Editorial GameSpy on Troika and publishers

[Sol Invictus]

Yeah, if that's what VD was saying it clearly isn't true because there is no actual fundamental difference between rushing that 80th group of bugbears with a group of fighters versus a group of rogues doing the same thing. Likewise there's no real difference between casting Searing Orb with a Druid or Fireball with a mage.

 

[Vykromond]

I didn't say it was true, I said that that's what Vault Dweller was saying. I haven't played ToEE, I have no idea how it works. What he said was this:

Quote:
Face it, there weren't that many enemies and killing a monster with a magic missile is no different than killing him with a sword. I'd hardly call that 'tactical gameplay' or 'support for different builds'.

Try playing the game with all rogue party (you can multiclass though, but rogue should be the highest class, i.e. no rogue 1, fighter 9 scenarious), and you would understand. Tons of supporting spells, feats, and abilities that you wouldn't even use with other builds.

So according to him, "rushing" the 80th group of bugbears with rogues would be different than rushing it with fighters.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Thanks, Vikromond, that's exactly what I've meant. You've been blessed with a rare skill: an ability to read AND comprehend. God bless you.

Anyway, Volourn, yes, you have the same enemies, but the tactics you employ are very different. Can you get that into your stupid head? It's fucking TB, you don't just click on the enemies, especially with a weak setup like rogues, who can't absorb a lot of damage.

 

[Volourn]

"It's fucking TB, you don't just click on the enemies, especially with a weak setup like rogues, who can't absorb a lot of damage."

Wwrong. That's exactly what you can do and no rogues are not a weak set up, and they can absorb a fair amount of damage. Stop bullshitting. They can definitely absorb enough to be capable of killing bugebears. And, yes, you can eaisly play rogues like one cna play warriors in TOEE for the most part. Nice try though with your bullshit.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Stop talking out of your ass. Go and try it if you care, but don't post nonsense.

 

[Vault Dweller]

KOTOR2's bugs didn't bug me the way Bloodlines and TOEE's bugs did, and I would assume that the bugs in KOTOR2 weren't as big an issue as you make them out to be to a lot of other people who enjoyed the game as I did, either. It's ridiculous to compare the bugs in KOTOR2 to that of Troika's games and claim that they are at the same degree of seriousness.

I really don't see a difference in terms of bugs between BL and KOTOR2. They are like twins.

Enormous success? BG and Diablo were "enormously successful" games. Fallout wasn't. It didn't suck, but it was never a blockbuster, and that explains why FO3 was always delayed and cancelled in favor of pretty much anything else.

Wrong. Fallout was a big success and it spawned a multitude of games including a sequel.

Many games have sequels, doesn't mean anything. For example, IWD had a sequel. Once again, Fallout did ok, Diablo was a big success.

Fallout and its sequel are often regarded by most gaming magazines as two of the best games ever made

They are, and so is PST. What's your point?

Fallout 3 was always delayed and cancelled because Herve Caen is a fucking moron, or did we fail to establish that fact years ago, VD?

Herve is a moron, no doubt about that, but I'm not talking about VB, but about all the other attempts to make it. If it was a cash ticket, they would have cashed it a long time ago instead of making TORN and IWD.

Bethesda wouldn't have bought the Fallout license if they didn't see any profit in it, or are you just now deciding to go against your previous insinuations that Bethesda was only in it for the profit? So which is it? Did Bethesda buy the Fallout license because they are 'fans' or is it because they see a huge amount of profit to be made? Make up your mind.

Bethesda wanted a name, nothing more, and that's where Fallout shines. They can slap that on their own already successful gameplay style and get a fast recognition. That's all there is to it.

I'm afraid you're wrong in this case - GameSpot said absolutely nothing about the game's turn-based combat. The paragraphs you quoted highlighted the game's confusing character creation module and not the combat. You are employing a straw man argument, VD. Perhaps you will have more luck with the next few quoted websites
...
Again, their complaints had little to do with the turn-based combat (You'll notice that GameSpy drooled over Silent Storm in their review of the game). GameSpy's concerns were about the inherently draconian terms like Improved Initiative, Flat-Footed, or Ready vs. Approach and they didn't say anything along the lines of, "Oh my god, turn based combat is so slow and confusing! I can't figure out how to move my characters!" A good tutorial or a manual would have definitely helped with these rules.
...
Once again, no mention of the turn-based combat, only the character creation.
...
Where does it say anything about the turn-based combat being bad? It's not in here, VD.
...
But again, there's no mention of the turn-based combat being bad or a turn-off.
...
Character creation. Not turn-based combat. Where's your argument, Vault Dweller?
...
Straw. Man. Arguments. I thought we were talking about the complexity of the turn-based combat and not of the character creation?

