KOTOR 2- Good?

Started by Nephthys4 pages

Final fantasy 4 (not teenaged though)
Final fantasy 7
Final fantasy 8
Final Fantasy 10
Grandia 2
Grandia 3
Drakengard
Vagrant Story (the guy may be older, but he looks about 18)
Chrono Cross
Dragon Quest 5 (minus the sword)
Rouge Galaxy (replace emo with loser)
Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the New World
Baiton Kaitos
Disgaea 2
Blue Dragon (replace sword with dragon)
Infinite Undiscovery
-All include that as a main character.

The thing about Jrpgs is that they lack evolution. Most of the time its the same characters doing the same thing with the same cliques thrown in. Its like when they start a game the Japanese just pull up a chart of recycled archetypes and throw them at the thing and hope something sticks. Hero- male, young, 'troubled past', spiky/odd hair, warrior. Love interest- female, even younger, innocent and naive, long hair or schoolgirl hair, mage. Etc.

edit:Whoops, sorry REX.

I'll break it down simply.

First, let's examine what a roleplaying game actually is.

A roleplaying game, by its basic, general, non-exclusive definition, is a game that is designed to draw the player into the role of the character.

The JRPG approach, in general terms, uses the storytelling technique of escapism, specifically player-into-character, by providing a linear, predetermined storyline for the player to follow and escape into the role of the character. Escapism is something that can be proven to be effective; examples include somebody crying during a particularly sad scene, or coming to hate the villain of the story, or wanting to see the hero win etc. It doesn't necessarily work in all cases; there are certain people who are completely disconnected from the story in that sense. However, this is something that definitely can work, and statistically speaking is something that can be said to work more often than not, and as such it is a valid approach to the objective that the genre is intended to meet.

The WRPG approach, in general terms, uses gameplay mechanics that are intended to create the illusion that the player is in complete control of the character, and that by extension that he is the character, by creating a non linear storyline with choices at his disposal that can result in a number of different storyline outcomes. However, this approach is not something that can be proven to be effective, and basic logic would dictate that it isn't.

Dialogue options generally number in the single digits at most, are not necessarily reflective of the player's personality, and yield into no more than a few potential variable outcomes. The choices at your disposal do not originate from you, the player, but are simply presented to you by the game itself. The total number of available choices that the game presents before you in proportion to the total number of available choices there would realistically be in any given situation is astronomically small. As such, basic logic would dictate that you would have to be of an inhumanly passive nature to feel in control of your character given just how limited the choices before you are, rather than largely restricted and separated from the character. Statistically speaking, humans are not of such a passive nature, and generally will make an innumerable amount of choices that aren't dictated by straightforward rules or routines dictated by others. So while this approach could be effective in some extremely rare, quite frankly odd cases, statistically speaking, it would be extremely ineffective in far more cases than it wouldn't, and I would imagine in the cases of everybody who posts in this forum. So ultimately, the approach quite simply can't be proven to be effective, and logically speaking, it generally wouldn't be.

So while a non linear game can't necessarily be said to be a bad thing, it can be said to be, in all likelihood, a bad roleplaying mechanic, and by extension, a roleplaying game that defines itself by this approach (pretty much every Bethesda game, the Fable games, the KotOR games etc.) can in all likelihood be said to be a bad RPG.

A side effect, as well, is that the creativity of the developers is filtered through multiple different branching storylines, and as such the quality of any single given chosen storyline is not being maximised to the full potential of the developers.

Another quite common side effect is that often, NPC dialogue is designed in a way that it can respond to a number of different dialogue options. This can be especially seen in a lot of Bioware games. The effect that this creates is that the dialogue, in a lot of cases, doesn't feel like it flows naturally.

A number of other side effects can occur due to this approach. The KotOR games, for instance, had a large emphasis on how your choices dictated your alignment, with the whole light side/dark side system. However, rather than putting some real thought into how they would implement this into your choices, the vast majority of these dialogue options corresponded with generic evil/good/neutral mindsets, but beyond that came across as really forced and unrealistic, to the point where these choices weren't so much based around the player's own personality, but around what response he wanted to see the most, or what path he wanted to take.

Really, it's a terrible approach to the genre.

One cannot try to sway personal taste by using logic. It just doesn't work.

(Waits to see who gets the irony)

It's not so much a matter of a taste, but rather a matter of understanding what a roleplaying game is, and seeing what can objectively be stated about it. And the truth is that limited choice based mechanics cannot be said to meet the objective of the genre as well as storyline escapism can.

You typed all of that just to try and prove a subjective opinion?

How is it then, that I can find many WRPGs to be far more engaging and gripping than the majority of JRPGs?

