Schazzwozzer

Releasing mod tools would only benefit the PC consumer base and I'm willing to bet that it is not the PC game market where they really raked in the cash. If that's true, it's not particularly logical to pour what could be a sizeable amounts of resources into preparing and releasing mod tools. Even if they did, I can't imagine that anything would ever be produced that would make the mod tools worthwhile. No amateur mod would have comparable voice-acting and it does not appear as though the game's 3d environments are constructed as those of NWN or Morrowind are, but rather, are specifically crafted in a 3d modelling program by a game artist. I suspect that all we would see is a lot of small-time hacks and nude packs.

The sad thing is that, while, perhaps more than anything else, I would like to see a game world that is more reactive to the player's actions, I don't think that the Odyssey engine (I believe that's what KotOR's engine is called) is built to have lots of mobile units milling about an area. There are all of these problems that crop up, terrible pathfinding and general clunky environments probably being foremost amongst them (I cringe to think what might happen with a lot of characters moving about a cramped cantina). Even if the developers did want to make the NPCs particularly reactive to the PC and his actions, I don't know if the mechanics are even in place. For example, say that the designers want to implement an area unfriendly to jedi. To this end, they want all of the NPCs to freak if the player equips his lightsaber. Are the mechanics in place to support this? Can a script check what the player has equipped? If so, how will the NPCs react? Does everyone start running away? If so, where to? Is this whole idea even practical, considering the nature of the engine? In the end though, KotOR and, I can only assume, KotOR 2 are much more adventure or puzzle games (wherein you are "playing the designer") than any kind of interactive simulation. Virtually every possibility that is allowed in KotOR has been pre-prepared. The only system the game boasts which could be considered a simulation is the combat system (and Pazaak too, I suppose), and nothing particularly interesting can happen there. The end result is that you defeat all red units or you die. It's not like a stray grenade can bring neutral units into the fight or anything.

Discreet (3d Studio Max) indeed has released a free lite version of Max, called Gmax. It has many of the same features as Max and is supposedly specifically geared towards art creation for games. I would say that someone proficient in Gmax probably knows most of what they would need to know to do professional game art in 3d Studio Max, aside from the omission of some stuff like Character Studio. For Gmax to actually be compatible with a game however, it needs a package of export scripts and other stuff generally designed by the game developers themselves. For instance, a package was released for Quake 3 compatibility with Gmax, but I don't think you could get models from Gmax into Unreal Tournament (I could be wrong though). I don't know if it's really caught on as much as Discreet would have liked though. Softimage also recently released a lite version of their 3d software compatible specifically with Half Life 2. You can check it out here. I downloaded it just to toy around in the program, but my damn cheapass monitor can't support the program's resolution requirement.

I openly question whether or not it really is true that adopting a pnp ruleset really saves so much time as compared to building one from the ground up. When you create a game using D&D, you're trying to adapt the needs, goals, and strengths of your game to a ruleset. You're building around the ruleset instead of building the ruleset around what the game should accomplish. Instead of saying, "our engine can do flying pretty well, so let's include a levitation spell", the developers have to think in terms of, "well, there's this spell. Let's see if we can get it to work in the game." On the other hand, when you're building a ruleset around what you want the game to be, it would seem that you could much more easily control the scope of the game and maintain a certain tightness in design. No half-implementation of game systems. No ridiculous stipulations or inconsistencies in the story or game logic so that a certain race/class combination can be considered viable. You do what you need to do and that's it.

I know that this thread only continues to move further and further away from the original topic, but I read something that I think relates a bit to Frank's orc/merchant scenario above. This is taken from a preview of Fable at a website called Team X-Box. Not only is it very cool that the player's choices are represented in the game world in such a manner, but how cool is it that, simply because the game's merchant prices are not static, there emerges a simplistic trading game? Whether or not it's actually a worthwhile endeavor will depend upon the importance of money (I don't know if I've ever played an RPG where money didn't, at some point, become all but obselete), but this is a fine example of how cleverly implemented mechanics (shifting values on goods and the player's ability to buy and sell) can result in some interesting world dynamics (player can buy low and sell high for profit) which ultimately means a richer experience for the player (greater player choice and exploration).

Here's the official website, by the way. It looks nice enough, but if it doesn't have significant RPG elements to back it up, I can't say I'll be particularly excited. I'm not sure if I've ever played a 3rd person game melee combat PC game that I particularly liked, save perhaps for Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver and Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, though these are chiefly thought of as console games.

