Jump to content

What do we have to look forward to aside from remakes?


Recommended Posts

At any level, a person is either interested or not. A remake of a remake isn't everyone's cup of tea. There are enough differences between Avernum 1 and A:EftP to interest me. If this doesn't interest someone, there is Avadon or Geneforge. If neither of those interest a potential customer either, then Jeff tried and it didn't work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 136
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Oh, for crying out loud. I was using "completely different" as an expression to mean, idiomatically, "quite substantially different" -- not "different in every possible way" -- which is consistent wi

I got the sense that someone was bored and found a thread on the internet.

I can't tell you how many times I played the Exile 2 demo, doing the waterfall trip every now and again. EFTP was great, but the Avernum 2 remake is really what I was looking forward to.

Also, the remakes are not necessarily about satisfying the people who have played every game that Jeff has ever written, but about getting new customers with a game that while it still has old school graphics and an old school feel is easily played (no emulation modes, etc) and user friendly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't expect a business to make it personal, which is what "feed my family" does.

Huh? Does this make sense in some way that I'm not getting? Spiderweb is a guy and his wife. The business is literally how they eat. What's objectionable about that?

 

Also, if you don't like it, don't buy it. But clearly there's an audience; if A:EftP didn't sell, Jeff wouldn't be remaking A2.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That reasoning is true of most people working most jobs. Most people still don't want to lose their jobs, you know? I understand that you don't like the remakes; that's fine. But saying that even if they're necessary for solvency Jeff shouldn't make them is pretty crazy. It's not like he's hurting anyone. Not even by an extreme utilitarian, anything not maximizing good is bad, standard; going out of business means no potential new, good stuff interspersed with the remakes.

 

—Alorael, who also notes that Jeff's professional credentials are also probably hard to use. He didn't finish grad school. His only job since has given him years of experience as an admittedly lousy programmer, real-world experience running a business that doesn't translate to businesses that can afford people who run them, and game design. Maybe that last is worth something. But it's a hard sell to tell a guy in his forties that he can always flip burgers, especially in an economy where you still can't, necessarily, find burgers to flip.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And regardless of whether he is doing right thing by making remakes of remakes, there is a market for perpetual remakes.

As long as he isn't doing anything illegal he can do whatever a market Will pay for.

 

Has anyone ever argued this? I guess I just don't know who you could possibly be responding to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, the remakes are not necessarily about satisfying the people who have played every game that Jeff has ever written, but about getting new customers with a game that while it still has old school graphics and an old school feel is easily played (no emulation modes, etc) and user friendly.

 

How does a remake accomplish finding new customers any more than a brand new game?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We can pretty objectively say that the story elements are nearly identical, and also that the game mechanics are completely different. We can also pretty objectively say that story elements and game mechanics are both major parts of RPGs. I can totally understand your opinion, but there's a difference between saying "I have no interest in a game with a recycled story, like this one" and "I have no interest in v2.0 of an existing game, like this one." One of those statements is clearly accurate and one of those statements is at odds with how everyone else uses those English words. *shrug*

 

How are they "completely different"? I do not agree that it can "objectively" be said that they are "completely" different. You are confusing your opinion with objective observation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How does a remake accomplish finding new customers any more than a brand new game?

 

A remake requires fewer developer and designer resources, so it is possible to introduce these at a faster rate than a brand new game.

 

A remake of a well-liked story and setting may bring in more new customers than a brand new game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A remake requires fewer developer and designer resources, so it is possible to introduce these at a faster rate than a brand new game.

 

A remake of a well-liked story and setting may bring in more new customers than a brand new game.

 

First statement: Requiring fewer resources does nothing to bring in new customers. The link between pumping out games faster and more new customers in a niche genre is tenuous at best.

 

Second statement. "Well liked," you mean, by the people that already bought it? They would have already recommended it to their friends. Avadon brought WAY more attention than Avernum/Geneforge did, and it was brand new.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First statement: Requiring fewer resources does nothing to bring in new customers. The link between pumping out games faster and more new customers in a niche genre is tenuous at best.

Really? Do you have any proof for that assertion? I found out that the "guy who wrote Exile" still exists and is writing games because I read about the upcoming release of "Avernum: Escape from the Pit" on a gaming site. So, at least *one* new customer was brought in by a remake.

 

Second statement. "Well liked," you mean, by the people that already bought it? They would have already recommended it to their friends. Avadon brought WAY more attention than Avernum/Geneforge did, and it was brand new.

