Interview New Gothic 3 interview with Kai Rosencrantz

[elander_]

Bioware focusing on "story-telling" to the devs just means more and more cutscenes, there is nothing RPG about cutscenes. They don't know what to do with game design so as long as their action games have lots of cutscenes/forced dialog they call them RPGs.

Bioware makes crapy games based on a retarded concept of story-telling for computer games. If i want to be told a story i watch a movie or read a book which is one hundred times better.

Who th'fuck in his right consider siting on a computer screen and watching crapy CG cutscenes or walking a fictitious character with a face like Nick the Imperial and standing in front of even worst looking characters with an horrible pre-scripted acting scene telling him a story?

A) An idiot.
B) Someone who can't read and needs someone to read a story for him.
C) A bioware fanboy.
D) A 5 year old kid with a very low atention spam or a console player.

I think this covers almost alll the cases.

Games where made to LIVE experiences. To simulate interesting experiences and have fun. Why would someone want a cg character to tell him a story, when he can make that story himself with his own actions and fight his own way against opposite factions if he has to or deal with the mistakes of his acts. LOL

Bioware games are not even games much less role-playing games.

 

[Volourn]

"when he can make that story himself with his own actions and fight his own way against opposite factions if he has to or deal with the mistakes of his acts. LOL"

That describes BIO games to a tee.


"Bioware games are not even games much less role-playing games."

The Codex disagrees with you.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

"when he can make that story himself"

That describes BIO games to a tee.

You can have a PC makes his or her way through a story, but generally you can't make the story itself in a Bioware game. Whatever you did in the Baldur's Gate saga you were always a Bhaalspawn which even through playing evil would still rid the world of Jon Irenicus and the Five... In Knights, you were Revan no matter what you did. As an attempt to tell a predetermined story while giving some measure of freedom as to go about it, that may work, but it's not the same as making the story itself because parts of it - or the most important ones - are already set in stone and all you can do is have a passive role to their execution.

 

[Kraszu]

ESF boards to about what I thought was wrong with Oblivion as well as I have posted constructive ways of how to make Oblivion better. I'm sorry that I don't seem to *[censor]* Oblivion as much as you guys do.

You post some bullshit about Bethseda and PB following the same design philosophy but didn't answer to any respond. That kinda make idea of forum useless no?

Nevertheless, I still stand by my comment on made about this site in the quoted bioware post(s). And while we're on that subject, I find it a bit unlogical (and possibly unethichal) to bring up a post I've made on the bioware forums. I'm not sure about this, but doesn't any material on the bioware boards belong to them i.e. have copyright associated somehow with them.

You are not talking about post made by random person on free forum. I am sure that Bioware cares allot about that piracy, if that can be illegal at all.

Also, in the manual for Baldur's Gate 2 on page 39, it clearly states that "we follow a modiefied round bases system." This means that yes, combat is in real-time, but every character has to wait until it is his or her turn to do something. This is done ten times faster than in Pnp games, since each round is six seconds long.

Then every game is turn based if attack have cool down you have to wait before next shot omg quake is turn based. It just makes crippled real time whit stupid distraction between movement and attack (that definitely doesn't make it turn based) and whit cool down that takes always the same time but allow you to make more attack at start of every 6sec.

I enjoy a heated argument/discussion as much as the next guy, but I prefer one based in opinions and arguments, not one based in personal [censored] and [censored] feelings.[/quote]

That is why most of your post are Internet drama?

 

[Volourn]

"Whatever you did in the Baldur's Gate saga you were always a Bhaalspawn"

Whatever you did in FO1, you were always a Vault Dweller from Vault 13.

Whatever you did in FO2, you were always a Tribal.

Whatever you did in BL, you were a vampire.

Do, you see how silly that line of reasoning is?

P.S. I'm not saying BG series = FO int terms of choice and consequences b/c FO is definitely better than the BGs at that aspect; but your example is rather poor.



"but it's not the same as making the story itself because parts of it"

No matter what you do or what type of character you play, FO's story is rather ste in stone as well. Only two 'major' endings - being kicked out of the vault, and joining the army (only a retard would do that); but the basic story is still the same.

BG series may not be as 'open' as Fo is; but they both still have their limitations and both inclduing BG series are still role-playing games.

RPG = game that gives players options on what and how to do stuff and has consequences for said choices. BG series - espicially BG2 - has this. As do all BIO RPGs to varying degrees.

