315 réponses à ce sujet

[perry2]

AlanC9 wrote...

perry2 wrote...
BG2 had better dragons too. DAO required very little stategy to beat them. The ones in BG were the highlight of the game.

It's not like BG2 dragons required much strategy. They were hard, but that's not the same thing. You still had to just run the standard playbook at them -- plus fire resistance for Firkraag, of course.

Would Bioware license BG3 to Obsidian?

Bio never owned those rights, so no.

I think the playbook was born from fighting the BG dragons, especially Firkraag. It took me several encounters but I found a couple of ways to beat him. The boss dragon in TOB was a whole different level of tough. And these two weren't even the climactic battle. Not rocket science sure but I don't think most fared too well the first time they met Firkraag or the Shadow Dragon.
The punchless demon dragon from DAO took only heal potions and patience. No magic resistance, no dragon fear, just a big bag of meat.


But how do the BG rights work? Black Isle was a distributor, not the developer right? They are developers for Icewind Dale and Obsidian/Ossian are the NWN2 builders. Who if not Bioware?

EDIT: I see Atari has the AD&D rights and Interplay still has the rights to the BG series. Interplay seems to be console only and I think that their future use of the AD&D format requires an accomodation from Atari. This would fit with the rumoured return to BG after 2009 allegedly mentioned in a 2008 news conference by Atari.

http://www.escapistm...Distant-Horizon

Modifié par perry2, 14 avril 2010 - 05:30 .

[Realmzmaster]

perry2 wrote...
I do think we haven't seen the last of D & D based RPGs from Bioware.The D & D game and legendarium has a pretty devoted following and is a license to print money. I expect we will have to wait for DAO to run its course unless another developer picks up the rights and runs with them as with Interplay/Black Isle, althugh I guess the white knight there now would maybe have to be Obsidian since they were still producing NWN material as recently as 2008. Would Bioware license BG3 to Obsidian?

Right now the whole D & D digital rights are up in the air. Hasbro has sued Atari for breach of contract. See:

http://www.escapistm...-Atari-Over-D-D

Atari signed a 10 year deal with Hasbro in 2007. Which means if everything is settle in the lawsuit in Atari's favor, the rights to produce D & D video games would not be available until 2017. If Hasbro wins back the rights it could grant them to another entity. But this case could be in litigation for quite a while tying up the rights until the case is settled. So the only company that can produce D & D CRPGs right now is Atari..

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 14 avril 2010 - 06:11 .

[AlanC9]

Sure, dragon fear hoses you the first time you run into it if you don't know it's coming. After that, you put up defenses and it's a nonissue. I suppose they could have built a couple of abilities like that into DA, but they were trying to get away from buff-centric gameplay. Other than that, dragons are kind of similar to DAO revenants, except that revenants break down at jigh levels in DAO if you'er pumping DEX.



Draconis from ToB required thought, but only because he put up Immunity:Abjuration. It is nice to see exploits being used against the players, rather than by them,



The only big difference as far as I can see is that you can't power through BG2 fights on potions. There aren't enough, and they aren't as good. Heal excepted, of course, but they're limited.

[perry2]

Realmzmaster wrote...

perry2 wrote...
I do think we haven't seen the last of D & D based RPGs from Bioware.The D & D game and legendarium has a pretty devoted following and is a license to print money. I expect we will have to wait for DAO to run its course unless another developer picks up the rights and runs with them as with Interplay/Black Isle, althugh I guess the white knight there now would maybe have to be Obsidian since they were still producing NWN material as recently as 2008. Would Bioware license BG3 to Obsidian?

Right now the whole D & D digital rights are up in the air. Hasbro has sued Atari for breach of contract. See:

http://www.escapistm...-Atari-Over-D-D

Atari signed a 10 year deal with Hasbro in 2007. Which means if everything is settle in the lawsuit in Atari's favor, the rights to produce D & D video games would not be available until 2017. If Hasbro wins back the rights it could grant them to another entity. But this case could be in legitation for quite a while tying up the rights until the case is settled. So the only company that can produce D & D CRPGs right now is Atari..

Was Hasbro even involved in computer games? Just looking it seems like they produced and marketed items for the book and board games. If so that may have no bearing on the computer game distribution. The strong Atari connection is actually pretty good news if their legal troubles don't extend to the PC game rights.

