TOEE patch

[Mark Asher]

Interesting. According to a chat I saw linked to on Penny Arcade, Troika fixed bugs in a build that Atari didn't ship, and as of yet Atari hasn't said yes or no to paying Troika to make a patch:


<[Troika]Steve> I know locally at Troika we've made changes to the codebase and fixed bugs, there was infact a build made after the gold build that Atari chose not to go with, and we continue to work on things when we have time.
<[Troika]Tom> I hope we can make an official (or unofficial) announcement by next week
<[troika]hnguyen> as i've written earlier on the forums, everyone who is helping to report bugs and link savegames really helps A LOT!
<TimCain> Atari has not told us whether or not they want to pay for a patch, so we will have to see what we can do on our own time

[Ergo]

I'm not buying this title until there's a patch, so Atari had better buck up, dammit!

[Jaysun]

And for those of you that thought that, Yes! It was released too early, here it is straight from the Troika guys themselves:


MetalWyrm: did Atari make you publish ToEE too soon, thus leaving some of the more apparent bugs?
[Troika]Steve: Those aren't really decisions that developers get to make. It is often the job of the publisher to decide when they feel a product is ready.
[Troika]Tom: Yeah...our contract ran out with them and they didn't want to pay us further, so our money ran out...but I think we all would have liked another month on it


Looted and pillaged shamelessly from the Gonegold forums

[Mark Asher]

I can't blame Atari for not wanting to pay them more than they agreed to, but I wish something could have been worked out that would have allowed more development time.

[Qenan]

When I look at the box it says "Atari" more prominently than "Troika", so they're whom I'll blame if no patch is forthcoming...

Does the PC industry want me to buy games after they hit the bargain bin? Sometimes it seems like it...

[Jaysun]

I agree that a line needs to be drawn somewhere and as a publisher you can't just keep feeding a company money because they say they aren't ready to release. All you get then is a Duke Nukem Forever.

The big surprise for me was that Troika would have to negotiate and talk to Atari about doing a patch. I'm not really familiar with game contracts, but wouldn't you think that a company working on a game of this magnitude would try to work a patch into the contract? Maybe patching is something that isn't within the scope of game development contracts, but mammoth RPGs like these always need one. Anyone have any insight and experience in that area?

[Mark Asher]

Maybe since the scope of a patch can range from tiny to extensive, they need to be negotiated on a patch-by-patch basis?

In a sense, I would think if Troika is being partially compensated by royalties, they'd want to do a patch on their own dime if Atari didn't want to pay for it. Atari would still have to ok it, though.

[Lunch of Kong]

My first reaction to reading the interview was that Atari/Infogrames were idiots to not factor in a patch.

Then it got me thinking. During what point in the history of computer games did I come to expect all software releases to be followed by a patch?

Ultima VI played fine without a patch. So did Wing Commanders I & II. Kings Quest IV needed a "Waterfall" patch, but that alone didn't make me expect all games from that point on to fix bugs with patches. Did System Shock have a patch? I can't remember.

[Desslock]

I'm generally pro-developer, but I find Troika's insistence that it is not responsible for delivering a game that works as intended (and therefore Atari has to pay for the patch) ridiculous. If the developers had a deadline that they couldn't meet, well, they shouldn't have agreed to do so then. There's gotta be a basic warranty that their game "works", and they should do whatever it takes to ensure that's the case.

Ah, god bless these guys anyway, for being hardcore RPG guys. They couldn't be less tactful in their public statement though.

[John Keefer]

Do the existing bugs TRULY ruin the game experience? I've been playing the gold build since it first went gold and yes, there are some interesting bugs. But that still does not keep it from being extremely fun. It is not a perfect game, but if you have fun with it, isn't that the ultimate goal? It is not like some games where the bugs totally take away from the enjoyment. That said, I know everyone has their own definition of fun.

There is a lot of depth and replayability. I will be playing it quite a bit more.

[Lunch of Kong]

Do the existing bugs TRULY ruin the game experience?

Yeah, because I TRULY enjoy playing and developing munchkin* characters, and the bugs prevent me from doing that.

*seriously overpowered characters with superweapons and all the possible buffs.