This is a fact.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Being a Bhallspawn effectively reduced your PC's impact on the story because of the whole prophecy and how the PC was inexorably tied to predefined goals - those of reclaiming your soul and of reaching the Throne of Bhaal. You always went through the same motions to achieve them. You couldn't make the character's story because it was already made for you. A Bhallspawn would *always* reclaim their soul, would *always* defeat Joneleth, woukd *always* defeat the Five and *always* reach the Throne. In a way being a fledgling in Bloodlines was pretty much the same.

On the other hand being a Vault Dweller was nothing special, no predetermined story event dictated a rigid and linear set of events with one single outcome. The story was not set in stone as you were free to neglect that predefined goal or to achieve it through several means. You weren't required to go through the same motions to save - or doom - the Vault. You could actually have a saying in the story. A Vault Dweller *could* rush for the water chip, or *could* prolong the Vault's existence by hiring the Hub Merchants, or *could* handle the Master right away, or *could* even side with the Master.

 

[Sir_Brennus]

ESF boards to about what I thought was wrong with Oblivion as well as I have posted constructive ways of how to make Oblivion better. I'm sorry that I don't seem to *[censor]* Oblivion as much as you guys do.

You post some bullshit about Bethseda and PB following the same design philosophy but didn't answer to any respond. That kinda make idea of forum useless no?

Nevertheless, I still stand by my comment on made about this site in the quoted bioware post(s). And while we're on that subject, I find it a bit unlogical (and possibly unethichal) to bring up a post I've made on the bioware forums. I'm not sure about this, but doesn't any material on the bioware boards belong to them i.e. have copyright associated somehow with them.

You are not talking about post made by random person on free forum. I am sure that Bioware cares allot about that piracy, if that can be illegal at all.

Also, in the manual for Baldur's Gate 2 on page 39, it clearly states that "we follow a modiefied round bases system." This means that yes, combat is in real-time, but every character has to wait until it is his or her turn to do something. This is done ten times faster than in Pnp games, since each round is six seconds long.

Then every game is turn based if attack have cool down you have to wait before next shot omg quake is turn based. It just makes crippled real time whit stupid distraction between movement and attack (that definitely doesn't make it turn based) and whit cool down that takes always the same time but allow you to make more attack at start of every 6sec.

I enjoy a heated argument/discussion as much as the next guy, but I prefer one based in opinions and arguments, not one based in personal [censored] and [censored] feelings.

That is why most of your post are Internet drama?[/quote]

I have to side with aries here.

As the hive mind has long concluded: BG is ROUND based - not TURN based (like Fallout or PoR). Also it is not the same as PHASE based (like FF).

It is also codex belief that TB > PB > RB. Real real time is so completly different that it can't be compered on reasonable terms.

BUT everyone is free to express his statement that his order of preferences (Samuelson/ Nordhaus, p.??) is different - but this order is individual. It is retarded to call someone biased when he expresses a PERSONAL taste.

I don't call HumanShield stupid because he doesn't like the traditional way of storytelling in interactive fiction. So why do you that to aries?

I prefer TB. But I also played my way through PoR2, so maybe I'm a little crazy.

bye

 

[Sir_Brennus]

Being a Bhallspawn effectively reduced your PC's impact on the story because of the whole prophecy and how the PC was inexorably tied to predefined goals - those of reclaiming your soul and of reaching the Throne of Bhaal. You always went through the same motions to achieve them. You couldn't make the character's story because it was already made for you. A Bhallspawn would *always* reclaim their soul, would *always* defeat Joneleth, woukd *always* defeat the Five and *always* reach the Throne. In a way being a fledgling in Bloodlines was pretty much the same.

On the other hand being a Vault Dweller was nothing special, no predetermined story event dictated a rigid and linear set of events with one single outcome. The story was not set in stone as you were free to neglect that predefined goal or to achieve it through several means. You weren't required to go through the same motions to save - or doom - the Vault. You could actually have a saying in the story. A Vault Dweller *could* rush for the water chip, or *could* prolong the Vault's existence by hiring the Hub Merchants, or *could* handle the Master right away, or *could* even side with the Master.

That was incredible.

Do you actuall think you have to explain the concept of "linear" vs. "non-linear" to codex readers :shock:

 

[aries202]

First of all I didn't post any [censoresd] thing about
PB and Bethsoft follow the same design strategy.

