# Sword Coast Legends To Introduce RAGE OF DEMONS and Tile Based Editor



## ZeshinX (Oct 30, 2015)

Looks very promising for those still interested in it.    Sadly, I am not one of them.  The rules play a big part in the joy I get from D&D, and SCL just doesn't measure up for me.

Still, looks like good times ahead for it.


----------



## smiteworks (Oct 30, 2015)

I've always thought they had a very fun and enjoyable base for a game -- even for a DM, but more-so in the single player realm. I wish more companies would do this sort of thing instead of just throwing out something that is solid and starting over. For instance, the Temple of Elemental game is one of my favorite engines of all times, but it was scrapped and never built upon. It's good to see n-Space taking the feedback and working with that. 

The number on ENWorld definitely represent the more true tabletop RPG fans. The numbers begin to improve when you expand that out to the general gaming population. 
SCL is at 56% approval rating on Steam directly and 63% on Metascore.

I already think it is a good game. With this attitude by n-Space and the willingness to improve specific areas, the game could eventually move into the "great" game category. That's my 2 gp.


----------



## Zaukrie (Oct 30, 2015)

Good luck to then. But it isn't D&D.


----------



## Chimpy (Oct 30, 2015)

Sounds like some improvements. I thought the game was okay, but could have been better. It isn't one I really want to keep coming back to, not currently anyway.


----------



## Zalbar The Mad (Oct 30, 2015)

Talk is cheap which is what got them into this unholy mess in the first place.

We'll see if they pull it off.


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Oct 30, 2015)

Yeah I played and enjoyed it a bit but quickly lost momentum. I don't think a Rage of Demons storyline is going to sell me back; fixing their core engine to align with D&D 5E would, however, get me interested again.


EDIT: and are these all free updates? I'm guessing Rage of Demons and new tilesets will cost money.


----------



## neobolts (Oct 30, 2015)

My early interest waned as the creation tools looked less interesting over time.  This is a great step in the right direction. 

As for it "not being 5e", I don't find that to be a compelling complaint. I'd much rather see vibrant gameplay adapted to the medium than a rigid shoehorning of 5e into a video game. A rigid approach is what I'd want from a virtual tabletop, which is not what SCL is trying to be.


----------



## Zalbar The Mad (Oct 30, 2015)

neobolts said:


> As for it "not being 5e", I don't find that to be a compelling complaint. I'd much rather see vibrant gameplay adapted to the medium than a rigid shoehorning of 5e into a video game. A rigid approach is what I'd want from a virtual tabletop, which is not what SCL is trying to be.




Except their combat is gang up and whack-a-mole instead of tactical/strategic.


----------



## darjr (Oct 30, 2015)

Isn't this the same guy who said a day before release that it already had these features?


----------



## smiteworks (Oct 30, 2015)

Zalbar The Mad said:


> Except their combat is gang up and whack-a-mole instead of tactical/strategic.




I disagree. It's not as tactical as it would be with a turn-based approach (my preference), but you still have similar tactics that you have in Baldur's Gate and other RTwP style games. Summoning a pet monster and buffing them and others before entering an area, dropping sleep over grouped enemies or choosing which area you want to focus the build for your character are all still in the game. Furthermore, using the correct attack against a specific enemy becomes important, such as when you attack an ooze.  I found myself sending in a stealthed or invisible rogue in to start the combat off with a backstab on the enemy spellcaster and then followed it up with mob control spells first while the fighters focused on one enemy at a time that made their saving throw.


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Oct 30, 2015)

neobolts said:


> My early interest waned as the creation tools looked less interesting over time.  This is a great step in the right direction.
> 
> As for it "not being 5e", I don't find that to be a compelling complaint. I'd much rather see vibrant gameplay adapted to the medium than a rigid shoehorning of 5e into a video game. A rigid approach is what I'd want from a virtual tabletop, which is not what SCL is trying to be.




I would be fine with that as well, actually. Unfortunately what SCL accomplishes is a very generic and uninteresting action RPG format of gameplay. I would like to see the story, but the game's mechanically less interesting than all of its competition, and this is problematic. If they had either made the system less like D&D but more robust and involved (even tactical) it would be great. Maybe it gets better later on, but the first few hours of play grew really uninteresting, bad enough that despite wanting to see the tale unfold I just couldn't bring myself to want to play through the simplified action rpg play.

EDIT: as for 5E gameplay in a PC game, I can't really polarize the idea as rigid hoehorning vs. spiritual design because Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2 exist as well as Baldur's Gate and all the other Obsidian titles. Those games did a fantastic job of modeling the rules systems while cleverly tweaking actually gameplay to work with the language as presented. I could design characters in all of those games that we could then convert to tabletop characters with a bare minimum of effort. The same is not true of SCL, and I think they missed the ball here. With so many other successful turn-based tactical CRPGs on the market it was clearly a design decision to make SCL more action RPG friendly, and had nothing to do with the flexibility of 5E in a CRPG environment.


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Oct 30, 2015)

smiteworks said:


> I disagree. It's not as tactical as it would be with a turn-based approach (my preference), but you still have similar tactics that you have in Baldur's Gate and other RTwP style games. Summoning a pet monster and buffing them and others before entering an area, dropping sleep over grouped enemies or choosing which area you want to focus the build for your character are all still in the game. Furthermore, using the correct attack against a specific enemy becomes important, such as when you attack an ooze.  I found myself sending in a stealthed or invisible rogue in to start the combat off with a backstab on the enemy spellcaster and then followed it up with mob control spells first while the fighters focused on one enemy at a time that made their saving throw.




Your description gives me hope...maybe I'll reload and try it a bit more.


----------



## mykesfree (Oct 30, 2015)

I have played the game for 10 plus hours and I feel the main story line is very much in line with D&D 5E and the concept of the 3 pillars.   So far the story is great and it tugs on all on the right RPG itches that I have.  I did not expect the game to have the 5E rule set verbatim, but the game is very much 5E  in feel and style.


----------



## Fabio Andrea Rossi (Oct 30, 2015)

smiteworks said:


> For instance, the Temple of Elemental game is one of my favorite engines of all times, but it was scrapped and never built upon. It's good to see n-Space taking the feedback and working with that.




And I thought I was alone there...TOEE is really the best and truest incarnation of the (back then) D&D rules that has ever been done, it's really a pity the story was so...not compelling. Even worse that it was not used for any other game (kudos to the Circle of Eight for all their good work on that game).

But...with all those kickstarted nostalgia resurrections out there one can always hope.

As per SCL, not a bad game but I think that many D&D gamers really want a "true" D&D, turn based game, not mobile free-to-play or more action oriented games. 

I also think that if one company one day find the right formula and a good engine base it could open the door to many "modules" being done, sold and played, but that's just my humble opinion.


----------



## Zaukrie (Oct 30, 2015)

Not being D&D does not make it a bad game. But if you don't follow the rules any more than any other video game, it isn't D&D. I did not say that made it bad.


----------



## Reinhart (Oct 30, 2015)

I'm not paying full price for unfinished software, but the chances that I buy Sword Coast Legends in 2016 when it goes on sale just increased significantly.


----------



## epithet (Oct 30, 2015)

Fabio Andrea Rossi said:


> ...
> As per SCL, not a bad game but I think that many D&D gamers really want a "true" D&D, turn based game, not mobile free-to-play or more action oriented games.
> ...




Well, that's what Fantasy Grounds is for. To me, a "true" D&D game includes human interaction, and while you can play SCL that way, it doesn't really deliver the group D&D experience on a computer like a virtual tabletop does. I'm enjoying the single player game quite a bit, though.


----------



## Dire Bare (Oct 30, 2015)

Zaukrie said:


> Good luck to then. But it isn't D&D.




Wrong. Or, at least, I disagree.

As others have stated, this is an adaptation of the 5E ruleset, not a direct port. There has never, in the history of D&D computer games, been a direct port of a D&D ruleset. Of course, you may not care for how N-Space adapted the 5E rules, but that does not mean that the game is *not* D&D. To me, this is the same crap language edition warriors throw around about whatever version of D&D is not to their liking, as in "4E is a great game, but it's not D&D." BS to that kind of talk.


----------



## Dire Bare (Oct 30, 2015)

darjr said:


> Isn't this the same guy who said a day before release that it already had these features?




Nope.

Well, it's the same guy, Dan Tudge, who has been the "face" of N-Space and Sword Coast Legendes. But Tudge has never been dishonest or unclear (to my knowledge) about what the game would entail at launch, or in any other way.

There is definitely folks misinterpreting what Tudge has said, but that's par for the course with the fan community.


----------



## Dire Bare (Oct 30, 2015)

Reinhart said:


> I'm not paying full price for unfinished software, but the chances that I buy Sword Coast Legends in 2016 when it goes on sale just increased significantly.




The game is not unfinished. It is a complete game, plays just fine, has all of the features noted for launch. N-Space, like every other computer game company ever, is simply previewing their list of bug fixes, game updates, and game expansions. They are also stating that while they are very proud of the game they have created, they are actively listening to fan feedback and incorporating that into their revisions and expansions to the game.

