Feigned Roleplaying

[alanschu]

No one is saying they expect the game to be completely different based on their minor choices.....but the fact that any of the decisions you made on Taris become irrelevant shouldn't be ignored because you could make some choices. If merely deciding which group you want to kill is enough choice for some of you...then I am surprised....because that's all the Vulkar/Bek situation was. When I sided with the Vulkars...I was hoping to have some access to Bastila and maybe free her from there, or Brejik's consent to just take her since I basically just handed him control of Lower Taris. BUT......my actions in Lower Taris had NO EFFECT on the environment at hand.....except for one excruciatingly tiny detail......instead of Brejik complaining that I cheated....he complains that he later finds out that the prisoner is a Jedi. Whoop-dee-friggin-do.

 

Not once did I hope that siding with the Vulkar's would change how the end of the game played....but since I basically swayed the entire power of lower Taris to him, there is no reason for Lower Taris to remain exactly the same way that it would be if the Beks had won.

 

 

Second of all, I have no idea where the heck GhostofAnakin got the notion that anyone wanted helping the Beks to save Taris:

 

And that's when i stated that what you propose is rediculous, since you expect a MINOR event (choosing a side in the gang war) to change the MAJOR plot of the story. Why should whether you choose the Beks or Vulkars affect whether the entire planet gets blown up? It makes no sense.

 

I just looked through the thread again, and no where do I see anyone saying Taris should be saved, so where the heck did you get this idea from? In this sense it most certainly is the Straw Man fallacy, since you are attacking a distorted view of the original point.

 

 

 

And to go to your Fallout example, based on how I play in New Reno.....the end of the game actually is affected. After defeating Frank Horrigan, you get the end game summaries of what happens to all the places shortly after the fact. New Reno actually has a large variety of possible endings, based on how you play. In fact...it has the most...10 variations.

 

1. Everyone is dead: Accomplished by killing all 4 of the bosses

2. Tribal uprising: Impregnate Mrs. Bishop or her daughter, and tell Mrs. Bishop to move on

3. Bishop Child: Same as above...but without telling Mrs. Bishop to move on.

4,5,6....Bishops/Salvatores/Mordinos rule

7. Mordino's power Reigns

8. Wright's seize power violently

9. Wright's attack Mordinos and get slaughtered.

10. Wright's rule fairly.

 

This is in addition to further elaboration on the murder of Richard Wright and Myron.

 

There are a variety of ways to make sure that one family does or does not gain power.

 

Sure, it doesn't change the way any of the game is played, but your actions in specific towns do affect how the epilogues of each city turn out. In this sense, the choice presented to the player becomes one of some meaning, since it did actually affect something. Blowing up Taris afterwards was a convenient way of making any decisions irrelevant. It worked with the story so I didn't mind a whole lot though.

 

[spoilerS]The destruction of Dantooine once you learn that you are Revan is also pretty convenient....meant they didn't need to go back and change the way the Council spoke with you.....a little lazy IMO, but it worked within the confines of the story so I don't hold it against them[/spoilerS]

[Aegeri]

I just looked through the thread again, and no where do I see anyone saying Taris should be saved, so where the heck did you get this idea from? In this sense it most certainly is the Straw Man fallacy, since you are attacking a distorted view of the original point.

 

Yeah, I noted that as well.

 

This is a great summary of my argument (and others it seems).

 

I think the real issue here (alright, I don't care what the issue is here; the issue with ME) is not that your little decisions don't affect the huge plot; I can take that. My problem is that my little decisions don't affect the game world

[GhostofAnakin]