EDIT: I see from further reading that Hasbro seems to have allowed only a limited license and the action stems from Atari ignoring restrictions in the ageement. Bad news for Atari trying to produce anything, uness Hasbro are good sports and intend to grab profits of games newly introduced as opposed to injuctions preventing use of the franchise. Hopefully greed allows possiblegame development to proceed. Otherwise this is just another screwup like the distribution rights to the Hobbit movies.

Modifié par perry2, 14 avril 2010 - 05:49 .

[Realmzmaster]

CybAnt1 wrote...

Plus, I think they like being out from under the IP thumb of Hasbro-WotC, who has to approve every possible color change to every yuan-ti. It's nice to own your own IP and not have to kiss another corporation's *ss to change what something looks like or what a spell does. 

This is the reason why BioWare created its own IP. Bioware/EA can do what it wants with it including licensing it  for P n P format to Green Ronin. Which means adventures for the P n P may one day find their way back to Bioware and be released as  DLC or expansions (maybe).
By creating their own IP Bioware does not have to toe the line as it would with someone else's IP.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 14 avril 2010 - 05:48 .

[perry2]

Duplicate post

Modifié par perry2, 14 avril 2010 - 05:59 .

[perry2]

Realmzmaster wrote...

CybAnt1 wrote...

Plus, I think they like being out from under the IP thumb of Hasbro-WotC, who has to approve every possible color change to every yuan-ti. It's nice to own your own IP and not have to kiss another corporation's *ss to change what something looks like or what a spell does. 

This is the reason why BioWare created its own IP. Bioware/EA can do what it wants with it including licensing it  for P n P format to Green Ronin. Which means adventures for the P n P may one day find their way back to Bioware and be released as  DLC or expansions (maybe).
By creating their own IP Bioware does not have to toe the line as it would with someone else's IP.

Just thinking Bioware is possibly too big of a fish now to subordinate itself to partners like Atari/Hasbro for a BG3 project, even if the Hasro-Atari tiff is resolved. Maybe one of the smaller developers from the NWN series would be brought in which could hange the results. although who knows where the original SOA team are. TOB was different enough from BG2 tht it mightnhav ben a new bunch even then.

Thanks for the info on this. I had thought BG was totally dead but there is still an ember burning.

[Realmzmaster]

perry2 wrote...

Just thinking Bioware is possibly too big of a fish now to subordinate itself to partners like Atari/Hasbro for a BG3 project, even if the Hasro-Atari tiff is resolved. Maybe one of the smaller developers from the NWN series would be brought in which could hange the results. although who knows where the original SOA team are. TOB was different enough from BG2 tht it mightnhav ben a new bunch even then.

Thanks for the info on this. I had thought BG was totally dead but there is still an ember burning.

No it will not happen.  BioWare/EA would not partner with Atari/Hasbro.

[BomimoDK]

why'd we want a bg3? Baldur's Gate ended... it's over. we won. otherwise, they could just have called Neverwinter Nights, Baldur's Gate 3: newerwinter nights.

[dbkkk]

Realmzmaster wrote...

dbkkk wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Vincerind wrote...

No, because DA:O is the spiritual(?) successor of BG2. And BG2 got compared to BG1, too. Unfair is only that BG2 had 2D graphics and less spoken text. That made implementing content much easier. IMHO both games are awesome and absolutely worth their price.

BG2 got compared to BG1 because it was a continuation of the story about the Bhaalspawn. DA:O for all the marketing hype is not the spiritual successor to BG1 & 2.
DA:O is not based on any of the Forgotten Realms. The only part of being a spiritual successor is that it is made by BioWare who made BG1 & 2.

Bioware developed BG2=ToB but Black Isle developed BG1 (though Bioware authored the engine and assisted Black Isle).

Black Isle also did Plaescape Torment. Bioware later went on to make NWN of course.

No, BioWare developed BG1, Black Isle only published the game under the Interplay banner. Black Isle did develop Planescape Torment, Fallout and Icewind Dale.
BG1 & BG2 are all Bioware.

My bad. You are right. I get get confused sometimes by all the tangled 'relationships' between Black Isle and Bioware back in the old Interplay days.

[astrallite]

perry2 wrote...

astrallite wrote...

BG2 has the highest metacritic score of any PC RPG of all time (95), with an average user rating of 9.3

Baldurs Gate has a metacritic score of 91 with average user rating of 9.3

Dragon Age has a metacritic score of 91 with an average user rating of 8.4.

