So why was Scorpia sacked?
trac...@my-deja.com
years ago. This got me reminiscing a bit about the days when her
column was the first one I flipped to whenever a new copy of the
magazine arrived.
Anyone know the real reason she and CGW parted ways? For several years
there were hardly any RPG's worth reviewing, so I always assumed that
had something to do with it.
Trachten
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Bill
honest reviews and I don't really think they wanted that. They cater to the
big advertisers. But why don't you ask her? www.scorpia.com
Bill R.
<trac...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8d5bfr$9aa$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Djutmose Buteamon
review of Baldur's Gate (she pointed out a lot of flaws with a lot of
insight, IMHO, and rated the game a bit lower than most competing mags)
didn't reflect the opinion of the "vast majority of RPG fans" or some
such thing, so the magazine was letting her go. I was pretty disgusted
by this at the time. Of course, I still think that BG was/is way
overrated.--'Mose
Damocles
wrote:
>I think it was because of the new management at the magazine. She writes
>honest reviews and I don't really think they wanted that. They cater to the
>big advertisers. But why don't you ask her? www.scorpia.com
>
>Bill R.
Bah, I'd probably have to pay by the email for a response. Scorpia
never figured out that we're not on Genie anymore...you don't need to
pay to get solid CRPG reviews and discussion. Her content is no
different than that of any other completely website.
Brian H.
think unlike most reviewers we saw today in the web, she is very honest
and mature. I remember that her BG review she did express her thoughts
on what she believed some shortcomings of BG, but she didn't *bitch*
about anything emotionally. She did praise the multiplayer aspect of
the game but she just don't think it's perfect.
I think the reason she was sacked is more than just a review. Just
like some office politics that happened daily in every office, I think
the BG review incidence was most likely an excuse (or "opportunity",
for some people) that someone can sack her with seemingly good reasons.
In article <38F65641...@nac.net>,
djut...@nac.net wrote:
> I think i remember reading something in the magazine about how her
> review of Baldur's Gate (she pointed out a lot of flaws with a lot of
> insight, IMHO, and rated the game a bit lower than most competing
mags)
> didn't reflect the opinion of the "vast majority of RPG fans" or some
> such thing, so the magazine was letting her go. I was pretty
disgusted
> by this at the time. Of course, I still think that BG was/is way
> overrated.--'Mose
>
> Bill wrote:
> >
> > I think it was because of the new management at the magazine. She
writes
> > honest reviews and I don't really think they wanted that. They
cater to the
> > big advertisers. But why don't you ask her?
www.scorpia.com
> >
> > Bill R.
> > <trac...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8d5bfr$9aa$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > In a U8 thread someone mentioned Scorpia being sacked from CGW a
few
> > > years ago. This got me reminiscing a bit about the days when her
> > > column was the first one I flipped to whenever a new copy of the
> > > magazine arrived.
> > >
> > > Anyone know the real reason she and CGW parted ways? For several
years
> > > there were hardly any RPG's worth reviewing, so I always assumed
that
> > > had something to do with it.
> > >
> > > Trachten
> > >
> > >
> > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > > Before you buy.
>
--
Brian.
Human beings can send to bh1234...@nospam.please.ismart.net.
Spammers can send to bh1...@my-deja.com because I never use it.
Scott Shupe
>
> I think i remember reading something in the magazine about how her
> review of Baldur's Gate (she pointed out a lot of flaws with a lot of
> insight, IMHO, and rated the game a bit lower than most competing mags)
> didn't reflect the opinion of the "vast majority of RPG fans" or some
> such thing, so the magazine was letting her go. I was pretty disgusted
> by this at the time. Of course, I still think that BG was/is way
> overrated.--'Mose
So reviewers at CGW are required to sing the praises of popular games?
Yeesh. Just when I thought my opinion of gaming magazines couldn't get
any lower...
Scott
Lost Dragon
>by this at the time. Of course, I still think that BG was/is way
>overrated.--'Mose
I couldn't agree more. The only (major) thing that game had going for
it was a starved cRPG audience. All the rest was pretty derivative
hack-n-slash IMO.
/| .oo__. .-----.=- -= Lost Dragon =- -=.-----. U
{ \| ,-'' | _O_ |==- -= Forever Dead Forgotten Lie =- -==| _O_ | D
`,_/'(_)\_ | | |==- Remembered Souls, They Cannot Die -==| | | I
<...{_)_)_''`-----`===-- http://www.lostdragon.com/ --==='-----' C
Led Mirage
>I think the reason she was sacked is more than just a review. Just
>like some office politics that happened daily in every office, I think
>the BG review incidence was most likely an excuse (or "opportunity",
>for some people) that someone can sack her with seemingly good reasons.
CGw wanted to cater to the younger crowd and she's an old hag
(relatively speaking. She wrote for CGW for ages). Also, she was the
last one to review games and not give scores. That was also a no-no.
And of course, I think some of her "reviews" were too opinionated. For
her fans, that's probably what they want, but that's not want I want
since I'm not one of her fans.
Plissken
wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 15:46:39 -0700, "Bill" <will...@mindspring.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I think it was because of the new management at the magazine. She writes
>>honest reviews and I don't really think they wanted that. They cater to the
>>big advertisers. But why don't you ask her? www.scorpia.com
>>
>>Bill R.
>
>Bah, I'd probably have to pay by the email for a response. Scorpia
>never figured out that we're not on Genie anymore...you don't need to
>pay to get solid CRPG reviews and discussion. Her content is no
>different than that of any other completely website.
It's rare that a game-mag's reviews are any better than a quality
web-site's these days.
I guess the only reason the game mags are still in business is because
it's hard to read gaming webpages when you're taking a dump.
Plissken
Desslock
>
> So reviewers at CGW are required to sing the praises of popular games?
> Yeesh. Just when I thought my opinion of gaming magazines couldn't get
> any lower...
That's ridiculous.
The end.
Desslock
--
Desslock's RPG News: http://desslock.gamespot.com Latest additions:
First looks at Might and Magic Legends and Dungeon Siege.
Getefix
> Plissken wrote:
<...>
> It's rare that a game-mag's reviews are any better than a quality
> web-site's these days. I guess the only reason the game mags are
> still in business is because it's hard to read gaming webpages when
> you're taking a dump.
Gaming mags _want_ to keep you in the bathroom and off the websites.
Why else do you think there has been a rash of busty young women on
the magazine covers ;-)
Deborah Gray
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 01:28:40 GMT, Damocles <phae...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> It's rare that a game-mag's reviews are any better than a quality
> web-site's these days.
> I guess the only reason the game mags are still in business is because
> it's hard to read gaming webpages when you're taking a dump.
>
> Plissken
I agree - I wouldn't be buying gaming mags anymore, except maybe for Computer
Games, if I didn't want something to read on the exercise bike.
- Deborah
Matthew Murray
If you don't want a reviewer telling you what they think about a
game, what exactly >do< you want?
===============================================================================
Matthew A. Murray - mmu...@cc.wwu.edu - http://www.wwu.edu/~mmurray
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A critical history of computer gaming: | "I'm up among the stars, on earthly
Over 195 computer game reviews, covering | things I frown, I'm throwing off the
games from 1977 to the present! | bars that held me down... Who could
| ask for anything more?"
http://www.wwu.edu/~mmurray/Reviews.html | --The Gershwins, from Crazy for You
===============================================================================
Knight37
>Djutmose Buteamon wrote:
>>
>> I think i remember reading something in the magazine about how her
>> review of Baldur's Gate (she pointed out a lot of flaws with a lot
>> of insight, IMHO, and rated the game a bit lower than most
>> competing mags) didn't reflect the opinion of the "vast majority
>> of RPG fans" or some such thing, so the magazine was letting her
>> go. I was pretty disgusted by this at the time. Of course, I
>> still think that BG was/is way overrated.--'Mose
>
>So reviewers at CGW are required to sing the praises of popular
>games? Yeesh. Just when I thought my opinion of gaming magazines
>couldn't get any lower...
You're basing this on what? The say so of some guy's post on Usenet?
There is no evidence to back up that CGW or any other magazine raises
ratings to cater to advertisers.
--
Knight37
"When you have to shoot, SHOOT, don't talk!"
-- Tuco, from "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly"
Damocles
>>
>>Bah, I'd probably have to pay by the email for a response. Scorpia
>>never figured out that we're not on Genie anymore...you don't need to
>>pay to get solid CRPG reviews and discussion. Her content is no
>>different than that of any other completely website.
>
>It's rare that a game-mag's reviews are any better than a quality
>web-site's these days.
>I guess the only reason the game mags are still in business is because
>it's hard to read gaming webpages when you're taking a dump.
>
>Plissken
Not talking about gaming mags, Scorpia put up her own independent
website and charged for content, ala the old Genie forums.
Knight37
>On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, Led Mirage wrote:
>
>> >I think the reason she was sacked is more than just a review.
>> >Just like some office politics that happened daily in every
>> >office, I think the BG review incidence was most likely an excuse
>> >(or "opportunity", for some people) that someone can sack her
>> >with seemingly good reasons.
>>
>> CGw wanted to cater to the younger crowd and she's an old hag
>> (relatively speaking. She wrote for CGW for ages). Also, she was
>> the last one to review games and not give scores. That was also a
>> no-no. And of course, I think some of her "reviews" were too
>> opinionated. For her fans, that's probably what they want, but
>> that's not want I want since I'm not one of her fans.
>
> If you don't want a reviewer telling you what they think about
> a
>game, what exactly >do< you want?
