StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Of course there's always the 'When It's Done" attitude regarding Duke Nukem Forever.....

Psycho Smiley wrote:Singletrac's OutWars. Think Starship Troopers (the novel, not the movie) covering an entire war, from first contact to border raiding, then on to campaigns for entire systems with actual defeats for the humans.

Dev-team: "Shit. We're almost to Microsoft's deadline, the teammate AI is still half-assed, and we're only 2/3 done the hard sci-fi plotline."

Marketing: "Throw in a boss-monster, chop some levels into multi-player arenas, and ship it."

The multimedia, lead-up events, and in-game background info for everything was even included, but the code to impelement the necessary AI was never finished, nor was the last campaign. Big surprise that the company went under without producing another title.

Outwars was an awesome game until the final Oasis campaign, which utterly sucked--I mean jumping through a planet sized railgun???

The cutscenes for that game were pretty damn good too.

Crazy_Vasey wrote:Raping the corpse of the Fallout series with shitty spin-offs has to be up there. No-one wanted Fallout The Action Shooter but that's what Interplay spewed out thinking that it would be easy sales. Morons. Because an old-school PC RPG series is going to be a name that'll sell for a console action game.

It likely would have sold had the game been any good. BG:Dark Alliance sold plenty of copies after all. Unfortunately the developers didn't understand the charm of the Fallout universe.

Cancelling Baldur's Gate 3 (Project Jefferson as I recall, it was an open secret that's what it was) when it was nearly done because their lawyers fucked up and they lost the license really does take the prize.

I've never seen anything to suggest that BG3 was at anything but the very earliest stages of development. Bioware hadn't even completed Neverwinter Nights when Interplay lost the AD&D license, and Black Isle wasn't up to the task of creating BG3 at that point.

Jade Falcon wrote:There's also a Sierra game called Outpost that came out years ago. There was to be a case where you founded a colony and there were to be all sorts of features that were chopped out the end product.

I don't think that Outpost ever had much of a chance to succeed, even if it had been finished. It was only overtaken in the "Worst Game Ever" category by Battlecruiser 3000 AD.

Graeme Dice wrote:

Jade Falcon wrote:There's also a Sierra game called Outpost that came out years ago. There was to be a case where you founded a colony and there were to be all sorts of features that were chopped out the end product.

I don't think that Outpost ever had much of a chance to succeed, even if it had been finished. It was only overtaken in the "Worst Game Ever" category by Battlecruiser 3000 AD.

It was just so broken and pointless.

tumbletom wrote:

Psycho Smiley wrote:Singletrac's OutWars. Think Starship Troopers (the novel, not the movie) covering an entire war, from first contact to border raiding, then on to campaigns for entire systems with actual defeats for the humans.

Dev-team: "Shit. We're almost to Microsoft's deadline, the teammate AI is still half-assed, and we're only 2/3 done the hard sci-fi plotline."

Marketing: "Throw in a boss-monster, chop some levels into multi-player arenas, and ship it."

The multimedia, lead-up events, and in-game background info for everything was even included, but the code to impelement the necessary AI was never finished, nor was the last campaign. Big surprise that the company went under without producing another title.

Outwars was an awesome game until the final Oasis campaign, which utterly sucked--I mean jumping through a planet sized railgun???

The cutscenes for that game were pretty damn good too.

That game was so cool, because it was pretty unique. It had the right feel, sorta like a less simmy, more action Strike Force Centauri.

Anyway, I say whoever decided to rush X-COM Apocalypse instead of adding cool elements like political blackmailing, calling for alien allied support, and manipulating elections really dropped the ball. And whoever decided real time was a good idea for a mode, and tailored turn based to allow it.

Another one has been the saga of Battlefield 2, especially Patch 1.3. The bugs that introduced are almost legendary.

It likely would have sold had the game been any good. BG:Dark Alliance sold plenty of copies after all. Unfortunately the developers didn't understand the charm of the Fallout universe.

