What Are Your Fears For KOTOR 2?

[jedipodo]

For those who still worry about the IGN review, there's already some background information on the framerate issue and the loading time.

 

The framerate issues aren't really related to graphics at all. The problem is caused by all of the other systems throughout the game engine that are running. Creature AI updates, script execution, combat AI, etc. All those things take up CPU time and make it slower for the game engine to complete '1 loop' so that it can render the next frame.  Which is why you'll probably find the slowest framerates in combat.

 

The trouble with framerates is a side effect of using what was essentially a PC game engine on a console. PC engines tend to be written with convenience and flexibility in mind. But the side effect of this 'designer friendly' approach is that the game is slower. Data is stored as strings more than binary data, and string compares are rampant throughout the code, which are overly expensive (CPU-wise) operations compared to alternative approaches.

 

Console-specific engines tend to be written a lot tighter. They tend to be far more memory efficient and clockcycle efficient. To solve these problems in KotOR2, we would have to have rewritten a lot of the engine, which the timeline for the project did not allow for. And even still, we made amazing improvements over many of the systems, it's just that we then turned around and pushed the systems harder than they had been pushed before.

 

Early on in the project, we roughly doubled the average framerate of KotOR1, but then added a lot more stuff to the areas and the framerate went back down. We're also loading roughly 2 to 3 times the data per area load that KotOR1 loaded, but we were able to speed the loading process up enough that the load times are roughly equivalent to KotOR1.  If we were loading KotOR1 levels with our changes, the load times would have been much faster.

 

Most of the time, we considered KotOR1 the 'as bad as we can let it get' in terms of load times and framerates, then kept adding content to areas until the game slowed down to roughly the KotOR1 performance, figuring that was a safe baseline to operate from.

 

-Akari

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[CoM_Solaufein]

We have no fears. Bugs? Nah. I have the first KotOR without any patches and it plays perfect.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's sounds odd. KotOR without patching was a nightmare, i had 512mb ram with 3gb swapfile, but still the game would run out of memory and crash.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The only problem, well not a problem since it was funny, was a image of the injured soldiers in the containers from the doctor in Taris showed up on Korriban. It only happened to one game though and hasn't showed up since.

[Gromnir]

"I understand that ill-defined characters are more difficult to write. But that doesn't mean IWD is superior because they added difficulty and, imo, didn't succeed."

 

you got backwards... again. iwd was EASIER... which is why the plot turned out better. the plot did not focus on your characters at all. your party moved action along but you were a largely incidental part of story. iwd did not try to tell your story or give you a specific background. your motivations as a player did not impact plot one bit.

 

the "mysteries" of ps:t were happhazard and disjointed... as they had to be. why couldn't you die? is not any bigger mystery than those in any other game. examples: who is the villian... what is their plan... am i the child of prohecy... why... if you felt something in particular for TNO's plight, that is mainly a matter of character development as 'posed to plot, 'cause ps:t did nothing particularly special or impressive with the way it structured those "mysteries" you were so impressed with.

 

ps:t plot were harder to get right (and failed to do so,) 'cause the writers were trying to keep focus on YOUR character. the story of ps:t were TNO. and yet, the witers wanted TNO to be your character... a character with a personality and motivitions of your own devise... but since they couldn't make an infinite number of possible protagonists, they made one kinda fuzzy and general one with vague 'nuff motivations such that they would work for just 'bout anybody.

 

 

"A bit unfair given that Planescape itself is pretty much AD&D wrapped in Philosophy 101."

 

is not unfair. "the grapes of wrath" were not simply a story 'bout some oakies on the way to ca, and "moby ****" weren't just 'bout a guy on a whale hunt. is reasons why you gotta study 'bout symbolism and extended metaphor and other stuff in college if you wants an MFA in english.

