same experience.
Wait, you're complaining about the controls of a PC when you've gone to that length to make sure you're not playing standard controls on your console? Doesn't that make the point kinda moot? If you wanted to, you could go to the exact same length on the PC and have the same experience.
my chair (which is used for just about everything) is not just for my console. Lucky me was also given this chair as a gift
I could however play my console laying on my bed (something I did for many years just fine), or sitting in a generic chair (like I do at a friends) or a couch. None of those places are conducive even remotely for pc gaming, and that's assuming no periphals.
Most of my games I play using the controller and usually with the default control schemes in the games I play.
With a Pc in order for me to have an even playable experience (particularly with racers and flyers) I'd have to buy a periphal which will set me back at least 50 dollars. Also I'd have to get a "proper" desk to mount said periphals on.
With a Pc in order for me to have an even playable experience (particularly with racers and flyers) I'd have to buy a periphal which will set me back at least 50 dollars. Also I'd have to get a "proper" desk to mount said periphals on.
I think you're confusing "playable" with "how I want to play it".
Maybe we should move on to the topic of a D&D video game. An important question: setting?
I am really not interested in the way current games are these days like ... Morrowind ... out there. In fact I would love for graphics and hour long scenematic scenes to take a back seat to exploration and combat tactics.
....
What? Morrowind lacked exploration and tactical combat options? Hour long cutscenes? Did someone trick you into playing a FF game and tell you it was morrowind?
What I want is a game where you create a full party using 4E D&D creation system and a turn based combat using small miniature figures that represent your characters without going into great detail that involves faces or voices. I more enjoy outfitting a full party with D&D gear while exploring dungeons.
Yes. Do this.
Thats just my opinion and wishlist but the kind of game I would enjoy doesnt require tons of hours and money on super computer animation and movie scenes.
So, the Virtual Game Table, with AI and prebuilt dungeons.
Why can't we have a D&D Tactics Game? That'd be so awesome...
Yeah, a game like Final Fantasy Tactics, with D&D 4e rules, would be pretty neat. A few NPCs, but the gameplay focused on strategic battles, and the majority of your "troop" made up of identity-less mooks that have a race and class and the personality of pudding.
Why can't we have a D&D Tactics Game? That'd be so awesome...
Yes it would. That's what my naive mind thought the Virtual Table would be like when I first heard about it. Oh the sadness.
Dragon Age origins type gameplay would be the real time alternative.
Either way I'd be on
Final Fantasy tactics would be one way of doing it.
Dragon Age origins type gameplay would be the real time alternative.
Either way I'd be on
Meh. Everytime they've done a real-time version of D&D it's come out a bit awkward, and they've had to change rules to accomadate it. The most literal translation of the rules would be a TBS like FFT.
I mean, not that there's anything wrong with something like Neverwinter Nights or Dragon Age, but I think a TBS would be more true to D&D.
There are things that you have to change due to the differences of media. Which is why I'd be more than happy to take something using similar mechanics to DAO. (though I think the power system would need some tweaks. DAO's power system still just kind of feels clunky to me. Might be due to too many powers on cooldowns coupled with a Mana cost though)
Classic problem of round-peg, square hole, jah?
Honestly I think DAO was bioware's way of dropping wizards the not so subtle hint.
If by abandoned you mean took out a 4e phb and went "let's see how do we do this" sure.
I do believe you're claiming more insight into Bioware's creative and design process then you actually possess. We know DA:O wasn't branded as D&D, and that the similarities it has with it are also the simliarities it has with games like Diablo, Warcraft, and just about any fantasy game made in the last twenty years.
I do believe you're claiming more insight into Bioware's creative and design process then you actually possess. We know DA:O wasn't branded as D&D, and that the similarities it has with it are also the simliarities it has with games like Diablo, Warcraft, and just about any fantasy game made in the last twenty years.
nah if it were Diablo it'd be more hack and slash than tactical. It would also be more Gear oriented if it were Wow or diablo based I think. DAO seems to me at least like they were very choosy with the tactical aspects.
I'm not claiming to have clairvoyance as to what they did. I don't think though that it was exactly a coincidence that this just happened to play so much like 4e. It makes sense to me that they would do it that way. One there's alot of D&D players out there.
Two, the mechanics are familiarish to wow gamers, three what a great demonstration of what they are capable of to companies willing to lisence out their franchises....
... I'm really confused... how is the game any closer to D&D then Diablo? Mana pools, limited tactical movement, real-time cooldowns... Yeah, other then the "fantasy role playing" I'm not seeing the D&D connection.
Look at how the warrior plays. Now look at the D&D fighter. :-p
See the similarities yet?
Also diablo doesn't have the sticky mechanics. Stances etc. the powers being on a cool down and mana cost is the RT equiv of Encounter and Daily.
Diablo really doesn't have the sophistication to be compared to DOA combat wise.
Frog Ninja: really? I didn't have that problem in DOA with my warrior. Infact he was usually right in the thick of it and holding everythings aggro.
... I'm really confused... how is the game any closer to D&D then Diablo? Mana pools, limited tactical movement, real-time cooldowns... Yeah, other then the "fantasy role playing" I'm not seeing the D&D connection.
Look at how the warrior plays. Now look at the D&D fighter. :-p
Yes, like fighters in just about any game which has fighters and mages.
I see no unique D&D to DA:O similarities.
Everything you've named has been done in other games (many popular) both before D&D 4e, and after.
But to each their own.
... I'm really confused... how is the game any closer to D&D then Diablo? Mana pools, limited tactical movement, real-time cooldowns... Yeah, other then the "fantasy role playing" I'm not seeing the D&D connection.
Look at how the warrior plays. Now look at the D&D fighter. :-p
See the similarities yet?
Also diablo doesn't have the sticky mechanics. Stances etc. the powers being on a cool down and mana cost is the RT equiv of Encounter and Daily.
Diablo really doesn't have the sophistication to be compared to DOA combat wise.
Frog Ninja: really? I didn't have that problem in DOA with my warrior. Infact he was usually right in the thick of it and holding everythings aggro.
Sure, great at standing there and getting smacked around by enimes that are, for no logical reason, too stupid to attack what is killing them.
Fighters roll in a fight with lots of fighters: Get pointlessly smacked around while the wizards casts an AoE spell.
Fighters roll in a fight with an enemy spell caster: Try not to die to quickly while waiting for the party mages ice spells to recharge, try and stun a little to buy time.
Playing the game without a mage in the party is 20 times as hard as playing with one. Playing without a fighter, or without a rouge? Meh, 2 times harder, mabey?
----
The 'powers' are more reminiscent of the skill trees of diablo. Barbarians have Taunt, Necromancers have Attract (sticky mechanics). Paladins had 'auras' which are stances right down to the 'one at a time' aspect that 4e maintains and DA:O rejects, making diablo 2 more like 4e than DA:O in that respect.
I didn't play on Nightmare or Hard though.
I abused doorways, and tight hall ways with my warrior. If you think tactically with them they seemed to work really well.
meh. I think it was pretty obvious that they were going for the cashing in on a POL type concept along with 4e like mechanics.
So, a classic concept and a well-done execution of a tried-and-true mechanic is your lynch-pin here? Neither of which would give a unique DA:O-D&D connection?
meh. I think it was pretty obvious that they were going for the cashing in on a POL type concept along with 4e like mechanics.
So, a classic concept and a well-done execution of a tried-and-true mechanic is your lynch-pin here? Neither of which would give a unique DA:O-D&D connection?
a classic concept which was only recently revisted? yeah. I'll go with it.
Diablo II and I are old as dirt and they are more like flicks of light. Not points.
Wow is so over the top Shiny Light and Happy Happy land that it rots the teeth.
I usually rolled with 2 warriors or 2 mages. (with myself being a warrior)
I didn't play on Nightmare or Hard though.
I abused doorways, and tight hall ways with my warrior. If you think tactically with them they seemed to work really well.
They certaintly can be helpfull. Ever trie playing with 2 fighters, a rogue, and a dog? Or two fighters and two rogues? Or a dog, two rogues, and a fighter? I won't be long till you find yourself smashed aginst a map edge with 20 angry soldiers/darkspawn to punish you for 'dareing to leave home without a ****ing wizard you stupid non-magical peasents'.
And the Dog got useless as the levels progressed I think.
my typical party was 2 warriors 2 mages.
We manhandled enemy casters etc while our mages could keep some heat off of us. Or vice versa.
a classic concept which was only recently revisted? yeah. I'll go with it.
Only recently re-visited by WotC, maybe. But it's not exactly ground-breaking work, dear.
I'm sorry, but while DA:O is a great game, and I'll even agree it's a better "D&D game" then the actual D&D games of late, there's nothing uniquely D&D about it, no matter what edition you look at. Did it have inspiration from D&D? 'course it did, it's made by Bioware who's been working on D&D properties (under one name or another) for something like 15 years. But there really isn't anything there that you can unequivocally claim as "D&D".
I'm not claiming wotc's pol concept is ground breaking. But it came at a time when frankly everything was either You are all ***** period GG NO RE bitches, or So Shiny it burns.
But it came at a time when frankly everything was either You are all ***** period GG NO RE bitches, or So Shiny it burns.
... I have no clue what you mean by this. You kids and your internet-lingo.
But it came at a time when frankly everything was either You are all ***** period GG NO RE bitches, or So Shiny it burns.
... I have no clue what you mean by this. You kids and your internet-lingo.
I have to explain GG No Re?
Wow..
Okay GG No Re means Good Game No Rematch.
When not used in context of the end of a game, it means *does impression* "Game Over Man.. Game Over"
When used in context of an ending of a game or scoring of a kill. It means either literally Good Game No Rematch (cause you don't have time for another) or GG NO RE as in I beat you, and it's not worth my time to do another.
usually in the case of the latter it goes GG NO RE Bitches. or GG NO RE you noob. or GG NO RE. GG NO RE!
... which really doesn't do much to elucidate me as to what the frack you're trying to convey there. No one's dueling or doing anything 1v1, so I'm still lost as to what you're trying to say here.
What I was trying to convey is that the setting is so dark that the outcome is certain and it ain't the heroes that are going to win. the darkness has already GG No Re the light.
... which really doesn't do much to elucidate me as to what the frack you're trying to convey there. No one's dueling or doing anything 1v1, so I'm still lost as to what you're trying to say here.
What I was trying to convey is that the setting is so dark that the outcome is certain and it ain't the heroes that are going to win. the darkness has already GG No Re the light.
...
Such as?
Ah, you were just being weird about saying "dark fantasy".
See I view dark fantasy as more of a "there's still a slight chance that you'll win in the end or that the side you fight for against the darkness will" then there's more Emo Fantasy. But yeah.
The light has been completly crushed out of WoD? Odd. Never noticed that there where no forces of good, no safe havens, and no places where things where not a total dangerous hell maw. Seemed the forces of light (or atleast normalicy) where still putting up a good fight.
The light has been completly crushed out of WoD? Odd. Never noticed that there where no forces of good, no safe havens, and no places where things where not a total dangerous hell maw. Seemed the forces of light (or atleast normalicy) where still putting up a good fight.
But the outcome is all but spelled out in the Wod book. Eventually the darkness will close and succeed and all that jazz. (specifically in the Hunter book) the vigil is a losing battle but an important one etc.
in the case of warhammer they out and out said eventually chaos would over take the world. And I need not say much about 40k and it's Gimme Dark Super Dark Darkness.
Warhammer is hardly irrelevent in this discussion as it does have a Popular Newish MMO out and it's wargame, and P&P are all still going strong.
we are kind of discussing both I think.
Warhammer is hardly irrelevent in this discussion as it does have a Popular Newish MMO out and it's wargame, and P&P are all still going strong.