You've missed the point. A turn-based combat by itself (i.e. one turn after another) is nothing special, see spiderweb tb for example. The complexity of any combat comes from rules employed. You can't separate ToEE TB system from the 3E rules which are btw a TB combat rule system. So, when someone bitches about the complexity of dnd rules, they bitch about the complexity of dnd tb combat. Simple as that.

You're pretty fucking obnoxious...

Ah, that's the Rex I used to battle with. Welcome back!

...for ignoring the fact that all of the reviews you quoted had bad things to say about the game's storyline, characters, horrible AI and the abundance of bugs.

I'm not ignoring that. The main reason why I posted the reviews is to show the reaction of experienced gamers who do that for a living. If they had problems, what could we say about casual players, the ones who pick games just to have fun and don't expect a mental exercise?

6-7 hours, huh? I heard one guy beat Fallout (or was it FO2) in like 15 minutes. What a crappy game that was! As for some people expectations, there was this funny WoW review where the guy was pissed off that it's not an RTS. Go figure.

What the hell does that have to do with this argument?

You said that a) the gameplay was 6-7 hours and b) some people expected a BG-like game from ToEE. I replied to both.

I said GOOD rpgs. Ok, let me specify, HARDCORE rpg, to avoid a long debate about BG role-playing qualities.

Nice try, but TOEE wasn't even a fourth of the RPG Baldur's Gate was. Calling it a hardcore RPG is ridiculous.

Well, the temple quests alone OWN anything in terms of choice and role-playing that the entire BG series had to offer. It's a short sequence, of course, but it was a short game.

6-7 hours of gameplay is true. I managed to end the game INADVERNTANTLY (e.g. I had no intention of ending it) just by finding the Golden Orb and venturing down into the throne room in my first play through. The boss was a complete pushover.

Like I said, you can achieve similar results in any non-linear game. See FO and FO2 for ref.

Troika screwed the pooch on 'identify'. I had to download the free SRD just to figure out what most of the items in the game did, as I'm sure a lot of other people did. It was even linked on the Atari TOEE forums because everybody kept asking what so and so item did. In retrospect do you think it was fair to Troika and Atari's customers be forced through that kind of bullshit?

I don't know. It's hard for me to say. I'm an old player. Things like that don't bother me. When I get an item I put it on and see what it does. There was no need to download anything, just check the stats/skills. I do the same in Diablo or Fallout, get a new item, equip, see what it does. Anyway, that's subjective, so I can see why some people were upset about that.

Let's see. TOEE's excellent combat + inane storyline + dull characters + horrible VO + limited areas VERSUS KOTOR's boring combat + good storyline + interesting characters + excellent VO + lots of areas + 30 hours of gameplay. Hmmmmmmm. That's a tough one!

I wasn't impressed with KOTOR's storyline (find 4 maps and btw, did we mention that you are Revan?!!!), wasn't crazy about the characters (I liked Jolee and HK-47, but other characters were so fucking annoying that I hated them all in the end), VO was decent, but that's a bonus not a main feature (in other words, I don't care), areas were dull, small, and way too linear. So, yeah, it is a tough one.

Well, every build was bugged to a lesser or greater degree. You can't deny this.

Not every build, but yes, there were many bugs and I'm not denying that.

Their choice of games was their mistake; nobody else's. So who's mistake was it?

I'd hardly call that a mistake.

They picked the games that sold poorly because nobody wanted to play them. How was that not a mistake? From a business standpoint, it certainly is.

Technically it is, I'll give you that. In reality, however, they picked the genre or sub-genre that would not have made them rich, and I think they've realized that, but would have allowed them to do what they like and make a good living. This very site is dedicated to these type of games, so it's not like they decided to make some crap that nobody wanted to play. I see no mistake in that.

 

[Volourn]

"Go and try it if you care"

Ha. I'd love to prove you wrong beyond any shadow of the doubt; but I'd rtahe rnot be bored doing it.


"Well, the temple quests alone OWN anything in terms of choice and role-playing that the entire BG series had to offer."

Flat. out. lie. Multiple endings does not equal impressive role-playing. If it did FF X-2 would be one of the deepest role-playing games of all times. Nice try bullshitter.


"Technically it is, I'll give you that. In reality, however, they picked the genre or sub-genre that would not have made them rich, and I think they've realized that, but would have allowed them to do what they like and make a good living. This very site is dedicated to these type of games, so it's not like they decided to make some crap that nobody wanted to play. I see no mistake in that."