I wondered and pondered, and all this came about when I read what Kai said in the interview about using algorithms to take (or make?) any consequences clear for the player's avatar when or she makes a choice in the game world. Also, please note taht English isn't ny native lanaguage,
so bear with me, please if my ideas aren't expresses
to the fullest.

What I wondered about was just this: Is G3 and Oblivion done in similar fashion, meaning since G3 and Oblivion attempt the same thing, given the player (as well as the pc) as much freedom as possible. It was the tech stuff, I asked about, since I wonderes if G3 and Oblivion did similar means to achieve this freedom i.e. algorithms. (i'm not a programmer so I don't know anything, or at least very little as to how computer games are written or coded).

Anyway, I sort of have gotten my answer from
various people on the codex, G3 uses algorithms?
and Oblivion uses the radiant ai system.
(however, this system, rai, does still need to be coded, does it not).

I wasn't attempting to say that Oblivion and Gothic3 followed the same design strategy, what I was asking was purely if & when the two games technically used the same means to convey or present what they set or to or tried to: used algorithms to let the game decide what actions, if any, of the pc, that should have any consequences to the player, the npcs or the gameworld. This was the only thing I was asking.

If you read my posts closely, you will also see that I'm saying that the design choice being made by G3 is far far better and much better implemented than the much hyped radiant AI of Oblivion. (mainly beacsue you can choose whether or not to kill an npc or not, or whether or not you want to talk your or fight way through quests).

While I agree that the pc's choices in Oblivion pretty much doesn't affect the game world at all, or that
there isn't as much choice making to be done when solving quest in Oblivion. (something which I also have commented on, both here and on the ESF boards), still stand find that Oblivion is a fun game to play. (which has it flaws, of course, as all games do).
I still don't find Oblivion 'the bestest game evaaar'.

To sum up:
G3 is the far far better game, also rpgwise, when
compared to Oblivion. (for all the reasons mentioned
in this thread).

 

[Volourn]

"Being a Bhallspawn effectively reduced your PC's impact on the story because of the whole prophecy and how the PC was inexorably tied to predefined goals - those of reclaiming your soul and of reaching the Throne of Bhaal. You always went through the same motions to achieve them. You couldn't make the character's story because it was already made for you. A Bhallspawn would *always* reclaim their soul, would *always* defeat Joneleth, woukd *always* defeat the Five and *always* reach the Throne. In a way being a fledgling in Bloodlines was pretty much the same.

On the other hand being a Vault Dweller was nothing special, no predetermined story event dictated a rigid and linear set of events with one single outcome. The story was not set in stone as you were free to neglect that predefined goal or to achieve it through several means. You weren't required to go through the same motions to save - or doom - the Vault. You could actually have a saying in the story. A Vault Dweller *could* rush for the water chip, or *could* prolong the Vault's existence by hiring the Hub Merchants, or *could* handle the Master right away, or *could* even side with the Master."

This is all basically true... yet, the point is what? FO handles story freedm better than BG series? Where did I dispute this? This isn't even an issue. You are preaching to the choir so why waste the effort?

None of this changes the fact that the BG series is a RPG where player gets to make chocies, and those choices do have an effect on the game. This is also a fact, and is all I was disputing. Nowhere did I say that the BG series does it as well as FO.

 

[aries202]

To me, at least, you can't have full freedom for the player without this taking its toll at the narrative depth of the story. As well as you can't have a game in which there is narrative depth and not have this choice affect the freeform play of the character. (avatar etc. ) in the game.

Actually, I strongly disagree with Kai about the freeform gameplay being the future of (singleplayer) rpgs. If rpg players want freeform gameplay, the will play an MMOrpg instead, imo. Bioware has had succes in the past, the present and will also have in the future, imo, by letting story-telling be the focus in their games.

Amen, Brother Amen! Haven't read such an intelligent post in a very loooong time. You should express you point to HumanShied though, cause he can't grasp the concept.

Don't confuse what I'm talking about with full freedom. I was talking about linear with branching through modular design, that changes based on a set of player choices.

Bioware focusing on "story-telling" to the devs just means more and more cutscenes, there is nothing RPG about cutscenes. They don't know what to do with game design so as long as their action games have lots of cutscenes/forced dialog they call them RPGs.

