LOSE THE F^_^ING CUT SCENES

[Killzig]

well while we're on the subject of paths, let's talk about how KOTOR really only had the one path.

 

Good character.. steal ebon hawk, go to jedi academy

Evil character... steal ebon hawk, go to jedi academy

 

good character... blow up krayt dragon, get to star map

evil character... blow up krayt dragon, get to star map

 

Oh.. and the end game is especially bad.

 

good character... after the penultimate starmap get beamed by the leviathan..

 

evil character... after the penultimate starmap get beamed by the leviathan..

 

you sense the pattern right?

[Ronald]

Sounds kinda tedious to me. I think being able to kill Malak would badly hurt tha game. It would ruin the story if you did that. blah blah story story

If the story (Which wasn't anything terribly special) gets in the way of roleplaying, then you're a poor writer/game designer. No two ways about it.

[roshan]

i like cut scenes. but in the modern day with all the fancy graphics that you can do witht he current engines there really sint any need for cut scenes anymore.

[Iolo]

i like cut scenes. but in the modern day with all the fancy graphics that you can do witht he current engines there really sint any need for cut scenes anymore.

You can have cut scenes within the game's own engine. I thought KOTOR did this actually.

[roshan]

i like cut scenes. but in the modern day with all the fancy graphics that you can do witht he current engines there really sint any need for cut scenes anymore.

You can have cut scenes within the game's own engine. I thought KOTOR did this actually.

im not sure what you mean since i havent played kotor. but if youre talking about scenes like the ones in gta3 where they are in engine and not as movies, then thats what im talking about. with engines that can do that then theres no need for movies anymore.

[Iolo]

i like cut scenes. but in the modern day with all the fancy graphics that you can do witht he current engines there really sint any need for cut scenes anymore.

You can have cut scenes within the game's own engine. I thought KOTOR did this actually.

im not sure what you mean since i havent played kotor. but if youre talking about scenes like the ones in gta3 where they are in engine and not as movies, then thats what im talking about. with engines that can do that then theres no need for movies anymore.

Yes, I beleive that's what KOTOR does. "Cutscenes" using the game's engine. However, many of us don't like cutscenes even if they are in engine because they break the action and the game's feel.

[kumquatq3]

Sounds kinda tedious to me. I think being able to kill Malak would badly hurt tha game. It would ruin the story if you did that. blah blah story story

If the story (Which wasn't anything terribly special) gets in the way of roleplaying, then you're a poor writer/game designer. No two ways about it.

Using that logic, the story would suck everytime. The more freedom and options you give the player, the more the story tends to suffer. Maybe thats not a hard fast rule, but it tends to be the case. I prefer a good mix usually. I can't recall a cut scene in KOTOR that pulled me out of the game.

[roshan]

i like cut scenes. but in the modern day with all the fancy graphics that you can do witht he current engines there really sint any need for cut scenes anymore.

You can have cut scenes within the game's own engine. I thought KOTOR did this actually.

im not sure what you mean since i havent played kotor. but if youre talking about scenes like the ones in gta3 where they are in engine and not as movies, then thats what im talking about. with engines that can do that then theres no need for movies anymore.

Yes, I beleive that's what KOTOR does. "Cutscenes" using the game's engine. However, many of us don't like cutscenes even if they are in engine because they break the action and the game's feel.

so what alternative way of furthering the story can you suggest?

 

btw, cutscenes can also further the mood and involvement of the game if done right.

[Ronald]

Sounds kinda tedious to me. I think being able to kill Malak would badly hurt tha game. It would ruin the story if you did that. blah blah story story

If the story (Which wasn't anything terribly special) gets in the way of roleplaying, then you're a poor writer/game designer. No two ways about it.

Using that logic, the story would suck everytime. The more freedom and options you give the player, the more the story tends to suffer. Maybe thats not a hard fast rule, but it tends to be the case. I prefer a good mix usually. I can't recall a cut scene in KOTOR that pulled me out of the game.

Like I said, if the story gets in the way of the game.

 

Besides, if it comes down to gameplay or story, it's stupid not to pick gameplay. Great gameplay is essential to a game (Note the "Game" prefix?), but a great story just adds to it. If the beautiful story makes it so MY CHARACTER sits on his butt while a bunch of Jedi get slaughtered, even though I could kill all the baddies in three seconds, screw the story.

[Iolo]

i like cut scenes. but in the modern day with all the fancy graphics that you can do witht he current engines there really sint any need for cut scenes anymore.

You can have cut scenes within the game's own engine. I thought KOTOR did this actually.

im not sure what you mean since i havent played kotor. but if youre talking about scenes like the ones in gta3 where they are in engine and not as movies, then thats what im talking about. with engines that can do that then theres no need for movies anymore.