The problem with that is that if your goal is to capture a niche market you don't blow your load trying to have a game bugdte mostly reserved fo AAA titles. I may not like Spdierweb; but at least they don't pretend to be a top of line First Class Commerical Developer. They are an internt game developer with a niche audience and they act it. Period.

If Troika was *really* about the niche audience they wouldn't be pretending to a Triple A developer. So, once again, you help me illustrate why it is Troika's fualt 100% that Troika failed.

R00fles!

 

[Vault Dweller]

Ha. I'd love to prove you wrong beyond any shadow of the doubt; but I'd rtahe rnot be bored doing it.

Yeah, go play some more NWN (that certainly explains the brain damage)

"Well, the temple quests alone OWN anything in terms of choice and role-playing that the entire BG series had to offer."

Flat. out. lie. Multiple endings does not equal impressive role-playing. If it did FF X-2 would be one of the deepest role-playing games of all times. Nice try bullshitter.

Where does it say anything about multiple endings? Just curious.

The problem with that is that if your goal is to capture a niche market you don't blow your load trying to have a game bugdte mostly reserved fo AAA titles.

First, publishers decide on budget, don't they? Second, making RPGs aint cheap.

If Troika was *really* about the niche audience they wouldn't be pretending to a Triple A developer. So, once again, you help me illustrate why it is Troika's fualt 100% that Troika failed.

Pretending to be a triple A developer? Where? Anyway, your point would have been valid if Troika was offered several contracts, but picked the biggest one and couldn't do it. This is not the case. What else you have?

 

[M0rphz0rz]

A lot of people bought TOEE expecting a Baldur's Gate, seeing Troika's past reputation with making in-depth RPGs like Arcanum. What they got was a dumbed down dungeon crawler with 6-7 hours of gameplay. It was hardly worth anyone's 49.95.

It was a dungeon crawler, alright. Like the module it was based on. 6-7 hours of gameplay? You gotta be kidding me. Even if you play with pre-generated characters and don't bother to do any of those boring fed-ex quests in Hommlet, you'll play well over 10 hours. If you take the time to create your own party and try to do as many quests as possible, 15-20 hours is more like it.

Nobody wanted Troika to make a dungeon crawler, much less a turn-based dungeon crawler with no storyline and 6-7 hours of gameplay, complete with bugs and no safe areas in the Temple itself. It's really enjoyable, having to walk back to Hommlet or Nub, just to refresh your spells.

The main spiral staircase in the Temple is a safe area. There are other areas in or near the Temple (the broken tower for example) where - once you have cleared out all the monsters - resting is relatively safe.

I really don't know what you refer to by 'tactical', but I assume you aren't referring to having a group of enemy mages cast Bull's Strength and Endurance on all my characters because their AI's too poor to do anything else. Face it, there weren't that many enemies and killing a monster with a magic missile is no different than killing him with a sword. I'd hardly call that 'tactical gameplay' or 'support for different builds'.

Not that many enemies? There are ca. 100 monsters in the game. Sure, their AI is kinda fucked up at times. But many of them have unique powers that require different strategies. Killing a monster with a magic missile is a lot more difficult when the monster in question has whoopass spell resistance. That's where the difference between spells and swords comes into play. As for tactical gameplay, what about 5-foot-steps, 'ready for approach' options or stuff like that?
While we're talking about the AI: As the webmaster of www.co8.org, you really should check out the recent developments there - a lot of stuff is being worked on right now that will improve enemy AI dramatically (among other things).

It makes me laugh when I hear people talk about what a 'great adaptation of D&D' TOEE was. Where's the DM, then? Sure, it was a great adaptation of D20 rules, but it was a horrible adaptation of D&D. Big difference.

Since when does an adaptation of D&D for computers need a DM? According to that logic, NWN would be the only real D&D game, since it offers a DM mode.

 

[Volourn]

"Yeah, go play some more NWN (that certainly explains the brain damage) "

Any brain damage I gots is from the Internet including this iste. I blame YOU!


"Where does it say anything about multiple endings? Just curious."

That's the only half witted role-playing that TOEE has so if youa re talkin' about its role-playing you are likely referring to that.


"First, publishers decide on budget, don't they? Second, making RPGs aint cheap."

1. Developers agree to the budget.

2. Espicially when you try your best to have fancy dancy graphics.


"Pretending to be a triple A developer? Where? Anyway, your point would have been valid if Troika was offered several contracts, but picked the biggest one and couldn't do it. This is not the case. What else you have?"

When you post stupid shit you become stupid shit you stupid shit.


"As for tactical gameplay, what about 5-foot-steps, 'ready for approach' options or stuff like that?"