My entire point is, that your choice to support one or the other gangs is rendered meaningless by the fact they are both (ultimately) reduced to ashes by the sith fleet. Despite who you ultimately decide to kill off (and there are no other resolutions btw, you pretty much slaughter your way through one or both gangs), they are killed ANYWAY by the fleet. In other words, what you did has no effect on the gameworld or the individual planet. As I said in my basic example, if you aided the Beks (who are clearly a bit saner than the vulkars), then a potential resolution could have been that the undercity became a refuge for many from the oppressive sith occupation or for aliens from humans xenophobia. This would of actually been a RESOLUTION, and would of affected the gameworld and ultimately the ending story as your actions come to a tangible result. As mentioned earlier however, again, your choice is rendered meaningless by the planets destruction. You might as well have chosen to do nothing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Second of all, I have no idea where the heck GhostofAnakin got the notion that anyone wanted helping the Beks to save Taris:

 

And that's when i stated that what you propose is rediculous, since you expect a MINOR event (choosing a side in the gang war) to change the MAJOR plot of the story. Why should whether you choose the Beks or Vulkars affect whether the entire planet gets blown up? It makes no sense.

 

I just looked through the thread again, and no where do I see anyone saying Taris should be saved, so where the heck did you get this idea from? In this sense it most certainly is the Straw Man fallacy, since you are attacking a distorted view of the original point.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The guy I was debating with made the point that Taris is destroyed regardless of whether you side with the Beks or Vulkars. I was responding to that statement, since it inferred that which gang you chose should have had some kind of bigger impact on whether or not Taris got destroyed. I know that he didn't say that which gang you chose should decide whether Taris got bombed, but he brought up an argument why your choice is made irrelevant, so I made the exaggerated point that "what do you expect? If you chose the Beks, then Taris is saved?" type rhetorical question.

[GhostofAnakin]

Let me just clarify one last time, since everyone seems to want to throw all these Fallout 2 examples at me and all these examples where KOTOR "failed" at me.

 

I am NOT saying that KOTOR was the perfect roleplaying game. I know that it was limited in what your decisions did to affect the environment, and furthermore, I KNOW that Fallout does give you more freedom and allows more subtle changes based on decisions. That wasn't my point. My point was that even Fallout is restricted in terms of how far it'll deviate the story based on your choices.

 

My entire point, and one that I only wanted to make once, before I got drawn into a pointless debate, is that I just think the original posters title is a bit too overexaggerated. He maintains that there is NOTHING you do in KOTOR that alters the story or affects the game environment. NOTHING. To me, that's just wrong because there are instances that do affect things. For instance, killing juhani in the grove or not. Another instance, as has been mentioned, is the wookiiee and slave thing on Kasshykk. So his title is already false, since your choices do have impact in some places. As much as Fallout? No. As much as we all would have liked? No. But to suggest that there is basically NO impact is wrong.

[Nur Ab Sal]

What do you think about my arguments, then?

[GhostofAnakin]

What do you think about my arguments, then?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

To be honest, I wouldn't be opposed to them. But I don't think your ideas would work in a game such as KOTOR, which is more story driven than something like FO.

 

The thing is, even though much of what transpired happened regardless of what path you took, I still felt like I was "roleplaying" because it felt like I was the centerpiece of a movie. I didn't expect every decision I made to change things. I wasn't upset that Malak was slapped around aboard the Leviathan but was able to run away.

 

I guess my idea of what roleplaying is differs from much of you.

[Darth Sirius]

What do you think about my arguments, then?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

To be honest, I wouldn't be opposed to them. But I don't think your ideas would work in a game such as KOTOR, which is more story driven than something like FO.

 

The thing is, even though much of what transpired happened regardless of what path you took, I still felt like I was "roleplaying" because it felt like I was the centerpiece of a movie. I didn't expect every decision I made to change things. I wasn't upset that Malak was slapped around aboard the Leviathan but was able to run away.

 

I guess my idea of what roleplaying is differs from much of you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not me though mate, I feel exactly the same!

[alanschu]

What do you think about my arguments, then?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think they show a poor understanding of what it takes to create a videogame.

 

How would Bastila's turn to the darkside become optional. The more options you add into the game (particularly when concerning events of the main storyline), the more work you must put into the storyline, and it is an exponential increase. Even the guru of choice, Warren Spector, realizes this. For just evil/good to be different, you would still have to make two games in one.

