GI exclusive screenshots

[random n00b]

They were all good ideas, and they all had bits of dialogue you can look at again and again, but I don't know. I think it's because I just don't like the Star Wars setting that much, maybe.

Perhaps you expect them to have the depth of book characters.

 

Think about it, most BG2 NPCs don't really have any deep backstory to speak of, save for the romanceable ones. Clogging the game with deep, convoluted NPC backstories can be distracting from the main plot. They are there just for flavor. It is the PC's story, after all.

[Tigranes]

That's fair enough a criticism, rn. The more I think about it, and the more I remember, I think it's just a subjective opinion, mainly fuelled by the fact that I don't like the Star Wars setting so I was never immersed as much, and that I found particular hooks in BG2 characters very good for me (Minsc, Jan, Edwin..). If we were trying to argue about quality, no, I would no longer say that there's a big and substantiated gap.

 

I understand, conversely, there was quite a lot of love-hate involved with Kreia.

[Humodour]

Generally the only good BG2 NPCs were good because BG1 made them good.

 

I didn't find BG2 particularly good at fleshing out NPCs.

[Pidesco]

Generally the only good BG2 NPCs were good because BG1 made them good.

 

I didn't find BG2 particularly good at fleshing out NPCs.

 

While I agree that BG2 wasn't all that good at NPC characterization, I also think, however, that there haven't been many PC games with NPCs as well fleshed out as BG2. It's just the generally low standards of gaming writing that make it stand out for me.

 

As for BG1, I really don't see where you're coming from. Almost all the NPCs in BG1 were mostly just the voice sets. They were good character concepts, but not much else.

[Humodour]

BG1 NPCs seemed fleshed out well enough to me. Sure, they didn't have as much of Bioware's later retarded blabber, but they worked for me (and they still had interjections and background and attitude). They had soul and sass. It's true BG2 gave them a bit more dialogue, but I think the fact that the most interesting NPCs were from BG1 speaks volumes.

 

Anyway, you reckon other games have crappy NPCs? I think Planescape: Torment had excellent ones. Far better than any of KOTOR or BG NPCs, no?

 

And come to think of it, so did Anachronox. Fallout 2 had some decent blighters, too. I found them at least more interesting than most BG2 NPCs. And I do honestly feel both KOTOR games had great NPCs. NWN1 had horrible NPCs (except for the xpacks, which got a lot better).

 

I mean, adding all that dialogue and angst like Bioware did to BG2 doesn't make them more fleshed out is all I'm saying.

 

TIAX RULES!

[Pidesco]

BG1 NPCs seemed fleshed out well enough to me. Sure, they didn't have as much of Bioware's later retarded blabber, but they worked for me (and they still had interjections and background and attitude). They had soul and sass. It's true BG2 gave them a bit more dialogue, but I think the fact that the most interesting NPCs were from BG1 speaks volumes.

 

Anyway, you reckon other games have crappy NPCs? I think Planescape: Torment had excellent ones. Far better than any of KOTOR or BG NPCs, no?

 

And come to think of it, so did Anachronox. Fallout 2 had some decent blighters, too. I found them at least more interesting than most BG2 NPCs. And I do honestly feel both KOTOR games had great NPCs. NWN1 had horrible NPCs (except for the xpacks, which got a lot better).

 

I mean, adding all that dialogue and angst like Bioware did to BG2 doesn't make them more fleshed out is all I'm saying.

 

TIAX RULES!

 

 

I'd say that what happened in BG1 is that people filled in the blanks, and Bioware's sup par writing didn't really manage to shine through, so to speak.

 

And yes, I'd say Torment, Anachronox, MotB, and Fallout 2 had some interesting NPCs, and perhaps better than BG2's NPCs. AS for KOTOR2 while the characters were potentially interesting, most felt incomplete. KOTOR1's characters either made me want to kill small, cuddly animals or were ignorable. Whoever wrote Carth and Bastila should have their writing licence instantly revoked.

[fastpunk]

AS for KOTOR2 while the characters were potentially interesting, most felt incomplete.

 

While that might be true for most of them, this doesn't apply to Kreia. Frankly, she's one the best NPCs I've ever seen. Oh, and someone forgot to mention Vampire Bloodlines' NPCs...

[Pidesco]

I thought that even Kreia, toward the end, kind of lost qualities. I seem to remember that originally she wasn't meant to be the main antagonist. Maybe it was because of that.

[Starwars]

From memory, I thought Kreia was rather well-done throughout. It may be I just conjured this up in my mind, but I always felt as though she moved more towards the backseat, as the Exile gained more power and "identity". It seemed to work for me in a rather nice way, the Exile was becoming more and more independant of his/her teacher sort of thing, and Kreia being "pushed away". I don't know.