How that translates to "unfinished" boggles my mind.


----------



## Reinhart (Oct 30, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> The game is not unfinished. It is a complete game, plays just fine, has all of the features noted for launch. N-Space, like every other computer game company ever, is simply previewing their list of bug fixes, game updates, and game expansions. They are also stating that while they are very proud of the game they have created, they are actively listening to fan feedback and incorporating that into their revisions and expansions to the game.
> 
> How that translates to "unfinished" boggles my mind.




It certainly doesn't have most of the features that I desire. For a lot of people, it clearly doesn't play just fine. The designers promised to have the tools for designing and running entire campaigns. What they delivered just doesn't fit the bill. Perhaps all you want or need from a campaign editor is a random map generator that you plop monsters down into, but a lot of us expect a lot more than that before it becomes useful. I need more direct control than they currently offer. So I'm going to wait and see what it's like with an actual level editor, dialogue options, and greater DM influence over monsters and NPC's. I find it strange that DM software that doesn't allow you to use orcs or dragons is somehow seen "complete."

So calm down and take a deep breath because your defense of the game comes across as a little hysterical. It's not that you like SCL that seems odd, it's the fact that you completely misunderstand the rest of us who don't.


----------



## darjr (Oct 30, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> Nope.
> 
> Well, it's the same guy, Dan Tudge, who has been the "face" of N-Space and Sword Coast Legendes. But Tudge has never been dishonest or unclear (to my knowledge) about what the game would entail at launch, or in any other way.
> 
> There is definitely folks misinterpreting what Tudge has said, but that's par for the course with the fan community.




Yup. 

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...s-face/page2&p=6740362&viewfull=1#post6740362


"One of the things I put to the designers when we framed this all up for them was, I want you to take this campaign, and I actually gave them the 5th edition starter set and I said I want you to take this campaign and I want you to reproduce it, I want you to reproduce it, and I want anybody to be able to reproduce it. And if they can't, the tools aren't done. And so uh, I think we got to a place where you can create that content real quickly and real easy and uh and just recreate your favorite homebrew or your favorite module or whatever your heart desires."

-Dan Tudge

Is that clear enough for you?


----------



## Cody C. Lewis (Oct 30, 2015)

This game damaged my $500 EVGA 980 FTW. 

Do not risk playing it if you are using a 980. It will blow up your card.


----------



## Jester David (Oct 30, 2015)

Some of the complaints are responses to things they should have been fixing after Day One of the headstart or after 30 seconds of beta testing, such as letting the mouse move the screen. 
Hopefully they'll also patch the rate your people say their catchphrases when you move them. Or change to the first time you click and then silence every additional click within 5 seconds. 

There'd still be other problems. (The boring combat in multiplayer where you hit a couple cooldown powers and then autoattack endlessly. The unoptimized graphics that can overhead even good systems. The amateur hour voice acting. The plot-BINGO opening.) But it'd be better.

Really, it's too little too late. They had one chance to make a splash. One. 
There's not going to be a second wave of reviews. IGN or RockPaperShotgun aren't just going to take time out of the busy review schedule to revise their opinions. The initial feedback on Metacritic and Steam won't change. (It hasn't for _Arkham Knight_ or _Diablo 3_.) And by the time the patches are done people will have a new Call of Duty, Splinter Cell, Fallout, Tomb Raider, and other games distracting them, plus any last minute Christmas releases. 

This news is only for the people who bought the game without reading reviews and/or didn't manage to get a refund. 

This game is dead, save for a surge of potentially curious people following a Steam sale at a deeeep discount.


----------



## Jester David (Oct 30, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> Nope.
> 
> Well, it's the same guy, Dan Tudge, who has been the "face" of N-Space and Sword Coast Legendes. But Tudge has never been dishonest or unclear (to my knowledge) about what the game would entail at launch, or in any other way.
> 
> There is definitely folks misinterpreting what Tudge has said, but that's par for the course with the fan community.



Other than [MENTION=52905]darjr[/MENTION] 's quote, there's also this fun image from the official video:

View attachment 71506

Okay, yes, what that means is unclear. Which seems to be the best defense they can offer. Everything they said and did _suggested_ a return to a _Baldur's Gate_ style game but they never actually explicitly said that. Almost carefully so. 
So, no, they didn't "lie". They just spoke in an unclear way that gave a false impression and never corrected that impression or clarified the truth. Completely different than lying.


----------



## Reinhart (Oct 30, 2015)

Probably the #1 skill in game development is expectations management. And expectation management is partly a matter of marketing. It doesn't matter if you technically never lied or not. It doesn't even matter if you do lie. What matters is if the expectations of your customers are met by the reality of your product. And when you market your product your job is to create those expectations and draw mostly people excited about it.

Tetris is a respectable game. But if you thought you were buying Super Mario and I sold you Tetris? I'm pretty sure I'd have an irate customer and deserve it. I'm not sure who was in charge of marketing SCL, considering Digital Extremes and Hasbro both had their hands in promoting it as well. What I do know is they did a terrible job of it, because they made a lot of people very unhappy. As a result they have been hemorrhaging players. SCL has roughly 11% fewer customers now than there were at the beginning of the week. That means that since it came out, demands for refunds have outpaced sales!

Now, you might say "There's no way it's so bad it deserves that!" I agree, but that's why the people in-charge of the marketing for this game should be sacked. Because I think people wouldn't be upset if they had known what they were getting into. And there was almost a year of promoting this game where it was plainly apparent what the players wanted and expected. Basically, this was a disaster that was easily avoidable.

Now that we know what it is? I'm willing to buy it. Just not for $40, and not until it has the features that I actually want. I didn't pre-order this game because I was skeptical about n-Space's claims which seemed out of synch with the game they were actually showing off. I still understand and sympathize with the people who bought this game feel mislead though.


----------



## Uder (Oct 30, 2015)

Reinhart said:


> Probably the #1 skill in game development is...




Sorry to step on your quote, but the #1 skill for a game dev is making a game people want to play. They didn't do this.


----------



## ppaladin123 (Oct 30, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> Wrong. Or, at least, I disagree.
> 
> As others have stated, this is an adaptation of the 5E ruleset, not a direct port. There has never, in the history of D&D computer games, been a direct port of a D&D ruleset. Of course, you may not care for how N-Space adapted the 5E rules, but that does not mean that the game is *not* D&D. To me, this is the same crap language edition warriors throw around about whatever version of D&D is not to their liking, as in "4E is a great game, but it's not D&D." BS to that kind of talk.




Yes but there are levels of fidelity to the rules. I think a lot of people were expecting a Neverwinter Nights or Baldur's Gate-level of fidelity....adapted for real-time but with spell slots and feats and domains and opportunity attacks and per rest abilities and skills and so forth intact. Some of those are the things that make d&d different from other tabletop games and contribute to its feel.

This video game does not have any of  those things. It does have skill trees and skill cool downs and "magic missile III." So yeah, there is no platonic form of "d&d" and people are free to call this whatever they want but I think we can at least agree that there were more dramatic changes to the ruleset in this adaptation than 1. were expected and 2. strictly necessary to make a video game (see games above) and that A. many of the things that were removed are things that draw people to d&d games (video or otherwise) and B. many of the things added turn off some people who prefer the approach to such things taken in the tabletop rules.


----------



## EthanSental (Oct 31, 2015)

Free updates to a game I'm enjoying already is pure gold in my book!


----------



## JonArkanix (Oct 31, 2015)

I think most people forget that Neverwinter Nights out of the box required quite a few updates to kill crashing bugs, errors with the ruleset, updates to the eventual publicly available editor, etc. I'm talking 20+ updates over years, not two or three like the typical game release.


----------



## Dire Bare (Oct 31, 2015)

Reinhart said:


> It certainly doesn't have most of the features that I desire. For a lot of people, it clearly doesn't play just fine. The designers promised to have the tools for designing and running entire campaigns. What they delivered just doesn't fit the bill. Perhaps all you want or need from a campaign editor is a random map generator that you plop monsters down into, but a lot of us expect a lot more than that before it becomes useful. I need more direct control than they currently offer. So I'm going to wait and see what it's like with an actual level editor, dialogue options, and greater DM influence over monsters and NPC's. I find it strange that DM software that doesn't allow you to use orcs or dragons is somehow seen "complete."
> 
> So calm down and take a deep breath because your defense of the game comes across as a little hysterical. It's not that you like SCL that seems odd, it's the fact that you completely misunderstand the rest of us who don't.






Reinhart said:


> Probably the #1 skill in game development is expectations management. And expectation management is partly a matter of marketing. It doesn't matter if you technically never lied or not. It doesn't even matter if you do lie. What matters is if the expectations of your customers are met by the reality of your product. And when you market your product your job is to create those expectations and draw mostly people excited about it.
> 
> Tetris is a respectable game. But if you thought you were buying Super Mario and I sold you Tetris? I'm pretty sure I'd have an irate customer and deserve it. I'm not sure who was in charge of marketing SCL, considering Digital Extremes and Hasbro both had their hands in promoting it as well. What I do know is they did a terrible job of it, because they made a lot of people very unhappy. As a result they have been hemorrhaging players. SCL has roughly 11% fewer customers now than there were at the beginning of the week. That means that since it came out, demands for refunds have outpaced sales!
> 
> ...