If Warhammer is relevant, how is Diablo I and II not? People still play them, there's a new sequel coming out soon, and it's certainly inspired a horde of clones. I mean, heck, you're re-playing Starcraft right now, and that's even older!
meh. I think it was pretty obvious that they were going for the cashing in on a POL type concept along with 4e like mechanics.
Only that PoL-style and the 4e-like mechanics have not been invented by 4e but predate it a lot. Both in other P&P systems and other video games.
They certaintly can be helpfull. Ever trie playing with 2 fighters, a rogue, and a dog? Or two fighters and two rogues? Or a dog, two rogues, and a fighter? I won't be long till you find yourself smashed aginst a map edge with 20 angry soldiers/darkspawn to punish you for 'dareing to leave home without a ****ing wizard you stupid non-magical peasents'.
I never bothered to use my wizard. Maybe it was because I only played on normal or becaue of the superior RTS-like-control of the PC, but I only had the old woman as a healbot (the only single tactic slot I ever configurated, cast heal on anyone below 70%), but my two warriors + rogue (just because I hate to have to pass unopened chests) did all the work while the healer only auto-attacked the whole time with her staff.
What I was trying to convey is that the setting is so dark that the outcome is certain and it ain't the heroes that are going to win. the darkness has already GG No Re the light.
Actually the DA:O setting fits right in there. We barely have managed to get through half the blights (assuming that they stop after the death of the final archdemon) and that's only the view of the stupid humans unable to see the blank hopelessness truth the dwarves have to face every day.
11/12 dwarven empires are already gone and we're only halfway into the war. As soon as the last one falls (whether tomorrow or in 200 years doesn't matter, the alter only allows your character to die in the illusion that everything will be fine and he actually made a difference) the humans will have to face the horrible truth that there actually are no blights, but just one single unending war that has waged with the same intensity during the time the humans thought it was a pause between blights than during the short periods the humans called blights. I give the human kingdoms less than a decade after the last dwarven kingdom has fallen, they're likely long gone before the next archdemon is freed.
DA:O is a real crapsack world if you look at the whole picture.
we are kind of discussing both I think.
Warhammer is hardly irrelevent in this discussion as it does have a Popular Newish MMO out and it's wargame, and P&P are all still going strong.
If Warhammer is relevant, how is Diablo I and II not? People still play them, there's a new sequel coming out soon, and it's certainly inspired a horde of clones. I mean, heck, you're re-playing Starcraft right now, and that's even older!
DI and DII are -alot- older than the Warhammer games that are currently out on the market. It's not so much the amount of players gaming it, as how new it's most modern counterparts are.
DIII I'm sketchy on, on an unrelated note. It's not shown me anything that makes me go "hell yes" yet.
Mind you I've only paid half attention to it. I'll go looking at it soonish.
Mirtek: I don't see DOA's world that way really, and to me the dwarf empires fell as a result of their own stupidity if they were anything like Orzanmmar. Also, we haven't seen Orlais and the other kingdoms yet. Ferelden was just a sea of chaos weakened by years of internal strife and later Orlais. I doubt every kingdom is as weak as Ferelden was. (That's also to say nothing of the Teventir empire)
The Blight can be overcome and the world saved. After all the darkspawn only have so many arch demons to work with. Kill them all and there's no more blights. (Given that the dwarves also have golems now I'm not terribly worried about them) DOA isn't nearly as crapsack as Warhammer and warhammer 40k.
DI and DII are -alot- older than the Warhammer games that are currently out on the market. It's not so much the amount of players gaming it, as how new it's most modern counterparts are.
That's a quite narrow view of "relevance" then.
Regardless, stickin' to my story: there is no unique D&D-DA:O connection. No unique mechanical connection, no unique story/theme connection, no unique-anything connection. While DA:O is a great game, and a great example of how a D&D game should be, there's nothing uniquely D&D about it.
I guess we're getting too oftopic
Show
The point is that "blights" are a laughable concept that the humans made up because they don't grasp that there are no blights. There is one continual war that has already eaten up all but the very last of the dwarven kingdoms. Once that last obstcale is gone, the humans will have 24/7-warfare on the surface, just like the dwarves currently have to live (or rather die) with.