Obviously PnP games can create unscripted stories (not just a series of events) through system, but they keep things more linear in a way then other styles mite. Random serial killings and stealing for no reason doesn't aid story, if characters were just random a theme wouldn't develop and you would just have a transcript instead of story.

To make actions meaningful you need to design moral choices which is a limit on killing whoever you want and is more then following a railroad or clearing dungeons. Even killing backed by a reputation system is just playing with numbers if moral problems aren't faced (how much is your loyalty if they ask you do X, Y, Z?).

And to make these moral questions more then just asking for preference (which is what good vs. evil is normally designed like) it has to be backed by system design. This could be done in a game like BG2 if the designers started thinking beyond D&D rules.

I'm asking for a system where the player can choose from among different premise focuses and by the end have created a unique theme to the story.

I fully understand what you're talking about. However, BG1+BG22 was made as a D&D game. Thus, these games had to adhere to the D&D rules.

To me, at least an RPG has tons of dialoque, follows a story (thus making it like reading a book, but with choices as in what line to read the different chapters), it gives the player options to fight, not to fight, or to circumvent a quest giver's options altogether. (much of this has been implemented, imo, in both bg 1+ bg). It also does an extra thing: if you hit and how hard you hit, depends on your pc's skills, not the player's skiils or his or her hand-eye co-ordination. To me, Oblivion (partly) fails at this while Gothic 3 and Baldur's Gate 1+2 does this in a much better manner.

In the Baldur's Gate games, it is correct that even if you play as an evil character,
you're still the son or daughter of your (which sort of is the Dark Lord). However,
this is not the point in these games.
The point is rather that you need to discover your true heritage and once you do,
you need to decide what moral and ethichal route,
you, as the pc, will take. Do you start doing evil things,
or do you rise above your blood heritage ?
This is what the story, in bg1, is all about, imo.
Here's the real choice in BG1 as well as in BG2.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

This is all basically true... yet, the point is what?

The point was to counter your notion that Fallout's story was set in stone as much as it is in the typical Bioware CRPG. Why pretend you don't know where I'm coming from when you were pretty clear on this?

 

[Kraszu]

It is also codex belief that TB > PB > RB. Real real time is so completly different that it can't be compered on reasonable terms.

Bg system is done in real time, as for difference between real time from game like starcraft and BG I have write about them and there are not so big.

BUT everyone is free to express his statement that his order of preferences (Samuelson/ Nordhaus, p.??) is different - but this order is individual. It is retarded to call someone biased when he expresses a PERSONAL taste.

I don't call HumanShield stupid because he doesn't like the traditional way of storytelling in interactive fiction. So why do you that to aries?

That is posted to me? Where? You post in the way that I don't know what are you referring to, just post that part of post and then comment.

First of all I didn't post any [censoresd] thing about
PB and Bethsoft follow the same design strategy.

Personally, to me, it seems like PB is trying to compete with Bethsoft (& other rpg devs./publishers) by making the game's engine (if that is the correct term?) react exactly or nearly exactly the same as Oblivion's engine does.

I was referring to that, strategy may not be best word but my English is limited.

If you read my posts closely, you will also see that I'm saying that the design choice being made by G3 is far far better and much better implemented than the much hyped radiant AI of Oblivion. (mainly beacsue you can choose whether or not to kill an npc or not, or whether or not you want to talk your or fight way through quests).

No rai have nothing to do whit quest being linear or not it just control npc reactions like when they hungry they will try to fing something to eat. Oblivion rai is basically traditional ai whit randomization given by npc statistic like hunger/haw willing they are to break law/[...] based on that script is activated or example npc is hungry have nothing to eat and he is thief, he pick pocket nearest npc, scipt for pathfinding is activated to find way, and script for pick pocketing is activated to steal food, then script for eating.

 

[Volourn]

"The point was to counter your notion that Fallout's story was set in stone as much as it is in the typical Bioware CRPG. Why pretend you don't know where I'm coming from when you were pretty clear on this?"

This all started because someone tried to bullshit about BIO agme snot being RPGs. I countered it, and then you came back with the bullshit that because the player in BG series is always a bhaalspawn that its somehow set ins tone., To counter that, I pointed out the simple fact that in FO1 the player is always a VD, and in FO2 the player is always a tribal.

That's the only part I was rferring to when I said FO and BG had in common as far as 'story set in stone' is. I even specificed in that very post that overall FO outclasses BG when it comes to story freedom.

