Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Dungeons & Dragons: Dark Alliance reviews are out
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8312854" data-attributes="member: 18"><p>Not normally with IP holders, especially experienced IP holders. Different ones approach it different ways.</p><p></p><p>For example, Games Workshop, who licence a lot of stuff (and used to refuse to do AAA games for fear it would steal customers from their minis), do a sort of "constantly looped in" approach but don't attempt to interfere with gameplay. In fact, they've allowed a lot of gameplay which is pretty hardcore at odds with mechanics and even setting lore. What they want is to keep the IP intact, so they don't what the actual conceptual lore and history messed with, they don't want the visual design messed with, they want consistency on how the temperaments and speech-patterns of the various races are portrayed and so on. So with Warhammer: Age of Reckoning (aka Warhammer Online, the MMORPG), for example, they had literally daily meetings and were sent any lore that was going in the game, together with concept sketches and so on. Whilst this apparently pretty stressful for the one person who had to speak to them every day, it worked well overall, and WAR came out looking and sounding complete Warhammer, but with its own gameplay and so on (which was very much a sort of mash-up of Dark Age of Camelot and World of Warcraft, as you might expect from a post-WoW game by the DAoC people).</p><p></p><p>Other companies have also successfully worked closely with them, without gameplay ever getting interfered with, just lore and visual design being ensured to be "correct.</p><p></p><p>Disney are a bit different. They're even tighter on lore/visual design if it's core Disney stuff (Mickey, Princesses, etc.) but are willing to do some incredibly wild stuff like Kingdom Hearts (basically a Final Fantasy/Disney mash-up), a little looser with Star Wars, looser still with Marvel, and they also don't interfere with gameplay or try to dictate what types of game are being made, beyond saying no to certain games at the conceptual stage but. But they will do is, if they don't like where a game is going, and they don't want it come out, they just throw a huge amount of money at the studio/publisher and tell them to shut it down. This is why there are so many unfinished AAA or AAA+ Star Wars games since Disney got the IP. Disney just goes "That's cool but nah" and shuts them down. This is pretty upsetting for individual devs and especially studio heads, but at least people get paid.</p><p></p><p>What is abnormal here is WotC apparently/allegedly trying to interfere with the gameplay/type of game it was, rather than agreeing what type of game it would be at the start and letting it go.</p><p></p><p>Now, that's actually not abnormal from another perspective, because WotC are the studio owners, i.e. effectively the publisher (possibly literally, I forget). So it's more like when Electronic Arts comes to BioWare and says "We need you to make this game more action-y!" or the like, or "This needs to be a Game-as-a-Service!" or "Keep flying in this game at all costs!".</p><p></p><p>But perhaps it shows that it might be unfortunate for an AAA dev to have the IP holder be both the IP holder AND the owner/publisher of the game.</p><p></p><p>Or maybe Tuque just made a pretty bad game. It's not exactly unbelievable, given the short timeframe involved.</p><p></p><p>Personally I was thinking it was because the game was rushed out and they didn't have time to code even half-arsed AI for bot companions.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 8312854, member: 18"] Not normally with IP holders, especially experienced IP holders. Different ones approach it different ways. For example, Games Workshop, who licence a lot of stuff (and used to refuse to do AAA games for fear it would steal customers from their minis), do a sort of "constantly looped in" approach but don't attempt to interfere with gameplay. In fact, they've allowed a lot of gameplay which is pretty hardcore at odds with mechanics and even setting lore. What they want is to keep the IP intact, so they don't what the actual conceptual lore and history messed with, they don't want the visual design messed with, they want consistency on how the temperaments and speech-patterns of the various races are portrayed and so on. So with Warhammer: Age of Reckoning (aka Warhammer Online, the MMORPG), for example, they had literally daily meetings and were sent any lore that was going in the game, together with concept sketches and so on. Whilst this apparently pretty stressful for the one person who had to speak to them every day, it worked well overall, and WAR came out looking and sounding complete Warhammer, but with its own gameplay and so on (which was very much a sort of mash-up of Dark Age of Camelot and World of Warcraft, as you might expect from a post-WoW game by the DAoC people). Other companies have also successfully worked closely with them, without gameplay ever getting interfered with, just lore and visual design being ensured to be "correct. Disney are a bit different. They're even tighter on lore/visual design if it's core Disney stuff (Mickey, Princesses, etc.) but are willing to do some incredibly wild stuff like Kingdom Hearts (basically a Final Fantasy/Disney mash-up), a little looser with Star Wars, looser still with Marvel, and they also don't interfere with gameplay or try to dictate what types of game are being made, beyond saying no to certain games at the conceptual stage but. But they will do is, if they don't like where a game is going, and they don't want it come out, they just throw a huge amount of money at the studio/publisher and tell them to shut it down. This is why there are so many unfinished AAA or AAA+ Star Wars games since Disney got the IP. Disney just goes "That's cool but nah" and shuts them down. This is pretty upsetting for individual devs and especially studio heads, but at least people get paid. What is abnormal here is WotC apparently/allegedly trying to interfere with the gameplay/type of game it was, rather than agreeing what type of game it would be at the start and letting it go. Now, that's actually not abnormal from another perspective, because WotC are the studio owners, i.e. effectively the publisher (possibly literally, I forget). So it's more like when Electronic Arts comes to BioWare and says "We need you to make this game more action-y!" or the like, or "This needs to be a Game-as-a-Service!" or "Keep flying in this game at all costs!". But perhaps it shows that it might be unfortunate for an AAA dev to have the IP holder be both the IP holder AND the owner/publisher of the game. Or maybe Tuque just made a pretty bad game. It's not exactly unbelievable, given the short timeframe involved. Personally I was thinking it was because the game was rushed out and they didn't have time to code even half-arsed AI for bot companions. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Dungeons & Dragons: Dark Alliance reviews are out
Top