Yes, I beleive that's what KOTOR does. "Cutscenes" using the game's engine. However, many of us don't like cutscenes even if they are in engine because they break the action and the game's feel.

so what alternative way of furthering the story can you suggest?

 

btw, cutscenes can also further the mood and involvement of the game if done right.

The story is furthered by the actions of the player. No cutscenes needed.

[Judge Hades]

Cutscenes are good when they show the player out of character story points, but if the PC is involved in the cutscene then that is just bad form. It removes the player's ability to play his character which has no place in a CRPG.

[kumquatq3]

but a great story just adds to it. If the beautiful story makes it so MY CHARACTER sits on his butt while a bunch of Jedi get slaughtered, even though I could kill all the baddies in three seconds, screw the story.

 

I disagree, I think story is very important in a good game. While its not a rpg, S2 suffers badly as a game because of lack of story (and repetitive missions). The combat is pretty good tho. It doesn't carry the game tho, imo.

 

As for the part I quoted. When did that happen in KOTOR? Considering Malak was able just to freeze Bastila, I doubt you could have beaten him. You couldn't and shouldn't have been able to kill him. Just as you couldn't save Bastila. The cut scenes didn't f*** up that part of the game, the stupid fight with malak did. As I said, bastilla should have done her bit from the get go, while you escaped. At least then you would think Malak is one bad mama jama, not some push over.

[Azarkon]

In modern CRPGs the story is part of the gameplay, IMHO.

 

But then again, the very term "RPG" has so many different interpretations from so many different people that invoking it for the sake of making an argument is simply futile. Sure, you can answer every argument by saying: "It's a ROLEPLAYING game. If you don't roleplay, then it's not a RPG!" But that doesn't say much other than your personal opinion on what a RPG is. Or, if we stretch it, it becomes a criticism of the blurring of language in the modern world. Either way, the gaming industry, as far as I can tell, doesn't care for that particular view. In fact, it would be quite reasonable to call most CRPGs "interactive action-adventure games" and the definition would still hold quite well.

 

So please, no more arguments based on the so-called definition of a RPG. Since the industry doesn't follow it, there's no reason why the rest of us should. Discuss games for their own merits, not whether they fit into some preconceived mold.

[JJ86]

But then again, the very term "RPG" has so many different interpretations from so many different people that invoking it for the sake of making an argument is simply futile. Sure, you can answer every argument by saying: "It's a ROLEPLAYING game. If you don't roleplay, then it's not a RPG!"

I can't imagine there being multiple definitions unless somebody made a false assumption. CRPGs are an extension of D&D roleplaying. Not much guesswork involved here unless you want to nit-pick to the nth degree?

[Althernai]

so you guys think its ok for this console-ish element of letting the enemy "cheat" his way out of death is ok because it would make the story flat otherwise?  here's a wacky idea, how about writing a better story and adding more gameplay options!

The problem is that most enemies cannot defeat a player in fair combat. If you mean for the enemy to win, he has to cheat. It isn't even that my character on the Leviathan could beat Malak on the Leviathan, it's that my character on the Leviathan could trash the final version of Malak (Star Forge). The 2-3 levels don't make a difference because a human being is 1) smarter and more adaptable than any AI and 2) capable of reloading.

 

A legitimate fight where you and Bastila somehow get separated with Malak and Bastila behind a door would be an absolute nightmare to script. Not only that, but Malak would still have to cheat or else you would kill him. I prefer it the way it is -- don't get me wrong, I don't particularly like that scene. It doesn't make sense in more ways than one when it comes to the actions of my character. It would also be nice if the Irresistible Stasis was somehow explained (why didn't he use it in the end?).

 

However, I prefer to view scenes like that as a scattering experiment. Creatures come in, they interact in ways you don't necessarily understand and you get to observe the outcome. Annoying when it happens in large quantities, but as long as it's restricted to once or twice per game, it is a small price to pay for furthering the story.

[Karzak]

They chose the latter, and I think the game is better for it. There are probably better ways they could have handled it (Kasoroth's suggestions sound promising), but it works reasonably well as-is.

I don't think the game is better for it, sure it works for what the game is, basically a console game, but giving more freedom to choose your own storyline would have been much better.

 

Much of it was amusing at how it didn't make sense in the SW universe, in the sith academy when you kill the head and go back in all the students attack you. That is just stupid, you just took his position in a very sith like fashion, and the school should be yours. The dialog was poor as well, it assumed I was still on the light side even though my meter was railed to the low end.

 

There was just so much wrong in how KotOR was written.