There is a difference between a highly opinionated review and a well
balanced, primarily objective review. I prefer the later. Tell me what
the game does. I'll be the judge of whether or not I like it. Feel free
to tell me what you liked and didn't, sure. But be sure there's enough
FACTS in the review to make it mostly objective.
--
Knight37
"There are two kinds of people in this world, my friend.
Those with loaded guns, and those who dig. You dig."
-- Blonde, from "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly"
William
Lost Dragon <lostd...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >such thing, so the magazine was letting her go. I was pretty
disgusted
> >by this at the time. Of course, I still think that BG was/is way
> >overrated.--'Mose
>
> it was a starved cRPG audience.
That and the fact that it was a D&D game. I'd bet that those two
factors were responsible for at least 75% of BG's sales.
Knight37
>Not talking about gaming mags, Scorpia put up her own independent
>website and charged for content, ala the old Genie forums.
I'd be interested to know how many people in this newsgroup subscribe
to Scorpia's web content? And what do you think about it?
--
Knight37
"Be excellent to one another." -- Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure
Thrasher
<mmu...@cc.wwu.edu> wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, Led Mirage wrote:
>
>> >I think the reason she was sacked is more than just a review. Just
>> >like some office politics that happened daily in every office, I think
>> >the BG review incidence was most likely an excuse (or "opportunity",
>> >for some people) that someone can sack her with seemingly good reasons.
>>
>> CGw wanted to cater to the younger crowd and she's an old hag
>> (relatively speaking. She wrote for CGW for ages). Also, she was the
>> last one to review games and not give scores. That was also a no-no.
>> And of course, I think some of her "reviews" were too opinionated. For
>> her fans, that's probably what they want, but that's not want I want
>> since I'm not one of her fans.
>
> If you don't want a reviewer telling you what they think about a
>game, what exactly >do< you want?
Scorpia an "old hag"? That may or may not be, but most the reviewers I
see pictured in gaming mags seem to be 30ish to 40ish. WHo says teh
gaming mags are tring to cater to a younger crowd? Seems like that
would be shooting themselves in the foot since most PC gamers are
adults.
I remember when Scorpia was a sysop on Compuserve (I think it was
Compuserve) back around 1990 or so and she was a nasty opinionated
person who really laid into anybody who didn't co-sign her bullshit.
Kinda like me. Maybe that's why she got sacked.
Thrasher
wrote:
>> I couldn't agree more. The only (major) thing that game had going for
>> it was a starved cRPG audience.
>
>That and the fact that it was a D&D game. I'd bet that those two
>factors were responsible for at least 75% of BG's sales.
Baldur's Gate? That's the BG you are referring to? As I recall it had
some damn fine graphics for it's day, and spell effects that knocked
my eyes out. And a very nice tactical combat system, and a good story,
lots to do, not very linear by today's standards... It was one of the
first games where equipment showed on character sprites, which was the
ONLY thing I like about Ultima Online.
Baldur's Gate had and HAS a _lot_ going for it, and if you think the
AD&D brand is responsible for 75% of Baldur's Gate sales you are on
crack. As for a "starved" CRPG audience, as I recall Fallout and Might
& Magic VI were both on the shelves when Baldur's Gate shipped, and
were both VERY popular. This newsgroup was flooded when both those
games shipped. As it was when Baldur's Gate shipped. Personally, I
liked Fallout the best of the 3, but Baldur's Gate was a damn fine
game. We need more like it, instead of these inane Action-RPGs that
are being dumped on store shelves...
John Reynolds
trend.
John
Knight37 <knig...@gamespotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8F166244Aknigh...@209.30.0.14...
> sh...@ca.metsci.com (Scott Shupe) wrote:
>
> >Djutmose Buteamon wrote:
> >>
> >> I think i remember reading something in the magazine about how her
> >> review of Baldur's Gate (she pointed out a lot of flaws with a lot
> >> of insight, IMHO, and rated the game a bit lower than most
> >> competing mags) didn't reflect the opinion of the "vast majority
> >> of RPG fans" or some such thing, so the magazine was letting her
> >> go. I was pretty disgusted by this at the time. Of course, I
> >> still think that BG was/is way overrated.--'Mose
> >
> >So reviewers at CGW are required to sing the praises of popular
> >games? Yeesh. Just when I thought my opinion of gaming magazines
> >couldn't get any lower...
>
> You're basing this on what? The say so of some guy's post on Usenet?
>
> There is no evidence to back up that CGW or any other magazine raises
> ratings to cater to advertisers.
>
> --
>
> Knight37
>
> "When you have to shoot, SHOOT, don't talk!"
> -- Tuco, from "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly"
>
Plissken
wrote:
>Not talking about gaming mags, Scorpia put up her own independent
>website and charged for content, ala the old Genie forums.
Oh! Well, in any case I agree with you.
Plissken
Jeremy Reaban
Thrasher wrote in message ...
<snip>
>I remember when Scorpia was a sysop on Compuserve (I think it was
>Compuserve) back around 1990 or so and she was a nasty opinionated
>person who really laid into anybody who didn't co-sign her bullshit.
>Kinda like me. Maybe that's why she got sacked.
Genie, actually. Though I think for a while she was on 2 services.
(But I think it was another obscure, not Ci$). And I always thought
she was nice enough.
One funny thing, though. NWC put a 'Scorpia' monster in Might and
Magic III that wasn't very flattering.
Matthew Murray
> Genie, actually. Though I think for a while she was on 2 services.
> (But I think it was another obscure, not Ci$). And I always thought
> she was nice enough.
I believe it was Delphi.
> One funny thing, though. NWC put a 'Scorpia' monster in Might and
> Magic III that wasn't very flattering.
I believe, also, there was a reference to Scorpia in one of the
Ultima games... IV or V. One of the characters you speak with says
something to the effect of, "Scorpia can solve it!"
Durham Dragon
>some damn fine graphics for it's day, and spell effects that knocked
>my eyes out. And a very nice tactical combat system, and a good story,
>lots to do, not very linear by today's standards... It was one of the
>first games where equipment showed on character sprites, which was the
>ONLY thing I like about Ultima Online.
Ultima 7 had equipment showing on sprites several years earlier, and more
recently so did the Fallout games. The combat system was good, I imagine
they picked it up from Darklands (another game from the early-mid
90's)...I'm surprised no-one else used that system until now.
>Baldur's Gate had and HAS a _lot_ going for it, and if you think the
>AD&D brand is responsible for 75% of Baldur's Gate sales you are on
>crack. As for a "starved" CRPG audience, as I recall Fallout and Might
>& Magic VI were both on the shelves when Baldur's Gate shipped, and
>were both VERY popular.
Yeah, but "one million sales" popular? Not even close. Did the original
Fallout even break 100,000 sales? I heard it was more like 50,000. Might
and Magic did reasonably well but I'd be surprised if it was more than a
third of what BG sold. The AD&D name reaches FAR beyond computer gaming.
Just about anyone anywhere in the world who knows what roleplaying is will
know what type of game BG with AD&D/Forgotten Realms on the box.
>This newsgroup was flooded when both those
>games shipped. As it was when Baldur's Gate shipped.
Right. But this newsgroup hardly represents enough people to generate
significant sales. It can spread good word of mouth to the gaming sites and
publications, but how many unique people actually post here?
>Personally, I
>liked Fallout the best of the 3, but Baldur's Gate was a damn fine
>game. We need more like it, instead of these inane Action-RPGs that
>are being dumped on store shelves...
I liked Fallout by far the best of the three...it outdid the other games in
just about every way, save for graphical variety. But a lot of roleplayers
seemed to reject the setting. In fact I remember some people in this
newsgroup referring to it as an "action game" because it featured machine
guns and hand grenades instead of swords and spells. Others wouldn't touch
it because it wasn't fantasy. *shrug*
DD
AlphA
>>but the fact is that the D&D name has enormous marketing power. BG was
>>the first CRPG in a long time to be released that had the D&D name, and
>>it reaped the benefits of a market full of D&D fans who hadn't had a big
>>relase in years. (What was the last D&D game to be released before BG?
>>Was it the second Dark Sun game?)
>
>Either Descent to Undermountain, Blood and Magic, or Dragon Dice.
>
I'm pretty sure it was Death Keep. Much worse than DtU (post-patch)
but really wasn't hyped at all.
To reply by e-mail, please remove the words - take and me as well as out - out of the e-mail
Carlos DaSilva
more difficult adversaries your party faced on the crossroads of Las Vegas.
I don't know if it was meant to be flattering or derisive, but most
definitely "difficult" :)
Carlos
"Matthew Murray" <mmu...@cc.wwu.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.05.100041...@titan.cc.wwu.edu...
Joel Mathis
>Scorpia an "old hag"? That may or may not be, but most the reviewers I
>see pictured in gaming mags seem to be 30ish to 40ish. WHo says teh
>gaming mags are tring to cater to a younger crowd? Seems like that
>would be shooting themselves in the foot since most PC gamers are
>adults.
The average age has been creeping steadily downward over the past few
years and I think it's finally slipped into the low twenties, if not
the teens.
I remember when CGW was the only game magazine worth looking at. It
had multiple page reviews for nearly ever game filled with details
about it rather than just glossing over some points and providing a
lot of large screen shots. Then PC Gamer hit. They catered to a much
younger crowd, were flash rather substance. I hated it, but it sold
wildly and CGW took a major hit in circulation. Then they got bought
by Ziff-Davis for whatever reason and they began the series of
bi-monthly make overs that has resulted in the flimsy, bland magazine
we have today.