I just don't see why they'd use Fallout for that. The games were fairly popular in their time, but that was years ago now and they weren't exactly blockbusters, and for most modern console gamers it's a pretty damn obscure title I imagine. Baldur's Gate sold by the ton and most people seem to give that credit for reviving the RPG genre so using that name kinda makes sense, but Fallout? I don't see it.

The fanbase wasn't exactly receptive either. After one crappy spin-off that completely missed the point, they weren't even willing to give BoS a chance; it was an object of derision from the beginning. The fact that the person in charge of the project was an utter moron who dug his grave deeper with every interview was just confirmation. And when Fallout 3 was canned in favour of BoS, well, that was all she wrote really.

I've never seen anything to suggest that BG3 was at anything but the very earliest stages of development. Bioware hadn't even completed Neverwinter Nights when Interplay lost the AD&D license, and Black Isle wasn't up to the task of creating BG3 at that point.

Well, I'd heard that it was in a pretty advanced stage of development, but I don't keep a very close eye on DnD games; they're rarely to my taste. It was a hell of a blunder either way though, effectively pissing away all the money and time that had been invested in it, especially when Torn had already gone tits up.

Crazy_Vasey wrote:The fanbase wasn't exactly receptive either. After one crappy spin-off that completely missed the point, they weren't even willing to give BoS a chance; it was an object of derision from the beginning.

Fallout Tactics didn't miss the point. It was a very good game that was lambasted by RPG Codex types for not being identical to the previous Fallout games.

And when Fallout 3 was canned in favour of BoS, well, that was all she wrote really.

Fallout 3 was most likely canned because Interplay had no money to support development, not because BOS was being made.

Well, I'd heard that it was in a pretty advanced stage of development, but I don't keep a very close eye on DnD games; they're rarely to my taste. It was a hell of a blunder either way though, effectively pissing away all the money and time that had been invested in it, especially when Torn had already gone tits up.

I believe that BG3 was somewhere around the concept art stage of development. There are plenty of fanboys who would tell you differently, but they'd be wrong. BG3 never had a chance, because Interplay did not have the money to renew the AD&D license.

Fallout Tactics didn't miss the point. It was a very good game that was lambasted by RPG Codex types for not being identical to the previous Fallout games.

I found it to be pretty uninspiring myself. I played the demo and the fact that they didn't even bother to match their art style with that of the original Fallouts combined with the fact that I didn't get much out of the gameplay put me off the game. I liked the retro sci-fi feel of Fallout but I just didn't see it when I played the Tactics demo. If they didn't do something so obvious then I didn't expect that they would have put much effort into other areas of the game that are rather more important. I judged the general reaction from the fansites I hung around on back then to be proof that I was correct and passed on the game.

Fallout 3 was most likely canned because Interplay had no money to support development, not because BOS was being made.

They didn't have money to support the development because they were spending it on supporting the development of BoS. Guess they figured that an action shooter for the PS2 would bring in more cash than a PC-exclusive RPG.

I believe that BG3 was somewhere around the concept art stage of development. There are plenty of fanboys who would tell you differently, but they'd be wrong. BG3 never had a chance, because Interplay did not have the money to renew the AD&D license.

I'm pretty sure it was further on than concept art. They did reuse the Jefferson engine for Fallout 3, or at least they tried to before they got canned, and I remember a screenshot of your typical spooky graveyard area from the game being posted up in the BIS forums.

Hmm. From an interview with Chris Avellone on NMA: "We’d been working on a number of projects before that got cancelled, but this was the first one that felt arbitrary – the reasons for its cancellation were out of our hands, and there was a lot of design and art assets that had been done for it. I mean A LOT."

And from RPG Codex, taken from the IPLY forums that are now dead and buried: "What I can do is talk about my plans for BIS. I want to finish Jefferson in such a way that everyone on the team is happy with it. I put the producer on Icewind Dale 2 (IWD2) in a tough decision and an even harder position on the project he is currently working on because I took very few resources from Jefferson to help him out. At one point he was down to two programmers on IWD2, while there were nine working on Jefferson. This was not meant to have IWD2 be a sub-standard project, but to give the team the shot to make Jefferson a truly next generation game."