[Killzig]

there could have been a variety of different ways to handle this. if they wanted to have a true dark path you could have defeated malak and had him come back under as an apprentice rather than sticking you with NPCs that totally disgust you. then your evil quest could have shifted into some new jedi hunt. if you wanted to continue the light path they could have fed you more hypocritical jedi bulls*** about how the jedi value all life so you should spare him. Either that or stick to ONE PATH AND DO IT WELL. The main thing I'm complaining about the, and was the original target of this thread, were situations where you'd happen upon people friendly to you fighting baddies (specifically a scene on the star forge). You were pretty much a force leap away from jumping in, dumping a force wave on the f***ers and ending them all by your lonesome. Instead you sit through an excruciatingly long in game cut scene that's really only there to piss you off. It doesn't further the story and it doesn't really shed light on anything going on at the moment. It just takes control from the player. Would it have really taken so long to have a script for these friendly jedi that would allow them to patrol the territory and fight any baddies you might of missed as you progress through the level? I'm not even saying they have to go with you towards other areas just leave them on the platform and let them patrol. Not very different from the patrol droids throughought the game or particularly the one droid on the kashyyyk walkway.

[kumquatq3]

(specifically a scene on the star forge). You were pretty much a force leap away from jumping in, dumping a force wave on the f***ers and ending them all by your lonesome. Instead you sit through an excruciatingly long in game cut scene that's really only there to piss you off. It doesn't further the story and it doesn't really shed light on anything going on at the moment.

 

O ya, forgot about that scene, that was kind of pointless. There wasn't a ton of those scenes tho, but the ones there were annoying. I remember when the mandalorians are fighting a wookie on kashyyyk (shadowlands, or whatever) and you get to stand and watch for a bit. That was another one for those scenes. Point being, if a cut scene doesn't really further something, then it IS annoying.

[Karzak]

The thing about KotOR is that it is a console game, even the PC version, and it plays like a console game.

 

Too bad the combat was mediocre, at least JA had good combat, not just click a box over an enemy four times ad nausium.

[Volourn]

I agree. the combat was medicore.

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

"btw, cutscenes can also further the mood and involvement of the game if done right."

 

I think Half-Life proved that immersion factor is a lot greater when player is involved in the events, too. I doubt watching those scientists being suddenly snatched by aliens would've been as fun if they had been just cut scenes.

 

"Sure, you can answer every argument by saying: "It's a ROLEPLAYING game. If you don't roleplay, then it's not a RPG!" But that doesn't say much other than your personal opinion on what a RPG is."

 

What I said about the roleplaying was based on the assumption that most games where you're given a character to play try to be as immersive as possible. Don't you think that by making the character's role easier to take, the game becomes more immersive?

[Karzak]

Which was good, since it matched the story fairly well.

[Gromnir]

killzig's initial complaint is pointless. we get to his real complaint later in thread when he notes that regardless of choices made, you end up with same results. remove cut scene and give a couple dialogue options and a sneaky option and a combat option. give goodly options and evil options too. not make much difference if there ain't no real impact on game, right?

 

is cut scenes kinda a cheap way for developers to be making sure that you advance a plot point the "right" way? sure, but when looking at real issue rather than the phantom one, we can see that ultimately it would not make much difference with a game like kotor. kotor developers had a goal of recreating the star wars that folks liked... the star wars of the first three movies. so they took the original themes and characters and plot points of star wars original movies and put 'em in kotor. the more you coulda' chosen your own path, the less likely you woulda' been following the star wars recreation that bio was doing... is amazing how many folks just not get it.

 

*shrug*

 

this not mean that you gotta like what bio did. some folks obviously didn't appreciate the forced nostalgia. regardless, given the goal, the approach was appropriate if not necessary.

 

now, as to the immediate and less signifficant issue of cut scenes, we generally prefer freedom of gameplay choices even if it not impact story to any great degree. as between having a cut scene and having a handful of dialogue options, and a sneaky option and a combat option to be accomplishing a goal that will advance plot, we prefer the choices. an occasional cut scene is no big deal as it no doubt makes things much easier for designers, but we thinks that the multiple option approach is good 'cause it allows folks to feel like their individual character builds had a point... give slightly different reward for each resolution and folks is mollified 'nuff not to realize that their choices was ultimately inconsequential.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Xiw]

That's an interesting point. How often does the average consumer re-play an RPG? Assuming most people who buy an RPG only play it once, is it more cost effective to actually give players options or only give them the impression that they have options? If only a handful of people are interested enough to scope out all the options, is it worth including them? Probably not. If you can trick joe shmo into thinking that it actually matters whether he kills the guard or sneaks past the guard and he never bothers to go back and try it both ways, why bother? Especially if joe is going to have much more appreciation for the cool particle effects you were able to include by cutting the "real options".

[Diogo Ribeiro]

^The problem with that is that Joe Schmoe, while not replaying all options, will think highly of the game because there are various options, regardless of them leading everywhere. BG2's hype derives precisely from that. Its even more of a problem when reviewers fall into the same deathtrap. I still find it amusing how even to this day, i can find me some rabid fans of BG2 who are oblivious to the fact that most dialogue choices lead to the same answers; yet they have no problem saying it has great roleplaying and replayability levels.