I can accept if someone who's played the game doesn't care for it. If they find the story campaign lackluster, or the gameplay less than exciting, or if the gameplay simply doesn't press their buttons. I'd even accept someone stating that the game *feels* incomplete at launch based on their expectations (fair or otherwise). If you feel the game is "feature-poor", I can accept that. If you feel like you didn't get enough fun for your $40 or more dollars, that's fair. Give the game however many stars you want!

But the game isn't incomplete or unfinished, N-Space didn't ship a broken game. We might be arguing semantics, but I get so tired of folks lobbing BS attacks at game companies (pen-and-paper or computer). It's the hyperbole, and then the doubling-down on the hyperbole, that irritates me. Not that anybody here needs to worry about poor ol' me getting irritated, but that's why I shot back.

I've paid perhaps a medium-level attention to the marketing for the game. I've watched all the trailers, read most of the major previews, and canvassed the SCL website fairly well. I haven't watched any of the developer videos or Twitch feeds, but I liked that they were available. I personally don't find that the marketing overreached very much, at least not any more or less than marketing tends to do for any product. 

I also haven't devoted a significant part of my life to the game once I got it, I'm into the story campaign a few chapters, I've played around with the creation tools, but haven't tried my hand at designing any of my own adventures. Once I get that far, perhaps I'll be underwhelmed also. But so far, I'm having a blast and I am totally feeling Baldur's Gate nostalgia, as I feel that the new game looks and plays very much like the classic I remember. Does it play exactly like BG? Of course not, I can tell the differences even though it's probably been decades since I've touched an Infinity Engine game.

The idea that the marketing got folks all excited for a different game experience than was shipped . . . . if that's your opinion that's fine, of course, but I'm not seeing it myself. I don't really care much if folks love or hate the game, rate it highly or poorly, I just get irritated at attacks that (to me, at least) seem to have no basis in reality, perceptions be damned. I'm like that with the pen-and-paper games also, my "game company apologetics" is fairly equal opportunity. I got no skin in the game with SCL . . . other than I hope the game survives with a decent player base for a long time, as that will increase and extend my own enjoyment of the game.


----------



## Dire Bare (Oct 31, 2015)

darjr said:


> Yup.
> 
> http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...s-face/page2&p=6740362&viewfull=1#post6740362
> 
> ...




While I read your quote from Tudge, I didn't go back to watch the linked video the quote came from. So if the video holds more context, I've missed it. But based on what I'm reading, it seems that this isn't a problem of Tudge promising more than N-Space delivered so much as folks interpreting what he said and expecting the whole-nine-yards on Day One. I'm not going to bother getting into an over-analyzing developer speak match with anybody, I'll just leave it at I strongly disagree that N-Space delivered a unfinished game or a game severely different from stated goals (or raised perceptions through marketing).

I paid for the digital deluxe version, the game matches what I expected from the marketing I was exposed to, I'm having fun, and (as usual for me) I'm not really understanding certain types of complaints about the game. I've got no problem with folks not enjoying the game or giving it zero stars (out of however many), I just don't see the complaints of the game being unfinished or different than expectations as justifiable.



Jester Canuck said:


> Other than [MENTION=52905]darjr[/MENTION] 's quote, there's also this fun image from the official video:
> 
> View attachment 71506
> 
> ...




N-Space, to my knowledge, isn't claiming that their marketing is unclear and led to false expectations. That is the complaint, or attack, of some gamers. And I strongly disagree that N-Space has been dishonest, purposefully or through neglectful marketing.

They advertised the game as a return to classic D&D RPGs . . . the only sensical way to take that claim is as a reference to D&D computer RPGs, like Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights, not any version of the p-n-p game. And as far as I'm concerned, they are 100% on that claim. If you personally don't feel that SCL lives up to classics like BG or NN, that's fair, but it is definitely the same type of game.


----------



## Dire Bare (Oct 31, 2015)

ppaladin123 said:


> Yes but there are levels of fidelity to the rules. I think a lot of people were expecting a Neverwinter Nights or Baldur's Gate-level of fidelity....adapted for real-time but with spell slots and feats and domains and opportunity attacks and per rest abilities and skills and so forth intact. Some of those are the things that make d&d different from other tabletop games and contribute to its feel.
> 
> This video game does not have any of  those things. It does have skill trees and skill cool downs and "magic missile III." So yeah, there is no platonic form of "d&d" and people are free to call this whatever they want but I think we can at least agree that there were more dramatic changes to the ruleset in this adaptation than 1. were expected and 2. strictly necessary to make a video game (see games above) and that A. many of the things that were removed are things that draw people to d&d games (video or otherwise) and B. many of the things added turn off some people who prefer the approach to such things taken in the tabletop rules.




Heh, I think it's obvious that we all don't agree. Which is fine. I agree that SCL is a looser adaptation of 5E than earlier games are adaptations of the earlier 2E and 3E D&D rulesets, but not significantly IMO. None of them were tight adaptations, IMO. BG was certainly more turn based with abilities that required a rest to recharge, while SCL has abilities on a cool-down . . . and if that breaks the game for you, okay. But it doesn't for me, and again I think some of the complaints/attacks on SCL are unjustified. Dislike, disappointment, fully justified, just not the claims of being an unfinished game or a game shipped differently than expectations were led to believe.


----------



## Jester David (Oct 31, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> N-Space, to my knowledge, isn't claiming that their marketing is unclear and led to false expectations. That is the complaint, or attack, of some gamers. And I strongly disagree that N-Space has been dishonest, purposefully or through neglectful marketing.



Again, they weren't dishonest. But neither did they go out of their way to temper expectations or focus on the strengths of the game. They didn't go around correcting people who expected it to be _Baldur's Gate: Redux_, which is a *huge* problem, not just for the appearance of lying but because you're not marketing to the right people. There's lots of hack-and-slash fans of action RPGs who might have dismissed this game as being too "turn based". 
Even at the time I noted the silence from the company and the lack of hard information. They were not a transparent game company. They said their talking points and then just let the fan hype build. They did nothing to manage expectations. Which probably seemed like a good thing at the time, since it was free publicity, but it should have been easy to see how it could backfire. 

But I really do feel there was something... disingenuous... about their marketing campaign. They focused on just the right phrases to make people think of BG and the like, even mentioning the CEO's relation to BioWare and DragonAge over his many other credits with other companies (he was a director, which is very managerial. And even then he was more involved in Sonic than DA:O). They really _wanted_ to attract the D&D/_Baldur's Gate_ crowd even though the game was very different. 



Dire Bare said:


> They advertised the game as a return to classic D&D RPGs . . . the only sensical way to take that claim is as a reference to D&D computer RPGs, like Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights, not any version of the p-n-p game. And as far as I'm concerned, they are 100% on that claim. If you personally don't feel that SCL lives up to classics like BG or NN, that's fair, but it is definitely the same type of game.



I find it much more like _Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance_ in that it's more inspired by D&D and is focused on multiplayer hack-and-slash against endless waves of enemies. 
The thing is, there's lots of "classic" D&D games and a wide variety of different genres and styles. You have the _Baldur's Gate_ or _Dark Sun Shattered Lands_ games but you also have the first person _Eye of the Beholder_ games, beat-em-ups, realm management, action side scroller, fighting, and so many others. They could have emphasized _what_ classic game they were emulating. Instead, they just said "classic" and hyped the DM tools and let people speculate away. 



Dire Bare said:


> I enjoyed the voice acting! Or, at least, the voice acting I've heard so far, I'm not nearly as far into the game as you are.



There are some weak voices. There are some great voice actors in the industry, and many have a fondness for D&D. Instead, they hired people who's biggest role was bit parts as unnamed characters in movies, little more than extras. Sometimes it shows, with weak or even silly readings of lines. There are still some good voices, but it's uneven and there is a lot of ridiculous accents. 
It's not the worst part of the game, but it's certainly not as praise worthy as some reviews single out. 



Dire Bare said:


> While I'm not as disappointed as you are with the game, I like your review, it's very thorough and fair!



Thanks. I'm hard and critical but I try really hard to point out both the good and bad and give fair criticisms. 


Is the game unfinished?
Y'know, I might disagree with that as well. I've played a lot more games where the end is patched or DLC. Heck, you could make that complaint regarding _Baldur's Gate II_ or _Diablo 2_ or _Dragon Age Inquisition_. The game feels fairly complete. 
Now, the DM tools are a different story. Whether or not you include them as "the game" is something else. Those are woefully incomplete and lack some basic functionality (the ability to write quest text that is more than just "accept" or "decline" for one, basic monsters, some very simple scripting, more details quests like finding or delivering an object, and the like). Plus features like being able to run though with a pregen party to test. Whether or not that counts towards the game as a whole being "unfinished" depends on if you were looking forward to running for friends or not.