5' step is the only worthwhile tatic in the game. I never used 'ready for approach' and anyone half decent wouldn't either. It was utterly boring.

 

[Vault Dweller]

That's the only half witted role-playing that TOEE has so if youa re talkin' about its role-playing you are likely referring to that.

If you have no idea what I'm referring to, why do you reply?

"First, publishers decide on budget, don't they? Second, making RPGs aint cheap."

1. Developers agree to the budget.

Agree implies choice, doesn't it?

2. Espicially when you try your best to have fancy dancy graphics.

And that's wrong because...?

When you post stupid shit you become stupid shit you stupid shit.

So THAT's what happened to you.

 

[Sol Invictus]

It was a dungeon crawler, alright. Like the module it was based on.

Well I'm really glad we got that straightened out.

6-7 hours of gameplay? You gotta be kidding me. Even if you play with pre-generated characters and don't bother to do any of those boring fed-ex quests in Hommlet, you'll play well over 10 hours. If you take the time to create your own party and try to do as many quests as possible, 15-20 hours is more like it.

Nope. I didn't get anywhere near that amount of time on any of my playthroughs, and the only reason I played it more than once was to see if there were any redeeming values about the game besides the combat. As I said, on my first time through I went with more a group of power characters, made my way through the Moat, killed some frogs, skipped the sidequests in Nulb, which really suck anyway, and headed through the secret entrance and got to the wizard guy with the Golden Orb. It wasn't my intention to finish the game as early as I did, with my guys still being only level 6, but with Otis around and since he had no bodyguards, I finished him pretty quickly and made my way to the Throne Room. I figured that's where I had to go to proceed to the next area, and lo and behold, killing the Fungus queen ends the game, much to my dismay. Total time spent? 6-7 hours.

The main spiral staircase in the Temple is a safe area. There are other areas in or near the Temple (the broken tower for example) where - once you have cleared out all the monsters - resting is relatively safe.

Meh, it takes a lot of spells and health to clear out all those areas, especially the 3rd floor.

Not that many enemies? There are ca. 100 monsters in the game.

And how many of these unique monsters are there? 2-3, by my count. I didn't find more than a small group of Lemurs (those horse things), werewolves or dancing spores and any of the other unique monsters. The game had gnolls, undead gnolls and bugbears in abundance, though. Had the game been much larger I'm sure the monsters would have been more evenly spread.

Sure, their AI is kinda fucked up at times. But many of them have unique powers that require different strategies.

How so? A bugbear who attacks me with an axe doesn't utilize a vastly different strategy from a hill giant who bashes me with his club. Either way, Fireball and Searing Orb destroyed most of them in 1-2 hits so it didn't matter what 'strategies' they had. It wasn't as if any of them were immune to the spells of a powerful mage with spell penetration or focus or whatever the feat is called.

Killing a monster with a magic missile is a lot more difficult when the monster in question has whoopass spell resistance. That's where the difference between spells and swords comes into play. As for tactical gameplay, what about 5-foot-steps, 'ready for approach' options or stuff like that?

As I said, combat was one of the game's strong points, but most of those little tactical options were completely meaningless given that the majority of monsters you faced were a bunch of stupid bugbears who died from a single fireball. I don't recall ever having to use any special movements like "Ready vs. Spell" or even "Counterspell" because there weren't many enemy opponents who could cast magic. 5 foot step was pretty useful but beyond that, all of the options were useless.

Since when does an adaptation of D&D for computers need a DM? According to that logic, NWN would be the only real D&D game, since it offers a DM mode.

Well, I won't go that far, but Volourn would probably agree with you there.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Do you honestly think that the download size had anything to do with the game not selling?

I don't know, but it's possible. I know that when I was on dial-up, Spiderweb 15-20 MB games were much more "affordable" to me than a 70 MB game.

JnG might specialize in shooters but Reflexive does everything from shooters to puzzle games, and probably RPGs if someone would approach them with one.

They didn't do a great job with Lionheart, did they? I doubt that that would have sold well as a shareware.

I don't get it. If you're so worried about download space why don't you just release them in packs and allow users who already own the 50mb version to upgrade their copies graphically or aurally with 20mb add-on packs for free? Surely you don't think that the graphical addons are going to somehow magically and illogically scare away low bandwidth users, do you?

Good idea.

It is irrelevent. You sabotaged your own poll by limiting it to dial-up users and opted out of catering to the broadband users when you wrote this disclaimer: Disclaimer: This survey is for dial-up people with somewhat older computers. Next time why don't you put up a disclaimer saying that the survey is only for people on 14.4kb connections and then show it to me as 'proof' that people aren't interested in downloading files larger than 5mb?

