| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Caolin |
Posted - 10 Feb 2015 : 17:19:43
Feargus Urquhart is pretty much spot on and as an FR fan that makes me very sad.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?2337-Tabletop-D-D-Has-Lost-Its-Way-Says-Pathfinder-Video-Game-Exec&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.VNo8efnF98F |
| 21 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Caolin |
Posted - 13 Feb 2015 : 00:23:25
Well color me wrong. Seems interesting on first glance. I need to read more into this though. |
| Tanthalas |
Posted - 12 Feb 2015 : 20:43:57
From what I read in this scroll: http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=19964. it looks like the single player campaign has you recruiting characters. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 12 Feb 2015 : 20:31:51
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas
No idea if we get actual characters, like the BG games, or if the party is entirely made by the user, like IWD.
That would totally shut down my interest in the game. I'm generally much more interested in character interaction and in the plot, rather than the combat system, but that may be just me. |
| Tanthalas |
Posted - 12 Feb 2015 : 20:21:05
Well, the new FR game has been announced: https://swordcoast.com/
The game at least looks nice, though it's kind of puzzling that the game is already so close to release. Hopefully it'll be fun to play.
I'm not fond of them already accepting pre-orders when there's practically zero info about the game. No idea if we get actual characters, like the BG games, or if the party is entirely made by the user, like IWD. |
| Caolin |
Posted - 12 Feb 2015 : 18:26:39
Judging from past comments and rumors, I think that Obsidian was trying to get the rights to make another FR game. But Hasbro/WoTC wanted to go in a different direction. I'm betting that WoTC is going to be focusing on Freemium games going forward. The MMO Neverwinter is in this vein and I bet you they're going to do some sort of mobile Freemium game in the near future. Obsidian has been an opponent of Freemium games and I bet this is where the angst comes in. I have no proof, but it's just an educated guess. |
| Tanthalas |
Posted - 12 Feb 2015 : 00:12:43
While it's probably true that getting a FR license is more complicated than getting the Pathfinder licence (though from what I read in another scroll it's possible that a new FR related videogame may be announced tomorrow, explaining why Obsidian couldn't get a FR license), it's kind of hard to ignore that they're making a game for Pathfinder.
In the videogame industry, FR certainly has a bigger name attached to it than Pathfinder, so it really looks more like sour grapes to me. Beamdog also went into a lot of trouble to be able to make the EE editions of BG and IWD, but I never saw them complaining about having to use 5E rules if they made a new BG game. At least when I was active on their forums. |
| JohnLynch |
Posted - 11 Feb 2015 : 23:26:42
So he's commenting on the release schedule? Is that what "lost it's identity" means? Maybe his comment is a Roscharch painting and it means whatever you interpret it to mean |
| Arian Dynas |
Posted - 11 Feb 2015 : 21:33:19
*comes in carrying an 80-ton chunk of rock-salt*
Oooh! Sorry guys, I got kind of lost on my way to the political rally. Ech, while I'm here, did someone need this? |
| Shadowsoul |
Posted - 11 Feb 2015 : 19:26:55
quote:
Originally posted by JohnLynch
I don't know how or in what way the game has "lost it's identity". Does that mean the flavour of the game is markedly different from what it once was? That it's lost it's brand name dominance? I don't know what that phrase is meant to mean in this context.
It's a great phrase to use when trying to drum up excitement for a game that is based on a ruleset that bills itself as "true to the old school Roleplaying game mindset". Is that what he means? When he thinks of D&D he thinks of the rules which he feels are best exemplified by Pathfinders rules vs 5th ed's rules? He's commented on D&D. Sure. But what he's actually saying eludes me.
He doesn't mean any of that. I think you are looking for something that isn't there. He's basically talking about dealing with corporate big shots vs small companies and how the small companies are better to deal with. Ever heard of being called a "sell out"? That's kind of what D&D did but without a choice. Big companies can ruin things and while the 5th edition rules are great, the whole operation is rather limited because of the desire to make loads of money. Table top RPG's are not something you get into to make big bucks. |
| JohnLynch |
Posted - 11 Feb 2015 : 07:55:02
I don't know how or in what way the game has "lost it's identity". Does that mean the flavour of the game is markedly different from what it once was? That it's lost it's brand name dominance? I don't know what that phrase is meant to mean in this context.
It's a great phrase to use when trying to drum up excitement for a game that is based on a ruleset that bills itself as "true to the old school Roleplaying game mindset". Is that what he means? When he thinks of D&D he thinks of the rules which he feels are best exemplified by Pathfinders rules vs 5th ed's rules? He's commented on D&D. Sure. But what he's actually saying eludes me. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 11 Feb 2015 : 05:41:16
quote:
Originally posted by JohnLynch
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
When the article says "he thinks that under this system the tabletop game has lost its identity," that's not a comment about licensing.