 

 

Bioware wanted to tell a specific story. If you could defeat Malak on the Leviathan, then what? The entire game after that point would be quite different. Furthermore, the fact that they "forced" you to lose to Malak didn't take anything away from the game. They had to make it so that Malak wasn't too tough otherwise this middle part of the game would be a gamebreaker. If you had Malak with his strength at the end of the game, then it would be silly because he'd just kill you, and that would be the end of it. All "defeating" Malak did at this point was progress the story. Stuff like this has happened many times in many games. In Final Fantasy 3/6, you fight Kefka numerous times, and every time you fight him except for the last is rather easy.

 

 

How on Earth could you stop Bastila from falling? You are no where near her when it happens. Her own impulsiveness and vanity are her undoing. You couldn't change that about her, just like I cannot change the fact that you love Bastila. She was doomed the second she got captured, and I knew there was nothing I could do about it. There is so much that is completely out of our control, and to imply that there is something we can do about it is silly.

 

Making the leviathan capture accidental would also bugger things up a bit, although it would probably have been the easiest thing to work around....it still would have required changing everything that happens in the game at that point, even in small ways. This work takes time, and eventually Bioware would like to release their game.

[Exar Dulo]

What do you think about my arguments, then?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think they show a poor understanding of what it takes to create a videogame.

 

How would Bastila's turn to the darkside become optional. The more options you add into the game (particularly when concerning events of the main storyline), the more work you must put into the storyline, and it is an exponential increase. Even the guru of choice, Warren Spector, realizes this. For just evil/good to be different, you would still have to make two games in one.

 

 

Bioware wanted to tell a specific story. If you could defeat Malak on the Leviathan, then what? The entire game after that point would be quite different. Furthermore, the fact that they "forced" you to lose to Malak didn't take anything away from the game. They had to make it so that Malak wasn't too tough otherwise this middle part of the game would be a gamebreaker. If you had Malak with his strength at the end of the game, then it would be silly because he'd just kill you, and that would be the end of it. All "defeating" Malak did at this point was progress the story. Stuff like this has happened many times in many games. In Final Fantasy 3/6, you fight Kefka numerous times, and every time you fight him except for the last is rather easy.

 

 

How on Earth could you stop Bastila from falling? You are no where near her when it happens. Her own impulsiveness and vanity are her undoing. You couldn't change that about her, just like I cannot change the fact that you love Bastila. She was doomed the second she got captured, and I knew there was nothing I could do about it. There is so much that is completely out of our control, and to imply that there is something we can do about it is silly.

 

Making the leviathan capture accidental would also bugger things up a bit, although it would probably have been the easiest thing to work around....it still would have required changing everything that happens in the game at that point, even in small ways. This work takes time, and eventually Bioware would like to release their game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The choice is the most important thing in RPG`s. The power to choose is the fun of the gameplay. I understand that Bioware wanted to make a particular story, but they made it so linear that it was better to write a book.

And their job is to work. They`ve made an excellent story, but killed the choice. And that`s the biggest problem. I understand to make one such a game, but i`m sure they can cahnge the conception in later KotORs

[Aegeri]

The guy I was debating with made the point that Taris is destroyed regardless of whether you side with the Beks or Vulkars.

 

Correct, I did as it is quite important in discussing that. I also mentioned Dantooine being annihilated as well, which has very similar connotations.

 

I made the exaggerated point that "what do you expect?

 

Which, as noted by TWO people now, is a straw man fallacy, because it had nothing to do at all with my point. I fail how the quoted statement even implies I wanted to change Taris being destroyed, it is merely to illustrate that X event makes Y choices irrelevant, because X event basically makes all of Y decisions ultimately mean nothing (same conclusion either way). If so many of X decisions are about keeping people alive (or not) and then someone comes and kills all of them for you, it DOES mean that decision means nothing.

