I have a bad feeling about KOTOR 2.....

[Gromnir]

again, all those fans not help battle grounds or yoda tales or any of the multitude of other sw stinkers over the years. and again, we never denied that sw was popular... but you has hardly shown that kotor was undeserving of acclaim... krazy opinion not seem to count much 'gainst weight of so many respected critics and developers.

 

if there is so many delusional sw fans out there, then why does so many sw games tank?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Stalins Ghost]

Hi all this is my first post here.

 

I have full confidence in Obsidian, since they have experianced devs in the genre and Bioware did come to them, so im not worried.

 

As for the short dev period:

 

1) we dont actually know how long its been in the making really...do we

 

2) as far as i know the engine from KotoR is being used with a few tweaks which really cuts back on the time needed to make a game.

 

3) they could be really efficient workers

[newc0253]

is not elitism that taints nobel so much as insecurity and political correctness.

[Karzak]

again, all those fans not help battle grounds or yoda tales or any of the multitude of other sw stinkers over the years.

LOL, of course the fan helped them, they are the only ones who bought them.

 

If KotOR was called "fighters with glowing swords against lasers" and had no connection to the SW universe, sales would have been half what they were.

 

As far as the awards, you missed the fact thats its easy to win when you the only guy running.

[Cantousent]

Folks say the same thing about Dungeons and Dragons, Karzak. Does the fact that Baldur's Gate relied on a license in order to sell make you enjoy the game less? How about ToEE? How about IWD2? How about some of the truly lackluster software sales over the years?

 

"Game X only sold well because of its (license, hype, rabid fanbase, etc.)," arguments aren't really about the quality of the game at all. They're more about a disgruntled gamer who sees his style of gameplay either as threatened or under-represented.

 

Hey, NWN wasn't my cup of tea, but obviously a ton of folks loved the game. ...And it's sold well enough for two expansion packs and a ton of player created mods. Folks arguing that NWN wasn't a money maker for Bioware really should take a look at the company. After all, Bioware isn't exactly behind on the rent or failing to make payroll. The thing is, it seems as if NWN went outside the Dungeons and Dragons fanbase. Hell, if anything, Dungeons and Dragons benefited from NWN.

 

I've railed against NWN as much as the next guy. I think it was the wrong way to go and I heaved a great sigh of relief when I played KotOR. ...But somewhere along the line, you have to stop yourself from assuming that your tastes drive the market.

 

The fact is, the current generation is rarely the generation to decide what is or is not a classical success. However, the current generation does decide what will be a commercial success. As much as some folks might hate it, KotOR sold well. Saying that the Star Wars license was the only reason it sold well is simply sour grapes.

[Volourn]

Beh.

 

No one knows about the Evil Warrior tm, and the Old Man tm. You all suck.

 

 

Anyways, as Grom poitning out Kazakian, SW names gives an initial bosst to sales; but it surely doesn't make bad games sale over the long haul.

 

Sammael, sorry, but Targos is overrated. One of the ebst IE cities/towns? You nuts? Birchhaven, Kuldahar, the Barbarian Camp, Baldur's Gate,Athkatla, th Drow City, and Sigil are just a few examples of IE cities/towns thata re EASILY better that Targos. Easily.

 

I agree with you. FO2, outisde of bugs, is easily better than FO1. Though FO1 is still great.

[Azarkon]

popularity does not preclude quality.

 

Okay. That's what I was saying. Don't take every reponse as an argument. I genuinely wanted to know whether Harry Potter sold better than "one hundred years of solitude."

 

for chrissakes... you does realize that we is talking 'bout games, right? just say the word, "Games." does we even have to acknowledge that a "game" should be fun? creating a masterpiece or a work of art has to be a secondary or tertiary concern at best. if a majority of folks not find a game to be fun, then we suspect that there is something wrong with it, don't you agree?

