The screwed up by buying a license to a beta engine. And going to Activision for publising. They should've kept the isometric turn-based style.

Did Troika ever say why they ditched Arcanum engine? I've understood that was something they developed themselves.

TOEE is built on an enhanced / modified Arcanum engine (which is why they could complete the project that quickly) - and I'd guess they might have re-used some of the code for the Fallout Style apocalyptic game they'd been trying to find a publisher for.

Can I just say: wow ToEE has many flaws even after all the patches. It's painful to play on many levels - I didn't think it would be this bad after having enjoyed Arcanum so much.

In general this game feels badly thought out in so many areas. Every aspect lacks in some respect. For example, when speaking to people, the game won't automatically pick the PC with the most speech skills or charisma. No, it picks a RANDOM team member! The dial menu is a pain to use as well, and far too clumsy and slow. Exploring is unrewarding since there's barely any loot to be found while doing so - lots of houses to enter but all empty or filled with generic people. Also, while resting, healing spells are not automatically used either.

Now, the combat is the only part that isn't badly flawed. It's not that satisfying either, though, because you're constantly in combat.

You'll find this relevant: Matt Chat 68: Arcanum and More with Tim Cain. Tim starts talking about ToEE on minute 6:11, and stops at minute 8:16. He talks about Wizards, Atari, the engine, 3.5, and patches. (Thanks again to Drelmanes for linking this in the first place.)

Yeah, that's part of what I read - the original post was like an entire page long, though. It did include why they couldn't release patches which is really unbelievable.

Wow thanks for that video. I knew a bit of that but didn't know what douches Atari had been about TOEE. That's what the say the danger of making licensed games is, you get screwed by the license holder more often than not (their experts in their IP but not necessarily in video games). If the license holder is Games Workshop, well you should just give up and start drinking before you even start, the result will be the same.

Seems like making a game based on DnD is just too much the owner of the rights meddling in. In this case Atari.

+input this URL:
=== http://www.bingshop.us ===
you can find many cheap and fashion stuff
(jor dan s-h-o-e-s)
=== http://www.bingshop.us ===
( lv h-a-n-d-b-a-g)
(cha nel w-a-l-l-e-t)
(D&G s-u-n-g-l-a-s-s-e-s)
(ed har dy j-a-c-k-e-t)
(UG G b-o-o-t)
WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT
YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!
+++ http://www.bingshop.us +++

Thanks from that. So the main issue in the whole development was, that no-one at Troika thought, that working with the rights holders might be a more difficult task than they'd been accustomed to. Cain says it himself, that he shouldn't have caved in to demands, but he did.

First off, I did not say BG1 was dumbed down, I said that the weapon proficiencies in BG1 were dumbed down, which they were. They placed all the weapons into groups as opposed to having a separate proficiency for each weapon, for example large swords for longswords, broadswords, scimitars etc. That was what I was talking about.

And no, I'm not one who thinks ruleset accuracy is essential. I actually do not like the AD&D system that much, as I am not a fan of levels and classes, prefering classless systems like GURPS, White Wolf's Storytelling system, etc instead. However, I still like ToEE simply because it did try to do things differently while still providing an authentic RPG adventure experience. I can salute their efforts and enjoy the game for what it is.