They already had golems armies before they lost them as the darkspawn overran them anyway.
If you're a clueless human believing that the war consists of a blight here and there and more or less pause intbetween it isn't. If you realize that there is blight-level-warfare going on every single day and only because of the dwarves it's unnoticed by humans most of the time, then it's pretty bleak.
The Blight can be overcome and the world saved. After all the darkspawn only have so many arch demons to work with. Kill them all and there's no more blights.
The point is that "blights" are a laughable concept that the humans made up because they don't grasp that there are no blights. There is one continual war that has already eaten up all but the very last of the dwarven kingdoms. Once that last obstcale is gone, the humans will have 24/7-warfare on the surface, just like the dwarves currently have to live (or rather die) with.
(Given that the dwarves also have golems now I'm not terribly worried about them)
They already had golems armies before they lost them as the darkspawn overran them anyway.
DOA isn't nearly as crapsack as Warhammer and warhammer 40k.
If you're a clueless human believing that the war consists of a blight here and there and more or less pause intbetween it isn't. If you realize that there is blight-level-warfare going on every single day and only because of the dwarves it's unnoticed by humans most of the time, then it's pretty bleak.
meh. I think it was pretty obvious that they were going for the cashing in on a POL type concept along with 4e like mechanics.Only that PoL-style and the 4e-like mechanics have not been invented by 4e but predate it a lot. Both in other P&P systems and other video games.
They certaintly can be helpfull. Ever trie playing with 2 fighters, a rogue, and a dog? Or two fighters and two rogues? Or a dog, two rogues, and a fighter? I won't be long till you find yourself smashed aginst a map edge with 20 angry soldiers/darkspawn to punish you for 'dareing to leave home without a ****ing wizard you stupid non-magical peasents'.
I never bothered to use my wizard. Maybe it was because I only played on normal or becaue of the superior RTS-like-control of the PC, but I only had the old woman as a healbot (the only single tactic slot I ever configurated, cast heal on anyone below 70%), but my two warriors + rogue (just because I hate to have to pass unopened chests) did all the work while the healer only auto-attacked the whole time with her staff.What I was trying to convey is that the setting is so dark that the outcome is certain and it ain't the heroes that are going to win. the darkness has already GG No Re the light.Actually the DA:O setting fits right in there. We barely have managed to get through half the blights (assuming that they stop after the death of the final archdemon) and that's only the view of the stupid humans unable to see the blank hopelessness truth the dwarves have to face every day.
11/12 dwarven empires are already gone and we're only halfway into the war. As soon as the last one falls (whether tomorrow or in 200 years doesn't matter, the alter only allows your character to die in the illusion that everything will be fine and he actually made a difference) the humans will have to face the horrible truth that there actually are no blights, but just one single unending war that has waged with the same intensity during the time the humans thought it was a pause between blights than during the short periods the humans called blights. I give the human kingdoms less than a decade after the last dwarven kingdom has fallen, they're likely long gone before the next archdemon is freed.
DA:O is a real crapsack world if you look at the whole picture.
Old woman is mage. Heal is incredably usefull.
lol. no. I play from my bed all the time.
hell, at my buddy's place I play with a wireless keyboard that has a built in thumbwheel. I'm not used to thumbwheels, but it works. and he's just as proficient with it as i am with a normal setup, that I'm used to.
also, my point about my friend's chair was in response to your suggestion that pc gaming is physically uncomfortable. beyond my complete disagreement, end to end, his set up showed just how comfy it could be.
beyond that. this thread has gotten even more absurd than it was a few pages ago, and I'm arguing with people in enough absurd threads. I'm done here.
thanks anyway.
Consoles don't have Dawn of War. I rest my case.
Maybe we should move on to the topic of a D&D video game. An important question: setting?
I vote Eberron. I know DDO is doing it, but DDO is on xen'drik. I want to explore Sharn, for instance. there is a lot that can be done with eberron that, storywise, hasn't been done with a dnd game so far.