I don't think that it has much to do with graphical detail (I assume that's the kind of detail you are referring to) or the size of the world. I think it has more to do with Baldur's Gate and the Infinity Engine really. Baldur's Gate established something of a status quo as far as what RPGs could and should have been. Unfortunately, if you want to do a dynamic and interactive game world, it really has to be supported by the game engine, and if there's one thing that the Infinity Engine wasn't built for, it's a dynamic, interactive environments. On top of that, the genre isn't particularly a prolific one and so there have been less opportunities for developers to stray from the norm. By the way, I feel it's worth saying that I don't necessarily think that the Ultima games were amazingly realistic world simulations or were even particularly good games. I merely applaud that Origin made it a priority to create a world that was more than pretty scenery and background. Since Origin dissolved, no RPG developers have really put the same emphasis on those game aspects, save perhaps for Pirahna Bytes (Gothic) and now, from the sound of things, Big Blue Box (Fable).

I'd love to see a virtual eco system in a single player RPG. Actually, when I started playing Gothic, for some reason I felt that there was some kind of simulated eco system (at least a respawn system) where one could actually make a species go extinct. For a long while, I made sure not to overhunt any single species so that I would have a continuous population of these creatures. Eventually I discovered that creatures I had killed weren't coming back and it was all totally static. As soon as I learned that, I went on a killing spree for the experience points. In the end, the entire prison camp was pretty much devoid of any animal wildlife. It's unfortunate that the Ultima series is no more. Not only were they a successful PC RPG franchise that was untainted and unrestricted by pen-and-paper conventions, but, as Origin's motto declared, they created worlds. RPGs of the last five years or so have unfortunately seemed more interested in creating charming characters or interesting quests or powerful equipment than setting the stage for the player to tell his own story upon.

This is but one reason that I'd like to see more robust global reputation systems in RPGs. In most RPGs, it seems like variables are only set on the PC when he makes very specific choices, generally via dialogue (your average PC RPG player can smell such choices from a mile away, I might add). If a system were to constantly collect data on the player's actions and interactions with the game world (the stuff that happens in the actual gameplay), there are any number of interesting ways that such information could be exploited, to great effect, potentially without a staggering work load.

Unfortunately, I think that most publishers consider anything approaching a "cutesy" visual style to be a liability in today's market. Consider, for example, the backlash that Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker incurred for using cel-shading or the commercial failure that Beyond Good and Evil seems to have been. As a result, the market is saturated with games that completely lack a sense of style, which is, in my opinion, much worse than having outdated or non-cutting edge graphics. By the way, I find World of Warcraft's visual style to be quite nice and I salute Blizzard for putting a pleasant spin on something that could have potentially just been boring canned fantasy, like Everquest 2 and so many similar games.

On a related note, I would be VERY interested to see how a CRPG set in modern times would fare. The accepted default setting is obviously that of Tolkien-inspired fantasy, and though it would seem to be the most popular and profitable, it's still a niche setting. There could potentially be a huge untapped playerbase out there that may find that they enjoy a good RPG if properly enticed. The school setting is very intriguing. There are a lot of things in it that could translate into to some clever design concepts, not to mention that virtually everybody knows where you're coming from with this stuff. Alas, in a perfect world...

In dance clubs or bar settings, I'd like to hear some music like this (well, maybe not classic rock, but you catch what I mean). PC RPGs in particular can be so disappointing sometimes in how sterile supposedly upbeat settings can be. I'm playing through KotOR right now and the cantinas (those that I've seen anyway) are so dull. There's a band up on the stage and they're playing and dancing, but I hear no music (or if there is music, it's VERY muted) and the crowd (if you can call it that) looks like they couldn't care less (though they do acknowledge the band's presence in dialogue). Feh.

Humorous little anecdote (and this is like thirdhand or so): I understand that when the Bioware guys were writing down descriptions for the characters' voices in KotOR, for the character of Master Vrook, they described him as sounding like Ed Asner. Well, the Lucasarts sound guy actually lived next to Ed Asner. When Bioware gets the voice recordings, they're very surprised by how much Master Vrook sounds like Ed Asner. Sure enough, it was actually Ed Asner's voice. Fun, crazy stuff, I say.

