Spider

I find the concept of a patch in GB size to be fascinating!

This is a tougher question to answer than I thought it would be. I mean, I know whether or not I consider a game to be cinematic when I play it, but to put words as to why... The easy answer is a game that relies on the tools, techniques and rules of the cinema to tell a story. But that doesn't really say anything. So basically games that plays like watching a movie. Or an interactive movie. This is not only about cut scenes, but they are definitely one way to create a cinematic feel. But using cut scenes alone does not a cinematic game create, it has a lot do with how the story is structured, how it's directed and so on. Examples of games I feel are cinematic: KotOR 1 & 2, Jade Empire, Fahrenheit. Examples of games that are not: The IE games, Vampire Bloodlines, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Does that help? Ah, but I didn't think NWN was very cinematic in it's storytelling. Of course it's been a long time since I played it (and I only played it once), so my memory could be flawed. But it is my impression that NWN2 definitely took this approach a lot more. Of course giving information that the character does not have isn't always flawed. Sometimes it can be used to great effect. I'm trying to not make oversweeping generalisations and say that one thing is always wrong and another is always right. I was merely stating my preference. But as you pointed out yourself, giving additional information to the player can be a really bad thing (KotOR) or really good (Jaws). I just find that it's often that it adds very little to, or detracts from, my enjoyment of a game. This following part will contain slight spoilers if you haven't played NWN2, so be warned (I feel the spoiler tag would be disruptive here). Take NWN2 for example. There were a lot of cut scenes in there that I felt the game could do without. Did we need to see Ammon Jerro kill all those noble men? And did we really need to see all the scenes with Torio and Glavius? Or even the scenes between Qara's teacher and the Hosttower mage? All of these gave me information my character had not, and spoiled the surprise for both me AND my character. Wouldn't have been much more interesting if Qara had just suddenly been attacked by shadows and you actually had to work to find out why? Now I knew why and as such I also knew there was nothing I could do about those attacks rather than to wait for the next scripted event to play out, creating a disconnect between me and my character. My character would have been surprised, then angry, and then would have turned the world upside down to find whoever was responsible. I suppose the gist of it all is that I want the focus of a CRPG to be on the character part first, the player part second and the audience part a distant third. I want to be my character as much as possible, not watch my character. And everything that creates a disconnect between me and my character is something I prefer to see less of. Just to clarify now, I actually liked NWN2. I also liked both KotORs. (Jade Empire though, not so much) So it's not that I thought including the above cut scenes ruined NWN2. But I do think they detracted from it. Edit: Also, as far as PnP is concerned, I frequently get information my character doesn't have. We typically don't send people out of the room when their character's not there, so we get to listen to each others characters do stuff by themselves. And while I'd prefer not to have that information (because it does make roleplaying trickier, but by no means impossible) it's better than the alternative. I have played a game at a convention where my character was abducted and that was a driving part of the plot, although the plot was designed that any rescue attempt would be futile. But my group didn't know this and planned elaborately and really tried. The game session was 5 hours and I spent 4 of those out of the room. It was incredibly boring. A CRPG doesn't have this problem, at least not single player. By not having me see things my character does not, it's only giving me more time of playing my character (at least more uninterrupted time).

Heh, I forgot to write about that in my last post. I do loathe cut scenes that take away control from the player, and I'm not a huge fan of the other type either. While I can tolerate those I'd prefer to be without them. Mostly I don't like to have information that my character doesn't. This is my PnP background coming into play, I think. But the more information I as a player have that my character does not, the harder it is for me to act accordingly. Not impossible by any means, just more work. But they are a typical tool of cinematic storytelling, and have their place there. Which is another reason I'd like to see more variety.

