Interview KotOR PC interview at PCGameworld

[Spazmo]

Tags: BioWare; Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic

<a href=http://www.pcgameworld.com>PC Gameworld</a> managed to get a hold of a couple of <a href=http://www.bioware.com>BioWare</a> guys to talk about the upcoming PC version of their Star Wars RPG, <a href=http://www.bioware.com/games/knights_old_republic/>Knights of the Old Republic</a>. Here's a juicy tidbit:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>[James] LucasArts imposed very few restrictions. As long as we didn’t contradict existing continuity we had almost total freedom. The most difficult aspect of story creation was trying to combine a linear story arc with non-linear game play. We wanted the player to feel as if he was controlling his destiny while simultaneously keeping him on a story arc that was told through the use of (expensive to produce) pre-rendered movies. The way we did this was by revealing the main story through a character that the player had no influence over, Darth Malak. The player would be free to explore the galaxy in the order he wanted to, but Darth Malak would periodically do things to move the main plot along.</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
So the player can do whatever they want, but it doesn't make a damned difference? Somehow, I'm not at all surprised.
<br>
<br>
Spotted at <A HREF="http://rpgvault.ign.com" target="_blank">RPG Vault</a>

 

[Sol Invictus]

Actually this method is a whole lot better than what they did with Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate II, where the character's own actions progressed the story rather than an outside force doing the machinations.

For instance, when Imoen was kidnapped the only way to progress the story was to simply rescue her and there was no other way to go about this. With KoTOR, the player goes about his own jolly business (or nefarious schemes) and the game progresses after it reaches a certain "point" in the story within the branch of the submodule - and in doing so continues the progression of the main module.

Example:
Good guy - rescues little girl, has to talk to her dad, finds out from dad that his son needs rescuing too, so he goes and rescues the boy. Submodule end.

Bad guy - works for an evil cartel of extortionists, has to extort merchant, goes to merchant, finds him dead, tracks down murderer and kills him, goes back to merchant and extorts his wife instead. Submodule end.

Each time the submodule comes to an end, the big bad guy does something to progress the main module of the game, wherein the player who role-plays a god character will find himself "inadvertantly" going on the path as he would have if he was a bad character.

Then you arrive at another two more branches in the game's main module - the bad character goes and does his own business while the good one does other things. When their submodules end, the story progresses again.

This allows for two partially separate experiences in the game, and works in the same way movies like "Sliding Doors" and "Run Lola Run" did.

Now, i haven't played KOTOR yet so I'm not sure how well they pulled this off, but i'm certainly enthusiastic.

 

[dipdipdip]

The only influence this Malak character has on your quest before the inevitable showdown with him at the game's conclusion is the boss fights he sends your way and an eventual capturing of your party. The order in which you fight the bosses is set in stone. For example, no matter which planet you decide to tackle first, be it Kashlyyyk or Tatooine, or what have you, you're always going to fight the bounty hunter first; however, I do think that the difficulty changes from location to location. Fighting the bounty hunter on the Sith planet will mean that he's accompanied by Sith, where fighting him on Tattooine has him fighting alongside measely bandits.

There are two separate ways to tackle each of the main quests--good and evil. Your "alignment" doesn't affect how you approach these quests and you really don't have to be terribly consistent in your handling of them. You can find a peaceful resolution to Tatooine's problem and then proceed to be a bastard on Kashyyyk. Speaking of inconsistency, I do remember that at a certain point in the game, my party told me what a great guy and friend they thought I was, even though I'd taken the evil approach to everything -- something which they were vocally very much against the entire time.

What makes things matter even less, is that near the very end of the game, you're given a final chance at a final say to which side you preffer to end the game on. Basically a party member threatens to go the way of the Sith, and you can be the purest of Jedi and say, "Right on!" or an evil Sith tyrant and say, "No! The light side is the way!" Doing this will switch your alignment entirely. Through this, you can go about doing the evil thing throughout the entire game and then decide that you want to be a good guy and proceed to receive the good guy ending (complete with medal of honor and everything).

