How did KotOR fail?

[Gromnir]

"Gronmir, notsomuch. How's the grammar problem coming along?"

 

irony defined.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Anaril]

"Gronmir, notsomuch. How's the grammar problem coming along?"

 

irony defined.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Riiiiiiiight... because EVERYONE I know says: "How is your grammatical deficiency progressing?" :roll:

[Gromnir]

am not sure how your use of argumentum ad populum reduces the irony of your initial statement. was you grammatically correct when you said, "Gronmir, notsomuch. How's the grammar problem coming along?" both of those sentences is flawed, no? then what is you complaining 'bout?

 

is ironic that person complaining of another person's grammar would make so many grammatical errors in one short post.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

Agreed.

 

All it is is scripting, something like this I would love to see in more games.

and additional balancing concerns, and additional dialogues as well... and additional bug testing too.

 

is not just a simple matter of adding in a simple script.

 

 

[taks]

am not sure how your use of argumentum ad populum reduces the irony of your initial statement.

ouch.

 

everyone should read the list of common logical fallacies at one point or another. not just because it's the "in" thing to do, either

 

taks

[Taoreich]

[FrankK]

The entire orc/merchant scenario is something that can be done regardless of the world size. You could even throw goblins into the scenario as being more aggressive once the orc population decreases--with different results (they may be more prone to pillaging settlements than attacking caravans, for instance). I could probably script a basic form of this in half a day (set up the merchant/orc cause-effect thing) with time left for corn flakes.

 

What I am talking about is not necessarily a direct 'do-this and that happens' type of thing. Killing too many orcs may result in a surpluss of more aggressive humanoids (towns may fall under seige) etc, or it may have no affect on things--some degree of randomness is needed. Changing encounters or behaviors based on a few variables is simple. A variable that only affects one result is very boring. A variable that can affect half a dozen things...now that is interesting. Size, in this case, really doesn't matter when it comes to the game world.

[Darque]

I really hope you're able to do this in a game some day Dynamic playing would be awesome Not to mention I think it would make a player a bit more careful in what they do, rather than grind-kill everything that moves.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

The entire orc/merchant scenario is something that can be done regardless of the world size. You could even throw goblins into the scenario as being more aggressive once the orc population decreases--with different results (they may be more prone to pillaging settlements than attacking caravans, for instance). I could probably script a basic form of this in half a day (set up the merchant/orc cause-effect thing) with time left for corn flakes.

 

What I am talking about is not necessarily a direct 'do-this and that happens' type of thing. Killing too many orcs may result in a surpluss of more aggressive humanoids (towns may fall under seige) etc, or it may have no affect on things--some degree of randomness is needed. Changing encounters or behaviors based on a few variables is simple. A variable that only affects one result is very boring. A variable that can affect half a dozen things...now that is interesting. Size, in this case, really doesn't matter when it comes to the game world.

UO had a virtual eco system until you added the players. Then it was soon discovered that everything became extinct and they went back to spawning things.

[Gromnir]

with a larger world you necessarily need more such encounters, and as frank's encounters is already obviously more work to implement than the mundane vanilla encounters...

 

and the circle begins again.

 

the more complex you make, the fewer you can include. the more you include, the less complex they can be.

 

ask developers how much stuff they has had to leave out of games in past.

 

*shrug*

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Calydon]

What we need is a Top Hit Song Science program for game level-making. In other words, a program that determines via complex algorithms how to structure a level that will be 'fun' for the most generic possible audience and then replicate that process.

 

[Schazzwozzer]

UO had a virtual eco system until you added the players. Then it was soon discovered that everything became extinct and they went back to spawning things.

I'd love to see a virtual eco system in a single player RPG. Actually, when I started playing Gothic, for some reason I felt that there was some kind of simulated eco system (at least a respawn system) where one could actually make a species go extinct. For a long while, I made sure not to overhunt any single species so that I would have a continuous population of these creatures. Eventually I discovered that creatures I had killed weren't coming back and it was all totally static. As soon as I learned that, I went on a killing spree for the experience points. In the end, the entire prison camp was pretty much devoid of any animal wildlife.