----------



## JValeur (Oct 31, 2015)

It's good for all of those who enjoy SCL''s gameplay. Unfortunately, I don't. Obviously I would have loved a closer adaptation to 5e - something like DoS' with d&d rules is my wet dream - but I could have lived with these alternate mechanics had they at least been enjoyable. They aren't,  to me. Thus the campaign editor (which I loved the basic engine for, albeit fairly lacking in functionality) become useless. 

At least I can stop hoping the game will bee something it won't. I hope the rest of you enjoy it, it looks like some great improvements will be happening


----------



## discosoc (Oct 31, 2015)

Am I the only one who was turned off by the "real time combat" thing?  I never did give the game a try because of that.  Does it work better than it seems, for someone who's more into P&P RPG's than Diablo?  Or is it sort of a GM-controlled diablo game?


----------



## Henry (Oct 31, 2015)

smiteworks said:


> I disagree. It's not as tactical as it would be with a turn-based approach (my preference), but you still have similar tactics that you have in Baldur's Gate and other RTwP style games. .




I have to say, for the complaint from the reviews that it's  "not D&D", that your description of tactics just now sounded an awful lot like D&D to me.  I'm hoping that not a lot of people really had the expectation that it was going to be a faithful rule translation, because the design team interviews for months have said that it wasn't going to be a duplication of the rules. 

SCL is likely not going to be for me (all my effort and fun cash right now is going to Fallout 4) but it may pick it up in a few months, because if Morrus is to be believed, it's very similar in feel to NWN, and I was a sucker for that game back when it was released.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 31, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> Again, they weren't dishonest. But neither did they go out of their way to temper expectations or focus on the strengths of the game. They didn't go around correcting people who expected it to be _Baldur's Gate: Redux_, which is a *huge* problem, not just for the appearance of lying but because you're not marketing to the right people. There's lots of hack-and-slash fans of action RPGs who might have dismissed this game as being too "turn based".
> Even at the time I noted the silence from the company and the lack of hard information. They were not a transparent game company. They said their talking points and then just let the fan hype build. They did nothing to manage expectations. Which probably seemed like a good thing at the time, since it was free publicity, but it should have been easy to see how it could backfire.
> 
> But I really do feel there was something... disingenuous... about their marketing campaign. They focused on just the right phrases to make people think of BG and the like, even mentioning the CEO's relation to BioWare and DragonAge over his many other credits with other companies (he was a director, which is very managerial. And even then he was more involved in Sonic than DA:O). They really _wanted_ to attract the D&D/_Baldur's Gate_ crowd even though the game was very different.




I don't think it's that - I think it's more that us tableletop gamers literally aren't on their radar. I couldn't even get myself on their press mailing list, and I tried! They didn't make it for us. To them - and to the majority of folks, who don't play tabletop 5E - it _is_ very similar to Baldur's Gate or NWN. The people who would distinguish between rule sets - us - are a niche of a niche.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 31, 2015)

Morrus said:


> I don't think it's that - I think it's more that us tableletop gamers literally aren't on their radar. I couldn't even get myself on their press mailing list, and I tried! They didn't make it for us. To them - and to the majority of folks, who don't play tabletop 5E - it _is_ very similar to Baldur's Gate or NWN. The people who would distinguish between rule sets - us - are a niche of a niche.



Ok, but why does tabletop D&D seem so tied to SCL? All the APs are set on the Sword Coast and the FR source book they just released is named Sword Coast Adventurer's Handbook. In the OP of this thread N-space said it was going to put the Rage of Demon storyline in its game.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 31, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Ok, but why does tabletop D&D seem so tied to SCL? All the APs are set on the Sword Coast and the FR source book they just released is named Sword Coast Adventurer's Handbook. In the OP of this thread N-space said it was going to put the Rage of Demon storyline in its game.




That's the multimedia branding stuff. It's the brand which spans media, not the ruleset.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 31, 2015)

Morrus said:


> That's the multimedia branding stuff. It's the brand which spans media, not the ruleset.




So the brand manager wanted to make SCL appealing for the fans of the tabletop, but N-space didn't listen? With the features mentioned in the OP, it seems N-space is now extending an olive branch to the fans of the tabletop because there weren't happy.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 31, 2015)

goldomark said:


> So the brand manager wanted to make SCL appealing for the fans of the tabletop, but N-space didn't listen?




No, that's not even slightly what I said.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 31, 2015)

Morrus said:


> No, that's not even slightly what I said.




I didn't say you said that, I came to that possible explanation as something similar seem to have happened with Dungeonscape/project morningstar.


----------



## darjr (Oct 31, 2015)

And now they are trying to beef up sales by having Chris Perkins "design" random levels for it. That looks like a play for the table top niche.


----------



## Jester David (Oct 31, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Ok, but why does tabletop D&D seem so tied to SCL? All the APs are set on the Sword Coast and the FR source book they just released is named Sword Coast Adventurer's Handbook. In the OP of this thread N-space said it was going to put the Rage of Demon storyline in its game.




The idea is that people who want to see "the full story" will branch out into different aspects of the game. So people who play and enjoy _Out of the Abyss_ will check out _Neverwinter_ or _Sword Coast Legends_ to see the rest or fans of the video games will have an easier and familiar way into the tabletop game.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 31, 2015)

darjr said:


> And now they are trying to beef up sales by having Chris Perkins "design" random levels for it. That looks like a play for the table top niche.




Exactly, but I'm not sure they didn't want to tap it right from the start. It is just seems that they thought the D&D label was enough to attract the tabletop fans.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 31, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> The idea is that people who want to see "the full story" will branch out into different aspects of the game. So people who play and enjoy _Out of the Abyss_ will check out _Neverwinter_ or _Sword Coast Legends_ to see the rest or fans of the video games will have an easier and familiar way into the tabletop game.




I do not disagree with this statement, but that doesn't mean they didn't also want the appeal to the tabletop fans with the video game right from the start and this also explains why the RPG products are Sword Coast centrist. Now they realize that the video game doesn't appeal to tabletop fans, so they are scrambling to make it more sexy. 

But enoughly, I do not see this failure as necessarely a bad thing. Maybe this means WotC won't feel obligated to print Sword Coast centrist APs and will go elsewhere in the FR. Or even better yet, go out of the FR.


----------



## Jester David (Oct 31, 2015)

Henry said:


> SCL is likely not going to be for me (all my effort and fun cash right now is going to Fallout 4) but it may pick it up in a few months, because if Morrus is to be believed, it's very similar in feel to NWN, and I was a sucker for that game back when it was released.



It's not really. 
NWN was a game where you came to a chest and could either pick it open with a skilled rogue or smash it with a fighter. SCL is a game where everyone can somehow pick a lock regardless of their skill or ability scores and you just flail away at it until you succeed. 

NWN is a game with abilities and health that recharge overnight, where you pause and can rest anywhere. SCL is a game where everything is on a cooldown and if badly hurt you just drink potions or wait for the clerics heals to recharge (since her healing is free and done automatically, you just pull up another window and check ENWorld for 2-3 minutes before continuing to play). 

NWN was a tactical game where you could micromanage your character's abilities and spells on a round-by-round basis, pausing and changing tactics, and managed at-will and daily resources. SCL is a game where you use a couple choice powers and then let the party just autoattack while you watch, occasionally re-positioning if someone does something stupid or focusing fire when an enemy dies. 

NWN is a game where if you come to a locked door guarded by someone, you could pick it, break it down, trick them into letting you in, or do their stupid quest. SCL is a game where you can click the "lie" or "break down the door" text options but autofail without a roll and have to do an annoying quest that runs you back across the dungeon you *just* cleared. Twice. Even if you just plan on killing everyone beyond the door anyway. 

The game is really missing the polish and flexibility of NWN. You are very firmly on the tracks without deviation. It feels like playing in a campaign with a DM who really wants to tell you a story. 
DM: "You find the injured man who helped kidnap your contact. He says if you heal him, he'll tell you where the safehouses are."
Player: "I kill him"
DM: "You can get the cleric to heal him for free or use a healer's kit."
Player: "No, I kill him."
Dm: "Okay... um... you find a map on his body leading to the safehouses." 

Plus there's all the small gameplay annoyances. The game is just filled with small little rough edges and things that make playing it a hassle at times.


----------



## Jester David (Oct 31, 2015)

goldomark said:


> I do not disagree with this statement, but that doesn't mean they didn't also want the appeal to the tabletop fans with the video game right from the start



In theory, the market of tabletop gamers who will buy a video game is a few thousand, maybe ten thousand or so. Compared to the market of millions of video gamers. You want to cater to the video game fans first. That's understandable. I won't criticize the decision to not lose money. 

That said, there are ways of making a good D&D video game that isn't a straight rules port, is accommodating to video gamers, but has a LOT more homages and D&Disms than SCL. 



goldomark said:


> and this also explains why the RPG products are Sword Coast centrist.



I think they just wanted to double-down on a single familiar region and let other people play with the rest of the world. They settled on the Sword Coast likely before SCL began development. The TTRPG is likely why SCL is focused on that region, and not the other way around. 



goldomark said:


> Now they realize that the video game doesn't appeal to tabletop fans, so they are scrambling to make it more sexy.