True, I did post that disclaimer, but I was surprised that there are so many people with dial-ups and d/l restrictions, even if self-imposed. Not that there's anything wrong with dial-up, of course. Don't forget this is the Codex, not some casual chit-chat site. If there are many people here who see no need for/can't afford/don't want to waste money on high speed, then clearly it's too early to write off dial-up users

90% of people? I'd like to know where you got that statistic that you can liberally throw it around like that.

Nowhere. I could be wrong, of course, but I don't see a lot of uses for high speed, other then porn and MMORPGs, of course. There is about 15-20 seconds delay between accessing regular sites using dialup and h/speed. I wish I can pretent that I'm so organized and business-like that I can't afford to waste 20 seconds, but the truth is, I don't care.

It's $20-40/m and nothing more. Anyone who can afford a computer can afford to pay $240-480/y because it's simply affordable to pay in installments. Paying 5.95 a week for some couch you bought is more affordable than paying $295 in a lump sum and the same goes with internet access. You can just as easily bring up a figure like $2400-4800/10y and gamble a point about how ludicrous internet access fees cost, but you'd be holding snakeyes. Of course it looks like a big number, but you're forgetting to bring a person's wages or salary into the mix so it looks gigantic in comparison to anyone's monthly wage.

I don't know (and I'm not asking about your financial situation), but let me assure you that for anyone who's making under 40k/year, extra 20-40 bucks a month is a lot. Especially if a person has a family, and must deal with a mortgage, car payments, child care, etc. A computer isn't only a toy, it has other uses: job hunting, resumes, letters, work at home, keeping track of expenses, etc. H/speed access is a toy.

That's what you're not doing here, VD: you're not factoring in all the necessary aspects (e.g. yearly salary, comparisons to utility bills, phone bills, gas prices and so forth) required to gauge the true impact of broadband costs.

Well, these numbers are different for everyone, and thus would be meaningless. Suffice to say that I don't see a single person here who'd say that h/speed is great and affordable, but I see a lot of people who share my position.

 

[Sol Invictus]

I don't know, but it's possible. I know that when I was on dial-up, Spiderweb 15-20 MB games were much more "affordable" to me than a 70 MB game.

Of course, but you shouldn't limit your game to dial-up users, is what I'm saying. Offer additional downloads for people with broadband or people on dial-up whom are willing to take the time to download extra.

They didn't do a great job with Lionheart, did they? I doubt that that would have sold well as a shareware.

Ion Hardie's aspirations for a Diablo clone notwithstanding, it wasn't their fault Interplay decided to stop paying them half way through and simply forcing the game out the door.

True, I did post that disclaimer, but I was surprised that there are so many people with dial-ups and d/l restrictions, even if self-imposed. Not that there's anything wrong with dial-up, of course. Don't forget this is the Codex, not some casual chit-chat site. If there are many people here who see no need for/can't afford/don't want to waste money on high speed, then clearly it's too early to write off dial-up users

I think you're right that you shouldn't write off dial-up users, but don't be so quick to write off broadband, either. Clearly a lot of us here are up to downloading much larger files.

 

[taks]

That's because Interplay dropped the ball on that game. They didn't bother to advertise it, and when they did, they advertised blades and tits as a selling point rather than an existentialist journey - a niche that certainly has a larger base than Interplay's marketing department can count. It also had a really ugly box that simply turned the game off to many.

bold is mine.

interplay may have dropped the ball, but that is not why torment didn't sell. torment didn't sell because the "existentialist journey" concept just isn't that popular. those of you in here, certainly more of the "hard-core gamer" types, may find this kind of game very engaging. however, the average Baldur's Gate fan does not. torment didn't sell because there just aren't enough people in to that kind of game. it's just waaaay too deap.

for example, i have a friend i'd call an "average" gamer. he bought kotor, and loved it. he even bought kotor 2 and noted pretty much the same things everybody else did regarding similarities to the first. however, his primary complaint was, oddly enough, the "role-playing" aspects of the game. he'd rather have the action. he auto-leveled his character. he's far from stupid (quite bright, actually), he just doesn't care about engaging stories on a computer.

remember, exitium, just because YOU OR I like something does not mean joe average gamer does. we're not average by any stretch, and the majority of crpg purchases are made by the average.

taks

 

[Vault Dweller]

Completely agree with you, taks. I loved PST, and I was surprised how many people complained about too much reading in the game. Most people want some entertaining actions and speshul effects for their amusement, not something deep and involving. It would have been fine, if publishers weren't willing to focus almost exclusively on casual players and disregard hardcore players completely.