 

Gromnir played planescape... lots. the fact that the planescape rulebooks had anemic little descriptors for the philosophical leanings of each of the factions not mean that each bleak cabal character you met in a planescape game necessarily would necessarily start spouting mangled versions of nietzsche. if we wants misquoted nietzche we can go to any college campus coffe shop and listen to some junior try to explain "Thus Spake Zarathustra" to his freshman girlfriend. nevertheless, chris did similar stuff with any number of characters in planescape. had 'em spout fortune cookie wisdom and cliff's notes philosophy at every opportunity. got old. were unnecessary.

 

you wanna have coax metal talk 'bout entropy? fine, but you not ever need to have him say "entropy" once to do so. heck, would be even better to simply show the character entropy ... avoid all the messy and ugly dialogue. maybe the character not know that they has learned something 'bout entropy after such an encounter, but if chris a does right, then at some point late in game the pieces will start to come together and the reader/player will has some minor epiphany. and don't tell us that such subtlety is impossible in a crpg... 'cause ravel were such a character.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Meshugger]

Making a game based on the philosophies of Nietzche, now that would be something (and no Sith-blah-blah this time folks!).

[Darth Abomination]

Atton Rand saying "Boi, you sure do gotta purty mouth"

[CoM_Solaufein]

Making a game based on the philosophies of Nietzche, now that would be something (and no Sith-blah-blah this time folks!).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Looks like someone read my signature.

[Leferd]

Making a game based on the philosophies of Nietzche, now that would be something (and no Sith-blah-blah this time folks!).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Looks like someone read my signature.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Doubtful.

 

However, if you're going to try to quote somebody, it would help if you got his name right.

[Ivan the Terrible]

Gromnir played planescape... lots.  the fact that the planescape rulebooks had anemic little descriptors for the philosophical leanings of each of the factions not mean that each bleak cabal character you met in a planescape game necessarily would necessarily start spouting mangled versions of nietzsche.  if we wants misquoted nietzche we can go to any college campus coffe shop and listen to some junior try to explain "Thus Spake Zarathustra" to his freshman girlfriend.  nevertheless, chris did similar stuff with any number of characters in planescape.  had 'em spout fortune cookie wisdom and cliff's notes philosophy at every opportunity.  got old.  were unnecessary.

 

I disagree; yes, the dialogue was heavy on the amateur philosophy stuff, and it's up to each individual's tastes as to whether there was too much of it (I didn't think it was a problem), but that isn't the point. A Planescape CRPG had to have philosophy, to one degree or another, to be Planescape. You may dismiss it as 'anemic little descriptors', but what I saw in the pen and paper version was a consistent effort to move beyond simple hack 'n slash Tolkien rip-offs into a deeper gameworld revolving around the different philosophies and views of reality of the Factions, Fiends, Celestials, Powers, and everyone in-between....and how each of those views had a bearing on reality at large. A Planescape game without all of that would have been like a Dark Sun game set on a tropical island.

 

Now, of course, you weren't saying that Planescape didn't have anything to do with philosophy; you were simply saying that Chris Avellone ODed on it, drowning us in pretentious, hamfisted dialogue that really, really wishes it were profound. Fair enough; to each his own.

 

However, even if you don't like the way it was done, surely you must admit that it had to have been done to some degree....and that not doing it at all in the setting would have been worse. I'll take Planescape's Philosophy 101 over most other game's, 'Evil people are threatening to take over the world/seize ultimate power/kill all living things! Find a way to stop them while killing thousands of monsters and collecting Phat L00t!'

 

you wanna have coax metal talk 'bout entropy?  fine, but you not ever need to have him say "entropy" once to do so.  heck, would be even better to simply show the character entropy ... avoid all the messy and ugly dialogue.  maybe the character not know that they has learned something 'bout entropy after such an encounter, but if chris a does right, then at some point late in game the pieces will start to come together and the reader/player will has some minor epiphany.  and don't tell us that such subtlety is impossible in a crpg... 'cause ravel were such a character. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I follow you, and agree with you somewhat....but again, in comparison with other games, Torment was a huge leap. No, it wasn't perfect by a long-shot....but I'd rather see an imperfect attempt to be deep than an all-too-successful attempt to be shallow, empty, and forgettable.

