Development length

[ShinIchiro]

Just curious, but why was KOTOR 1 a 2-3.5 year long project (not completely sure how long) while KOTOR 2 is going to have been under development for around a year? Also, why was KOTOR 1 announced (with forums and a offical page up and running) when it was barely started why KOTOR 2 was almost done when these things were done? I'm just curious (not critical or supporting of anything here).

[Dark Wanderer]

Just curious, but why was KOTOR 1 a 2-3.5 year long project (not completely sure how long) while KOTOR 2 is going to have been under development for around a year?

 

Well, isn't KOTOR 2 using the same engine and much the same system as KOTOR 1? If so, then that changes things, at least if the KOTOR 1 system & engine had to be done from scratch, thus the devs of KOTOR 2 saves lots of time, mostly being able to use tools that is already there.

[Arkan]

The engine is already done, so they don't have to build from the ground up, basically. It wasn't announced sooner because I guess they wanted to wait for E3 to build the hype.

[nightcleaver]

All that, and development was planning before the first one came out for the sequel. In an interview they talk about how a whole lot of things that they were going to put in the sequel were already done in the first when they played it - technically, the project started right after the first (thus, X-box) version came out. all projects have this planning stage, and their's started sooner.

 

Also, at one point (I'm not sure if you're taking this into account, though that may well be the case) Bioware trashed all their work (maybe a years worth) and started over on the project mid-development. This means that, technically, bioware made the KotOR I we know know in 1-1.5 years - again, if you hadn't already accounted for that.

[Meshugger]

All that, and development was planning before the first one came out for the sequel. In an interview they talk about how a whole lot of things that they were going to put in the sequel were already done in the first when they played it - technically, the project started right after the first (thus, X-box) version came out. all projects have this planning stage, and their's started sooner.

 

Also, at one point (I'm not sure if you're taking this into account, though that may well be the case) Bioware trashed all their work (maybe a years worth) and started over on the project mid-development. This means that, technically, bioware made the KotOR I we know know in 1-1.5 years - again, if you hadn't already accounted for that.

Comparing to most titles out there, it's still pretty fast development time.

[icebox15]

Obsidian's better then Bioware, thats how they did it so fast. All they're doing now is testing the game for bugs.

[OLD SKOOL WHEELMAN]

You guys forgot about the coffee! OE needs a lot of coffee! They even have a coffee fetcher! That's how they did it so fast...

[Tyrell]

If you ask me I believe the game is a bit rushed. If TSL was delayed til Summer 2005 I really wouldn't mind. That way TSL would be a better game with possibly bigger planets and other better features when what we are currently getting with TSL. Not to say that the current features aren't good, but not as expansive enough. For a game that is being the follow up to a game that won 120+ awards 30 of them being GOTY awards, you'll expect the sequel to be all bigger and better like Halo 2 is to Halo, GTA: San Andreas is to Vice City, Half-Life 2 is to Half-Life etc....

 

TSL is shaping up to be a great game, a game that I will indeed purchase at launch, but as of now to me its more like a....massive expansion pack rather then an all out pure sequel to a GOTY title.

[EnderAndrew]

I don't think the announcement was meant to tie into Episode 3. Titles like Republic Commando and Battlefield do that. And there will be Episode 3 specific titles as well.

 

Most companies don't officially announce a project into it's well into development, in case it gets cancelled. If you recall, BG3 and FO3 were never officially announced.

[Grand Edgemaster]

Obsidian's better then Bioware, thats how they did it so fast. All they're doing now is testing the game for bugs.

Wow, you really are mad at all of Bioware just because you got banned from their boards, huh?

[icebox15]

They had no reason to ban me, but on the bright side throughallof this I found the better forum, Obsidian.

[John Morgan]

Most companies don't officially announce a project into it's well into development, in case it gets cancelled.  If you recall, BG3 and FO3 were never officially announced.

Bingo.

[alanschu]

If you ask me I believe the game is a bit rushed. If TSL was delayed til Summer 2005 I really wouldn't mind. That way TSL would be a better game with possibly bigger planets and other better features when what we are currently getting with TSL. Not to say that the current features aren't good, but not as expansive enough. For a game that is being the follow up to a game that won 120+ awards 30 of them being GOTY awards, you'll expect the sequel to be all bigger and better like Halo 2 is to Halo, GTA: San Andreas is to Vice City, Half-Life 2 is to Half-Life etc....

