Diogo Ribeiro

You could always make it so the story was not dependant of him. If you use the old "two kingdoms at war" storyline, they can keep being at war without your input. Dynamic changes across the gameworld, oblivious to player input, can make it so the evolvement of the game doesn't need to be player-driven. You could even set up large events which would happen, and be carried out, without the player being nowhere near them. I suggest try playing a bit of Avernum 3, which in a way, does what i'm talking of. Cities can be destroyed if you don't help them, but you're not required to help them as well. This poses the problem that you can be a successful adventurer, even doing courier jobs between towns. But if you don't help them, eventually said towns will be destroyed and if you were a courier/tradesmen the destroyed cities pose a problem to your income and means of survival now. You can either decide to prevent this, or ignore it and find other means of living. Not only that, even if you do help some cities, that doesn't mean they won't suffer from other raider/monster attacks, and it doesn't mean they won't have aditional problems further on, regardless of what you did before.

True, true. I think comparing it to a movie is not exactly a correct form of comparison, because a movie is meant to be cinematic and doesn't rely on player input to move forward, so its expected of it; but a videogame relies on interactivity to be appreciated and to move forward as well. Granted. One of the things I also tend to dislike about cutscenes is that i'm a fan of the concept of conveying something's meaning displayed without flair, even if in a scripted fashion. I like the "emergent gameplay" concept and how something like interaction between me and others (or NPCs among themselves) doesn't need a cutscene at all. Quickest example being Deus Ex, which, no doubt had its long share of cutscenes but also had many occasions where NPCs were simulating conversations between themselves, and all you needed was to get close to them to hear it. This kind of approach was, in my opinion, engaging and not as irritating as a cutscene. To be honest, i don't remember many cutscenes in HL, aside the initial event. Most of what i remember from the game is just scripted events which you could be active in (although the majority of times you couldn't do anything useful), but cutscenes, nope.

Why not have the best of both worlds? A game can still be a pure RPG and be a cinematic experience. KotOR maybe overdid the cut-scenes a little, taking away control from the player too many times, but the story couldn't work without them. Technology is changing the face of RPGs, and games in general. You can do so much more now with graphics and sound that they cry out for a movie feel, and designers are only too happy to oblige. Even PS:T had a number of cut-scenes; they weren't too intrusive but they were there to further the story, like KotOR. So it certainly shows that a game need not be crippled by cinematics. Cutscenes' basic function is to further a story element when player involvement is not really at stake in the event's unfolding. Player involvement could've been the cause of it, but representation of the actual outcome is what a cutscene usually handles, or should. A cutscene becomes intrusive the minute it takes away command from the player to just show something the player could've noticed himself without a Hollywoodesque extravaganza showing it to him. Nothing wrong with cutscenes, but taking away player control when the player could either solve the situation himself, or see it for himself, is what people tend to dislike about them. If we wanted to have a cinematic experience we'd go to the movies. By the by, which cutscenes do you feel would make the story collapse if they weren't there? Which do you feel were absolutely necessary to show in cutscene form instead of giving control to players?

Most of the options are fairly easy to grasp as their names tend to make it clear what they're about. The major difference is that ToEE has more options to learn (most of which one can gradually learn, they aren't required to be learned in full from the get go). And mastering the controls isn't rocket sciencetist material either. If the tutorial didn't explained it for players (like the tutorial in KoTOR did as well), the point and click gameplay is hardly daunting.

Even without a manual, ToEE was fairly intuitive. The hyperlink system for the in-game help was very helpful.

1) Yes. 2) Which is why i pointed this out. If rules adherence is not important, then choose a system and come up with the rules as you see fit; don't buy each new ruleset and associated material. But the thing is that most people do it anyway. 3) Bioware didn't had to follow the rules because of the setting per se; they should just have took the rules closer because thats what they were working with, the rules. They could've just used, say, source material which didn't include the rules, and still make up their own. The standard company rule of giving someone a ruleset to work with and not caring what they do with it is what got us in this mess. One example of this being a problem, mostly for gamers, was of how some people were stunned at some of ToEE's rules after playing Bioware's AD&D/D&D games, which they thought to be mistakes or bugs, but were actually better implementations.

^That's good to know.... I think

The point was that this was done even before using excessive voice talent.