Joel Mathis
See the Hot Sheet at Gone Gold for my take on the day's news
http://www.gonegold.com/hot
Joel Mathis
>On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, Jeremy Reaban wrote:
>
>> Genie, actually. Though I think for a while she was on 2 services.
>> (But I think it was another obscure, not Ci$). And I always thought
>> she was nice enough.
>
> I believe it was Delphi.
>
>> One funny thing, though. NWC put a 'Scorpia' monster in Might and
>> Magic III that wasn't very flattering.
>
> I believe, also, there was a reference to Scorpia in one of the
>Ultima games... IV or V. One of the characters you speak with says
>something to the effect of, "Scorpia can solve it!"
And lets not forget the rather major refrence to her in Wasteland.
Joel Mathis
<robin_...@hotmail.remove-this-part.com> wrote:
>The combat system was good, I imagine
>they picked it up from Darklands (another game from the early-mid
>90's)...I'm surprised no-one else used that system until now.
I thought the combat system was awful and unbalanced. And since
that's where you spend 95% of the game it wasn't much fun.
Of course, the game had other strikes against it as well like the
horrible idea of making quest resolution in some cases a random thing
(sorry, you rolled badly so you get no experiance and 12gp. If you
had rolled one higher you would have gotten a good weapon and 5000xp).
William
Thrasher <spect...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 18:10:37 GMT, William <willi...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
for
> >> it was a starved cRPG audience.
> >
> >That and the fact that it was a D&D game. I'd bet that those two
> >factors were responsible for at least 75% of BG's sales.
>
> some damn fine graphics for it's day, and spell effects that knocked
> my eyes out.
BG had some fine artwork, yes, including the spell effects. But as far
as graphics go, I think it only ran at 640x480 res... Far from the best
possible, even for its time. I will agree that it was a pretty game, but
it was by no means top of the line, as far as graphics go.
> And a very nice tactical combat system,
Eh... I've already had the argument about BG's combat system with others
on this group. Let's just say that the quality of its combat system is a
matter of opinion and leave it at that.
> and a good story,
> lots to do, not very linear by today's standards...
Many people would disagree about the story... And the main story in BG
was completely linear. It was even broken up into chapters, for crying
out loud.
> It was one of the
> first games where equipment showed on character sprites, which was the
> ONLY thing I like about Ultima Online.
Ultima 7 did that... So did Fallout.
> Baldur's Gate had and HAS a _lot_ going for it,
Again, this is a matter of opinion.
> and if you think the
> AD&D brand is responsible for 75% of Baldur's Gate sales you are on
> crack.
I'm sorry you feel the need to insult someone who disagrees with you,
but the fact is that the D&D name has enormous marketing power. BG was
the first CRPG in a long time to be released that had the D&D name, and
it reaped the benefits of a market full of D&D fans who hadn't had a big
relase in years. (What was the last D&D game to be released before BG?
Was it the second Dark Sun game?)
> As for a "starved" CRPG audience, as I recall Fallout and Might
> & Magic VI were both on the shelves when Baldur's Gate shipped, and
> were both VERY popular.
MM6 and Fallout were both 1998 games, and BG was released in 1999. MM6
and Fallout had run their course by then.
> This newsgroup was flooded when both those
> games shipped. As it was when Baldur's Gate shipped. Personally, I
> liked Fallout the best of the 3, but Baldur's Gate was a damn fine
> game. We need more like it, instead of these inane Action-RPGs that
> are being dumped on store shelves...
I would say we need more games like Fallout and Planescape:Torment
(whose ONLY similarity to BG was using the same engine), but that's just
my opinion.
Joel Mathis
>I'm sorry you feel the need to insult someone who disagrees with you,
>but the fact is that the D&D name has enormous marketing power. BG was
>the first CRPG in a long time to be released that had the D&D name, and
>it reaped the benefits of a market full of D&D fans who hadn't had a big
>relase in years. (What was the last D&D game to be released before BG?
>Was it the second Dark Sun game?)
Either Descent to Undermountain, Blood and Magic, or Dragon Dice.
The last AD&D game to at least rate average would have been the first
Dark Sun game and that would have been 1993 (maybe Stone Prophet in
'94 as well, but it's more iffy on that one).
Thrasher
Mathis) wrote:
>The average age has been creeping steadily downward over the past few
>years and I think it's finally slipped into the low twenties, if not
>the teens.
Not long after the Columbine shooting I read an Editorial in one of
the game mags where the author stated they refused to censor their
advertisements because the average age of their readership was 30
years. He cited a survey they had recently done. That was less than a
year ago. If it's now "teens", that's not a slow creep. I don't
believe it _is_ teens tho. I know maybe 20 people who play computer
games regularly. Most of them are my age or close to it, and most of
them are programmers or otherwise involved in the computer industry. I
have two cousins in high school now, who each have a PC they do their
schoolwork on. I keep giving them my old computer games to play, but
they seem a lot more interested in playing console games.
That's just my personal experience, but all the stats I've seen seem
to indicate it's also about the norm. If anything, the average age is
going up, not down. In my Everquest Guild we had 4 people in their
40's, one in his 50's, about a dozen in their 30's, and 5 in their
20's... And soembodies son(one of the people who was 40 something) was
also in the guild, who was 14, but he never played.
>I remember when CGW was the only game magazine worth looking at. It
>had multiple page reviews for nearly ever game filled with details
>about it rather than just glossing over some points and providing a
>lot of large screen shots. Then PC Gamer hit. They catered to a much
>younger crowd, were flash rather substance.
Yep, I agree with you, but I would not say "younger", I'd say "less
experienced". That was right about when the PC revolution was in full
swing and a LOT of people were bringing home computers who had never
even used one before.
> I hated it, but it sold wildly and CGW took a major hit in circulation. Then they got bought
>by Ziff-Davis for whatever reason and they began the series of
>bi-monthly make overs that has resulted in the flimsy, bland magazine
>we have today.
All the magazines have gotten a little bit better about not catering
to the game companies the last year or so, I think. For a while there
I didn't even bother reading the mags because most of them were giving
90%, 5 stars, whatever their rating system was, to complete and
obvious _trash_, so there was no benefit to even reading the reviews.
I may even renew my subscriptions to one or two of them if they keep
up the good work...
Thrasher
<robin_...@hotmail.remove-this-part.com> wrote:
>Ultima 7 had equipment showing on sprites several years earlier, and more
>recently so did the Fallout games.
Hmmm, the Ultima 7 I played only displayed weapons, the surfer boy
Avatar always looked the same no matter what armor he had on. Maybe
you played the new and improved one. And Fallout? Well, yeah, but only
whichever poiece of armor you dropped in the torso slot, and the
weapons were represented by a generic "large, medium or small" type
graphic. Hardly the same thing.
Ultima 7 and Fallout were both damn fine games, but lets not give them
credit they don't deserve. The graphics in Fallout are pretty crummy
for a modern game, it's a testament to how great the game is that so
many people have played it.
>The combat system was good, I imagine
>they picked it up from Darklands (another game from the early-mid
>90's)...I'm surprised no-one else used that system until now.
Hmmm.... Well, since I loved the combat system in Baldur's Gate and
despised the combat system in Darklands I'm gonna go out on a limb and
say they came up with it on their own, or copied it from some other
source.
>Yeah, but "one million sales" popular? Not even close.
Oh come on! In the last 10 years there have been at least a DOZEN
games released under the TSR AD&D license, and I'm pretty sure all of
them TANKED at retail except for Baldur's Gate! Even the Darksun games
- the successors to the successful Gold Box series - never sold well.
Then you have games like Menzoberranaeraanaanaam, The Ravenloft 1 and
2 games, the dog Interplay put out 2 years ago, the list goes on.
If you want to explain the success of Baldur's Gate you will need to
look further than the TSR license.
> Did the original
>Fallout even break 100,000 sales? I heard it was more like 50,000.
I have no idea, but it was a sci-fi game rather than fantasy and those
have never done well for some strange reason. It deserved to do much
better.
>Might and Magic did reasonably well but I'd be surprised if it was more than a
>third of what BG sold.
Might & Magic is a great series but the engine is really crude and
dated. I loved MM6 but loaded up MM7 and could not get into it, the
crappy graphics and crude user interface just bugged me too much. I
bought MM8 anyway because the graphics were a bit better, and I loved
it, but even with the "updated" graphics it's still pretty much the
same old game engine underneath. I really hope they can make this new
3D game engine they licensed for MM9 work. I think they could sell a
whole lot more games with a modern look and feel.
>The AD&D name reaches FAR beyond computer gaming.
>Just about anyone anywhere in the world who knows what roleplaying is will
>know what type of game BG with AD&D/Forgotten Realms on the box.
I started playing D&D before there was an advanced version of it back
in 1972 or so, I'm well aware of what it means to people of my
generation. I think you are mistaken if you feel that all those AD&D
fans qualify as more than a niche market in the computer game
industry, though. Warhammer is far better supported and far more
popular now than AD&D is, yet there have been at least 5 Games
Workshop licensed Warhammer games released for the PC. They all
tanked.
>Right. But this newsgroup hardly represents enough people to generate
>significant sales. It can spread good word of mouth to the gaming sites and
>publications, but how many unique people actually post here?
This newsgroup represents a cross-section of core gamers. I think the
opinions voiced here are probably pretty representative of what core
gamers as a whole think. Like it or not, and I don't always like it.
Anybody who is into AD&D is a core gamer. If having the AD&D logo on a
box increases the chance that some clueless twit will pick it up and
buy it, that's only because it's associated with "coolness". Which is
kind of weird since only geeks played AD&D when I was a kid.
