Quote:

The problem is that the tables, charts, and algorithms are only around 5% of the game. The game might have a formula to relate climbing penalties to weight carried and surface climbed, and might relate climbing speed to walking speed, but that doesn't do any good unless you include climbing animations, label every surface with the appropriate penalty to climb it, etc. Even once you do all that, you still don't allow for a player using a 'Feather Token: Tree' to instantly create an easily-climbable 60ft-tall tree wherever they want, or a 'Rope of Climbing' to easily climb up to 60ft of the slickest wall, or 'Boots of Levitation', 'Winged Boots', 'Boots of Teleportation', 'Figurines of Wondrous Power: Ebony Fly', or any of the related spells, etc. The fact is that D&D is a very complicated system due to the great variety of spells and items that exist in the game (not to mention everything else), and that isn't even getting to things like "common sense realism" where you might be able to use a ladder, a grappling hook, pitons, etc.

Wouldn't it be great if the next D&D game allowed for 360 directional movement? All of those magical items and spells could be used!

It seems to me that with 3d game engines we should already have a game like that. I'm just shocked that most developers have taken the easy way out stuck us with 2d game concepts (ie NWN2)

The sad thing is that developers have forcused more on character options then many of the fun aspects of D&D.

Quote:

Original post by Kylotan Quote: Original post by 00Kevin You are much better off making your own RPG system then using the D&D licence. You will make more money and you will end up with a larger demographic. What a bizarre assertion. Where is your backing for that? Do you know nothing of brands or licences? Why do you keep coming out with statements that you try to claim as fact but without presenting either logic or evidence to support them?

Use your brain. the DnD system wasn't made for the computer gaming industry it was made for a small group of players and a DM. Furthermore, Atari and wizards dictate what you can and cannot do. You would have to be an idiot not to understand how much effort is required to deal with those people.

Quote:

Original post by 00Kevin Quote: Original post by Kylotan Not one of your 7 points has anything to do with 3D whatsoever. Nor should it - 95% of the game system does not change at all whether you use 2D or 3D. The statistical game mechanics are entirely separate from the rendering. All that significantly changes is the art pipeline, which really has little effect on the quality of the game itself. The fact remains that commercially and critically successful games can be and have been developed while sticking close to D+D settings and rules, and that your statement of "the system doesn't translate well enough into a computer game" is clearly false. For your information a 3d engine doesn't just render pixels. It handles many more complex data structurs such as those related to movement, cameras, object detection, etc..

Quote:

For your information, I'm a professional game developer, and though I don't claim to be the next John Carmack, I do know what a typical 3D engine does. I also do know that there does not need to be any significant difference in gameplay between a 3D rendered game and a 2D rendered game such as Baldur's Gate.

Then you are clearly part of the problem. When are developers going to take the time and make a DnD game that provides the players with the freedom of movement that many other games have for so many years? You seem to think that all you have to do is simply change the graphics engine from a pre rendered (BG2) engine to real time rendering and that is all. Why go 3d if you are not also going to provide the freedom that comes with it?

When are the D&D developers going to stop making half-breed 3d engines that act like 2d games?

It is 2006 and there should be no more of this crap. Even Ultima Underworld 1 & 2 provided more then the modern D&D engines of today. It even had levitation and flying! For that reason it was fun and there were many unique ways to solve problems . 15 years later and we are worse off. All D&D developers do now is look at the old game BG2 and fart dust.

Quote:

Quote: The statistical game rules that relate to classes, races, and equipment are not the problem. Issues are found with the turn based combat system and the way special abilities, spells, and feats work. The fact is you can't claim that the turn based pen and paper system transates well into a real time 3d game. The fact is, you cannot show whatsoever that the choice of 2D or 3D has any effect at all on the combat system.

You still don't get it. What I said is that you either Go turn based or you go real time and junk the combat system rules. The D&D combat system rules don't work with real time games. When it comes to things like cleave attacks and AOEs the system breaks down in real time. You can't even show all the animations for all those attacks real time because things happen so fast. The fact is the combat rules only work well for a turn based game.