 

[Jed]

Speaking of inconsistency, I do remember that at a certain point in the game, my party told me what a great guy and friend they thought I was, even though I'd taken the evil approach to everything -- something which they were vocally very much against the entire time.

Well, at least it's consistent with Lucas: Anakin goes all genocide on the Sandpeople, and Amidala doesn't even bat an eye. What the fuck?

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

The only influence this Malak character has on your quest before the inevitable showdown with him at the game's conclusion is the boss fights he sends your way and an eventual capturing of your party.

Smells like Irenicus.

There are two separate ways to tackle each of the main quests--good and evil. Your "alignment" doesn't affect how you approach these quests and you really don't have to be terribly consistent in your handling of them.

Smells like Bioware.

Speaking of inconsistency, I do remember that at a certain point in the game, my party told me what a great guy and friend they thought I was, even though I'd taken the evil approach to everything -- something which they were vocally very much against the entire time.

Smells like the inconsistency of BG2.

What makes things matter even less, is that near the very end of the game, you're given a final chance at a final say to which side you preffer to end the game on.

Smells like the "select a slide show" from Throne of Bhaal.

Basically a party member threatens to go the way of the Sith, and you can be the purest of Jedi and say, "Right on!" or an evil Sith tyrant and say, "No! The light side is the way!" Doing this will switch your alignment entirely. Through this, you can go about doing the evil thing throughout the entire game and then decide that you want to be a good guy and proceed to receive the good guy ending (complete with medal of honor and everything).

Smells like one less choice on my CRPG list.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Sounds like dissapointment waiting to happen. Damn.

 

[Grifman]

So the player can do whatever they want, but it doesn't make a damned difference? Somehow, I'm not at all surprised.

No, that's not what they said at all.

But to make point, you can't control what Malak does anymore than you could control what The Master in Fallout did. The big bad is going to do what the big bad is going to do.

Grifman

 

[Grifman]

There are two separate ways to tackle each of the main quests--good and evil. Your "alignment" doesn't affect how you approach these quests and you really don't have to be terribly consistent in your handling of them.

Smells like the inconsistency of BG2.

Smells like the inconsistency of Fallout. I could be a hated murdering thief and bastard in one town, but I could be a beloved anti-slavery freedom fighter in another. My karma could be good or evil overall, but I could act good or evil as I wished from town to town.

Griifman

 

[huh]

but in Fallout you didn't know about the master till the end, you were just looking for a water chip for your vault. and, in the end, you could join the master (via dialog).

in KOTOR it seems the big bad is just an ever present thing looming out there, throwing his cohorts at you at pre-determined intervals no matter what you do. can you make a deal with this Malak in KOTOR?

as for the karma thing, I agree. that was a good thing, IMO. you could be one way in one town, but another in the next. although, your followers and factions would still react to your actions.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

There are two separate ways to tackle each of the main quests--good and evil. Your "alignment" doesn't affect how you approach these quests and you really don't have to be terribly consistent in your handling of them.

Smells like the inconsistency of BG2.

Smells like the inconsistency of Fallout. I could be a hated murdering thief and bastard in one town, but I could be a beloved anti-slavery freedom fighter in another. My karma could be good or evil overall, but I could act good or evil as I wished from town to town.

Griifman

:shock: Surely you jest.

First of all the specifics of it were about quest-handling, not how you were percevied reputation-wise. dipdipdip only mentioned 'alignment', he didn't mentioned anything about reputation.

Second, its strange you criticize Fallout where your actions influence if you can or cannot accept some quests, because of past allegiances, reputation titles, specific actions and/or overall karma value - but do not have the same opinion of BG2, where it doesn't really matter what you do or what you are before being able to accept a quest. This seems more like a double standard, or misinformation, at best.