[Brian Koontz]

I can't blame Atari for not wanting to pay them more than they agreed to, but I wish something could have been worked out that would have allowed more development time.

Is there anything wrong with the idea to cut their pay and allow them more time? That way the developer is penalized financially for being late yet the game still gets an impressive debut.

Why isn't being late written into the contract in the first place? Penalties should be built in, then the developer is given full freedom on when the game is released.

[Mark Asher]

I can't blame Atari for not wanting to pay them more than they agreed to, but I wish something could have been worked out that would have allowed more development time.

Is there anything wrong with the idea to cut their pay and allow them more time? That way the developer is penalized financially for being late yet the game still gets an impressive debut.

Why isn't being late written into the contract in the first place? Penalties should be built in, then the developer is given full freedom on when the game is released.

All I know about contracts is that both sides need to live up to them. Typically, the developer has payment/date milestones. You deliver a build on this date and it must have these features implemented -- that kind of thing. If the developer hits a milestone to the satisfaction of the publisher's intrepretation of the contract, the developer gets a chunk of money. And then works towards satisfying the next milestone. So yes, the developers' pay can easily be cut -- no satisfaction of milestone, no money. No money can mean halted game development, though, so it's a dicey relationship.

Games slip, as we all know, but I'd be surprised if a developer failing to meet milestones is rewarded with extra cash to fund continued development, though it has happened -- that's probably what happened with Quicksilver and MOO3. What I think happens more often than not is that the developer negotiates extra time but not extra money.

I suspect publishers are taking a harder stance with developers these days. The climate's different. Too many publishers threw money at developers like Ion Storm and Digital Anvil and got burned.

[mtkafka]

Well if ToEE was a million seller... anyway, its obvious they're not gonna patch it because its not Half Life 2 (makes less money, who cares). Atari has no incentive to pay more money for a game that probably won't sell more outside the first month of release (just a guess). Why not just 'leak' a beta patch?!? The 'we ain't getting paid, we ain't fixing it' is kind of annoying. I know game developers need money for there time, and publishers publish early... but even then, something should be worked out thats reasonable. BAh... I'm not buying it til its patched, if not... then I'll just buy it 6 months from now in clearance or soemthing.

etc

[Wheelkick]

Is there anything wrong with the idea to cut their pay and allow them more time? That way the developer is penalized financially for being late yet the game still gets an impressive debut.

Why isn't being late written into the contract in the first place? Penalties should be built in, then the developer is given full freedom on when the game is released.

Contracts often have financial 'penalties' if a developer misses a gold date (or other significant date). Those penalties can be cuts from the royalty percentage, from the final gold payment or from royalty earned or likewise. These penalties don’t stop a developer from being late, unfortunately.
And they may affect the possibilities of post release support of the game. Many times there is post release support written into a contract. But if a developer already has a financial strain because of penalties with delivering the gold master, then continuing unpaid work on post release patches puts some developers at serious financial strain.
If the developer isn't getting paid for doing a patch, then working on something that actually earns them money is a better investment in time.

edited for selplnig

[xahlt]

While the positions here are certainly understandable, it's not exactly fun to be a consumer caught between the problems of a developer and publisher. I think both sides are making a mistake: Atari has the license to do more D&D games, and they need to commit resources; Troika should realize that RPG fans trust in certain houses (Bioware/BIS/Bethesda) to create good games, and that includes patching. The consumer doesn't care who's paying, he only knows whether the game is screwed up or not.

[Desslock]

This discussion is pretty moot. There is no doubt in my mind that there will be a patch.

Frankly, like most consumers, I don't care who produces or pays for it, and i think it's kind of a cheesy move (and extremely short-sighted) by Troika to publicly discuss their disagreements with their publisher in order to deflect blame and/or use the public to put pressure on Atari.

[Kevin Grey]

I imagine Troika is putting most of their effort into Vampire: Bloodlines. I seem to remember reading that one of the reason that Troika accepted Atari's offer for TOEE was because it could be accomplished quickly by using the Arcanum engine and the old module as the design template. It seems to be a "side job" for a bit of extra cash and they likely can't continue to support it without jeapordizing the milestones of Vampire unless Atari comes through with some more cash.

