Sorrow
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
![](https://www.nma-fallout.com/xencustomimages/nma/nma_7.gif)
I think it lacked decent advertising - I don't recall any ads in Poland mentioning that it's a faithful representation of D&D system on PC.
Sander said:Troika knew in advance what the deadlines were, and they didn't make them properly.
Deadlines don't get changed in the middle of development. If anything, Bloodlines' deadline got shifted up because Half-Life 2 still wasn't done.Sovz said:4
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the deadline for TTOE and Vampire has been changed from what has been agreed initially. But then again I could have been blitzed out of my skull so... meh.
You make it sound like negotiating publishing deals is as simple as asking for a good deal. Negotiations, especially in the gaming industry, are all about leverage. If you have none, i.e. you are not in position to negotiate, then you take what's offered and thank for the honor and the privilege. Why do you think Bio hasn't sold Dragon Age to a publisher yet?Sander said:Sorry, but no. Deadlines are negotiated over, simple as that. Troika knew in advance what the deadlines were, and they didn't make them properly. That's not the fault of the publishers, that's Troika's fault for not planning development right and being too ambitious with the content.Sovz said:If anyone is to blame, it’s the publishers, who rushed game development, withheld funds and demanded unrealistic deadlines.
Everything could be changed. KOTOR 2 was supposed to be a February release, but because the game was *almost* ready and the holy - gaming sales-wise - Christmas season was approaching, it was pushed out the door 3-4 months earlier. Why? Same reason. Obsidian doesn't have any leverage to tell Lucas Art to fuck off and stick with the contract.Deadlines don't get changed in the middle of development.
I knew someone would interpret it like that, but no, that is not my point. I'm not saying that negotiating deals are not impossible and that you can't get fucked over in them. But, simple fact, if you get a short deadline you cut content. It's all about planning in software development and if you don't make your deadlines you simply planned poorly. Either by being overly ambitious, or by simply being a shitty planner. Troika probably fell prey to the first, along with problems of a technical nature mostly surrounding Bloodlines' use of an external engine that was still in full development.VDweller said:You make it sound like negotiating publishing deals is as simple as asking for a good deal. Negotiations, especially in the gaming industry, are all about leverage. If you have none, i.e. you are not in position to negotiate, then you take what's offered and thank for the honor and the privilege. Why do you think Bio hasn't sold Dragon Age to a publisher yet?
Troika survived for 4 more years after that. That is not the only thing that killed them. Lacking a really succesful flagship title is not what kills a game studio, *if* the game studio plans well and knows when to cut content.VDweller said:Troika lost when Sierra fucked the Arcanum release by sitting on the game for 6 months while it was being pirated like crazy. Arcanum was supposed to be Troika's flagship title, its leverage. When Sierra ruined that chance, Troika could only take what was given and agree to all and any conditions. Or die. It didn't save them, of course, but that's how the industry works.
Wasn't it Bioware that was the middle man between Lucasarts and Obsidian?VDweller said:Everything could be changed. KOTOR 2 was supposed to be a February release, but because the game was *almost* ready and the holy - gaming sales-wise - Christmas season was approaching, it was pushed out the door 3-4 months earlier. Why? Same reason. Obsidian doesn't have any leverage to tell Lucas Art to fuck off and stick with the contract.
ToEE was in development for 20 months. What quality would you expect from a brand new game (i.e. not an engine/assets reusing sequel like IWD2) that was made in less than 2 years with or without planning?Sander said:But, simple fact, if you get a short deadline you cut content. It's all about planning in software development and if you don't make your deadlines you simply planned poorly.
Survived would be the key word. Arcanum was a game they were proud of and wanted to make. Chose to make. Unlike ToEE or Bloodlines.Troika survived for 4 more years after that.
You are right. I forgot the second key factor. They lost the rights to their best title (Sierra wasn't interested in a sequel and without Sierra holding the rights they couldn't make another Arcanum game). The combination of both killed them. Compare it to PB, a similarly small studio that used the Gothic series (sadly, they too lost the rights to their own creation) to grow and establish themselves better.That is not the only thing that killed them. Lacking a really succesful flagship title is not what kills a game studio...