Good luck for them with that. 



goldomark said:


> But enoughly, I do not see this failure as necessarely a bad thing. Maybe this means WotC won't feel obligated to print Sword Coast centrist APs and will go elsewhere in the FR. Or even better yet, go out of the FR.



Doubtful. Again, we've been on the Sword Coast since _Murder in Baldur's Gate_. And before that, at GenCon 2012, they said they wanted to focus on the Heartlands of the Realms, which is not that far from the Sword Coast. So they likely shifted their plans (or scope) slightly. Likely more for the _Neverwinter_ MMO.


----------



## smiteworks (Oct 31, 2015)

While I grew to love NWN and all the successors, I actually remember being disappointed with it at the beginning. I don't know how many other people shared that sentiment at the time, but many of us only seem to think of how well we liked the game after the 2nd and 3rd NWN products hit and helped round out and improve the experience.

Interesting reflection back on disappointment for the game:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-12-09-neverwinter-nights-retrospective

Similarly, if we go back even farther, I distinctly remember the same sort of thing for Baldur's Gate. RTwP was a poor substitute for the tactical turn-based combat that had been previously experienced in the classic goldbox games from SSI. If you've ever tried to place a fireball so that it only hit your enemies after a combat started in BG, you know what I mean. 

My main point is that the expectations for all these games is usually extremely high from the tabletop community and it is almost inevitable that there will be disappointment that the game didn't live up to expectations. With that, however, time tells us that several of these games have lived on to become classics which were enjoyed by a larger population of the gaming community. The games that outright failed were the ones where the developer only put out one game and then ditched it. The simple fact that n-Space is already planning on continued development to address many of the issues raised by consumers tells me that this game could become on that fits into the same category as NWN or BG.

Here are two games I think could have been leveraged into long-term success but weren't:
Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor
Temple of Elemental Evil

The first one is a bit more of a stretch, but most of my complaints were in the pace of the game.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 31, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> In theory, the market of tabletop gamers who will buy a video game is a few thousand, maybe ten thousand or so. Compared to the market of millions of video gamers. You want to cater to the video game fans first. That's understandable. I won't criticize the decision to not lose money.



That is one way to see it. Another is to say that 24 million people at one time played D&D and the game might have been aimed at capturing some of them. http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/wayoflife/06/08/new.dungeons.dragons/

But as Darjr's pointed out, Perkins is designing dungeon levels. Why do that if not to appeal to the tabletop fans? I'm not sure Perkins is that famous in video gamer circles and much of a draw. I could be wrong. 



> I think they just wanted to double-down on a single familiar region and let other people play with the rest of the world. They settled on the Sword Coast likely before SCL began development. The TTRPG is likely why SCL is focused on that region, and not the other way around.
> 
> Doubtful. Again, we've been on the Sword Coast since _Murder in Baldur's Gate_. And before that, at GenCon 2012, they said they wanted to focus on the Heartlands of the Realms, which is not that far from the Sword Coast. So they likely shifted their plans (or scope) slightly. Likely more for the _Neverwinter_ MMO.



That is interesting. I wonder why they would do that. It goes against what Paizo is doing with its APs and it just limits their options for no real gain. The Sword Coast is vaste, but not that diverse and a lot of iconic FR stuff ain't there. They've already tapped the Underdark and demons for a different feel and those can't be used for a while. Weird design choice if what you suggest is accurate.


----------



## Uder (Oct 31, 2015)

It's trending downward on metacritic. They need to do something or this could sink them.

Hope the next company makes a D&D game and not a D&D hedge bet.


----------



## Jester David (Oct 31, 2015)

goldomark said:


> That is one way to see it. Another is to say that 24 million people at one time played D&D and the game might have been aimed at capturing some of them. http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/wayoflife/06/08/new.dungeons.dragons/



But how many of those are willing and able to play a videogame on current gen consoles or on a PC with moderate to high reqs? 



goldomark said:


> But as Darjr's pointed out, Perkins is designing dungeon levels. Why do that if not to appeal to the tabletop fans? I'm not sure Perkins is that famous in video gamer circles and much of a draw. I could be wrong.



Because targeting the D&D fanbase is easy, and it's effectively free marketing as they don't have to pay Perkins. 



goldomark said:


> That is interesting. I wonder why they would do that. It goes against what Paizo is doing with its APs and it just limits their options for no real gain. The Sword Coast is vaste, but not that diverse and a lot of iconic FR stuff ain't there. They've already tapped the Underdark and demons for a different feel and those can't be used for a while. Weird design choice if what you suggest is accurate.



Well, the first three Paizo APs were in Varisia. And they've set two others in that rough region. If you count the entire west coast of Avistan as being equivalent to the Sword Coast, there have been 7 1/2 APs in that region. 

It's also very different as everywhere else in the Realms has seen a LOT of adventures, novels, and the like over 30 years. Many places in Golarion have never received attention. So Paizo needs to spread some love around as there hasn't been much expansion. WotC doesn't need to expand and detail, it just needs to tell stories.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 31, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> But how many of those are willing and able to play a videogame on current gen consoles or on a PC with moderate to high reqs?



I do not know, but 24 million is a lot of people. Even a fraction is a lot. I find it difficult they didn't want those. The idea of slapping the D&D logo on it is also done to get people who are familiar with the brand to buy the game.



> Because targeting the D&D fanbase is easy, and it's effectively free marketing as they don't have to pay Perkins.



And won't make much of a difference if I understand you. If I get what your saying is that the game wasn't designed with them in mind because they were too small of an audience.

I just think they wanted to appeal to fans, some of the marketing points to that, but didn't do it properly or overestimated brand loyalty. "Stick the D&D logo on it and they will come". Yeah, that worked great with 4e...



> Well, the first three Paizo APs were in Varisia. And they've set two others in that rough region. If you count the entire west coast of Avistan as being equivalent to the Sword Coast, there have been 7 1/2 APs in that region.



Those are apples and oranges. Varisia and Avistan was Golarion for a time. As you say, the FR has more than 30 years of material. 



> WotC doesn't need to expand and detail, it just needs to tell stories.



Where you set them as impact on stories. Like if you tap Thay, Mulhorand and Chult's potential for stories... Oops, they can't. Or they can write stories about plane traveling... Oops, they can't. Tapping Strahd's potential as a BBEG vampire is inaccessable. You get the idea.


----------



## Jester David (Oct 31, 2015)

goldomark said:


> I do not know, but 24 million is a lot of people. Even a fraction is a lot. I find it difficult they didn't want those. The idea of slapping the D&D logo on it is also done to get people who are familiar with the brand to buy the game.



24 million people 30 years ago. 24 million people ranging in age from 40 to 60. 
Not a great target audience for a video game.



goldomark said:


> Ehere you set them as impact on stories. Like if you tap Thay, Mulhorand and Chult's potential for stories... Oops, they can't. Or they can write stories about plane traveling... Oops, they can't. Tapping Strahd's potential as a BBEG vampire is inaccessable. You get the idea.



They can choose to move if they want, or leave those stories as ones for home games. Which is a neat idea: suddenly so long as you're away from the Sword Coast or Moonsea, you don't have to worry about official content contradicting your adventures.
Plus, few of the stories really delve into the Realms. They're generic D&D stories that happen to be set in the Realms. It seems unlikely that they'll tell a story that really requires the Realms as a setting as that's harder to move and make generic.
As for Strahd, well they told a Dragonlance and Greyhawk story in the Realms, so it doesn't seem impossible that they'd set Ravenloft there.


----------



## Henry (Oct 31, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> 24 million people 30 years ago. 24 million people ranging in age from 40 to 60.
> Not a great target audience for a video game.




Actually a lot more perfect than you think. Those 40 to 60 year olds have lots of disposable income, and play computer games a lot more than that demographic did 20 years ago. I'm 45 and play plenty of CRPGs - enough to be in that swath they want.  The 40 to 60 demographic don't just want fast cars and sports memorabilia any more - they're playing PS3 and xbox ones and computer games, and as evidenced by things like the battletech, shadowrun, and wasteland kickstarters, there's money to be made there.


----------



## Grimstaff (Nov 1, 2015)

Count me among those who were really expecting something like a 5e version of the 3e Neverwinter Nights. That game had a great combination of story and system mastery you could take to the table. Luckily I heard the truth (5e "inspired" not actually based on the rules), before I clicked that preorder button.

Why's it so hard to get games based on the actual rules anymore? They used to come out constantly for 1e/2e/3e. Now every CRPG that says "D&D" on it is nearly unrecognizable.


----------



## devincutler (Nov 1, 2015)

Doesn't DDO fit the D&D experience bill? How come it's not even being mentioned? I know it is an MMO and not a cooperative game like SCL, but really that's the place to get your D&D experience on the computer if you don't want to retrogame with BGEE or IWDEE.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Nov 1, 2015)

SCL is aimed at two types of people: current gamers and possible future gamers. 

This game is not aimed at the big numbers of hardcore video gamers for the following reasons. 

1: Big title: SCL is not a big title made by a big brand company.

2: Visual effects: Let's face it, there is nothing visually stunning about SCL. 

