| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
It's been a couple of weeks since we looked at the Interplay boards to see what's happening with Fallout 3/Van Buren. In RPG Vault's recent <a href="http://rpgvault.ign.com/articles/436/436852p1.html" target="_blank">RPG Roundtable</a>, ex-Black Islander Chris Avellone made some comments on the advanced dialogue system Josh Sawyer had implemented for (the now shelved) Jefferson. <a href="http://www.nma-fallout.com/" target="_blank">No Mutants Allowed</a> have posted some interesting forum tidbits with Josh discussing this further and it's relevance to Van Buren:<blockquote><em>Will this feature be in Van Buren:
<br>To the extent that they were to be used in Jefferson? No, not even remotely close.
<br>Why not in Van Buren:
<br>It was my decision. The dialogues in Jefferson were extremely complex -- not in terms of sheer displayed text, but in terms of the number of nodes, node texts and replies that made the dialogues up. Dialogues varied according to a huge amount of tracked information: ability scores, skill scores, deity, race, (and sometimes skin color, hair color, and hairstyle), positive and negative reputation with six factions, and the positive and negative reps with each of those six factions' two sub-factions... and also the positive and negative reps in regions. Oh, and then the sixteen or so epithets. It was a lot to track and a lot for the designers to deal with. At times, it was overwhelming.
<br>
<br>Van Buren will still track a lot of data, and its dialogues will still check that data frequently, but not to the same extent as Jefferson. Just keep in mind that "the extent" of Jefferson was, IMO, greater (though not necessarily "better") than any RPG I've ever seen.</em></blockquote>Head over to NMA for the rest of this including info that Van Buren has more areas than BG2 and comments on the burn-out factor after working hard on Jefferson for 2 1/2 years... |
Tue Sep 09, 2003 2:27 am |
|
|
Ammon777
Warrior for Heaven
Joined: 20 Apr 2002
Posts: 2011
Location: United States |
Why exactly did they abandon the Jefferson project? anyone here know? |
|
Tue Sep 09, 2003 2:28 am |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
The short answer is (probably) that Interplay lost the appropriate D&D licensing rights for the PC.
There's a longer discussion including some background in this thread:
http://www.rpgdot.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=230718&highlight=jefferson#230718
Most of this is surmised from SEC filings and interpretation of Interplay forum posts. |
|
Tue Sep 09, 2003 3:18 am |
|
|
Jay
Fearless Paladin
Joined: 07 Jul 2001
Posts: 245
|
Wasn't it supposed to be Baldur's Gate 3, and Interplay only brought the rights to console versions of D/D titles, losing the rights to BG3? Pity, it looked amazing. |
|
Tue Sep 09, 2003 9:58 am |
|
|
Animal
Guest
|
I believe it was Jefferson that had more areas than BG2, not Van Buren. |
|
Tue Sep 09, 2003 7:06 pm |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
Yep, thanks. I must have misread it. Should have remembered from a few months back when JES commented on reducing the number of areas to somewhere between FO and FO2. |
|
Wed Sep 10, 2003 12:47 am |
|
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat Apr 20, 2019 9:36 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
