Avernum 3, BG2, IWD2
Westley Weimer
This message contains a fairly long comparison of some features of Avernum
3, Baldur's Gate 2 and Icewind Dale 2. The first part serves as a
contextual review so that people who are familiar with any one of those
games can see how the others compare on a number of unimportant features.
The second part (an engine feature wishlist) is meant primarily to inspire
the author of Avernum to make some changes.
My personal experience with this kind of thing goes back to Ultima 1. On
the Avernum side, I played one of the Exiles for Win 3.1 but could not get
into it, and have previously purchased Avernum 2. I have some small
experience with BG2 and IWD2 (see http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~weimer/bgate).
In what follows I will use "Avernum" or "A3" to mean "Avernum 3".
The marjority of this writing will be a feature-level comparison of these
three games, followed by suggestions for the improvement of Avernum.
Let me start with high level premises about what is important:
Premise: Saving the user time and automating repetitive tasks is very
important.
Discussion: I realize that this is a slippery slope (ProgressQuest,
anyone?), but there are a number of beneficial abstractions in any game of
this nature. For example, take food. If you had to explicitly click on the
food in your inventory to "use it" when people became hungry, things would
be more annoying for the user with for no particular gain. In Avernum you
have food and it is automatically eaten when you rest. BG2 and IWD2
abstract food away entirely. Similarly, these game keep track of counting
your coins for you, hiding possible denominations (e.g., your cash holdings
are not given as X dollars and Y quarters, just as Z dollars). Abstracting
away this sort of detail is good. Finally, time is a critically important,
non-renewable resource. Many people have families or other serious
commitments, and everyone could be out enjoying nature or reading a good
book instead of waiting on an unimportant part of a computer game. Anything
that can be done to elide unimportant details without detracting overmuch
from the story is good.
Premise: The most important points of Avernum are the Story, the
Exploration and the Combat.
Discussion: You might have ranked these things differently (for example, you
might suggest that the Combat part is not really that important compared to
the Story). However, it seems clear that things like "eating food" and
"solving math problems" and "climbing stairs" and "buying items in shops"
are not the ultimate goals of this game. I am not trying to suggest
anything radical here, I just hope to remind everyone of what is really
important because I will later suggest that we are spending too much time
on unimportant things. Avernum is sufficiently open-ended that your
ultimate goal can be to buy a house ... but let me humbly suggest that for
the majority of players (and especially your first time through the game),
the three big ones I mentioned above are the important goals.
I invite comments or comparisons from people who agree or disagree with my
judgments.
Feature Comparisons
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hours of Fun Game Time
A3: Excellent
BG2: Excellent
IWD2: Poor
Notes: I have played BG2 enough times that I can defeat BG2:SoA in
about 9 hours, doing all of the quests. Clearly, the first time you
play a game it takes quite a while (there is something magical about
the first time) and any subsequent replays are quite rapid. I played
through IWD2 in one weekend (no reloads) after purchasing it. It took
the same amount of time to complete Lower Avernum, explore the
countryside and then defeat the Slimes in A3: that's, say, one-fourth
or one-fifth of the game. BG2 and A3 both have an excellent amount of
content.
Non-Linear Plot
A3: Excellent
BG2: Good
IWD2: Poor
BG2 (SoA) is a very non-linear game. Aside from the first dungeon,
Spellhold and the final levels, you can do the quests in any order. A3
takes this one level higher: there isn't even a required "first
dungeon" and the number of places you can go at the beginning is much
higher. Admittedly, most of it involved tramping through the
wilderness. There is no single town in A3 that can hold a candle to
BG2's Athkatla. However, there are single towns in A3 that can compare
to single regions of Athkatla, and there are more of them then there
are regions in Athkatla. In BG2 you are constantly reminded that it is
either time to Save Imoen or time to Save the Elves. In A3 you are
constantly reminded that the world is going to hell in a handbasket,
but you aren't always directly encouraged to fix it. In BG2 it is at
least vaguely possible to play "Evil" ... in A3, you more or less have
to be a "[good] adventurer" (although you can rob towns and annoy
organizations). However, A3's "Ultima 5"-style presentation still gives
it the edge in non-linearity over BG2. IWD2 is, of course, completely
linear. Sigh.
Interesting NPCs:
BG2: Superior
A3: Good
IWD2: Average
The problem here is that they are difficult to compare. An average
"fleshed-out" NPC in IWD2 (like Oswald or Shawford) is much more
interesting than the average NPC in A3. However, there are really only
about ten fleshed-out NPCs in IWD2, so what can you do? BG2 takes the
cake here: no one that I have found in A3 can compete with Jaheira or
even Bodhi, say. You can typically say four or five things to each
"generic" A3 NPC, which about ties with BG2. BG2 has the edge for
"minor villians". The Shade Lord, Firkraag, Matron Ardulace: they are
all meaty and interesting, especially when compared to A3's tendency to
have non-speaking Bandit Leaders, Goblin Chieftans, Evil Altars and
Troglo Shamans, that just display a "Good job" message when you kill
them. To be sure, A3 has interesting characters in the midddle/end
(e.g., Erika, Rentar-Ihrno, Alien Slimes) but BG2 does a much better job
of giving color and depth to every medium-sized foozle.
Joinable NPCs:
BG2: Superior
A3: Poor
IWD2: Non-Existent
Unless you Ctrl-Q someone into your party in IWD2, no one will join
you. BG2 is the undisputed king in this area: fleshed out characters,
romantic interests, humorous banter, specific interjections between the
party members and people on the street, etc. A3 is more like IWD2 in
this regard: the common path is to make a full four-person party
yourself. There are some people who can join you (the priest, Falko the
archer, the mage, the warrior) at various points, but most people won't
have a slot open and since these new people don't really come with a
story, there's no reason to take them except for their killer stats
(see below). I'm not sure what to suggest to Jeff here: why bother
putting more programmer time into NPCs that most players won't take
anyway? There's nothing that I saw in the manual that hints that you
should leave one slot open for an NPC. In addition, there doesn't seem
to be any convenient way to "peek" at an NPC if you have a full party.
Interesting Magical Items:
BG2: Superior
A3: Good
IWD2: Poor
BG2 has long been criticized for its monty haul approach to doling out
massive amounts of magical loot. You can't seem to complete a dungeon
without tripping over a unique +2 sword. A3 has some interesting items,
but you also spend a half-decent amount of time with your fine wave
blade, normal boots and vahnatai cloak. IWD2 suffers from an
incredible dearth of interesting items in the early game (where a +1
two-handed sword is the best item for about the first third of the
game) and a glut of sub-optimal items in the late game (where after you
can already buy generic +4 weapons in stores you are suddenly presented
with unique but powerless +2 items as rewards). All of the games have
the standard array of wands, scrolls and stat-boosting items (knowledge
crystals versus intelligence potions, etc.).
Potions and Scrolls:
A3: Excellent
BG2: Good
IWD2: Poor
The nature of spellcasting in A3 makes it much more likely that the
priest will just heal everyone in the party after combat: in BG2 and
IWD2 you are reduced to slurping healing potions much of the time.
However, IWD2's potions are often a bit obscure (e.g., potions that
casts shocking grasp on you appearing as treasure when you already have
more useful +2 weapons) and unbalanced ... on the weak side. A3 has
some lovely potions and the equivalent of the alchemy skill (which does
basically nothing in IWD2 and does not exist in BG2) actually allows
you to make potions using various recipes. "Mandrake root and hair of
cat / mix oil of fish and give a pat / a feline from the one who eats /
this appetizing magic treat" ... no wait, wrong game.
Graphics:
BG2: Good
IWD2: Good
A3: Poor
I had to get to it at some point. I, personally, don't really care
about the graphics (with one or two caveats below). However, BG2 and
IWD2 are beautiful games with stunning backdrops. Well, BG2 has
stunning backdrops. IWD2 has nice icons and kinda boring tundra-like
backdrops. But hey. A3 looks like U6 with a U5 tileset. The only thing
that it actually does pretty well compared to the U6 engine is height:
cliffs and elevation changes are much more believable in A3 than they
were in U6 (or Savage Empire). There's really nothing to say here.
Graphics do not, in my opinion, make or break a game.
Compelling Plot:
A3: Excellent
BG2: Excellent
IWD2: Average-Poor
I have to admit, the IWD2 plot is just not all that exciting. Somewhere
in the middle it is easy to lose track of why, exactly, Isair and Madae
care about Guthma's (or was it Hashrom's?) assault on Targos (or was it
the Shaengarne?). The NPCs are sufficiently annoying that you still
want to kill them, but it's no great shakes. By contrast, BG2 has a
tight plot involving filial piety, revenge, community, and David
Warner's voice acting. It's of the form: "this Irenicus guy is *really*
annoying me and my friends, let's go kill him now". By contrast, A3's
plot is of the form: "I'd really like to live my life on the surface,
but I can't because bad things are happening. To safeguard my future
and that of my people, I must investigate. Wish I knew who to blame;
this evidence is inconsistent."
Non-Trivial Tactics:
BG2: Excellent
A3: Good
IWD2: Poor
BG2 battles are often puzzles in and of themselves. What series of
spells and weapons must I use to defeat this particular spellcaster or
demon? A3 inherently has fewer choices: there just aren't as many
spells and there aren't any (?) meta-level spells, so there isn't as
much going on in terms of combat choices. There is still more than
IWD2, where the 3E rules ensure that everyone gets hit all the time
and things degenerate into a staying-power melee fest unless you take
really special care. I personally think that tactics play a big part in
these games: without them the dungeon crawls become repetitive and
boring. A3 solves this to some degree via the continual introduction of
puzzles (more on that later), but I still wish it had more variety.
However, it is still doing better than IWD2, which (at least until they
release some new patch) really only admits two or three distinct
strategies.
Character Development:
A3: Excellent
IWD2: Strong
BG2: Poor
This is basically a factor of the ruleset used. BG2 uses 2E AD&D, so
after you make your character at the beginning of the game there really
isn't that much stat- or skill-based development. You get more
hitpoints, better saves, more spells, and your THAC0 improves. Huzzah.
In IWD2 you can do arbitrary 3E multiclassing and there is an actual
skill/feat system. A3 takes the cake here with a classless system
purely based on skills. You can really take your characters anywhere
you want to go. And if you decide halfway through the game that the
potion-making skill really is important, you don't need to restart:
there will be plenty of time and skill points left to catch up on it.
Puzzles:
A3: Excellent
BG2: Good
IWD2: Poor
A3 has levers, buttons, grates, beams & mirrors, secret doors and other
doodads coming out the wazoo. Dungeons often seem like haunted houses
designed by Rube Goldberg. This is good. BG2 is kinda light on the
puzzles but does have gobs of riddles. IWD2 has some puzzles, but quite
a few people don't like them (e.g., Fell Wood Maze, boring "try all
combinations" puzzles in the Yuan-Ti temple or the Black Raven
monastery) ... and the game is too short to really have all that many
of them.
Cursed Items:
A3: Excellent
BG2: None
IWD2: Poor
A3's obscure handling of the "lore" skill ensures that no matter how
smart you are, there is always something obscure that you won't be able
to identify without a trip to the sage. Just enough of these are really
tragically bad items (cursed or not) that you actually end up with a
healthy fear of unidentified magic. BG2 has about two cursed items (the
backbiter spear and ... help me ... something?) and there is no real
danger that you will possibly run into one by accident, so you just
stuff all of the magical goodies into your hands as fast as possible.
Sure, all the IE games have those murky potions, but is anyone really
fooled by those anymore? IWD2 tries to improve upon this position and
ends up going sideways: there are cursed items in the game, but they
are all (I'm not really kidding here) cursed berserking bastard swords.
Unfortunately, the bastard sword is the only one that requires a
"separate" proficiency, so people who put points into it thinking that
there would be some cool ones coming down the pike end up vastly
disappointed.
Author Intervention:
BG2: Excellent
A3: Good
IWD2: Poor
I have exchanged email with David Gaider (lead design, bioware) and
Jeff Vogel (supreme commander, spiderweb software) about their games.
They were friendly and informative. Gaider in particular has/had a very
strong involvement with fans (see the Ascension Mod and the Infinity
Scripters group). My one email to J.E. Sawyer (design, IWD2) was never
answered (not even with a form letter). This has nothing direct to do
with the quality of the game ... but I'm probably not the only one who
thinks that it highlights some indirect effects.
Coherent Ruleset:
A3: Excellent
IWD2: Excellent
BG2: Average
Avernum's system and IWD2's minor variant of 3E are both basically
internally coherent and consistent. BG2's variant of 2E is a hack that
even confuses the experts (raise your hand if you can be sure of the
interaction between Ruby Ray, Breach, Warding Whip, Spell Shield, and
Spell Immunity, even after reading the descriptions). "Cast and
Attack trick", anyone? How about that weird "Reputation = Morality"
thing in BG2? Don't get me started.
Skills Matter:
A3: Excellent
IWD2: Fair
BG2: Non-Existent
BG2 does not have "non-weapon proficiencies", so you're basically left
with "I can use this kind of weapon" and "I have the special combat
ability to do Foo". You can play the entire game without a thief (the
only class with real skills) and not really notice it. IWD2 is almost
there: 3E skills and feats do come in handy ... just not all of them.
IWD2 would have done well to have stolen A3's approach to wilderness
lore, for example: you can use it to avoid wandering monsters and it
helps you to find useful supply caches in the wild. Instead, most of
IWD2's skill remain useless.
Avoiding Combat:
IWD2: Excellent
BG2: Good
A3: Poor
In BG2 and IWD2, you can hide in shadows or otherwise become invisible
... and walk past foes without fighting them. What a concept.
Unfortunately, you almost invariably do not get XP for this (you do a
few times in IWD2). All of these games would be improved by a Deus
Ex-like experience system, where you get points for accomplishing
things, learning or exploring, not for killing people. IWD2 also
includes Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidation, of which about two are
useful ... but it is possible to talk your way out of a non-zero number
of fights. Unless I'm missing something, the only real way to avoid a
fight in A3 is not to be there. Despite the excellent story, you really
have to hack your way through to the end. This is not to say that there
aren't fights you can avoid: you need not anger the Anama, you don't
have to kill the Troglo King, that kind of thing. But if you do,
there's no real hope of sneaking or talking your way out of things.
Do any of these games have a quest where the goal is to obtain
something *without* killing anyone? Not that I've noticed.
Store Balance/Consistency:
A3: Good
BG2: Poor
IWD2: Poor
The whole concept of a society in which street vendors routinely trade
in high-powered magical items is a little obscure, but BG2 and IWD2
embrace it. The problem is that BG2 shops evenly divide into three
kinds: (1) truly useful, godlike shops (e.g., Ribald); (2) completely
useless shops (e.g., 98% of everything); (3) completely useless shops
that have one unique magical item that you really want. None of this
really makes any sense, and to top it off if you kill a shopkeeper the
items all disappear. However, it is possible to steal (sometimes) from
shops. IWD2 has a dearth of shops (there are really only half a dozen)
so it is hard to draw conclusions, but they do seem to break down into
"Conlan's Smithy" and "Everything Else". I hate to say it, but IWD2
fell into that classic Final Fantasy trap where you mysteriously find
this lone merchant camped outside the gates of the Final Castle of Doom
selling the most powerful items you've ever seen for outrageous prices.
For a vast majority of A3, most shops are pretty much worthless except
for selling items. The Fine Waveblade and Radiant Slith Spear are
better than just about anything you can buy in a normal shop: 99% of
all shops sell only mundane equipment. The game is at least consistent:
if you want powerful unique magical items, go on quests or pry them
from the cold, dead hands of their previous owners. In addition, shops
actually have goods lying around on display. Kill the shopkeeper, get
some goods.
Reputation System:
IWD2: Non-Existent
A3: Almost Sensical
BG2: Non-Sensical
A3's reputation system almost makes sense ... if you believe that news
can travel at the speed of light across huge monster-infested
wilderness areas in backwater communities. BG2's reputation system is
completely non-sensical, linking popular opinion of you to morality (if
enough people don't like you, you can lose your paladin-hood). IWD2
thankfully does away with reputation altogether and has NPCs react to
specific things you have down: kill Guthma, everyone talks about it. A3
does this to some extent as well ("Ah, you're the group that killed the
Slimes. Good job.").
Useless Spells:
IWD2: Yes
BG2: Oh Boy Yes!
A3: Not Really
BG2 has useless spells coming out the wazoo. It's a carry-over from 2E
AD&D, we know. But the sad fact is that a Sorcerer that can only pick
five spells per level (there are usually about 20) to know for the
whole game really isn't missing anything because so many of the spells
are so amazingly suboptimal. IWD2 does a little better with this
because 3E spells are slightly more balanced, but there's still more
chaff than wheat. A3 doesn't actually have that many spells: maybe a
score of mages ones, a score of priest ones. Each spell can be known at
one of three possible "spell efficiency levels" (or whatnot). If A3 has
a problem in this area, it is that Summoning is Weak. This is hard to
believe, because in BG2 and IWD2 summoning is so Strong that it makes
the game boring (you can win IWD2 with Animate Dead alone, and BG2
severely limits the number of summoned creatures you can have). This is
even harder to believe because of A3's creative approach to summoning:
aside from the generic "monster summoning" and "spirit summoning"
spells, you can also clone any monster you have seen in the game and
make a copy of it to fight for you later. Great fun, right? Encourages
you to seek out hard monsters and take polaroids of them, yada yada.
Unfortunately, summoned monsters are uniformly weak in A3. As in, they
die in one hit. And if they're not, they last for one round. Finally,
A3 would do well to adopt a 3E-like resistance system: the stronger
your spellcasting skill, the harder it is for enemies to resist the
spell (e.g., your magic bonus is applied against their willpower save,
that kind of thing). This helps keep low-level spells (like horror)
useful the whole time. A3 may already do this; we can't tell (see below
for why this is bad).
Humor:
BG2: Excellent
A3: Above Average
IWD2: Average
IWD2 has some nice self-referential humor at the beginning, but after
that the well dries up. BG2 has quite a bit of humor: the NPC banter is
full of it and the game itself has some funny situations.
Unfortunately, most of it breaks the fourth wall (e.g., Spectator
Beholder, 3rd Edition Halflings). I don't mind, but some people do. A3
humor is understated (more like IWD2), but it's there. I hit the floor
the first time I found the inhabitants of Golddale, for example.