>I liked Fallout by far the best of the three...it outdid the other games in
>just about every way, save for graphical variety. But a lot of roleplayers
>seemed to reject the setting. In fact I remember some people in this
>newsgroup referring to it as an "action game" because it featured machine
>guns and hand grenades instead of swords and spells. Others wouldn't touch
>it because it wasn't fantasy. *shrug*
Exactly! I've never undertood that. There was a really great game
called Sentinel Worlds that came out in 1989 or so, and almost nobody
played it for the same reason. Sci-Fi seems to be the kiss of death
for RPGs. I'm pretty sure Bard's Tale even outsold Wasteland back in
the 80's, even tho Wasteland became a classic and Bard's Tale is
largely forgotten. People are funny that way...
Thrasher
wrote:
>BG had some fine artwork, yes, including the spell effects. But as far
>as graphics go, I think it only ran at 640x480 res... Far from the best
>possible, even for its time. I will agree that it was a pretty game, but
>it was by no means top of the line, as far as graphics go.
That's true, but it was top of the line for an RPG at the time, IMO.
Revenant just shipped with 640 x 480 graphics, and I doubt anybody
would argue they are substandard, though the rest of the game is...
>Many people would disagree about the story... And the main story in BG
>was completely linear. It was even broken up into chapters, for crying
>out loud.
Yeah, but at least three quarters of the maps in the zone you didn't
even have to go to to follow the main plotline and finish the game.
There were dozens of sub plots that were completely optional, and you
could travel to all but a few of the zones from day one if you wanted
to. More linear than Fallout or some other games, but not halkla lot
less linear than most the stuff I've brought home lately that had RPG
written on the box...
>Ultima 7 did that... So did Fallout.
I already addressed this in another thread.Could I wear a Kevlar
Helmet and a Leather Jacket alond with some cuttoff jeans and old worn
out combat boots in Fallout? The thing I despised the most about U7
was the way the Avatar, me, always looked like some panzy surfer boy
and always wore the same clothes no matter what I put on him. If I put
a helmet on the paper doll did it cover his blonde watermelon on the
game screen?
>I'm sorry you feel the need to insult someone who disagrees with you,
>but the fact is that the D&D name has enormous marketing power.
Yes, as demonstrated my the Undermountain title released by Interplay
just prior to Baldur's Gate, right?
>BG was
>the first CRPG in a long time to be released that had the D&D name, and
>it reaped the benefits of a market full of D&D fans who hadn't had a big
>relase in years. (What was the last D&D game to be released before BG?
>Was it the second Dark Sun game?)
Jeez, man, you live in a cave or what? Ravenloft 1 and 2 and
Menzoberran by SSI, Undermountain by Interplay, another game by SSI
that had the word Thunder in it but was so shitty I can't remember the
rest the name, I'm sure there are more but I can't remember them off
the top of my head.
The reason you probably can't remember these titles is because they
vanished without a trace.
>MM6 and Fallout were both 1998 games, and BG was released in 1999. MM6
>and Fallout had run their course by then.
Fine. Fallout came out in early 98, MM6 in summer 98, Baldur's Gate in
spring of 99. If you thing that constitutes an RPG drought I take it
you were not playing computer games between about 93 and 97...
>I would say we need more games like Fallout and Planescape:Torment
>(whose ONLY similarity to BG was using the same engine), but that's just
>my opinion.
I loved Torment but it was a LOT more of an Adventure game than
Baldur's gate was! It was also a lot more Linear! And they did away
with the paper doll/character sprite stguff I liked so well in BG,
only the weapons showed. They took a big step forward with plot and
story with Torment, but a big step back in a few other areas.
I don't think you are applying your own criteria very fairly for
judging these games. I thought the story was very thin in Baldur's
Gate, that was really it's only flaw. That, and encouraging people to
do questionable things regardless of alignment, which they handled
nicely in Torment.
Allister Huggins
>
> Thrasher wrote in message ...
> >some damn fine graphics for it's day, and spell effects that knocked
<snip>
> Yeah, but "one million sales" popular? Not even close. Did the original
> Fallout even break 100,000 sales? I heard it was more like 50,000. Might
> and Magic did reasonably well but I'd be surprised if it was more than a
> third of what BG sold. The AD&D name reaches FAR beyond computer gaming.
> Just about anyone anywhere in the world who knows what roleplaying is will
> know what type of game BG with AD&D/Forgotten Realms on the box.
>
If that was true and that the only reason BG sold well was because of
the D&D name, then Planescape :Torment should have been a sure-fire hit.
Allister H.
Peacedog1
>Scott Shupe wrote:
>>
>> So reviewers at CGW are required to sing the praises of popular games?
>> Yeesh. Just when I thought my opinion of gaming magazines couldn't get
>> any lower...
>
>That's ridiculous.
>The end.
>
>Desslock
It almost reeks of "The suits made them do it". I've definately seen some
questionable reviews in my time, but I don't think magazines "kiss ass" to game
companies (or the ones I read on occasion don't seem to). CGW has certainly
had a scathing attitude about U9 for some time (way, way back in development),
and I don't recall the review being flattering.
On a side note, I enjoy your CGW column and Jef Green's stuff alot. Worth the
price of admission imo.
Peacedog1
>You're basing this on what? The say so of some guy's post on Usenet?
>
>There is no evidence to back up that CGW or any other magazine raises
>ratings to cater to advertisers.
Come on, everything posted on Usenet is the absolute truth :)
Peacedog1
>Eh... I've already had the argument about BG's combat system with others
>on this group. Let's just say that the quality of its combat system is a
>matter of opinion and leave it at that.
How about this. I think it had a solid combat system for real time combat.
For me, turn based combat is still much more elegant (and balanced perhaps).
Durham Dragon
>>they picked it up from Darklands (another game from the early-mid
>>90's)...I'm surprised no-one else used that system until now.
>
>that's where you spend 95% of the game it wasn't much fun.
Well I meant more the concept of the real-time pausable. I did like it in
Darklands a lot more and the AI left a fair bit to desired in BG. Many of
the major battles I found winnable only by creeping towards a group of enemy
characters and luring them one at a time to their doom. :P
>Of course, the game had other strikes against it as well like the
>horrible idea of making quest resolution in some cases a random thing
>(sorry, you rolled badly so you get no experiance and 12gp. If you
>had rolled one higher you would have gotten a good weapon and 5000xp).
Well hopefully Bioware's DMing abilities have increased for BG2. :)
DD
Led Mirage
<mmu...@cc.wwu.edu> wrote:
> If you don't want a reviewer telling you what they think about a
>game, what exactly >do< you want?
I don't mean for her to be totally objective and not give her
opinions, but for her to consider other possibilities. For example, a
lot of people felt that the zombie missions are bad in Thief. But a
lot of other people felt they were great. But Scorpia would only
consider one side of story and totally disregard the other.
Led Mirage
wrote:
>Scorpia an "old hag"? That may or may not be, but most the reviewers I
>see pictured in gaming mags seem to be 30ish to 40ish. WHo says teh
>gaming mags are tring to cater to a younger crowd? Seems like that
>would be shooting themselves in the foot since most PC gamers are
>adults.
She's been writing for CGW for a long time. And I did say relatively
speaking. I think most of the reviewers are in their late 20's early
30's. CGW had been trying to reach the younger gamers for a while.
That's why they had been changing looks so often.
Led Mirage
Mathis) wrote:
>lot of large screen shots. Then PC Gamer hit. They catered to a much
>younger crowd, were flash rather substance. I hated it, but it sold
>wildly and CGW took a major hit in circulation. Then they got bought
PC Gamer had "The Cover Disk" before CGW, more screenshots, previews,
and they were the first to have phone directory issues. Hell, getting
400 pages plus for the same price seemed to be a good value. I think
at the time, a lot fo people bought both every month (like me). In
time, as PC is more accessible to kids, CGW simply lost to PC Gamer.
I've seen many people come on Usenet and said how boring CGW was and
had no idea who Scorpia was.
Led Mirage
wrote:
>Hmmm, the Ultima 7 I played only displayed weapons, the surfer boy
>Avatar always looked the same no matter what armor he had on. Maybe
>you played the new and improved one. And Fallout? Well, yeah, but only
>whichever poiece of armor you dropped in the torso slot, and the
>weapons were represented by a generic "large, medium or small" type
>graphic. Hardly the same thing.
Paperdoll was introduced in Ultima 7.5. Ultima 7 didn't have a
paperdoll system.
>Ultima 7 and Fallout were both damn fine games, but lets not give them
>credit they don't deserve. The graphics in Fallout are pretty crummy
>for a modern game, it's a testament to how great the game is that so
>many people have played it.
I wouldn't say Fallout's graphic was crummy. It's not flashy, but more
than served it's function.
>This newsgroup represents a cross-section of core gamers. I think the
>opinions voiced here are probably pretty representative of what core
>gamers as a whole think. Like it or not, and I don't always like it.
>Anybody who is into AD&D is a core gamer. If having the AD&D logo on a
>box increases the chance that some clueless twit will pick it up and
>buy it, that's only because it's associated with "coolness". Which is
>kind of weird since only geeks played AD&D when I was a kid.
Not really. Those who'd come on Usenet and stay here can be considered
hardcore gamers. Most of us here play many games a year. The success
of Deer Hunter explain a lot how much we represent gamers in general.
Matthew Murray
> wildly and CGW took a major hit in circulation. Then they got bought
> by Ziff-Davis for whatever reason and they began the series of
> bi-monthly make overs that has resulted in the flimsy, bland magazine
> we have today.