Third, the karma system of FO is not as simplified as BG2. Perhaps that's why you call it inconsistent? Gameplay-wise it makes more sense, even. Why? Ask yourself what is more consistent:

1) A game which presents you with a reputation tracker for the actions you make in each city, plus a universal reputation tracker conforming to all your actions in the game (FO);

2) Or a game that lowers or raises your reputation based on events that most of the time aren't even being judged by people (BG2).

Because reputation is the overall quality or character as seen or judged by people in general. So i don't see the problem in the people of each city judging you by the actions you make in said cities. After all, besides those individual reputations, whatever you do in the cities will also influence the general opinion people have of you, in a "worldwide" sense.

Care to say the same of BG2, where its a completely flawed experience? I mean, turning into the Slayer, when you're away from anyone that might judge you for it nets you a loss of 2 Reputation Points; meanwhile, giving Firkraag Garren's land deed (which not only results in Garren losing his lands, but having his son/daughter killed) doesn't shift your alignment. Apparently you also can kill Lord Alibakkar in Trademeet and the Umberlee priestess in Brynnlaw without losing reputation - why, if they are fairly important/reknown in their respective communities?

From where i'm standing, FO does the job right. BG2 does a crap job at it. Inconsistent? *tsk* Yeah right.

 

[Grifman]

There are two separate ways to tackle each of the main quests--good and evil. Your "alignment" doesn't affect how you approach these quests and you really don't have to be terribly consistent in your handling of them.

Smells like the inconsistency of BG2.

Smells like the inconsistency of Fallout. I could be a hated murdering thief and bastard in one town, but I could be a beloved anti-slavery freedom fighter in another. My karma could be good or evil overall, but I could act good or evil as I wished from town to town.

Griifman

:shock: Surely you jest.

First of all the specifics of it were about quest-handling, not how you were percevied reputation-wise. dipdipdip only mentioned 'alignment', he didn't mentioned anything about reputation.

I don't see "alignment" as being that different from "reputation". To me "reputation" is a result in of your own internal "alignment". if your alignment is good, you'll get a good reputation, and vice versa. Not really much difference practically.

Second, its strange you criticize Fallout where your actions influence if you can or cannot accept some quests, because of past allegiances, reputation titles, specific actions and/or overall karma value - but do not have the same opinion of BG2, where it doesn't really matter what you do or what you are before being able to accept a quest. This seems more like a double standard, or misinformation, at best.

Sure certain actions in Fallout can prevent you from taking certain quests. But that is not what was stated or being argued previously, so let's not change the discussion. The comment was that in KOTOR you could act any way you wanted to from quest to quest - there was no need to act consistently with any internal "moral compass" so to speak. And you said that this single point smacked of BG2. The same is true of Fallout - nothing more, nothing less - I'm sorry if that is inconvenient for you, but it is true Do you deny this? Unless you do, then I am not spreading any "misinformation", merely commenting on one specific point. I'm not stating my opinion of other aspects of Fallout or BG2 - so let's not play "bait and switch" with the discussion. I know you'd just love to run down every aspect of BG2 that you don't like, but I don't have a dog in that fight

Third, the karma system of FO is not as simplified as BG2. Perhaps that's why you call it inconsistent? Gameplay-wise it makes more sense, even. Why? Ask yourself what is more consistent:

1) A game which presents you with a reputation tracker for the actions you make in each city, plus a universal reputation tracker conforming to all your actions in the game (FO);

2) Or a game that lowers or raises your reputation based on events that most of the time aren't even being judged by people (BG2).

Because reputation is the overall quality or character as seen or judged by people in general. So i don't see the problem in the people of each city judging you by the actions you make in said cities. After all, besides those individual reputations, whatever you do in the cities will also influence the general opinion people have of you, in a "worldwide" sense.

Great and true, but that's not the point being discussed. I don't have a problem with people in the various Fallout locations judging me either. But all of the above has nothing to do with the fact that in Fallout I can be a cold blooded murder in one town, and puppy loving, grandmother helping angel in another. We're talking consistency of actions and you're wanting to introduce other "stuff". Great but it has little to do with the point.

