Unit-Qz52

Anyone know any numbers on console vs PC for KOTOR? I am very curious, although I place my bets on the console. Just wonder if it is even close. If it isn't I wouldn't expect things to change too much.

There are some crafty people around here. I wouldn't say anything until I was ready.

I always play under the assumption that my DM or if I am DMing that the rules are up to the DM. DnD is the groundwork and provides the system basis, but the presentation of all these things is up to the DM. The developers should have the same freedoms, and if they have to strictly adhere to everything WOTC says then I can see how it can begin to be limiting. But I don't blame DnD for this, I would blame whoever is mandating that the devs have to do something a specific way. Even under these conditions a great RPG can be made. BG 1 and 2 are probably my favorite RPG's of all time. They use DnD so I can't agree that DnD is holding RPGs back. It is other factors that hold it back. If someone disliked those games, then they might have an entirely different perspective.

I can't see how a game system, loved by thousands, maybe millions, can be holding back what an RPG can be. Every system has limitations and I firmly believe that you run into limitations with computers and/or developers before the limitations of the game system come into play. Like mentioned above by Schazzwozzer, it is a tool. New tools and faster tools will help, but they don't make a great game. The design has to be solid, the story has to entertain, and the gameplay has to be fun. All of these can be achieved with or without computers. If anyone feels that DnD is holding back better design, its because they simply don't like DnD. It is very subjective. This is not to say that I think DnD is the end all of an RPG. It is just common and has a fan base. Other systems can be made, but they still have to entertain. Lots of popular RPG's use different systems than DnD and remain fun, but if the design is poor, or the story and gameplay suck, then no matter what system you use, it won't be all it could be. Video games have the unique ability of combining interactivity with amazing fantastic visuals, something books, movies, board games, and PnP can't deliver all at once. Its a relatively new medium, and it evolves every year which can be a challenge for developers to really focus on what makes a game fun. Fun is widely percieved as new tech. New tech drives a lot of sales. I think a lot of developers and publishers feel new fancy technology has to be in place to compete. If you are setting out to make a top selling game, an RPG is probably one of the hardest genres to attempt it. Gromnir made a nice point recently in another thread about Bioware. "our biggest complaint of bio games is that they is made for the average gamer. bio tries to make the mostest number of folks happy, and inevitably that leads to a certain 'mount of mediocrity." Money can undercut a lot of good designs. Its not always the case, but seems to be more often than not. In the end though, it is up to the developer. The road to a successful game has to be travelled by them, and their decisions, ideas, and implementation determines the quality of game. Money is only an obstacle, just like time, creativity, and many others. These are what hinder RPG's, not DnD. IMO.

One of my favorite NPC characters in an RPG wouldn't be half as menacing or entertaining if it wasn't for the amazing voice work he received. I am all for NPC's of importance receiving the bulk of the funds for VO. I have to disagree with the orginal poster asking for main characters to have VO, unless the character options are few, and the story is very linear. A character with a rich history and background and has his own personality lend themselves to VO and that is fine. If I am playing a character that has no history and his future is dictated by my actions, I don't need to hear his voice. I am more interested in the NPC's voices than my own. They are the ones that need to pass themselves off as feeling alive, and immersing me into their world. I have to comment on this as well from Aaron: "I thought Final Fantasy X had a far more satisfying story than Knights of the Old Republic. KotOR - in terms of writing talent and quality of the plot outline - should have taken first place. What put FFX on top was the defined characters compared to the generic conversation options of KotOR." Final Fantasy X is a game where because of the voice acting and script, I had to quit playing. There came a moment in the game where Tidus and Yuna were talking and I literally had to refrain from throwing the controller at them. This is more of an issue with the dialogue than the voice though. Ug those pointless conversations...

That Sacred isn't a bad looking game, just looking at screenshots. I imagine that they develop the 2D environments so that you are looking at the best resolution while zoomed all the way in, then when they allow you to zoom out you don't get pixelation. I also think that game could really benefit from being 3D. A lot of the objects look pasted onto the scene (because they basically are). They tile a lot of stuff which makes me think they could have used 3D anyway. If you are tiling a lot of your image then you might as well use 3D which has the inherent limitation of tiling things to save space, but then gain all the benefits of 3D. An iso 3D scene using some of the latest lighting techniques could really be something special. I was really looking forward to what Jefferson was going to bring to the genre, the few early screens we saw were promising.

Yes I really feel that NWN is probably one of the worst examples for a 3D Isometric game. Its purposes were more for ease of editing for end users than making a beautiful game, imo.

Using NWN as an example of 3D isometric is a poor choice in my opinion. It was very modular which really limited how unique a lot of things could look. If a 3D iso game wasn't built to be modular and concentrated more on unique and interesting landscapes I am sure with today's tech that it can look just as good as prerendered environments. Is there a reason why someone would choose prerendered over 3D besides the idea that prerendered can look more unique and interesting? The other thing a 3D environment offers over prerendered is dynamic realtime FX, lighting, shadows. Much better interactivity.

I fail to see how I misunderstood his question. He asked a very vague question and I tried to go into a bit of detail while you on the other hand throw out an answer as generic as the question asked which didn't help answer the question at all. Time can do a lot of things, how about going into a bit more detail about what to do with the time?

I am sorry you have trouble reading.

Well that is why it is a near impossible question. If someone wanted they could make an RPG by themselves with Flash.

At a games simplest definition I would agree with Karzak. When you try to make a game that is a monetary success then a game being simply fun won't make the cut. It might, but its not a guarantee. My idea of a fun game might be completely different than Karzaks. I would call Baldurs Gate a really fun and great game. Many here would completely disagree and say it is a waste of time and money. At the heart of the matter though, if your game isn't fun for a lot of people...well chance of success is nearly zero. EDIT: While a game being fun is an obvious no brainer, the question that is really being asked is what does it take to bring a fun game to the masses. How do you implement fun?

I cant be a completely fair judge of Morrowind, I only played it for about 3 or 4 hours worth. What I remember is that as first person it was very hard to control. Much harder than a shooter and the accuracy was not anything close to pinpoint. It was pretty much hit or miss as I remember. Morrowind is a great example of a game that tried to go first person with third person functionality and proved to me why it still hasn't been done as well as I would like. I love first person immersiveness but melee combat has always left a bad taste.

This is a near impossible question. Games arrive on the shelves in all sorts of different states ranging from horrible to amazing. One single human can make a great game if he has the talent. If you are asking how to make the best game anyone has ever seen, well, you are asking the same question every developer would like the answer to. Probably be best to ask a developer with a near flawless track record, which is completely subjective. I would consider Blizzard to have a near flawless record, but I am sure several people even in this forum would disagree with how great their games are. I think the most obvious answers are, a great idea and a great team to implement the idea. That team has to have talent in all aspects of video game design. Artists, programmers, sound engineers, designers, testers, and management. And guess what? Even if you have all the above elements, you can still make a flop.

This is a great example of how the two concepts can be merged into a great game. I can easily see how they can be implemented on a shooter but how about in a melee style game? That is where it gets much more difficult. System shock was another game that benefited from using mods to upgrade your character on top of the players skill. Anyone know of a melee style game that has tried it or pulled if off creating fun gameplay?