So there was a fair bit of work done it seems.

Heroes of Might and Magic IV was released early as an incomplete, hopelessly broken buggy piece of shit because it was rushed out for the Christmas market iirc. It did finally become a good game after two expansions and patch v3.0a or something like that. In other words, buy the Complete edition at bargain prices or do not buy at all. The first release version tried to be Age of Wonders and HoMM3 both at the same time and failed both because the coders had not taken into account one of the basic differences in unit handling between those two games from the get-go.

Might and Magic IX which released at the same time was even more broken and never was finished satisfactorily, leaving even the final patch version full of shitty bugs where loading a save game at certain points could fuck up promotion quests so that you never could complete them. I didn't even get far enough to encounter some sections of the game which were reportedly even more buggy. When you add the really fucking lame in-game jokes (as in, really fucking lame even by Might and Magic standards), I was not impressed even though the game itself had potential despite the plot being a ripoff of the Hun or Mongol invasions.

Those two games were basically the last gasps of 3DO as a company and it took a long while before HoMM5 came out from a different outfit.

Edi

I believe this will sum up the attitude of gamers towards publishers everywhere:

FUCK CHRISTMAS

FUCK your Christmas releases. FUCK your rushed releases to make that market. FUCK YOU.

Ahem. Just some pent-up fury there.

I have to say it's pretty stupid of Microsoft/Bungie to treat the Halo franchise as if it's the Holy Grail of gaming, by assuming that gamers will put up with just about any cost and inconvenience to get the next iteration of the franchise. However, they seem to be getting away with it, so far.

Keevan_Colton wrote:

Graeme Dice wrote:

Jade Falcon wrote:There's also a Sierra game called Outpost that came out years ago. There was to be a case where you founded a colony and there were to be all sorts of features that were chopped out the end product.

I don't think that Outpost ever had much of a chance to succeed, even if it had been finished. It was only overtaken in the "Worst Game Ever" category by Battlecruiser 3000 AD.

It was just so broken and pointless.

I liked the game... even if it did get really boring and repetitive after a while.

The sequel they made, though, just looked abominable.


That being said my nomination is the remake of Sid Meier's Pirates. Such a good concept, so many good ideas, so many things they could have done, and all of which were IN THE MANUAL! But were they in the game? Nooooooo.... So what did the game eventually devolve to? Build Up A Massive Crew->Raid Big Cities Which Are Easilly Defeated Thanks to Artillery Not Being Implemented (Even though it's in the manual AND the Friggin in came Pirate-o-pedia)->Repeat Ad Infinitum Untill Crew Abandons You->Split the Treasure and repeat from Square One. It was kind of cool making the Spanish Main English but it just got oooooold after a while.

Straha wrote:It was kind of cool making the Spanish Main English but it just got oooooold after a while.

It's a remake of the original. Why would you expect vastly different gameplay?

Crazy_Vasey wrote:I judged the general reaction from the fansites I hung around on back then to be proof that I was correct and passed on the game.

Those are rabid Fallout fans. There's nothing useful to be gained from listening to them.

Rollercoaster Tycoon 3. What I loved about the first one was how although you had a lot of options, the graphics and interface were so simple, and you could get hooked so easily. the second installment kept that interface while correcting some issues with the first game and giving you even more to do. They completely redid everything for the third one, and I just couldn't get into it since the graphics and camera angle controls were just so unwieldy. It looked and played just like all the other Tycoon titles out there. Would have been better off making more expansion packs for the second.

Graeme Dice wrote:

Straha wrote:It was kind of cool making the Spanish Main English but it just got oooooold after a while.

It's a remake of the original. Why would you expect vastly different gameplay?

I didn't. I expected that they'd put the stuff that was in the Manual (I.E. Some of the extra commodities, towns having cannons, being able to have relations with the Indians and Pirates, etc. etc.) to actually BE IN THE FUCKING GAME. (Hell, they even put items in the game which were supposed to help you with your relations with the Indians and Pirates) instead of just in the fucking manual. I should make clear, my main gripe wasn't with the idea of the gameplay but with how easy it was to sack major cities even when you were outnumbered (when, from the manual, it was clear the major difficulty with sacking major cities would be that they had artillery.)

