KOTOR2 revived
Necro
<insert non-birthday-related title here> Join Date: 2002-08-09 Member: 1118Members
<insert non-birthday-related title here> Join Date: 2002-08-09 Member: 1118Members
in Off-Topic
<a href="http://www.team-gizka.org/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.team-gizka.org/index.html</a>
quote:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
If you're here, you probably know that KOTOR2 had a lot of cut content, including some very important scenes near the end. We're adding back in as much of the cut content as is possible. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<img src="http://www.knitemare.org/cats/serious_cat.jpg" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />
quote:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
If you're here, you probably know that KOTOR2 had a lot of cut content, including some very important scenes near the end. We're adding back in as much of the cut content as is possible. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<img src="http://www.knitemare.org/cats/serious_cat.jpg" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />
Comments
Hmmm, I have Knights 2 for the XBox, this will probably make me buy it for the PC...
this might turn a good rpg to an awesome one.
As for the story; I don't know what the hell happened to KotoR2. I think the devs expect you to travel to the planets in a certain order and exhaust the conversations with your allies. On the final planet my spikey-faced mechanic started making references to some super-planet-shield and I had NO idea what he was talking about. And IIRC after killing Kreia the planet randomly explodes, and- also IIRC- you escape on your ship which was destroyed when it crash landed?
Still, it had its moments. KotoR1's story and "completeness" with KotoR2's fleshed-out combat (minus imbalanced feats/powers) would have been awesome.
I also hated Nar Shaddaa (or however it wants to be spelled...); You should never rely on the player doing something specific - it will just piss them off. They give you this cut scene and apparently expect you to go back to your ship, I spent about 3 hours getting more and more annoyed that I couldn't find the guy I was looking for (you can go in that stupid 'poisonous to humans' place if you have a breath mask) so I just turned it off and took it as another bug. When I turned it on later I discovered, as I was leaving for another planet, they expected me to go back to my ship to kill a bunch of guys...
The Xbox version was so bugged...it'd always freeze at the Dantooine crystal cave (and the smuggler cave); randomly upon entering any door in the thing orbiting Telios, on Telios, on Melchior (which sucked anyway).
Plus it would always give you like 2 or 3 options that all did the same thing - don't give me different text options if they don't do anything different; what's the point? Plus I never became a 'super-jedi' or whatever those special classes were. Then again, I didn't need any of those powers, because it's just not that hard to beat down Sion and Kreia. Of course, beating down Malak in the first one is a lot harder (especially when you don't have destroy droid...) - I try to play it on hard - except for disarming minefields...I love the mines.
Looking back I'm surprised I took the time to finish the game.
All of the planets kind of sucked; maybe I just played them in a crappy order, but none of them seemed to have anything to do. The planet at the end was basically me running up to the castle, taking 2 'artifacts' from the treasury, talking to the 'reinstated' queen and leaving - ooooh, fun.
Every planet except Kashyyyk was fun in the first one; coincidently every planet but Dantooine is boring beyond believe in the second one. Somehow it was still a fun game because of the combat and such (when it worked)...
I read about all the ending stuff on some 20 page thread that was in some forum. Apparently they even had animations and sound in there. I did kind of listen to it all, so I don't really need the new ending, but it is nice that someone is completing the game, at least.
Plus it would always give you like 2 or 3 options that all did the same thing - don't give me different text options if they don't do anything different; what's the point?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
rofl, you totally miss the point of roleplaying games. The dialogue choices aren't supposed to be buttons you press in order to get things to happen. They're part of the character that you choose to roleplay. Just because you end up doing the same thing doesn't mean that they don't mean anything. The most integral part of the game is not how easy or hard it is to beat up a Sith lord or if you ever get the uber Force powers; it's what kind of character you choose to be. That's what the dialogue options are for.