Whya re you trying to bullshit and claim I said otherwise?


Read my first response to you again. Nowhere did I say BG and FO were equal in handling of this.

When you do, stop the bullshitting, and why argue something I'm not even arguing about?.. LOL


"Why pretend you don't know where I'm coming from when you were pretty clear on this?"

You are coming out from your ass since you obviously didn't really read all my post just certain parts of it?

Once again. I did not say BG and Fo were equal when it comes to story freedom. Dumbass.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I countered it, and then you came back with the bullshit that because the player in BG series is always a bhaalspawn that its somehow set ins tone.

The "bullshit" you agreed with? I explained why being a Bhallspawn was directly tied to the inability of the player being able to make his own story - the prophecy and the fixed story chokepoints. You were the only one to look at "PC is a Bhaalspawn" and dredge up the same pointless comparison with other games and their respective titles laid unto the PC as if they all had the same meaning and application in all the games.

Whya re you trying to bullshit and claim I said otherwise?

Why are you trying to bullshit and claim I'm saying something I didn't?

Nowhere did I say BG and FO were equal in handling of this.

Read my posts. Nowhere did I accused you of saying that. If you have the quotes, provide them. All I said when I addressed you the first time in this thread was that "you can have a PC makes his or her way through a story, but generally you can't make the story itself in a Bioware game", which was right after you answered elander_ by saying you could - when you actually can't (read: the reasoning I gave and you agreed with).

Once again. I did not say BG and Fo were equal when it comes to story freedom. Dumbass.

Once again. I didn't claimed you said Baldur's Gate and Fallout were equal when it comes to freedom. Dumbfuck! I pointed out that the former did not allow players to make their own story because any events that actually defined the story were all predetermined, as opposed to the later where they are not. Considering you agreed to this after initially disagreeing, stop bullshitting and stop arguing about something that is not an argument. You claimed Bioware's games allowed the player to create their own story, then I pointed out how at least one series of them doesn't and gave examples that explained the difference between your idea of a story that's fixed in stone and one that's not. You agreed with me, move on.

 

[Claw]

Not in light of what Kai said in the interview which, to me at least, implies that there's a design reason other than just not getting around to it. It's possible that this is implied incorrectly due to translation, or maybe this is the BS Volourn is referring to?

That's silly. It's common sense to use exceptions to handle circumstances that the normal AI routines can't handle properly, regardless of the design goal. Alternatively the AI could be developed to the point where it can handle all situations satisfactory. PB did neither. I can imagine no reasonable explanation except the one I gave.
I can give you an unreasonable one though: "We refused to implement exceptions to handle problematic situations because we value the purity of our design higher than a functioning game."

 

[elander_]

This is the kind of pattern in Bio self-judged rpgs games (they are not the only ones unfortunately) that pisses me off:

1. Start the game and create a character by modifying douzens of useless stats (mostly an heritage from games and pnp systems old like hell)
2. Greeting cut scene
3. Get quest(s)
4. Atain quest objective(s) (usualy some sort of sucidical, heroic lone mission where we get to kill a boss or bring interesting loot)
5. Play cut-scene to advance story
6. If won game goto 7 else repeat 3
7. Play final cut-scene

If you take away the lame zelda wannabe combat part you get a lame cg movie, and no mater how you play the game the cg movie is allways the same. So what if the game gets more than one ending. Some films also get more than one ending.

If you take away the lame cg movie you get a zelda like sequence of endless combat missions with one or two optional missions where things get a bit more interesting. The reasons why these solitary quality missions are put there are a bit dubious, because it almost doesn't mater for anything.

In Fallout almost every single mission has some impact in the outcome of a city or a zone. Zones may affect the outcome of their neighbours. In the end you don't get an ending. Instead you get to what happens to the entire land and the master or enclave in F2 is just one little piece in the land however the most important one.

Compare this to:

Cutscene 1
Play some irelevant and time wasting missions 1
Cutscene 2
Play some irelevant and time wasting missions 2
...
Multiple endings

Only someone with a few less screws in his head enjoys being raped with this crap.

 

[Volourn]

"Dumbfuck!"

Come on. You consider that a flame?

 

[Human Shield]

I don't call HumanShield stupid because he doesn't like the traditional way of storytelling in interactive fiction.