You're being awfully kind, but I agree. CGW used to be a stunning
example of >journalism<. I don't know what it is now, but it's barely an
effect computer gaming magazine.
===============================================================================
Matthew Murray
> PC Gamer had "The Cover Disk" before CGW, more screenshots, previews,
> and they were the first to have phone directory issues. Hell, getting
> 400 pages plus for the same price seemed to be a good value. I think
> at the time, a lot fo people bought both every month (like me). In
> time, as PC is more accessible to kids, CGW simply lost to PC Gamer.
> I've seen many people come on Usenet and said how boring CGW was and
> had no idea who Scorpia was.
I never thought CGW was boring before. I think it's absolutely
boring and uninteresting now. The reviews have absolutely no bite, the
literary value of the entire thing seems to have dropped, and the wit and
style that, for about ten years, distinguished CGW from everything else
are nowhere to be found in its pages these days. I don't know why I
bother to still subscribe...
Durham Dragon
>
>> Yeah, but "one million sales" popular? Not even close. Did the original
>> Fallout even break 100,000 sales? I heard it was more like 50,000.
Might
>> and Magic did reasonably well but I'd be surprised if it was more than a
>> third of what BG sold. The AD&D name reaches FAR beyond computer gaming.
>> Just about anyone anywhere in the world who knows what roleplaying is
will
>> know what type of game BG with AD&D/Forgotten Realms on the box.
>>
> If that was true and that the only reason BG sold well was because of
>the D&D name, then Planescape :Torment should have been a sure-fire hit.
Yes it had the D&D name but it wasn't the same setting as Forgotten Realms
or any other typical fantasy D&D setting. To paraphrase one comment I
remember remember reading, "Planescape is a miserable, depressing setting".
I think the design of the main character in particular, who looks kind of
like a blue caveman practicing as a witch doctor turned people off and gave
them the wrong impression of the type of game it was.
I'm not saying Forgotten Realms is the only thing behind BG's success; it
did have a fair bit going for it like graphics, music, packaging/manual,
multiplayer, etc. But let's be honest; if this game was called
say...Cantrips & Calipers, would it have done as well? I'm willing to bet
no. Sure you could argue that any game called Cantrips & Calipers would not
do well. But uh...yeah so there you have it.
*leaves quickly before anyone can answer*
DD
Damocles
<mmu...@cc.wwu.edu> wrote:
>On Sat, 15 Apr 2000, Joel Mathis wrote:
>
>> wildly and CGW took a major hit in circulation. Then they got bought
>> by Ziff-Davis for whatever reason and they began the series of
>> bi-monthly make overs that has resulted in the flimsy, bland magazine
>> we have today.
>
> You're being awfully kind, but I agree. CGW used to be a stunning
>example of >journalism<. I don't know what it is now, but it's barely an
>effect computer gaming magazine.
>
You can't walk by the gaming mag section without at least one
voluptuous chick on the covers, and it's not always Incite that's the
culprit. They're selling tits and violence, not quality journalism.
Matthew Murray
> On Sat, 15 Apr 2000 00:52:43 -0700, Matthew Murray
> <mmu...@cc.wwu.edu> wrote:
>
> You're being awfully kind, but I agree. CGW used to be a stunning
> >example of >journalism<. I don't know what it is now, but it's barely an
> >effective computer gaming magazine.
>
> You can't walk by the gaming mag section without at least one
> voluptuous chick on the covers, and it's not always Incite that's the
> culprit. They're selling tits and violence, not quality journalism.
I agree, and I find that extremely sad.
Nich Hills
>
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, Led Mirage wrote:
<snip>
> If you don't want a reviewer telling you what they think about a
> game, what exactly >do< you want?
1. How many colours does it come in?
2. Is it safe for the kiddies?
(For the non-Australians and those under 35: a reference to Di 'Bubbles'
Fisher who was the token non-engineer on a television panel reviewing
inventions.)
Cheers,
Nich
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nich Hills Email: nhi...@ActOnline.com.au
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joel Mathis
>On Sat, 15 Apr 2000 01:23:07 GMT, joelm...@gonegold.com (Joel
>Mathis) wrote:
>
>>The average age has been creeping steadily downward over the past few
>>years and I think it's finally slipped into the low twenties, if not
>>the teens.
>
>Not long after the Columbine shooting I read an Editorial in one of
>the game mags where the author stated they refused to censor their
>advertisements because the average age of their readership was 30
>years. He cited a survey they had recently done.
The only mag that might have that old of readership at this point is
Computer Games, and that's still a decline. CGW used to go on about
how their readership was adults, but they haven't done that in a long
time. Their attempts to appeal to the juvinile market have driven
away a lot of readers.
I hope it wasn't PC Gamer claiming that since it means they are either
lying or there's a lot of immature people over thirty out there...
>That was less than a
>year ago. If it's now "teens", that's not a slow creep. I don't
>believe it _is_ teens tho. I know maybe 20 people who play computer
>games regularly. Most of them are my age or close to it, and most of
>them are programmers or otherwise involved in the computer industry. I
>have two cousins in high school now, who each have a PC they do their
>schoolwork on. I keep giving them my old computer games to play, but
>they seem a lot more interested in playing console games.
I won't argue that the vast majority of the younger group play
consoles rather than PC's. But what has happened in recent years is
enough of those kids have migrated to playing at least SOME games on
the PC that it is seriously affecting the PC game market.
On the positive side of things, I do have a teenaged cousin who thanks
to my meticulous training is capable of ignoring graphics over game
play and
>That's just my personal experience, but all the stats I've seen seem
>to indicate it's also about the norm. If anything, the average age is
>going up, not down. In my Everquest Guild we had 4 people in their
>40's, one in his 50's, about a dozen in their 30's, and 5 in their
>20's... And soembodies son(one of the people who was 40 something) was
>also in the guild, who was 14, but he never played.
The average age of a PC game player was close to 40 in about 1992.
It's definitely gone way down.
>Yep, I agree with you, but I would not say "younger", I'd say "less
>experienced". That was right about when the PC revolution was in full
>swing and a LOT of people were bringing home computers who had never
>even used one before.
I can concede that point, but is the youth more than any other group
that were adopting gaming.
>I may even renew my subscriptions to one or two of them if they keep
>up the good work...
I dropped all my magazines about six months ago, but then I got a few
free subscriptions. I usually glance through them when they come
(they wouldn't take more than fifteen or twenty minutes to read
straight through at this point) and get annoyed. They may have been
improving the quality in some respects, but in other areas (mainly
reviews) they've become less useful than that 60-second preview guy.
Two paragraphs and high marks do not a reasonable review make.
John Carey
Thrasher <spect...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rn2ffsgo873s6313l...@4ax.com...
> Baldur's Gate? That's the BG you are referring to? As I recall it had
> some damn fine graphics for it's day, and spell effects that knocked
> my eyes out. And a very nice tactical combat system, and a good story,
> first games where equipment showed on character sprites, which was the
> ONLY thing I like about Ultima Online.
>
Aside from the spell effects, you could say the same things about Fallout.
Equipment showed up in Fallout, too. And to be honest, I never thought
BG's graphics were that impressive. I found them kind of bland and
repetitious, but I guess it's a matter of taste.
> Baldur's Gate had and HAS a _lot_ going for it, and if you think the
> AD&D brand is responsible for 75% of Baldur's Gate sales you are on
> crack. As for a "starved" CRPG audience, as I recall Fallout and Might
> & Magic VI were both on the shelves when Baldur's Gate shipped, and
> were both VERY popular. This newsgroup was flooded when both those
> games shipped. As it was when Baldur's Gate shipped. Personally, I
> liked Fallout the best of the 3, but Baldur's Gate was a damn fine
> game. We need more like it, instead of these inane Action-RPGs that
> are being dumped on store shelves...
As you say, Fallout was the best of the three, but I'm sure BG sold at least
four times as many units. If it wasn't the AD&D (and Forgotten Realms)
brand, then why was it?
Then again, Planescape has the AD&D brand too, and is a vastly better game
and it hasn't approached BG-like sales either. Maybe it's just too
original-- unlike BG, it isn't set in a generic D&D setting.
Joel Mathis
>As you say, Fallout was the best of the three, but I'm sure BG sold at least
>four times as many units. If it wasn't the AD&D (and Forgotten Realms)
>brand, then why was it?
The two solid years of hyping didn't hurt.
>Then again, Planescape has the AD&D brand too, and is a vastly better game
>and it hasn't approached BG-like sales either. Maybe it's just too
>original-- unlike BG, it isn't set in a generic D&D setting.
And how much hype did you hear about Planescape in advance. I saw a
handful of token previews, but for the most part they were the
"there's this game coming out" previews rather than the "OH MY GOD
THIS GAME IS GOING TO BE THE GREATEST THING SINCE SOMEONE MODELLED THE
MAMOTH CAVERNS WITH TEXT ON A MAINFRAME!!!" previews that Baldur's
Gate got. The ads were perhaps one quarter the number of the BG ads.
It's like Interplay saw that those darn Black Isle guys where making a
quality RPG that didn't fit into the standard mold again (How dare
they!) and just let it slip out quietly.
AlphA
Mathis) wrote:
>Rumor has it that Thrasher <spect...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 15 Apr 2000 01:23:07 GMT, joelm...@gonegold.com (Joel
>>Mathis) wrote:
>>
>>>The average age has been creeping steadily downward over the past few
>>>years and I think it's finally slipped into the low twenties, if not
>>>the teens.