I really doubt that the market for Avernum and Geneforge were saturated by their original releases. The remakes allow SW to target a larger potential audience with a story that was a proven success.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone ever argued this? I guess I just don't know who you could possibly be responding to.

My impression was that Darth Ernie was responding to people who were criticizing Jeff for doing remakes. At a basic level, the point is the same as I made a bit ago: if you don't like it, don't buy it.

How are they "completely different"? I do not agree that it can "objectively" be said that they are "completely" different. You are confusing your opinion with objective observation.

It appears to me that you've made a snide comment that serves no purpose. The game mechanics are at least substantially different among Exile, Avernum, and A:EftP. Wholly unrelated? No. Completely different? No. Substantially different? Yes. So the people who care about game mechanics — of whom Slarty has made a reputation for himself as being one — will experience the remakes as fairly different games.

 

That was the central point that Slarty was making, and you can snipe at his wording, but is his point wrong? I don't think so.

Second statement. "Well liked," you mean, by the people that already bought it? They would have already recommended it to their friends. Avadon brought WAY more attention than Avernum/Geneforge did, and it was brand new.

Er, no.

 

Jeff knows he has a good thing going with the writing and style of Exile/Avernum/A:EftP. How does he know? Because people praised the game when it first came out, and they praised it again when it was remade. It's well-liked by people who've played it, but that doesn't mean he's trying to resell it to them, necessarily — it means he knows it's good, so he's trying to sell it to people who weren't even born when Exile came out, or to people who never heard about it last time. That's the point of mentioning that it's well-liked.

 

As for the last sentence, I wonder what metric you're using for that. Avadon hit Steam at exactly the right time, so my suspicion is that it just happened to be a good game in the right place at the right time, but I wouldn't be surprised if A:EftP sold extremely well (and "brought attention," whatever that means) nonetheless.

 

(Also, you seem somewhat fact-impaired. If Avadon was so much better for Spidweb, why wasn't Geneforge also? None of the GFs have been remade.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? Do you have any proof for that assertion? I found out that the "guy who wrote Exile" still exists and is writing games because I read about the upcoming release of "Avernum: Escape from the Pit" on a gaming site. So, at least *one* new customer was brought in by a remake.

 

 

I really doubt that the market for Avernum and Geneforge were saturated by their original releases. The remakes allow SW to target a larger potential audience with a story that was a proven success.

 

The assertion was made by the original poster, not me.

 

The remakes allow SW to target the same audience that any other game of theirs have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The assertion was made by the original poster, not me.

Very well, then. What is *your* assertion? I believe that Jeff Vogel is a reasonably rational business owner. He wouldn't be developing and marketing remakes if they didn't sell. I suppose it's possible that only current owners of the original versions are buying the remakes, but I find that very unlikely. That's why I want some actual evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My impression was that Darth Ernie was responding to people who were criticizing Jeff for doing remakes. At a basic level, the point is the same as I made a bit ago: if you don't like it, don't buy it.

 

It appears to me that you've made a snide comment that serves no purpose.

 

It wasn't snide. It pointed out the truth. He posted his personal opinion masquerading as "objective" fact.

 

 

The game mechanics are at least substantially different among Exile, Avernum, and A:EftP. Wholly unrelated? No. Completely different? No.

 

Thanks for proving my point. That was EXACTLY what he had asserted. Let me quote him- "also that the game mechanics are completely different. "

 

Substantially different? Yes.

 

Can you explain how you think they are substantially different please?

 

So the people who care about game mechanics — of whom Slarty has made a reputation for himself as being one — will experience the remakes as fairly different games.

 

"Fairly different" is an opinion. Stating opinion is fine. The post that I responded to(that you are in turn responding to a response of) made the claim that "objectively" the gameplay is "completely different." This is the bogus claim that I responded to. It is in no way "objectively" stated. It is pure opinion...and one that I asked to be clarified.

 

That was the central point that Slarty was making, and you can snipe at his wording, but is his point wrong? I don't think so.

 

That is not the claim that he made whatsoever. You are trying to completely change his argument and change the goalposts. He said that the gameplay is "completely" different and that that was NOT his opinion, but objective FACT, which is as far from the truth as possible. You even confirmed right here in this post that it is NOT "completely" different nor objective in any way.

 

 

Er, no.

 

Jeff knows he has a good thing going with the writing and style of Exile/Avernum/A:EftP. How does he know? Because people praised the game when it first came out, and they praised it again when it was remade. It's well-liked by people who've played it, but that doesn't mean he's trying to resell it to them, necessarily — it means he knows it's good, so he's trying to sell it to people who weren't even born when Exile came out, or to people who never heard about it last time. That's the point of mentioning that it's well-liked.