[Desslock]

I seem to remember reading that one of the reason that Troika accepted Atari's offer for TOEE was because it could be accomplished quickly by using the Arcanum engine and the old module as the design template. It seems to be a "side job" for a bit of extra cash.

Whoa, that's completely wrong. TOEE is actually a dream project for the Troika guys, particularly Tim Cain. They're big D&D heads (and actually worked on a mapping tool using the Arcanum engine, which was going to be included in WotC's "e-tools"). Troika very much wants to make a sequel to TOEE.

[curst]

My first reaction to reading the interview was that Atari/Infogrames were idiots to not factor in a patch.

Then it got me thinking. During what point in the history of computer games did I come to expect all software releases to be followed by a patch?

Ultima VI played fine without a patch. So did Wing Commanders I & II. Kings Quest IV needed a "Waterfall" patch, but that alone didn't make me expect all games from that point on to fix bugs with patches. Did System Shock have a patch? I can't remember.

Not to go off on this tangent, but you mentioned two older games that I'm all too familiar with, one because I hate it so much and the other because I love it so much...

I'd argue that KQ4 didn't *NEED* that patch. Maybe other people couldn't play the game without it - I don't really know. But I never had any problems with the game in its initial version. It probably could have used a patch that made it semi-enjoyable more than anything.

Now with Ultima 6, there was an ENORMOUS bug in one of the conversations that would essentially let you completely bypass one of the largest quests in the game! I won U6 in about three days (which back then was ridiculous since, being in high school, I could only devote a tiny portion of time per day to playing games) after I bought it because of the bug, and had no idea that it was a bug until I heard about the patch sometime down the road and then discovered they had fixed the conversation in question. I just figured the game was pathetically short.*

System Shock 1, WC's 1 & 2 - all were fine without a patch as far as I know. I don't remember there being bugs in them. It doesn't mean they weren't there, but they weren't obvious the way that something like a crash-to-desktop in a Windows game is.

As to why this happens - I don't want to let devs off the hook completely, but I'd say some main factors are: it's so much easier to distribute patches thanks to the internet (no more shipping CDs to bitter customers), publishers don't fund/allow time for patches, PoR2 and Daikatana showed me how bad "conditions" for development (seemingly constant turn-over in the dev team, etc) can affect a game badly, and computer programming is much more complex. Not only are games inherently so, but factor in the myriad of hardware configurations you have to worry about... holy shit. This of course is me talking out of my ass - just guesswork on my part.


* It is also mandated by unwritten federal law that any time Ultima 6 is mentioned in any context, that someone link to http://www.it-he.org/front.htm, a totally great page of Ultima screwups. And the best thing about these is that very few of the bugs occur as a result of cheating - it's mostly just exploiting the way the Ultima engines worked.

[Jack]

The same depressing though occurred to me, Kevin. Why don't gaming journalists do a story on the inner workings of a publisher/developer relationship? Hard reporting in this growing industry would be an interesting read. The "suits" are typically maligned, but maybe a story on what really goes on might dispel those sentiments... or reinforce them. Maybe there has been such a story and I missed it.

Is there an industry paper for the gaming companies and publishers?

[Kevin Grey]

Whoa, that's completely wrong. TOEE is actually a dream project for the Troika guys, particularly Tim Cain. They're big D&D heads (and actually worked on a mapping tool using the Arcanum engine, which was going to be included in WotC's "e-tools"). Troika very much wants to make a sequel to TOEE.


Oh, I wasn't saying it was a game they didn't want to make. I've read all about their PnP sessions and TOEE's slavish adherence to the ruleset speaks volumes for their love of the material. My point was that it seems like a side job and gets corresponding priorities. It may be a labor of love but if it isn't bringing home the bacon then they can't afford to continue. Remember how despite the four month delay from gold to release for Arcanum they didn't have a day one patch ready? Even though their were numerous bugs documented (unfortunately by the warez community) they obviously didn't start working on a patch for Arcanum till Sierra funded it.

[Lunch of Kong]

People even more impatient than I am have started patching TOEE themselves.

Here's a mod to fix the "SPELL_NONE" spell requirement crafting bugs.