Care to say the same of BG2, where its a completely flawed experience? I mean, turning into the Slayer, when you're away from anyone that might judge you for it nets you a loss of 2 Reputation Points; meanwhile, giving Firkraag Garren's land deed (which not only results in Garren losing his lands, but having his son/daughter killed) doesn't shift your alignment. Apparently you also can kill Lord Alibakkar in Trademeet and the Umberlee priestess in Brynnlaw without losing reputation - why, if they are fairly important/reknown in their respective communities?

From where i'm standing, FO does the job right. BG2 does a crap job at it. Inconsistent? *tsk* Yeah right.

Sorry, but I am dealing only with consistency which was the original topic. I agree that Fallout's karma is deeper and there are undoubtedly problems with what Bioware did - but that's not relevant to the original point. Perhaps you meant something else with your comment about "consistency", but in context it seemed to apply to the fact that in KOTOR you could act anyway you wanted to from quest to quest - which you then compared to BG2 - and which I further quite accurately compared to Fallout. Feel free to elaborate upon what you meant, but don't say I am wrong if your original comment is unclear as to your original intent.

Grifman

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I don't see "alignment" as being that different from "reputation". To me "reputation" is a result in of your own internal "alignment". if your alignment is good, you'll get a good reputation, and vice versa. Not really much difference practically.

Just because you don't see it as different doesn't mean its not different. Being good aligned doesn't prevent me from having a bad reputation, and vice-versa. Both are ruled by perception, but don't need to walk hand-in-hand. Also, perhaps you should've been clearer in that matter on the other post of yours?

Sure certain actions in Fallout can prevent you from taking certain quests. But that is not what was stated or being argued previously, so let's not change the discussion.

And what was exactly being discussed? First, dipdipdip posted this:

"There are two separate ways to tackle each of the main quests--good and evil. Your "alignment" doesn't affect how you approach these quests and you really don't have to be terribly consistent in your handling of them.

To which i pointed out this was a Bioware-specific way of presenting quests to players. However, you quoted that part of dipdipdip's but misquoted my comment on it, making it seem i was refering to BG2, when i didn't. So i'm not sure exacly what you were trying to do, can you explain better this misquotation? Because the time i mention BG2 is refering to this passage:

Speaking of inconsistency, I do remember that at a certain point in the game, my party told me what a great guy and friend they thought I was, even though I'd taken the evil approach to everything -- something which they were vocally very much against the entire time.

And i refered to BG2 because this happened in several occasions with party NPCs.

The comment was that in KOTOR you could act any way you wanted to from quest to quest - there was no need to act consistently with any internal "moral compass" so to speak. And you said that this single point smacked of BG2.

Unless you didn't noticed, i did not "smacked" BG2 initially. You misquoted me, then proceeded to comment on Fallout's "inconsistency". Only then did i commented on your comment, where you criticized the game for its inconsistency as opposed to my supposed attack on BG2.

Even so, alignment usually dictates how one should act. However, regardless of what alignemnt you have in BG2, you can approach quests anyway you want. While alignemnt doesn't necessarilly funnel a person to play 100% strictly according to one's alignment, it does have its moments. So having a fixed alignment system not determining how you can approach quests or situations seems broken, at best. And that's not being consistent.

The same is true of Fallout - nothing more, nothing less - I'm sorry if that is inconvenient for you, but it is true

Its not incovenient for me. It might be inconvenient for you however, since you're commenting on one game based on its inconsistency, because you didn't liked me stating one other game was also inconsistent (even if misquoted). Speaking of consistency, you're claiming FO to be inconsistent based on one feature of the game (in this case, being able to have different external reputations), when, as you say, the original point was about internal reputation (alignment)... which seems inconsistent.

Unless you do, then I am not spreading any "misinformation", merely commenting on one specific point.

When your comment on a specific point is not completely clear, and is based on a misquotation, it might not be misinformation, but it certainly isn't helping.