 

I am not sure of the relevance or what point that is trying to be made here.

 

 

As for the last sentence, I wonder what metric you're using for that. Avadon hit Steam at exactly the right time, so my suspicion is that it just happened to be a good game in the right place at the right time, but I wouldn't be surprised if A:EftP sold extremely well (and "brought attention," whatever that means) nonetheless.

 

(Also, you seem somewhat fact-impaired. If Avadon was so much better for Spidweb, why wasn't Geneforge also? None of the GFs have been remade.)

 

Yes, that is true. It was the first ios game to come out and a more casual design as well. My point was that it was opposite of what was suggested by the post "A remake of a well-liked story and setting may bring in more new customers than a brand new game. "

 

As for your last statement, it is a jumbled mess of ideas clutching for some kind of gotcha. If Avadon was good for Spiderweb, why wasn't Geneforge also? I know you think you are latching onto gold here... It could be for lots of reasons. Genre, setting, mechanics, theme, non linearity, etc etc etc. The original statement was "A remake of a well-liked story and setting may bring in more new customers than a brand new game. " l responded by requesting for proof of such an assertion. It "may" bring in more new customers? Why? You can't just make such statements without supporting it with evidence. I countered that Avadon is evidence that this is not necessarily the case, considering how well it did. So, what claim are YOU trying to make here?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very well, then. What is *your* assertion? I believe that Jeff Vogel is a reasonably rational business owner. He wouldn't be developing and marketing remakes if they didn't sell. I suppose it's possible that only current owners of the original versions are buying the remakes, but I find that very unlikely. That's why I want some actual evidence.

 

I don't have an assertion to make. I simply pointed out that what was posted as "objective" was absolutely incorrect and was simply an opinion that is trying to be elevated into fact by declaring it objective. Why should I have to make an assertion to disprove someone else's assertion?

 

My original post was saying that I have no interest in playing remakes. People countered by saying that their gameplay is "completely different" and that this is apparently objective fact. I responded by saying that that is in no way fact. It is pure opinion. Then, I requested what made someone think that they are in any way "completely different" and so far no one has offered any reasoning.

 

He wouldn't be developing and marketing remakes if they didn't sell. I suppose it's possible that only current owners of the original versions are buying the remakes, but I find that very unlikely. That's why I want some actual evidence.

 

Someone else claimed that it "may" bring in more new players than newer franchises/games. I said that Avadon shows that this is not necessarily the case, considering it is new and sold more than everything else combined. Why would I provide evidence for something very different, that I never talked about?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The original statement was "A remake of a well-liked story and setting may bring in more new customers than a brand new game. " l responded by requesting for proof of such an assertion.

 

Actually, this is the very first time you actually made a request for proof of such an assertion. As evidence, I present Blades of Exile/Avernum. Not every new title is a blazing success like Avadon. When I say "may" bring in more new customers, it is relative to the risk associated with bringing a new title to market.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, this is the very first time you actually made a request for proof of such an assertion. As evidence, I present Blades of Exile/Avernum. Not every new title is a blazing success like Avadon. When I say "may" bring in more new customers, it is relative to the risk associated with bringing a new title to market.

 

Well, I did ask, "you mean, by the people that already bought it?" In other words, why would a game that is previously well liked, by a very small community, have any effect on a remake's success? What spiderwebsoftware game has this community NOT liked prior to Avadon?

 

Can you explain what makes Blades of Exile/Avernum evidence? And evidence of what?

 

I still don't understand how, despite Avadon doing better than any other SWS game, that you'd make the claim that the opposite "may" have more success.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you explain what makes Blades of Exile/Avernum evidence? And evidence of what?

 

They are evidence simply that there are risks to bringing a new title to market. The remakes are less risky because the stories and general style of play have proven successful. Issuing a remake a couple of years after the original release isn't going to attract new customers (they would have already bought the game), but after a decade, there's a good chance that new customers of the proven formula can be found if the game engine is updated and works on modern machines.

 

SW mixes these remakes with new titles. It keeps revenue flowing; it allows for successes like Avadon while hedging risk. It brings in new customers who would not otherwise experience the Avernum series.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, for crying out loud. I was using "completely different" as an expression to mean, idiomatically, "quite substantially different" -- not "different in every possible way" -- which is consistent with how it is normally used in English! If you look at the original context, I think it's pretty clear what my point was: that there isn't really much debate about the substantial difference between the games, when it comes to mechanics.