rofl, you totally miss the point of roleplaying games. The dialogue choices aren't supposed to be buttons you press in order to get things to happen. They're part of the character that you choose to roleplay. Just because you end up doing the same thing doesn't mean that they don't mean anything. The most integral part of the game is not how easy or hard it is to beat up a Sith lord or if you ever get the uber Force powers; it's what kind of character you choose to be. That's what the dialogue options are for.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you're going to have the player do something, that action better have some effect. What's the point of saying "Don't worry about it, it's not problem" and "Don't let it happen again!" if it can't happen again anyway? If your 'veiled threat' can never come to fruition in the first place, why let the player pick it? It doesn't make me feel any different, knowing that if I had picked some other one of their arbitrary responses I'd feel my 'player' be any different. I always assumed that the responses in such games denoted the general quality or your response. So that when you're saying "Yes" it's not just "Yes" but "Yes, I accept the challenges you've set before me; sure I'll have to fight about 20 rancors and get my nice new robe all dirty, but that's the price of being a jedi." or "Yes, this shall be a glorious accomplishment, which all future jedi shall use as inspiration in their path towards the light side. My slaying of these foul beasts will be studied for years to come, in order to perfect the art of the lightsaber."
Now you tell me why I should pick "it's like a faint shine of light" or "it's like the sound of an ocean in the distance" or "it's like the glow of the stars on a moonless night" over whatever the hell I would say? They all accomplish the EXACT same thing, they create no differences and they all manage to not be what I would say (or my character, if you want to get all technical). If you're going to let the player say something different it better have a reason to be different - I can imagine what my character would really say - I can't 'imagine' things into the game to come to fruition if they've never been programmed in. It would simply be as simple as changing what others' responses would be, that would satisfy me - but KotOR 2 doesn't do that (and for as much as I can remember KotOR didn't have repetitive answer choices). But you can be all good, make some veiled threats or be disgusted and their response is the same for all 3 - make the addition of the other choices a complete waste of the player's time and the conversation-tree programmer's time.
rofl, you totally miss the point of roleplaying games. The dialogue choices aren't supposed to be buttons you press in order to get things to happen. They're part of the character that you choose to roleplay. Just because you end up doing the same thing doesn't mean that they don't mean anything.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, it does completely remove the entire point of having multiple dialogue options. This is verisimilitude breaking at its very finest and one of the reasons that RPGs have never achieved anything beyond being a meaningless label to throw on a box.
Let us illustrate how ridiculous your statement is by analysing how someone would in reality respond to an everyday situation, one not terribly different than what you might encounter yourself. In this case, John meets Bob at the bus stop and John has the following options to respond to Bobs point (who is making small talk) that the weather is poor:
Bob: The weather isn't very good today isn't it?
1) Yes, I think that the weather is pretty poor to be honest.
2) Actually I happen to like this weather quite a lot.
3) Why the hell should I care what you think- [becoming aggressive] - GET THE HELL OUT OF MY FACE.
4) Get out of my way
5) [Ignore him]
Now, in this simple situation let's analyse what the dialogue options SHOULD do according to how the NPC would react.
Option 1 should provide room for further dialogue with Bob, as when you agree with someones opinions it builds rapport with that person and often encourages further conversation. Option 2 should have a similar effect to option 2, with the dialogue being able to advance further (perhaps John likes rain or perhaps John is just feeling like playing devils advocate). The critical flaw in Tychos argument comes at diaglogue options 3-5.
Option 3 should not provoke the same answer or result as the first two dialogue options. It should either lead to a similarly hostile response from Bob or alternatively ending the conversation with Bob (the NPC) backing away from John (who seems entirely unsettled). Of course, perhaps Bob is a psychotherapist and wants to know what makes John such an ######, but again, the key point (beyond semantics) remains that Bob SHOULD respond differently to option 3 than to option 1 or 2. This maintains verisimilitude as well as establishing the gameworld as being logically consistent. If the player knows they can provoke a certain kind of response from an NPC by choosing dialogue options that appropriately provoke the same reaction (logically) from a real person, this helps the gameworld makes sense and makes dialogue more organic.
Option 4 should be similar to option 3 but option 5 also warrants discussion. Perhaps Bob is fairly persistent and wants to really start a conversation with John. This could lead to him making some other random point, perhaps about how much he appreciates a fine hat, with John further getting to either finally break down and respond, or perhaps ignore Bob further. Ignoring Bob further could have its own results, culminating possibly in Bob just eventually giving up.