>>
>>Not long after the Columbine shooting I read an Editorial in one of
>>the game mags where the author stated they refused to censor their
>>advertisements because the average age of their readership was 30
>>years. He cited a survey they had recently done.
>
>The only mag that might have that old of readership at this point is
>Computer Games, and that's still a decline. CGW used to go on about
>how their readership was adults, but they haven't done that in a long
>time. Their attempts to appeal to the juvinile market have driven
>away a lot of readers.
I was perusing through this month's issue of Incite PC Gaming (the
only pc mag at the magazine rack without a plastic cover) when I
noticed a letter from a lady reader who complained about their
excessive use of half-nude models that almost always adorn the cover.
The letter, as printed in the mag, makes sure to say 'adult' in about
every sentence. It goes something like -
[woman writer] "I don't know why you only cater to adult men with your
cover. You never cater to us adult women. All you magazine covers
sure make all your adult male readers happy, don't they?"
[magazine] "Yes, we cater to our adult male readers with our cover.
It would probably be appropriate for us to cater to our adult women
readers instead of just our adult male readers."
I laughed at their intended justification. Out of the five pc gaming
mags, theirs is the least likely to have 'adult' readers. If they say
that is who they are catering to, they are either lying through their
teeth or are completely delusional.
Jason
To reply by e-mail, please remove the words - take and me as well as out - out of the e-mail
mr bernard langham
Well, a couple of years have passed, so instead of a 12 year old DM, we'll
have a 14 year old writing the narrative and dialogue.
I can't wait.
>^..^<
Bernard
--
mr bernard langham . blu...@ii.net . perth, western ashtraylia
cassetteNET/DIY lo-fi punkarama/indie vs major FAQ http://ii.net/~blueboy
spiral scratch independent label show/RTRfm public radio http://rtr.fm.net
--
"Feel free to cite, sample, steal, sell, reference, borrow or plagiarize
anything that I have created, thought or said. Information wants to be free
and intellectual property is both anachronistic and wrong" -- Meme #96
Sean Tudor
Mathis) wrote:
>I dropped all my magazines about six months ago, but then I got a few
>free subscriptions. I usually glance through them when they come
>(they wouldn't take more than fifteen or twenty minutes to read
>straight through at this point) and get annoyed. They may have been
>improving the quality in some respects, but in other areas (mainly
>reviews) they've become less useful than that 60-second preview guy.
>Two paragraphs and high marks do not a reasonable review make.
I stopped subscribing to paper magazines over three years ago. I get
all my news and articles in a timely and up-to-date manner from online
gaming websites. Besides magazine subscriptions these days are far
too expensive.
Why spend money when you can get it all for free ?
------------------------
Sean Tudor
Sydney, Australia
------------------------
This is my cannon, this is my gun
One is for bandits, and one is for fun
------------------------
studor at ozemail dot com dot au
hkc...@hkchan.pc.my
>> As for a "starved" CRPG audience, as I recall Fallout and Might
>> & Magic VI were both on the shelves when Baldur's Gate shipped, and
>> were both VERY popular.
>
>MM6 and Fallout were both 1998 games, and BG was released in 1999. MM6
>and Fallout had run their course by then.
Except for Fallout 2, Return to Krondor, Redguard, Final Fantasy 7,
Might and Magic 6 and 7, Quest for Glory 5: Dragonfire which were all
released close to BG. CRPG starved? 1998 and early 1999 was the golden
period for RPG. It was amazing BG managed to beat all competition at
the end.
Joel Mathis
>>>I'm sorry you feel the need to insult someone who disagrees with you,
>>>but the fact is that the D&D name has enormous marketing power. BG was
>>>the first CRPG in a long time to be released that had the D&D name, and
>>>it reaped the benefits of a market full of D&D fans who hadn't had a big
>>>relase in years. (What was the last D&D game to be released before BG?
>>>Was it the second Dark Sun game?)
>>
>>Either Descent to Undermountain, Blood and Magic, or Dragon Dice.
>>
>
>I'm pretty sure it was Death Keep. Much worse than DtU (post-patch)
>but really wasn't hyped at all.
I can guarentee you it wasn't Deathkeep, though that was the last of
the SSI licenses, because it was released for the 3do platform which
was years dead by the time these games were released, and SSI used the
last of their licenses before Interplay released an AD&D game.
Though now that I'm thinking about it, the previous AD&D game to
Baldur's Gate could have been Birthright...
Lost Dragon
>the end.
It certainly *out-hyped* the competition. I thought Fallout was a
much better game in general. I really didn't enjoy BG - it was highly
overrated IMO.
/| .oo__. .-----.=- -= Lost Dragon =- -=.-----. U
{ \| ,-'' | _O_ |==- -= Forever Dead Forgotten Lie =- -==| _O_ | D
`,_/'(_)\_ | | |==- Remembered Souls, They Cannot Die -==| | | I
<...{_)_)_''`-----`===-- http://www.lostdragon.com/ --==='-----' C
TragedyTrousers
>As you say, Fallout was the best of the three, but I'm sure BG sold at least
>four times as many units. If it wasn't the AD&D (and Forgotten Realms)
>brand, then why was it?
1) BG had very pretty pictures to look at - cute trees and pretty little
towns and stuff.
2) Fallout was based upon a post-nuclear scenario which some people
(a.k.a. idiots) found to be too depressing a scenario to be of interest.
3) BG was based in the usual unimaginative Tolkien rip-off 'swords and
sorcery' world, which everyone is familiar with, and many people seem to
love.
4) The pretty pictures one again.
Basically, I think people saw the nice big screenshots in magazines, and
went out and bought BG in their droves.
Maybe I could try to be more objective here, but I have to admit that it
*irritates the cock* off me that BG sells so well, and the Fallouts and
Planescapes always bomb.
There ain't no justice, I tell you!
--
TragedyTrousers.
William
hkc...@hkchan.pc.my wrote:
> William <willi...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >> As for a "starved" CRPG audience, as I recall Fallout and Might
> >> & Magic VI were both on the shelves when Baldur's Gate shipped, and
> >> were both VERY popular.
> >
> >MM6 and Fallout were both 1998 games, and BG was released in 1999.
MM6
> >and Fallout had run their course by then.
>
> Except for Fallout 2,
True, Fallout 2 did come out fairly close to BG. But it didn't have
anywhere near BG's sales, so I question how much competition it really
was.
> Return to Krondor, Redguard,
Not sure about these two.
> Final Fantasy 7,
Are you talking about the PC version? That wasn't serious competition
for anything, really.
> Might and Magic 6 and 7,
MM6 was 1998. I don't remember offhand when MM7 was released, but wasn't
it after BG?
> Quest for Glory 5: Dragonfire
I doubt that really shared much of the same audience with BG.
> which were all
> released close to BG. CRPG starved? 1998 and early 1999 was the golden
> period for RPG. It was amazing BG managed to beat all competition at
> the end.
A fair point. 1999 wasn't exactly a CRPG drought. But I stand by my
point that the D&D name helped BG's sales immensely. BG was the first
D&D game to be released in years that was a "real RPG". For years before
that, there were a lot of pretty shoddy games that came out with the D&D
name. When BG was being hyped, it was promised as "a return to the true
aspects of D&D gaming." There were a LOT of D&D fans out there that were
hungry for a game like that.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Led Mirage
<maxe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>As you say, Fallout was the best of the three, but I'm sure BG sold at least
>four times as many units. If it wasn't the AD&D (and Forgotten Realms)
>brand, then why was it?
Aside from the AD&D brand, pre release hype has a lot to do with it,
too. Fallout wasn't hyped nearly as much as BG.
>Then again, Planescape has the AD&D brand too, and is a vastly better game
>and it hasn't approached BG-like sales either. Maybe it's just too
>original-- unlike BG, it isn't set in a generic D&D setting.
Forgotten Realms is ithe bread and butter for TSR (aside from the core
rulebooks). So obviously, a lot of people would want to play a FR
game. Planscape is already dead by the time Torment was released.
Although it has a following, it's no where near the number of FR
followers. Not to mention that the packaging didn't encourage people
to even try it.
Led Mirage
>Except for Fallout 2, Return to Krondor, Redguard, Final Fantasy 7,
>Might and Magic 6 and 7, Quest for Glory 5: Dragonfire which were all
>released close to BG. CRPG starved? 1998 and early 1999 was the golden
>period for RPG. It was amazing BG managed to beat all competition at
>the end.
Out of those games, RTK sucked and bombed, FF7 was released much
earlier than BG, QfG 5 sucked and bombed, Redguard was a Pathesda DOS
game and bombed. The only competition would be FO2 and the MM games.
So what competition? Gamers, generally, do not just buy one game a
year.
Plissken
<tragedy....@btinternet.comEDY_TROOSERS> wrote:
> and the Fallouts and
>Planescapes always bomb.
I certainly hear you. I was on the Fallout team and put alot of my
heart and guts into it, but it didn't "bomb" if, by bomb, you mean
"fail financially". It sold enough copies to pay for itself and then
some. However, you're right if you're comparing it to "hit" titles
like Quake 3 or even BG.
I don't remember how many copies Fallout sold, but management wasn't
outwardly disappointed, since we DID make money for the company...even
though it wasn't a huge amount.
Plissken
Kay-Yut Chen - remove ABC in email to reply
>Not talking about gaming mags, Scorpia put up her own independent
>website and charged for content, ala the old Genie forums.
>
I have been to her site like once or twice. It looks really badly
designed and not pleasing to the eye compared to almost anything else
(ign, gamespot, avault ...).