 

If you're going to nitpick that, then you certainly can't abandon the "pretty" that I stuck in front of "objectively" as you have done. I don't pretend there's no subjective judgment in this, but this is really just a question of how much is the same and how much isn't -- that's mostly a numbers game.

 

So, do you just want a laundry list of all the game mechanics that are different? Off the top of my head:

- 100% different stat/skills system (skill trees and primary stats vs diminishing-returns skill points)

- Almost all stats/skills are different

- No stats/skills have identical effects as they did in the earlier game (though a tiny handful survive with the same themes)

- Mechanics of gaining stats and skills are different

- Mechanics of character creation are different

- Item characteristics are different

- Equipment slots are different

- Backpack space and encumbrance are handled very differently

- The junk bag is new and therefore different

- The types of items available are different

- The distinctions between different categories (swords vs halberds, etc) are different

- Damage ranges and protection levels are different

- Combat formulas, including to-hit and damage formulas (especially to-hit), are different (though they follow a similar general pattern)

- Mechanics for how armor and resistance from multiple items or effects combine are completely different

- Mechanics for how much armor/resistance processes on a given attack appear to be fairly different as well

- Mechanics for how different types of damage multipliers combine are also different

- Spells are largely different

- Spell effects are often different

- Relevant spell formulae are all different

- Spell targeting is different -- completely different for all MT spells

- Summoning mechanics are quite different

- Status effects available are different

- The mechanics that affect how status effects accrue and decay are different

- Movement mechanics (both in and out of combat) are different

- Relative cost of different actions are different

- There are entire categories of actions (like battle disciplines vs first aid kits and advantage-activated-abilities) that are in one or the other game but not both

- Types of resistances have some overlap but also some big differences

- Enemy stats and characteristics are different

- In many (though certainly not all) cases, the enemies themselves are completely different

- Pretty much all (possibly actually all) enemies with special abilities have different special abilities to use

- There are some significant non-combat mechanics differences like cave lore patches and alchemy

- Pricing mechanics (in shops) are different

- The amount of money available, and what you can and can't use it for, is completely different

- Shop inventory is very different

- Special training works differently and often in different locations

- Traits and advantages/disadvantages are totally different systems

- Mechanics surrounding experience gain are quite different

- Formulas for secondary stats like HP are completely different

- This was sort of covered above, but the list of dynamic stats is not even identical -- see vitality and fatigue

 

This is not even remotely a complete list, but it's a quick and long one. Aside from any squabbles about wording (again, this was written quickly and not with an eye for flawless language use) these are pretty much all things that are objectively different. There isn't a subjective judgment involved, they simply are different. I guess you could argue that this isn't enough of a difference for what I said. At best though, you are digging out a space where you can be technically correct, but missing the point entirely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, for crying out loud. I was using "completely different" as an expression to mean, idiomatically, "quite substantially different" -- not "different in every possible way" -- which is consistent with how it is normally used in English! If you look at the original context, I think it's pretty clear what my point was: that there isn't really much debate about the substantial difference between the games, when it comes to mechanics.

 

If you're going to nitpick that, then you certainly can't abandon the "pretty" that I stuck in front of "objectively" as you have done. I don't pretend there's no subjective judgment in this, but this is really just a question of how much is the same and how much isn't -- that's mostly a numbers game.

What? So, "pretty objectively" means in your opinion... and that was exactly the original context. You tried to frame it so that it appeared less like an opinion and instead, "objectively," meaning it is universally accepted. I'm afraid that this is not and never was true. Even someone trying to defend your statement, above, said as much.

 

"there isn't really much debate about the substantial difference..." Again, this is where you again try to state one of your opinions as if it were universal truth. There is plenty to debate. You just are interested in only stating your opinion as fact so that maybe... I don't know. Do you think that you auto win arguments if you frame your opinions as facts? That maybe other people will just assume that this is a universal truth? Do you realize that in your response to being called out in this mistake, you went ahead and did the exact same thing again?

 

It isn't nitpicking at all. You made a bogus claim to try to elevate your argument. In this case, not only have you done it again, but you are trying to push another narrative.. one where anyone that dissents from your opinion is nitpicking instead of having a possible valid counter-argument. You are trying to preemptively discount other arguments.

 

It wasn't "pretty" "objective." It either is objective or not. You can't be half objective. Your opinion is full subjective. Your opinion cannot be changed into something partially objective just because you feel that you have the one true opinion.