Straha wrote:

Graeme Dice wrote:

Straha wrote:It was kind of cool making the Spanish Main English but it just got oooooold after a while.

It's a remake of the original. Why would you expect vastly different gameplay?

I didn't. I expected that they'd put the stuff that was in the Manual (I.E. Some of the extra commodities, towns having cannons, being able to have relations with the Indians and Pirates, etc. etc.) to actually BE IN THE FUCKING GAME. (Hell, they even put items in the game which were supposed to help you with your relations with the Indians and Pirates) instead of just in the fucking manual. I should make clear, my main gripe wasn't with the idea of the gameplay but with how easy it was to sack major cities even when you were outnumbered (when, from the manual, it was clear the major difficulty with sacking major cities would be that they had artillery.)

Yeah, I stopped playing Pirates! once I could routinely sack any city I felt like with just about any bunch of assholes I picked up at my last port stop. It didn't help that the defender's AI wasn't very good, and they'd routinely walk into volleys of enfilading fire.

Darth Wong wrote:I have to say it's pretty stupid of Microsoft/Bungie to treat the Halo franchise as if it's the Holy Grail of gaming, by assuming that gamers will put up with just about any cost and inconvenience to get the next iteration of the franchise. However, they seem to be getting away with it, so far.

What are you talking about, exactly? I've never really found that the Halo games are any more expensive or generally inconvenient than most any other big-name console products (unless, of course, you're referring to the PC version, which I know little about).

Darth Wong wrote:I have to say it's pretty stupid of Microsoft/Bungie to treat the Halo franchise as if it's the Holy Grail of gaming, by assuming that gamers will put up with just about any cost and inconvenience to get the next iteration of the franchise. However, they seem to be getting away with it, so far.

When you get down to it, Bungie and Microsoft have actualy been fairly good to the gamers they are targeting on the X-Box. Good project release materials, sticking to time tables, keeping promises, etc. I think EA is far more guilty of what you talk about.

Freespace 2 and Interplay. They put forth a good amount of money to let Volition develope an absolutely wonderful flight engine with graphics that still look good today. They even go so far as to spring for the voice talent of 4 known names in Holywood. Then when it comes time to advertising the game they give it shit and then yank the rug after bad sales. Spend alot and advertise a little to rescoup.

Darth Wong wrote:I have to say it's pretty stupid of Microsoft/Bungie to treat the Halo franchise as if it's the Holy Grail of gaming, by assuming that gamers will put up with just about any cost and inconvenience to get the next iteration of the franchise. However, they seem to be getting away with it, so far.

There's what... two Halo games? Both for the same console? That's not really that bad. It sounds pretty much like generalized flagship product support by Microsoft. More or less the same way Sony waves around their favorite Square-Enix or Konami products.

It's not like say, requiring you to get a 600 dollar PS3 just to play 60 dollar Metal Gear Solid 4. Or the Ubisoft team making Crysis, which is going to require a graphics card able to divinely render.

Nephtys wrote:It's not like say, requiring you to get a 600 dollar PS3 just to play 60 dollar Metal Gear Solid 4. Or the Ubisoft team making Crysis, which is going to require a graphics card able to divinely render.

No, but they are making you buy a $400+ system to play the next one, and their PC translation for the first made Starcraft for the SNES look like gold.

Whoever it was at MGM that allowed Stargate: The Alliance get canned. Of course, at this point it would take a team of super-lawyers to actually figure out the various technicalities and vagaries of international law that resulted int he cannign int he first place... but still, take a series that pretty much appeals to the kind of people who bought Halo2 like it was the cure for cancer, and then use a talented design team on a proven and good looking engine to make an FPS, how hard could it be?

And of course whoever was responsible for the final product of Deus Ex: Invisible War made some huge mistakes.