Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

RPG roundtable thingy at RPG Vault

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
<a href=http://rpgvault.ign.com>RPG Vault</a> posted <a href=http://rpgvault.ign.com/articles/473/473734p1.html>RPG roundtable #4</a>. I didn't read the first 3 so I don't know what all the fuss is all about, especially since the companies are not the ones I'd associate with role-playing anyway. Without further ado...

<blockquote> <b>Guild Wars designer</b>: While it seemed to me that every publisher's favorite three letters this last year were either GTA or MMO, it might well be that every developer's favorites were RPG. (Note to self: write up pitch document for the GTAMMORPG.)

The real standout, however, was Knights of the Old Republic, which showed definitively that strong storytelling is not antithetical to giving the player interesting choices. The key, I thought, was simply that the choices weren't just meaningful in a choose your own adventure sort of way, see this ending or that one, but rather had a pervasive and consequential influence on something players were sure to care about, their characters.</blockquote>
Yeah, who needs silly things like meaningful choices or different ending (what's up with that?), when you can have romances. Next...

<blockquote><b>Clueless dude from Tannhauser Gate</b>: The combination of events surrounding The Temple of Elemental Evil shows clearly that the age of 2D is over. The game is absolutely perfect (despite a few minor, insignificant bugs) - graphics, animation, combat system. All of the aspects that make a great PC CRPG were there, but no one cared. Who actually treated it the way it deserved? The very fact it is not 3D placed it in the second tier. Sad.</blockquote>
One word: huh?

<blockquote>The competition between stories in Deus Ex: Invisible War and Knights of the Old Republic. There is no reason to compare between them, because the former is definitely better, more complicated, serious, thrilling and without the simplifications the latter has in abundance. And yet, the majority of gamers seem to value Knights of the Old Republic more. Why?</blockquote>
Uh, because Deus Ex 2 was stripped of anything that made the first one fun?

<blockquote><b>Warlords III guy</b>: On one hand, a lot of people said to me that they felt CRPGs were going into a decline once again, like they did back in the mid- to late '90s. But on the other hand I've had a very memorable year playing some of the best CRPGs that I can remember. Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic was a magnificent piece of work - possibly the most engaging and immersive CRPG ever done.

The number of games that are adding in RPG elements to the mix seems to be growing exponentially (our latest strategy title Warlords IV fell into this category too). It has taken some time, and may be partly brought about by the fact that it is now unacceptable to release a modern game without some sort of career mode, but designers in other genres seem to have finally appreciated the addictive power of that good old CRPG hallmark - the character levelling system</blockquote>
Is it any wonder that most RPGs suck if designers have no clue what makes them fun, what makes them succeed or fail?
 

Sol Invictus

Erudite
Joined
Oct 19, 2002
Messages
9,614
Location
Pax Romana
There is absolutely no doubt that KOTOR would have been a much better game if more choices were given to the player to influence the NPCs. As it is, there isn't much you can do with them. Jolee will always turn on you if you choose to join the Dark Side and the ugly chick will always return to the Light, no matter what you do.

It'd have been better if you could influence their thinking (being such a powerful Jedi and all) and alter their fates instead of being relegated to a mere spectator of these characters decisions.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Exitium said:
and the ugly chick will always return to the Light, no matter what you do.
Not if you kill her when you have a chance :twisted: :)
 

Anonymous

Guest
Wow, the second guy is shit clueless. I'd rather have my isometric RPGs like ToEE from now on, actually. The 2D landscapes and backgrounds were awesome, they looked beautiful, because 2D lets you do all the fun art stuff. Then the characters were cool because they were 3D, the animations pwned.

What games did that company make, anyways? I wanna make fun of them.
 

Anonymous

Guest
Ye Olde Google says Tannhauser is a MMORPG, yay for originality. And then the tard has this on his webpage:

Now, as to what I, as developer, made out of this - probably three things: forget about 2D; never, ever try to come up with too ambitious a story; and do not run after two hares if it proves too risky.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom