Community

May 25, 2011 -- 8:25AM, Kurama_Youko wrote:

I was really hoping the first console D&D game of this generation would be a to true conversion of the original 4E ruleset. The core of 4th edition is already so heavily influenced by videogames and card games that it seemed only logical that it be converted into a console based stratergy RPG to me. From what I've seen on Daggerdale is that its basically Baulder's Gate with 4E feat names and item names. I saw nothing else that resembled 4E in the game at all. The fact that you are stuck with pre-generated characters also reinforces the idea that this isn't really a rpg at all rather than a hack and slash, with a exp gauge for more health points.

Characters will rommage through dungeons and caverns finding loot in every thing they smash, no thought of finesse required, I'm not even sure I saw skills in the character sheet. The npc's seem to offer no real depth to the game and only seem to remind you that you are doing something them. The fact that you spend the entire game in a dungeon also doesn't really seem to help improve a fans disposition as to this being anything more than a 6 dollar game purchasable from the psn store. (which in most cases is exactly what it is.)

I am not surprised Atari went this route with the game, they have a history of just wanting to push out products dispite poor design or ideas. I really had high hopes for this as consoles just about always get screwed when it comes to D&D products, we tend to get treated like idiots when it comes to what might sell and what wont. "Oh if its not a simple hack & slash dungeon crawl it won't sell more than 10,000 units.{ Well maybe it wont if you don't challenge the audience every once and awhile and put out the good word that despite its level of challenge a game thats true to its table top origins can be very fun.

Having played the Demo at PAX East and talking to the guys there, it's simply the game they wanted to make. They all loved the Dark Alliance games (as do I) so yeah they made an updated version of that style of game. You're correct that the game is only 4e in name (spells/powers/monsters and so on all have 4e names) and not mechanically.

If you want a game that is mechanically like 4e you'd have to make Final Fantasy Tactics with the 4e rule set. That's just a different type of game entirely.

May 25, 2011 -- 8:39AM, excalainen wrote:

Methinks a true 4e CRPG would have to be turn-based, but that is unfortunately not a popular trend in computer games these days.

It isn't for big gaming companies, but you know who loves it? Facebook.

Here's some free advice for WotC: Go talk to Zynga or whatever stupid names these facebook game developers call themselves,  make a turn based online game you can play with friends characters. Free to play but use micro purchases for suckers customers who want more "power". Go take a look at Dragon Age: Legends on facebook. It's kinda fun, uses the Might & Magic style where parties are on oposite sides of a static map. If I wanted to waste money on it I could, otherwise it's a game with ads for the new books you want to push.

I don't know why WoTc just doesn't revoke Atari's license and allow any developer to create a D&D game.   We would have all kinds of 4e games by now.  Sure some might be bad, but at least we would have a few good ones. I'm sure there would be many D&D games up on Steam for sale from Indie developers.   Wotc should at least have several developers /publishers signed on. Not just one big giant company that only cares about its margins.  

I'd be happy right now with a few of the gold box games updated and converted to 4e.   If I recall SSI is now owned by Ubisoft. I wonder if they would have been a better choice over Atari.   

I think wotc has to acknowledge that D&D video games will never make the kinds of profits that giants like Atari demand.  WotC needs to focus on smaller companies that have more interest and passion for creating D&D games.