Great and true, but that's not the point being discussed. I don't have a problem with people in the various Fallout locations judging me either. But all of the above has nothing to do with the fact that in Fallout I can be a cold blooded murder in one town, and puppy loving, grandmother helping angel in another. We're talking consistency of actions and you're wanting to introduce other "stuff". Great but it has little to do with the point.

Well if it has nothing to do with the point, then why bring it up initially? Perhaps you should have explained better in your first post that you consider 'alignment' and 'reputation' to be virtually the same, instead of criticizing people later on because "thats not what you said", when you didn't said it until we got to this point.

Feel free to elaborate upon what you meant, but don't say I am wrong if your original comment is unclear as to your original intent.

Likewise.

 

[Elwro]

[Smells like the inconsistency of Fallout. I could be a hated murdering thief and bastard in one town, but I could be a beloved anti-slavery freedom fighter in another.

in Fallout I can be a cold blooded murder in one town, and puppy loving, grandmother helping angel in another.

Where's any inconsistency in this? It's very reaiistic. People change. UnstabIe or morally ill people change more often. It's YOUR decision. You can play the Good Guy from the beginning to the end. You can swicth the sides as many times as you want.You would prefer the game restrict you, right? If you were a murderer in one city, then you would have to be a Bad Guy in all other cities? That's pretty damn stupid, so I must have misunderstood you. Please explain what you mean.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Where's any inconsistency in this? It's very reaiistic. People change. UnstabIe or morally ill people change more often. It's YOUR decision. You can play the Good Guy from the beginning to the end. You can swicth the sides as many times as you want.You would prefer the game restrict you, right? If you were a murderer in one city, then you would have to be a Bad Guy in all other cities? That's pretty damn stupid, so I must have misunderstood you. Please explain what you mean.

I think that's his point, though. In Fallout, you don't have to be the good guy everywhere like you don't have to be the good guy everywhere in KotOR.

However, in KotOR, aren't your force powers determined by how good or evil you are, basically locking you in one path or the other, else face the consequences of not being the BESTEST BADASS EVAR?

 

[voodoo1man]

I think one important thing should be noticed in this interview:

We wanted the player to feel as if he was controlling his destiny while simultaneously <i>keeping him on a story arc</i> that was told through the use of <i>expensive to produce</i> pre-rendered movies.

Now, game development is an expensive process in itself, and what you can draw out of that comment is that cut-scenes are more expensive still. This admission defeats the Bioware designers' claims that they cannot do a non-linear plot because of resource constraints. Obviously, they have the resources. They just prefer to spend them on fancy cut-scenes.

 

[Jiles]

However, in KotOR, aren't your force powers determined by how good or evil you are, basically locking you in one path or the other, else face the consequences of not being the BESTEST BADASS EVAR?

Not really. Force powers of the opposite 'alignment' do make a greater hit to your 'mana' (or force powah). You can easliy take Lightning and still be a GOODIE, it just takes more juice to use it.

 

[Aelfina]

Alignment

FO's reputation is completely inependant from the idea of alignment. You can be the sweetest person on the planet in real life, dedicated to truth and good and whatnot, but if someone misenterprets your actions your reputation can be crap. The two are not comprabale at all. Alignment is what you think or want your actions to be, reputation is what others perceive your actions to be and mean. In FO you can have any 'alignment' you want, you are also free to change it at any time, which is much more realistic than any other games, when you pick your alignment it's set in stone and it doesn't matter if you're lawful good and something happens to make you doubt the life you lead. If BG2, for example, was more realistic your actions would affect your alignment much as they do for anomen if he fails his knight test. He simply stopped believing the things he did, and in FO without alignment restrictions on your characer you're free to actually role- play a growing and changing character or a stagnant one that strictly follows it's code of ethics or is simply devoid of morals.

 

[Psilon]

Well, Fallout does have a good/evil scale, but it's called Karma. It doesn't even kick in except in places like Vault 13. People don't automatically know you're an evil bastard, however, unless they trade with your former victims or you've got a reputation as a slaver or childkiller. Such acts are pretty much irreversible.