Nope. Bio helped Feargus get the deal.Wasn't it Bioware that was the middle man between Lucasarts and Obsidian?
Sure. Now put yourself in Feargus' big shoes. You have a deal with Lucas Arts, a mega corporation handing out pure gold Stars Wars licenses. LA wants you to release the game sooner than agreed. Do you:And, simply put, that's a breach of contract unless they had a shitty contract.
Yes. The pattern is shitty planning.VDweller said:ToEE was in development for 20 months. What quality would you expect from a brand new game (i.e. not an engine/assets reusing sequel like IWD2) that was made in less than 2 years with or without planning?
For comparison, Fallout was in development for 3.5 years. Arcanum was in development for 3.2 years. See the pattern?
They still *chose* to make those games. No one forced them to make those games, and I doubt that they somehow weren't proud of those two games.VDweller said:Survived would be the key word. Arcanum was a game they were proud of and wanted to make. Chose to make. Unlike ToEE or Bloodlines.
Yep. But the world doesn't end after the first title. If they create a succesful second title, they're just as good. You don't need a flagship title to survive, see Obsidian.VDweller said:You are right. I forgot the second key factor. They lost the rights to their best title (Sierra wasn't interested in a sequel and without Sierra holding the rights they couldn't make another Arcanum game). The combination of both killed them. Compare it to PB, a similarly small studio that used the Gothic series (sadly, they too lost the rights to their own creation) to grow and establish themselves better.
Heh, nice false dichotomy. Negotiation and talks are key here, and it is certainly possible for them to say 'We don't release this until the deadline. We have another three months, and it simply isn't done now.'VDweller said:Sure. Now put yourself in Feargus' big shoes. You have a deal with Lucas Arts, a mega corporation handing out pure gold Stars Wars licenses. LA wants you to release the game sooner than agreed. Do you:
a) tell them "Read the fucking contract, assholes. I have another 3 months", knowing that LA won't forget it and you'll never work with LA properties again, and possibly with other major properties (like the Aliens) because nobody likes a fucking rules lawyer.
b) do what they tell you to, knowing that LA won't forget it and you'll have a chance to do business with them in the future. There are strong rumors that KOTOR 3 is in development and many signs point to Obsidian.
Sounds like a tantrum to me. I offered you an explanation. You dismissed it because you don't care and you'd rather stick with your "shitty planning" theory.Sander said:Yes. The pattern is shitty planning.VDweller said:ToEE was in development for 20 months. What quality would you expect from a brand new game (i.e. not an engine/assets reusing sequel like IWD2) that was made in less than 2 years with or without planning?
For comparison, Fallout was in development for 3.5 years. Arcanum was in development for 3.2 years. See the pattern?
'But they had less time'
I know. I don't care. Shitty planning.
1.5 years. 18 months original deal, plus a 2-month extension. But you are right, it's not impossible. I'm sure you'd have done a fantastic job there.Making a game in 2 years with a full team is not impossible in any way, you just have to learn to be less ambitious.
When your only option is a short DnD game, and your only choice is which module to pick... As for the pride, I suggest reading some post-release interviews, assuming you have any interest in the subject.They still *chose* to make those games. No one forced them to make those games, and I doubt that they somehow weren't proud of those two games.
I hope we all agree that Obsidian is a very special case. Feargus' strong ties with Bio developed during BG development, when Bio was a nobody, a small team with an RTS game that later became Baldur's Gate, helped him to land two mega-hit, super hot licenses - a Star Wars KOTOR license and DnD NWN license. And now the Aliens license. It simply doesn't get any better than that for a startup.Yep. But the world doesn't end after the first title. If they create a succesful second title, they're just as good. You don't need a flagship title to survive, see Obsidian.
If you agree with me, why claiming "false dichotomy"? KOTOR 2 sold very well through the holiday season, making LA happy. It got 86% combined reviews score, which also pleased LA, so it was a 100% correct business move. Sure, it was an unfinished and unpolished game, but who cares? Certainly not Lucas Arts.Heh, nice false dichotomy. Negotiation and talks are key here, and it is certainly possible for them to say 'We don't release this until the deadline. We have another three months, and it simply isn't done now.'