[anakins revenge]

i have no fears 4 it, i dont care about the load times or non improved graphics, im stoked about the philisophical parts, somethin that most starwars games lack like john ashcroft lacks a brain

[mista_me]

IRt#1

 

rofl! Ha fears thats a good one keep it up man!

[Kylearan]

Gromnir, I'm curious. What would you consider to be the greatest CRPG you've ever played. The game you believe is closest to your personal idea of perfection. No need to expound, just the title would be fine, as a point of reference.

[stoffe -mkb-]

Perhaps not fears, but...

 

After having read the reviews, I'm a bit concerned about the ending. A poor ending can ruin the feel of having just finished an otherwise excellent game. Good endings are apparently very hard to make though, I can only remember two games where the ending sequence actually added to my enjoyment of the game, rather than leaving a sour taste in the mouth or a feeling of "whas that it?" disappointment.

 

I'm also the kind of person who wants a happy ending, otherwise it feels like a huge anticlimax. This is, for example, why I've only played Planescape:Torment once even though I liked that game a lot. I can't bring myself to play it again knowing that no matter what I do, it ends like *that*. It feels kind of pointless.

 

In addition, the reviews makes me a bit concerned about the NPCs you have joining your group. I get the impression that none of them are friendly and likable, that they are just along as mercenaries with their own agenda. Sure, I don't expect everyone to get along always and agree on everything, but it would be a bit of a letdown to get stuck with party members who you feel and care nothing about. And if you don't say or do the right thing to/with them throughout the game, they'll turn on you in the end, like in NWN:HotU.

 

It also seems a bit silly in a game about playing a Jedi Knight that you won't get a lightsaber until you've gone 40% through the game. After all, the lightsaber is the symbol of the jedi moreso than force powers. For some reason, most StarWars games I've played tends to start you out without a lightsaber, but going through almost half of the game without it, as a Jedi, seems a bit too extreme. (Oh well, you can always mod the game I suppose to fix that).

 

Oh, and I'm also a bit concerned that the sequel will screw over the original crew from the first game too much. Sequels that take place too close in time to the original game tends to make the grand adventure of the first seem insignificant and ultimately pointless, and turn then great and heroic characters into weak and broken characters in the new story. I really.... dislike... that. That's why I prefer sequels that are not direct continuations of a story to take place enough years later that the original story won't lose its impact and the original protagonists can keep their dignity and achievements intact.

 

Hopefully these concerns will be unfounded, and I shouldn't read too much into information gleaned from reviews.

[Lacan]

the "mysteries" of ps:t were happhazard and disjointed... as they had to be.  why couldn't you die?  is not any bigger mystery than those in any other game.  examples:  who is the villian... what is their plan...  am i the child of prohecy...  why...  if you felt something in particular for TNO's plight, that is mainly a matter of character development as 'posed to plot, 'cause ps:t did nothing particularly special or impressive with the way it structured those "mysteries" you were so impressed with. 

 

ps:t plot were harder to get right (and failed to do so,) 'cause the writers were trying to keep focus on YOUR character.  the story of ps:t were TNO.  and yet, the witers wanted TNO to be your character... a character with a personality and motivitions of your own devise... but since they couldn't make an infinite number of possible protagonists, they made one kinda fuzzy and general one with vague 'nuff motivations such that they would work for just 'bout anybody. 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't know about "bigger" mysteries, but there is one key difference. I've never played/read any mystery into why a person couldn't die. IWD's mystery was cliche and formulaic. It's a time-honored formula of "something is screwy around these parts, let's send a first level pc to investigate." Of course the investigation takes on something larger, more malevolent, than your pc ever imagined, culminating in a demon fight. PS:T's plot is more original than IWD, making it better from my perspective.