Interview with Tim Cain on ToEE

And don't get me wrong. He just shouldn't (and probably didn't) manage software projects

 

*Gets in line behind "The Shiny One" while pulling on his fanboy T-shirt*

 

WHOA, WHOA, WHOA! You can't just go using terms like BASIC! Do you remember what it stands for without looking at the internet?! oke:

*edit*
I shouldn't talk really. I deserted the class and took a study hall instead when the greatest thing I could code was a simple loop that said "Mr. Meirotto likes high school boys" and left it looping at the end of class.

 

Tue 4 September 2012, Interview with Tim Cain on ToEE

http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=8416
What were the guidelines you had in mind when adapting the 3.5 D&D rules for Temple of Elemental Evil? In particular, some believe that ToEE was perhaps too rigid in its implementation of the original module. Would you agree with that kind of assessment?

We were trying to recreate the original Temple module, something that had required a group of players and a DM, in a computer game using the 3.5 rules. In hindsight, yes, I think I stayed too close to the original module, which contained a lot of nonsensical plot lines, characters and items. While we were making the game, I spent two hours each week playing tabletop D&D with the development crew, so they would see what the tabletop experience was like. I used a module of my own creation, and many of them liked it better than the Temple module. Perhaps it would have made better source material.

One event that I have rarely talked about is that during the 20 month development of Temple, I started feeling very sick, and it turned out I had a kidney stone that was failing to pass. I spent four months on pain killers while the stone worked its way out, and they certainly affected my work output. I am not putting it forth as an excuse for the problems with the game, but as more of an explanation that while Temple's schedule was very aggressive. I was not up to the task. I should have asked for more time to complete the game.

ToEE seems to be a very polarizing game. Some claim it has the best and most faithful implementation of turn- and party-based combat in a CRPG, while others harshly criticize the game’s content and encounter design. What were your goals with ToEE, and to what extent do you feel you succeeded in them? Is there a design decision implemented in the game that you could call your least favorite one?

My goal was to recreate the Temple of Elemental Evil module in a 3.5 game engine, and at that, I think we succeeded. But I like I said, I wish we had created our own source material. The engine was so good, and I think we re-created the 3.5 rules and tabletop experience very faithfully. That was not the problem with that game. The storyline, characters and dialog that I wrote were simply not up to the level that Troika had set with Arcanum.

Speaking of the criticism directed at ToEE, Hommlet seems to be one of the most widely criticized "hubs" in a CRPG. What were the main principles behind Hommlet's design, and how do you feel about it today?

Hommlet was intended to be a place to rest, buy and sell, and pick up followers. For players that did not want to rush to the moat house, Hommlet was also intended to provide enough side quests to grant a couple levels of experience to a new group. My biggest complaint with Hommlet is that I wish we had made it smaller. It had some interesting sub-stories going on, but it could have been a quarter of its size.

Temple of Elemental Evil featured what is to this day the best translation of D&D to the PC. Sadly, there only was one game using that engine. Were there any plans to keep using it for other games, or perhaps license it to other developers, in a manner similar to the Infinity and Gold Box engines?

Yes, we had great plans for that engine. For the sequel to The Temple of Elemental Evil, Troika proposed using the super-module GDQ: Queen of the Spiders, which consists of seven modules from the popular Giants and Drow series, plus the special Q-series module that completed the adventure. In fact, we were going to let the players bring their characters over from ToEE directly into the QoS, so they could simply continue playing with the same group of characters. Alternatively, we had suggested using the engine to create the long-awaited Baldur's Gate 3, and Obsidian had also expressed interest in licensing the engine to make D&D licensed games. Unfortunately, Atari never followed up on any of these proposals.

Would you like a final fight like this
with this

Code:

[CODE][CODE][CODE][CODE]

[/CODE][/CODE][/CODE][/CODE]

 

i wish

 

My friend (who introduced me to Black Isle) and I both agree that the combat in TOEE was really, really good. BG/Torment/Arcanum did feel a bit messy with the pausing and unpausing, and it was nice having everything easily laid out for you turn by turn.

And yeah, the engine could go places. I wouldn't mind seeing other games with the TOEE engine on a smartphone.

I really, really liked the combat is what I'm saying. Even if the dialogue is poop, the combat made up for it.