Apparently, the devs made some typos in the databases.


http://www.ataricommunity.com/forums/showthread.php?s=7e3d68e7652b871fd3ae487bbd82c522&threadid=320716

[olaf]

I had never heard of devs/pubs having to negotiate payment on a patch until Lionheart. And now the same thing with TToEE. Seems strange to me.

I think this thing is kind of stupid though, the business side of it anyway. The game has bugs, tons of them, hundreds even. Why wouldnt Troika feel obligated to fix them, payment for a patch or not? I mean, they got paid for the game right? Well the game is broken, so fucking fix it. If they are such hardcore D&D nuts I would expect them to want to fix it for playability's sake, as there are dozens of broken rules in the game right now.

olaf

[Desslock]

Remember how despite the four month delay from gold to release for Arcanum they didn't have a day one patch ready? Even though their were numerous bugs documented (unfortunately by the warez community) they obviously didn't start working on a patch for Arcanum till Sierra funded it.

Troika has consistently argued that it is not responsible for patches, unless it receives additional payments. Perhaps that's a term it specifically negotiated in its contracts, but it seems highly unlikely, especially since some jurisdictions prohibit contracting out of implied warranties that "your product works". Like said in a previous post, if they couldn't deliver the product in working condition within the time period they agreed to, I'm not sure how they rationalize that the publisher should pay more.


Apparently, the devs made some typos in the databases

Every game these guys have done is riddled with spelling mistakes.

[Kevin Grey]

Like said in a previous post, if they couldn't deliver the product in working condition within the time period they agreed to, I'm not sure how they rationalize that the publisher should pay more.



I love Troika and every game they have done but I wish their attitude was closer to Bioware's. Game Informer's cover story this month is on Bioware's Jade Empire and I was really impressed by Bioware's comments on their commitment to quality. They seem really determined to make every game a home run and uphold their reputation and do an excellent job learning from each game. Troika seems to be of the mindset that they will deliver "exactly what was contracted for and not one bit more". Admittedly Baldur's Gate's blockbuster sales probably granted Bioware a bit of independence.

Not to turn this into a Troika RPG vs Bioware RPG thread. I just think that TOEE's ruleset, combat engine, and artwork combined with Bioware production values would have made TOEE an all around homerun.

[Desslock]

Not to turn this into a Troika RPG vs Bioware RPG thread. I just think that TOEE's ruleset, combat engine, and artwork combined with Bioware production values would have made TOEE an all around homerun.

Completely agree - well said.

[Mark Asher]

The same depressing though occurred to me, Kevin. Why don't gaming journalists do a story on the inner workings of a publisher/developer relationship? Hard reporting in this growing industry would be an interesting read. The "suits" are typically maligned, but maybe a story on what really goes on might dispel those sentiments... or reinforce them. Maybe there has been such a story and I missed it.

Is there an industry paper for the gaming companies and publishers?

It's hard to get developers and publishers to disclose this kind of thing. Yeah, there's probably some internal bitching that goes back and forth, but it's all in a day's work, so to speak.

If you want to read some detailed accounts of game development, read some of the Behind the Game pieces at Gamespot. That might satisfy you.

[mouselock]

There's gotta be a basic warranty that their game "works", and they should do whatever it takes to ensure that's the case.

Ah, god bless these guys anyway, for being hardcore RPG guys. They couldn't be less tactful in their public statement though.

I think there's a demonstrably large gap between what "works" from a publisher viewpoint and what "works" from a consumer viewpoint.

If you can load the game and run it and complete it, it "works" from a publisher viewpoint. Very few consumers consider this to be sufficient if you have to go through all sorts of workarounds and "don't do this" type clauses, however.

[Desslock]

I think there's a demonstrably large gap between what "works" from a publisher viewpoint and what "works" from a consumer viewpoint..

I'm talking from the developer's perspective. I find it impossible to believe that they aren't contractually obligated to deliver to the publisher a completed, substantially bug-free product. I

[Mark Asher]

I think there's a demonstrably large gap between what "works" from a publisher viewpoint and what "works" from a consumer viewpoint..

I'm talking from the developer's perspective. I find it impossible to believe that they aren't contractually obligated to deliver to the publisher a completed, substantially bug-free product. I

Further, you'd think a developer would want to fix the bigger bugs regardless of any additional financial incentive simply to stay in the good graces of the publisher.