Revealed Ruleset:
IWD2: Superior
BG2: Good
A3: Poor
In IWD2, it is perfectly clear what is going on. The weapon all list
their powers, and your character sheet even calculates damage ranges
for you. The combat part of the 3E ruleset is simple and there is no
tricky metamagic. Three saving throws, one unified sliding scale (Bonus
= X-10 / 2), and you're there. BG2 is passable. The manual explains
nothing. The game explains nothing. But if you happen to be a 2E
scholar, you can figure out what is going on. The rules are published
*somewhere*, even if it's not in the PDF file that came with the game.
:-)
A3, on the other hand, is opaque. This may well be a Jeff design
choice. I'm going to try to argue for more information. In A3, you make
your entire party and you guide their skill development. Thus, picking
good combinations of skills is an important part of the game. If it
were not, there would be more encouragement to just pick up pre-made
characters like Falko who essentially need no development. Since it is,
it is important to know how the skills work. Unfortunately, we do not.
Nowhere that I have seen says anything explicit like:
"Your chance to hit with a melee weapon is equal to
((STR+MEL+BLA)-(Opponent's DEX + Opponent's HRD + Opponent's GYM)) * 5%,
with a max of 95% and a min of 5%."
As a result, we don't know what's going on. Ranged attacks don't seem
to have the 5% minimal chance of success, and presumably fall off with
increasing range. By how much? Who knows? Does damage fall off as well?
No idea. How does Hardiness block damage? Who knows? How big is the
"Bonus" increase from Natural Mage? It looks like 3 or 4, but it's hard
to tell. Does Divinely Touched actually increase some normal die rolls,
or just give you once-per-day powers? The PDF manual says the former,
the in-game help says the later. How much damage does being Shielded
actually block? How does magic resistance work?
Players really like to know how these things work. Half of the fun in
games like these is building a party that you think will stand the test
of time. Unfortunately, ignorance makes this a trying task.
I can see the other side of this debate: not knowing how these things
work is fun too. But with that comes the implicit assumption that we
will eventually find out. With A3, that's unlikely. We'll just develop
superstitions: "My character with low luck had a much harder time than
my character with a lot of luck, guess I'll put some more points in.
Too bad I can't quantify this." And some people won't want to be
spoiled.
Here's my suggestion. As an appendix to the manual, with a big spoiler
warning, walk us through all of the calculations the game does for:
(1) a melee hit: to hit chance, how damage is rolled, how
damage is reduced, how damage is applied, when someone lucks out, etc.
(2) a mind-altering spell: how it is resisted, how the effects work, etc.
It shouldn't take you that long, but even that much info would help us
out quite a bit. :-)
I'm not asking that you reveal all the secrets of uranium poisoning or
whatnot, just that you give players a solid foundation on which to
design characters. Presumably seasoned fighters like our Avernites
would know how combat really works in practice. In addition, the living
Trainers that are supposed to be training them when we click the button
would presumably be offering hints like: "OK, you're fast enough, time
to work on some weight training if you really want to be effective."
Since that dialogue is not explicit in the game, the way to communicate
it to the players is to explain the system. For some people, this is a
strong component of RPGs and something that goes hand-in-hand with
role-playing.
My personal impression is that the game (at least on the "Normal"
difficulty level) is "a bit easy" rather than "a bit hard", so I don't
think giving out this sort of info would really give players any
crushing advantage they didn't already have. That is, you can make a
strong party without this information. So why not make the people who
want it happy by providing it?
Things That Should Be Improved In A3's Engine
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The "Get" Interface:
BG2: Poor
IWD2: Poor
A3: Good
Players spend a large amount of time in these games "looting". IWD2 and
BG2 force you to actually walk Player X over to Item Y on the floor and
pick it up ... which, because those two games have abysmal pathfinding,
is often either a long trip or the kiss of death. Anyway, once you get
there this small, tiny window at the bottom of the screen appears where
you can't actually examine the items until you click on them and shift
them into Player X's inventory. A3 improves on this dramatically: you
can press "G" and get a listing of all "nearby" items. You can then
give them to any character you like. Unfortunately, there are four key
problems here:
(1) The viewing area is *still too small*. It's a 4x5 grid showing 20
items, and it takes up about 1/4th of the map window area, which is
only about 1/3rd of the whole screen. While you are Getting items,
there is nothing else you can be doing with the whole left side of the
screen, so there is no reason not to use all of that real estate to
show more items. There is quite a big reason to use it all, however:
big melees often result in more than twenty items and:
(2) Everything else in the game uses a scrollbar, *except for this*.
For reasons unknown, this particular interface uses two weird green
arrows to scroll up and down. Interface consistency is very good for
novice users (helps them be less frustrated at the game) and
experienced ones alike. However, if you fix (1) you can put off fixing
(2) because everything will fit on one Get screen.
(3) You cannot get descriptions of items, even outside of combat.
Outside of combat there is no reason that you should not be able to
right-click on an item and get a description. You must instead:
put the item in character X's backpack, close the get window, right
click on it there, decide that you don't want it, drop it, re-open the
Get window. This is a big waste of time and it doesn't particularly
make sense. If I have enough time to walk over and get the item without
explicitly directing it (this is the entire premise of the Get window)
then I have enough time to take a look at it. Note that in A3 there are
no special items that kill you just by holding them for one round: you
must actually equip them. So being able to do this wouldn't actually
get you out of any traps. And the game already shows you a "brief
description" when you pass the mouse over an item. Really, there's no
excuse here.
(4) You do not open non-trapped chests and dressers. This means that we
must actually spend/waste time walking around the room, looking in each
dresser. The lovely Get interface was supposed to save us from this.
One possible problem is that some chests have traps. Outside of combat,
however, the get interface should include all items in unlocked
containers that are within range and should note if any
locked/trapped/special container that was not opened. [ Rapid coding
suggestion: rather than actually changing data structures to keep track
of which items in the Get window are really inside dressers (if you
need to, I don't know the inside of your code), you could just have the
Get command take all items from non-special contains within range and
put them outside (on top of) those containers, and then call the normal
get command. Presto, problem solved. ]
The "Get" Interface, Sorting:
Players spend quite a bit of time looking at this interface and picking
up loot. It happens after every big melee. Unfortunately, because all
of your icons look identical, you must physically pass your mouse over
every item present in order to tell the difference between a bronze
greatsword (which you don't want) and an iron greatsword (which you
do). Simple solution:
(1) Sort the available items in the Get window by Price (with
"unidentified" giving a price of \infinity). Break ties using the
lexicographic ordering on item names. This will put all of the
important, costly items at the top and, in the case of items that cost
the same thing (say, cavewood bows and 35 arrows), will keep all of the
items of one kind clumped together. This will save every user of the
game seconds every time the interface is used and more than 3 items
show up. And it costs you nothing: you're already writing in C or C++
(at least, so the executable leads us to believe): just call qsort().
The "Get" Interface, Truly Improved:
Much of the early- and mid-game is spent fighting a few battles (or
crawling through a dungeon) and filling your packs up with the most
expensive equipment you can find so that you can sell it back in town.
A character full of bronze greatswords happens upon an iron one on the
ground. You typically now drop one bronze greatsword, pick up the iron,
and move on. However, somethings things are not as clear-cut: is it
better to 3 sacks of fine meal at 25 gp, or one ash longbow at 65 gp?
Quick mental math gives an easy answer. However, the game could easily
automate this sort of quick mental math. You have already shown that
you are willing to do some of this for the user (for example, if you
stack items together the game presents their total value to you, rather
than forcing you to whip out a calculator). This is not on the same
level as deciding for the user that the Slimes should be defeated
before the Roaches: this is a purely mathematical problem. I propose an
OPTIONAL command similar to Get that does the following:
(1) given all of the equipment the characters are currently carrying
(not equipping, say) and all of the equipment within reach, and the
fact that Player X can carry Weight_X pounds and has Slots_X slots
open (for X=1..4), and that for every item type T there are Num_T of
them available worth Cost_T and weighing Weight_T, distribute items
to players to maximize the cost of items carried by the players.
Unfortunately, there is a difficulty:
(2) This problem is NP-complete. It is also known as the "knapsack" or
"0-1 bin-packing" problem. This means that no efficient truly optimal
solutions are known.
However:
(3) Any greedy heuristic would suffice here. For example, sort the
available items by "cost/weight" and fill up character inventories in
descending order. Write down the resulting loot value. Now sort by
"cost/slots" and fill up character inventories again. Write down the
resulting loot value. Use whichever method was better.
Again, this is merely saving the player from having to do a brute force
computation. This game should not be about rapid mental math. Do the
player this courtesy. Some players will prefer to do this themselves:
leave it as an option (shift-G, say). But many (like my math-phobic
mother) will be happy to let the game "figure out the tip", as it were.
We don't have to walk the characters through spellcasting, which is
presumably much more difficult than this problem. And it will save
humans precious seconds. A win-win situation all around. Again, this is
just a math problem. We're not automating where to go, what to do or
who to talk to. We're just figuring out the most efficient amount of
loot to carry, given that we have limited space.
Scripting, Combat AI:
BG2: Excellent
IWD2: Superior
A3: Abysmal *and* Non-Existent
BG2 has excellent support for automatically scripting the actions of
your characters. Trust me, this is important. There comes a point in
the game where you do not need to individually direct every blow
against a wandering goblin band. IWD2 improves on this with a number of
better features in the scripting language, but it's basically the same
deal.
Unfortunately, A3 is underdeveloped in this area. There is an
"Auto-Combat" feature in the game ... and it is generally unusable
unless your party is made entirely of melee gods. Why? Because it has
all characters, even STR 2 DEX 2 mages, run in and melee. I once put a
bow in my mage's hand and left his melee weapon slot empty (= fist).
The auto-combat feature *still* had him run in and melee. Boggle. There
is no way to set preferences for the characters in auto-combat:
everyone is always Rambo. The unfortunate but predictable side-effect
is that as soon as mage-boy gets close, the enemies detect an easy
target and whack him. If you had been directing the combat, you would
never have made this mistake. Unfortunately, since combats are
generally unavoidable in A3 (see above), this means that you must waste
your precious time directing the actions of everyone in every minor
combat, even though you know you are going to win and it should be
automated. There are two "hack-arounds" available in A3 for this:
(1) Select your main tank, press "o" (use this character Only) and
then turn on auto-combat. This is also suboptimal, because your other
tanks will stand around and do nothing. The combat would be over 3
times faster if they helped, which means 3x less time for the enemies
to be hitting your main tank, etc.
(2) Spend a few rounds having your mage "run away" manually before
turning on auto-combat. Thus, even though the mage will run back in
to be Rambo, he won't get there in time to impale himself on the
enemy's blade.
I actually use (2) in real life because it is faster than directing the
entire combat myself. No user should be forced to go through such
contortions.
I know from watching the enemies that you have at least two or three
general tactics coded up in the game: "engage in melee", "use ranged
weapons and run away", and "use spells and run away". The enemies use a
different spellset from the players, so the latter probably doesn't
carry over. However, players should be able to pick from a list like
this:
(1) engage in melee combat
(2) run away from everything
(3) ranged weapons
In advance, for each character, and have that be used when auto-combat
is engaged. This would involve a minor UI change, but should not be too
painful.
Combat Animation Delay:
BG2: Excellent
IWD2: Excellent
A3: Poor!
I'm not sure exactly what is going on, but even with the game on
"fastest" and all of the "use special effects" turned off (which only
serves to make the ground look blander, as far as I can tell) I still
spend half of my combat time (I timed this with a stopwatch)
watching missile weapons fly across the screen. My favorite enemies in
the game are the roaches because *they have no missile weapons* and
thus combats are actually over quickly. Everybody else has some.
Slith with javelins, giants with rocks, troglos with javelins, mauve
slimes or drakes with little bolts of fire ... you have to sit and
watch them drift slowly across the screen. In some particularly large
melees (say, 20 opponents) I have been tempted to pick up a book and
read a paragraph while waiting for the enemies to get done missing the
party with arrows. Every round. There is no excuse for this. Trust me,
it's not the video card's top speed. There must intentionally be a
delay in the source code to give players a chance to follow the
missiles with their eyes. Fine. Make it optional. This is a five second
change for you (more if you add some UI option to toggle this, rather
than just locking it to "gamespeed = fastest") that will save all of
your users more than five seconds in their first three fights, and will
continue to reap precious rewards after that.
In addition, to add insult to injury, the game (apparently) waits for
missiles *that you can't see*. For example, in that town that is being
attacked by Stone Giants (nice touch, but very annoying for this
reason) every step can take a second or two as we wait for the giant to
throw a rock and the soldier to fire a bolt ... offscreen! We can't
even see this action and it is still slowing us down. I was tempted to
save the game and use the character editor to take me out of town and
then reload because that would *take less time* than watching my party
ooze across the screen like molasses with nary a foe in sight. I
suggest adding a visibility check to all combat animation delays.
However, my stronger suggestion is that you set them all to zero when
the user has chosen "speed == fastest", since that will cure this as a
special case. :-)
Mysterious Combat Delays:
BG2: Yes
IWD2: Yes
A3: Yes
I'm not sure what they are in BG2 and IWD2 -- rumor has it they are
related to 3d-acceleration video cards. Every once in a while, however,
the world will just freeze for a second, and then wake up. Fine.
A3 has its own brand of mysterious combat delays. And they are not
necessarily all that mysterious. In fact, based on my experience
writing similar games (I wrote a U4 clone in the past), I am going to
guess that the problem is pathfinding. Here's how to reproduce this
problem: go to that town where you can steal the Skribbane from the
Inn. This angers the town with you in the back room of a little Inn.
The game then grinds to a halt as (presumably) twenty soldiers all try
to pathfind their way across an 80x80 grid through one of two possible
very small hallways up to my party. Since this is a turn-based grid
game, you can get away with optimal pathfinding. Presumably you are
using some O(n*log(n)) approach like Dijkstra's algorithm. I ran into
(presumably) the same problem. If you are using something less
efficient, let us know and we can suggest better alternatives. If you
are calling the pathfinding once every step, look into calling it once
at the beginning and then taking all four steps. Or using an "all
points shortest path" algorithm and sharing the result among all
opponents.
The other possibility is that, as above, the engine is delaying minorly
to show me their character animations as they move from square to
square ... even though they are offscreen. If that's the case, fix as
suggested above.
I am playing on a very fast computer and the delays here very noticeably
quite large. Either there is an algorithmic problem here or there is an
intentional delay in the code.
Automap Pathfinding:
IWD2: Poor
BG2: Fair
A3: Non-Existant
You should be able to, say, shift-click on any revealed square on the
automap (or overland) and have your party walk there if possible. You
already have a lovely pathfinding algorithm somewhere (the enemies are
using it) and if not, I have a few and they don't take long to write.
The loss of time here is because Avernum often has terrain like this:
XXXXXXXX
..X..X..
...X.X.X
XX.X...X
..XXXXXX
Where you must get from the left side to the right. These things are
obvious if you squint at the automap, but if the X's are trees overland
it can be completely opaque. You must either mash around with the arrow
keys until you get through *or* (more commonly) hold down the mouse
button and sort of "sweep" the mouse back and forth across a wide arc
centered on where you want to be, hoping that the players will
eventually force their way through. Both of these are big wastes of
time. Exploring Avernum and the Surface is important. Finding hidden
caches is neat, and there are a number of fun scripted encounters.
Players should not spend all of their time walking into trees and and
running into rocks trying to get somewhere. This should not take that
long to code up. If no path is found, just display some message in the
scroll text window. Don't go over dangerous terrain by default.
Excessive Icon Re-Use:
IWD2: Not Much
BG2: A Bit
A3: Way Too Much
All three of these games reuse weapon icons. The Frost Blade and the
Snowy Sword look the same. OK, we can deal. But this problem is
exacerbated in A3 because *all swords look the same* (maybe three
exceptions). In BG2 and IWD2 you can at least tell a short sword from a
long sword and a mundane long sword from a magical long sword. In A3 a
bronze sword, iron sword, steel sword, blessed sword, magic sword, and
the special magic sword of Fooness *all look identical*.
Let me first say: I don't really care about the graphics. It's not
about the graphics. It's about the time. Because they all look the
same, I must run my mouse cursor over them manually to tell them apart
... and if you scroll up or down, you lose your place.
BG2 and IWD2 use a simple solution to this problem: magical item icons
are bordered in blue (or gray). Adopt this solution. This is the sort
of thing that can be done in five minutes with a script and a
command-line graphics program. Draw a blue frame, take all of your
existing item icons, make a new image that is the icon layered over the
frame, save. Now just associate the items with the new icons in the
source. No need for artistry. Optionally, you could just make one image
of the blue frame background and change the source code to paint it
below the original icon if the item is magic.
However, once that is done we still have the problem that bronze and
iron look the same. Again, drawing new icons is too much work. So just
make up little symbols and put them in the corners:
wood/stone/bronze - one star in corner *
iron/ash - two stars in corner **
steel/yew - three stars in corner ***
blessed - four stars in corner ****
magical - blue border
Optionally, use the number 1 2 3 and 4. Or different colored borders.
It doesn't matter, as long as we can tell the relative quality at a
glance. Making all of the magic items blue doesn't really change
anything away, but adding these little icons to tell wood from iron
would give away information that the Item Lore skill is supposed to
provide. One solution is to use two icons: one when identified, one
when not. Another solution is to paint the little material marker
over/behind the current icon only if the item is identified.
Arbitrary Non-Sensical Inventory Limits:
BG2: Yes
IWD2: Yes
A3: Yes
Sigh. Nethack and Zork have been out for a long time now. There's no
excuse for this. BG2 and IWD2 are married to the Infinity Engine, which
is married to its 640x480 GUI, so they can only show so many items on
the screen. Or something. Fine, they can't be fixed.
Weight is already a factor that prevents you from carrying everything
in A3. Unfortunately, the *very low* "twenty item limit" is as well.
The main problem here is that it grates on our sense of immersive
realism. The rest of A3 is actually kinda realistic. However, every
time I do laundry I carry more than twenty tunics with me. If you
want to stop someone from carrying twenty large shields (even if they
are under 350 pounds total), fine: invent a real bulk-weight system. It
has been done. But this arbitrary twenty item restriction just makes
players frustrated: I can easily fit more than twenty different
scrolls (= tablets) in a backpack. Why can't my A3 characters?
Similarly, carrying twenty distinct kinds of gemstones is a snap in
real life. But not in A3.