Seems to me that a female game designer, assuming she would be qualified, would be a tremendous asset to a RPG development team. There are, after all, generally quite a few females in these games we play and not so many female designers. Heck, I don't think I know of any. Granted, male designers have done some pretty decent jobs on female dialogues, but I think that a talented female would be able to bring a certain authenticity to the table. Also, the RPG is a genre that has a higher-than-average appeal to female gamers and being able to maximize that is certainly valuable. As for getting into the industry, I unfortunately have no experience to cite, but I shudder to think of the difficulty of breaking into the industry as a designer. As an artist, I'll be able to rely on my m4d skillz (and the skip in my step) to hopefully land me a job. As a designer, you're trying to get hired for the ideas bouncing around in your head, and, as this forum suggests, there are a lot of people with ideas. I guess that I would just try to immerse myself in everything I could learn about game design. Do a search on Amazon and see if any promising books turn up. I'd probably try to churn out a NWN module or three or maybe go pick up a copy of some community-heavy FPS and learn its level editor. I imagine it'd also be worthwhile to at least learn the basics of modelling and programming. Also very important (or not, I don't know) would be to show that you understand the give and take of game development. Ultimately, I think it comes down to just making a good impression, and making it clear that you truly want the job. With small development teams especially, they're not just hiring a cog in the machine, but somebody that they're going to enjoy being around and will be complementary to the team as a whole.

I see no need. Your argument that Morrowind is an action game because it tastes like action and Baldur's Gate is an RPG because it tastes like RPG is irrefutable. Teh logicks iz tew intents 4 mah brain!

It sounds to me like you're making distinctions where they don't exist. The only difference between RPG rules and the complex simulation systems present in video/computer games is that one has been built for a single human mind (a DM) and the other for a computer. The ultimate objective of both is to create a simulation representative of, generally speaking, the world in which we live, while maintaining play balance. Bulls***. I do not buy this idea that an RPG must never call upon the skill of the player. It's weak and far too arbitrary. The very second you move into the medium of computer games, the player has to excercise skill in order to achieve results. The player has to be skillful at working with the game's interface and has to have a certain amount of manual dexterity so that he isn't always misclicking or hitting the wrong keys. If I am playing Baldur's Gate and I lack the quick reflexes to hit the space bar and pause the game when I need to pause, then I'm going to be playing at a huge disadvantage because of my lack of skill. If I see that a fireball is coming my way and I quickly am able to maneuver my characters out of harm's way and minimize damage, then I just used my skill with the interface to make up for my characters' inability to dodge. Indeed, it could be argued that when I load up Unreal Tournament, I'm just telling my character where to move and when to shoot and that it's the character that has the skills; he is skilled at holding the gun straight and his agility allows him to move around quickly. Where exactly does the line get drawn? Perhaps the only kind of gameplay in which this argument might hold up is turn-based, and even then, the interface would have to be very forgiving in case the player is unskilled with a mouse or what have you. If this is what defines an RPG, then Baldur's Gate and Planescape: Torment and Neverwinter Nights and Morrowind and any other game with real-time action are not RPGs. It also means that the RPG ought to pack up its bags and go have a seat next to the Point-and-Click Adventure game, because, quite simply, its time is past. I prefer to think that the RPG still has a future though and much room to evolve.

I never suggested that convoluted simulations be put in place for everything. Some things work just fine as is and complicating the simulation further would be neither noticeable to the player or necessary. But what's the excuse for not having projectiles or fireballs or whatever that move according to real world physics and bounce and ricochet accordingly? What's the excuse for using die rolls to check if the PC is silently hidden in shadows when computers can calculate line-of-sight and light sources and how sounds moves through an environment? Why break time up into rounds if it could possibly be avoided? Basically, all I'm saying is that I think CRPG developers shouldn't be afraid to pick and choose from the ruleset, ditching rules where another algorithm could produce better results. That, and I'd really really like to see a good CRPG in true, full 3d with all of those neat things that true, full 3d worlds can do in modern video games.