No one is going to pay her for anything that site. It is not like we
are not bombarded with 200 reviews for each game everyday.
Kay-Yut
Led Mirage
>I certainly hear you. I was on the Fallout team and put alot of my
>heart and guts into it, but it didn't "bomb" if, by bomb, you mean
>"fail financially". It sold enough copies to pay for itself and then
>some. However, you're right if you're comparing it to "hit" titles
>like Quake 3 or even BG.
>I don't remember how many copies Fallout sold, but management wasn't
>outwardly disappointed, since we DID make money for the company...even
>though it wasn't a huge amount.
Well, Fallout is one of the greatest games made to date, and to me
unsurpassed (sorry Fallout 2 jsut wasn't as good as the original
Fallout). Too bad it's sales didn't reflect its quality, while a
decent, but decidedly inferior game sold like hotcakes.
Kevin McGuire
: In article <38f85c09...@nntp.jaring.my>,
: hkc...@hkchan.pc.my wrote:
: > William <willi...@my-deja.com> wrote:
: >
: > >> As for a "starved" CRPG audience, as I recall Fallout and Might
: > >> & Magic VI were both on the shelves when Baldur's Gate shipped, and
: > >> were both VERY popular.
: > >
: > >MM6 and Fallout were both 1998 games, and BG was released in 1999.
: MM6
: > >and Fallout had run their course by then.
: >
: > Except for Fallout 2,
: True, Fallout 2 did come out fairly close to BG. But it didn't have
: anywhere near BG's sales, so I question how much competition it really
: was.
Right, and remember that the release of Fallout 2 was EXTREMELY buggy -
I'm sure that word of mouth and poor performance hurt sales.
--
Kevin McGuire
University of Pennsylvania
http://www.theenergyco-op.com/ <-- 100% Green Electricity in PA!
Peacedog1
>Right, and remember that the release of Fallout 2 was EXTREMELY buggy -
>I'm sure that word of mouth and poor performance hurt sales.
Yes, but I doubt it was going to sell close to BG, which is a shame. In fact
plenty of people here were saying good things despite the bugginess. About the
only good think I can say about Fallout 2's bugginess was that I rarely had it
crash on me :)
Thrasher
Mathis) wrote:
>The only mag that might have that old of readership at this point is
>Computer Games, and that's still a decline. CGW used to go on about
>how their readership was adults, but they haven't done that in a long
>time. Their attempts to appeal to the juvinile market have driven
>away a lot of readers.
I bought an issue of Electronic Gaming Monthly while I was on Vacation
not long ago because I couldn't find any PC game magazines. It
consisted of screen shots, cheat codez and walkthroughs. That's it.
Apparrently, that's what the players of console games care about -
that's their mind set. The PC gaming industry will _never_ succeed
trying to cater to that crowd. The one thing a computer can do better
than a console is handle complex games, games with depth. That's why
computer games traditionally have appealed to adults, or at least
younger people who have the maturity and the patience to invest a
significant amount of time playing games of this type. Attempting to
make PC games that will appeal to console gamers is a mistake. It's a
mistake that was made before in the early 90's with full motion video
and interarctive movies. It failed horribly then, and it will fail
horribly again and again until the game companies go out of business
or hire people with a few more brain cells than the ones they have
got. There are two markets for PC games, core gamers and casual
gamers. There is little, if any, overlap between even casual PC gamers
and the console game market.
I'm off topic now, though. If the PC game mags really want to turn out
empty headed rags filled with cheat codez and screen shots then they
may as well fold now and save themselves a lot of grief. Inlike
console gamers, PC gamers can get the cheat codez off the internet,
and the screen shots too, and the walkthroughs...
Whether or not there are a significant number of "young" PC gamers who
would be interested in playing no-brainer games is a different
argument...
Thrasher
wrote:
>Paperdoll was introduced in Ultima 7.5. Ultima 7 didn't have a
>paperdoll system.
Ah, I see the confusion. You are talking about the way the character
looks on the inventory screen. That's only half of what I'm talking
about. I expect to see the character sprite change on the game screen
to. In Ultima 7 or 7.5, it doesn't.
>Not really. Those who'd come on Usenet and stay here can be considered
>hardcore gamers. Most of us here play many games a year. The success
>of Deer Hunter explain a lot how much we represent gamers in general.
That's what I said, core gamers. Core stands for hard core. Casual
Gamers not only don't come to game newsgroups, they don't even know
usenet exists.
Alasdair Russell
<spect...@hotmail.com> writes
>I expect to see the character sprite change on the game screen
>to. In Ultima 7 or 7.5, it doesn't.
>
The Problem is that Ultima 7 and 7.5 come from the good old/bad old days
of floppy disk distribution and small hard drives. It's not like now
when they have 650Mbytes+ of CDRom where they can hide the thousands of
images required to give you the changing Avatar Avatar. As it was these
games took a lot of disk space for the time. I don't think any game of
that vintage had the features you describe.
Alasdair Russell - remove SPAM from demon in header to reply directly
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
The opinions expressed here aren't necessarily those of a sane person
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????;-)??
Mad Aardvark of Doom
wrote:
>On Sat, 15 Apr 2000 15:36:53 GMT, joelm...@gonegold.com (Joel
>Mathis) wrote:
>
>>The only mag that might have that old of readership at this point is
>>Computer Games, and that's still a decline. CGW used to go on about
>>how their readership was adults, but they haven't done that in a long
>>time. Their attempts to appeal to the juvinile market have driven
>>away a lot of readers.
>
>I bought an issue of Electronic Gaming Monthly while I was on Vacation
>not long ago because I couldn't find any PC game magazines. It
>consisted of screen shots, cheat codez and walkthroughs.
>
EGM is the watermark for console mags? Oh dear...
_
MA
Knight37
>On Sat, 15 Apr 2000 15:36:53 GMT, joelm...@gonegold.com (Joel
>Mathis) wrote:
>
>>The only mag that might have that old of readership at this point is
>>Computer Games, and that's still a decline. CGW used to go on about
>>how their readership was adults, but they haven't done that in a long
>>time. Their attempts to appeal to the juvinile market have driven
>>away a lot of readers.
>
>I bought an issue of Electronic Gaming Monthly while I was on Vacation
>not long ago because I couldn't find any PC game magazines. It
>consisted of screen shots, cheat codez and walkthroughs. That's it.
>Apparrently, that's what the players of console games care about -
>that's their mind set.
It's actually mostly reviews and previews in there, but they are
condensed. It's like this:
SCREEEN SHOT
Reviewer 1 paragraph
---
Reviewer 2 paragraph
---
Reviewer 3 paragraph
--
Reviewer 4 paragraph
Games by companies like Rare or Square get 2 pages with a bit more in
depth for the review. Previews are a lot more in depth. In fact, the
driving force of actual INFO about games in console mags tends to be in
the preview section, not the review section. These 1 page 4-reviewer
"reviews" are really just short lists of ratings with a mild paragraph
to justify it. Makes little sense. Of course, in a lot of the reviews,
the reviewers all say the same things, so you really get 4 paragraphs
that pretty much say the same thing about a game with minor variation
in sentence structure. Every now and then 1 or 2 of the reviewers will
have a different opinion about the game than the others. The real
problem with this review format is that all 4 of the reviewers are
"professional gamers" so they all pretty much have the same mindset and
experience when going into the game to begin with.
--
Knight37
"Hey you!
Out there beyond the wall,
Breaking bottles in the hall,
Can you hear me?"
-- Pink Floyd, "Hey You"
Knight37
>> Did the original
>>Fallout even break 100,000 sales? I heard it was more like 50,000.
>I have no idea, but it was a sci-fi game rather than fantasy and
>those have never done well for some strange reason. It deserved to
>do much better.
I'm sure it's sold a lot better than 50k NOW, as it's regarded as a
classic. But in the year it was released, it probably didn't. It's
still on the shelves, though, so it MUST have sold more than 50k.
Interplay could provide more details, but I bet it's sold somewhere in
the 300k range by now. Of course, at $0-$15 a sale, that's not a *lot*
of money, but I'm sure every bit helps. I'd imagine that FO is still
making money for Interplay, or they'd stop making it.
>I started playing D&D before there was an advanced version of it
>back in 1972 or so, I'm well aware of what it means to people of my
>generation. I think you are mistaken if you feel that all those AD&D
>fans qualify as more than a niche market in the computer game
>industry, though.
You're being a bit delusional here. The AD&D computer game license is a
very lucrative one. It's no John Madden Football, but it's certainly
one of the biggest CRPG licenses. Almost anyone who has a serious
interest in computer RPG's has played a few AD&D titles. SSI helped
build a good reputation for the AD&D CRPG name, and Baldur's Gate
definitely cashed in on that rep. They are lucky that Undermountain
didn't ruin it. I was leary about buying BG after Interplay hosed up
DtU so bad, but after the reports started coming in, it proved that my
fears were unfounded.
>Warhammer is far better supported and far more
>popular now than AD&D is, yet there have been at least 5 Games
>Workshop licensed Warhammer games released for the PC. They all
>tanked.
They didn't all "tank." Chaos Gate was good, and so was Dark Omen. If
someone would get off their ass and make a Warhammer FRP CRPG, it would
probably do pretty good numbers. If Bioware did it, it would rock. But
it'd probably be up to SSI or one of it's associated studios...
And Warhammer FRP is no where NEAR as popular as AD&D in the United
States. If it were, why is it I can find a billion and one players for
AD&D games, and almost NONE for Warhammer FRP? Now tabletop fantasy
wargaming is a completely different thing than an RPG, and sure,
Warhammer dominates that.