 

TSL is shaping up to be a great game, a game that I will indeed purchase at launch, but as of now to me its more like a....massive expansion pack rather then an all out pure sequel to a GOTY title.

Compare these sequels though:

 

Vice City to GTA 3 (and from what it sounds like, all San Andreas is is a bigger Vice City, but I don't follow the game);

Doom 2 to Doom

GTA 2 to GTA

Red Alert to C&C

 

 

You can go on and on. I think you are being unreasonably critical about KOTOR 2 simply based on its development time. A lot of great sequels have come out that did not significantly differ from the original.

[EnderAndrew]

Compare these sequels though:

 

Vice City to GTA 3 (and from what it sounds like, all San Andreas is is a bigger Vice City, but I don't follow the game);

Doom 2 to Doom

GTA 2 to GTA

Red Alert to C&C

 

Vice City was actually smaller than GTA 3. The engine had significant improvements though.

 

Doom 2 and Doom seemed pretty similiar to me. I wasn't hugely impressed.

 

GTA 2 to GTA - Didn't beat either game so I can't talk about length. The gang/faction thing was a nice addition, but we're not talking about night and day here.

 

I never played Red Alert. I own a legal copy, and I've never installed it. You should see my game collection. It's sick.

 

Tyrell also mentioned Doom 3 and Half Life 2.

 

Half Life 2 is in it's 6th year of production, and it's not done. Doom 3 has been in production how many years? (Not sure how many, but they announced the title officially over 2 years ago, and it looked like they already spent a good 2 years on engine).

 

Halo 2 isn't out yet, and I think that's a 3 year sequel, and the game isn't going to be any longer, nor look drastically different. There are some new neat features, but they haven't reinvented the wheel despite over 3 years of development.

 

We don't know what new features KOTOR:TSL will feature yet. We don't know what the level design is like, nor we do know what playtime will be like. Yet we're already judging it.

 

Take early quotes on the game, and compare them to more recent dev comments. I have reason to be optimistic.

[Alexia]

Well said ender. I am very excited about this game and I want to play it right now but, I also want them to spend as long as they need to iron out the bugs and stuff. I think this game will raise the bar for rpg's once more, just as kotor did last year.

['JN]

The difference between Vice City and GTA III is that Rockstar had more money to spend on VC, and knew that it was going to fly off the shelves anyway. I thought the city was a bit more immersive and that the gameplay offered more in GTA III, but VC actually had a story, and the licensed music was a lot of fun, so it was sort of a tradeoff.

 

Doom II was just a Doom mod made by the developers. Not that that's a bad thing, but you will find mods in the community that differ more from the original in terms of gameplay than Doom II did.

 

Halo 2 isn't out yet, and I think that's a 3 year sequel, and the game isn't going to be any longer, nor look drastically different.  There are some new neat features, but they haven't reinvented the wheel despite over 3 years of development.

 

That's exactly what they did. Halo 2 uses a completely different graphics engine than the original. I'm as upset over the false release dates and broken promises as anyone, but I think the wait will be worth it. Unlike Half-Life 2 and Doom 3, Halo 2 has blown away everyone who has actually had the chance to play it.

 

The game I am looking forward to most, on PC anyway, is Stalker. The game is pretty much under the radar right now, but its spooky atmosphere and incredibly open-ended gameplay (not to mention graphics that border on photorealism) should make it a force to be reckoned with when it finally comes out.

[alanschu]

Half-Life 2 and Doom 3 has also blown anyone away that has actually had a chance to play it.

[Meshugger]

Half-Life 2 and Doom 3 has also blown anyone away that has actually had a chance to play it.

'Blown away' by an FPS? I've been a fps-fanatic for several years, and only rpg/fps hybrids like System Shock II and Deus Ex have showed some sorts of quality to them (with the only exception of Unreal, which oozed atmoshere). Half-Life 1 or Doom 1 were good games for their time, but that's the past. As i see it, iD and Valve have become old dinosaurs who are refreshing the same old formula. Innovation isn't king to them anymore IMHO.

 

I suspect that the credibility of those who played them are quite low.

['JN]

Half-Life 2 and Doom 3 has also blown anyone away that has actually had a chance to play it.

HL2 has been described as just more of the same, and Doom 3 lost its main attraction, normal mapping (or at least the idea behind it), to Starbreeze when they released Riddick earlier this year. No one really knows what to think of HL2 at this point, and Doom 3 has, for the most part, underwhelmed those who have played it.