Can't really remember it to well though.

 

Vampire was mentioned, and what I think that game did really well, is making the characters feel alive and human (in a very vampiristic way of course, heh). Even though some of the concepts are fairly crazy, the characters in that game really strike me as believable. I think that part of the game is very well done, and the excellent voiceacting helps.

 

I actually found NWN2 to be pretty much opposite if looking at its party companions (most of them anyways). Some of them are fun, but so completely over-the-top that I can't take them seriously at all. In this case, I found the voiceacting cemented that as well, and made a lot of them cross over the line to being downright annoying. I just can't buy into them at all. And of course, the final nail in the coffin is that you have to bring them along.

 

MotB was a vast improvement for me, somehow I could relate to these characters again, even though they're fairly weird and out there. Just like PS:Ts characters.

 

Was never a big fan of Biowares characters. There are some fun ones, but plenty more annoying ones. And none of them really stayed with me. KOTOR2 have nice concepts, but they feel pretty unbalanced in how they're developed. They all take the backseat to Kreia. I'm kinda surprised at how much flak G0-T0 takes though, I thought he was an extremely fun character, much more so than HK-47. Maybe it's due to how he joins the party? Or is it his combat abilities?

[Pop]

Both.

 

And while I find the denigration of the BG2 writing mostly ridiculous (and Fallout 2's NPCs were better? Ah, nostalgia), nobody else has managed to implement intraparty interaction on the scope that Bioware set for that game. KOTOR and the like put it on rails, and BG1 and its ilk were deadly dull in comparison. There was no reason not to just create a TCP/IP game and fashion your own party.

[Pidesco]

Both.

 

And while I find the denigration of the BG2 writing mostly ridiculous (and Fallout 2's NPCs were better? Ah, nostalgia), nobody else has managed to implement intraparty interaction on the scope that Bioware set for that game. KOTOR and the like put it on rails, and BG1 and its ilk were deadly dull in comparison. There was no reason not to just create a TCP/IP game and fashion your own party.

 

Associating character development with your level is the worst design decision Bioware ever made. It started with NWN and became the standard in Bioware games. The second worst design decision was to take away the party, thus effectively killing party NPC banter. It's like they picked out the best things about BG2 and decided to axe them. And the gaming community just took it up the wazoo, and practically thanked Bioware for it.

[simulacra]

Bah, there's that xm-8 again, it's canceled and the project was merged into other projects for the DoD.

Plz no weapons for the sake of "coolness"...

[Patrick K Mills]

Bah, there's that xm-8 again, it's canceled and the project was merged into other projects for the DoD.

Plz no weapons for the sake of "coolness"...

 

Mike Thorton is such an awesome super agent that they started the XM8 program back up *just for him*.

 

If not weapons for the sake of coolness, then what? That's a serious question, I'm not being snarky.

[Tigranes]

Associating character development with your level is the worst design decision Bioware ever made. It started with NWN and became the standard in Bioware games. The second worst design decision was to take away the party, thus effectively killing party NPC banter. It's like they picked out the best things about BG2 and decided to axe them. And the gaming community just took it up the wazoo, and practically thanked Bioware for it.

 

Absolutely for most of your post, Pid, but what do you mean by the first point? You'll have to explain this to me, as I don't really see it.

 

If not weapons for the sake of coolness, then what? That's a serious question, I'm not being snarky.

 

Certainly, the decision on what weapons to use is mainly for the sake of coolness. For some that comes from realistic weapons (or realistic contexts for weapons), for someone like me, not so much. But I can imagine that with a title like AP, there will be a lot of people who want realistic weapons and imagine that in their heads, any 'fantastical' ones of a very logical and tempered sort.

[Patrick K Mills]

Certainly, the decision on what weapons to use is mainly for the sake of coolness. For some that comes from realistic weapons (or realistic contexts for weapons), for someone like me, not so much. But I can imagine that with a title like AP, there will be a lot of people who want realistic weapons and imagine that in their heads, any 'fantastical' ones of a very logical and tempered sort.

 

 

Well, as someone who was pushing for the XM8 to be used (and was fully aware they they never entered production) the reasons I liked it was because it had a very strong profile, a compact design with a lot of flat surfaces we can stick mods on, and it doesn't show up in a lot of other shooter games so it draws a clear distinction between Mike the super-agent and Soap the SAS. (What kind of name is "Soap" anyway?)

[mkreku]

I have no problems with the XM8 since it actually exists in the real world. Just don't start with the laz0r gunz and stuff.. that would really destroy the game for some of us.