Heh -- it is weird that Troika is publicly discussing this stuff.

[Linoleum]

I'm talking from the developer's perspective. I find it impossible to believe that they aren't contractually obligated to deliver to the publisher a completed, substantially bug-free product. I

The developer is contractually obligated to deliver to the publisher a build of the game that the publisher signs off as 'final'. What this means can depend on a great many factors.

One important thing to keep in mind: the current state of the industry for third-party developers is truly brutal. I would say at this point in time, possibly as many as 50% of the teams working on a PC game will be laid off in majority of entirety within weeks of the game going gold. Scenarios like Mumbo Jumbo/Myth III and Ritual/Elite Force 2 are more and more common. Some of them are public, some of them are very well concealed.

The way most contracts are structured at the moment for an outside developer is thus: the advance on royalties split over milestones will barely cover the salary burn rate of the development team plus operational overhead.

What this means is that for a company like Troika, there is no margin for post-release support unless the publisher is willing to fund it. And by fund it, it comes out of any theoretical royalties the developer would see. If Troika asks Atari for some cash to fund a patch, they aren't asking the publisher for free money, they are asking for additional advances on their own royalties to support the product. The bottom line is that for a small company like Troika, if the publisher doesn't do such a thing, either a) the team is working on another project and maybe putting together a patch slowly in spare time or b) they are laid off.

With the exception of a precious few companies that have pulled off hits and actually managed the wring royalties beyond the advance out of their publishers, all third-party developers operate pretty much hand-to-mouth with no financial reserves for carrying salaries (80-90% of the overhead of a game development firm). This is not a fun industry, for the developer, the publisher or frequently the consumer.

Nate
(speaking soley for himself)

[Desslock]

Interesting. So since the publisher decides when to release the game, the developer has automatically satisfied that condition when the publisher decides that a build will be the "gold".


I would say at this point in time, possibly as many as 50% of the teams working on a PC game will be laid off in majority of entirety within weeks of the game going gold. Scenarios like Mumbo Jumbo/Myth III and Ritual/Elite Force 2 are more and more common. Some of them are public, some of them are very well concealed.

The industry is becoming more and more like the movie industry in that regard - where all work is project specific, and limited term contracts.


The way most contracts are structured at the moment for an outside developer is thus: the advance on royalties split over milestones will barely cover the salary burn rate of the development team plus operational overhead.

As long as developers are willing to accept those deals, the publishers will naturally keep paying as little as possible. There are obviously ways that developers gain additional bargaining power, however - track record, willingness to self-fund at least part of the development. Like the movie industry, making games -- notwithstanding the brutal hours and low pay for many developers -- is a cool enough job that companies aren't having problems attracting people under those conditions. Even in the crazy tech boom, rates didn't increase as much as they did in other software industries, because there was less of a shortage of people willing to make games.

[Wheelkick]

Interesting. So since the publisher decides when to release the game, the developer has automatically satisfied that condition when the publisher decides that a build will be the "gold".


This doesn't mean that the publisher is satisfied with the result. The publisher might want to sign of the build as "gold" because:
a) They need that particular title in a given timeframe (gotta have fresh products to sell all year. And you don't want to end up with your star product when HL2 or Doom3 ships)
b) They cannot afford to fund the project for the time that the developer really needs to finish the product. And they cannot afford cancelling the whole thing because that would lead to a total loss of all invested money. So they work out a deal with the developer in finishing priority stuff in the project (like crash bugs and major game elements), thus being able to release a more bare bone product. But still "sellable" so that some of the invested money can return in form of sales.

The publisher can sue the developer for breach of contract, but that would mean risk not getting any money from this and could leave you without a product to sell.

In my experience, developers are the ones who want the less then perfect code to be signed of as ok. Publishers are the ones sending alphas, betas and gold candidates back with lists of what must be fixed before that milestone can be considered ok. This is really noting odd since those milestones are what the developer gets paid for. And, as already stated, most developers operate with very limited funds.
There are, of course, many exceptions to this.

[Joe O'Malley]

I saw TOEE in the store the other day, and almost bought it, remembering the old module. But then I remembered the hit-or-miss quality of D&D type games over the years, so I paused. I don't want a lot of spoilers so I haven't read the other threads, but overall, how is this game? And how bad does it need that patch?

