KotOR2 confirmed at 1Up.com

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

If rules cause problems in the story, or problems with game balance, or if they make the game less fun, they should be thrown out. They're a template for creating something, not holy writ.

If adapted properly, neither would be a problem caused by the rules. The problem is BioWare taking a Turn Based system and trying to make it work in a Real Time game. They just don't translate well.

You see the problem here is there is absolutely no basis of proof at all. There is no rule that says you must adhere absolutely to the rules that must be followed. Those are simply peoples opinions on what they think should be.

If a game sells almost 2 million units you cant exactly say it has serious flaws that need to be addressed. Which is something you could do if it only sold around 50,000.

[Iolo]

Sales shouldn't be the only factor when developing sequels or evaluating what worked in the original. Actually, the combat and the rules is one of the common complaints about KOTOR. They could have been slightly better in both of those without losing any sales and instead been a better game for it.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

No, I am never wrong.

In this case I would say you were not 100% correct.

 

TOEE adhered to the rules. Universal opinion is that its pretty much rubbish.

 

KOTOR didnt adhere to the rules. Sold scads. Universal opinion its rather good.

 

Adhering to the rules dosnt make a game automatically good anymore than not doing so makes one automatically bad.

 

If people are so fixated on the rules then they are free to not buy KOTOR and play PnP d20 instead.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Sales shouldn't be the only factor when developing sequels or evaluating what worked in the original. Actually, the combat and the rules is one of the common complaints about KOTOR. They could have been slightly better in both of those without losing any sales and instead been a better game for it.

True but it is the most important one. As I said as long as they maintain the same flow and the on screen visual feedback that means you never need to refer to the combat statistics sheet then I really dont care what they use. Thats probably true of most people who dont play SW D20 as well.

 

Well more active feats would have been nice and some better AI control options. As far as the rules themselves go. No complaints there. My first character wasnt really cut out to be a Jedi but he muddled through.

[Darque]

The final fantasy games are probably one of the most "basic" games ever made...

 

*waits for Shadowpaladin to flip out*

[Dhruin]

No, I am never wrong.

In this case I would say you were not 100% correct.

 

TOEE adhered to the rules. Universal opinion is that its pretty much rubbish.

 

KOTOR didnt adhere to the rules. Sold scads. Universal opinion its rather good.

 

Adhering to the rules dosnt make a game automatically good anymore than not doing so makes one automatically bad.

 

If people are so fixated on the rules then they are free to not buy KOTOR and play PnP d20 instead.

That game 'A' sold more than game 'B' is a pretty spurious argument, as is the idea of "universal opinion". Still, of course adhering to a ruleset doesn't guarantee a good game. KotOR seriously lacked good roleplay depth, lacked enough classes and active feats and had balance problems - all things that would improve by staying closer to the original Star Watrs d20 rules.

[crimson_butterfly]

I think in KotOR a lot of the pnp elements were dropped in favour of the story (extra classes, specifically)... Which, I'm led to believe, is the reason I, and a lot of other people bought the game.

 

I had fun playing a Jedi, and to be honest, the fact that I was more powerful than some of the other NPC's lent credence to the fact that my character used to be a Dark Lord of the Sith and nearly brough the galaxy to its knees. That said, the other characters were almost always a lower level than me until near the end of the game.

 

Thats my two pence, I guess.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

The final fantasy games are probably one of the most "basic" games ever made...

 

*waits for Shadowpaladin to flip out*

Why would I flip out over such an obviously ignorant statement ?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

That game 'A' sold more than game 'B' is a pretty spurious argument, as is the idea of "universal opinion".  Still, of course adhering to a ruleset doesn't guarantee a good game.  KotOR seriously lacked good roleplay depth, lacked enough classes and active feats and had balance problems - all things that would improve by staying closer to the original Star Watrs d20 rules.

No because sales are the most important thing to a company the whole point of making something is in hopes you can sell it to as many people as possible.

PnP games are rife balance problems the only difference is that if a DM detects them they can address them on the spot. A computer game cant do that.

 

Thats your opinion only it may be an opinion shared by others but you can hardly claim it as a factual statement.

 

Now I dont know why Revan had to be human. I didnt really see anything in the story that would have precluded a humanoid alien. But as your class only mattered as far as Dantooine (so chapter I) its pretty easy to see why they didnt go overboard on the class choices I think.