Either way, this simple situation demonstrates that TychoCelchuuu oversimplies and in fact, defeats the purpose of having any choice in dialogue options. If an NPC reacts the same way to everything you say, regardless of what it is, there is no point to having multiple options for two reasons:
1) It is not logically consistent (see the above analysis)
2) NPCs are not characters in a supposedly believable gameworld. They become mere laundry lists of dialogue options, nothing more important to interact with than a lamp-post or box of cereal. I like to think of this as having a conversation with the flintstones fun time telephone, where regardless of what you say into the receiver the result is the entirely the same (Yabba-dabba-do).
There is, simply put, no purpose to having NPC interaction if what you choose to say has no meaningful result. It makes no sense from a logical point of view or from a realistic point of view.
Look, there's really little I can add to my point. If NPCs to you are nothing more than machines that you control with various dialogue options, then that's your prerogative.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Incorrect, the characters demonstrated above (albeit with a simple example) are much more realistic and make a considerable amount more sense. Someone would not stand and deliver the same dialogue options or reactions to entirely different responses.
You're the one who might as well not bother with NPCs as characters and instead have a talking lampost, cereal box or whatever else. If you cannot influence an NPCs reaction by the dialogue you choose there is no choice, no consequence and hence no roleplaying.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> The dialogue options are the buttons, and the actions they cause are the functions of the machine. If you play RPGs like this, then talking is a means to an end. You do it just to evoke a response from the NPCs. This is like reading a book just for the plot, skipping over all the nuanced language that the writer has worked so hard on.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is complete rubbish honestly.
Edit: It's also wonderfully self-contradictory. How can you 'evoke' a response from an NPC when regardless of what dialogue option you choose, despite what the context and meaning would logically dictate the response would be, not actually do so? You aren't 'evoking' any response from the NPC in your model, you're just clicking buttons looking for whatever 'wins' the dialogue puzzle and not choosing responses by how you want your character to proceed through a natural (at least simulated) conversation.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sure, you get the same lesson from the book no matter how the author chooses to write, but it's an entirely different experience when you read Hemingway's description of a sunrise than it is reading Walt Whitman's. They both tell you the same thing (sun's up), but that's not the point. Similarly, if you have 6 dialogue choices with an NPC, and 3 of them make him do one thing and 3 make him do another, that doesn't mean it should have been narrowed down to 2. One choice might be curt, one might be funny, and one might be long and embellished. Just because all three basically amount to "give me your money or you die" doesn't mean they're all identical.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, it does actually. Without a different consequence for an action you have the illusion of choice. It would be like Ion Storm making it so that after you talk to Paul in the Ton Hotel apartment, he still died there anyway regardless if you left or if you stayed and fought with him. This is a real choice because the players action bears a direct and meaningful consequence (the life of an important NPC). According to you, it is still a choice if there is no meaningful result to this and regardless of if you stay and fight, or simply leave, paul should die anyway because "that's what the story requires".
This is fine for a linear game, but in an RPG is unacceptable, unless as you've been arguing you want to ensure that "RPG" is just a meaningless label to throw onto a box.
I inherently disagree with that.
You seem to have an issue with the concept that choices that lead to the same consequence are not inherently choices. They give you an illusion of you making an interaction without actually interacting with the NPC at all. If you have 6 dialogue options and in reality have 2 dialogue choices as most have an identical result, that is poor dialogue, it is poor game design and it is breaking world versimilitude. People in reality do not react exactly the same way to different dialogue depending on the response they are given (see my scenario above).
In reality, I argue that your approach to dialogue is lazy and myopic. It turns NPCs into automatons that have no reactions, no characterisation and prevents genuine interaction between the gameworld and the player. You mock up this with an excuse that it's avoiding 'great writing' to have dialogue choices actually mean something (truly a ridiculous argument that one), whereas I would argue it's completely lazy thought and writing on the part of the developer instead. The worse the games writing, the more dialogue options have zero effect on the way the NPC will subsequently react. Conversely, the better thought out the dialogue options are, the NPCs responses to them and the subsequent consequences to them the more immersive the gameworld - which allows for 'true' roleplaying.