3: Type of game: Many many video gamers are not interested in this style anymore. They love either over the shoulder or first person. 

Most video gamers are setting their sights on titles like Fallout 4, Halo 5, Call of Duty, etc.... Not saying that games like SCL, Pillars of Eternity, and Divinty Original Sin don't sell, they just don't rack up the numbers to anywhere near the big name titles. 

The reason this game has it's sights on current and potential future gamers is because it falls in line with WoTc's current strategy of cross platform gaming and "story, story story". Drizzt is supposed to be making a big debut coming up in SCL which follows the current "Rage of Demons" storyline. They will then offer up to buy more story packs in the game as they come along. It's all tied together.


----------



## Jester David (Nov 1, 2015)

Henry said:


> Actually a lot more perfect than you think. Those 40 to 60 year olds have lots of disposable income, and play computer games a lot more than that demographic did 20 years ago. I'm 45 and play plenty of CRPGs - enough to be in that swath they want.  The 40 to 60 demographic don't just want fast cars and sports memorabilia any more - they're playing PS3 and xbox ones and computer games, and as evidenced by things like the battletech, shadowrun, and wasteland kickstarters, there's money to be made there.




At 45 you're still the young end of the spectrum. People who were <15 at the boom. College age kids would be 50+ and looming grandparents. Yeah there's some retirees who are video gamers but likely not many. Not compared to kids 10-20.


----------



## jhingelshod (Nov 1, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> Hopefully they'll also patch the rate your people say their catchphrases when you move them. Or change to the first time you click and then silence every additional click within 5 seconds.




It's a minor point, but it is possible to adjust the probability that party members say their annoying selection lines (right down to 0% if you wish!) in the options menu.

The game got a whole lot better when I discovered that.


----------



## jhingelshod (Nov 1, 2015)

EthanSental said:


> Free updates to a game I'm enjoying already is pure gold in my book!




Me too. I think it's great. Loads better than the vanilla campaign in NWN for instance.


----------



## jhingelshod (Nov 1, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> At 45 you're still the young end of the spectrum.




I'm 46 so I'll take that as a massive compliment. TYVM!


----------



## SkidAce (Nov 1, 2015)

At 51, so that makes me apprehensive I have crossed a line.


----------



## Jester David (Nov 1, 2015)

Well, do any of you 45-50-year-olds have an Xbox One or PlayStation4 at home? SCL will be launching on that soon, so that's a big market they want to tap.


----------



## darjr (Nov 1, 2015)

http://dnd.wizards.com/play-events/podcasts-livestream-games/sword-coast-legends-launch-day

the podcast about the game is out

They talk to a couple of the devs, one who also worked on Balders Gate......


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 1, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> 24 million people 30 years ago. 24 million people ranging in age from 40 to 60.
> Not a great target audience for a video game.



Not an accurate rendering of what they said. It is over the existence of D&D, which also includes people wh played recently. And that target audience is now more tech savvy, as money and might be interested in playing the tabletop game again. 

Putting the D&D logo on the game was done in part to get people familiar with the brand. Most likely players and ex-players. If n-Space  really didn't want to appeal to D&D players it was just a bad business move. And it does look like that right now.


----------



## SkidAce (Nov 1, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> Well, do any of you 45-50-year-olds have an Xbox One or PlayStation4 at home? SCL will be launching on that soon, so that's a big market they want to tap.




Yup, I sure do.

Haven't decided on this game yet however.


----------



## Grimstaff (Nov 2, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> There has never, in the history of D&D computer games, been a direct port of a D&D ruleset...  To me, this is the same crap language edition warriors throw around about whatever version of D&D is not to their liking, as in "4E is a great game, but it's not D&D." BS to that kind of talk.




I'm not sure what D&D games you've played, but as far back as Pools of Radiance, my gaming group at the time all entered our tabletop characters to play in the computer game. And as late as Neverwinter Nights, I literally recreated my 3E fighter ("Gorum the Butcher" lol) for the game, feats and all. I was hoping to do the same thing with this new game, and it has absolutely nothing to do with edition warring, or "crap language" or "BS" or however else you seem to want to disqualify a lot of people's opinions.


----------



## R_Chance (Nov 2, 2015)

I'm 57. I have played video games since the late 70s (Radio Shack TRS 80, Atari 2600, Commodore 64, Apple IIe and so on) and PnP D&D since 1974. I don't play current gen consoles however. Card carrying member of the PC master race  I pre-ordered SCL and I'm happy with it. As Smiteworks mentioned above I recall people being unhappy with NWN (and pretty much every other D&D computer / video game before and since). I loved the Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, NWN (I and II) games. I don't assume that any computer game will replicate the PnP experience.  They are adding to SCL and I'm happy with that -- specifically the tile based editor.


----------



## RedSiegfried (Nov 2, 2015)

Tile based editor and other improvements are welcome, but was there any word on being able to play with more than four people at a time?  Also, can anyone tell me how the toolset works, if at all, on a game console?

And yeah, it's not D&D, but let's face it, it's never going to be - not even close - other than in spirit.  But I could still see enjoying this game in the same way I enjoyed the toolset and MP in Vampire the Masquerade:  Redemption.  In other words, it's not D&D, but it was a decent substitute in which you had a lot of in-game resources to create a lot of different adventures.

But still, if it's in the spirit of D&D, but doesn't come close to emulating 5e, why not play a game that's also in the spirit of D&D, but closely emulates 3e?


----------



## Reinhart (Nov 2, 2015)

So here's the bad/good news for N-Space and fans of SCL:

Total customers for the game reached its lowest since release on the same day that this "State of the Game" announcement was released. However, over the Halloween weekend they finally made up for all those lost players and seem to be slowly growing again. So regardless of our feelings about this game, it seems this announcement had a positive effect. The game is still not doing well, but they finally stemmed the hemorrhaging of players demanding refunds.

Likely that's because of a couple of reasons. The negative reviews have made it clear what this game really is, and isn't, so that there are far fewer people now shocked to find out what they spent $40 on. There are probably also those still hopeful the game will eventually deliver on more of its promises.


----------



## amerigoV (Nov 2, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> Well, do any of you 45-50-year-olds have an Xbox One or PlayStation4 at home? SCL will be launching on that soon, so that's a big market they want to tap.




I am hanging just outside the target market. 46, but I have not moved to Xbone/PS4 yet (unless they give me that free one with Fallout4 from the contest I entered yesterday). I still have too much Xbox360 to play (and the games I missed over the years get cheaper all the time).

Part of the premise of SCL is really one of the reasons I have not upgraded - so many games are focused on on-line play. The Fallout4's of the world are less and less, and the Titanfalls (couple hours of campaign, the rest online) are rising. With the upgrade in tech now all the MMOs can go to the console (ESO). SCL sounds like its better than that (more single player campaign and such), but its in the same bucket.

I must be in the grumpy old man bucket - I play video games to get away from people.

But on the other hand, I have tracked the game. I am a lapsed D&Der (Savage Worlds all the way!) but if I did win that Xbone I might pick this up at a reasonable price. The fact that its not a slave to 5e rules is irrelevant to me. Heck, I still kick along with the BG2 EE and that is 2e rules - not that it matters (although I would love if spells were on a cooldown system instead of having to rest every few rooms). So I may eventually tie into the broad D&D platform WoTC is going after.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Nov 2, 2015)

Reinhart said:


> So here's the bad/good news for N-Space and fans of SCL:
> 
> Total customers for the game reached its lowest since release on the same day that this "State of the Game" announcement was released. However, over the Halloween weekend they finally made up for all those lost players and seem to be slowly growing again. So regardless of our feelings about this game, it seems this announcement had a positive effect. The game is still not doing well, but they finally stemmed the hemorrhaging of players demanding refunds.
> 
> Likely that's because of a couple of reasons. The negative reviews have made it clear what this game really is, and isn't, so that there are far fewer people now shocked to find out what they spent $40 on. There are probably also those still hopeful the game will eventually deliver on more of its promises.




Some people still tend to be a bit gullible when it comes to things like this. They think everything is okay now that the devs have "said" they are going to do XYZ.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Nov 3, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> As others have stated, this is an adaptation of the 5E ruleset, not a direct port.




That's the problem. They marketed it as a direct port. See below:

View attachment 71580

"stayed true to the actual D&D ruleset" turned out, well, not to be true. 



			
				Dire Bare said:
			
		

> There has never, in the history of D&D computer games, been a direct port of a D&D ruleset.




I give you an "F" in history, professor:

*Pool of Radiance*: character creation, combat, spellcasting, resting mechanic, and leveling all direct ports of the D&D ruleset. 
*Curse of the Azure Bonds*: character creation, combat, spellcasting, resting mechanic, and leveling all direct ports of the D&D ruleset. 
*Secret of the Silver Blades*: character creation, combat, spellcasting, resting mechanic, and leveling all direct ports of the D&D ruleset. 
*Pools of Darkness*: character creation, combat, spellcasting, resting mechanic, and leveling all direct ports of the D&D ruleset. 