 

[triCritical]

Torment sold better then all the Troika titles.

 

[Greatatlantic]

For every game that succeeded or failed, there has been an attempt to explain why it did so. The fact something like 90% of games flop and don't recover their manufacturing costs is testament to how un-universal these explanations are. If anyone could figure out how to make a hit game then 90% would not be flops. Sure, we can say all day that highly polished games backed by good quality assurance and an ad and distriubtion campaign will sell, but even thats no guarentee.

I was at target the other day, and I walked through the PC games aisle to see if there were any deals to be had. I saw zero of Troika's games there. What games there were could be divided into four quarters. One quarter was reserved for utility and operating software, i.e. Windows, Resume 2005, etc. Another quarter was filled with kiddie title, like a Barbie and Lemony Snicket games. A third quarter had bargain titles for $10. These are older games like Mafia or Medieval: Total War. Finally, one fourth of the store had premium titles. While this included Half Life 2 and Rome TW, it also had things like the compilation package of Half Life, Morrowind: GOTY, and Age of Empires 2. I'd be willing to bet Wal-Mart has a similiar set up to Target, which sells a lot more computer games than EB or other "specialty shops". So, whether or not a Troika's games succeeded may or may not have have depended on the end consumer, but the retailers. Thats how Deer Hunter became such a hit.

Arcanum was something of a spiritual successor to Fallout. The basic formula was the same, isometric perspective, class free character advancement, nonlinear gameplay. However, it generally lacked Fallouts great setting and artistic wow. It sold enough copies to break even, which was not enough to convince Sierra that a sequel was in order, considering they had more promising intellectual properties to pursue: Contract Jack, anyone?

Temple of Elemental Evil was Troika's fastest seller, and in the year it was released outsold Hordes of the Underdark. I can't believe Atari thought they'd get a Baldur's Gate like reception for the game, though. BG was made by twice the staff over twice the time period, and didn't have to worry about the inherintly buggier 3d approach. Throw in the fact Temple had a lot more monsters and spells than Baldurs Gate... Anyways, Atari contracted Troika to make a conversion of a classic DnD module that didn't have much of a story to begin with, and thats what they got.

Bloodlines, I've got one thing to say about this one right off the bat, the stories about its buginess are so vastly over exaggerated. I played this game through the first time with out any patches or console work arounds. The only thing that bothered me was not getting paid for the Food Critic Quest. I did encounter some CTDs, but not as often as I do with Rome: Total War or Morrowind, both of which I'm replaying right now. A lot of people complain about load times, but my gig of RAM made them non consequential. By all accounts the game was a pretty fair adaptation of the Masquerade lisence, I the many reasons I like it have nothing to do with the vampiric elements. It has the best dialogue I've read in a game since Torment. It gave you numerous ways to play the game, much more so than say Deus Ex or even System Shock 2. That was one of Bloodlines' strengths, varied gameplay. Why didn't it suceed? It could be something as simple as being lost in the shuffle. It was a Mature rated game that wasn't gaurenteed to sell a lot of copies, so retailers like Walmart shunned it. Instead, no one except hardcore RPG fans bought it. Other people just bought Half Life 2 or World of Warcraft. I think this title is the back of a lot of gamers minds, however. It will continue to sell somewhat steadily for a while, thats my prediction. Especially when people start upgrading their computers, which it seems like it needs to be done every two years.

 

[Kuato]

That's because Interplay dropped the ball on that game. They didn't bother to advertise it, and when they did, they advertised blades and tits as a selling point rather than an existentialist journey - a niche that certainly has a larger base than Interplay's marketing department can count. It also had a really ugly box that simply turned the game off to many.

Maybe the poor sales were due to its release time- does December 12, 1999 seem like a very ideal time for a niche 2d rpg game?
Wasn't Ultima Online and EQ hitting their peaks at about the same time, Asherons call had just been released too.
Maybe there was some other influence kind of like how HL2 and Halo 2 completely crushed other games coming out at the same time I mean Quake III was released the week before PS:T , and wasn't Ultima IX: Ascension heavily anticapated that was realesed two weeks earlier.
I think when a game released is a major factor in sales.

 

[dojoteef]

Well I have to admit, that Looking Glass Studio postmortem was spot on. It really accenutated the difficulty of staying in the games industry. I especially like this quote, which I think is a concept most of you tend to ignore:

Keep in mind that this doesn’t all mean that the publishers are the evil villains of the game industry for failing to support obviously good companies and ditching the bad ones, and for failing to split the profits equitably with the producers. Publishers are, in fact, in the same binds as the producers, except on a much larger monetary scale. Bigger publishers are better able to offset losses with a few hits, which is why there are so few publishers around: most of them have died or been bought up.