Took me so many replays to realise that you could actually save him <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wow.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":0" border="0" alt="wow.gif" />
Man, Deus Ex was good.
Yes, it does actually. Without a different consequence for an action you have the illusion of choice. It would be like Ion Storm making it so that after you talk to Paul in the Ton Hotel apartment, he still died there anyway regardless if you left or if you stayed and fought with him.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, it would be like Ion Storm giving you 6 dialogue options (remember, Paul has just told you to split, bad guys are on the way, he'll be fine):
1. Men in Black? This is too rough for me. I'm out of here.
2. Alright, I'll meet up with you once I'm out of New York.
3. See ya.
4. I'm not leaving you. We're fighting through this together.
5. What, and let you get all the action? Come on, we can take 'em.
6. I AM GONNA KILL THOSE UNATCO ****ERS!
The first three options would end with you exiting out the window and the last three would invite you to fight it out with Paul. Sure, half the options only give you one reaction and half give you another, but they still mean different things in the context of the game. With your way, you would just have two dialogue options: stay and fight or run away. It would give you the same outcomes as my options, but yours reflects the idea that the ends are the only thing that matters, and mine acknowledge that the means are just as important as th ends.
No, it would be like Ion Storm giving you 6 dialogue options (remember, Paul has just told you to split, bad guys are on the way, he'll be fine)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But you've missed the entire point: The decision has a completely relevant outcome based on the players decision and also, Ion storm do not give you 6 dialogue choices to begin with <i>anyway</i>. Writing ridiculous amounts of redundancy in, with no effect or result is bad game design and is quite frankly a waste of time for no result.
Good to see Ion Storm decided against that.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The first three options would end with you exiting out the window and the last three would invite you to fight it out with Paul.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A real meaningful choice would even permit you to shoot him yourself, possibly out of being offended for the fact he was a member of the NSF without telling you and putting you back in UNATCOs good books. Of course, this is adding further layers of characterisation onto a player.
According to you, this is a bad thing, we can't have anything that makes character interaction deeper than faux choices that in reality have no effect on the game.
This is why RPGs are a meaningless label and genre. People seem to think you can remove the "roleplaying" from it and still end up with something remotely functional beyond a story FPS game or adventure game. But why bother calling it an RPG and simply use the label FPS or adventure game to begin with?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sure, half the options only give you one reaction and half give you another, but they still mean different things in the context of the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, that's just it. They don't. Cease pretending they do.
Unless a choice has a meaningful and differential outcome, it's not a choice. There are two decisions there and a waste of 4 dialogue options. Thankfully, as I mentioned, Ion decided that rather than be ridiculously redundant, to instead just present the options that were available and have the player make their decision themselves. They did not decide to go willy nilly breaking world verisimilitude as you seem to think dialogue/NPC interaction should do.
Ion completely did the right thing: They presented a choice to the player and allowed the player to make that choice. They did not artifically pretend the player had more choices than they really did.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> With your way, you would just have two dialogue options: stay and fight or run away.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which is what they did.
Are you arguing vs. the reality of what the game actually did or what? Because Ion did things my way anyway and not yours.
All the more effectively.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It would give you the same outcomes as my options, but yours reflects the idea that the ends are the only thing that matters, and mine acknowledge that the means are just as important as th ends.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong.
Your 'means' are just meaningless false choices thrown in to make an illusion of choice. This is provided to give a false sense of true interaction, when in reality you are deciding utterly nothing with what you write. For example, see my above (still unrefuted) scenario. Which is the more deep and interesting NPC interaction? The one where the NPC reacts organically to the players actions or the one where regardless of what you do, the NPC still acts the same way as if mentally retarded or a machine.
Again, Ion never presented six dialogue options, they gave you two and those were the ones that had the most meaningful impact and choice. This is good game design, upholds world verisimilitude and means that what you decide to do has a meaningful impact on the game.