You could do something with resizable arrays or linked lists here, but
don't bother. Just recompile the code with 20 changed to, say, 200 or
400. Depending on how often this array comes up in memory, you could
even splurge and go higher. Long before 200 objects, weight will kick
in. Since you have thoughfully used scrollbars on the inventory display
screen, the only problem is the Editor. Fine, leave the Editor so that
it can only interact with the first twenty objects. No time-consuming
GUI changes. No big deal. We'll all survive. But we'll be much
happier, because a mage carrying 10 distinct scrolls and 6 little
packets of herbs and 4 potions won't suddenly be out of room, even
though her gear only weighs 15 pounds.
You can even do this in a way that keeps backwards compatibility with
old saved games. Use a unique marker on new saved games, and when you
load the old kind convert the old 20-array to the new
200-array. Save all games in the new format. Presto, everyone wins.
Why do I care about this? It also causes you to waste time. Arbitrary
item limits encourage you to run back and forth ferrying stuff from
here to there in small shipments. In addition, they make "solo" or
"singleton" games unnecessarily annoying. We shouldn't be inspired to
have other characters so that they can be pack mules: we should be
inspired by role-playing reasons.
Actual Bugs To Report:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(1) The "item slot limit" is considered before "stacking" is. Imagine
that you have 19 tunics and 1 healing potion. You cannot pick up another
healing potion. But if you drop one tunic, then get the healing potion
(they stack), then pick up the last tunic, suddenly it works. This is
vastly non-sensical to new players. In addition, it causes you to waste
time. In the early and mid-game, that extra healing potion matters and
you are going to sell those tunics (ok, make them longswords) back at
the town. So you will take the extra precious second to drop this, pick
up that, yada yada. The game should do this for you.
Interestingly enough, you are in lofty company here. Both BG2 and IWD2
share this same bug. You can get away with not fixing this if you just
increase the item slot limit, as above. :-)
(2) The Drake Lord that gives you the "Icy Chain Mail" (I think --
early on in the game this drake lord asks you to help him fight off
these other drakes): if all of your characters are full (which is
likely, see vastly annoying item slot limit as above) the chain mail
disappears into the void and there is no way to get it back, ever.
(3) If you don't pick up the Radiant Slith Spear, you can summon the
guardian Shambler an infinite number of times. Of course, that's pretty
much a deathwish at that stage in the game. But still.
(4) The Joinable NPCs (e.g., Falko) all have the stats of a 37th level
characters even when they join you at 9th level. For example, if Hsska
joins your group as a 9th level NPC he about 417 skill points worth of
skills, compared to a PC's roughly 60+9*8=132. Similarly for Falko,
etc. The Infinity Engine guys solve this problem by storing a thousand
different copies of each NPC, one for each possible level.
Unfortunately, this leads to a QA bugfest: the versions are not
automatically kept in sync, and one may have a bug that another does
not. I'm not sure what (if anything) to suggest to you here, I just
thought you should be aware of it if you aren't already.
(5) The help screen for the "Get" window mentions pressing keys 1-6 for
characters, even though only 4 are available. Unless I'm missing
something.
What I Will Do About It (directed to Spiderweb Software)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Option One: I would really like to see these changes implemented (the
"actual bugs" aren't such a big deal). Rather than merely begging you to do
it, I offer to *do it myself*. I will sign an NDA. Make your source code
available to me. I will implement every change I have suggested above with
verbose comments and send you diffs. Ignore them or incorporate them
slowly. Regardless, compile them once: skip your Q&A process and just post
a binary "Avernum3.exe" and "Avernum3.mac" drop-in-replacement file
somewhere obscure on your website with huge disclaimers that it is an alpha
patch written by a third party that is not supported by Spiderweb. Cost to
you: basically nothing. Benefit to players: potentially high.
Option Two: Many of these problems are quite annoying to me, nagging at the
back of my mind and preventing me from enjoying A3 to its fullest. But
perhaps you don't like Option One above because you are afraid that people
would associate the resulting binary with you regardless (if it introduces
bugs), or that it would be some sort of QA nightmare. I have already
registered the game. I am so interested in smoothing these rough edges (and
supporting this kind of shareware) that I will pay you another $25 to have
NDA access to your source code. I will implement the changes above, fix the
game for myself, send you the diffs, and then shut up about it. However, I
suspect that you have other loyal players who are chafing at these problems
in silence.
Option Three: You could fix these things yourself. None of them will take
that long. But presumably you are quite busy with Blades of Avernum or
whatnot, otherwise you would have done these things already.
Basically, I am trying as hard as possible to make the cost to you 0, since
I fear nothing will happen otherwise.
If you are at all interested, send me some email. I'll send you my fax
number, you can fax something over. I can even provide example NDA/EULA
texts used by other commercial companies if you don't have one handy.
- Wes
Jason Compton
make this boast when he was offering to do all that recoding, it's worth
pointing out that he's the guy who figured out how to make BG2 modding a
sensible, worthwhile process, so I'd say he's worth his word on all of
those recoding offers.
(oh, and hi, Wes. I'm going to please myself and say that I think the bit
about the fourth wall in BG2 was meant for me.)
--
Jason Compton jcom...@xnet.com
Lucian Wischik
>This message contains a fairly long comparison
Hi. That was indeed long! but I enjoyed reading all of it. The "avoid
killing" point was particularly good. With respect to the revealed
ruleset, I kind of enjoyed not knowing what was happening in A3. (but
yeah, I guess that writing it down would still allow me to ignore it and
you to read it.)
>Things That Should Be Improved In A3's Engine
>The "Get" Interface:
>Combat Animation Delay:
Wholeheartedly agree! The combat animation delay is really irritating. You
wrote how it could be fixed up while keeping the same combat system, but I
think we're actually seeing just the limitations of turn-based. I think
your enhanced Get command was pushing it into the realms of ProgressQuest,
though.
>Excessive Icon Re-Use:
> A3: Way Too Much
> a bronze sword, iron sword, steel sword, blessed sword, magic sword,
> all look identical
Not so! The bronze and iron greatswords look different! The iron sword has
a slighly blunter end. At least, I'm pretty sure it does. Maybe because
I'm playing on my laptop (=clear LCD, seen from very close up) I can see
this difference better than you. I wonder if Jeff Vogel isn't doing his
work on an 800x600 mac...
--
Lucian Wischik, Queens' College, Cambridge CB3 9ET. www.wischik.com/lu
CelesteB
Go Wes, go!
Btw, why don't you post your party planning strategy for us (for me)?
:)
Celeste
"Born to Rune" - T. Prachett
Paul Angstrom
(CelesteB) wrote in message
<3daec277...@news.calgary.telusplanet.net>:
>On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 00:40:06 +0000 (UTC), Westley Weimer
><wei...@argus.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>>
>>This message contains a fairly long comparison of some features of Avernum
>>3, Baldur's Gate 2 and Icewind Dale 2. The first part serves as a
>>contextual review so that people who are familiar with any one of those
>>games can see how the others compare on a number of unimportant features.
[snip]
>Go Wes, go!
>
> Btw, why don't you post your party planning strategy for us (for me)?
Celeste, please take the extra two seconds to edit/trim a long post when
quoting, especially when you only have 1 or 2 lines to add to a 955-line
post.
Knight37
bones and whispered:
> This message contains a fairly long comparison of some features of
> Avernum 3, Baldur's Gate 2 and Icewind Dale 2. The first part serves
> as a contextual review so that people who are familiar with any one of
> those games can see how the others compare on a number of unimportant
> features. The second part (an engine feature wishlist) is meant
> primarily to inspire the author of Avernum to make some changes.
Nice post. I won't respond to all of it. I will say that I agree mostly
with what you wrote and if RPG designers (any of them) took a good look at
this document they might learn something useful... ;)
--
Knight37
"Groovy."
-- Ash, "Army of Darkness"
CelesteB
<angs...@no.spam.please> wrote:
>Celeste, please take the extra two seconds to edit/trim a long post when
>quoting, especially when you only have 1 or 2 lines to add to a 955-line
>post.
>
Whoops, my bad. I should know better.
Spiderweb Software
<<Hi. That was indeed long! but I enjoyed reading all of it. The "avoid
killing" point was particularly good. >>
The Avernum games are very combat-based. There's definitely very few options
for getting by things without battle.
Our newer engine, Geneforge, makes stealth/diplomatic strategies very viable.
The Avernum engine, however, was definitely not designed with that in mind.
<<Wholeheartedly agree! The combat animation delay is really irritating.>>
We'll make this suck less in Blades of Avernum. Same for the Ai, which will get
massive reworking.
As for icon variety, for business reasons, we are restricted to what can be
transmitted over a 56k modem. I want more art! Believe me, I do! But I also
want to eat. :-/
- Jeff Vogel
Spiderweb Software, Inc.
Award-winning fantasy role-playing games for Windows and Macintosh.
http://www.spiderwebsoftware.com
Furfoot
news:20021018180515...@mb-mq.aol.com...
<snip>
> As for icon variety, for business reasons, we are restricted to what can
be
> transmitted over a 56k modem. I want more art! Believe me, I do! But I
also
> want to eat. :-/
Give a man art, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to eat art, and he'll
eat for a lifetime (or something).
Arcana Dragon
news:20021018180515...@mb-mq.aol.com:
> The Avernum games are very combat-based. There's definitely very few
> options for getting by things without battle.
I tried the Avernum 3 demo. Crap for modern PC's. I'd rather play Ultima 6
or (shudder) Grimoire.
--
Greetings,
Arcana Dragon
-==(UDIC)==-
Lars-Gunnar Hartveit
"Arcana Dragon" <vi...@temple.gov> skrev i melding
news:Xns92AC4122357D0ma...@193.88.15.213...
> spi...@aol.com (Spiderweb Software) wrote in
> news:20021018180515...@mb-mq.aol.com:
>
> > The Avernum games are very combat-based. There's definitely very few
> > options for getting by things without battle.
>
> I tried the Avernum 3 demo. Crap for modern PC's. I'd rather play Ultima 6
> or (shudder) Grimoire.
>
and audio departments. But they do deliver in what counts: game content. I
think a review I saw on Avernum 3 sums it up pretty well: Graphics: 5,
Sound: 5, Gameplay: 9, Value: 9.
Calling the games crap is similar to calling U4,5 and 6 crap.
IMHO
--
Pibbur Dragon -===(UDIC)===- aka larsg (lars-gunnar hartveit)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
d e++ N+ T- Om+ U4567'!S'!89!A!LM! u uC++ uF- uG+ uLB+ uA+ nC nH+ nPT nS++++
nT-- wC- wS---- wN+ oE---- a47
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
Clover Kicker
>
> I tried the Avernum 3 demo. Crap for modern PC's. I'd rather play Ultima 6
> or (shudder) Grimoire.
Your loss.
Usenet may not be dead, but it's not dead in the same way that Saturday
Night Live isn't dead. It's UNDEAD. -- Bill Silvey
Scutagera
>
> I tried the Avernum 3 demo. Crap for modern PC's. I'd rather play Ultima 6
> or (shudder) Grimoire.
Your loss.
--
clover...@yahoo.com<<
Agreed. I got Avernum2 back in 2001 and had a good time with it. Then I got
caught up in the hoopla of Anarchy Online and DAoC, and forgot all about
Spiderweb Software. This thread had me dig out my Avernum2 CD and try it with a
different party. Still a good time, and I'm looking into Genforge and Avernum3.
Scut
Cleve Blakemore The Real One
> spi...@aol.com (Spiderweb Software) wrote in
> news:20021018180515...@mb-mq.aol.com:
>
> > The Avernum games are very combat-based. There's definitely very few
> > options for getting by things without battle.
>
> I tried the Avernum 3 demo. Crap for modern PC's. I'd rather play Ultima 6
> or (shudder) Grimoire.
Is that a shudder of excitement?
Cleve Blakemore The Real One
> snip (good analysis)
I agree entirely with your analysis, except I think you rate BG2 much
too highly. Outside of those oh-so-pretty prerendered isometric
environments, BG2 is a hollow sheep's bladder of nothingness inflated
with the bloated bad smelling wind pumped into it by Interplay
marketing.
A3: Excellent
BG2: Weak
IWD2: Sad & Demented, a serious political argument for late term
abortion
Avernum 3 is just fun to play, period, as were A2 and A1. BG2 isn't.
Neither is IWD2, which became a drudge for me after 10 minutes.
All Jeff Vogel has to do is beef up his graphic engine and he'd be the
absolute undisputed king of RPG design, period, no contest, end of
story. I find his rules, mechanics and general gameplay to simply be
way better than anything else out there that I have seen since Eye of
the Beholder or U6.
So basically Jeff has proven that huge corporate games teams with
staff that will not fit into a single picture because of the curvature
of the Earth cannot compete with one little guy in shareware operating
out of his garage. I set out to prove the same with Grimoire. I have
not finished my game yet but I am still convinced after playing AV3
that I was right - the games cartel stinks when it comes to content.
Its all smoke and mirrors and none of its any fun. They survive
primarily through the ever expanding market of newbies and fresh meat
who have not yet been burned by their crap games.
Jeff, if you want a good calibre isometric engine for your next game,
let me know and I'll loan ours out to you. I'm not talking about a
colossal high resolution picture that you scroll around on like BG2,
either, but a true iso that supports great looking graphics plus
detailed scripting and cell-by-cell logic editing. Like FALLOUT except
better. The greatest thing in AV3 is the sheer volume of interesting
puzzles, traps and dungeon detail. If your engine doesn't support
these things, don't even show up because I personally do not consider
a gigantic bitmap browser like BG2 to be qualified as a "game," per
se. BG2 is the usual hype plastered with bad programming and thousands
of hours of rendering - yawn, I despise it. Interplay should have the
Spiderweb software team come in and give an "Introduction to Games
Programming" tutorial to their staff.
Werner Purrer
news:181db1cb.02102...@posting.google.com:
>
>>
>> I tried the Avernum 3 demo. Crap for modern PC's. I'd rather play
>> Ultima 6 or (shudder) Grimoire.
>
> Is that a shudder of excitement?
>
Btw... wasn´t Grimoire to be releast around 1999? How about a sequel
it is about time after three years :-)
Mark Sidarous
> >>On 19 Oct 2002 04:24:41 GMT, Arcana Dragon <vi...@temple.gov> wrote:
> > I tried the Avernum 3 demo. Crap for modern PC's. I'd rather play Ultima 6
> > or (shudder) Grimoire.
> Your loss.
YHBT
--
Mark
Westley Weimer
> I agree entirely with your analysis, except I think you rate BG2 much
> too highly. Outside of those oh-so-pretty prerendered isometric
> environments, BG2 is a hollow sheep's bladder of nothingness inflated
> with the bloated bad smelling wind pumped into it by Interplay
> marketing.
I'm sure many people feel that way, and you could certainly take that view
if a number of key components of BG2 are unimportant to you:
(1) character interaction
(2) replay value
If you take those two away it is pretty much like any other top-down party
CRPG. However, (1) and (2) are really quite spectactular for BG2.
> All Jeff Vogel has to do is beef up his graphic engine and he'd be the
> absolute undisputed king of RPG design, period, no contest, end of
Contest.
> story. I find his rules, mechanics and general gameplay to simply be
Look, I love A2 and A3 as well. But there are a number of really key
concepts that did not make it into that design:
(1) diplomacy (there are no stats governing it, and there is
never more than one successful path through a
conversation)
(2) stealth (it is not possible to evade enemies)
(3) experience (is given for killing things instead of applying
skills or accomplishing goals)
(4) inventory (the arbitrary 20-item limit does not indicate that
he is the king of mechanics and rules -- let's try
a general bulk-weight system)
(5) NPC interaction (he could take a serious page from BG2 here, but
with party members (who never talk in A3) and true
NPCs (who never talk amongst themselves in A3))
(6) multiple paths (there are precious few points in the game where
you can overcome an obstacle multiple ways. Compare
to BG2 where there is at least a half-baked attempt
to provide an "evil path" for every major quest.)
> that I was right - the games cartel stinks when it comes to content.
The dialogue in BG2 is much better than the dialogue in A3, and there is
more of it. That is "content". I will agree with you that A3 is an
excellent game, but I think your generalizations here are a bit too
sweeping. Certainly *many* or *most* large-company CRPGs have "content"
problems (Diablo?) ... but I would not go so far as *all*.
> a gigantic bitmap browser like BG2 to be qualified as a "game," per
> se. BG2 is the usual hype plastered with bad programming and thousands
> of hours of rendering - yawn, I despise it.
A3 has its share of bugs, and I would be happy to name a dozen off the top
of my head. I don't want to seriously defend BG2 against A3 here, but I
think you are being a tad myopic. It's not that BG2 is the savior of RPGs,
it's that there are good features in it that you are missing. Graphics
aren't everything, but BG2 has more than graphics.
- Wes
Ykalon Dragon
The Real One) wrote:
>Westley Weimer <wei...@argus.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message news:<aol0t6$10nq$2...@agate.berkeley.edu>...
>> snip (good analysis)
>
>I agree entirely with your analysis, except I think you rate BG2 much
>too highly. Outside of those oh-so-pretty prerendered isometric
>environments, BG2 is a hollow sheep's bladder of nothingness inflated
>with the bloated bad smelling wind pumped into it by Interplay
>marketing.
>
>A3: Excellent
>BG2: Weak
>IWD2: Sad & Demented, a serious political argument for late term
>abortion
I honestly doubt you played BG2 more than 20 minutes and during th
whole time TRIED to find fault in it because you just KNEW that your
game was really, really crap. You just hoped BG2 was even more crap.
Unfortunately it was not, but as you stopped playing the very minute
it started to get fun you will never find out how good a game it
really is. I played the Grimoire beta and I'm glad you started over
because that game was about 99 times worse than Descent to
undermountain.
--
Things must change. We must re-arrange them
Or we'll have to estrange them. All that I'm saying
a game's not worth playing over and over again
-Depeche Mode The Sun and the Rainfall
Knight37
the bones and whispered:
> Arcana Dragon <vi...@temple.gov> wrote in message
>> I tried the Avernum 3 demo. Crap for modern PC's. I'd rather play
>> Ultima 6 or (shudder) Grimoire.
>
> Is that a shudder of excitement?
Just 10 more days to Halloween, Cleve. Clock's ticking.
--
Knight37
My problem for my entire life has been my overwhelming modesty and humility
about my own ability level.