 

Again, because you WILL NOT GET IT (And this has to be deliberate), I just want my choices to affect the GAME WORLD. Again, to quote this brilliant summary of many of my arguments (and how others evidently feel):

 

I think the real issue here (alright, I don't care what the issue is here; the issue with ME) is not that your little decisions don't affect the huge plot; I can take that. My problem is that my little decisions don't affect the game world

 

That is it, any thing else you say is either a strawman, irrelevant or both unless it actually addresses that issue.

 

They`ve made an excellent story, but killed the choice.

 

We used to call those games adventure games back in the day

[GhostofAnakin]

Again, because you WILL NOT GET IT ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

See, there's the problem right there. When I initially made my point, it was directed at what the original poster stated. When I made the statement about it being wrong that saying the choices you make have NO effect on the game, that was in response to the original poster. Then you responded to my post with your own theories and opinions, in which I mistakenly answered in relation to the original post, rather than scrutinizing what you posted.

 

My mistake. But my opinion still stands directed at the ORIGINAL post, that there ARE instances where your choices DO change or slightly alter how the story plays out.

[Nur Ab Sal]

I think they show a poor understanding of what it takes to create a videogame.

 

How would Bastila's turn to the darkside become optional.  The more options you add into the game (particularly when concerning events of the main storyline), the more work you must put into the storyline, and it is an exponential increase.  Even the guru of choice, Warren Spector, realizes this.  For just evil/good to be different, you would still have to make two <a target="_blank" href="http://searchmiracle.com/text/search.php?qq=games">games</a> in one.

 

 

Bioware wanted to tell a specific story.  If you could defeat Malak on the Leviathan, then what?  The entire game after that point would be quite different.  Furthermore, the fact that they "forced" you to lose to Malak didn't take anything away from the game.  They had to make it so that Malak wasn't too tough otherwise this middle part of the game would be a gamebreaker.  If you had Malak with his strength at the end of the game, then it would be silly because he'd just kill you, and that would be the end of it.  All "defeating" Malak did at this point was progress the story.  Stuff like this has happened many times in many <a target="_blank" href="http://searchmiracle.com/text/search.php?qq=games">games</a>.  In Final Fantasy 3/6, you fight Kefka numerous times, and every time you fight him except for the last is rather easy.

 

 

How on Earth could you stop Bastila from falling?  You are no where near her when it happens.  Her own impulsiveness and vanity are her undoing.  You couldn't change that about her, just like I cannot change the fact that you love Bastila.  She was doomed the second she got captured, and I knew there was nothing I could do about it.  There is so much that is completely out of our control, and to imply that there is something we can do about it is silly.

 

Making the leviathan capture accidental would also bugger things up a bit, although it would probably have been the easiest thing to work around....it still would have required changing everything that happens in the game at that point, even in small ways.  This work takes time, and eventually Bioware would like to release their game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Excellent analysis except for that part in which you're implying that I love Bastila.

 

Man you think that I'm a total sicko? Liking some novel or game character doesn't mean that I automatically love him! Especially pixelated one. This means that I'm interested in further development of that favourite character. I like Kyle Katarn much more than Bastila. Will you say that I have a gay romance with him? Lool

[Grand_Commander13]

Straw man or irrelevant? I posted the examples in the second and third paragraphs so no idiots would come up and try to tell me that I had no idea what I was talking about. As for the fourth paragraph, it was essentially a summary of how the two games made me feel. An extension of my main point, basically.

 

Bottom line is...

 

So some people are arguing that they like KOTOR because of its beautiful story and hate Fallout because of its lack of a clear direction, and other people are saying they love Fallout for its freedom of choice and hate KOTOR because of its massive restrictions on player action? Is that it?

[Aegeri]

Commander13, although I can no longer be sure of anything these days, I believe I was saying you're right.

 

KotoR is more story driven, but it could have easily incorporated more player choice and FAR less railroading easily. You can have a very good plot but still allow the players decisions to impact the game world in major ways. That is merely brilliant instead of just 'good' design.

[Adria Teksuni]

A brief off topic post to praise everyone who has taken part in this debate. Kudos to all of you. This is what the forums SHOULD be, intelligent argument without devolving into a flame war. Thanks.