The only reason I tend to lay more blame on Troika than the publishers is due to the unfinished quality of their games. I'm not just talking about a couple of bugs. Every game that ships will be in that category. ToEE was and is still very buggy for me. It was buggy for everyone, not just for some percentage of the customers. The number of CTDs and save game corruptions are really what I fault; I'm willing to let rules bugs slide. Then you've got Bloodlines. That game was unfinished. That's why they resorted to combat oriented levels. It's the easiest thing to do. Couple that with the few major bugs that stand out, and people really start taking serious issue with the game.

Troika was contracted to finish the game within a certain time limit. They did not deliver. That's what I fault them for. I would have prefered Bloodlines to be a shorter game that was well polished than what was delivered. A game that started out excellent then went down the crapper towards the end.

I'm not going to begin to claim to have the ability to estimate the development time of a game. I'm not experienced enough to determine when my own projects are going to be finished yet. I would expect that the team leads on the other hand would be able to do this and ensure that the projects finish on time. That is after all why the get paid more money than the rest of the people working on a game.

I think it's true that even if Troika had made rock solid games, that they might not have sold much better than they did. On the other hand I tend to believe they couldn't secure more work due to the technical issues with ToEE. This is something that I truly believe, especially after having attended that all day tutorial at GDC about the developer-publisher relationship. You can read my reasoning from that thread, no need to repeat that here.


The reason why publishers are continually moving towards the lower risk models of publishing is quite simple. Games cost a ridiculous amount to go from conception to the gamer's computer. Even games that you think are "cheap" to make probably cost at least a million dollars to develop. Publishers can't afford to lose money on games they don't think will sell enough. They make a budget for the game by determining what they think the available market for the game is and how much of a margin they are looking to make on the game. It's a lie that publishers aren't willing to take a risk on a game. They are certainly willing to fund a niche title, it just has to stay within the budget that they set forth so they can turn around a reap a profit on it. Funding only AAA titles is the quickest way to go out of business. You can't put your eggs in one basket. So publishers do diversify, they just want to make sure that the game will pull it's own weight.

Now I'll admit that the publishers did wrong by Troika as well. For example, putting Bloodlines on the market during the same time as a number of blockbuster hits was really a poor decision on Activision's part. Then again, that didn't kill Troika. What killed Troika is the fact that they didn't have another project lined up (once again read the GDC post I made). I think that is honestly where the speculation needs to be. WHY wasn't Troika able to line up another job. I don't think it has anything to do with Troika being a niche developer. As I said, publishers depend on niche developers as another form of income. (Oh and as a side note, anything that isn't an FPS or RTS is a niche to a publisher. Heck being a PC game pretty much makes a game a niche.) So the problem has to be something else. Heck, maybe none of the publishers liked their ideas. Though they stated they had around six ideas that they were approaching publishers with, so it seems unlikely that none of those ideas had any merit.


**Puts on a flame retardant suit.** Okay, let the flaming begin!

 

[Kuato]

Funding only AAA titles is the quickest way to go out of business.

IDG defines AAA titles as those ranking among the top 5 titles based on unit sales, and A titles as those ranking between the top 6 and 20 titles of the year. By that definition making AAA titles is the best way to stay in business.
or
AAA titles are hit titles of the best quality (the name taken from the stocks & bonds rating system: AAA bonds are bonds of the best quality, offering the smallest degree of investment risk).
They may have pulled AAA from the system used by the major credit rating services to rate publically traded securities since the early 1900s. AAA is an investment of the highest quality.

the term AAA title is still not clearly defined I think Publishers Marketing People just use it as a Buzzword. All EA games are AAA titlesl

What killed Troika is the fact that they didn't have another project lined up

I agree, buit just take a time out and instead os speculating just read what Leonard Boyarsky said

GameSpy: Troika has been around for several years, and had three good titles under its belt. Why do you think you weren't able to secure funding for your next project?
Boyarsky: I'm not sure, you'd have to ask the publishers. If I had to guess, I'd say it's because triple A titles are costing more and more to make, and people are looking for titles that will appeal to a more mainstream audience than ours have traditionally. In plain English, our games just didn't sell enough units.

more mainstream less niche, I beleive niche games make good profits but not the kind profit margins the bloated publishers* need to stay a float look what they planned for the future, because next gen games are going to cost so much more to make and market(did you hear marketing budgets have magically doubled in size for next gen games) we have too way too many middle men to provide for.
http://gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=7480

*(yes you can fund whole games with just a few of the salaries some of these execs make we are talking 300-1000k a year)

 

[dojoteef]

Let me try to explain the AAA thing a bit more. Any game that sells a certain number of units is going to be called AAA, that's a given. The question is, what is a AAA title before any units are sold? It's what determines the budgets and the marketing. So it's more of a "speculative" AAA title that I'm refering to. It's what the publishers think will sell a certain number of units. That's what I'm talking about funding AAA titles. Most titles that are funded as AAA titles, don't bring in the money they are supposed to. That's why I call it a death wish to only fund such games.