*Dark Sun, Spelljammer, and Planescape: Torment* all diverged in minor ways but were very, very close to direct ports of the D&D ruleset. 

The big diversions from D&D rules began with Hillsfar and later, the Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter games. But they were still much closer to D&D than SCL.

More recently,* The Temple of Elemental Evil* brought back turn-based combat and accurately implemented D&D's character creation and spells. 



> Of course, you may not care for how N-Space adapted the 5E rules, but that does not mean that the game is *not* D&D. To me, this is the same crap language edition warriors throw around about whatever version of D&D is not to their liking, as in "4E is a great game, but it's not D&D." BS to that kind of talk.




It's reasonable for people to be disappointed when they are told they will get A, and instead receive B. The issue isn't whether SCL is a good or bad game. The issue is that SCL was positioned as a game that, quote, "*stayed true to the actual D&D ruleset.*"

It doesn't.


----------



## Dire Bare (Nov 3, 2015)

Zaruthustran said:


> It's reasonable for people to be disappointed when they are told they will get A, and instead receive B. The issue isn't whether SCL is a good or bad game. The issue is that SCL was positioned as a game that, quote, "*stayed true to the actual D&D ruleset.*"
> 
> It doesn't.




In your opinion. With which I strongly disagree. You can keep your "F" also, my colleague. 

None of the games you listed directly port the rules of D&D (any version) to the computer. Many try to get as close as possible, particularly the Gold Box series, but they do not reach 100%.

What we are arguing is the degree of fidelity to the rules, which is subjective on its own, and also subjective in its importance.

N-Space certainly has advertised fidelity to the 5E rules, but if you misinterpreted that to mean that SCL would be a direct port of the 5E rules, well, I can't help you there. SCL is most definitely an adaptation of the 5E ruleset to a video game format. The degree of fidelity is closer than some previous D&D games, and further away than some others. Apparently, it isn't close enough for you, which is fair.

To say that SCL doesn't capture the feel of 5E to you personally is a fair statement. To say that N-Space has been deceptive, and has promised something that they did not deliver, is hyperbolic edition-warrior crap-talk . . . all IMHO, of course.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Nov 3, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> In your opinion. With which I strongly disagree. You can keep your "F" also, my colleague.




Um...no.  That isn't a matter of opinion because we can look directly at the mechanics.  SCL's mechanics are not even close to 5e's mechanics.  You don't even need to look behind the scenes at the core math.  The very foundation is different.  SCL is not turned based and has skill trees for powers that don't match what the corresponding class in 5e has.  SCL also has scaleable monsters.  That's not opinion.  That's fact.



> None of the games you listed directly port the rules of D&D (any version) to the computer. Many try to get as close as possible, particularly the Gold Box series, but they do not reach 100%.




Name the significant differences.  Because as he mentioned, the video games were direct ports of the mechanics for everything he listed.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Nov 3, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> Well, do any of you 45-50-year-olds have an Xbox One or PlayStation4 at home? SCL will be launching on that soon, so that's a big market they want to tap.




I'm in my early 40s and I have a PS4.  I used to be a PC elitist.  But my recent purchase of SCL reminded me of why I have made the move to console (other than laying my old bones in a comfy couch instead of hovering in an office chair lol).  The games on consoles largely don't crash.  Not nearly at the rate of PCs games.  If I wanted to go back to the days of tweaking the autoexec.bat and confing.sys files just to get a game to run, I'd do that.  But I don't have that time anymore.  When I play a game, I want it to work reliably.  And my PC version of SCL crashed _all the time_.


----------



## Jester David (Nov 4, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> None of the games you listed directly port the rules of D&D (any version) to the computer. Many try to get as close as possible, particularly the Gold Box series, but they do not reach 100%.
> 
> What we are arguing is the degree of fidelity to the rules, which is subjective on its own, and also subjective in its importance.



That's really getting nit-picky. 
The bar isn't 100% fidelity or nothing. _Baldur's Gate_ and _Icewind Dale _were certainly closer to adhering to the 2nd Edition ruleset that, well, many of the actual games of 2e I played with friends. And much, much closer than SCL.



Dire Bare said:


> N-Space certainly has advertised fidelity to the 5E rules, but if you misinterpreted that to mean that SCL would be a direct port of the 5E rules, well, I can't help you there.



They listed three games as examples: _Baldur's Gate_, _Icewind Dale_ and _Neverwinter._ Those three out of the dozens of D&D video games. (Almost 100 all told). They didn't go with _Iron & Blood: Warriors of Ravenloft_ or _Tower of Doom_ or _Eye of the Beholder_ or even _Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance_. They went with three games that were really, really close ports of the D&D ruleset. 
That gave a false impression. To say nothing of the "gameplay and sensibilities" or "stayed true to the D&D ruleset" lines. 



Dire Bare said:


> SCL is most definitely an adaptation of the 5E ruleset to a video game format. The degree of fidelity is closer than some previous D&D games, and further away than some others. Apparently, it isn't close enough for you, which is fair.



It's pretty far away. There's a lot of cosmetic application of the rules, things with a similar name, but how much the actual ruleset is applied is small. It takes more than just using familiar terms to make things into a D&D game. 
Like having classes actually mean something.



Dire Bare said:


> To say that SCL doesn't capture the feel of 5E to you personally is a fair statement. To say that N-Space has been deceptive, and has promised something that they did not deliver, is hyperbolic edition-warrior crap-talk . . . all IMHO, of course.



They've totally been deceptive. They promised something they didn't deliver. Whether they did so intentionally or just through ignorance is another matter, but the fact remains people were led to believe they were anticipating and buying a game that was a modern take on _Baldur's Gate. 
_And, frankly, that likely hurt the game because they weren't marketing the game to people who might be interested and weren't focusing on that style of play. Had they been honest from the start they would have gotten less attention, but they wouldn't have upset as many people dragging down their rating.

So, you like the game. Okay, that's fair. No one is saying you're not allowed to find the game fun. But you don't need to defend the developers. Their degree of honesty has no bearing on your enjoyment of the game.


----------



## Dire Bare (Nov 4, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> That's really getting nit-picky.
> The bar isn't 100% fidelity or nothing. _Baldur's Gate_ and _Icewind Dale _were certainly closer to adhering to the 2nd Edition ruleset that, well, many of the actual games of 2e I played with friends. And much, much closer than SCL.




Heh, I'm seeing the "N-Space are liars" camp as the nit-pickers. But, again, clearly, we do not all agree.



> So, you like the game. Okay, that's fair. No one is saying you're not allowed to find the game fun. But you don't need to defend the developers. Their degree of honesty has no bearing on your enjoyment of the game.




So, you don't like the game. Okay, that's fair. No one is saying you're not allowed to find the game severely disappointing. But you don't need to attack the developers. Their degree of competence has total bearing on your enjoyment of the game, but doesn't need to lead to attacks of dishonesty, where there is none.

Sorry (kinda) to turn that around, but yeah, I know it's okay for me to like the game. I don't need everyone on the internet to agree with me, or validate my life choices and preferences. I just really feel all the complaints that N-Space has been deceptive to be untrue and hyperbolic. And, since I hang out on a D&D message board, that kind of over-sensitive criticism sounds exactly like the same criticisms edition warriors on all sides lobbed at each other (and sometimes still do). And that kind of attitude really, really sets me off. Should you care? Probably not. But I'm not going to apologize for seeing things the way I do, or having the opinions that I have. When I see what I consider bad behavior, I'm going to call it out. Take it and reflect on your words and actions, or ignore it as crazy-talk.


----------



## Jester David (Nov 4, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> So, you don't like the game. Okay, that's fair. No one is saying you're not allowed to find the game severely disappointing. But you don't need to attack the developers. Their degree of competence has total bearing on your enjoyment of the game, but doesn't need to lead to attacks of dishonesty, where there is none.



I don't _need_ to attack them, but their competence and honest very much _does_ have a bearing on my enjoyment of the game. I went in expecting one thing and found something else entirely. They presented the game as one thing and it was something else. That's on them. I didn't pull my assumptions and expectations from nowhere, but came to them after reading interviews, listening to podcasts, and watching previews. 

Had I gone into the game with different expectations, the same disappointment simply would not be there. I may have liked the game more, I may have liked it less, but I wouldn't feel lied to. 
I can play a game I just don't like and not attack the developers. I can say "oh, that just wasn't as fun as I was expecting" or "that was okay but not great." But this situation is different from just not liking the game. My criticisms of the game in and of itself are very different from my criticisms of the developers. 
I don't like _Sword Coast Legends_ because I find the combat static, the gameplay slow at times with no penalty for death, numerous quality of life issues, rote quests, and the like. I don't like the DM tools because they're lacking basic features even the pretty barebones _Neverwinter_ creator had. But I don't like the _developers _because they were deceptive at that colours my view of their work. 



Dire Bare said:


> I just really feel all the complaints that N-Space has been deceptive to be untrue and hyperbolic. And, since I hang out on a D&D message board, that kind of over-sensitive criticism sounds exactly like the same criticisms edition warriors on all sides lobbed at each other (and sometimes still do). And that kind of attitude really, really sets me off. Should you care? Probably not. But I'm not going to apologize for seeing things the way I do, or having the opinions that I have. When I see what I consider bad behavior, I'm going to call it out. Take it and reflect on your words and actions, or ignore it as crazy-talk.