-- Cleve Blakemore, csipg.rpg
Knight37
bones and whispered:
> I was right - the games cartel stinks when it comes to content.
> Its all smoke and mirrors and none of its any fun. They survive
> primarily through the ever expanding market of newbies and fresh meat
> who have not yet been burned by their crap games.
Oooh, the evil games cartel, selling us bad games year after year, eh?
we're all a bunch of newbz, eh? I think even Jeff himself commented on the
high quality of BG2 at one point in here. Might have been Planescape he was
talking about, I really can't remember, but suffice it to say, it was a
game developed by an evil gaming cartel. ;p
--
Knight37
"This could happen to you, baby. This could happen TO ANYBODY!"
-- The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs At Midnight, The Tick
Aristotle
>I'm sure many people feel that way, and you could certainly take that view
>if a number of key components of BG2 are unimportant to you:
> (1) character interaction
> (2) replay value
Replay value in BG2?
Good lord, it takes monumental patience to get through it once, much less
twice once the very thin story has already been exhausted.
If the incredibly silly and immature "romances" are what is considered replay
value then there are a lot of people who need to get a date BADLY.
-Aristotle@Threshold
--
THRESHOLD RPG - Where Roleplaying is not an option, it's a requirement.
Player run clans, guilds, legal system, economy, religions, nobility, and
more. Roleplay online with thousands of people from all over the world.
http://www.threshold-rpg.com -**- telnet://threshold-rpg.com:23
Livid
the Collective assimilated the following from Westley Weimer:
<SNIPPITY SNIP>
> you are being a tad myopic.
When referring to Cleve, this is an understatement. Kinda like saying
the ocean is a tad wet, or magma is a tad warm...
Arcana Dragon
news:181db1cb.02102...@posting.google.com:
> Is that a shudder of excitement?
NOOOOOO way, mothe**ucker.
Lucian Wischik
>I think even Jeff himself commented on the high quality of BG2 at one
>point in here. Might have been Planescape he was talking about, I really
>can't remember, but suffice it to say, it was a game developed by an
>evil gaming cartel. ;p
Jeff opined that PST was way better than Geneforge and that anyone who
hasn't played them should play PST first.
Knight37
> Knight37 <knig...@email.com> wrote:
>>I think even Jeff himself commented on the high quality of BG2 at one
>>point in here. Might have been Planescape he was talking about, I really
>>can't remember, but suffice it to say, it was a game developed by an
>>evil gaming cartel. ;p
>
> Jeff opined that PST was way better than Geneforge and that anyone who
> hasn't played them should play PST first.
Ah yes, I remember now. :)
--
Knight37
"I have very little faith in Bethesda being able to successfully write the
first half of a "Hello World" program."
-- Bob Perez, on csipg.rpg
Westley Weimer
Very high.
> Good lord, it takes monumental patience to get through it once, much less
> twice once the very thin story has already been exhausted.
Opinions differ, I guess. I've heard quite a few (say, at least a dozen)
people comment that the mods available for BG2 made it worth replaying for
them. I would recommend Kelsey or Ascension to you, but it seems unlikely
that anything will inspite you to enjoy the game.
> If the incredibly silly and immature "romances" are what is considered
> replay value then there are a lot of people who need to get a date BADLY.
That wasn't quite what I was thinking of, no. Have a pleasant day.
- Wes
Htn963
>Westley Weimer <wei...@argus.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message
>news:<aol0t6$10nq$2...@agate.berkeley.edu>...
>> snip (good analysis)
>
>I agree entirely with your analysis, except I think you rate BG2 much
>too highly.
Nah, he's obviously much more intelligent and talented than you, so he's
right and you're wrong. (And I suggest you hire him to help you finish
Grimoire...unlike you, he's been known to churn out mods in an afternoon.)
> Outside of those oh-so-pretty prerendered isometric
>environments,
Don't forget the elven female sprites.
>BG2 is a hollow sheep's bladder of nothingness inflated
>with the bloated bad smelling wind pumped into it by Interplay
>marketing.
Wait a minute...this description sounds familiar...
>A3: Excellent
>BG2: Weak
>IWD2: Sad & Demented, a serious political argument for late term
>abortion
Tsk. This is in serious bad taste, even for you.
<snip blather of corporate Philistinism>
>BG2 is the usual hype plastered with bad programming and thousands
>of hours of rendering - yawn, I despise it. Interplay should have the
>Spiderweb software team come in and give an "Introduction to Games
>Programming" tutorial to their staff.
BG2 was programmed by Bioware, not Interplay. Don't let your wrathful
grudge against Interplay affect your judgment too much, o thou Titanium One.
[P.S. Anyhow, Avernum 3 does sound interesting, so I'll try it someday.]
--
Ht
|Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore
never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
--John Donne, "Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions"|
Mark Morrison
>In article <ap17ku$s11$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>, Westley Weimer <wei...@argus.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>>I'm sure many people feel that way, and you could certainly take that view
>>if a number of key components of BG2 are unimportant to you:
>> (1) character interaction
>> (2) replay value
>
>Replay value in BG2?
>
>Good lord, it takes monumental patience to get through it once, much less
>twice once the very thin story has already been exhausted.
>
>If the incredibly silly and immature "romances" are what is considered replay
>value then there are a lot of people who need to get a date BADLY.
>
I went through it 3 or 4 times, with different parties.
Hell, I took my mage/thief from BG1 and took her to the end of BG2,
then re-imported her to the start of BG2 and took her through solo
(actually easier than with a whole party).
Never finished BG2 - TOB, though, it just took too long, and with the
level of my chars, fights were actually less fun than with a team of
level 5's. :(
--
Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes !
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses !
And what's with all the carrots ?
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway ?
Bunnies ! Bunnies ! It must be BUNNIES !
John Galt
(snip)
An interesting read. Westley's comments and knowledge on the Infinity
games is well documented in these forums. Obviously Westley is very
intelligent and analytical and very devoted to the CRPG genre. I say
this because his very long and heartfelt comments and offers to help
Jeff (Spiderware) improve A3 on his own time and even offering to pay
another $25 which shows how personally interested he is in promoting
his vision of the CRPG genre. I agree with many of his comments, but I
have to say that my analysis of the quality of a game for me is really
very simple and comes down to one single issue.... Did I enjoy the
game and/or did I enjoy it enough to justify the money and time I
spent completing it?
If I spend lots of time comparing many of the CRPGs I played to an
uncompromising set of criteria, I might come to many of the same
conclusions as Westley. However, I simply don't care about any
criteria other than whether or not I enjoy the game and whether or not
it was worth the time and money spent.
My opinions of the games in question are as follows:
AV3 - I haven't played it. I have played previous Spiderware games -
the Exile series for example - and I have found them to be mildly
enjoyable. My biggest problem with Spiderweb games is the same problem
I have with many games in the CRPG genre, to much tedious walking
around. Some Spiderweb games seem worse about this walking back and
forth from point A to point B with nothing more than random encounters
to look forward to. To be fair games like Morrowind and Baldur's Gate
which both have some good points (Morrowind in particular) still
suffer from much walking from one point to another to uncover maps or
to fetch this item or that and pester you with random encounters along
the way. I really like the transportation and other tedium reducing
spells and options present in games like Neverwinter Nights (and
Morrowind although there is still lots of walking around). However my
final opinion of the Exile series was that it was not worth $75 for
me. I'd pay $30 for the three game set and feel like that was a good
value, but at more than double the price I do not. The poor graphics,
the simple interface, and the tedious point to point travel really
dulled the fun of the "old-style", classic CRPG experience. I'd give
the Exile series a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 6 in terms of total
enjoyment on scale of 10. Certainly not a waste of time, but nowhere
near an epic, highly enjoyable experience like the early Ultimas,
Planescape Torment, or System Shock all of which were 9-10 on a scale
of 10 when I played them. I will try the A3 demo though and see if I
like that better than the Exile series and I will update my comments
when I do.
BG2 - I thought the story was good if not somewhat cliche (but then
how many games can be System Shock or PST and have that high level of
story, excitement, and suspense). Obviously the eye and ear candy are
light years ahead of Spiderweb stuff, but that's not surprising giving
the relative resources of the two groups. In any case I thought BG2
was worth the time and money and I'd give it a low of 6 and a high of
8 on a scale of 10.
IWD2 - I really enjoy being able to create my own party. That's one of
the thing's I really liked about old time CRPGs and miss in many of
the new single player games, and one of the big plusses for the IWD
games and for the Spiderweb games. The eye and ear candy in IWD2
certainly is nothing to write home about, but it is significantly
better than A3, but not as good as BG2. They also have teleportation
options and global maps that let you go directly to your destination
and local maps that block of dead areas so you don't have to waste
time searching them. I have not finished IWD2 yet, but so far I'd give
it a low of 5 and a high of 8 out of 10. Certainly worth the time and
money so far.
Games I really enjoyed: Ultima 1-3, Crusaders of the Dark Savant, Bard
Tales, Wizardry 6-9, System Shock I&II, Realms of Arkania III,
Betrayal at Krondor, Dungeon Master, some of the Gold Box games,
Summoner, Planetscape, PST, Fallout I&II, Arcanum, Thunderscape,
Vampire the Masquerade, POR I&II, any many others I'm sure I've
missed.
As you can see there is a good mix of games there and I'm sure many of
the games I've enjoyed could be picked apart on one level or another
(e.g. many hated POR2), however, again my criteria is simply whether
or not I enjoy a game and I did enjoy all of the games listed above.
Interesting topic. I hope Jeff takes Westley and Cleave up on their
offers. Imagine if Jeff could get more resources and could release
even higher quality old-style CRPGs with even better stories,
interfaces, graphics, etc. without going to the full commercial
production methodology. I would certainly welcome that as I think
considering the resources he has vs. the big gaming houses, Jeff does
a great job.
Westley Weimer
> I agree with many of his comments, but I have to say that my analysis of
> the quality of a game for me is really very simple and comes down to one
> single issue.... Did I enjoy the game and/or did I enjoy it enough to
> justify the money and time I spent completing it?
That is quite fair. I'm sure that many people also take this holistic
approach.
> with many games in the CRPG genre, too much tedious walking around.
Yes, yes! The user's time should never be wasted.
A3 is slightly better about this (you can teleport to main cities, take
instant-speed boats, or use jewels of return). But this is still a big
problem in many CRPGs. Even IWD2 suffers from this (for example, fedex
quests in the Dragon's Eye or Severed Hand).
> IWD2 - I really enjoy being able to create my own party. That's one of
> the thing's I really liked about old time CRPGs and miss in many of
There's an idea I've been batting around that's vaguely related to this.
Would it be possible to have the best of both worlds (BG2 interaction and
IWD2 party creation) by making the personalities more like the voice
themes? That is, after you were done creating the stats for the character
you could choose from among 20 personalities (or "blank"). These
personalities would be like Edwin or Jaheira in BG2 (but clearly without
any specific references to class or race, although those could be
variable-d in) and would give them the same sort of interaction as a normal
BG2 NPC. Thus your home-brewed character with the Edwin personality would
make sarcastic interjections at all points, etc. You can already kind-of do
this in BG2 by editing Edwin, but it's nice quite the same (he still thinks
he's a male mage ... most of the time).
Just as the BG2 people managed to somehow create believable clerics without
ever really talking about god or religion, I'm sure that people could make
convincing personalities that somehow managed to avoid really talking about
their particular stats. You'd get all the interaction of BG2 with all the
control of IWD2. And it would all be optional, of course, so you could pick
what you wanted.
> Games I really enjoyed: Ultima 1-3,
But not 4-6?
> Interesting topic. I hope Jeff takes Westley
Jeff would like to keep close control over his source code. However, he has
mentioned that he will fix at least two bugs I have reported in a
forthcoming Avernum 3 update.
> considering the resources he has vs. the big gaming houses, Jeff does
> a great job.
I would agree. If you really feel that way, you may want to consider
sending him a note personally. I get the feeling that he mostly gets
negative email from people, and I'd like to show him that many regard him
highly.
- Wes
John Galt
(snip)
>
> Would it be possible to have the best of both worlds (BG2 interaction and
> IWD2 party creation) by making the personalities more like the voice
> themes? That is, after you were done creating the stats for the character
> you could choose from among 20 personalities (or "blank"). These
> personalities would be like Edwin or Jaheira in BG2 (but clearly without
> any specific references to class or race, although those could be
> variable-d in) and would give them the same sort of interaction as a
normal
> BG2 NPC. Thus your home-brewed character with the Edwin personality would
> make sarcastic interjections at all points, etc. You can already kind-of
do
> this in BG2 by editing Edwin, but it's nice quite the same (he still
thinks
> he's a male mage ... most of the time).
>
> Just as the BG2 people managed to somehow create believable clerics
without
> ever really talking about god or religion, I'm sure that people could make
> convincing personalities that somehow managed to avoid really talking
about
> their particular stats. You'd get all the interaction of BG2 with all the
> control of IWD2. And it would all be optional, of course, so you could
pick
> what you wanted.
Yes, this is a good idea. A totally unrelated game did something like this.
I don't know if you like this genre, but a game I played called Jagged
Alliance (I & II) had mercenaries you could hire and grow by having them use
certain skills that had very fun and interesting personalities, special
talents, and great dialogue and one liners. The Jagged Alliance games did
about the best job with that concept I have seen to date.
>
> > Games I really enjoyed: Ultima 1-3,
>
> But not 4-6?
I liked some of the later Ultimas, but 1-3 have a special place in my heart
as they and the Infocom games were what got me hooked on computer gaming.
>
> I would agree. If you really feel that way, you may want to consider
> sending him a note personally. I get the feeling that he mostly gets
> negative email from people, and I'd like to show him that many regard him
> highly.
>
That's too bad and I certainly didn't mean to be negative, only honest. I
don't think Jeff will be surprised by the criticisms I gave and I'm sure
he's heard them before and I didn't by any means single out his games for
those criticisms. I do have to admit the low-end graphics can be off-puting
in this day and age, but I don't consider that a criticism. Jeff appears to
have made a very conscious decision to be a one man band with a few helpers
here and there. The upside is that he retains content control, ownership,
and the bulk of the profits. The downside is his products will always have
very outdated graphics and interfaces compared to the latest commercial CRPG
titles. That's not a criticism, just a fact. I'm sure Jeff understands the
tradeoff, but I also do believe that for what is mostly a one-man show, he
does a damn good job.
> - Wes
>
As always, your comments make for interesting reading....
Simon Appleton
were a little hard on IWD2. I think IWD1 & IWD2 have always suffered from the
comparison with the BG games. They look so similar, it is natural to want to
compare them but both IWDs have consciously been set up to be combat-based RPGs
without the story, non-linearities, sub-quests and characterisation that makes
the BG (and FO) games start out. I understand some of the designers were not
very happy with this focus - I've read comments that they did not like it when
starting out on IWD and plan not to do such a combat-focussed game again after
IWD2. As a combat-focussed game, I think the IWD games do very well and were
much more challenging, and well balanced, than the combat in the BG games. I
found combat in BG1 and BG2 nearly always trivially easy after I had levelled
up my fighter a few times and I am pretty undistinguished CRPG player, eg I
kept dying in Wiz8. IWD1 & IWD2 managed to maintain the challenge for as long
as I could maintain my interest. This is rare in most strategy games, let alone
CPRGs.
One specific point I thought you were a little unfair about was the level of
designer interaction. OK, JE Sawyer might not have replied to your EM but his
input on the official boards over the last several years has been amazing. I
have not encountered a designer who has shared so much information and
communicated so well with his audience. Some busy people just don't reply to
all their EMs, but often can be great communicators in other ways.
Anyway, I appreciate your time and thoughtfulness in making your posts.
Simon
E. Deirdre Brooks
>
> One specific point I thought you were a little unfair about was the level of
> designer interaction. OK, JE Sawyer might not have replied to your EM but his
> input on the official boards over the last several years has been amazing. I
> have not encountered a designer who has shared so much information and
> communicated so well with his audience. Some busy people just don't reply to
> all their EMs, but often can be great communicators in other ways.
> Anyway, I appreciate your time and thoughtfulness in making your posts.
This much is true, actually. JE Sawyer is quite communicative on the
Black Isle forums, and occasionally entertaining. I was actually
surprised to see him classified as "not communicative." The rest of
Westley's post was quite good, and I didn't really give it much thought.
--
E. D. Brooks | kalima...@attbi.com | US2002021724
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
AeonAdventure | "By this time tomorrow, we can be doing BODY
SHOTS off HOOKERS in some MEXICAN HELLHOLE." -- Penny Arcade
Westley Weimer
> IWD2. As a combat-focussed game, I think the IWD games do very well and
> were much more challenging, and well balanced, than the combat in the BG
Perhaps IWD1 does.
IWD2 has serious balance flaws. Bear in mind that everything I say is
tinged in terms of replay value. There are a large number of ways to replay
the combats (and entire game) in BG2 -- fighter, fighter mage, archer,
cleric/mage, that kind of thing.
In IWD2, these are just not possible because of the less-skewed 3E
mechanics. It is possible for a solo spellcaster to get somewhere (in fact,
everywhere) in BG2. In IWD2, it's not. IWD2 is "difficult" in the sense
that there are hordes of low-level, high-hp monsters for your fighters to
bash on. Unfortunately, they always bash on you at the same time (armor is
a real probelm in IWD2 -- BAB increases, AC does not). In BG2, broken
spells like stoneskin and pro-mw allowed you to dela with this. In IWD2
these things don't work as well (or they work too well, see MI and II,
although II is fixed by the patch).
IWD2 hasn't been around as long, so this is harder to see, but its replay
value is much lower than BG2's because there are really only two ways to
get through it. Basically, after you complete IWD2 once or twice you will
be tempted to say "Oh, I'll try it again with a *significantly non-standard
party* and see if it works." Unfortunately, it will not.
I realize this is beyond the scope of this discussion, but it is reality:
BG2 with a number of tactical mods is a much better tactical challenge than
IWD2. To some degree, this is unfair -- IWD2 doesn't have any such mods
available (and HoF mode is a joke). However, I don't see any good way to
churn out tactical mods for IWD2 -- the ruleset makes it harder.
> designer interaction. OK, JE Sawyer might not have replied to your EM but
> his input on the official boards over the last several years has been
Lovely, and he does have that cute picture from 1776. But 99% of the things
he says on the boards are things I either already know or can find out via
NI. Answering generic questions is nice, but when I talk to a game designer
I want to talk privately about engine design choices and algorithms and
whatnot. I have been able to do that briefly with Vogel and Gaider.