 

How hard is it to understand that "fun" is crafted on multiple levels? You talk of "fun" as if it were some kind of universal interpretation. Neither in literature nor in games is that true. A masterpiece of gaming *IS* "fun", but it's fun on a different level than mindlessly hacking through a legion of monsters and collecting phat lewts in the process. The latter is "fun", too, but it's shallow fun, just as reading Salvatore is shallow enjoyment - but it's still enjoyment. Don't know 'bout how you separate literary masterpieces from hack writing, but to me they operate on different levels of appreciation, as do games. Companies nowadays seem to believe that shallow fun is all that players want, and so they give it to them in troves. Just look at all the Diablo clones - and for every one of those, how many new BG's, PS:T's, and Fallouts? Are those games not as "fun" as Diablo? What about a game like Civilization? It's popular, fun, original, a classic, and great game design all bundled up in one package. Being a "masterpiece" of gaming is really about being fun - on a higher level.

 

ridiculous. the notion that literature must be elitist to be good is ridiculous. if a work of literature must be dismissed just 'cause it is popular, then we think you might be surprised by just how many Great Works of lit actually was very popular when released. should popularity be the only measure for lit? no, of course not, but popularity not preclude quality neither.

 

I was more arguing along the lines that great literature has to be elitist in the sense that they must not be dumbed down, and as a result might be inaccessible to the masses. The phrasing of my argument, however, seems faulty, so I'll just make it simple and say that I agree with what you're generally saying.

[Gromnir]

we suspect that at this point, even krazy knows that his initial "KotOR sold primarily because it is star wars." statement is silly... not worth debating. heck, even krazy can come up with better arguments most times.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[AlanC9]

you is probably thinking of pulitzer... nobel prize is sorta a lifetime achievement award.  is not awarded to a book but rather to an author and the main criticism of the nobel is that the nobel committee is so damned political.  is not elitism that taints nobel so much as insecurity and political correctness.  need to spread the award 'round to various regions o' the globe to keeps everybody happy.

Yep, you're right. Though that makes the Nobel system come off even worse. At least an elitist is trying to judge the book's merits.

 

Edit: novels don't seem to be appropriate for analogies to computer games, since the production constraints are so different. Movies aren't much better, since there's such a large range of acceptable production values and revenue targets for movies.

 

I think television series would be the most comparable form of media.

[Azarkon]

Yep, you're right. Though that makes the Nobel system come off even worse. At least an elitist is trying to judge the book's merits.

 

The two are not exclusive. Nobel prizes are typically given to authors who wrote multiple award-winning books or at least critically-acclaimed books. However, as Gromnir said, there is a politicized process involved here, which tends to award authors whose books are socially or politically significant than otherwise.

[AlanC9]

The two are not exclusive. Nobel prizes are typically given to authors who wrote multiple award-winning books or at least critically-acclaimed books.

The point isn't that they're bad writers; most of them are actually very good. The point is that the process lacks artistic and intellectual integrity.

[Azarkon]

Isn't that inevitable? I mean it's not like literary works can be judged from a purely objective standpoint. Subjective values and influence are hard to measure among the arts, and if you were sitting there in the Nobel commitee, I've no doubt that your decisions would be in part biased as well.

 

We can only judge, after all, from what we know, and people don't know everything there is to know about anything.

[AlanC9]

Just look at all the Diablo clones - and for every one of those, how many new BG's, PS:T's, and Fallouts? Are those games not as "fun" as Diablo? What about a game like Civilization? It's popular, fun, original, a classic, and great game design all bundled up in one package. Being a "masterpiece" of gaming is really about being fun - on a higher level.

Actually, a lot of people didn't think that PS:T was as much fun as Diablo. Obviously.

 

Can a game that doesn't sell be a "masterpiece of gaming?" It's clearly failed in a t least one design objective.

 

KotOR's got a better claim to be a masterpiece. Whatever you think about its design objectives, it succeeded at all of them.

[newc0253]

The point is that the process lacks artistic and intellectual integrity.

no less than any other literary prize. indeed, as a bunch of academics they are more committed to intellectual integrity than most.

 

there's almost always some degree of horse-trading in these things, and the problem with the nobel selection committee is that they are a dull uninspired bunch who are trying to judge for posterity. their recent picks have been slightly better, but overall it's a prize that's become burdened by its own pretensions.

[AlanC9]

Isn't that inevitable? I mean it's not like literary works can be judged from a purely objective standpoint.  Subjective values and influence are hard to measure among the arts, and if you were sitting there in the Nobel commitee, I've no doubt that your decisions would be in part biased as well.

 

We can only judge, after all, from what we know, and people don't know everything there is to know about anything.