 

I'm sure if you look at the SW d20 rules you will find just as many balance issues if not more. D&D is rife with them and I wouldnt expect SW to be different in that respect.

 

oh here we go just found this http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/03/25/news_6092216.html

[Diogo Ribeiro]

TOEE adhered to the rules. Universal opinion is that its pretty much rubbish.

 

KOTOR didnt adhere to the rules. Sold scads. Universal opinion its rather good.

The "universal opinion" that the game is rubbish is not founded on its rules adherence, as well as KoTOR's success isn't based on its lack of better rules adherence. ToEE failed because of other factors and KoTOR succeeded because of other things as well. I daresay that both would have had pretty much the same results if they were not based on any rules.

 

In the meantime...

 

As far as rules not being "holy writ". Why is that, in the case of D&D, you've had 3 separate versions, each with their rules corrections, and whatnot? Why not just go with the initial rule system and have people change it as they wish? Shouldn't, after all, rule 0 apply on this one as well?

 

When someone says that the rules from PnP don't translate well to a PC game, there isn't factual basis for this claim. If the presentation isn't changed in the process, nothing prevents it from working. You're basically taking an example of someone - in this case Bioware - who claims they don't successfully translate, but you're forgetting that they're not working with a correct base system. Its easy to say the system doesn't work in a PC game, but perhaps it'd be easier if people realized why: RT is the problem as it doesn't allow for a good transition of it, period. In realtime most of the D&D system falls apart, a basic example being AsoO, which someone at Bioware forgot there wasn't a reason for their existence in RT, yet they decided to include anyway. That's why they claim they have to adapt them. Sure, its their decision for their games, I have nothing I could possibly attack them with on that matter. Its their decision for their games, let them do as they wish. However there's a fine line between saying they can't successfully translate, and that they can't fir their own already made design. Which is pretty much the thing. They decide they want to go with a given system they created, then try to shove the rules of the license into it. Obviously this isn't going to work. This kind of translation never works. But don't doubt for a minute that if they developed a game with the rules as a top priority, instead of having them be the last to consider, that it'd be more rules-focused.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

The "universal opinion" that the game is rubbish is not founded on its rules adherence, as well as KoTOR's success isn't based on its lack of better rules adherence. ToEE failed because of other factors and KoTOR succeeded because of other things as well. I daresay that both would have had pretty much the same results if they were not based on any rules.

 

In the meantime...

 

As far as rules not being "holy writ". Why is that, in the case of D&D, you've had 3 separate versions, each with their rules corrections, and whatnot? Why not just go with the initial rule system and have people change it as they wish? Shouldn't, after all, rule 0 apply on this one as well?

 

When someone says that the rules from PnP don't translate well to a PC game, there isn't factual basis for this claim. If the presentation isn't changed in the process, nothing prevents it from working. You're basically taking an example of someone - in this case Bioware - who claims they don't successfully translate, but you're forgetting that they're not working with a correct base system. Its easy to say the system doesn't work in a PC game, but perhaps it'd be easier if people realized why: RT is the problem as it doesn't allow for a good transition of it, period. In realtime most of the D&D system falls apart, a basic example being AsoO, which someone at Bioware forgot there wasn't a reason for their existence in RT, yet they decided to include anyway. That's why they claim they have to adapt them. Sure, its their decision for their games, I have nothing I could possibly attack them with on that matter. Its their decision for their games, let them do as they wish. However there's a fine line between saying they can't successfully translate, and that they can't fir their own already made design. Which is pretty much the thing. They decide they want to go with a given system they created, then try to shove the rules of the license into it. Obviously this isn't going to work. This kind of translation never works. But don't doubt for a minute that if they developed a game with the rules as a top priority, instead of having them be the last to consider, that it'd be more rules-focused.

I agree which is why I said it. But wouldnt that both games would have had pretty much the same results regardless of rules just illustrate how unimportance adherence to PnP rules are to the market in general ?

 

Well 2e was an attempt to rewrite the rules based on what had occured in the Forgetten Realms after the fall of the gods. And for TSR to make money.

3e is basically WOTCs attempt to wash away the memory of TSR once and for all , oh and to make money. Many PnP players are still using either 1e or 2e with various modifications but the majority of people will switch with the system.

 

Well my point was to prove that Bioware had no obligation to follow any set rules system just because they were using that setting.And as long as they got the ok from the owners of the setting they could do what they wanted.