 

It's unfortunate that the Ultima series is no more. Not only were they a successful PC RPG franchise that was untainted and unrestricted by pen-and-paper conventions, but, as Origin's motto declared, they created worlds. RPGs of the last five years or so have unfortunately seemed more interested in creating charming characters or interesting quests or powerful equipment than setting the stage for the player to tell his own story upon.

[AlanC9]

It's unfortunate that the Ultima series is no more. Not only were they a successful PC RPG franchise that was untainted and unrestricted by pen-and-paper conventions, but, as Origin's motto declared, they created worlds. RPGs of the last five years or so have unfortunately seemed more interested in creating charming characters or interesting quests or powerful equipment than setting the stage for the player to tell his own story upon.

I wonder if increasing technical sophistication doesn't have something to do with that. Imagine doing Brittania at the KotOR level of detail

[Darque]

It would probably be just as dull

 

Oh, did I mention, I don't like ultima

[Drakron]

EA killed Origin.

 

Ultima Online because a "cash cow" and all Origin projects were discontinued in favor of UO support, Ultima IX is a example of EA influence of Origin projects.

[Schazzwozzer]

I wonder if increasing technical sophistication doesn't have something to do with that. Imagine doing Brittania at the KotOR level of detail

I don't think that it has much to do with graphical detail (I assume that's the kind of detail you are referring to) or the size of the world. I think it has more to do with Baldur's Gate and the Infinity Engine really. Baldur's Gate established something of a status quo as far as what RPGs could and should have been. Unfortunately, if you want to do a dynamic and interactive game world, it really has to be supported by the game engine, and if there's one thing that the Infinity Engine wasn't built for, it's a dynamic, interactive environments. On top of that, the genre isn't particularly a prolific one and so there have been less opportunities for developers to stray from the norm.

 

By the way, I feel it's worth saying that I don't necessarily think that the Ultima games were amazingly realistic world simulations or were even particularly good games. I merely applaud that Origin made it a priority to create a world that was more than pretty scenery and background. Since Origin dissolved, no RPG developers have really put the same emphasis on those game aspects, save perhaps for Pirahna Bytes (Gothic) and now, from the sound of things, Big Blue Box (Fable).

[Schazzwozzer]

I know that this thread only continues to move further and further away from the original topic, but I read something that I think relates a bit to Frank's orc/merchant scenario above. This is taken from a preview of Fable at a website called Team X-Box.

 

It is amazing exactly how layered the various gameplay elements are in Fable. Most RPGs have a series of stores with set prices for equipment, food, etc. Fable uses a more realistic economic model that is affected by actions that take place in the world. For example, say you choose to not to help a trader as he is being robbed. Being that is stock is now low, the cost of all merchandise is higher. You can even choose to enter into the trading business by checking the wants of a particular merchant, traveling to another location and acquiring merchandise, and then selling it to said merchant. Obviously the standard methods of buying and selling also apply, but having a true economic model in place, Fable engrosses the player in the world of Albion.

 

Not only is it very cool that the player's choices are represented in the game world in such a manner, but how cool is it that, simply because the game's merchant prices are not static, there emerges a simplistic trading game? Whether or not it's actually a worthwhile endeavor will depend upon the importance of money (I don't know if I've ever played an RPG where money didn't, at some point, become all but obselete), but this is a fine example of how cleverly implemented mechanics (shifting values on goods and the player's ability to buy and sell) can result in some interesting world dynamics (player can buy low and sell high for profit) which ultimately means a richer experience for the player (greater player choice and exploration).

[Berserk]

I know that this thread only continues to move further and further away from the original topic, but I read something that I think relates a bit to Frank's orc/merchant scenario above. This is taken from a preview of Fable at a website called Team X-Box.