I'm actually starting to dislike cinematic storytelling in CRPGs more and more. It was kinda cool in Kotor where it felt new and fresh (not to mention very appropriate given the license). But I am not a huge fan of the technique. So I can certainly see where RP is coming from. For me it has nothing to do with cinematic story telling being unsuited for CRPGs though. When done right it can be a really fun experience. It's just not what I am looking for in my "ideal" version of an RPG. I think it places the emphasis too much on the story and storytelling techniques instead of other elements I prioritize higher. Like choice and consequences and the ability to be in control of my own character. If a game manages to include that and still deliver a good cinematic experience, then go for it. It's just that in my experience they tend to be a little at odds. Most likely due to budget constraints. It takes more effort to account for a variety of choices when delivering in a cinematic fashion. This is not to say that I dislike story driven RPGs. But there are other ways of delivering a good story. Take Torment for example. It has a fantastic story and elements of it are found everywhere in the game world. You're free to find as much of it as you like really, and it's definitely not a cinematic game (having a few cut scenes does not make a game cinematic). I just think it's unfortunate that both bigger devhouses that produce CRPGS (Obsidian and Bioware) are both leaning more and more towards that style. I mostly wish they'd mix it up a little.

So you mean it's your fault?! For shame... Jokes aside, I hope it turns out better than my instincts tell me. I'm not a huge fan of the concept as such, but will hold off judgment until I see it in effect. It worked fine in Fahrenheit though, but it's a different game and different genre altogether so I'm not sold.

Probably. I'm still hoping he gets to make a CRPG with Ninja Gaiden like player interface and planty of meaningful choices with real consequences to be made.

I am well aware of this and it was quite intentional. Freedom isn't what is most important to me, at least not where games are concerned. I actually took care to make sure that came across properly. And here is what our memories differ. Because I am under the impression that choice and consequence is what he has argued the most for (aside from balance and frame rate of course). Again, I'm not terribly comfortable putting words in JEs mouth, he is quite capable of clarifying himself if he wants to. The reason I am doing this is because from what I've seen, the game he wants to make (which is not the games he gets to make) seem to be very close to the games I want to play. You're just baiting here. But I'll bite. What then, dear Cantousent, is the most important aspect of a CRPG?

Well, I can take a little doom. Fact of the matter is that I personally hate cut scenes, so everything that criticizes them has my support almost by default. Again, I may not agree with all of your reasoning, but I do believe that cut scenes are bad. Forcing me to watch the game rather than play it can be beyond frustrating. Especially so if after the cut scene is finished I die and is forced to reload and sit through the whole thing again. If cut scenes are to be included, they must at the very least be skipable. Anyone who has played FFX can attest to this, I'm sure. As for your vocabulary and use of language, I think you're a bit too modest. I definitely didn't think you were from a non-English speaking country. Your grasp of grammar and of the language as a whole seemed fine to me (although I am not natively English-speaking myself, but I do think I'm pretty good at it). If various internet fora are anything to go by, there are certainly English speakers who are considerably worse.

To me the most important aspect is to have choices with meaningful consequences. This does not mandate freedom, however. At least not in the sense that I should be able to go anywhere at anytime and kill anyone I want. But I want to be the one in control of my character and I want the choices I do get to make to be meaningful.

I don't think JE has ever argued for freedom without effect. Given that he's said on numerous occasions that one of the things he considers most important in an RPG is for it to have meaningful choices and a game world that reacts to those choices, ie consequence. (sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth JE, at least that's what I've gotten out of what you've been saying)

I thought there were some interesting ideas in there. And some of the issues he brings up certainly is food for discussion. While I may not agree with all the assumptions or conclusions, it's still worth thinking about. My main problem with the article is the way that it's written. It's very long for an editorial piece and it reads very dense. Role-Player, you have a tendency to stuff the text with "fancy" words. While those do a great job of showcasing your vocabulary and eloquence, they do little for the readability of the piece (I am guilty of this quite a lot myself, by the way). Also, you tend to be somewhat repetitive, repeating the same argument throughout the text. I am certain you could edit the article to be about 50-66% of it's current length without losing any of your actual argumentation. Possibly even less if only the spirit of the piece is what matters. The way it currently is will only lead to more people taking the approach of Istima Loke, glancing through it, or maybe only read the first part. This is the internet, after all. While people may not be stupid (well, some are) they are typically impatient. Of course, if the codexers are your intended audience, maybe that's how they prefer to read things. I'm sure you have a better grasps of their tastes than I do.

Still, no WiFi or HD-DVD makes it a kinda depressing upgrade. Also, the HD will be sold separately for those who want it.