Beyond that anything else would need to be addressed to Bioware in hopes that you could convince them otherwise. Though given the success of KOTOR thats going to be a struggle on all but the most trivial level , unless they are already planning to do it anyway (and we are just unaware of it).

[Diogo Ribeiro]

1) Yes.

 

2) Which is why i pointed this out. If rules adherence is not important, then choose a system and come up with the rules as you see fit; don't buy each new ruleset and associated material. But the thing is that most people do it anyway.

 

3) Bioware didn't had to follow the rules because of the setting per se; they should just have took the rules closer because thats what they were working with, the rules. They could've just used, say, source material which didn't include the rules, and still make up their own. The standard company rule of giving someone a ruleset to work with and not caring what they do with it is what got us in this mess. One example of this being a problem, mostly for gamers, was of how some people were stunned at some of ToEE's rules after playing Bioware's AD&D/D&D games, which they thought to be mistakes or bugs, but were actually better implementations.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

One example of this being a problem, mostly for gamers, was of how some people were stunned at some of ToEE's rules after playing Bioware's AD&D/D&D games, which they thought to be mistakes or bugs, but were actually better implementations.

True to a point. However BG was based on a whole different rules set and NWN focused only on a single character rather than a party.

 

If someone was comparing BG to TOEE then it would just show a lack of knowledge in how the D&D ruleset has changed.

 

Er.. NwN and I dont get along I think I'll just leave it at that.

 

It's always been Biowares goal to make games accesable beyond those who own the ruleset I believe and In that I think they have succeeded. Where as TOEE was very much aimed at those who play D&D and had the AI actually measured up to the options. Would have required a fair ammount of rules knowledge to succeed.

 

I actually rented KOTOR and didnt get a game manual but I still felt totally comfortable playing it.

[kefka]

hmm, I can see this rule discussion going on forever, but the only pertinent question is whether Bioware's changes were an improvement or a detriment to KotOR?

That's all that matters to me, would the exact SW ruleset have produced a better game?

I can't answer that since I'm not obsessive about rules, but clearly Bioware's modified rules irk some people.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

That's all that matters to me, would the exact SW ruleset have produced a better game?

I can't answer that since I'm not obsessive about rules, but clearly Bioware's modified rules irk some people.

To Bioware that would translate as a more successful one.

 

Everything irks someone.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

It's always been Biowares goal to make games accesable beyond those who own the ruleset I believe and In that I think they have succeeded. Where as TOEE was very much aimed at those who play D&D and had the AI actually measured up to the options. Would have required a fair ammount of rules knowledge to succeed.

 

I actually rented KOTOR and didnt get a game manual but I still felt totally comfortable playing it.

 

Even without a manual, ToEE was fairly intuitive. The hyperlink system for the in-game help was very helpful.

[kefka]

I played the demo for ToEE, and was immediately turned off by all the options. The menu system is fairly intuitive, if I had the slightest idea of what each option did. Given time I'd probably get used to it, but since KotOR anything that has a steep learning curve just to master the controls/rules, is more a trial of patience than fun.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Most of the options are fairly easy to grasp as their names tend to make it clear what they're about. The major difference is that ToEE has more options to learn (most of which one can gradually learn, they aren't required to be learned in full from the get go). And mastering the controls isn't rocket sciencetist material either. If the tutorial didn't explained it for players (like the tutorial in KoTOR did as well), the point and click gameplay is hardly daunting.

[Volourn]

The in game tutorial iN TOEE was a waste of precious words. The manual should have been more than enough. Give the manual another 50 pages max, and it would have been able to cover most everything. Then those words could have actually been used for the actual game. If youn't udnerstand the options in TOEE, NWN, IWD, or any other DnD game; perhaps you are playing the wrong games.

[kefka]

I think there's such a thing as too many options, but I regret playing the ToEE demo now. It wasn't the best introduction to the game. There's a basic tutorial but a demo is meant for playing, so I dived right in. Probably a mistake.

[AlanC9]

hmm, I can see this rule discussion going on forever, but the only pertinent question is whether Bioware's changes were an improvement or a detriment to KotOR?

That's all that matters to me, would the exact SW ruleset have produced a better game?

And since we're now discussing KotOR 2, are there any ruleset changes that would produce a better game which will not alienate a substantial portion of the existing fanbase?

 

I'm not especially bothered by the Bio changes in the first place, since I don't think the SW D20 rules are particularly great.