 

It is amazing exactly how layered the various gameplay elements are in Fable. Most RPGs have a series of stores with set prices for equipment, food, etc. Fable uses a more realistic economic model that is affected by actions that take place in the world. For example, say you choose to not to help a trader as he is being robbed. Being that is stock is now low, the cost of all merchandise is higher. You can even choose to enter into the trading business by checking the wants of a particular merchant, traveling to another location and acquiring merchandise, and then selling it to said merchant. Obviously the standard methods of buying and selling also apply, but having a true economic model in place, Fable engrosses the player in the world of Albion.

 

Not only is it very cool that the player's choices are represented in the game world in such a manner, but how cool is it that, simply because the game's merchant prices are not static, there emerges a simplistic trading game? Whether or not it's actually a worthwhile endeavor will depend upon the importance of money (I don't know if I've ever played an RPG where money didn't, at some point, become all but obselete), but this is a fine example of how cleverly implemented mechanics (shifting values on goods and the player's ability to buy and sell) can result in some interesting world dynamics (player can buy low and sell high for profit) which ultimately means a richer experience for the player (greater player choice and exploration).

When reading about what Peter Molyneux promises in his games, I always takes his promises with a BIG pinch of salt since his project usually starts out with grand promises of revolutionary cool gimmicks and gameplay that usually ends up getting cut out of the final version game or somewhat badly implemented. The man has inspiration, I give him that, too bad that he never learned to implement that inspiration to a larger degree than he usually ends up with....

[Uniikki]

Mmh, I still remember how I drooled for Powermonger. Populous had been quite addictive indeed and I bought in on the hype. I still find it quite incredible that I spent a better part of an hout trying to kill all the trees on one of the smaller islands

 

Regarding the topic, while KOTOR did leave something of an unpleasant aftertaste, I admit I also enjoyed it. I guess I'm just chorusing what people here have already said with minigames, the easy and silly combat and railroading being things I would want to see fixed. However what irritates me most is the characters. I admit it's somewhat of a personal issue. NPC driven rpgs like KOTOR simply do not offer sufficent room for believable human relationships outside one or two heavily scripted directions. Perhaps the harder developers try to flesh out lifelike characters, the more the flaws stick out. Stereotypes and caricatures tend to work better, also limiting the interaction. HK-47, or whatever was the name of the meatbag droid, was an entertaining character, but did it have depth? No. Carth and Bastila felt like insensitive people completly devoid of interpersonal skills. Well, to be fair, they aren't people But the fact that they were being sold of as characters with whom I could actually interact just did not work for me.

 

I wonder when games will implement an option to daze through conversations '[Your eyes glaze as you drift deep in your thoughts]'.

 

Also the whole dark/light side division was realized a bit shabbily. I found the choices to be quite often rather petty, with the dark side options being mainly silly bullying. I guess the only time the dark side options might have made sense was at the sith academy. I do admit it's been too long since I played, I do not remember details, only the general irritation the decision making gave me.

 

Well, KOTOR2 is still better than nothing, but I'd like to see some original work, not all these licenses/sequels.

[AlanC9]

However what irritates me most is the characters. I admit it's somewhat of a personal issue. NPC driven rpgs like KOTOR simply do not offer sufficent room for believable human relationships outside one or two heavily scripted directions. Perhaps the harder developers try to flesh out lifelike characters, the more the flaws stick out. Stereotypes and caricatures tend to work better, also limiting the interaction. HK-47, or whatever was the name of the meatbag droid, was an entertaining character, but did it have depth? No. Carth and Bastila felt like insensitive people completly devoid of interpersonal skills. Well, to be fair, they aren't people But the fact that they were being sold of as characters with whom I could actually interact just did not work for me.

 

I wonder when games will implement an option to daze through conversations '[Your eyes glaze as you drift deep in your thoughts]'.

Ah, but Bastila is an insensitive person devoid of interpersonal skills; she pretty much admits that herself. And Carth's just kind of given up on the whole thing. They worked for me.

 

I agree that most of the evil options didn't work. There were a couple that did, but they're mostly beneath me. The evil endgame was pretty good, but most of the rest isn't worth doing.