In what way though? He doesn't expound on the comment (in the linked article). He simply says it and then talks about licensing and how it's easier with Paizo then Hasbro/WotC. Not everyone has to like D&D. There are many legitimate issues to be had with it. But he isn't taking about any of that. He talks about video games and the relative ease of dealing with Paizo.
Again, saying a game has lost its identity is a comment on the game. How can a statement directly referring to something be about anything but that which it is referring to? |
| JohnLynch |
Posted - 11 Feb 2015 : 01:53:31
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
When the article says "he thinks that under this system the tabletop game has lost its identity," that's not a comment about licensing.
In what way though? He doesn't expound on the comment (in the linked article). He simply says it and then talks about licensing and how it's easier with Paizo then Hasbro/WotC. Not everyone has to like D&D. There are many legitimate issues to be had with it. But he isn't taking about any of that. He talks about video games and the relative ease of dealing with Paizo. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 11 Feb 2015 : 00:05:43
quote:
Originally posted by JohnLynch
He's not disparaging the edition, campaign settings or release schedule. He's complaining that as a third party he had trouble licensing D&D because unlike Pathfinder he had to answer to big corporate who only care about profit. What do you agree 1000% with? That it's harder to license D&D products because Hasbro has harsh licensing terms? D&D already has 3rd party licenses for the gaming sphere so clearly it's possible. The terms simply weren't what Obsidian was willing to agree to.
When the article says "he thinks that under this system the tabletop game has lost its identity," that's not a comment about licensing. |
| Caolin |
Posted - 10 Feb 2015 : 23:47:28
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Someone promoting something for one company is saying something less than complimentary about that company's biggest competitor? 
I will now join Fred Sanford in experiencing the big one, Elizabeth. 
The guy may raise some valid points, but it's really hard to take something seriously in a scenario like this. I'm a Coke drinker, but if the president of the Coca-Cola Corporation comes out and says Pepsi isn't as good, I'm not going to give his words any more credence than I do when my three year old rubs his eyes, yawns, and then tells me he's not tired.
Now that's some good cynicism. |
| JohnLynch |
Posted - 10 Feb 2015 : 23:35:41
He's not disparaging the edition, campaign settings or release schedule. He's complaining that as a third party he had trouble licensing D&D because unlike Pathfinder he had to answer to big corporate who only care about profit. What do you agree 1000% with? That it's harder to license D&D products because Hasbro has harsh licensing terms? D&D already has 3rd party licenses for the gaming sphere so clearly it's possible. The terms simply weren't what Obsidian was willing to agree to. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 10 Feb 2015 : 21:17:41
Someone promoting something for one company is saying something less than complimentary about that company's biggest competitor?
I will now join Fred Sanford in experiencing the big one, Elizabeth.
The guy may raise some valid points, but it's really hard to take something seriously in a scenario like this. I'm a Coke drinker, but if the president of the Coca-Cola Corporation comes out and says Pepsi isn't as good, I'm not going to give his words any more credence than I do when my three year old rubs his eyes, yawns, and then tells me he's not tired. |
| Jayson_Neverstop |
Posted - 10 Feb 2015 : 20:45:39
I think many of us have seen this before: "D&D is crap, but I can't say it without looking bad, so I will make up some excuse."
I admit that some of the editions of D&D I like more than others. IMOHO, I feel that 5e has more feel of the old game than 4e which is why I like it better, but if you do not like D&D, just say so, for crying out loud.
The statement from Feargus Urquhart tells me that he wanted to say this, but still is trying to not look bad. I think he should be less passive/aggressive and just do his decision and move on...... |
| Tanthalas |
Posted - 10 Feb 2015 : 20:16:36
Given that Obsidian is making a Pathfinder game, it's not exactly surprising that he's bashing D&D.
Looks like he's trying to get the people that bought all the D&D videogames to buy their Pathfinder game by going: "Hey guys, I know all about true D&D. If you want more of BG1&2, IWD1&2, PT, NWN1&2 come buy my Pathfinder game". |
| hashimashadoo |
Posted - 10 Feb 2015 : 19:40:20
Check out the comments though, they appear to be mostly derisive of Mr Urquhart's position. |
| deserk |
Posted - 10 Feb 2015 : 17:42:54
Same here. I really wish someone could buy away D&D and FR from the grasp of WotC, who have really just dragged the setting into a future very few have an interest or confidence in. Most people are just sticking to the old way the setting was and the old rulesets. |
| BEAST |
Posted - 10 Feb 2015 : 17:33:12
Feargus? That's Crowley's real name on Supernatural. I'm automatically suspicious...  |