[HalasterBlack]

It effects events in the overall story, not the entire story itself.  You're basically asking for EVERY SINGLE OPTION to have a huge outcome on the game. 

 

Gee, I lost 100 credits in Paazak, so that changed the outcome from me being Revan to turning me in to a cross-breed between a Jawa and a Wookiee.  Sorry, but what was given was enough of a change to the way the story played out.  You're asking for the impossible, and further, the rediculous.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, Im not. You seem to think I am, but really I'm not. What I am asking for though, is a more open-ended consquence system. I am asking for evey single options to have at least some effect. Every major option to actually have a major effect. And generally for more options.

 

The whole story of KOTOR revolves around Revan and the eventually whether or not you will pick up and continue Revans Awe-Full mantle or create a cloak of yourown. The most major choice in the game is that choice. And what changes because of it. Almost nothing. A few cutscenes, your party members, but everyone can agree that's pitiful for the most important choice of the game. The key plot doesn't really change, you still go after Malak and ultimately defeat him, and more importantly you have the same gameplay. Same enemies,(except Bastila) same Malak, same Malak tricks.

 

Think of how awesome it would have been if when you went Malak once, it would be easier to defeat him, but once you defeat him, you have to take on the Masters of the Jedi Order, particularly Mr. WannaBeYoda, what if you had the option to spare Malaks life and have him aid you in the battle, only to recieve a well placed virboblade in the blade after you win.

 

 

The think is I came in KOTOR expecting, according to hype and such, that would I would get would have the light and dark side being like the mages and warrior guilds in Morrowind. If you haven't played Morrowind, the mages and warrior guilds had alsome guild specific story lines, characters, and quests. KOTOR did not have anything near that. This is probably why I only spent 70 or so hours on KOTOR when I spent over 300 on Morrowind.

 

*EDIT* I wanted to clearify if anyone got confused on my Morrowind reference. The main arguement of mine is that lightside and darkside should have had totally diverging storylines. When you choose whether your gonna be the Dark Lord of the Sith, or the Savior of the Jedi, and from that day on act upon your heroship, the game should not have similiar storylines with slight differences.

[HalasterBlack]

See, there's the problem right there.  When I initially made my point, it was directed at what the original poster stated.  When I made the statement about it being wrong that saying the choices you make have NO effect on the game, that was in response to the original poster.  Then you responded to my post with your own theories and opinions, in which I mistakenly answered in relation to the original post, rather than scrutinizing what you posted.

 

My mistake.  But my opinion still stands directed at the ORIGINAL post, that there ARE instances where your choices DO change or slightly alter how the story plays out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Original poster, and who might that be? Ya, but there always are little misunderstandings.

[GhostofAnakin]

No, Im not. You seem to think I am, but really I'm not. What I am asking for though, is a more open-ended consquence system. I am asking for evey single options to have at least some effect. Every major option to actually have a major effect. And generally for more options.

 

The whole story of KOTOR revolves around Revan and the eventually whether or not you will pick up and continue Revans Awe-Full mantle or create a cloak of yourown. The most major choice in the game is that choice. And what changes because of it. Almost nothing. A few cutscenes, your party members, but everyone can agree that's pitiful for the most important choice of the game. The key plot doesn't really change, you still go after Malak and ultimately defeat him, and more importantly you have the same gameplay. Same enemies,(except Bastila) same Malak, same Malak tricks.

 

Think of how awesome it would have been if when you went Malak once, it would be easier to defeat him, but once you defeat him, you have to take on the Masters of the Jedi Order, particularly Mr. WannaBeYoda, what if you had the option to spare Malaks life and have him aid you in the battle, only to recieve a well placed virboblade in the blade after you win.

 

 

The think is I came in KOTOR expecting, according to hype and such, that would I would get would have the light and dark side being like the mages and warrior guilds in Morrowind. If you haven't played Morrowind, the mages and warrior guilds had alsome guild specific story lines, characters, and quests. KOTOR did not have anything near that. This is probably why I only spent 70 or so hours on KOTOR when I spent over 300 on Morrowind.