Will this fuck over their relationship with Lucasarts? Possibly.
And the same is true for you from my point of view. You'd rather stick it all on the publisher, while neglecting the fact that Troika's the one who was actually making the game.VDweller said:Sounds like a tantrum to me. I offered you an explanation. You dismissed it because you don't care and you'd rather stick with your "shitty planning" theory.
Ah yes, 'you would've done much better'. Good job going for the insults instead of the actual argument, there, VD.VDweller said:1.5 years. 18 months original deal, plus a 2-month extension. But you are right, it's not impossible. I'm sure you'd have done a fantastic job there.
They were always at the mercy and whim of publishers, and most game companies are. My point never was that they weren't.VDweller said:I hope we all agree that Obsidian is a very special case. Feargus' strong ties with Bio developed during BG development, when Bio was a nobody, a small team with an RTS game that later became Baldur's Gate, helped him to land two mega-hit, super hot licenses - a Star Wars KOTOR license and DnD NWN license. And now the Aliens license. It simply doesn't get any better than that for a startup.
Troika went a different way. They crafted an original game, which is always a black-n-white, life-or-death scenario. Had it been a successful [enough to warrant a sequel] title, things would have been different. The sad thing is it could have been if Sierra didn't fuck things up. After that, it was a free fall.
ToEE couldn't have been a great game, not with 1.5 years development cycle. Surprisingly enough, it did very well and even outsold both overhyped NWN expansions. It was Atari's best selling PC game that year. Unfortunately, Atari decided not to make another module - Against the Giants was frequently mentioned, to avoid competing with its other DnD products, and so Troika had to seek its fortune elsewhere. Again, instead of developing and growing strong on their own IP, they were completely at the mercy and whim of publishers.
Do you know what a false dichotomy is? It's the suggestion that there are only two possible options. In this case you suggested that they could either fuck over Lucasarts and ruining your own reputation everywhere for ever and ever, or go along with it and live happily ever after.VDweller said:If you agree with me, why claiming "false dichotomy"?
This is a neat soundbite, but not a correct one. The general consensus, including in the press, was that it was unpolished and incomplete and that that showed. They probably would've gotten better results and certainly a better reputation for good games that sell well had they polished the game first. The fact that one scenario turned out good does not mean another scenario doesn't turn out much better.VDweller said:KOTOR 2 sold very well through the holiday season, making LA happy. It got 86% combined reviews score, which also pleased LA, so it was a 100% correct business move. Sure, it was an unfinished and unpolished game, but who cares? Certainly not Lucas Arts.
VDweller said:KOTOR 2 sold very well through the holiday season, making LA happy. It got 86% combined reviews score, which also pleased LA, so it was a 100% correct business move. Sure, it was an unfinished and unpolished game, but who cares? Certainly not Lucas Arts.
Sander said:...they planned poorly and too ambitiously/unrealistically.
AlteredEgo said:By the way, if you want to see something really cool that's usually kept confidential, here's the contract for call of duty, exposed during a lawsuit. Makes for good reading for anyone interested in this type of stuff.
http://gamasutra.com/features/20070112/spark_12.shtml
AlteredEgo said:Sander said:Deadlines don't get changed in the middle of development. If anything, Bloodlines' deadline got shifted up because Half-Life 2 still wasn't done.
Actually, deadlines get changed in the middle of development all the time, and it's especially common for deadlines and milestones to shift around if you are 3rd party developer for a publicly traded company.
AlteredEgo said:By the way, if you want to see something really cool that's usually kept confidential, here's the contract for call of duty, exposed during a lawsuit. Makes for good reading for anyone interested in this type of stuff.
http://gamasutra.com/features/20070112/spark_12.shtml
Makagulfazel said:It seems like Spark should have had more lawyers review the contract. Activision seemed to have complete control over them, which sucks. Using words like "reasonable" is just plain dumb. Who's definition of the word "reasonable" are they going to use? Webster's? I'm pretty sure "reasonable" is any time between 5 seconds and 5 eons, depending on the relativity.