The "universal opinion" that the game is rubbish is not founded on its rules adherence, as well as KoTOR's success isn't based on its lack of better rules adherence. ToEE failed because of other factors and KoTOR succeeded because of other things as well. I daresay that both would have had pretty much the same results if they were not based on any rules. In the meantime... As far as rules not being "holy writ". Why is that, in the case of D&D, you've had 3 separate versions, each with their rules corrections, and whatnot? Why not just go with the initial rule system and have people change it as they wish? Shouldn't, after all, rule 0 apply on this one as well? When someone says that the rules from PnP don't translate well to a PC game, there isn't factual basis for this claim. If the presentation isn't changed in the process, nothing prevents it from working. You're basically taking an example of someone - in this case Bioware - who claims they don't successfully translate, but you're forgetting that they're not working with a correct base system. Its easy to say the system doesn't work in a PC game, but perhaps it'd be easier if people realized why: RT is the problem as it doesn't allow for a good transition of it, period. In realtime most of the D&D system falls apart, a basic example being AsoO, which someone at Bioware forgot there wasn't a reason for their existence in RT, yet they decided to include anyway. That's why they claim they have to adapt them. Sure, its their decision for their games, I have nothing I could possibly attack them with on that matter. Its their decision for their games, let them do as they wish. However there's a fine line between saying they can't successfully translate, and that they can't fir their own already made design. Which is pretty much the thing. They decide they want to go with a given system they created, then try to shove the rules of the license into it. Obviously this isn't going to work. This kind of translation never works. But don't doubt for a minute that if they developed a game with the rules as a top priority, instead of having them be the last to consider, that it'd be more rules-focused.

@ShadowPaladin V1.0: Agreed. @Gromnir:

That's a good point. Specially the second, which Bioware apparently loves doing.

Bioware Q&A is ocasionally quite bad.

Well, from what i remember, FF games were mostly linear from 1 to 4. 5 i found out i had to play it in a linear fashion, because the remaining locations weren't making sense or weren't "open". 6 i believe was fairly open to me, and 7 was initially very linear, and alternated ocasionally. 8, which is all a big blur now (surprisingly, since its quite likely my favourite of the series), also had its moments. Ragnarok was damn cool The Dress Spheres, i was told they felt more like a gimmick and were more about showing the female character's... ehem... attributes. Not having played however, can't comment much.

I never criticized his honesty (or anyone else's for that matter, that I can recall). The most i've criticized were Bioware's decisions in terms of game design. While i don't disagree with your definition, i basically state they seem adventure games because 1) much like adventure games they are centered around predefined characters with usually predetermined roles. Even Torment often feels like one for that matter. 2) they're very linear 3) they usually depend on completing one task or another to advance in the game, usually from point to point in a straight line. Sure they have other elements, but the basic premise feels like that of an adventure game. I'm not considering an adventure as something entirely revolving around solving puzzles or anything like that. I stopped playing them . I dabbled in the 10th, and haven't finished the 9th yet, but i gave up on console RPGs some time ago, so I can't see myself return to them (even if i wanted, my PSX has apparently become a piece of junkpile). I haven't played any PS2 RPG in recent times, even. I followed an acquaintance of mine playing trough Xenosaga but it felt too boring and contrived. Other recent games i just watch someone else play them. The thing i like most about the FF games were the different means of character customization. The Job and Junction system remain my favourites, though the Grid Sphere didn't seem too bad. But in game terms i became dissatisfied with the series, and don't plan on returning there.

Yeah i feel the same way on that one; Viconia felt like the only interesting romance there. Though I disliked the option of "redeeming" her, felt like I was creating another Drizzt <_< And Aerie's an insuferable **** who's only interesting when she gets a backbone, which is like, towards the end game. I accept that, however, their priorities seem too weird for the RPG genre. The genre is not really know for its mass market appeal, and trying to make mainstream RPGs ends up getting them reputation, no doubt, but their games feel more like FF games. And FF games are basically adventure games with combat and some character advancement, but are too market driven to be RPGs. Not that this means it might be a game, but its certainly not a good RPG if it focuses on non-RPG elements to sell. Yup.

Would you give a massage to your mother? [/end poor attempt at Pulp Fiction reference]

*bets money on Hades and Darque*

Pretty much like Hades_One put it, there's no point in using a ruleset if its using it carelessly. No amount of Rule 0 apologism removes that fact. Its not a question of being a carbon copy, its of questionign yourself "What can the rules do for the game that my own rules wont?". If you go with using a pre-established ruleset, then its because it fits your vision for the game; using it, but changing it shows theres something you didn't quite studied on the rules, otherwise there would not be a need to change them. A company could just as well create a SW CRPG without basing it on a specific ruleset. Bioware could do this and succeed, as the rules were not what sold the game: Bioware's name and the SW setting did.

You could always install the fanmade Concurrent Romances, i think it allowed to have people of every race and gender have romances <_< But as to that question, i don't know. Given Bioware does games for the mainstream, therefore appealing to the majority, they might also target the majority's orientation. Wouldn't surprise me.