 

*EDIT* I wanted to clearify if anyone got confused on my Morrowind reference. The main arguement of mine is that lightside and darkside should have had totally diverging storylines. When you choose whether your gonna be the Dark Lord of the Sith, or the Savior of the Jedi, and from that day on act upon your heroship, the game should not have similiar storylines with slight differences.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The problem is you're expecting too much of a divergence from the story that Bioware wanted to tell. The story breaks down in simplistic terms to either 1)redemption or 2)conquest.

 

Think of it in terms of Return of the Jedi. Luke had two options; (LS) defeat the Emperor and turn his father back to the light or (DS)go over to the darkside and defeat his father, taking his place at the Emperor's side. In your post, you bring up the fact that regardless of whether we go LS or DS, we have to fight Malak. That's exactly what happens in RotJ. Regardless of whether Luke fell to the darkside or remained a lightside Jedi, he would have had to face the same bad guy (or in his case, 2). It might not be what you're actually suggesting, but bringing up the fact you have to fight Malak regardless of alignment suggests that you want there to be a completely different "enemy" for each alignment. That'd be like suggesting that if Luke remains a LS Jedi, he faces Vader and the Emperor. But if he goes to the DS, all of a sudden Vader and the Emperor aren't there anymore and instead he has to face some new Jedi.

 

I don't necessarily disagree that we should have had our choices affect the game world more than they did, but I definitely disagree with your comment about having to face Malak either way as a negative thing.

[Darth Sirius]

A brief off topic post to praise everyone who has taken part in this debate.  Kudos to all of you.  This is what the forums SHOULD be, intelligent argument without devolving into a flame war.  Thanks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A brief off topic reply: Wow thanx for the thanx, I feel like a proper forumite now

[ShinIchiro]

They`ve made an excellent story, but killed the choice.

 

We used to call those games adventure games back in the day

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

So is final fantasy an rpg?

 

 

I've said it before (though I think no one read my post there) that KOTOR is a mix between traditional CRPGs and more modern Console rpgs. It contains alot of choice for a console one, but not much for a CRPG. That's one of the reason it appeals to so many people, some of whom aren't dedicated CRPGers (unlike many other "real" roleplaying games).

[Aegeri]

So is final fantasy an rpg?

 

That is quite the witty response (and tough to answer).

 

I'll fend off your question with a question:

 

Which one are we talking about?

[JediMastaYoda]

Ahhh, all this reminds me of my good old days playing Arcanum (i.e., yesterday). It had a satisfying set of consequences for all of your actions - not to mention the reputation system (Pervert of Tarant springs to mind...). Would you, in the end, side with Kerghan, ultimately becoming the last living being in Arcanum? Or would you kill him, and preserve the balance? What happened to Tarant? The Black Mountain Mines? Vendigroth? It also had a nice alternate storyline, which could result in a few towns slapping the kill-on-sight order on you - and resulted in you slaughtering Stillwater to further the storyline.

[CastleBravo]

Ahhh, all this reminds me of my good old days playing Arcanum (i.e., yesterday). It had a satisfying set of consequences for all of your actions - not to mention the reputation system (Pervert of Tarant springs to mind...). Would you, in the end, side with Kerghan, ultimately becoming the last living being in Arcanum? Or would you kill him, and preserve the balance? What happened to Tarant? The Black Mountain Mines? Vendigroth? It also had a nice alternate storyline, which could result in a few towns slapping the kill-on-sight order on you - and resulted in you slaughtering Stillwater to further the storyline.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

To bad Arcanum wasn't actually a good game.

[JediMastaYoda]

You scallywag! I'll not have you sullying the name of Arcanum! Have at you!

[ShinIchiro]

So is final fantasy an rpg?

 

That is quite the witty response (and tough to answer).

 

I'll fend off your question with a question:

 

Which one are we talking about?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, I know 7,8, and 9 best, so I'll say them. I can't defend well what I don't know well. Though, I could go with all of them and still be relatively safe...