 

 

So, do you just want a laundry list of all the game mechanics that are different?

 

That is one method. However, what might be considered a huge difference to you might not be considered that big to others. You are trying to throw the kitchen sink and hope something sticks.

 

Also, don't state something vaguely such as "mechanics are different." This has no meaning.

 

Things like " The types of items available are different"... How does this support the claim that "game mechanics are completely different."?

 

All of Spiderwebgames that I have played, from Avernum 1-6 to Geneforge 1-5, to Avadon 1-2, and I thiiink I played Nethergate... share basic mechanics. Turn based on a grid. A handful of stats and a handful of skills to choose from. Sword, thief, summoner, healer, and wizard classes. One game has main character with pets. The others have 3-4 members in a group. The same basic mechanics are shared. A few stat changes/names here and there or some different items do not in any way make the games "completely different GAMEPLAY mechanics." The Witcher has different gameplay mechanics than Avernum. Dragon Age Origins has different gameplay mechanics from Jade Empire. These remakes change a handful of minor things, but really, the core is similar. Still turn based, small party, doing the same kind of quests. I do not go to a new SWS game expecting innovation. Avadon, while different than the others, is in maaaany ways the exact same thing packaged slightly different.

 

"There isn't a subjective judgment involved, they simply are different."

 

Different, in some ways. "Completely different"? Not even close.

 

Your point was to make your opinions the end all and that everything else should be dismissed before they are even entered. When you state things as "objective" when they are not, then you weaken your argument.

 

 

 

 

Aside from any squabbles about wording

 

When words express your entire meaning... and your entire meaning expresses something that is not what you claim it to be... yes, it becomes a problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are evidence simply that there are risks to bringing a new title to market. The remakes are less risky because the stories and general style of play have proven successful. Issuing a remake a couple of years after the original release isn't going to attract new customers (they would have already bought the game), but after a decade, there's a good chance that new customers of the proven formula can be found if the game engine is updated and works on modern machines.

 

SW mixes these remakes with new titles. It keeps revenue flowing; it allows for successes like Avadon while hedging risk. It brings in new customers who would not otherwise experience the Avernum series.

 

Remakes are less risky because they are cheaper and quicker. I don't think there is any arguing that.

 

I am not necessarily talking new franchises here. I'd rather Avadon 3-51 if so be it rather than remaking old material. I don't see any inherent risk in expanding the most successful franchise that he has made so far. Counter to this, you suggest that remaking old games might bring in more new people, than say, something new like Avadon 3. Do you see more risk in Avadon 3 than remaking old games?

 

"SW mixes these remakes with new titles. It keeps revenue flowing; it allows for successes like Avadon while hedging risk. It brings in new customers who would not otherwise experience the Avernum series." You say this as if it has any relevance to what is being discussed... The only relevance is in talking new franchises. Maybe this is where the gap is. I do not ask for a new franchise necessarily. Plus, since NEW Avadons also keep "revenue flowing."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Remakes are less risky because they are cheaper and quicker. I don't think there is any arguing that.

 

Cheaper, quicker, and they will probably sell, at least in SW's experience.

 

I am not necessarily talking new franchises here. I'd rather Avadon 3-51 if so be it rather than remaking old material. I don't see any inherent risk in expanding the most successful franchise that he has made so far.

 

To which I again reference Blades of Avernum. The issue is not just new franchises but new titles in those franchises. There is more risk, although probably less than with a whole new franchise.

 

Do you see more risk in Avadon 3 than remaking old games?

Yes. I also believe there is risk in just releasing remakes: SW really can't do that indefinitely, either. Releasing new titles and remakes hedges their investment in time and marketing dollars.

 

"SW mixes these remakes with new titles. It keeps revenue flowing; it allows for successes like Avadon while hedging risk. It brings in new customers who would not otherwise experience the Avernum series." You say this as if it has any relevance to what is being discussed...

 

I'm sorry that I don't choose to argue in the way you see fit. If you find my musings irrelevant, then kindly ignore them. It's a free Internet (for now).

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not necessarily talking new franchises here. I'd rather Avadon 3-51 if so be it rather than remaking old material. I don't see any inherent risk in expanding the most successful franchise that he has made so far.

To which I again reference Blades of Avernum. The issue is not just new franchises but new titles in those franchises. There is more risk, although probably less than with a whole new franchise.