Lastly, why use 3d if you are not going to provide the basic elements that we all enjoy about them for so many years now?

So.. erm.

F*** DnD! Use HERO!

(Seriously.)

Quote:

Original post by 00Kevin Quote: Original post by Kylotan Quote: Original post by 00Kevin You are much better off making your own RPG system then using the D&D licence. You will make more money and you will end up with a larger demographic. What a bizarre assertion. Where is your backing for that? Do you know nothing of brands or licences? Why do you keep coming out with statements that you try to claim as fact but without presenting either logic or evidence to support them? Use your brain. the DnD system wasn't made for the computer gaming industry it was made for a small group of players and a DM.

You have a lot of work to do if you want to prove that a game system being adapted from one medium to another means it will sell worse than the alternative. In the meantime, 6 million sales for the Baldurs Gate and NWN series prove you wrong.

Quote:

Furthermore, Atari and wizards dictate what you can and cannot do. You would have to be an idiot not to understand how much effort is required to deal with those people.

Yet again you drift off your point, because you know you can't support it. It may well be difficult to deal with Wizards of the Coast. Your ignorance shows through however when you say that Atari dictate what you can and cannot do. Atari do not own the D+D license, Hasbro do. Atari are just the publishers of some of the games.

Quote:

Original post by 00Kevin Quote: For your information, I'm a professional game developer, and though I don't claim to be the next John Carmack, I do know what a typical 3D engine does. I also do know that there does not need to be any significant difference in gameplay between a 3D rendered game and a 2D rendered game such as Baldur's Gate. Then you are clearly part of the problem.

Yes, of course, any game developer who is not working on a 3D DnD game that gives you what you want is obviously part of the problem. Your logic is laughably flawed.

Quote:

You seem to think that all you have to do is simply change the graphics engine from a pre rendered (BG2) engine to real time rendering and that is all. Why go 3d if you are not also going to provide the freedom that comes with it?

Because not all 'freedom' is a good thing. Ever played a 3D Tetris variant?

Quote:

It is 2006 and there should be no more of this crap. Even Ultima Underworld 1 & 2 provided more then the modern D&D engines of today. It even had levitation and flying!

Yet again you bizarrely confuse the presence of the D+D ruleset with the decision to disallow movement in the 3rd dimension.

Quote:

You still don't get it. What I said is that you either Go turn based or you go real time and junk the combat system rules. The D&D combat system rules don't work with real time games.

Wait... so one minute, the problem is that you can't sell D+D games because it's too difficult to deal with the IP holders, the next it's because 3D doesn't work with the rules, then it's because the combat doesn't work with real time games... not one of your arguments has been backed up because you quickly shift on to the next the moment you're demonstrated to be wrong.

Here you say the rules "don't work" yet you fail to provide any evidence or logical proof that this is the case. Neither have you explained why "3D" (a term in computer gaming referring to rendering methods and depth of view) means "real time" (a term in computer gaming referring to when events happen during a continuous timeline rather than at discrete points). They do not mean the same thing. Nor is there necessarily a firm divide between real time and turn based, as most Japanese RPGs demonstrate, also while heavily using 3D rendering incidentally. Also the Might and Magic games are fully 3D - yes, including flight and levitation you seem to think is a fundamental feature - yet they have turn-based combat too.

It's quite apparent that you have a very specific sort of game in mind, and think that since D+D games don't conform to that idea, that there is therefore something intrinsically wrong with developing a game based on the D+D engine. Yet there is no empirical or logical evidence to support your biased claims.

Quote:

Original post by Extrarius Quote: Original post by Kylotan [...]Baldur's Gate? Planescape? Unless you can explain those two, the rest of your post isn't worth the electrons it's composed of. I've only played Baldur's Gate 2, but I imagine the same applies to earlier games: While BG2 was a fun game, it was NOT D&D except in the loosest of senses.