Yes, bias is inevitable.

 

But I maintain that there is a distinction between being merely influenced by nationality, race, class, etc., and using those factors as your primary criteria for judgment. Nobody seriously believes that the Nobel is about artistic merit, so what's the point of calling it a "literature" prize?

 

Besides a cash grant to a respectable writer, which is a good thing.

 

edit: newc, looks like we have a different take on the way the decisions are made there. Frankly, I've got less faith in academics than typical Oscar voters.

[Azarkon]

Actually, a lot of people didn't think that PS:T was as much fun as Diablo. Obviously.

 

And alot of people did. Some people on this board, in particular, would so swear by PS:T that it kinda gets down to the point of being ridiculous, but I digress.

 

I mean really when it all comes down to it it's your opinion against someone else's, and what maybe a masterpiece to one group of people might be complete trash to another. I think there's something to be admired from PS:T, and that people who love it, do indeed love it because it's fun, and that's the bottomline. Masterpieces of gaming are not some kind of "high art" that can only be appreciated from a impersonal, distantly objective perspective. They too can be loved, cherished, and appreciated for being "fun."

[Azarkon]

But I maintain that there is a distinction between being merely influenced by nationality, race, class, etc., and using those factors as your primary criteria for judgment. Nobody seriously believes that the Nobel is about artistic merit, so what's the point of calling it a "literature" prize?

 

The Nobel Literature prize, and I quote, is given to individuals who:

 

"shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind" and "shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction."

 

Source: http://www.nobel.se/literature/index.html

 

Of course, that's the ideal. Any deviations from this ideal must be laid on the shoulders of those who are hired to implement it, and they're only human.

 

EDIT: I advise you to read http://www.nobel.se/literature/articles/espmark/index.html for some perspective on the very confusion over what is considered Nobel material over the years.

[Karzak]

NWN...NWN...NWN...NWN..NWN

Wow, do you even know what game we are discussing here?

 

KotOR sold well due to being SW, it was also helped by timing, it had no competition for its awards or sales, especially in xbox release, where most of its sales were. Since I am not a console gamer I talk only about the PC version, it is probably a better console game than PC game.

 

I have said it's a good game, but it's not great, if it was the same game made generic, without SW it would probably still make money, but it wouldn't stand on it's own merits to near the accolades that it had, or sales. Saying otherwise is just being a silly fanboy.

 

All in all, it's a combat game with mediocre combat and not much of a story. What does it really have other than SW? All you people making this silly claim that it is a great game on its own merits haven't pointed anything out that makes it a great game without SW.

[Gromnir]

nobel and pulitzer is judging two different things. in theory, it should be easier to identify a great author, at the end or late in his career, as 'posed to identifying a single good book that a group of folks can agree 'pon as the best in a given year.

 

for most yearly awards for a best work, Gromnir generally looks at nominees as 'posed to winners, to see how spot on the judges was. is tough to get any bunch o' folks to agree on much concerning lit, so fact that out of a group of books, so-called experts choose the wrong book as best is unsurprising. is easy to see why nabokov might get passed over for lolita and pale fire and other works. lolita was published same year as faulkner's "fable" and was 'bout an old man in love with a young girl. pale fire was a book that mocks literary criticism. etc. nabokov often seemed to go out of his way to write books that critics would have to be brave to publicly support. GREAT books is often controversial, and it is hard to select controversial works as bestest.

 

now, lifetime achievement awards is a little different. stinebeck not get nobel soon after writing "The Grapes of Wrath,"... a book that polarized academics and the public alike. even today, many scholars question the greatness of "The Grapes of Wrath" as a novel... but having the benefit of hindsight, and looking back on stinebeck's entire body of work, it would be hard to imagine that stinebeck would not have eventually been recognized as a Great author, even if folks still disagree 'bout his individual works.

 

the old adage, "hindsight is 20/20," has great merit... and nobel is an award that in theory should be judging with the benefit of hindsight. have always thought that it would be great to see a major award given to the best book from 10 years or even 20 years ago... get academics and critics to agree on best book of 1994 as 'posed to 2004 would probably be much easier... would be less likely to inspire cowardice in panelists too. in theory, that is what the nobel does... is giving the award to a person for recognition of his/her body of work... looking back over time.