[Humodour]

Regarding weapons:

 

For Fallout 3, Josh Sawyer was ranting (maybe a little harsh) about how weapons need to be generic. He wanted to move away from real-world weapons and weapon histories as in Fallout. I opposed this at the time, and I oppose it now. Making weapons 'generic' makes them dull and boring. HL2 suffered from this problem compared to HL1, for example (in fact, the entire world of HL2 generally did).

 

Please make the weapons a) believable (as in, similar to today's weapons), b) have an origin - a local manufacturing plant, a stock-standard slaver weapon, the weapon of choice of paramilitary force X, whatever, c) have a history of use: flaws, average-ness (but still deadliness), a proneness for jamming or exploding, whatever. A history. A lot of the 'coolness' factor comes from these aspects - e.g. the energy weapons in Fallout 1 and 2 weren't just energy weapons - they had names and model numbers, and a history of use or prototype designs and a company that built them.

 

Don't get me wrong - I like most of Josh's rants/opinions and agree with most of them, but this was one of the things that for some reason got me all riled up. I believe Josh was concerned about the in-game weapon use and choices not being realistic compared with modern day use because a select few fans were bitching about how gun x was represented in Fallout or something. Pfft. Realism is good, but fun comes first. It's not going to break the atmosphere if the security guard is holding a shotgun instead of a handgun, and that specific model of said shotgun has been out of use for 10 years now.

[trulez]

It looks exactly like the Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas 2 that I've been playing these last few days...

[Patrick K Mills]

Well, I disagree with Josh on this, at least from your interpretation of his argument. Regardless, the weapon Mike is using in the pictures isn't *actually* an XM8 anyway. It just looks like one because it's a cool looking gun. In a lot of games (and I'm sure you guys have noticed this) a weapon may look very familiar but have a name that isn't.

 

While that may look like an XM8, it may actually be a Samael Heavy Industries AR7 Mk II. I fully believe that weapons should have a history and background, be it a magic sword or a sniper rifle, it makes no difference. A bit of fluff text can take something "cool" and make it "awesome." Just look at Games Workshop.

[Humodour]

I hope I am remembering correctly and not accidentally misrepresenting Josh's take on the matter.

 

Anyhoo, good to hear your thoughts on item histories. I love the little details in games. From an overly long and sarcastic definition of a rock (Fallout), to item histories and character personality idiosyncrasies.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Don't get me wrong - I like most of Josh's rants/opinions and agree with most of them, but this was one of the things that for some reason got me all riled up. I believe Josh was concerned about the in-game weapon use and choices not being realistic compared with modern day use because a select few fans were bitching about how gun x was represented in Fallout or something. Pfft. Realism is good, but fun comes first. It's not going to break the atmosphere if the security guard is holding a shotgun instead of a handgun, and that specific model of said shotgun has been out of use for 10 years now.

It doesn't break that atmosphere for you because you (presumably) know nothing about firearms. Or rather, you don't know enough to care. Games like the Rainbow Six series heavily emphasize the real-world origin and function of their firearms, because they orient their gameplay heavily around simulation. There's very little in Fallout (for example) that feels like a simulation. Instead, the gameplay mechanics are fairly abstracted.

 

Being specific about anything is generally only helpful when you want to ground something in what the audience knows. Those who don't know anything about guns won't care what caliber the ammunition is, nor how many rounds a magazine hold (outside of how it directly affects them), nor who the real-world manufacturer is. Those who do care will tend to be more knowledgeable, which raises their attention to the details you do choose to call out. The more specific you get, the closer things will be examined. Don't call out a car as a '61 Mustang, because all you're doing is begging a car nut to tell you that Mustangs weren't built until '64.

 

I don't think Fallout 2's weapon choices felt particularly... well, smart. You've got FN FALs, Pancor Jackhammers, H&K G11s -- all very specific, and idiosyncratic weapons -- floating around with "10mm SMG", ".223 Pistol", etc. No one really complains about the .223 Pistol because it's totally fictional. Also, the .223 Pistol was totally awesome. It had its own distinct niche to fill and that's what people remember about it.

 

I think it's fine to create fictional manufacturers like Fallout did for weapons like the Minigun, but I think it starts to "get weird" when you mix the totally fictional manufacturers and guns with real manufacturers and fictional guns and/or real manufacturers and real guns. Especially in a game where you're abstracting the functions of the weapons instead of simulating them.

[Tigranes]

I think Josh has a point, speaking as a total ignoramus on anything about guns. I wouldn't know which model or design was 'real' or not, but I wouldn't mind - so I can't speak on that - but I think the important thing isn't that guns are realistic and matches reality; it's that they, like other items, have a sense of history and context and fit into the world. Even if all the names and stuff are fake, and it's a totally fake gun, does it really matter if it's designed well and it feels 'real' in that world?

