GameSpot readers choose KOTOR

[Vault Dweller]

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

According to <a href=http://www.gamespot.com>GameSpot</a>'s readers, <a href=http://www.bioware.com/games/knights_old_republic>KOTOR</a> was <a href=http://www.gamespot.com/gamespot/features/all/bestof2003/day7_14.html>the best RPG of the year</a> and a <a href=http://www.gamespot.com/gamespot/features/all/bestof2003/day7_18.html>runner up for the best game of the year</a> loosing to <b>Call of Duty</b>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>The fact that I've never liked these kinds of games (RPGs) before but thoroughly enjoyed KOTOR should tell you something. At times you very much feel like you are in your own Star Wars movie.</blockquote>
<br>
Well, if you were smarter, the fact that you never liked RPGs should have told you that KOTOR aint much of a one, but...
<br>
<br>
<br>

 

[Transcendent One]

First of all, tanker's review is not a good review. He writes silly things like this:

The turn-based aspect to the combat is certainly preferable over the first-person shooter variety here

Second, this is no surprise that KotOR won. As our friends at Gamespot have already told us, the number of Biowhores doubled in the last year. Third, I just broke my a couple weeks late New Year's resolution not to read another KotOR review

 

[Sol Invictus]

Some of these new so-called 'RPGs' are lacklustre, by an issue that's evident in most of them - it's the fact that they are stat based. The fact that they tend to be based on statistics rather than the player's own ability leads the majority of RPG developers to develop simplistic combat systems, with absolutely no AI, and no adherence whatsoever to tactics or reflexes.

Do I like RPGs? I certainly like the underlying concept of developing a character and honing him to what you want him to be. But does this always play out well in games?

Most of the time, it does not. Games like KOTOR and Final Fantasy call themselves RPGs but allow very little character development by forcing the player to follow a linear storyline in which a few choices are put before him, but nothing which would actually deviate from the 'flow' of the story. This, I think, makes them not only uninteractive as RPGs, but boring because they do not offer very much (if anything at all) in terms of tactical thinking or reflex actions. They are nothing more than simplified adventure games, or interactive novels, to accurately define them.

I admit that some of these interactive novels can be interesting, or even good due to their storylines. But that doesn't make them RPGs, and most of the time they don't offer any challenges to the player as everything is more or less handled by statistics.

I for one wouldn't mind playing a game that's very heavy on the storyline, while offering actual challenges for me to face, or even fun combat situations. I just don't see anything fulfilling in watching my characters run around with their lightsabers killing things as they go by, and being able to do so simply because they have better stats than their opponents.

The fact that they tend to do stupid things and die if I do not intervene does not make them 'interactive'. It just means that I, the player, has to compensate for some really poorly developed AI scripts. This means that KOTOR and games like it are, in essence, walking the middle ground. They offer very little in terms of interactivity to the player but require a minimum amount of interactivity for the game to work. It is, in short, a poor experience.

Real Time strategy games may offer very little interactivity in terms of micromanaging your units, but at least there was a more overwhelming aspect of macromanaging the entire battle. This, I think, more than makes up for the lack of micro interaction, something which 'modern CRPGs' do not have.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Some of these new so-called 'RPGs' are lacklustre, by an issue that's evident in most of them - it's the fact that they are stat based. The fact that they tend to be based on statistics rather than the player's own ability leads the majority of RPG developers to develop simplistic combat systems, with absolutely no AI, and no adherence whatsoever to tactics or reflexes.

RPGs should be stat based. That's the point. You're playing a CHARACTER, who has his own stats. Your dexterity shouldn't come in to play because your character already has one.

 

[Sharpei_Diem]

The fact that they tend to be based on statistics rather than the player's own ability leads the majority of RPG developers to develop simplistic combat systems, with absolutely no AI, and no adherence whatsoever to tactics or reflexes.

RPG combat should have something to do with reflexes? What kind of rpg's are you referring to? Diablo, Thief?!

 

[Sol Invictus]

Perhaps I should have clarified.

What's the point of having an Intelligence stat if you're going to be the one solving all the puzzles and telling the character what to do, then?

Less emphasis has to be put on certain stats (depending on whether the game is in real time or turn based) for the player to feel like he's playing the game and not just watching some simulation unfold before him (a la Dungeon Siege).

If characters were solving puzzles on their own because of their Intelligence statistic, the game would hardly be interesting. It'd also suck if your main character could plan his own battles in turn-based mode with a success rating based on his intelligence/leadership level. Games that follow this line of reasning DO exist, and they just aren't very interactive.

Likewise, a little less emphasis should be placed on a character's "dexterity" (or to hit chance) in a real-time environment. I absolutely do not oppose the implementation of to-hit ratios and the dexterity statistic in a turn-based environment because that's exactly what it exists for. But putting dexterity in a real-time game and placing emphasis on it to the extent that it determines whether you manage to hit your enemies (even though the visuals on screen clearly show that you did) only detracts from an interactive experience and results in a combat system similar to Morrowind's.

Was Morrowind fun?

 

[Vault Dweller]

What's the point of having an Intelligence stat if you're going to be the one solving all the puzzles and telling the character what to do, then?

You shouldn't. There are plenty examples of puzzles depending on stats and knowledge picked up by your character.

If characters were solving puzzles on their own because of their Intelligence statistic, the game would hardly be interesting.

If your char is not too bright to figure out a puzzle there should be some other ways to proceed based on what he/she is good at

It'd also suck if your main character could plan his own battles in turn-based mode with a success rating based on his intelligence/leadership level. Games that follow this line of reasning DO exist, and they just aren't very interactive.

You are your char, hence "role-playing", the stats are there to govern your actions and define what's possible or not based on the way you developed your char.

 

[Sol Invictus]

I'd think it's pretty boring to just click to move your character around and do nothing else while watching events unfold.

That'd be an adventure game.