> I have not encountered a designer who has shared so much information
Yes, but the information he has been sharing has been uninteresting to me.
Personal opinion, I know.
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
- Wes
Livid
the Collective assimilated the following from John Galt:
> AV3 - I haven't played it. I have played previous Spiderware games -
> the Exile series for example - and I have found them to be mildly
> enjoyable. My biggest problem with Spiderweb games is the same problem
> I have with many games in the CRPG genre, to much tedious walking
> around.
I'm presently playing through Avernum (bought it a while back, but put
off playing it.), and I have played through Exile and part of Exile 2.
Yes, there is a bit of traveling, but it's not nearly as tedious as you
describe:
a) I can zip across the entire map in under a minute. Thank you simple
tile based graphics.
b) "random" encounters are easily spotted and avoided on the world map.
Most of the time, my Cave Lore skill lets me skip them anyway.
> However my
> final opinion of the Exile series was that it was not worth $75 for
> me. I'd pay $30 for the three game set and feel like that was a good
> value, but at more than double the price I do not.
The Exile trilogy is $45. I would expect Jeff to bundle up an Avernum
trilogy after Blades of Avernum is released for a similar price.
I bought NOLF2 for $40, and finished it after a weekend of moderate
playing (i.e. still did all the yard work I'd been putting off for
the last month). Probably about 10 hours of play. Sure, I'll go back
and play it again, so add another 10 or so. Fun, nice graphics, but
disappointing. At 2$/hour, I should have waited for the bargain bin.
With Avernum, I figure I've got about 30 hours into it so far and I've
uncovered maybe half of the world map. I expect another couple of weeks
out of it. 60 hours at about $30 (I ordered a CD) is 50 cents/hour.
The graphics aren't pretty, but it's got all the RPG goodness I want.
> BG2 - I thought the story was good if not somewhat cliche (but then
> how many games can be System Shock or PST and have that high level of
> story, excitement, and suspense). Obviously the eye and ear candy are
> light years ahead of Spiderweb stuff, but that's not surprising giving
> the relative resources of the two groups. In any case I thought BG2
> was worth the time and money and I'd give it a low of 6 and a high of
> 8 on a scale of 10.
I'm still wrestling with replaying BG2 to go through the ToB expansion,
but I still haven't been able to force myself to. For whatever reason,
the Infinity Engine games (excepting PS:T) fizzle for me about 3/4ths
the way through and I feel like I have to finish them just to get them
off the HD.
> IWD2 - I really enjoy being able to create my own party. That's one of
> the thing's I really liked about old time CRPGs and miss in many of
> the new single player games, and one of the big plusses for the IWD
> games and for the Spiderweb games. The eye and ear candy in IWD2
> certainly is nothing to write home about, but it is significantly
> better than A3, but not as good as BG2. They also have teleportation
> options and global maps that let you go directly to your destination
> and local maps that block of dead areas so you don't have to waste
> time searching them. I have not finished IWD2 yet, but so far I'd give
> it a low of 5 and a high of 8 out of 10. Certainly worth the time and
> money so far.
Was fun, but by the time I got out of Dragon's Eye I just wanted it to
be over. Show me the ending cut scene and hit uninstall.
> Games I really enjoyed: Ultima 1-3, Crusaders of the Dark Savant, Bard
> Tales, Wizardry 6-9, System Shock I&II, Realms of Arkania III,
> Betrayal at Krondor, Dungeon Master, some of the Gold Box games,
> Summoner, Planetscape, PST, Fallout I&II, Arcanum, Thunderscape,
> Vampire the Masquerade, POR I&II, any many others I'm sure I've
> missed.
Played most of those, except Wizardry 9...is that a super-secret advanced
beta or something? ;)
> As you can see there is a good mix of games there and I'm sure many of
> the games I've enjoyed could be picked apart on one level or another
> (e.g. many hated POR2), however, again my criteria is simply whether
> or not I enjoy a game and I did enjoy all of the games listed above.
I keep meaning to go back to POR2. Only played a little, and it was fun,
but I think I got sidetracked by all the bad word-of-mouth before I
decided for myself it sucked.
Bottom line - I'm really happy there are still shareware houses like
Spiderweb putting out games I like. I'm extremely pleased to be able to
support Jeff & Spiderweb without feeling like I'm giving to a charity,
but that I'm getting my money's worth and having a good time.
Thanks Jeff!
Lucian Wischik
>For whatever reason, the Infinity Engine games (excepting PS:T) fizzle
>for me about 3/4ths the way through and I feel like I have to finish them
>just to get them off the HD.
Heh. About 3/4 is where I suddenly can't stop playing, can't sleep, can't
eat, have to keep playing because I'm addicted.
For me the big problem was replay. Especially for a game as big in story
as BG2, I just didn't have the heart to start over again. It was easier
with IWD because there wasn't a story to repeat. And it was easier with
PST because of it's sheer brilliance that transcended all other
considerations :)
simon.appleton1
afficionado. I would not dream of trying to solo a DnD game as a mage, although
I do know many enthusiasts do. I'm also not that into mods - although I do
appreciate them and intend to try some of the BG ones (including one I think
you did) - or establishing a dialogue with designers.
Maybe I was thinking more of IWD, were it seemed to work very well as a
squad-level tactical combat engine. The encounters were well set up, so that
you had to fight tactically and they were winnable without reloads, but only if
you played smart. IMHO, BG1 combat was broken due to the rules 2e about arrows
- you could generally effortlessly mow down the opposition with 4 archers. BG2
had great spellcaster duels, but aside from dealing with mage defenses, it got
rather easy to hack mindlessly through most of the game with a strong party. I
suspect the difference in balance was a flip side of the difference in
linearity - it is much easier to balance a linear dungeon crawl like IWD1 than
a vast non-linear affair like BG2. IWD1 never got too easy for as long as I
could stick with it (Dorn's Deep). I haven't got far in IWD2 (Ice Temple) so I
can't really say whether it is like IWD1, but so far I have found it nicely
balanced for my, rather vanilla, party. I agree I would not particularly want
to replay IWD1 or 2, but have done so with the BGs but in my case this is
largely because of the non-combat "story/character" elements of BG rather than
a desire to try out new tactics etc.
Anyway, I share your high opinion of the BGs but think that the IWDs are pretty
sound combat-oriented DnD games and only really look "poor" in comparison to
the excellence of BG2. I was ultimately a little disappointed in them because I
wanted more of a BG clone but can see their virtues when measured on their own
terms.
Simon
John Galt
> On 22 Oct 2002 11:41:52 -0700,
> the Collective assimilated the following from John Galt:
> > AV3 - I haven't played it. I have played previous Spiderware games -
> > the Exile series for example - and I have found them to be mildly
> > enjoyable. My biggest problem with Spiderweb games is the same problem
> > I have with many games in the CRPG genre, to much tedious walking
> > around.
>
> I'm presently playing through Avernum (bought it a while back, but put
> off playing it.), and I have played through Exile and part of Exile 2.
> Yes, there is a bit of traveling, but it's not nearly as tedious as you
> describe:
>
> a) I can zip across the entire map in under a minute. Thank you simple
> tile based graphics.
>
> b) "random" encounters are easily spotted and avoided on the world map.
> Most of the time, my Cave Lore skill lets me skip them anyway.
>
not have optimized my play, but the fact remains that in cities
especially there is lots of wandering around and repitition of paths
traversal.
> > However my
> > final opinion of the Exile series was that it was not worth $75 for
> > me. I'd pay $30 for the three game set and feel like that was a good
> > value, but at more than double the price I do not.
>
> The Exile trilogy is $45. I would expect Jeff to bundle up an Avernum
> trilogy after Blades of Avernum is released for a similar price.
It may have been $45 for you, but it was $25 per module for a total of
$75 back a few years ago when I played them and they were sold
individually. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Exile games were
bad or that they aren't worth paying for, but if you're patient you
can find most commercial games on sale for $30 within a few weeks of
release and under $20 a few months after release.
My point was that Jeff is charging only $5 less than what I pay for
commercial games with state of the art graphics and sound and large
professional development teams, development houses, and distrubutors
to support. I would expect that what is essentially a one man band
like Jeff would be able to charge $5-$15 per title since he doesn't
have all of that infrastructure to support. I think that what he would
lose in per copy profit would be made up in additional registrations
from people who are stealing or simply not playing his games because
they won't pay $25-$35 for a shareware quality game, but they would
pay $5-$15. I do realize he's bundling the games after some time and
discounting them, but all the commercial games are bundled and
discounted after some time too, so IMO my argument still holds that
Jeff's games are a bit pricey for one-man shareware, and even though I
think he does an excellent job given his resources, I don't think his
games should go for close to what commercial games go for because they
simply don't have the same production value you get from a team of
professional game programmers, artists, and designers. Just one man's
opinion FWIW.
>
> I bought NOLF2 for $40, and finished it after a weekend of moderate
> playing (i.e. still did all the yard work I'd been putting off for
> the last month). Probably about 10 hours of play. Sure, I'll go back
> and play it again, so add another 10 or so. Fun, nice graphics, but
> disappointing. At 2$/hour, I should have waited for the bargain bin.
>
I haven't tried NOLF2, so I can't comment on that one.
> With Avernum, I figure I've got about 30 hours into it so far and I've
> uncovered maybe half of the world map. I expect another couple of weeks
> out of it. 60 hours at about $30 (I ordered a CD) is 50 cents/hour.
> The graphics aren't pretty, but it's got all the RPG goodness I want.
>
A matter of opinion and I respect yours. I haven't tried A3 yet but
plan to try the demo and will certainly give my comments when I do.
> > BG2 - I thought the story was good if not somewhat cliche (but then
> > how many games can be System Shock or PST and have that high level of
> > story, excitement, and suspense). Obviously the eye and ear candy are
> > light years ahead of Spiderweb stuff, but that's not surprising giving
> > the relative resources of the two groups. In any case I thought BG2
> > was worth the time and money and I'd give it a low of 6 and a high of
> > 8 on a scale of 10.
>
> I'm still wrestling with replaying BG2 to go through the ToB expansion,
> but I still haven't been able to force myself to. For whatever reason,
> the Infinity Engine games (excepting PS:T) fizzle for me about 3/4ths
> the way through and I feel like I have to finish them just to get them
> off the HD.
>
I've had the feeling before. I had it with BG1 for sure....
> > IWD2 - I really enjoy being able to create my own party. That's one of
> > the thing's I really liked about old time CRPGs and miss in many of
> > the new single player games, and one of the big plusses for the IWD
> > games and for the Spiderweb games. The eye and ear candy in IWD2
> > certainly is nothing to write home about, but it is significantly
> > better than A3, but not as good as BG2. They also have teleportation
> > options and global maps that let you go directly to your destination
> > and local maps that block of dead areas so you don't have to waste
> > time searching them. I have not finished IWD2 yet, but so far I'd give
> > it a low of 5 and a high of 8 out of 10. Certainly worth the time and
> > money so far.
>
> Was fun, but by the time I got out of Dragon's Eye I just wanted it to
> be over. Show me the ending cut scene and hit uninstall.
I haven't finished IWD2 yet, but will comment further when I do.
>
> > Games I really enjoyed: Ultima 1-3, Crusaders of the Dark Savant, Bard
> > Tales, Wizardry 6-9, System Shock I&II, Realms of Arkania III,
> > Betrayal at Krondor, Dungeon Master, some of the Gold Box games,
> > Summoner, Planetscape, PST, Fallout I&II, Arcanum, Thunderscape,
> > Vampire the Masquerade, POR I&II, any many others I'm sure I've
> > missed.
>
> Played most of those, except Wizardry 9...is that a super-secret advanced
> beta or something? ;)
Yes, of course, super-secret. Either that or I've lost my mind or
failed typing 101. All equally plausible explanations.
>
> > As you can see there is a good mix of games there and I'm sure many of
> > the games I've enjoyed could be picked apart on one level or another
> > (e.g. many hated POR2), however, again my criteria is simply whether
> > or not I enjoy a game and I did enjoy all of the games listed above.
>
> I keep meaning to go back to POR2. Only played a little, and it was fun,
> but I think I got sidetracked by all the bad word-of-mouth before I
> decided for myself it sucked.
>
> Bottom line - I'm really happy there are still shareware houses like
> Spiderweb putting out games I like. I'm extremely pleased to be able to
> support Jeff & Spiderweb without feeling like I'm giving to a charity,
> but that I'm getting my money's worth and having a good time.
>
> Thanks Jeff!
I agree with you. More is always better and many, many people share
your sentiments on Jeff's games. Me, I like them, but don't love them
or consider them classics like some of the ones I've already
mentioned. I would play and enjoy Jeff's games more if they were
either less expensive or if he increased his production values
somewhat to better compete with the commercial games that are only a
few dollars more. However, I am happy to have Jeff doing what he does,
and I expect that I'll buy another of his games when the next CRPG
drought hits, and I wish him nothing but success.
Spiderweb Software
<<I would expect that what is essentially a one man band like Jeff would be
able to charge $5-$15 per title since he doesn't have all of that
infrastructure to support.>>
This is a common perception but, sadly, untrue. Suppose I charged $10 per game.
Because of fixed per-sale costs, I would have to triple sales just to get back
up to where I am now, with a lot more work and time processing orders to boot.
The lower price would increase sales. But by a factor of 3? No.
Yes, you can get old games for less than my games cost. And when that small
number of worthwhile available games has been exhausted, we'll still be here.
:-)
Also, to be honest, considering the amount of entertainment my games provide, I
have never considered $25 to be an excessive price. Geneforge is worth $25.
Some disagree, but that's the miracle of shareware. You get to play the game
for a long while and fully explore how much it sucks, and then escape with all
your cash intact.
- Jeff Vogel
Spiderweb Software, Inc.
Award-winning fantasy role-playing games for Windows and Macintosh.
http://www.spiderwebsoftware.com
Damien Neil
Software <spi...@aol.com> wrote:
> Also, to be honest, considering the amount of entertainment my games provide,
> I
> have never considered $25 to be an excessive price. Geneforge is worth $25.
For what it's worth, I agree.
And I'm enjoying Avernum 1 even more than Geneforge. (Tile-based
movement GOOD. Makes running across the map much, much faster.)
- Damien
Lars-Gunnar Hartveit
"Damien Neil" <ne...@misago.org> skrev i melding
news:251020020150229132%ne...@misago.org...
But one thing I am curious about. I know there's a GeneForge 2 coming, and
Blades of Avernum. But even more into the future: What other ideas does
he/you have?
--
Pibbur Dragon -===(UDIC)===- aka larsg (lars-gunnar hartveit)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
d e++ N+ T- Om+ U4567'!S'!89!A!LM! u uC++ uF- uG+ uLB+ uA+ nC nH+ nPT nS++++
nT-- wC- wS---- wN+ oE---- a47
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
John Galt
> <<From: jg...@tampabay.rr.com (John Galt)>>
> <<I would expect that what is essentially a one man band like Jeff would be
> able to charge $5-$15 per title since he doesn't have all of that
> infrastructure to support.>>
>
> This is a common perception but, sadly, untrue. Suppose I charged $10 per game.
> Because of fixed per-sale costs, I would have to triple sales just to get back
> up to where I am now, with a lot more work and time processing orders to boot.
> The lower price would increase sales. But by a factor of 3? No.
>
>
> Some disagree, but that's the miracle of shareware. You get to play the game
> for a long while and fully explore how much it sucks, and then escape with all
> your cash intact.
I appreciate your comments, and my response follows:
I'm surprised by your comments about your high fixed costs since your
delivery method these days should be primarily if not entirely via the
internet. In days past - like when I bought Exile - you actually had
to mail out printed copies of manuals and diskettes. Now with most
gameplayers having broadband internet access you need only keep a
website online to deliver your games to your audience. Still, I can't
imagine how your fixed costs can be so high when developers for games
like BG2 that have dozens of people working on them and where the
development house needs a cut of the profit, the distributor needs a
cut of the profit, and the reseller needs a cut of the profit can
still sell most new games for between $30-$35 in most cases within 1-3
weeks of release. As far as I can tell you don't have a development
house, a distributor, or a reseller to cut into your profit and you
should have very little distribution costs, and limited overhead. I
assume you work out of your house which means you can write all of the
costs of doing business for Spiderweb and some of your living expenses
off on your personal income taxes which professional developers cannot
do, etc., etc.
I could be completely wrong, but it's based on the assumptions above
that I figured that $25 was a bit high. That says nothing about
whether your games are enjoyable or not. I think your games are
enjoyable and have said that. Your feeling was that the advantage of
shareware is try before you buy, where as others like myself believe
that advantage of shareware (in many cases) is that you get a quality
product (but often without some of the extras of commercial software)
for less money because most shareware is written by individuals or
small groups of people who can offer a quality product at a lower - in
some cases significantly lower - than the commercial software houses.
And don't forget that many if not most of the commercial games now
offer substantial demos to allow you to try before you buy, and if
you're so inclined it's not that difficult to get a copy of a game off
the Internet to try before you buy. So while the "try before you buy"
benefit of shareware was important and notable five or ten years ago,
today with the prevelance of demos and broadband access to full games
on the internet to try at your discretion, it really isn't a selling
point anymore IMO. That said, you are certainly entitled to charge
anything you like for your games and I support you in that regard, but
I am also entitled to my opinion which appears to be somewhat
different that yours on the issue of shareware pricing, and that's ok.
> Yes, you can get old games for less than my games cost. And when that small
> number of worthwhile available games has been exhausted, we'll still be here.
> :-)
>
That's a good thing and I wish you nothing but good luck and
success.... :-)
Htn963
> Still, I can't
>imagine how your fixed costs can be so high when developers for games
>like BG2 that have dozens of people working on them and where the
>development house needs a cut of the profit, the distributor needs a
>cut of the profit, and the reseller needs a cut of the profit can
>still sell most new games for between $30-$35 in most cases within 1-3
>weeks of release. As far as I can tell you don't have a development
>house, a distributor, or a reseller to cut into your profit and you
>should have very little distribution costs, and limited overhead. I
>assume you work out of your house which means you can write all of the
>costs of doing business for Spiderweb and some of your living expenses
>off on your personal income taxes which professional developers cannot
>do, etc., etc.
You probably need to take into account differences in volumes. Bigger
developers/publishers can afford smaller profit percentages.