 

The unlimited spikes = success thing is dumb, but in practice it makes no difference. Players who don't take high levels in Computer skill don't use the skill, even though they theoretically could. People just don't like wasting money. Since player psychology effectively constrains use of the skill, the bad rule is inconsequential.

 

Anyone have any important rule changes that would go over well?

[Drakron]

And since we're now discussing KotOR 2, are there any ruleset changes that would produce a better game which will not alienate a substantial portion of the existing fanbase?

 

How?

 

People that like SWKotOR do not because of the existing ruleset but because of other factors.

 

Unless they are the kind that try ti build a "ultimate" character that can do everything alone.

 

I'm not especially bothered by the Bio changes in the first place, since I don't think the SW D20 rules are particularly great.

 

Many people are, a lot of people were asking for the "one shoot, one kill" that funny enough IS possible in Star Wars d20.

 

The unlimited spikes = success thing is dumb, but in practice it makes no difference.

 

That is due to map layout, it COULD and SOULD made a diference since as it stands there was almost no reason to hack in computers.

 

Players who don't take high levels in Computer skill don't use the skill, even though they theoretically could. People just don't like wasting money. Since player psychology effectively constrains use of the skill, the bad rule is inconsequential.

 

In Star Wars d20 I could access any computer as long I had enough skill to bypass the DC required and what matters is the DC to access funtions, access the main menu sould require little skill but program all the turrets to fire at enemies would require more skill.

 

So lets take a scoundrel/scout that enters a enemy base and sneaks into a security access and uses his skill to opens the door to the main computer, disable the turrets and locks the the doors to make the corridors relative free of enemies.

 

Now a guardian usually dont have that skills but he can petty much hack his way into the main computer.

 

Anyone have any important rule changes that would go over well?

 

Implementing the system as original imtented is the priority, I know stuff like noble class favor is dificult (not impossible, favor is simply a diferent type of diplomacy ckeck) and others are donwright impossible but hacking the skill system and making Int a dump stat are examples of bad design.

[gecko]

If Obsidian can make the sequel closer to the PnP version I would be happy. Same story quality and better rules implementation could carry the game quite well.

Agree 100%. It just plain didnt have the feel of an RPG to me. I can deal some "made for VR" adjustments, but I like to be involved, not a 3rd party.

 

JMO, I didnt care for it at all, and I was hoping Obsidian would cut their teeth on something a little more RPG-ish and a little less cinimatic FF 3,000,000,000-ish. But, thats life. KoTR was a well put together game overall. I'm not bashing it, I just dont feel that it had the true feel and tradition of a true RPG. Again, JMO.

 

Besides, with all the talent locked up in obsidian, I was really really really hoping for something original.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Besides, with all the talent locked up in obsidian, I was really really really hoping for something original.

Original is best saved for when you are an established name. Obsidian have been incredibly lucky if they have indeed snagged KOTOR 2 as their very first title.

 

Look at Bioware. Everyone knows who they are now they have been doing D&D and StarWars over the last couple of years. Even people who dont hang out on message boards know who they are. Heck my GF even knows who they are.

 

In theory even though Jade Empire is going to be an original game (well sort of) they are hoping that the Bioware name alone now will be enough to sell it. Where as before it was the D&D or SW name which was the driving force.

 

Otherwise you take a big risk as a new software house making an original game. Even though Obsidian has a lot of pedigree its still not that well known outside gaming circles.

[AlanC9]

The point, my dear Drakron, is that you've got to show that more people will like a rule change than will dislike it. Otherwise you haven't gained anything by making the change.

 

For instance, while some people were asking for one-shot-one-kill, I'm not at all convinced that the game would have played better that way. Everyone always likes those rules right until they happen to their own characters.

 

Really, it's a burden-of-proof question. The easiest thing to do is leave the rules utterly unchanged. You want something changed, you're going to have to make a case that it's worth the effort. Saying that "original intent" should be the priority isn't going to interest a sequel developer. You're kidding yourself if you think it will.

 

(Re: spikes). That is due to map layout, it COULD and SHOULD have made a diference since as it stands there was almost no reason to hack in computers.

 

I agree that the skill should have been more useful. But even if it had been, I don't think it would have changed people's approach to the skill.

 

Anyway, I don't have any disagreement with changing the spike rules, since I don't think the change will make any difference in gameplay at all. So let's move on to more fruitful areas of disagreement.