I try to be balanced. I don't always succeed, but I try. I'm willing to point out when people read to much into a statement, even if I did so myself, and recognize that sometimes misunderstandings happen. It would be very easy to view this as a misunderstanding where N-Space just said they were making an isometric D&D game that had an adventure creator and people reading too much into that and letting their excited imaginations fill in the gaps. Which is irritating, but that blame is shared.
But the more people post on this, more more interviews I re-read and images I look at, it really looks more and more like N-space was really, really trying to imply their game was like _Baldur's Gate_. They were vague on the details and how much the gameplay was related to the rules, but this feels like purposely vague. They avoided talking about that stuff. Avoided correcting people or managing expectations. Maybe they just lacked a marketing department or a community manager to point out how this was needed, but it's still frustrating.


----------



## EthanSental (Nov 4, 2015)

Grimstaff said:


> I'm not sure what D&D games you've played, but as far back as Pools of Radiance, my gaming group at the time all entered our tabletop characters to play in the computer game. And as late as Neverwinter Nights, I literally recreated my 3E fighter ("Gorum the Butcher" lol) for the game, feats and all. I was hoping to do the same thing with this new game, and it has absolutely nothing to do with edition warring, or "crap language" or "BS" or however else you seem to want to disqualify a lot of people's opinions.




I smiled at this post since my friends that I've been playing with since the early 90s do the same and create our characters of our favorite group with any D&D type fantasy game...this one included


----------



## Dire Bare (Nov 4, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> I don't _need_ to attack them, but their competence and honest very much _does_ have a bearing on my enjoyment of the game. I went in expecting one thing and found something else entirely. They presented the game as one thing and it was something else. That's on them. I didn't pull my assumptions and expectations from nowhere, but came to them after reading interviews, listening to podcasts, and watching previews.
> 
> Had I gone into the game with different expectations, the same disappointment simply would not be there. I may have liked the game more, I may have liked it less, but I wouldn't feel lied to.
> I can play a game I just don't like and not attack the developers. I can say "oh, that just wasn't as fun as I was expecting" or "that was okay but not great." But this situation is different from just not liking the game. My criticisms of the game in and of itself are very different from my criticisms of the developers.
> ...




Jester, I do have to apologize. I still disagree strongly with the idea that N-Space has been deceptive . . . less than competent? Sure. But deceptive? No. But I do largely feel that your review and discussions of the game are pretty fair, with that one exception. And I don't think you have any desire to unfairly attack the company.

But there is a lot of that going on. And I used your post to springboard my own point-of-view further as it was simply the latest one along that line, that N-Space has been deceptive with this game.

I'm probably going to bow out on further discussion, because at this point we're all mostly going back-and-forth repeating our opinions, I'm not sure there is much more to be said. Well, I'll try. Until somebody gets me all riled up!


----------



## Jester David (Nov 4, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> I'm probably going to bow out on further discussion, because at this point we're all mostly going back-and-forth repeating our opinions, I'm not sure there is much more to be said. Well, I'll try. Until somebody gets me all riled up!



Fair enough. Good talking with you. *fistbump*


----------



## Sacrosanct (Nov 4, 2015)

EthanSental said:


> I smiled at this post since my friends that I've been playing with since the early 90s do the same and create our characters of our favorite group with any D&D type fantasy game...this one included




Me three.  Back in the day, I could reasonably port my TT PCs into the game, from the gold box series, all the way up to NWN2.  Well, not so much for the Atari's version of D&D, but I can't really blame the video game for that.

With SCL?  I can't do that with my 5e PCs.  Only vague similarities for _some_ of the classes and _some_ of the races.  Everything else is different.  Shield bash that heals?  Where is that for my level 1 fighter in 5e?  SCL is about as close to 5e's rules as Diablo was to AD&D.


----------



## amerigoV (Nov 4, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> With SCL?  I can't do that with my 5e PCs.  Only vague similarities for _some_ of the classes and _some_ of the races.  Everything else is different.  Shield bash that heals?  Where is that for my level 1 fighter in 5e?  SCL is about as close to 5e's rules as Diablo was to AD&D.




Woah! - Healing on a Hit! I like it! We need a new subboard to argue endlessly how that is or is not D&D, too gamist, etc.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Nov 4, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> N-Space certainly has advertised fidelity to the 5E rules, but if you misinterpreted that to mean that SCL would be a direct port of the 5E rules, well, I can't help you there. SCL is most definitely an adaptation of the 5E ruleset to a video game format.




When the game's marketing materials (which are not written by N-Space, necessarily) says that the game, quote, "*stayed true to the actual 5E ruleset*"... the interpretation is that the game will stay true to the 5E ruleset. That's the interpretation. A _misinterpretation_ would be to interpret "stayed true to the actual 5E ruleset" as meaning the game will be, as you say, "an adaptation of the 5E ruleset." Because that's not what the marketing materials actually said. 

Your interpretation is the misinterpretation. Seriously. Look at the image I linked in that previous post, and at the bottom of this post. The words used in the marketing material are "stayed true to the actual 5E *ruleset*." _SCL doesn't do that._ 

SCL is real-time; the "actual 5E ruleset" is turn-based.
SCL uses cooldowns; the "actual 5E ruleset" uses a rest mechanic.
SCL characters have tree-based power progression; the "actual 5E ruleset" does not.
SCL invents several powers that aren't in "the actual 5E ruleset."

And so on. 



> To say that SCL doesn't capture the feel of 5E to you personally is a fair statement. To say that N-Space has been deceptive, and has promised something that they did not deliver, is hyperbolic edition-warrior crap-talk . . . all IMHO, of course.




This isn't a matter of personal feelings. The game's marketing materials promise something the game doesn't deliver. That's not hyperbole; that's simply true. And it's why some folks are disappointed.

View attachment 71601


----------



## dd.stevenson (Nov 5, 2015)

Morrus said:


> I don't think it's that - I think it's more that us tableletop gamers literally aren't on their radar. I couldn't even get myself on their press mailing list, and I tried! They didn't make it for us. To them - and to the majority of folks, who don't play tabletop 5E - it _is_ very similar to Baldur's Gate or NWN. The people who would distinguish between rule sets - us - are a niche of a niche.




I think you're drawing the wrong conclusion. Metacrtic's list of review summaries is littered with condemnations for not staying true to the ruleset ("its clear Diablo and Dragon Age influences may rub D&D purists the wrong way") and qualifiers disclaiming any connection to the 5E ruleset ("If you don't expect the promised but mostly missing D&D rules, you'll find..."). 

It sucks that you didn't get a press kit, but whatever the reasons I think you should look elsewhere than the niche-ness of TTRPGs.


----------



## Mirtek (Nov 8, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> None of the games you listed directly port the rules of D&D (any version) to the computer. Many try to get as close as possible, particularly the Gold Box series, but they do not reach 100%.



 Trze


Dire Bare said:


> What we are arguing is the degree of fidelity to the rules, which is subjective on its own, and also subjective in its importance.



 Here I have to disagree. SCL didn't try to fiddle with how much liberty they had to take to match the rules to their game engine, SCL just decided to throw the rules out of the window and slap a D&D theme on it's own non-D&D related ruleset. It's not the difference between going for 80% rather than 100%, it's about not going for them at all.


Dire Bare said:


> SCL is most definitely an adaptation of the 5E ruleset to a video game format.



 Only if you count D&D pinball as an adaptation of the D&D ruleset to a video game format 


Dire Bare said:


> The degree of fidelity is closer than some previous D&D games



 Arena of War, Stronghold (which I adore and just typing it have to look at abandonia to re-install it) and that 2d beat'm'up 

But those were all games that didn't even try to be close to D&D but to port it into an entirely different genre


Dire Bare said:


> To say that N-Space has been deceptive, and has  promised something that they did not deliver, is hyperbolic  edition-warrior crap-talk . . . all IMHO, of course.



I expect a game to be released when it's done.

According to their own statement: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...Editor/page3&p=6745722&viewfull=1#post6745722

They're cleary far from being done. I am willing to cut them some slack, as I recognize "anybody to be able to reproduce it" to certainly be an unachievable boost. But at the moment the stated goal can not just not be done by "anyobody" but not even be done by "a reasonable percentage" of players. Given their own mission statements the tools are grossly unfinished


----------



## Sacrosanct (Nov 8, 2015)

It's pretty bad when Divinity is closer to D&D than SCL is.  At least Divinity is turn based.  And a WAAAAYYYY better game overall, IMO


----------



## Mirtek (Nov 8, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> It's pretty bad when Divinity is closer to D&D than SCL is.  At least Divinity is turn based.  And a WAAAAYYYY better game overall, IMO



 I don't even see RT as a problem. Sure, going RT you're past the point where a 100% accuracy is possible. But as several D&D games show you can marry the concept of RT with still achieving a 70-80% accuracy. SCL didn't try for it at all.


----------