Thats right, go for brownie points. Its easy to forget that i pointed out i talked to people who said this, and the rest i said. But for a change, since you weren't aware of anyone that said it, i was in the wrong, automatically. Try not to reduce me to your level. You want to talk of being sillly? You ask me something totally unrelated to what was being talked on the thread, based on your loose assumption of something I said. Despite me saying I'd probably be able to do it with time, you claim I said I would pull it off. Also despite claiming I could take my time, you complain about how it wasn't done little time after you asked for it (perhaps you were expecting that easy=quick?). Then you claim I was talking of something ("complete freedom to define character and compelling story") when i wasn't. Then you disregard what I post without basis for it. Need I go on, or is this enough for you to disregard again? How quaint. Thanks, but no thanks. I didn't win, and refuse that claim. What I seem to have received wass a warning as to who I shouldn't take seriously in the future. Its easy how myths are created around online personas, but in reality said personas are as fallible as they try to make others seem. I appreciate you showing me this.

Correct I talked to quite some female gamers who were absolutely let down by being stuck with Annoy-men. Hmm-hh. While that's understandable, I feel that making it accessible on some things made it collapse on others. Well, you can add variations in things without making those variations depending of everything pertaining to the character. In BG2, associating with a stat would be possible - and necessary - as there weren't skills. And stats can go the same way as skills for tracking those things. If you base a character's determination of a skill level (say you track his speech skill every 10 percentual levels until its maximum, 100), you can translate this to determining the same via a stat, from 1 to 20 (its normal maximum).

The issue is not if you're paranoid, the issue is if you're paranoid enough. :ph34r:

Yeah, keep performing for the audience, Grom.

Well that was the point, to come up with something other than amnesia. I didn't come up with a flawless solution, that's pretty much obvious, but apparently it provided something plausible. There's also a part of the game which is under control by the devs. My initial point is that character development should belong to players. Thats why i have no problems being given a character with a premade past per se, though i'd have a problem if the majority of my remaining future decisions would be taken from me. I'm free as much as possible to develop the character of TNO, despite the fact i'll be subject to some things out of my control. In this case, the construct would possibly have a memory, just no recollection of it as his task was to behave in a given way and report it to the creator. We may even be talking of a construct who purposedly erased his knowledge of the past to experience premade personalities other than his own. Or you can come up with the excuse that his memories are there, but his inner elements that binded notions of good and evil are gone, thus rendering his memory, albeit present, something he really doesn't feel his own, and can decide to explore the situations while creating new morals and definitions. Or you could drop the idea and go with a being that found the means to travel trough time, and each change he makes changes his past, thus his memory of it. Didn't McFly in Back to the Future found himself in a similar situation? I mean it worked until part 3 :D Well, did you used complex and long sentences, or short and concise? Did they have several outcomes, or no? It depends on what you'd consider easy. Like the PC example, jsut because you have 120 tweakable elements in character creation doesn't mean they need to have an outcome, or a constant use in the game. If you look at the example, BG2, you'll have mutliple dialogue lines, and they most of the time lead to the same answer. What if you reduced those various dialogue lines into merely 2 or 3, but on the other hand, replaced the single answer with two answers, each with a different outcome? If you go by the concept that writing is dialogue is a hard task, that's true - but how productive is it to write it like it was in BG2? Not much. Another of Fallout's winnign aspects is that it shows what i'm talking of - few dialogue lines with differences. There are very few long-winded answers, and fewer times when you're assaulted with answering options (unless you're asking someone information over a general topic, like asking people about citiies, at which point you're given a listing of them). That was one of his points, however, its a weird one, given BG2 is already quite replayable for its fans. If we have the concern that players do not replay games, then why include in BG2 other things to replay with? They have locations to explore, spells to choose from and use, romances, strongholds, and classes. Weird. I'm more inclined to think they didn't had the luxury of time (despite their games usually having more time and money invested than other BIS games), or that they did not had the know-how at the time, than it was because of a supposed genuine concern over how many people wouldn't replay it. Something i wouldn't mind much, if the options and dialogues were more concise, and carried weight. Don't forget the high Int for added dialogue options B) You had to gain access to the Brotherhood in the first place, which wasn't necessarily easy. Either you had a high lockpick value and an electronic lockpick, or you had to search for a Holodisk in the Glow (heavilly radiated crater with automated defense forces below). True. Although, if we use some of their own concepts, they could've bring Imoen back like they did with Sarevok (though honestly, i still wouldn't have payed attention to her, but it would be a moral issue, if she was placed in Hell*). Also, for a game that allows you to import information from your save file, they don't expand on it enough, do they? You only retain your level, name and class. They went to the point of tracking down if you killed Drizzt (because obviously Drizzt is uber important ), but not others that travelled with you. *By that, i meant that, given she was also a Child of Bhaal, could surface in Hell, exactly where Sarevok is, after she died. The game could track that. In fact, you could have her be the victim of the Selfish test. Note that i know this would remove her would-be "importance" of the main part of the narrative, but hey, i'm guessing Bioware could make some other form of assumption on behalf of the player <_<

But hell, don't just take my word for it. Source 1 Source 2 Source 3 Source 1's description of Computer Science fits the game's CG well: as in the game, you are very much bringing TNO into life by determining its stats.