Olaf
news:RGot9.146401$S8.26...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> "Westley Weimer" <wei...@argus.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message
> news:ap497m$k65$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
> >
> > Just as the BG2 people managed to somehow create believable clerics
> without
> > ever really talking about god or religion, I'm sure that people
could make
> > convincing personalities that somehow managed to avoid really
talking
> about
> > their particular stats. You'd get all the interaction of BG2 with
all the
> > control of IWD2. And it would all be optional, of course, so you
could
> pick
> > what you wanted.
> Yes, this is a good idea. A totally unrelated game did something like
this.
> I don't know if you like this genre, but a game I played called Jagged
> Alliance (I & II) had mercenaries you could hire and grow by having
them use
> certain skills that had very fun and interesting personalities,
special
> talents, and great dialogue and one liners. The Jagged Alliance games
did
> about the best job with that concept I have seen to date.
Unrelated maybe, but IMO a lot of the fun in the JA games were the RPG
aspects. You built a team, the team members got better at various
skills, they got gear upgrades, they definitely had personalities, etc.
I loved the JA games and I believe they were the best thing to ever come
out of Sir Tech.
olaf
morgul12
> your sentiments on Jeff's games. Me, I like them, but don't love them
> or consider them classics like some of the ones I've already
> mentioned. I would play and enjoy Jeff's games more if they were
> either less expensive or if he increased his production values
> somewhat to better compete with the commercial games that are only a
> few dollars more. However, I am happy to have Jeff doing what he does,
> and I expect that I'll buy another of his games when the next CRPG
> drought hits, and I wish him nothing but success.
commercial = quality? you mean like:
Black & White
Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor
Wizards & Warriors
Daikatana
Heroes Chronicles: *
morgul12
> delivery method these days should be primarily if not entirely via the
> internet. In days past - like when I bought Exile - you actually had
> to mail out printed copies of manuals and diskettes. Now with most
> gameplayers having broadband internet access you need only keep a
> website online to deliver your games to your audience. Still, I can't
> imagine how your fixed costs can be so high when developers for games
> like BG2 that have dozens of people working on them and where the
> development house needs a cut of the profit, the distributor needs a
> cut of the profit, and the reseller needs a cut of the profit can
> still sell most new games for between $30-$35 in most cases within 1-3
> weeks of release. As far as I can tell you don't have a development
> house, a distributor, or a reseller to cut into your profit and you
> should have very little distribution costs, and limited overhead. I
> assume you work out of your house which means you can write all of the
> costs of doing business for Spiderweb and some of your living expenses
> off on your personal income taxes which professional developers cannot
> do, etc., etc.
If you want to pay less, Jeff can sign some McDonalds deals and place
advertising within his games (he says, just to goad Knight37). Maybe
upon entrance to any town, you get a "try our new Big & Tasty for only
$1.00" popup.
John Galt
"morgul12" <morg...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:a0ff1f1b.0210...@posting.google.com...
John Galt
than the ones you listed that were released commercially. The point is that
if there is a commercial game that you like that's recent, chances are it
will have far superior graphics, interface, and sound than Jeff's games,
that's a fact. Whether or not that makes them more fun to play than Jeff's
games or not is certainly debatable, but it is surprising that Jeff has to
charge almost as much for his games as commercial game houses that have to
pay large development staffs, the development house, the distributor, and
the reseller not to mention paying for fancy boxes, manuals, CDs, etc. that
Jeff doesn't have to pay for the majority of customers who download his
games.
In any case, Jeff claims he needs to charge $25 to make enough money to make
a worthwhile profit. In America capitalism rules and Jeff has the freedom to
decide the price for his products, but people also have the right to comment
and/or disagree, but still believe that the prices are high but also that
regardless of the price that Jeff does good work. The best analogy I can
make is that I think the Mercedes convertible is a great car, but I won't
buy it at the its current price. That doesn't mean it's a bad car, nor does
that mean it's not worth the price, just that I won't pay it. I suspect
there are people out there who would pay $10-$15 for Jeff's games, but not
$25. Jeff doesn't think there are enough such people to warrant changing his
price and says that his fixed costs are too high to do that any way. And
that ladies and gentlemen is that, and I fully support Jeff's right to set
his prices where he wants them, and think he makes great shareware game.
E. Deirdre Brooks
>
> games or not is certainly debatable, but it is surprising that Jeff has to
> charge almost as much for his games as commercial game houses that have to
> pay large development staffs, the development house, the distributor, and
> the reseller not to mention paying for fancy boxes, manuals, CDs, etc. that
> Jeff doesn't have to pay for the majority of customers who download his
> games.
I think it's more accurate to say that his games cost half as much as
most of those on the market, rather than almost as much. Either that or
I hallucinated all those new computer games at $50-$60 last summer.
> In any case, Jeff claims he needs to charge $25 to make enough money to make
> a worthwhile profit. In America capitalism rules and Jeff has the freedom to
> decide the price for his products, but people also have the right to comment
> and/or disagree, but still believe that the prices are high but also that
> regardless of the price that Jeff does good work.
Well, it's a matter of quantity - how many "copies" of each game does
Jeff expect to sell? Given that he's effectively a niche provider, as I
understand it, he may *need* to price his games at a higher relative
point than competitors who can mass produce and expect to sell hundreds
of thousands of copies (or in many cases, unrealistically expect to sell
that many) and thus have a lower affordable profit-per-unit-sold margin.
> The best analogy I can
> make is that I think the Mercedes convertible is a great car, but I won't
> buy it at the its current price. That doesn't mean it's a bad car, nor does
> that mean it's not worth the price, just that I won't pay it. I suspect
> there are people out there who would pay $10-$15 for Jeff's games, but not
> $25. Jeff doesn't think there are enough such people to warrant changing his
> price and says that his fixed costs are too high to do that any way. And
> that ladies and gentlemen is that, and I fully support Jeff's right to set
> his prices where he wants them, and think he makes great shareware game.
I'm sure if Jeff reasonably expected 10x the sales he gets, he *could*
price it lower. I'm not sure pricing it lower would get those additional
10x sales. His games don't have 3d acceleration and all the other bells
and whistles that get games laudatory reviews from fans and magazines
alike. What he does have is solid games that are probably priced
reasonably well for what he offers.
I'm not trying to argue here, by the way, just offering commentary.
Ykalon Dragon
Ok
>Wizards & Warriors
Hey, W&W is a good game actually. Please remove this game from the
list.
>Daikatana
Ok
>Heroes Chronicles: *
They are not bad either. If they had costed $35 or more I would agree
but they sell for cheap so nothing wrong with them if you like more of
the same.
--
Things must change. We must re-arrange them
Or we'll have to estrange them. All that I'm saying
a game's not worth playing over and over again
-Depeche Mode The Sun and the Rainfall
Jason Compton
: I think it's more accurate to say that his games cost half as much as
: most of those on the market, rather than almost as much. Either that or
: I hallucinated all those new computer games at $50-$60 last summer.
I buy most of my games in the $5-$30 pricing band, actually. Watching
sales on sites like dragon.ca and gogamer.com and the Best Buy and CompUSA
sales flyer works wonders. You often don't even have to wait terribly
long. Most PC games launch at $50-$60, but even within a week or two
somebody's often doing a $30 sale. Wait a few more months and GoGamer
might have it for $20-$25. Wait 12-24 months, and Interplay will have
likely slapped it into a $10 Dual Jewel pack, or EA put it in its $15
Classics line, or some packager snapped it up for a $20-$30 multipack. I
just got Serious Sam with four other games for $20, with a $20 rebate, so
in essence free. (minus the lost interest I could have accrued which is
zero since interest rates are so low I don't bother with interest-bearing
checking.)
So in summary, $29 for a piece of software on physical media is actually
rather comparable to the street prices of many not-just-released games.
The fixed cost for one developer is whatever salary he wants to pay
himself, plus the cost of capital such as a development platform. The
marginal profit on a self-marketed piece of electronically delivered
software should be pretty enormous. So yeah, I'm among that group of
people saying "Well, I can give Interplay $10 for a couple of halfway
decent two year old games... $25 for Avernum 1... ummmm."
But who knows, maybe $25 really is where he maximizes his profit.
--
Jason Compton jcom...@xnet.com
morgul12
> that's a fact. Whether or not that makes them more fun to play than Jeff's
I've always had a good time with the interfaces to Spiderweb games.
What problems have you had with the interface? Don't make the logical
fallacy of assigning fact to an opinion; remember that "superior" is a
question of personal taste. I personally despise third-person games
that keep shifting the camera view, but those games use a lot of the
latest 3D graphics technology. So in my opinion, the Spiderweb games
are far superior graphics-wise to those games because the Spiderweb
games actually make it easy for me to interpret the screen (how to
move around, etc.) whereas those third-person camera-shifting games
keep me nauseated and lost. Fixed-camera graphics are another story,
but still it's a matter of opinion, not fact. Latest technological
innovation is not always superior.
> games or not is certainly debatable, but it is surprising that Jeff has to
> charge almost as much for his games as commercial game houses that have to
> pay large development staffs, the development house, the distributor, and
> the reseller not to mention paying for fancy boxes, manuals, CDs, etc. that
> Jeff doesn't have to pay for the majority of customers who download his
> games.
Still don't understand the concept of volume? How many people like me
are there for every person like you who is turned off by the
"graphics, interface, and sound"? Now take the same ratio for
like/dislike among gamers for, say, Morrowind. Wow, the ratio is
reversed (or more, because I like that game, too).
> In any case, Jeff claims he needs to charge $25 to make enough money to make
> a worthwhile profit. In America capitalism rules and Jeff has the freedom to
> decide the price for his products, but people also have the right to comment
> and/or disagree, but still believe that the prices are high but also that
> regardless of the price that Jeff does good work. The best analogy I can
You should be raising cain about IPC Software, they really deserve it
for still charging a full $50 + $11 shipping (Fedex 2-day is the
cheapest they offer) for Demise: Rise of the Ku'tan. I've been
waiting for that one to go down for two years, but I doubt that it
ever will. They're still charging original price ($30) for Mordor:
Depths of Dejenol, a game from maybe the mid-90's. I wonder if they
get enough orders to keep their website running...
E. Deirdre Brooks
>
> E. Deirdre Brooks <KaliMa...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> : I think it's more accurate to say that his games cost half as much as
> : most of those on the market, rather than almost as much. Either that or
> : I hallucinated all those new computer games at $50-$60 last summer.
>
> I buy most of my games in the $5-$30 pricing band, actually. Watching
> sales on sites like dragon.ca and gogamer.com and the Best Buy and CompUSA
> sales flyer works wonders. You often don't even have to wait terribly
> long. Most PC games launch at $50-$60, but even within a week or two
> somebody's often doing a $30 sale. Wait a few more months and GoGamer
> might have it for $20-$25. Wait 12-24 months, and Interplay will have
> likely slapped it into a $10 Dual Jewel pack, or EA put it in its $15
> Classics line, or some packager snapped it up for a $20-$30 multipack. I
> just got Serious Sam with four other games for $20, with a $20 rebate, so
> in essence free. (minus the lost interest I could have accrued which is
> zero since interest rates are so low I don't bother with interest-bearing
> checking.)
Have you actually seen any Interplay games that are less than 2 years
old for sale in a dual jewel case?
Locally, I can usually find games on sale for as low as $40 if the price
is $50-$60, and I don't usually shop online for a variety of reasons
that don't need airing here.
> So in summary, $29 for a piece of software on physical media is actually
> rather comparable to the street prices of many not-just-released games.
Given a slew of special circumstances, yes...
> The fixed cost for one developer is whatever salary he wants to pay
> himself, plus the cost of capital such as a development platform. The
> marginal profit on a self-marketed piece of electronically delivered
> software should be pretty enormous. So yeah, I'm among that group of
> people saying "Well, I can give Interplay $10 for a couple of halfway
> decent two year old games... $25 for Avernum 1... ummmm."
>
> But who knows, maybe $25 really is where he maximizes his profit.
Volume vs. profit-per-unit-sold. Maybe if he had 10x the volume, he
could afford to sell it for cheaper, but is there any indicating that
selling it cheaper will get him 10x the volume? (for blue sky figures)
Jason Compton
: Have you actually seen any Interplay games that are less than 2 years
: old for sale in a dual jewel case?
I think Sacrifice and Giants were all about AT the 2 year mark when they
got there. That's still what I call "pretty good."
: Locally, I can usually find games on sale for as low as $40 if the price
: is $50-$60, and I don't usually shop online for a variety of reasons
: that don't need airing here.
Hmmm. Between CompUSA and Best Buy I can usually do better than that. But
if you don't have the benefit, that's a shame. I do live in a major
metropolitan area.
:> So in summary, $29 for a piece of software on physical media is actually
:> rather comparable to the street prices of many not-just-released games.
: Given a slew of special circumstances, yes...
Not really. One e-tail or retail operation running a decent sale is hardly
a "slew", nor is waiting a few months.
--
Jason Compton jcom...@xnet.com
E. Deirdre Brooks
>
> E. Deirdre Brooks <KaliMa...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> : Have you actually seen any Interplay games that are less than 2 years
> : old for sale in a dual jewel case?
>
> I think Sacrifice and Giants were all about AT the 2 year mark when they
> got there. That's still what I call "pretty good."
I haven't seen that one..I might actually grab it if I do. I would have
if I did... sigh.
> : Locally, I can usually find games on sale for as low as $40 if the price
> : is $50-$60, and I don't usually shop online for a variety of reasons
> : that don't need airing here.
>
> Hmmm. Between CompUSA and Best Buy I can usually do better than that. But
> if you don't have the benefit, that's a shame. I do live in a major
> metropolitan area.
I live near CompUSA, Best Buy, and a nice store called Fry's.
Jason Compton
:> I think Sacrifice and Giants were all about AT the 2 year mark when they
:> got there. That's still what I call "pretty good."
: I haven't seen that one..I might actually grab it if I do. I would have
: if I did... sigh.
Unfortunately, it's not QUITE that sweet. It's Sacrifice+Messiah, and
Giants+Evolva. I have yet to see either pack at retail, though, I must
admit, only via online order. This may have something to do with
Interplay's, ah, flagging credibility.
--
Jason Compton jcom...@xnet.com
Lucian Wischik
>I've always had a good time with the interfaces to Spiderweb games.
>What problems have you had with the interface?
The "Get" key - it's range was never clear to me. And the play area is
too small in Avernum3. And in combat when you try to pick stuff up, it
requires you to specify to whom you're giving the object, even though
only one person can have it anyway.
John Galt
> > will have far superior graphics, interface, and sound than Jeff's games,
> > that's a fact. Whether or not that makes them more fun to play than Jeff's
>
> I've always had a good time with the interfaces to Spiderweb games.
> What problems have you had with the interface? Don't make the logical
> fallacy of assigning fact to an opinion; remember that "superior" is a
> question of personal taste. I personally despise third-person games
> that keep shifting the camera view, but those games use a lot of the
> latest 3D graphics technology. So in my opinion, the Spiderweb games
> are far superior graphics-wise to those games because the Spiderweb
> games actually make it easy for me to interpret the screen (how to
> move around, etc.) whereas those third-person camera-shifting games
> keep me nauseated and lost. Fixed-camera graphics are another story,
> but still it's a matter of opinion, not fact. Latest technological
> innovation is not always superior.
>
represented my opinions as anything but that... my opinion. Certainly,
you are entitled to yours. I have paid $25 for Jeff's games in the
past and was simply saying I'd be more likely to buy them in the
future at $15 (obvious, I know), and it's possible that many others
would as well. However, I have no quantifiable proof that a reduction
in price would effect Jeff's sales enough to make up for the lost per
unit revenue. And I agree that the latest technological innovation is
not always superior, but I think that if you like two games and you
can get the commercial one for $29.99 by waiting for a week or two at
Best Buy that you know you'll like and that has state of the art
graphics sound and interface vs. a shareware game at $25 that you
would enjoy but does not have those things, you would be likely to buy
the commercial game at $29.99 first if not exclusively. Jeff's
response to that was, "after you've played all the good commercial
games my games will still be here". I think that's a perfectly
reasonable response and told him so in one of my messages.
> > games or not is certainly debatable, but it is surprising that Jeff has to
> > charge almost as much for his games as commercial game houses that have to
> > pay large development staffs, the development house, the distributor, and
> > the reseller not to mention paying for fancy boxes, manuals, CDs, etc. that
> > Jeff doesn't have to pay for the majority of customers who download his
> > games.
>
> Still don't understand the concept of volume? How many people like me
> are there for every person like you who is turned off by the
> "graphics, interface, and sound"? Now take the same ratio for
> like/dislike among gamers for, say, Morrowind. Wow, the ratio is
> reversed (or more, because I like that game, too).
>
Ignoring the obvious condescension, I have both an undergraduate
business degree and an M.B.A., so trust me I can understand volume
better than most. However, what I don't understand is how Jeff's fixed
costs are so high when he doesn't have to pay anyone but himself (for
the most part), has little to no distribution or packaging costs, and
probably writes much of his cost of his home and related expenses off
as a home office for Spiderware. What would it take to do this? A web
server with software total cost of about $2500, less if he uses Linux
and Apache. A dedicated IP address is less than $150 a month with high
speed DSL.
So as someone else mentioned it must be his salary (which for those of
you without M.B.A.'s is only a fixed expense if it is not tied to
production of your product or service). However, since Jeff is almost
solely responsible for the creation of his products his salary would
*NOT* be considered a fixed expense, but rather a variable because his
salary is directly tied to the number of units sold. He may consider
the minimum salary he is willing to accept to stay in business as a
"fixed cost" and certainly his administrative overhead that he has to
pay each month regardless of sales (like the DSL charge each month)
would be fixed costs. In any case, Jeff doesn't owe me or anyone else
an explanation for his pricing decisions or for how much he wants to
earn in profit per unit or overall or the details of his finances.
However, I can certainly ask and he can choose to answer or not. I
don't expect an answer, but would find it personally interesting to
get Jeff's insight into the finances of running a business creating
shareware games, since I'm sure many of us who are fans of the genre
have thought about doing this ourselves at one time or another.