I never played Orpheus at all actually. There is a limit even to how many games I get to play. And yeah, hunter would be kinda bad. Everyone's a target!

There is a gift that protects against silver. Iirc it's fairly high Silver Fang or Ahroun (possibly both). Luna's Shield or something like that I think (but I could be totally off on the name. It's been several years since I even looked at Werewolf). At least Vampires doesn't have it as bad in cross-setting games as Wraiths do. If you think sleeping all day is bad, imagine being dead.

Although if the vampire is equipped with silver weaponry, it becomes a whole other story entirely. Add celerity to that and a vampire could dodge the werewolf's rage attacks, giving give the vampire the upper hand after a couple of turns (since rage runs out much quicker than blood points). But it's the silver that makes all the difference. Without that (or if the werewolf has gifts that remove that weakness), vampires do not want to go toe to toe with werewolves. As for the difficulty of cross-setting chronicles, it's certainly not impossible to play that way. I've played some cross-setting in the past myself. But the games aren't meant to be played that way and they're definitely not balanced for it. It takes a fairly tight group and preferably a storyteller with some experience for it to work properly. (also, vampires with a humanity of 7 or above does not give out the taint of Wyrm, so those could be working with werewolves that are fairly liberal minded without them getting tainted in the process)

I'm exactly the same. I had lots of fun with Oblivion, but the mere thought of playing it again makes me grit my teeth. It's probably because I played it for a bit too long trying to grind in a few extra levels before giving up on capping the character and just finished the damn game.

Believe it or not, I really wanted to like it. Really. But I just can't. To each their own. I'm certainly not trying to force my opinion on you. I mostly wanted to present another viewpoint to anyone reading this thread interested in the movie.

It's from a tech demo that was shown at conventions I believe. Or maybe just promotional screenshots.

Just make sure you post your impressions when you do.

Note that it's not a NWN2 style respawn. As in no enemies popping up right behind you. It's rather that if you kill all people in a certain area, they will eventually return. I really don't think it feels like respawning, more like other people moving in on what is now a great place to camp. I think it makes the game world feel more alive than unrealistic. Besides, exactly what areas are repopulated is somewhat random. I've had areas stay cleared where others had respawns. It's not that big of a deal and certainly not a reason not to get the game (imo).

The way you rave on about it I'd be surprised if there is a single person on this forum who hasn't heard about it, tho' the number of people having played it is another question entirely. Speaking of which, mkreku have you actually played Gothic 3 yet? And if you have, did it live up to your expectations?

Fair enough. Although for me it's unnoticeable. But I am in the habit of turning off all other programs when gaming anyway (with a few small exceptions) so Stalker is welcome to use as much memory as it sees fit.

I fiercly disagree. I think the acting is really good and the movie is fantastic. One of the best movies I've ever seen as a matter of fact. As for the concept fueling an RPG, I think it could be really interesting. I especially like the 72 hours real time idea, although it would probably be cut down to 48 or less, it's hard to not make the game feel like it drags on otherwise.

I have a fairly low end system (or, I suppose the lower part of the middle end) and while I certainly am not running all settings on high (or any for that matter), the game doesn't use that much memory. I have 1 GB RAM and 1.5 GB page file (which is the recommended ratio, locked in size) and that certainly is enough. When I have alt + tabbed out of the game, it typically uses 3-400k of RAM. I'd wish for a better graphics card (and possibly processor) so I could turn up the settings a bit, but I really wouldn't call Stalker a system hog. It doesn't even come close to Gothic 3 for instance. Now THAT game is a system hog.

I got it once. I found it in the first area while checking out a stash or something close to a cave (maybe by the railroad, the side that does not have the lightning anomaly. Not sure though) A dog-like creature came charging out of the cave and I barely managed to stay alive while gunning it down. I didn't even have the quest at the time, but the tail spawned all the same. What genre are you talking about? Post-apocalyptic? Then yeah, it's pretty good. The Zone is very atmospheric. The story isn't important (to be honest, so far I don't even really care about, except it opening new areas), but the atmosphere and gameplay are very good. As far as interactivity is concerned, you certainly play the game rather than having the game play you. But if you're referring to branching dialogues and similar, then no there is none of that (or at least very little).