Capcom finally ready to talk Talisman cancellation

by Ross Miller { Nov 5th 2008 at 11:30PM }

When we last heard about the XBLA, PSN and PC versions of the board game Talisman, they were already dead in the digital waters. GiantRealm spoke with Capcom's Production Director, Adam Boyes, about what went wrong with the project. No juicy legal shenanigans, no bitter disputes between the publisher and license owner Games Workshop -- the demise came as a result of an epiphany that gamers weren't likely to set aside more than an hour for a game, especially when one session of off-the-grid Talisman could last up to five hours.

Boyes also cited the challenges of recreating the "social aspect," as well as the dilemma of lengthy turns. "As we continued to refine the concept of the game," he said, "we realized that the average gamer needed at least 60 seconds per turn to roll their dice, choose their direction, and then choose how to interact with the space they landed on. That meant that in a six player game, you would spend 80 percent of the time not doing anything."

"All of the issues I've mentioned do have solutions. The problem was we had already been developing the game for six months, and with a limited budget you have to make hard decisions," he said. While Boyes is hopeful Talisman will one day get digitized, it isn't going to be done by Capcom. The interview is a great read for those interested in the behind-the-scenes actions of the industry.

[Via Capcom Blog]

Tags: capcom, games-workshop, talisman

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

patrick @ Nov 5th 2008 11:44PM

It took them 6 months of development time to discover that the underlying game just wasn't that good. We could have told them that.

Gavin @ Nov 6th 2008 12:14AM

WRONG

Obviously you have never played one of the most popular fantasy boardgames in the history of the genre. The game itself is outstanding yet they couldn't nail the social aspects of playing such a game. Yeah, there is a lot of downtime in between your turns, but when playing with real friends that is not a bad thing. When playing against fake internet friends, I can totally see how it would hurt that aspect of the experience. Something like Uno works better because turns are next to nothing and the game is constantly moving. Talisman is not like that...it is long and involved and takes some brain usage.

hibikir @ Nov 6th 2008 12:26AM

Many of us have played Talisman, and found it to be a luck-ridden dicefest, with a lot of downtime and not enough decisions. Not only it's not a very good game, it's obviously not going to be engaging online. All the good memories when playing it live come with enjoying the company of friends. But with good friends, even a bad game is enjoyable.

Zombies will meet the same fate: There's no gameplay in there, and a lot of die rolls. It's not going to be any fun on Live. I don't understand how anyone could approve that project either.

Want a quality fantasy game? Look for a copy of Magic Realm on ebay. Or go play Titan, it's getting reprinted. If you can't handle the compexity of those two, try Descent or Duel of Ages, but don't come telling us Talisman is the end all be all of boardgames. It's mediocre.

monkeyhole @ Nov 6th 2008 2:08AM

Just because you have the patience of a baby chimp doesn't mean everyone out there does.

Talisman appeals to a huge audience that has been playing it for years. Calling the game mediocre is just plain ignorant. Believing that many people would spend money on a 'bad' game is just plain ignorant. Acknowledging that you have different tastes than the massive crowd that enjoys Talisman would be the adult way to say it.

Next time, baby chimp, try to be an adult.

Jeepers Creepers 712 @ Nov 6th 2008 11:12AM

/Believing that many people would spend money on a 'bad' game is just plain ignorant./

http://www.vgchartz.com/games/game.php?id=15668®ion=All

http://www.vgchartz.com/games/game.php?id=7212®ion=All

http://www.vgchartz.com/games/game.php?id=1744®ion=All

What were you saying?

monkeyhole @ Nov 6th 2008 12:33PM

@Jeepers:

People buying a video game because they fell for marketing and hype, versus people purchasing and continuing to play a 25 year old board game are such completely different situations that I don't even know where to start.

Chase @ Nov 6th 2008 5:52PM

@hibikir: But Zombies!!! has three exclamation points. It---has---to be good.

FAT MAN @ Nov 5th 2008 11:46PM

how does a company run out of money to add something to a game, isnt it just writing code? whats so expensive about that.

sicsided @ Nov 6th 2008 1:13AM

Getting someone who knows how to implement that code. You think it may be easy. It is not.

Tiago @ Nov 6th 2008 1:44PM

Because programmers (and artist, designers, musicians, etc...) work for free, amirite?

Ratchet8clank @ Nov 5th 2008 11:50PM

well its expensive because these people who are writing the code, fat men like you, they need money. and they also need free donuts and coffee so they can work diligently and they will rarely leave the workplace too, because i am prejudice and i say they are all fat and eat donuts and cant stop so they are forced into working, like slaves!

Dr.Nerd @ Nov 6th 2008 12:30AM

PRICE!!!!PRICE!!!!PRICE!!!!PRICE!!!!PRICE!!!!PRICE!!!!
PRICE!!!!PRICE!!!!PRICE!!!!PRICE!!!!PRICE!!!!PRICE!!!!PRICE!!!!PRICE!!!!
PRICE!!!!PRICE!!!!PRICE!!!!PRICE!!!!PRICE!!!!PRICE!!!!
PRICE!!!!PRICE!!!!PRICE!!!!PRICE!!!!PRICE!!!!PRICE!!!!
PRICE!!!!PRICE!!!!PRICE!!!!PRICE!!!!PRICE!!!!PRICE!!!!PRICE!!!!

squirtforce @ Nov 6th 2008 12:55AM

SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP

Courtney @ Nov 6th 2008 12:43AM

I remember playing hotseat strategy games on a PC years ago, where you might seriously have ten minutes between turns. We'd usually get a couple of movies or have a different game also going while playing the war game.

Can't imagine that many gamers would have the patience for something like that anymore. Hell, I don't think I would have the patience for it now.

aj @ Nov 6th 2008 5:29PM

I thought most of the fun of lengthy multiplayer games was having your mates 'round to your place and yelling at each other and eating greasy food and watching terrible movies while someone sits in the corner and contemplates their next move.

Kids these days will never know the pure joy of what I like to call a "nerd orgy".

squirtforce @ Nov 6th 2008 12:50AM

What this developer doesn't realize is that Talisman was all about waiting and complaining between turns. GO WOULD YOU GO and the like. As long as you had mics/cameras all would be fine. EAT IT EVERYONE.

Richard 2.4 @ Nov 6th 2008 5:53AM

I'd just like to point out that amount of time it takes for one player to complete a turn has absolutely no bearing on the percentage of time you'd be doing nothing.

Also, it's in a five player game you'd be spending 80% of the time doing nothing; for a six player game it'd be more like 83/84%.

zuburi @ Nov 6th 2008 2:52PM

In a seven player game, it'd be like 86%! In a 12 player game, it'd be like 92%! In a 47 player game, 98%!

Seldon @ Nov 6th 2008 6:12AM

Boardgames videogames with a system like Eye of Judgament to move, play + mics + cam and rock the world.

Roll dices in front of camera, camera recognize the roll, flsh locations to move.
Move the token like in eye, grabbing and dropping, etc.. virtual cards to draw, use with codes for cam to, again, recognize and sort them...

I think this will rock and seems not hard to do.

Mail CAPCOM with this and let them sort it out.