> > In any case, Jeff claims he needs to charge $25 to make enough money to make
> > a worthwhile profit. In America capitalism rules and Jeff has the freedom to
> > decide the price for his products, but people also have the right to comment
> > and/or disagree, but still believe that the prices are high but also that
> > regardless of the price that Jeff does good work. The best analogy I can
>
> You should be raising cain about IPC Software, they really deserve it
> for still charging a full $50 + $11 shipping (Fedex 2-day is the
> cheapest they offer) for Demise: Rise of the Ku'tan. I've been
> waiting for that one to go down for two years, but I doubt that it
> ever will. They're still charging original price ($30) for Mordor:
> Depths of Dejenol, a game from maybe the mid-90's. I wonder if they
> get enough orders to keep their website running...
I might do so if I had ever heard of either of those products. I have
never heard of or seen those products. Perhaps it's a testament to the
quality of Jeff's shareware games that he is arguably the most
well-known CRPG shareware author out there. What's more as Westley
said, Jeff is very accesible and is always willing to answer questions
about his games and listen to other's comments. I'm guessing that the
authors of these other titles are not similarly accessible.
Lucian Wischik
>since Jeff is almost solely responsible for the creation of his products
>his salary would *NOT* be considered a fixed expense
I thought his wife was a full time employee, and there was another
full-time employee in the company as well. (plus a daughter to put through
college...) Wouldn't it be more likely to use an external company to host
the website? That's what I do, and I'm hardly even in business.
Spiderweb Software
<<John Galt <jg...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>since Jeff is almost solely responsible for the creation of his products
>>his salary would *NOT* be considered a fixed expense
>I thought his wife was a full time employee, and there was another full-time
employee in
>the company as well. (plus a daughter to put through
>college...) Wouldn't it be more likely to use an external company to host
>the website? That's what I do, and I'm hardly even in business.>>
Anyone who doesn't consider my salary to be a fixed expense is kinda on crack.
I have a certain amount of money I need to earn to maintain food, shelter, etc.
My business pays me a fixed salary (and a bonus at years end, if things go
well, which, generally, they do. but that is a BONUS).
Even my puny little company has real expenses. Salaries for 3 people. Internet
hosting. Credit card processing. Marketing. Freelance art, sound, etc.
Printing. Postage. And so on and so forth. You would be surprised. I always am.
$25 is where we maximize our profit. Our games are also WORTH $25. Many, many
people agree, and back up their opinion with their credit card. If there ever
comes a day when enough people disagree, I'll go get a real job.
But I am very rarely moved by peoples' carefully thought out justifications for
why I should be making less money. While I love our customers, they do not
always necessarily have my best interests at heart.
jmfb...@aol.com
spi...@aol.com (Spiderweb Software) wrote:
><<From: ljw...@cus.cam.ac.uk (Lucian Wischik)>>
><<John Galt <jg...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>since Jeff is almost solely responsible for the creation of his products
>>>his salary would *NOT* be considered a fixed expense
>>I thought his wife was a full time employee, and there was another
full-time
>employee in
>>the company as well. (plus a daughter to put through
>>college...) Wouldn't it be more likely to use an external company to host
>>the website? That's what I do, and I'm hardly even in business.>>
>
>Anyone who doesn't consider my salary to be a fixed
>expense is kinda on crack.
<grin> And they haven't read the IRS code recently.
>I have a certain amount of money I need to earn to
>maintain food, shelter, etc.
What!?!!!! You don't just say the magic incantation, "Mana"?
>My business pays me a fixed salary (and a bonus at years end, if things go
>well, which, generally, they do. but that is a BONUS).
>
>Even my puny little company has real expenses. Salaries for 3 people.
Internet
>hosting. Credit card processing. Marketing. Freelance art, sound, etc.
>Printing. Postage. And so on and so forth. You would be surprised. I
always am.
>
>$25 is where we maximize our profit. Our games are also WORTH $25. Many,
many
>people agree, and back up their opinion with their credit card. If there
ever
>comes a day when enough people disagree, I'll go get a real job.
>
>But I am very rarely moved by peoples' carefully thought out
justifications for
>why I should be making less money. While I love our customers, they do not
>always necessarily have my best interests at heart.
Nice one. :-) If you could can that, I'd buy it. I've found
this [realities of work, production, and business] to be one
of the most difficult things to teach.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
John Galt
> Anyone who doesn't consider my salary to be a fixed expense is kinda on crack.
> I have a certain amount of money I need to earn to maintain food, shelter, etc.
> My business pays me a fixed salary (and a bonus at years end, if things go
> well, which, generally, they do. but that is a BONUS).
By definition salaries directly tied to creating the product are
variable expenses, administrative expenses can be considered fixed.
The portion of your salary that is administrative or that you consider
the minimum acceptable salary for you to continue doing business would
indeed be fixed cost, above that would be variable. If I actually were
on crack as you kindly implied, that would be a variable expense for
me tied to my use of Internet newsgroups.
>
> Even my puny little company has real expenses. Salaries for 3 people. Internet
> hosting. Credit card processing. Marketing. Freelance art, sound, etc.
> Printing. Postage. And so on and so forth. You would be surprised. I always am.
>
> $25 is where we maximize our profit. Our games are also WORTH $25. Many, many
> people agree, and back up their opinion with their credit card. If there ever
> comes a day when enough people disagree, I'll go get a real job.
>
Jeff, I didn't mean to offend. I am one of the people who have
purchased your games for $25, I'm not saying they weren't worth the
money, I'm just saying that I'd be more likely to purchase more of
your games at $15. It's not like I'm giving your games a 17% rating or
something like a gaming magazine did in the past, I'm just asking
about your price model. I've said time and time again that you have
every right to set your own price, and I fully support you in that
right. And while lots of people including me have paid $25 for your
games, there are some who wouldn't buy at $25 who would buy at $15
(for example). A perfect example, is how myself and many others wait a
week or two for the inevitable sale on the big-name commercial games
where they are marked down from $50-$60 to $29.99 to $34.99. There is
almost no exceptions to this discount practice, and on some occasions
they'll even throw in an older game or a hint guide for free or at a
big discount. However, if $25 is where you maximize profit and you
don't believe that more volume or market penetration from a lower
price can shift your profit maximizing price then by all means please
continue to charge $25.
I've tried Avernum 3 and because it's a rehashing of the Exile series
which I enjoyed, but am not inclined to replay so I'm unlikely to pay
$25 each for Avernum 1-3 or $75 total. If they ever go on sale for $35
or less for the set later, I may reconsider. I have downloaded the
Geneforge demo and so far I've enjoyed it. Geneforge looks like it may
be interesting and new enough to prompt me to part with $25. I'll let
you know when I complete the demo. In the meantime, as I have said in
the past I enjoy your work and fully support your right to charge the
price you want. I apologize if you took any of my discussions
personally or negatively. I have nothing but respect for you and what
you do, and appreciate your willingness to respond to questions on the
Internet. I have tried to be complimentary of you and your work and
let you know I agree with your right to charge what you want and in no
way have said your games are not worth $25, only that for some of them
I would not pay $25. Not because they aren't good or enjoyable, but
because with so many good commercial games out there, if I'm going to
spend $25-$35 for a game there is a lot of commercial competition out
there to compete for those dollars against your games. That said, I
have enjoyed the early parts of Geneforge enough to consider paying
the $25. I'll finish the demo and make a final decision.
> But I am very rarely moved by peoples' carefully thought out justifications for
> why I should be making less money. While I love our customers, they do not
> always necessarily have my best interests at heart.
>
I have not and will not suggest that you should be making less money.
While I love good shareware developers, they don't necessarily have my
best interests at heart. Jeff, honestly most people have their own
best interests at heart. I expect you to have yours at heart, and you
should not be surprised that I have mine at heart. However, I once
again will say as I have in many previous messages, I respect and
support you in your effort to choose the price for your products and
to maximize your profit as you see fit. I wouldn't do any different if
I were you. So please don't misconstrue honest questions for
implications that your games are not worthwhile - I have said many
times that they are - or that I don't want you to make as much money
as you can from your efforts - because I do.
I will bow out of this discussion now as I think it has gone way off
track and I'm not sure I've communicated well as you have clearly
misunderstood my comments and intentions. I do appreciate and thank
you for your responses, and wish you all the best, and I from what
I've seen so far, I recommend that people try Geneforge.
Andrew Hatchell
John Galt <jg...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>I've tried Avernum 3 and because it's a rehashing of the Exile series
>which I enjoyed, but am not inclined to replay so I'm unlikely to pay
>$25 each for Avernum 1-3 or $75 total. If they ever go on sale for $35
>or less for the set later, I may reconsider.
BTW, did you happen to notice on the order page that registered users of
the Exile games get $10 discounts on the corresponding Avernums?
So if you're registered for all three Exiles, the three Avernums will only
be $15 each, or $45 for the set, which is at least somewhat closer to your
pricepoint.
Andrew
Lucian Wischik
>I will bow out of this discussion now as I think it has gone way off
>track and I'm not sure I've communicated well as you have clearly
>misunderstood my comments and intentions.
Well, I at least think I understood! Your estimate was that he'd have made
more profit at $15 each, and if you had more detailed financial
information about spiderweb software then you could have substantiated
this estimate better.
Knight37
whispered:
Not only that but if you buy any of the Avernums or Geneforge, you can get
a discounted price on Nethergate and/or Blades of Exile, if that interests
you.
--
Knight37
My other sig line is a BMW.
Spiderweb Software
<<I will bow out of this discussion now as I think it has gone way off track
and I'm not sure I've communicated well as you have clearly misunderstood my
comments and intentions.>>
Please don't think I'm irritated at you ... all your points are well taken. I
come into this conversation with a lot of baggage: eight years of helpful
E-mailed suggestions explaining how I could be much more successful by giving
my games away for free.
(These suggestions don't just come from individuals. Large, profitable
companies have offered me multiple general chances to let them sell the full
versions of my games and give me exactly zero of the proceeds.)
<<I've tried Avernum 3 and because it's a rehashing of the Exile series which I
enjoyed, but am not inclined to replay so I'm unlikely to pay $25 each for
Avernum 1-3 or $75 total. >>
If you registered an Exile games, you get $10 off the Avernum title, but that's
a side point.
I think you're right here. $75 does seem a little steep (though only a little)
for those three games. Someday, we will sell all 3 on a CD. It won'tbe for at
least a year, though.
>>I'm not saying they weren't worth the money, I'm just saying that I'd be more
likely to purchase more of our games at $15.<<
I like it when people play my games. I want as many people to enjoy them as
possible. Believe me, if I coul dmaintain the business model at $15 a copy, I
would.
One more quick point. One of the worst things a shareware developer can do,
paradoxically, is charge too little for its games! People are hesitant to
download a new title which is less that $15, because they tend to think that a
title that cheap is probably lame.
Food for thought.
Aristotle
>people agree, and back up their opinion with their credit card. If there ever
>comes a day when enough people disagree, I'll go get a real job.
$25 is an excellent price.
I only disagree with one thing you said there, Jeff: You already have a real
job. As a fellow game developer who founded his own (small) company, I would
imagine you work MUCH harder than most people with so-called "real jobs." =)
>But I am very rarely moved by peoples' carefully thought out justifications for
>why I should be making less money. While I love our customers, they do not
>always necessarily have my best interests at heart.
Yes. Such people sicken me.
-Aristotle@Threshold
--
THRESHOLD RPG - Where Roleplaying is not an option, it's a requirement.
Player run clans, guilds, legal system, economy, religions, nobility, and
more. Roleplay online with thousands of people from all over the world.
http://www.threshold-rpg.com -**- telnet://threshold-rpg.com:23
Aristotle
> A perfect example, is how myself and many others wait a
>week or two for the inevitable sale on the big-name commercial games
>where they are marked down from $50-$60 to $29.99 to $34.99.
>There is almost no exceptions to this discount practice
What world do you live in? Or are you talking about games the BOMB (and are
therefore not worth buying at ANY price).
It generally takes 3-6+ months for most decent games to get marked down to
that extent.
John Galt
> In article <ee5a5c84.02102...@posting.google.com>, jg...@tampabay.rr.com (John Galt) wrote:
> > A perfect example, is how myself and many others wait a
> >week or two for the inevitable sale on the big-name commercial games
> >where they are marked down from $50-$60 to $29.99 to $34.99.
> >There is almost no exceptions to this discount practice
>
> What world do you live in? Or are you talking about games the BOMB (and are
> therefore not worth buying at ANY price).
>
> It generally takes 3-6+ months for most decent games to get marked down to
> that extent.
>
different Best Buys, two Electronic Boutiques, and two CompUSAs, thank
you for asking. And in my world the weather is always nice and *ALL*
games go on sale for between $29.99 and $34.99 within one month of
release at the latest at one or more of the stores mentioned above.
I cannot think of the last time I paid more than $34.99 for any game
and most games I pay $34.99 or less including games like IWD2(paid
$34.99), BG2(paid $34.99), Age of Wonders 2(paid $29.99), NWN(paid
$34.99), etc. Many of the games actually go on sale at one of the
stores I mentioned the very first week of release, but they just about
always go on sale within 30 days of release at one of the stores. This
means that you can go ahead and buy the game from CompUSA or Best Buy
which have 30 day lowest price guarantees. That way you can play the
game right away and when you see the ad in the Sunday paper insert
from CompUSA or Best Buy with the sale price you just go and ask for
your 110% of the price difference refund.
So Aristotle, my suggestion to you is that game prices in my world
appear to be much better than game prices in your world either due to
your ignorance of the way game discounting works in the major computer
and electronics resellers or because you don't live in the USA, or if
you are in the USA, you do you don't live in a metropolitan area.
Therefore, rather than continuing to respond in ignorance, if you live
the USA find out where your nearest Best Buy or CompUSA is and watch
their Sunday inserts and you too can live in or near my world. If you
don't live in the USA, then you cannot live in my world and will need
to seek assistance from those in your country on how to not pay $60
for your games.
You're welcome....
> -Aristotle@Threshold
Knight37
> In article <ee5a5c84.02102...@posting.google.com>,
> jg...@tampabay.rr.com (John Galt) wrote:
>> A perfect example, is how myself and many others wait a
>>week or two for the inevitable sale on the big-name commercial games
>>where they are marked down from $50-$60 to $29.99 to $34.99.
>>There is almost no exceptions to this discount practice
>
> What world do you live in? Or are you talking about games the BOMB
> (and are therefore not worth buying at ANY price).
>
> It generally takes 3-6+ months for most decent games to get marked
> down to that extent.
Not really. I rarely pay more than $35 for a game, and I get a lot of
titles sooner than 3 months of release. If you pay attention to sales ads
and internet store sales, you can do quite a bit better than $50-$60.
I got WC3 for $25 within a month of release, NWN for $25 within a month of
release, and recently BF1942 for $25 within a month of release.
--
Knight37
Not many people know what their life's worth is. I do. Seventy grand.
That's what they took from me. And that's what I was going to get back.
Porter played by Mel Gibson, "Payback"
Lars-Gunnar Hartveit
"John Galt" <jg...@tampabay.rr.com> skrev i melding
news:ee5a5c84.0210...@posting.google.com...
> I cannot think of the last time I paid more than $34.99 for any game
> and most games I pay $34.99 or less including games like IWD2(paid
> $34.99), BG2(paid $34.99), Age of Wonders 2(paid $29.99), NWN(paid
> $34.99), etc.
In Norway, where I live I might occasionally get a new game for $53, based
on today's
currency. Most games cost around $60, when they are new. They start to go
down after 6-24 months, sooner if it was a commerical disaster. Then I can
get them for around $25 - $35.
Prices cannot be compared directly, since our wages are higher, and we live
in a totally different economic system. But when buying games from
Spidersoft it really is a huge difference.
larsg
E. Deirdre Brooks
>
> Prices cannot be compared directly, since our wages are higher, and we live
> in a totally different economic system. But when buying games from
> Spidersoft it really is a huge difference.
Higher wages, higher taxes...
--
E. D. Brooks | kalima...@attbi.com | US2002021724
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
AeonAdventure | "Why, in my day, we used to fight the Lord of
Terror with nothing but a sharp stick!" -- www.reallifecomics.com
Lucian Wischik
horses. Fun! So:
Avernum3: lets you blow up your horses
BG2: can't blow up horses
IWD2: what horses?
(I'd left them in the entrance to the filth factory and had to run out
of the back entrance after blowing it up -- sorry horses! no time to get
back out the long way to collect you!)
Greg Campbell
> > A perfect example, is how myself and many others wait a
> >week or two for the inevitable sale on the big-name commercial games
> >where they are marked down from $50-$60 to $29.99 to $34.99.
> >There is almost no exceptions to this discount practice
>
> What world do you live in? Or are you talking about games the BOMB (and are
> therefore not worth buying at ANY price).
>
> It generally takes 3-6+ months for most decent games to get marked down to
> that extent.
>
> -Aristotle@Threshold
Currently at http://www.gogamer.com :
NOLF 2: $29.90
UT2K3: $32.90
Mafia: $32.90
Divine Divinity: $34.90
Icewind Dale 2: $33.90
and that's just a quick scan of the front page. Newegg.com (the best
place on the web to buy hardware, imo) recently added a games section,
and their prices are similar.
Lars-Gunnar Hartveit
"E. Deirdre Brooks" <KaliMa...@attbi.com> skrev i melding
news:3DC06B83...@attbi.com...
> Lars-Gunnar Hartveit wrote:
> >
> > Prices cannot be compared directly, since our wages are higher, and we
live
> > in a totally different economic system. But when buying games from
> > Spidersoft it really is a huge difference.
>
> Higher wages, higher taxes...
Also, but in return we get a lot of things for (nearly free) which the US
citizens have to pay for: Health services, schools...
--
Pibbur Dragon -===(UDIC)===- aka larsg (lars-gunnar hartveit)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
d e++ N+ T- Om+ U4567'!S'!89!A!LM! u uC++ uF- uG+ uLB+ uA+ nC nH+ nPT nS++++
nT-- wC- wS---- wN+ oE---- a47
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
Lars-Gunnar Hartveit
"Lucian Wischik" <ljw...@cus.cam.ac.uk> skrev i melding
news:apprpl$d6$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> I was playing some more Avernum3 today and I accidentally blew up my
> horses. Fun! So:
>
> Avernum3: lets you blow up your horses
> BG2: can't blow up horses
> IWD2: what horses?
>
Aristotle
>and that's just a quick scan of the front page. Newegg.com (the best
>place on the web to buy hardware, imo) recently added a games section,
>and their prices are similar.
That's nice. Now go to an actual store like I said.
Thanks, drive through.
E. Deirdre Brooks
>
> "E. Deirdre Brooks" <KaliMa...@attbi.com> skrev i melding
> news:3DC06B83...@attbi.com...