Planescape: Torment
Mass Effect
Dragon Age: Origins
Fallout 3
Baldur's Gate I & II
Neverwinter Nights
KOTOR I & II

I found all those above games to be far more interesting and engrossing than just about all of the JRPGs I've played. There are of course rare exceptions, but almost universally I have never cared about the characters in JRPGs. Perhaps because most of the time, they are completely retarded. If I don't care about the protagonist, then I'm not going to care about the story.

Speaking of character development in JRPGs. I love how GI was bragging about how FF XIII was going to have ambient dialog between party members, as a way to make the storyline more engaging. Funny thing about that, WPRGs have been doing that since 2000.

Fitting into the roles WPRGs give you isn't all that difficult with some imagination.

Never in a JRPG, did I feel like a badass the way I did in Mass Effect. Most of the time with a JRPG, I felt like I was just pushing along some idiotic protagonist from one annoying mission to the other, with little interest in his success.

That limited choice based mechanics = ineffective roleplaying game mechanic to all but the most inhumanly passive people in the world is not an opinion. Given the sheer lack of given options the game presents you with in proportion to the number of total choices there would realistically be in such a situation, all but the previously mentioned select group of people would feel almost entirely restricted and seperated from the character; and thats not even mentioning the divide between the personality of the player and the subtleties of the dialogue presented, which further adds to the seperation between player and character. To feel a strong sense of control over your character, to the point that you felt like you as good as were your character, you'd have to be of an abnormally simple, straightforward, passive nature.

How is it then, that I can find many WRPGs to be far more engaging and gripping than the majority of JRPGs?

And it was the limited choice at your disposal - entirely - that made you so engaged in the storyline? Because I didn't once say that use of limited choice mechanics prevented the game from drawing the player into the role of the character through other means. Discussing the predetermined storyline merits of these games is another discussion entirely. My argument is that limited choice mechanics, to all but the, again, previously mentioned select group, is not an effective roleplaying game mechanic, and that any RPG that defines itself by such mechanics can be said to be conceptually flawed from its very core for all but that select group of people.

That limited choice based mechanics = ineffective roleplaying game mechanic to all but the most inhumanly passive people in the world is not an opinion.

Darth Sexy and BoratBorat (Ivalice) like Mass Effect. Therefore this line is obviously wrong.

And it was the limited choice at your disposal - entirely - that made you so engaged in the storyline?

For me, yes. There is nothing more satisfying that playing two sides against each other and then backstabbing both in NWN or like selling all your high-level equipment to a store then stealing it back in BG. They make you feel like a badass, becuase it is you thats the badass.

Originally posted by Autokrat
Speaking of character development in JRPGs. I love how GI was bragging about how FF XIII was going to have ambient dialog between party members, as a way to make the storyline more engaging. Funny thing about that, WPRGs have been doing that since 2000.

Cool, JRPGs have been doing that since the 1990s (Tales of Phantasia as an example).

Originally posted by Nephthys
Darth Sexy and BoratBorat (Ivalice) like Mass Effect. Therefore this line is obviously wrong.

If we were to define Mass Effect by its limited choice based mechanics, and assume that an effective roleplaying mechanic is something that enables you to like a roleplaying game, sure.

I must say Nebaris, I don't like any of the games that you seem to enjoy.


If we were to define Mass Effect by its limited choice based mechanics, and assume that an effective roleplaying mechanic is something that enables you to like a roleplaying game, sure.

Which you do. That really does seem to be your only consistent criticism of them and its apparently enough for you to deem all WRPGS as 'absolutely sh1t' and 'terrible'.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I must say Nebaris, I don't like any of the games that you seem to enjoy.

Hmmm... perhaps I should rethink my opinions.

Funnily enough, I could have sworn you were a Final Fantays VII fan... don't know why though.

Originally posted by Weltall
Funnily enough, I could have sworn you were a Final Fantays VII fan... don't know why though.

Storyline? Hell yea. Gameplay? snore..

Yeah well I can agree with that at least. 😄 I wasn't too big a fan of the gameplay either though any lack of gameplay merits isn't really an issue for me when the storyline's that good.

And before anybody asks why I don't simply watch a film or read a book, the truth is that the storylines that these games tell are quite simply superior to any book or movie out there.

Last chance for this to be steered back onto the topic. If it doesn't, I'm closing it.

Personally, I find Kriea to be the best-written character in any game I've played, hands down.

Originally posted by Weltall
In case you haven't noticed, I'm a girl (refer to my member details if you don't believe me) so I'll kindly ask that you speak to be a bit more politely so as not to hurt my feelings.
Hey man you had this same damn argument before. Rex just walked right past you as a sock because your info says girl.

i think rex walked past her because she is acting less like a sock this time.