>>Right. But this newsgroup hardly represents enough people to
>>generate significant sales. It can spread good word of mouth to
>>the gaming sites and publications, but how many unique people
>>actually post here?
>
>This newsgroup represents a cross-section of core gamers. I think
>the opinions voiced here are probably pretty representative of what
>core gamers as a whole think. Like it or not, and I don't always
>like it. Anybody who is into AD&D is a core gamer. If having the
>AD&D logo on a box increases the chance that some clueless twit will
>pick it up and buy it, that's only because it's associated with
>"coolness". Which is kind of weird since only geeks played AD&D when
>I was a kid.
???
AD&D is a popular license for CRPG fans and pretty much has been for
many years. It's not a "coolness" thing.
>>I liked Fallout by far the best of the three...it outdid the other
>>games in just about every way, save for graphical variety. But a
>>lot of roleplayers seemed to reject the setting. In fact I
>>remember some people in this newsgroup referring to it as an
>>"action game" because it featured machine guns and hand grenades
>>instead of swords and spells. Others wouldn't touch it because it
>>wasn't fantasy. *shrug*
>
>Exactly! I've never undertood that. There was a really great game
>called Sentinel Worlds that came out in 1989 or so, and almost
>nobody played it for the same reason. Sci-Fi seems to be the kiss of
>death for RPGs. I'm pretty sure Bard's Tale even outsold Wasteland
>back in the 80's, even tho Wasteland became a classic and Bard's
>Tale is largely forgotten. People are funny that way...
Bard's Tale is hardly forgotten. It's a shame they won't make a sequel
to it. It's a classic, the same as Wasteland is a classic.
Knight37
>Yes it had the D&D name but it wasn't the same setting as Forgotten
>Realms or any other typical fantasy D&D setting. To paraphrase one
>comment I remember remember reading, "Planescape is a miserable,
>depressing setting". I think the design of the main character in
>particular, who looks kind of like a blue caveman practicing as a
>witch doctor turned people off and gave them the wrong impression of
>the type of game it was.
I sincerely believe that the main turn off for people who actually
tried playing the game and didn't like Planescape is indeed it's depth
(and those that didn't like it for technical problems, like slow downs
or bugs).
Some people just do not want a deep game. Yes, they may justify to
themselves that they didn't like the darkness of the setting, or they
didn't like the looks of the main character, or whatever, but that's
all superficial. What they didn't like was having to actually THINK to
play the game. Sure, you have a *few* thinkers who didn't like it
because they don't like thinking about morbid, dark settings and
characters, but it's usually non-thinkers that have problems with those
types of things, not thinkers.
>I'm not saying Forgotten Realms is the only thing behind BG's
>success; it did have a fair bit going for it like graphics, music,
>packaging/manual, multiplayer, etc. But let's be honest; if this
>game was called say...Cantrips & Calipers, would it have done as
>well? I'm willing to bet no. Sure you could argue that any game
>called Cantrips & Calipers would not do well. But uh...yeah so
>there you have it.
>
>*leaves quickly before anyone can answer*
I agree that BG's success was in part due to the association with AD&D
and to a lesser degree, Forgotten Realms. It wasn't why it got rave
reviews, but it did attract people to take a look at it. Basing the
game on the AD&D rules gives it a familiar quality that gamers like.
Gamers don't like something new. Gamers like MOTS. Usually. Except when
MOTS is old and tired ;P. But in this case, Baldur's Gate used a new
game engine that provided more than enough new to go with the MOTS of
the game system.
The obvious reason why Baldur's Gate was commercially more successful
than Planescape, even though they both share the AD&D system, is that
it's not a thinkers game, it's a hack-n-slash, for the most part. There
are a lot more people who like that type of game than there are people
who like thinking games like PST. It's not to say that either
particular game is better than the other, but they are different styles
and one happens to be more popular. I certainly hope that Interplay
will continue to cater to the thinking game crowd, as they have with
the Fallouts and now PST. :)
Thrasher
<Alas...@cybscape.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>The Problem is that Ultima 7 and 7.5 come from the good old/bad old days
>of floppy disk distribution and small hard drives. It's not like now
>when they have 650Mbytes+ of CDRom where they can hide the thousands of
>images required to give you the changing Avatar Avatar. As it was these
>games took a lot of disk space for the time. I don't think any game of
>that vintage had the features you describe.
Which is exactly what I said in the first place.
Thrasher
wrote:
>You're being a bit delusional here. The AD&D computer game license is a
>very lucrative one. It's no John Madden Football, but it's certainly
>one of the biggest CRPG licenses.
It's pretty much the only CRPG license, which helps it to be pretty
much the biggest I think. I don't know why you think I am being
delusional but it's a pretty safe bet that most of the people who
bought Baldur's Gate never played AD&D. Even in theis newsgroup, a
group used by core gamers, most of the people discussing Baldur's Gate
did not know the AD&D system.
>They didn't all "tank." Chaos Gate was good, and so was Dark Omen.
Chaos Gate sucked. Dark Omen was excellent. They both tanked at
retail, whether you or I think they were good or not.
>If someone would get off their ass and make a Warhammer FRP CRPG, it would
>probably do pretty good numbers. If Bioware did it, it would rock. But
>it'd probably be up to SSI or one of it's associated studios...
Why would anyone want to do Warhammer FRP? Warhammer is a wargaming
system, not a roleplaying system, and the role-playing adaptation of
it is weak as hell.
>And Warhammer FRP is no where NEAR as popular as AD&D in the United
>States.
No, it's not, but then again FRP is not a major line of Warhammer
games. Warhammer Fantasy Battle is big, and Warhammer 40k is by far
the largest tabletop gaming system in the US. Go into any hobby gaming
store that sells RPG and Wargaming products and fully half the stuff
they sell will be for these two games.
>If it were, why is it I can find a billion and one players for
>AD&D games, and almost NONE for Warhammer FRP? Now tabletop fantasy
>wargaming is a completely different thing than an RPG, and sure,
>Warhammer dominates that.
Yes, it does, and it's also much more popular than AD&D. In fact
Warhammer 40k is more popular than all RPG systems put together as far
as I can tell based on how many Warhammer 40k clubs there are and how
often I see Warhammer 40k games and tournaments being hosted in game
shops.
>Bard's Tale is hardly forgotten. It's a shame they won't make a sequel
>to it. It's a classic, the same as Wasteland is a classic.
I don't think Bard's Tale is a classic. It was not even best of breed
at the time it was released. It was a fun game, in the mid 80's, but
not a classic. It was mindless hack and slash and had little of the
creative flair and clever story telling that wasteland had.
Envinyatir
would
> >probably do pretty good numbers. If Bioware did it, it would rock. But
> >it'd probably be up to SSI or one of it's associated studios...
>
> Why would anyone want to do Warhammer FRP? Warhammer is a wargaming
> system, not a roleplaying system, and the role-playing adaptation of
> it is weak as hell.
>
Maybe, but it's very very fun. It was the first thing I'd pnp'd since the
days of advanced fighting fantasy and got me right back in the mood.
E
Knight37
>On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 14:03:43 GMT, knig...@gamespotmail.com
>(Knight37) wrote:
>
>>You're being a bit delusional here. The AD&D computer game license
>>is a very lucrative one. It's no John Madden Football, but it's
>>certainly one of the biggest CRPG licenses.
>
>It's pretty much the only CRPG license, which helps it to be pretty
>much the biggest I think.
Well until Origin killed itself, Ultima would have been a big CRPG
license. Wizardy is one. Might and Magic. Right now I'd say the
"biggest" CRPG licesense must be M&M.... with AD&D probably the second
biggest and getting a lot bigger after this year if we see all these
cool AD&D games that are scheduled to release actually make it out.
>>If someone would get off their ass and make a Warhammer FRP CRPG,
>>it would probably do pretty good numbers. If Bioware did it, it
>>would rock. But it'd probably be up to SSI or one of it's
>>associated studios...
>
>Why would anyone want to do Warhammer FRP? Warhammer is a wargaming
>system, not a roleplaying system, and the role-playing adaptation of
>it is weak as hell.
We seem to have a lot of varying opinions about RPG games (pen and
paper kind). I think that it was pretty cool (lets put it this way, I
was interested in it, and I have nearly zero interest in their
miniatures stuff), and over in rec.games.frp.misc it usually gets quite
a few fans who liked it. I think the world has enough interesting
things and details that a good CRPG based on it could be made.
--
Knight37
"We cut down on my percentage, it's liable to interfere with my aim."
-- Blonde, from "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly"
Thrasher
wrote:
>Well until Origin killed itself, Ultima would have been a big CRPG
>license. Wizardy is one. Might and Magic. Right now I'd say the
>"biggest" CRPG licesense must be M&M.... with AD&D probably the second
>biggest and getting a lot bigger after this year if we see all these
>cool AD&D games that are scheduled to release actually make it out.
Hold it. A license is when you charge a fee to let somebody else use
your logo, game system, whatever - your intellectual property - in
THEIR product. For insance, if Interplay paid EA a fee to make a new
Ultima game, that would be a license. If Origin makes another Ultima
game, it's not a license.
None of the games you named are made under license.
Knight37
Of course.
My meaning was for more along the lines of popular CRPG brands as
opposed to actual licenses. If you consider AD&D as a 'brand' along
with 'Ultima' and 'Might and Magic' then what I said is true.
--
Knight37
"Hey You!
Don't tell me there's no hope at all!
Together we stand. Divided we fall."