I don't think that it's fair to say that D&D is holding back the CRPG genre. It's a tool to be used and, as with any tool, it works well in some instances and not so much in others. I think that a much fairer argument would be whether or not strict adherence to the preconceived notions that the D&D license brings with it is inhibitive to game design. I won't comment (at least in this post) on the subject of whether or not storyline and that sort of thing is inhibited by D&D, but I feel that from a mechanics standpoint, strict adherence is indeed stifling to game design. Put simply, many of the mechanics that make p&p D&D work so well are obselete and overly arbitrary when utilized in the video game medium. After all, look at what video games are capable of nowadays. Representational hit detection, extremely convincing physics simulations, and realistic character perception just to name a couple. Unfortunately, adherence to D&D mechanics has meant that these possibilities are ignored and so we get gameplay that, compared to that of other genres, feels outdated and will feel inconsistent and needlessly confusing to players not familiar with D&D. I think it's fair to say that D&D (or perhaps just p&p) is also responsible for the fact that "RPG" is so closely associated with strategy-style combat and gameplay. I find this unfortunate, not because I dislike strategy gameplay, but because I feel that it imposes, again, arbitrary constraints on the genre. Certainly the idea of an Action RPG is not unheard of, but the phrase carries with it something of a stigma -- that an Action RPG is somehow less than a Strategy RPG. Admittedly, the stigma is not entirely groundless considering that so many Action RPGs unnecessarily mute their RPG elements. I truly believe that there is nothing that says the depth of, say, Fallout could not be paired with the gameplay of one of the 3d Zelda games or Half-Life or, hell, whatever. If anything, I think that action-style gameplay is more conducive to a strong relation between the player and PC than the isometric squad-level real-time strategy gameplay of the Infinity engine. By the way, I am aware of Vampire: Bloodlines and Jade Empire and Fable and I await them with anticipation. I hope that one of them will show the above to be true.

So the argument being set forth is that a story with good characters and effective relationships is the best way to establish a sense of personal investment between the player and the game? Well, it certainly does work. However, the issue seems to arise that its success is almost entirely dependent on whether or not the player enjoys the characters and storyline. It's very hit and miss and I think that this is finely illustrated in the fact that some loved Final Fantasy X and some didn't. Personally, I found that I simply could not identify with the central character, Tidus, or even any of the supporting cast. Similarly, I really dug Metal Gear Solid, but I wonder just how much a female player would enjoy taking on the role of the gruff super spy man. Personal investment can also be established, however, by giving the player control and responsibility over a part of the game. This is why players become invested in games like Civilization, The Sims, and Pokemon, where character relationships and storyline are rather muted or even nonexistant (maybe less so in the latter example). Indeed, this is also at play in your average PC RPG, in that the player has a large amount of control over how the character develops and interacts with the game world. This method is also much more intrinsic to the video game medium. No movie or book can give the player the sense of being directly involved that a game can. I do agree with the sentiment that most RPG dialogue is trash though and, too often, only serves to bog down the pace of the game. I certainly wouldn't mind giving up some freedom in order to have dialogue that is enjoyable and rich. Indeed, the freedom afforded in, for example, the BG series, is ultimately rather extraneous. Sure, you can create a character that is an Elven Necromancer, but does it actually ever feel like you are an Elven Necromancer? The option is there, but it's not really supported in-game, most notably in dialogue. So, certainly, shave off some of those options if it will make for tighter dialogue. Please don't define my character too sharply for me though. Truth be told, I'd rather have a character with no personality (a la Chrono Trigger or the Zelda series) than someone to whom I can't relate at all. This, of course, changes for games where action and gameplay take the center stage. In such a case, I'm playing because the gameplay is enjoyable, not in order to immerse myself in a fictional world.

I want a sprightly and colorful 3d platformer featuring a cartoonish main character with a muted personality questing with his loveable, wise-cracking sidekick. In it, you would have to go through a number of crazy levels with ice and lava, collecting golden daisies and other assorted colored items in order to unlock the next world and proceed to the final world where you get to save the protagonist's girlfriend, who is kidnapped by some sort of anthropomorphic reptile king. No, no, I'm just kidding of course. What I really want is a really hardcore computer RPG that's totally not cliche and it takes place in a setting that's not at all cliche and is fresh and original. You shouldn't have any important quests to do because that is cliche and not realistic and the game should be completely open and I should be able to go and do anything, but there should also be a cohesive and compelling storyline that is also not at all cliche. Combat should be completely turn-based and it should be really exciting but also give me the ability to stand, kneel, and lay prone while shooting and also hang from monkey bars and do really awesome backflips while shooting. I should be able to have 35 characters on my team too, who I get to control. Also, combat should be really complex and involving but it not at all tedious or too time-consuming. It should also be really dark and serious because I am not a baby and I hate it when I'm treated that way. I HATE IT OH GOD DANM HOW I HATES IT. Also, there should be romances, because I enjoy pursuing awkward relationships with female characters that have been completely made up by male game designers. Oh yeah, and I should be able to get up to level 99, because I like high numbers. Actually, truly, seriously, what I'd really like to see is an action RPG in a fully 3d world with some good depth. Kind of like Gothic, but without the trashy gameplay and controls.