They were both "D&D based games". We can quibble over how closely they fit the pattern, but let's list what was based closely upon AD+D:

- the spells
- the character classes and their restrictions
- the character races
- the skills
- the geography
- the period/technology level
- the combat resolution system
- the health system
- the levels/experience/progression system
- the scarcity of magical items
- the frequency of attacks
- the relative effectiveness of different weapons
- the difficulty curve
- the monster appearance and statistics
- the emphasis on a party rather than an individual
- the alignment system

That's a pretty long list, touching on pretty much every aspect of gameplay.

Quote:

It did have a system that might appear mechanically similar, but the details that were altered made tremendous differences. For example, half or more of the spells for wizards and clerics were removed completely, which meant that while casters were still powerful, they were rather boring.

That just implies that a game that more closely models the D+D rules could be even better. It doesn't support the original poster's thought that following those rules would make the game worse.

Quote:

They could have done far better if they had skipped emulating D&D and instead went for something more diablo-esque.

You won't find me defending the D20 or AD+D systems. However the original poster was bizarrely claiming that D+D games won't sell (which they do), that they will be bug-filled (as if P+P rules somehow contribute to code?!), that the rules can't work in 3D (which has no bearing on the rules), etc.

Why you should make a DnD game:

License - as in lotsa money to back you up.
Fan Base - already a huge one there.
Setting - already a wealth of background information and detail for you to use in the game.
Story - Baldur's Gate Trilogy. 'nuff said.
More Flexible Than You Might Think - Planescape: Torment's system didn't conform to the rules 100%. Still probably the best RPG ever though.
Strategy - The magic system in BGII was absolutely amazing.

I admit, the latest games have been a bit crap. I hated NWN, but that's no reason to say people should stop making them. If we did there would have been no more FPS games after Daikatana...

Quote:

Original post by TheOddMan I admit, the latest games have been a bit crap. I hated NWN, but that's no reason to say people should stop making them. If we did there would have been no more FPS games after Daikatana...

There's a difference between D&D and the role/roll-playing concept as a whole. You can still have the joy of twinking the crunchy bits of a game mechanic without having to swear undying fealty to the Wizards of the Coast empire.

Quote:

Original post by 00Kevin Quote: The problem is that the tables, charts, and algorithms are only around 5% of the game. The game might have a formula to relate climbing penalties to weight carried and surface climbed, and might relate climbing speed to walking speed, but that doesn't do any good unless you include climbing animations, label every surface with the appropriate penalty to climb it, etc. Even once you do all that, you still don't allow for a player using a 'Feather Token: Tree' to instantly create an easily-climbable 60ft-tall tree wherever they want, or a 'Rope of Climbing' to easily climb up to 60ft of the slickest wall, or 'Boots of Levitation', 'Winged Boots', 'Boots of Teleportation', 'Figurines of Wondrous Power: Ebony Fly', or any of the related spells, etc. The fact is that D&D is a very complicated system due to the great variety of spells and items that exist in the game (not to mention everything else), and that isn't even getting to things like "common sense realism" where you might be able to use a ladder, a grappling hook, pitons, etc. Wouldn't it be great if the next D&D game allowed for 360 directional movement? All of those magical items and spells could be used! It seems to me that with 3d game engines we should already have a game like that. I'm just shocked that most developers have taken the easy way out stuck us with 2d game concepts (ie NWN2)

I think you're missing Extrarius's point - adding all those neat features might sound simple enough and cool to have, but a designer has to consider the actual feasibility of implementing those features whilst still meeting their deadlines and design goals. Throwing in all that extra stuff means more content, many more potential ways to break the gameplay (and consequently much greater QA effort required to achieve a reasonable level of robustness), much more complex map data structures, more complex AI/pathfinding etc.

These problems are not specific to D&D. It may well be possible to implement a game that does all this stuff, but the chances are you will have to sacrifice something else to do it.

Quote:

The sad thing is that developers have forcused more on character options then many of the fun aspects of D&D.

Like what? Back when I played PnP I found developing a character in the context of a storyline to be infinitely more entertaining than making hundreds of jump checks for no apparent reason. I'd say by concentrating on character options they've done a pretty good job of identifying the fun aspects of D&D.