[bronzepoem]

Don't get me wrong - I like most of Josh's rants/opinions and agree with most of them, but this was one of the things that for some reason got me all riled up. I believe Josh was concerned about the in-game weapon use and choices not being realistic compared with modern day use because a select few fans were bitching about how gun x was represented in Fallout or something. Pfft. Realism is good, but fun comes first. It's not going to break the atmosphere if the security guard is holding a shotgun instead of a handgun, and that specific model of said shotgun has been out of use for 10 years now.

It doesn't break that atmosphere for you because you (presumably) know nothing about firearms. Or rather, you don't know enough to care. Games like the Rainbow Six series heavily emphasize the real-world origin and function of their firearms, because they orient their gameplay heavily around simulation. There's very little in Fallout (for example) that feels like a simulation. Instead, the gameplay mechanics are fairly abstracted.

 

Being specific about anything is generally only helpful when you want to ground something in what the audience knows. Those who don't know anything about guns won't care what caliber the ammunition is, nor how many rounds a magazine hold (outside of how it directly affects them), nor who the real-world manufacturer is. Those who do care will tend to be more knowledgeable, which raises their attention to the details you do choose to call out. The more specific you get, the closer things will be examined. Don't call out a car as a '61 Mustang, because all you're doing is begging a car nut to tell you that Mustangs weren't built until '64.

 

I don't think Fallout 2's weapon choices felt particularly... well, smart. You've got FN FALs, Pancor Jackhammers, H&K G11s -- all very specific, and idiosyncratic weapons -- floating around with "10mm SMG", ".223 Pistol", etc. No one really complains about the .223 Pistol because it's totally fictional. Also, the .223 Pistol was totally awesome. It had its own distinct niche to fill and that's what people remember about it.

 

I think it's fine to create fictional manufacturers like Fallout did for weapons like the Minigun, but I think it starts to "get weird" when you mix the totally fictional manufacturers and guns with real manufacturers and fictional guns and/or real manufacturers and real guns. Especially in a game where you're abstracting the functions of the weapons instead of simulating them.

But , you know I love the "get weird", the real guns make the world believable, the fictional guns give ne the imagine of future.

It's a great fantasy feeling when we see a before-war stuff at an after-war world,observe real world in the view from a fantasy world.

Edited April 26, 2008 by bronzepoem

[mkreku]

I think it's fine to create fictional manufacturers like Fallout did for weapons like the Minigun, but I think it starts to "get weird" when you mix the totally fictional manufacturers and guns with real manufacturers and fictional guns and/or real manufacturers and real guns. Especially in a game where you're abstracting the functions of the weapons instead of simulating them.

Not really. If you, for example, take a game like Wasteland you'd probably find an AK-47 and perhaps an AK-74 (I don't remember). They'd both be using standard 7,62 mm ammo and behave much like their real life counterparts. If you were to introduce an AK-97 in that world (complete with 8,0x60 ammo, 30 round magazine), it would still work. Fictional weapons mix well with real life weapons if you contain them within the same sphere of believability AND assuming your game universe allows it (it might not fit so well in Alpha Protocol since that game may be based in 1997 for all we know).

 

The weapons that won't work for the NRA target group are the ones with .75 calibre and 50 round magazines. Or silenced sniper rifles loaded with calibre 10 shotgun ammo. As long as it's still believable (within the context of the game world) it'll work.

 

Oh, and I was never particularly fond of the .223 pistol. There's a very real reason why most hand guns use bigger calibres than most guns (which I am sure you're aware of) and that logical hurdle was too big for my mind to overcome.

[Humodour]

Even from a realism perspective, there are a lot of things that are just plain wrong in many science fiction movies and games. You get a few people calling them out, but most people, even if they notice them, suspend disbelief because they are part of what makes the game/movie fun, and are generally integrated well enough to seem real or believable.

 

Personally, I don't care much for the physics nerds who complain about how explosions in space are silent, or how scientific theory x was actually discredited in 1973, and I doubt I would care much for car nuts jumping up and down 'cause the year of the model is a few off.

 

Anyway, the majority of the target audience isn't gun nuts or car nuts. And I doubt the gun nuts found Fallout less fun because some of the guns seemed out of place.

 

I guess I'm saying: aim for accuracy and realism, sure, but don't avoid directly referencing the real-world just because you might get called out for it occasionally.

 

Hmm, re-reading, Josh, it sounds like you think that abstraction is a valid argument for avoiding real-world history and names for guns because games like Fallout weren't meant to be simulations of the real-world. Maybe. But remember that games like Fallout take their atmosphere and credibility at least partially from the real world. The more of the real world you pack in, the more the game feels believable, 'alive'. Essentially what bronzepoem said. I don't feel the risk of irking a few gun dilettantes justifies abstracting weapons to the point of removing weapon 'idiosyncrasies' and history.