As for your quote from Leon, I think he came to the wrong conclusions. He is making niche titles and the publishers aren't receptive to his latest round of pitches. That must mean that publishers don't want to fund any niche titles. I call bullshit. Could it be because they couldn't stay within budget for their last two titles, or that they were buggy when shipped? I'd say that's a more likely reason.

Publishers are still funding niche titles. Let's say they couldn't find a mainstream publisher, there are numerous smaller publishers that are even more receptive for niche products. I honestly think Troika screwed the pooch with buggy, late releases. I think that's why they couldn't secure funding for a new project. Either that, or they waited too long after ToEE before trying to find a publisher for a new game. Especially since six months of negotiation for a title is normal. In my opinion those are really the only true possibilities. Then again, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

 

[Stark]

dojoteef,

you're in the gaming industry right? any thougts on the viability of alternative forms of distribtions, bypassing the publisher-developer mess?

online distribution has been proposed and discussed, but for some of the countries with lower exchange rate, it might actually be cheaper to purchase from retailer as they're paying local currency. purchasing online means paying in US dollars and it might turn out to be more expensive for us.

 

[dojoteef]

dojoteef,

you're in the gaming industry right?

Note quite yet. I attended GDC mainly to try to find a job. I just graduated in December. Getting a better feel for the industry just went hand in hand with talking to so many developers. Hopefully I can actually say that I'm in the industry very soon, that is if the contacts I've gotten while I was there pan out.

any thougts on the viability of alternative forms of distribtions, bypassing the publisher-developer mess?

online distribution has been proposed and discussed, but for some of the countries with lower exchange rate, it might actually be cheaper to purchase from retailer as they're paying local currency. purchasing online means paying in US dollars and it might turn out to be more expensive for us.

Well, I think we'll soon see how viable some of these new alternate forms of distribution are. Though you have to remember this isn't a new concept. For example, shareware has been an alternate distribution channel that's been around for quite some time now. Shareware used to be available through retail (as in physical) stores and also online. More recently I haven't seen shareware available at any stores that I've been to. Maybe a renewed push for such a model might be better for you and people in similar situations, I'm not sure.

The other thing is, I haven't really bought any games online through online distribution either. I think the marketing of such games will definitely have to increase in order for online distribution to become more viable. What's great about physical stores is that customers might not necessarily come looking for a game, but they are available to peruse. I'm talking more about stores that are either in a mall or are part of a larger retailer like Walmart. Competing with that model is much more difficult for online retailers in my opinion.

One method of distribution that I abhore is the subscription type model that you often see for cell phone games. You can either purchase the game for about $6-7 or you can pay per month for $3-4. I'm not sure how often people choose the subscription model, but I know I wouldn't.

I actually didn't spend much time trying to find out the different methods of distribution that people have come up with. I just know that there are a bunch of companies basically emulating the Steam model of online distribution, each with their own slightly different take on it. The problem then is you have another company that is playing the gate keeper, just like the publishers have traditonally played the gate keeper. It really isn't much better in my opinion.

I don't have the end all solution for the independent game company that wants to stay afloat. I think the traditional model is still viable. Independent developers need to find financial stability, after which they can hopefully start making the games they want to. If that means making the games that the publisher wants, then do that. Just make sure you deliver it on time, within budget, and with high production values (i.e. relatively bug free). After you get a number of titles under your belt you should start to gain the confidence of publishers and be on a better financial standing. The caveat is of course, if you've managed your business well and negotiated contracts that ensure you actually have rights that can be protected. A number of big names in the industry started out that way; one example is Bioware.

If you look at just how many games that are released now are sequels, it's absurd. The games industry is very violatile and at some point the gamers are going to say, we've had enough! No more sequels. Lots of gamers are already starting to get to that point. I'd say in the next five years or so, we'll see a renewed push for more unique games.

 

[Kuato]

online distribution has been proposed and discussed, but for some of the countries with lower exchange rate, it might actually be cheaper to purchase from retailer as they're paying local currency. purchasing online means paying in US dollars and it might turn out to be more expensive for us.

If a game actually proves to be a success through online distribution I don't think retailers will need tons of convincing to stock it on their shelves at that point.