 

"Masterpieces of gaming are not some kind of "high art" that can only be appreciated from a impersonal, distantly objective perspective. They too can be loved, cherished, and appreciated for being "fun.""

 

but if they is only appreciated by some very small segment of folks, how can you say that they is successful... 'especially since the reason why they ain't successful is the fact that they is patently un-fun to so many other folks. as you said, a game ain't "high art." ain't writing a game for posterity... to be appreciated years down the road by folks who finally understand the genius of a work and recognize that it gives people a new, if painful, perspective on the human condition. masterpieces of literature and sculpture and paintings and poetry often ain't made to be enjoyed by folks who experience them... (though some small segment of folks will invariably "get it," before their peers,) and that is ok. but a game that ain't fun for the majority of folks who play it?

 

we is talking 'bout crpgs. the fact that a developer is making a crpg means that he is already tailoring to be popular for a relatively small group o' gamers... and if you can't reach a majority of that small sub-set of people... if you can't make game fun for a majority of those people, and make it popular now, today, then not only will you be out o' business (e.g. black isle,) but you will have failed to make a game that is fun.

 

ask fergie whether he would rather have had more or less people enjoy ps:t. the goal was obviously not to be making a cult classic

[Karzak]

ask fergie whether he would rather have had more or less people enjoy ps:t. the goal was obviously not to be making a cult classic

[Gromnir]

"All in all, it's a combat game with mediocre combat and not much of a story. What does it really have other than SW? All you people making this silly claim that it is a great game on its own merits haven't pointed anything out that makes it a great game without SW. "

 

sure they/we has...

 

 

"Ok, first I should warn you: when people like me praise Torment, we aren't praising it's combat system or whatever, 'cause Gromnir is right about that; it isn't very good. In fact, it sucks; since you're immortal (long story, but suffice it to say when you get killed you come right back to life just a short distance away), you can essentially kill a Demigod with a rusty fork if you're patient enough. We're mostly praising it's storyline, it's characters, it's setting, etc. "

 

is same thing folks is saying 'bout kotor.

 

repost:

 

 

kotor is an honest reviewer

[Gromnir]

 

ask fergie whether he would rather have had more or less people enjoy ps:t.

[Karzak]

LOL grommy, the more words you post, the less you say.

 

I said KotOR was a good game. It isn't a great game though. It gets treated like a great game cause it's D20 SW. That's why people like it.

 

Planscape wasn't popular like FR, that is why PS:T tanked.

 

None of your points really ring true, but it's not really worth my time to go through that review and try to make sense of it.

[Gromnir]

and you just keep repeating self w/o saying anything.

 

"KotOR sold primarily because it is star wars."

 

keep saying over and over won't make it true... no matter how many times you try.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Azarkon]

but if they is only appreciated by some very small segment of folks, how can you say that they is successful... 'especially since the reason why they ain't successful is the fact that they is patently un-fun to so many other folks.

 

PS:T wasn't successful in the sense of being a blockbuster, but nowadays I see it mentioned all the time by CRPG critics and fanatics alike. When people talk about BIS, they talk PS:T, one of the "greatest games ever." When people talk about story-based CRPGs, they often compare it to PS:T, or if someone makes a game that tries to be deep, that at times gets associated as well. So in terms of success, I think that PS:T was in fact successful - not in the commercial sense, but in garnering a very dedicated fanbase for whom it has been virtually deified.

 

Now of course, in the capitalist world that we live in, this amounts to very little in the greater sense of being a successful development studio.

 

to be appreciated years down the road by folks who finally understand the genius of a work and recognize that it gives people a new, if painful, perspective on the human condition

 

Yes, I think that games should be fun, but fun, like I said, isn't just about having a good time blowing things to bits or watching eye candy. Fun is also about partaking in a meaningful storyline (talking CRPGs here) and interacting with interesting, perhaps deep, characters, and in that respect it's entirely possible to write a game that explicates the nature of human condition that is, at the same time, fun. After all, if great works of literature can be popularly appreciated, why can't the same apply to games? I certainly have a great time reading Milton and Dante. I can't see why games can't create fun through meaning in the same way.

 

ask fergie whether he would rather have had more or less people enjoy ps:t. the goal was obviously not to be making a cult classic