To be fair, Blades of Avernum was kind of half remake, half new game in the same franchise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blades has always been a thing of its own, too. After the constant backlash over BoE here on his own forums I'm honestly a bit surprised Jeff even tried for BoA.

 

—Alorael, who doesn't even think BoE was ever a fantastic seller. Okay, apparently, but he was under the impression that it never matched Exile 3.

Link to post
Share on other sites
on the other hand the first few geneforges are very dated and i would love to play them in an updated version

It's technically possible to play them on newer computers/operating systems, but not well or easily. I just tried to run G1 and it threw an error for not using 800x600 resolution (a decade or more since I went higher, 1680x1050 currently) and 16 bit color (32 bit). Decrease the color depth and it will run, but since it's fullscreen only (and 4:3) it will be either greatly stretched and slightly distorted or a little island of color in a large lake, if not a sea, of black. It also uses a painfully ugly font. :(

 

I hope it gets the remake treatment just to see those issues fixed, along with the inevitable UI and graphical upgrades. New and/or improved content would be icing on the canist- I mean cake. Sweet, delicious canister. CAKE! Yeah, that.

 

I got the sense that someone was bored and found a thread on the internet.

Now I hope that one day someone will get bored and make a beautiful tapestry out of threads they found on the internet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the fact that Jeff is still doing the remakes. Considering Exile came out in 1995 and Avernum in 2001, it was over a decade that A:EftP came on the scene. I have bought all the Exiles, Avernums and A:EftP, and I will buy A2:CS when it finally shows up!

If you're a fan of Spiderweb, show your support by buying his games. It gives him the revenue to continue making such great games!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's technically possible to play them on newer computers/operating systems, but not well or easily. I just tried to run G1 and it threw an error for not using 800x600 resolution (a decade or more since I went higher, 1680x1050 currently) and 16 bit color (32 bit). Decrease the color depth and it will run, but since it's fullscreen only (and 4:3) it will be either greatly stretched and slightly distorted or a little island of color in a large lake, if not a sea, of black. It also uses a painfully ugly font. :(

 

*cough* http://spiderwebforums.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/19034-nalyd-teaches-you-how-to-run-geneforge-1-4-in-a-window-in-ten-easy-steps/

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're a fan of Spiderweb, show your support by buying his games. It gives him the revenue to continue making such great games!

 

 

THIS!!!!!!!!

 

I am a big enough fan of Jeff to buy all of his games. I don't recall ever playing any of his games I haven't enjoyed, so even if he remade Avernum 1 again in a year, I'd buy it, just to re-live it and look at the differences. This isn't everyone's idea of fun. If the games weren't successful, he would stop making them and try something different.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I, for one, am very pleased Jeff bothers to upgrade/remake his classic games. I like to revisit old faves, and he keeps getting better at crafting many aspects of the gaming mechanics and removing much of the pain, like the multiple dungeon trips of the early versions. I consider the bottomless junk bag to be metaphorical. It represents all the trips you would actually have to make to one place to round up all that equipment you can sell off, but hate to have to slog through in real time—not that you are literally carrying 65 pieces of armor and weaponry all at once. I pushed Jeff heavily and, evidently, persuasively, for designing something like that while testing the Avernum game in which it was first implemented years back. (Was that Avernum 4?) The junk bag showed up in the very next version of the beta we were testing. You're welcome, or, alternately, send hate mail here.

 

I like that my PCs don't have to sleep and go to the bathroom too. I can gladly bypass the tedious logistics of most hours of a day a real human would endure, and get on with the fun part of the game. I really love the outdoors mode of the first three Avernum games too. I have missed it terribly in the second trilogy. Meanwhile, the Mac version of Crystal Souls just wrapped testing, and I think I can confidently say, most will not be disappointed in the results. I've just replayed Escape from the Pit again, since I got the bug, and have enjoyed remembering what a great game it also is, and how much I appreciate being able to play it in an upgraded viable form. I greatly look forward to the remake of Avernum 3, which is epic in scale above and below ground. It was the game which ensnared me into the Spiderweb over a decade ago. I have very fond memories and visuals of playing it for many hours, and more than once. Ah, those brutal quests for the legendary items like the Ring of Endless Magery.

Link to post
Share on other sites

who remembers saving a game, opening up the editor, restoring health and then reloading to continue a drawn out fight?

 

As a shamelessly cheating kid back in the 90s I had a TSR memory hacking tool for use against DOS games. Why save and exit a game to cheat when you could press a magic key combination, edit health, money, number of troops, etc and then immediately resume playing; including is spots between where you're allowed to save.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...