The players have spoken.

I think this relates to the expectation the game would play closer to the BG series. The next full game under the DA banner will be saddled with none of these expectations, and should be as much a jump from from DAO as BG2 was from BG. Hopefully they don't go  too far with the DLC as it really seems like buying xp and  a few magic items as opposed to game expansions. The Shadow Dragon in BG2 was a quest. Soldiers Peak in DAO is buying a suit of video game armor with real money.

What, so you are saying the reviews will be better for DA2 because they have lower expectations given what DA:O was? So if it's a little better, it will be much better received?

[astrallite]

AlanC9 wrote...

Are you really sure that metacritic numbers can be compared for products released several years apart?

Not that I, or anyone else, should care.

I look at the synergy between user reviews and critic reviews. In BG series, both the user and critic reviews are incredibly high. Look at some of the other top 10 it shares company with--Civilization 2, Command and Conquer, Half Life, Half Life 2, and Grim Fandango. Ground breaking games that were universally lauded by critics and players--you won't find many gamers who started playing video games in their infancy that wouldn't put these games in their top 10.

Modifié par astrallite, 14 avril 2010 - 09:44 .

[Domyk]

I love NWN 1 and 2 but the User control interface is garbage ^.^

[TheMufflon]

astrallite wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Are you really sure that metacritic numbers can be compared for products released several years apart?

Not that I, or anyone else, should care.

I look at the synergy between user reviews and critic reviews. In BG series, both the user and critic reviews are incredibly high. Look at some of the other top 10 it shares company with--Civilization 2, Command and Conquer, Half Life, Half Life 2, and Grim Fandango. Ground breaking games that were universally lauded by critics and players-you won't find many gamers who started playing video games in their
infancy that wouldn't put these games in their top 10.

Games like Out of the Park Baseball 2007? Which, according to Metacritic, is the second best PC game ever made? Which, according to me is really just Out of the Park Baseball 2006 with a slightly improved UI and updated stats? A game which is hardly ground breaking and was lauded by a total of 5 critics? A game which I have never seen in a top 10 list made by an actual person?

My point, of course, is that metacritic scores are pretty far removed from the qualities of the games and are thus largely useless.

Modifié par TheMufflon, 14 avril 2010 - 02:38 .

[BomimoDK]

TheMufflon wrote...

astrallite wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Are you really sure that metacritic numbers can be compared for products released several years apart?

Not that I, or anyone else, should care.

I look at the synergy between user reviews and critic reviews. In BG series, both the user and critic reviews are incredibly high. Look at some of the other top 10 it shares company with--Civilization 2, Command and Conquer, Half Life, Half Life 2, and Grim Fandango. Ground breaking games that were universally lauded by critics and players-you won't find many gamers who started playing video games in their
infancy that wouldn't put these games in their top 10.

Games like Out of the Park Baseball 2007? Which, according to Metacritic, is the second best PC game ever made? Which, according to me is really just Out of the Park Baseball 2006 with a slightly improved UI and updated stats? A game which is hardly ground breaking and was lauded by a total of 5 critics? A game which I have never seen in a top 10 list made by an actual person?

My point, of course, is that metacritic scores are pretty far removed from the qualities of the games and are thus largely useless.

true... unless something like 80 critics and 50,000 users can keep the average high...
the game you just mentioned had 5 reviewers... as far as i remember. all the other 85-99 games that've been there for long have about 25-50 reviewers and a truckload of users who seems to agree with an average of the insanely high score they got.

the metacritic score is NOTHING without proper backing, which this baseball game haven't got, but pretty much all the other classics we're celebrating HAVE got.

[astrallite]

TheMufflon wrote...

Games like Out of the Park Baseball 2007? Which, according to Metacritic, is the second best PC game ever made? Which, according to me is really just Out of the Park Baseball 2006 with a slightly improved UI and updated stats? A game which is hardly ground breaking and was lauded by a total of 5 critics? A game which I have never seen in a top 10 list made by an actual person?

My point, of course, is that metacritic scores are pretty far removed from the qualities of the games and are thus largely useless.

I don't understand why you quoted my post? I was talking about user scores. That game had terrible user reviews: 4.5 average. Oblivion also had really high critic reviews because the first few hours were phenomenal, but the emptiness was obvious after a few more hours of gaming, which is why the average user review was a 7.6.