> > Lars-Gunnar Hartveit wrote:
> > >
> > > Prices cannot be compared directly, since our wages are higher, and we
> live
> > > in a totally different economic system. But when buying games from
> > > Spidersoft it really is a huge difference.
> >
> > Higher wages, higher taxes...
>
> Also, but in return we get a lot of things for (nearly free) which the US
> citizens have to pay for: Health services, schools...
Well, while we do have to pay for insurance, we don't have to pay for
all schooling - unless you ignore the part where having huge chunks torn
out of your income means "you're still paying."
So, do you really take home a net wage that much greater?
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y
>>
>> Prices cannot be compared directly, since our wages are higher, and we live
>> in a totally different economic system. But when buying games from
>> Spidersoft it really is a huge difference.
>
>Higher wages, higher taxes...
Well, I dunno if they're all that much higher. I'm working full-time
in a sort of decently paid job and (judging from what I can find via
google) the same amount of taxable income in the USA would put me in
the 27.5% federal income tax bracket over there, and then there'd
probably be state and/or local tax which I gather can be pretty variable.
Here I currently pay 29% income tax. Sales taxes are much higher here,
though; then again I don't have to worry much about health insurance,
and going to college basically cost me the price of the textbooks and
living expenses.
As for the wages, well, I doubt they're much different either, on
average. It seems the low end is a bit higher than in the US, and
the common range is narrower.
--
Leif Kj{\o}nn{\o}y | "Its habit of getting up late you'll agree
www.pvv.org/~leifmk| That it carries too far, when I say
Math geek and gamer| That it frequently breakfasts at five-o'clock tea,
GURPS, Harn, CORPS | And dines on the following day." (Carroll)
Lars-Gunnar Hartveit
> Lars-Gunnar Hartveit wrote:
> >
> > "E. Deirdre Brooks" <KaliMa...@attbi.com> skrev i melding
> > news:3DC06B83...@attbi.com...
> > > Lars-Gunnar Hartveit wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Prices cannot be compared directly, since our wages are higher, and
we
> > live
> > > > in a totally different economic system. But when buying games from
> > > > Spidersoft it really is a huge difference.
> > >
> > > Higher wages, higher taxes...
> >
> > Also, but in return we get a lot of things for (nearly free) which the
US
> > citizens have to pay for: Health services, schools...
>
> Well, while we do have to pay for insurance, we don't have to pay for
> all schooling - unless you ignore the part where having huge chunks torn
> out of your income means "you're still paying."
>
> So, do you really take home a net wage that much greater?
>
earn more than the swedes, and to a norwegian that is what counts :-)
E. Deirdre Brooks
>
> Maybe you are right,, ref. the posting by Mr Kjønnøy in this thread. But we
> earn more than the swedes, and to a norwegian that is what counts :-)
More power to you. :)
jmfb...@aol.com
"Lars-Gunnar Hartveit" <oopsREMO...@c2i.net> wrote:
>
>"E. Deirdre Brooks" <KaliMa...@attbi.com> skrev i melding
>news:3DC0E523...@attbi.com...
>> Lars-Gunnar Hartveit wrote:
>> >
>> > "E. Deirdre Brooks" <KaliMa...@attbi.com> skrev i melding
>> > news:3DC06B83...@attbi.com...
>> > > Lars-Gunnar Hartveit wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Prices cannot be compared directly, since our wages are higher,
and
>we
>> > live
>> > > > in a totally different economic system. But when buying games from
>> > > > Spidersoft it really is a huge difference.
>> > >
>> > > Higher wages, higher taxes...
>> >
>> > Also, but in return we get a lot of things for (nearly free) which the
>US
>> > citizens have to pay for: Health services, schools...
>>
>> Well, while we do have to pay for insurance, we don't have to pay for
>> all schooling - unless you ignore the part where having huge chunks torn
>> out of your income means "you're still paying."
>>
>> So, do you really take home a net wage that much greater?
>>
>Maybe you are right,, ref. the posting by Mr Kjønnøy in this thread. But
we
>earn more than the swedes, and to a norwegian that is what counts :-)
But your pizzas cost $10/slice. They don't in the US ;-).
Knight37
> In article <a3e7fc22.02103...@posting.google.com>,
> gtc...@yahoo.com (Greg Campbell) wrote:
>>and that's just a quick scan of the front page. Newegg.com (the best
>>place on the web to buy hardware, imo) recently added a games section,
>>and their prices are similar.
>
> That's nice. Now go to an actual store like I said.
>
> Thanks, drive through.
Why should someone go to an actual store? You don't go to an actual store
to buy Spiderweb games, so I can't see how "actual store" has anything to
do with this conversation. Just face it. Only suckers pay $50+ for games,
in the USA at least.
--
Knight37
"In these parts, a man's life often depends on a mere scrap of
information."
-- Joe, from "A Fistful of Dollars"
Lars-Gunnar Hartveit
"Knight37" <knig...@email.com> skrev i melding
news:Xns92B883880...@130.133.1.4...
> Prophet f...@f.com (Aristotle) consulted the bones and whispered:
>
> > In article <a3e7fc22.02103...@posting.google.com>,
> > gtc...@yahoo.com (Greg Campbell) wrote:
> >>and that's just a quick scan of the front page. Newegg.com (the best
> >>place on the web to buy hardware, imo) recently added a games section,
> >>and their prices are similar.
> >
> > That's nice. Now go to an actual store like I said.
> >
> > Thanks, drive through.
>
> Why should someone go to an actual store? You don't go to an actual store
> to buy Spiderweb games, so I can't see how "actual store" has anything to
> do with this conversation. Just face it. Only suckers pay $50+ for games,
> in the USA at least.
>
> --
Buying over the internet is usually not an option for me@Norway. Domestic
sites are usually just as expensive as good stores, wnen p&p of delivery is
added. Imported games cost often more, since p&p is more expensive, and then
there are taxes and custom handling fees involved.
Software which can be downloaded is another issue: no p&p, no taxes.
larsg
Knight37
bones and whispered:
>
> "Knight37" <knig...@email.com> skrev i melding
> news:Xns92B883880...@130.133.1.4...
>> Prophet f...@f.com (Aristotle) consulted the bones and whispered:
>>
>> > In article <a3e7fc22.02103...@posting.google.com>,
>> > gtc...@yahoo.com (Greg Campbell) wrote:
>> >>and that's just a quick scan of the front page. Newegg.com (the
>> >>best place on the web to buy hardware, imo) recently added a games
>> >>section, and their prices are similar.
>> >
>> > That's nice. Now go to an actual store like I said.
>> >
>> > Thanks, drive through.
>>
>> Why should someone go to an actual store? You don't go to an actual
>> store to buy Spiderweb games, so I can't see how "actual store" has
>> anything to do with this conversation. Just face it. Only suckers pay
>> $50+ for games, in the USA at least.
> Outside the USA then:
>
> Buying over the internet is usually not an option for me@Norway.
> Domestic sites are usually just as expensive as good stores, wnen p&p
> of delivery is added. Imported games cost often more, since p&p is
> more expensive, and then there are taxes and custom handling fees
> involved.
>
> Software which can be downloaded is another issue: no p&p, no taxes.
Yeah, that's a good point, shipping costs suck. Check out www.dragon.ca,
though, it's got a pretty nice option for international customers who don't
care about the packaging. Cuts down on the shipping. I've ordered from them
a few times and they seem reliable and pretty quick, and they have decent
prices most of the time.
--
Knight37
"You may say I'm a dreamer,
But I'm not the only one.
I hope someday you'll join us,
And the world can live as one."
-- John Lennon, "Imagine"
jmfb...@aol.com
Knight37 <knig...@email.com> wrote:
>Prophet f...@f.com (Aristotle) consulted the bones and whispered:
>
>> In article <a3e7fc22.02103...@posting.google.com>,
>> gtc...@yahoo.com (Greg Campbell) wrote:
>>>and that's just a quick scan of the front page. Newegg.com (the best
>>>place on the web to buy hardware, imo) recently added a games section,
>>>and their prices are similar.
>>
>> That's nice. Now go to an actual store like I said.
>>
>> Thanks, drive through.
>
>Why should someone go to an actual store? You don't go to an actual store
>to buy Spiderweb games, so I can't see how "actual store" has anything to
>do with this conversation. Just face it. Only suckers pay $50+ for games,
>in the USA at least.
Nope. I will pay $50 for a game that keeps me interested for
100+ hours (I consider myself very cheap). I will also
pay $50 for a game to keep the people who wrote it in business.
I consider it an encouragement for the next game.
Knight37
Heh, I just have one word for you.
_
(_)
|
|
:p
--
Knight37
Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.
jmfb...@aol.com
Knight37 <knig...@email.com> wrote:
>Prophet jmfb...@aol.com consulted the bones and whispered:
>
>> In article <Xns92B883880...@130.133.1.4>,
>> Knight37 <knig...@email.com> wrote:
>>>Prophet f...@f.com (Aristotle) consulted the bones and whispered:
>>>
>>>> In article <a3e7fc22.02103...@posting.google.com>,
>>>> gtc...@yahoo.com (Greg Campbell) wrote:
>>>>>and that's just a quick scan of the front page. Newegg.com (the
>>>>>best place on the web to buy hardware, imo) recently added a games
>>>>>section, and their prices are similar.
>>>>
>>>> That's nice. Now go to an actual store like I said.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, drive through.
>>>
>>>Why should someone go to an actual store? You don't go to an actual
>>>store to buy Spiderweb games, so I can't see how "actual store" has
>>>anything to do with this conversation. Just face it. Only suckers pay
>>>$50+ for games, in the USA at least.
>>
>> Nope. I will pay $50 for a game that keeps me interested for
>> 100+ hours (I consider myself very cheap). I will also
>> pay $50 for a game to keep the people who wrote it in business.
>> I consider it an encouragement for the next game.
>
>Heh, I just have one word for you.
>
> _
>(_)
> |
> |
>
>:p
>
Thank you for the lollipop. The flavor was a bit stale.
Knight37
Heh, heh.
I admit to overspending on games from developers I love. Blizzard (well,
only once for Diablo II), Bioware, and Black Isle Studios. I used to
overspend on New World Computing but no longer (not since MM8, I got MM9 on
the cheap, and never paid much for any of my HOMM games but I do have all
of them). I'd have spent more on NWN, but it just came out at a bad time
for me to buy it when it first came out, and by the time I could buy it, it
was only $25 so I'd have been pretty wacko to pay more then. :/
Very few other developers other than the ones I've mentioned above command
enough respect from me to go out of my way to pay more for their game than
$25-$35 range. Sometimes if I'm desperate for a particular brand new game
and have plenty of cash lying around. Yeah, right.
The truth of the matter is, I buy far too many games, and I can't *afford*
to pay more than $25 or $30 on a single game. I'd say my average is even
less, I typically wait for bargain bin prices on most games. Overall,
though, I spend quite a bit on games. I just recently picked up Call to
Power 2 for like $10. That's what I like to pay, or even less. You know,
dip down into the single digits. ;p Sometimes I find real gems for next to
nothing. Other times it's a lump of coal. :)
--
Knight "sucker for IWD2 Collector's Edition" 37
Not to mention, having Eep be a poster child for anything remotely
intelligent is like holding up Romero as a paragon of marketing subtlety.
-- Nitz Walsh on csipg.action
Aristotle
>to buy Spiderweb games, so I can't see how "actual store" has anything to
>do with this conversation.
The person was trying to argue that stores mark the price down within 1-2
WEEKS of release. That just doesn't happen. He was BSing.
>Just face it. Only suckers pay $50+ for games,
>in the USA at least.
Suckers? You want to rephrase or do you really want to stand by that
statement.
Aristotle
>I admit to overspending on games from developers I love.
Then why call people suckers who buy games when they come out for $50?
I also wish to support the gaming industry- and in particular the developers
who make good games. Buying them at the full price is pretty much the only
time the actual developer makes a penny.
>The truth of the matter is, I buy far too many games, and I can't *afford*
>to pay more than $25 or $30 on a single game. I'd say my average is even
>less, I typically wait for bargain bin prices on most games.
That is definitely your choice. I buy almost every game that comes out,
generally at full price, for a couple of reasons:
1) I want to support good developers as mentioned above.
2) I *can* afford it. (Of course, I make games for a living, so all my game
purchased are tax deductible market research).
3) As alluded to above, I think any game developer should stay informed of the
gaming market as a whole. If more developers played games, we would all have
much better games to enjoy.
But seriously, calling people suckers because they pay $50 for a game is
something I imagine you said emotionally rather than rationally.
Knight37
> In article <Xns92B883880...@130.133.1.4>, Knight37
> <knig...@email.com> wrote:
>>Why should someone go to an actual store? You don't go to an actual
>>store to buy Spiderweb games, so I can't see how "actual store" has
>>anything to do with this conversation.
>
> The person was trying to argue that stores mark the price down within
> 1-2 WEEKS of release. That just doesn't happen. He was BSing.
Maybe not where you live but it happens all the time where I live. I've
seen a lot of $25-35 NEW games at Best Buy, Circuit City, Fry's, and
CompUSA, etc. It's called "loss leader tactics." You know customers are
going to be shopping for Hit Game X, so you put it on sale to make sure
they shop at YOUR store and hope they buy something else to make up the
difference. Do you even bother reading the Sunday ads? Or maybe you live in
Backwater, USA?
>>Just face it. Only suckers pay $50+ for games,
>>in the USA at least.
>
> Suckers? You want to rephrase or do you really want to stand by that
> statement.
I was being a bit tongue in cheek, but there is no reason someone MUST pay
$50+ for games these days. They just don't cost that much, not if you pay
attention. If you want to pay that much to "support developers" or
whatever, or if you're the kinda gamer who MUST have the game on day 1 in
your hands, then you can pay that much, but for people only slightly more
patient and slightly less generous, $50+ is too high to pay. Again, I'm
talking in the US here.
--
Knight37
Interviewer: "Can you... destroy the earth?"
The Tick: "EGAD! I *HOPE* not! That's where I keep all my STUFF!"
Aristotle
>Maybe not where you live but it happens all the time where I live.
For major games, it takes a lot longer than a week for the game to be dropped
in price. Diablo II was probably full price for 6-12 months, for example. The
same goes for Baldur's Gate games. If you want a discount on those, you are
going to have to wait longer than ONE SINGLE WEEK! =)
>Or maybe you live in
>Backwater, USA?
Hmmm. Is the Washington, DC metro area Backwater, USA? =p
>>>Just face it. Only suckers pay $50+ for games,
>>>in the USA at least.
>>
>> Suckers? You want to rephrase or do you really want to stand by that
>> statement.
>
>I was being a bit tongue in cheek, but there is no reason someone MUST pay
>$50+ for games these days.
I don't think you MUST pay that either. But it is completely ridiculous for
someone to say if you wait a week every single game gets reduced in price. For
most major games, it takes many weeks or months for any reductions.
Lucian Wischik
>I also wish to support the gaming industry- and in particular the developers
>who make good games. Buying them at the full price is pretty much the only
>time the actual developer makes a penny.
>generally at full price, for a couple of reasons:
Yeah. I almost always buy games at full-price. I buy very few (five a
year?) but those I buy are always the good ones, and I like supporting the
developers, and I've certainly had my money's worth out of each of them.
(PST, BG2, Hostile Waters, Startopia, EU, EU2, Geneforge, IWD, IWD2 are my
most recent purchases).
John Galt
people have confirmed it, yet you simply declare it isn't so. Fine with me.
It's no skin off my butt if you continue to think that your perception of
reality is indeed real and continue to pay $50 for your games or wait for
3-6 months. The rest of us enlightened folks will continue to buy big-name
games for $34.99 or less within the first 30 days of release (and remember
at Best Buy or CompUSA and others you can buy they right away because they
have a 30 day price match and I have never not had a game go on sale within
the first 30 days and that includes the BG games and Diablo - although I
didn't buy Diablo because it's not my cup of tea.).
I think rather than Aristotle you might try the handle of "Doubting Thomas".
If it would gain me anything to convince you what I say is try I would
continue to bother to try, but it won't so I won't. By the way, if you read
me game list again they were all new big-name games and all bought for the
price listed and all went on sale within 30 days and two of them went on
sale the first week of their release.
Enjoy your $50+ and 3-6 month old games!
Jason Compton
: The person was trying to argue that stores mark the price down within 1-2
: WEEKS of release. That just doesn't happen. He was BSing.
Yes it does. I've seen it at Best Buy, I've seen it at CompUSA, I've seen
it at GoGamer.
--
Jason Compton jcom...@xnet.com
jmfb...@aol.com
>In article <Xns92B96D191...@130.133.1.4>, Knight37
<knig...@email.com> wrote:
>>I admit to overspending on games from developers I love.
>
>Then why call people suckers who buy games when they come out for $50?
>But seriously, calling people suckers because they pay $50 for a game is
>something I imagine you said emotionally rather than rationally.
It's the PC thing to do.
jmfb...@aol.com
Jason Compton <jcom...@typhoon.xnet.com> wrote:
>Aristotle <f...@f.com> wrote:
>
>: The person was trying to argue that stores mark the price down within
1-2
>: WEEKS of release. That just doesn't happen. He was BSing.
>
>Yes it does. I've seen it at Best Buy, I've seen it at CompUSA, I've seen
>it at GoGamer.
>
Before you do any more arguing. How do you define the "release
date"? When it shows up on the shelf? I wouldn't call that
a release date. Also, merchandisers tend to have sales that
cause them to lose money on one item; however, if a purchase
of that item makes the customer buy five other items (e.g.,
hardware), the retail makes money. Grocery stores use this lure
all the time.
/BAH
Jason Compton
: Before you do any more arguing. How do you define the "release
: date"? When it shows up on the shelf? I wouldn't call that
: a release date.
Oh, pray tell, what is a release date if it is not the date it is released
to the public? Counting from any other date, such as the code freeze or
the manufacture date, is pointless since it doesn't reflect how long from
availability to acquisition the public has to wait.
: Also, merchandisers tend to have sales that
: cause them to lose money on one item; however, if a purchase
: of that item makes the customer buy five other items (e.g.,
: hardware), the retail makes money. Grocery stores use this lure
: all the time.
Yes, I know. So what? If I opt not to buy said higher-margin items at Best
Buy while I'm happily pillaging the sales flyer, then I win.
--
Jason Compton jcom...@xnet.com