 

Halo 2 on the other hand, while not in development as long HL2 or Doom 3, has had people drooling ever since that video at last year's E3. To quote a Game Informer staff member who tested the incredible multiplayer at E3, "Everything we've seen is even better than we had hoped."

 

I reserved my copy months ago, and expect to be playing it long after HL2 and Doom 3 are forgotten.

[Zero_00]

Doesn't sound like Halo 2 will be much different if they're saying more of the same for Half-Life 2 and Doom III. I mean Halo 2 will be more of the same what does it do add multiplayer? I can play the first one on pc and get multiplayer thats lame. Whereas with Half-Life 2 I get the continuation of the great immersive story, great multiplayer, and the biggest attraction hundreds of mods!! This is what makes Half-Life 2 better than Halo 2.

[Ratamacue]

While Half-Life was an amazing FPS at the time of its release, that isn't what made it among the greatest games of all time. The amazing potential for total conversion mods in HL was what put it on the map. The Source Engine (HL2) was designed from the ground-up to be as moddable as possible. THAT's what will separate it from the myriad other FPS's being released this year and next.

[alanschu]

Half-Life was being considered one of the best FPS of all time long before Counterstrike or even Team Fortress Classic.

 

I remember PC Gamer said it was the easiest Game of the Year selection they had ever done, since the entire staff felt it was (whereas usually it is hours of arguing and debating which game was game of the year). And it wasn't because of lack of quality games coming out either.

 

Half-Life 2 has not been described as more of the same. The game is supposed to feature some of the most intuitive AI, and promises a more dynamic gaming experience than Half-Life with less scripted sequences. It also sports an intensive physics engine, and the ability to generate real time accurate lip synching. Reading as many Half-Life 2 previews from magazines and websites, not once have I seen Half-Life 2 being more of the same.

 

 

Doom 3, while also having an impressive graphics engine, has not been hyped up for its "normal mapping." It has hype because it is supposed to be a story-driven (something new for Doom) game that tries to scare the **** out of you whenever it can.

 

I do not know much about Halo 2 since I do not own an X-Box. I remember adamantly following the development of Halo, from the Macworld demonstration that just blew me away. However I feel it lost a lot of its thunder because it got delayed too long. By the time I finally played it on the PC, it certainly was not the uber-cool experience I had hoped for for so long. The game is still fun, but its monotonous level design and mediocre multiplay left me wanting more. If Halo 2 comes to the PC then I'll look into it a bit more, but right now I don't follow it too closely.

 

However, time is starting to run short on HL2 and Doom 3. They at one time had people ooing and ahing over their graphics, but Farcry was able to beat them out with that.

 

 

On a side note, a lot of people this year list Splinter Cell 3 as Game of the Show over both Halo 2 and Half-Life 2.

['JN]

Half-Life 2 has not been described as more of the same.  The game is supposed to feature some of the most intuitive AI, and promises a more dynamic gaming experience than Half-Life with less scripted sequences.  It also sports an intensive physics engine, and the ability to generate real time accurate lip synching.  Reading as many Half-Life 2 previews from magazines and websites, not once have I seen Half-Life 2 being more of the same.

 

Did you just copy and paste that off of some website? It doesn't matter what it promises to deliver, because promises are often broken.

 

I highly doubt that you have read as many previews as you say and haven't seen one that wasn't all that colorful. No one has said the game is bad, but I haven't seen anyone honestly say that it's that great either. The weapons used in the preview build were all the same, the sound effects were exactly the same, and the gameplay was very similar to the original. Basically, nothing new.

 

Doom 3, while also having an impressive graphics engine, has not been hyped up for its "normal mapping."  It has hype because it is supposed to be a story-driven (something new for Doom) game that tries to scare the **** out of you whenever it can.

 

The graphics have been the one thing that have had people talking from the beginning.

 

I do not know much about Halo 2 since I do not own an X-Box.  I remember adamantly following the development of Halo, from the Macworld demonstration that just blew me away.  However I feel it lost a lot of its thunder because it got delayed too long.  By the time I finally played it on the PC, it certainly was not the uber-cool experience I had hoped for for so long.  The game is still fun, but its monotonous level design and mediocre multiplay left me wanting more.  If Halo 2 comes to the PC then I'll look into it a bit more, but right now I don't follow it too closely.

 

You cannot judge the Xbox version by the PC version. They're like two different games. The game looks and plays better on the Xbox, and multiplayer is very unbalanced on the PC.