[Bill Dungsroman]

I saw TOEE in the store the other day, and almost bought it, remembering the old module. But then I remembered the hit-or-miss quality of D&D type games over the years, so I paused. I don't want a lot of spoilers so I haven't read the other threads, but overall, how is this game? And how bad does it need that patch?

To borrow from Chris Rock, how bad does a crackhead need another hit of crack? Do not buy this game until they patch it.

[JAGuarinc]

Does it need a patch? Sure. Is it buggier than the Baldur's Gates, Fallouts, and Icewind Dales out of the gate? Nope. Well, except for Item Creation. That does lead to some CTDs. That bug is annoying in the same way the car bug was in Fallout 2. If you could deal with that, you can deal with TOEE. Besides some specific rule implementations and typos it plays well. Anything else seems to be the gameplay nuisance level of catching a burst in the back from Vic or Cassidy. Like your followers grabbing so much loot they're overburdened and you have to trudge back to a merchant to get rid of it. Or Identify not doing much other than giving you the name and +'s of the item. Nothing game-breaking, just things you have to work around.

If you know your basic D&D rules and are willing to look at the manual, it's easy to play. BTW, the in-game help is quite extensive. Errr... except for that darn Item Creation.

There are a lot of little things to like in the game; the ability to pop main characters in and out of the party, idle animations, it translates the module faithfully, and later on you're able to recruit an NPC monster of a type that owned your party at lower levels.

If you're going strictly on nostalgia, and aren't a RPG addict it would probably be best to wait until a price drop or you hear about a patch. If you are an addict you can run a good party through and by the time you get done with that, a patch should be available for your evil party run through. Or vice versa.

Right now on a movie ratings level (full-price, matinee, rent, free cable) it's a matinee. Not a must have, but nice to pick up.

[Desslock]

Is it buggier than the Baldur's Gates, Fallouts, and Icewind Dales out of the gate?

It's much, much, buggier than the Baldur's Gate games were upon initial release (or Icewind Dale, for that matter). Agree it's in about the same state as the Fallout games were upon initial release, although the engine is a bit clunkier.

[TheWombat]

It's much, much, buggier than the Baldur's Gate games were upon initial release (or Icewind Dale, for that matter). Agree it's in about the same state as the Fallout games were upon initial release, although the engine is a bit clunkier.

And the link between Fallout (at least; only partly Fallout 2) and ToEE is of course the developer. Coincidence? I think not :) Don't get me wrong, I like Troika's games and the people there are great but there is something of a tradition here of buggy RPGs from Fallout to Arcanum to ToEE.

[Jakub]

At least Fallout was approachable.

Arcanum and ToEE having a stifling atmosphere.

[Kalle]

If you know your basic D&D rules and are willing to look at the manual, it's easy to play. BTW, the in-game help is quite extensive. Errr... except for that darn Item Creation.


And except for Charcter creation. The in-game help tell's absolutely nothing about what anything does when you create a character except in the vaguest possible terms. This is just a minor annoyance, cause it's all in the manual, but it begs the question why they could not have put it in the bloody game too.

[TheWombat]

I'll agree Arcanum was a (very) acquired taste, and slow to get going. ToEE is more accessible IMO simply because D&D is more familiar than the custom steampunk type setting for Arcanum, but I can't for the life of me (other than slavish adherence to the module) figure out why Troika chose to start off ToEE with an interminable and very very boring stint in Hommlet. ZZZZZZzzzzzz.

[mtkafka]

I would have loved the graphics of ToEE with Arcanum gameplay, but balanced better too. Like a few others, I'm tired of DnD mechanics.

etc

[Desslock]

Bah - there's a lot of things I loved about TOEE. I love the adaptation of D&D and the classic module, the turn-based combat, the graphics, as well as the typical Troika sense of humour in the dialogues, etc.

If there had been more a little more NPC interaction (somewhat limited by the source material, although they could have included additonal towns), and a cleaner engine with less bugs, I would have really loved this game. If they had done more in terms of making the adventure "dynamic" (having townsfolk respond to developments, or even be attacked by the Temple; having the people in Nulb respond in some of the ways suggested in the module; having the actual temple forces respond more dynamically to incursion as opposed to just waiting until you walked into their respective rooms, etc.) - it would have been all-time great RPG.