I didn't say anything about liking it, I'm saying it has no relation to "RPG". They put this "traditional" storytelling into action games and decide to call them RPGs when they aren't.

I think the BG series did a pretty good job at making a low level simulation RPG with some weak moral choices (that felt like a fluke). Traveling around and solving problems was a genre celebration game, it was setting driven and captured the feel of an adventuring party better then Elder Scroll games. And with big monsters (no scaling OMG) to take down they definitely did a better gamist game then Beth. More recent Bioware games have used more railroads, less tactics, and less interaction (NWN dungeon design compared to BG2).

 

[Sentenza]

First of all I didn't post any [censoresd] thing about
PB and Bethsoft follow the same design strategy.

Stop censoring things you punk

I wondered and pondered, and all this came about when I read what Kai said in the interview about using algorithms to take (or make?) any consequences clear for the player's avatar when or she makes a choice in the game world.

While is being stated more than once that Oblishition does not have ANY conseguence, so I fail to see any similarities design wise here

What I wondered about was just this: Is G3 and Oblivion done in similar fashion, meaning since G3 and Oblivion attempt the same thing, given the player (as well as the pc) as much freedom as possible.

*maybe*

Anyway, I sort of have gotten my answer from
various people on the codex, G3 uses algorithms?
and Oblivion uses the radiant ai system.
(however, this system, rai, does still need to be coded, does it not).

You're seriously saying they're somewhat the same cuz G3 uses "something" to do something it actually do while OB uses something wich it really doens't uses at all cause it's not been coded yet, ence it does not do what it's supposed to do?

what the fuck

I wasn't attempting to say that Oblivion and Gothic3 followed the same design strategy

Yes you was

 

[Hazelnut]

That's silly. It's common sense to use exceptions to handle circumstances that the normal AI routines can't handle properly, regardless of the design goal. Alternatively the AI could be developed to the point where it can handle all situations satisfactory. PB did neither. I can imagine no reasonable explanation except the one I gave.

Neither could I which is why I posed the question... thanks for calling it dumb and silly! ;-)

Do bear in mind that the AI/pathfinding, although it may seem pretty damn dumb sometimes to a human playing the game, is pretty complex and actually coding exceptions may introduce more problems than it solves...

Maybe it's more to do with developing a generally applicable engine? I'm just guessing again. I have found myself getting irritated with the many "G3 engine is coded bad" comments I've seen all over the interenet from retards who would probably find Hello World a challenge. Personally I'm pretty impressed with it, and find it very intriguing that they're planning to use it for many projects.

 

[aries202]

First, let me say that I didn't write in [...] brackets to censor anything. What it meant was just this:

I didn't mean to say or write anything about how G3 and
Oblivion syed the same game design. I pointed out that too it seemed this way, since both games went for the open-ended-ness, vast landscapes to explore, and the
freeform gameplay.

What triggered this was actually what Kai (ro) said about algorithms. I just wondered if algorithms were used to code the games, both in forms of the open-ended-ness and the freeform gameplay.

I agree that in Oblivion there isn't much consequence
as to what actions the pc's avatar takes, while in G3 there are consequences for every action that the
pc's avatar takes.

However, this was not the question I asked: I asked what I thought was an innocent looking question about tech stuff: Are algorithms used to code both games ?
And this followup question: Are Radiant AI and algoritm coding the same when coding or programming a game ?
Or this one: are algorithm also used to code the radiant AI in Oblivion, or is the rai, used in Oblivion just a fancy name for a more detailed scripting when you give ech npc a scehdule, an eat package and so forth ?

I dont' remember having said that G3 and Oblivion were the same or similar in any respect. I know that G3 and
Oblivion are two different games. Imo, G3 is the better of the two games, mainly because of the things, the codex (and I) agree upon with regards to Gothic 3 as well as Oblivion.

 

[Hazelnut]

aries202 - please look up the definition of an algorithm.

Of course algorithms were used to code both games.. which should be obvious now you know what 'algorithm' means.

 

[Kraszu]

However, this was not the question I asked: I asked what I thought was an innocent looking question about tech stuff: Are algorithms used to code both games ?
And this followup question: Are Radiant AI and algoritm coding the same when coding or programming a game ?
Or this one: are algorithm also used to code the radiant AI in Oblivion, or is the rai, used in Oblivion just a fancy name for a more detailed scripting when you give ech npc a scehdule, an eat package and so forth ?

I had already answer that.