I really hope these guys get to do the Against the Giant series, and have the opportunity to address some of these points.

[Dirt]

Desslock,
It sounds like you want something more along the lines of Baldur's Gate. Troika seems not to be able to create a truly vibrant world that acts and interacts with one another. They are all about the mechanics of the game.

[Kevin Grey]

It sounds like you want something more along the lines of Baldur's Gate. Troika seems not to be able to create a truly vibrant world that acts and interacts with one another. They are all about the mechanics of the game.

I don't know about that. I thought both Fallout and Arcanum had worlds that were very vibrant and interactive. In fact, Fallout might be the benchmark regarding the gameworld reacting to player actions, particularly the ending. TOEE was a big step back in this regard but hopefully it will be back once again in Bloodlines.

[Dirt]

Did the Troika group actually write and design the story for Fallout?

[Robert Sharp]

The biggest thing I want from a patch is a gamma slide! I have to turn it up to 2.0 on my desktop. Once I do, the game looks A LOT better. I can even see inside the fog of war. Unfortunately, everything on my desktop is washed out in the meantime :).

[olaf]

These guys will have a patch out before Troika, they already have some very nice fixes posted there.

http://ussbrowarek.org/~ausir/toee/forum/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=14

olaf

[PeterGinsberg]

These guys will have a patch out before Troika, they already have some very nice fixes posted there.

http://ussbrowarek.org/~ausir/toee/forum/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=14

olaf

Was just about to post that, best place to get their patches is here:
http://greyhawk.lexx.eu.org/en/style_dark/index.php?id=mods

They seem to be working on some pretty extensive additional patches, including adding descriptions to the items.

[Desslock]

Nice. Thanks for the links, guys.

[Robert Sharp]

Ok, but won't that be incompatible with any patches that Troika does put out (if any)?

[Incendiary Lemon]

The corrected bugged items, spells should be fine. When Troika releases their own patch you can swap the fanfixes out by just deleting them. Shouldn't cause problems as there isn't any added content just tweaked values.

The brothel workaround would have to be merged with the patched version of the .dlg file.

[Desslock]

The brothel workaround would have to be merged with the patched version of the .dlg file.

So what does this add? The full area, plus NPCs/quests?

[Incendiary Lemon]

The brothel workaround would have to be merged with the patched version of the .dlg file.

So what does this add? The full area, plus NPCs/quests?

Troika took out the door reference, the brothel is still there in complete form.

Download the following file and talk with Mona, they use the conversation engine to teleport you inside.

http://members.cox.net/dhoom/00213mona.dlg

it goes in \data\dlg\

you'll need to create it


EDIT: if you've done the orb quest it may not give you the option, an oversight on the authors part.

[JAGuarinc]

You can open up the mona.dlg and add this line

{411}{I was wondering about that building behind you. What is it?}{}{1}{}{130}{}

at the appropriate place to enter the building after doing the orb quest.

[AlexxKay]

Then it got me thinking. During what point in the history of computer games did I come to expect all software releases to be followed by a patch?

Ultima VI played fine without a patch.
U6 is the first game that I remember infuriating me for losing hours of gameplay due to bugs that corrupted the game state. The one that sticks out in my memory was the half-a-ship bug, in which one of the tiles that made up your ship vanished, leaving it an an unusable state.

Almost the same thing that was seen later with Fallout 2 and the half-a-car, come to think of it...

[curst]

The bug I found in Ultima 6's initial version - if you talk to one of the gargoyles he'll mention a key-word (the ones that appear in red) that he's not supposed to mention until much later in the game after you've found both pieces of the broken tablet (which involves a LOT of dungeon exploring and so forth). That key-word allows you to ask questions about stuff you should have no idea about, and tells you about all the items you'll need to solve the final quest and how to get those items. Or at least it went something like that.

I was amazed that the game was so "short" - and later amazed that such a deceptively tiny bug could have such a huge effect on how the game is played.

(edit: I was reiterating a bunch of what I said in my earlier post in this thread)