Edit: Cleaned up some grammar. I do love a good 'choice vs. consequence' argument <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
Edit2: Actually, his example requires further rebuttal:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
1. Men in Black? This is too rough for me. I'm out of here.
2. Alright, I'll meet up with you once I'm out of New York.
3. See ya.
4. I'm not leaving you. We're fighting through this together.
5. What, and let you get all the action? Come on, we can take 'em.
6. I AM GONNA KILL THOSE UNATCO ****ERS!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Meaningless faux choices with no consequence are lazy game design, if I had to present more than two options I would do the following:
1) Player stays and fights with Paul, with Paul surviving to later help out.
2) Player chooses instead that Paul is nuts and tranquilises (or otherwise knocks him out), abducts him and drags his unconcious body out the window. This causes Paul to be infuriated with the player when he wakes up and leads to further subplot developments (perhaps Paul refuses to speak with the player the rest of the game or items that would normally be given as a reward to option 1 are lost)
3) Player decides this is enough for him and gets the hell out of there. Paul is killed by the resulting UNATCO attack.
4) Player is incensed by Pauls apparent betrayl and decides that he is no longer trustworthy and kills Paul himself. This may lead to UNATCO regaining some degree of faith in the player and perhaps opens up a subplot where the player is allowed to return to UNATCO, opening up new roleplaying possibilities and expanding the game.
You choices, all 6 are faux, add nothing to the game and do not give the player meaningful choices or consequences.
All 4 of my proposed choices add to the game, they increase the players ability to roleplay their character and rewards them for how they play with a meaningful consequence to their action.
I do not need to state I believe my method is far superior, more realistic and provides greater replayability to the game than yours.
Edit 3:
<img src="http://www.hella.nm.ru/noromances/noromances2.JPG" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />
You're saying that someone who gave you two dialogue options to intimidate an NPC, one which said "I am going to pluck your eyes out if you don't do what I want you to" and one which said "I have powerful friends, ignore me and your company is going down," would be completely off the mark, because unless you actually COULD pluck their eyes out with the "L" button or unless you actually COULD call in a cadre of powerfull businessmen to ruin the NPC with the "C" button, there would be no point.
Of course, there's a limit to what a game can do. The point is, you've chosen to intimidate the NPC, and he's going to give in, because you've put enough points into the "persuasion" stat. Both these dialogue options give you the same result, but one casts your character as a merciless thug, and the other likens him to a manipulative schemer. Do both characters have the same stats, the same party members, and the same items in their inventory? Yes, but you feel different playing as one compared to the other. Both might end up brawling as much as they end up talking, but the route they've chosen to get there is the same.
For example, I'm playing Arcanum right now. There's this museum guy NPC who's helping me figure out a mystery. There are two ways to get his help. The first way is to investigate the stuff he needs investigated, tell him everything I learn, let him put the pieces together, and hope he helps me in return. The other option is to investigate for myself, tell him only the facts that I wish to reveal, and withold everything I can. The first option lets me roleplay a trusting friend of the Panarii (the organization he belongs to and which is sort of courting me). The other option lets me be an outsider looking in, trying to get what's best for me without revealing my hand. Do I learn the same information either way? Yes. Do I end up with the same quest either way? Yes. Does my character have the same stats, gear, and party members either way? Yes. But am I roleplaying two different people? Yes.
The essence of roleplaying is that you can be someone different without having to alter the rules. In Quake, it doesn't matter if you're a trash talker or if you never talk at all; your K:D ratio is still going to be the same. Your game experience, though, will be different. Similarly, in an RPG that gives you plenty of choices (like Arcanum or NWN2), you might have multiple dialogue options that end up at the same place. So? The point is, if one makes you sound like a brutish thug and one makes you sound like an adroit rogue, then you're roleplaying.
Incorrect. Read my examples above again.
Given your position, this is a hillarious argument considering that the method you employ completely makes verisimilitude utterly irrelevant, relegates NPCs to personality-less machines that are stupidly incapable of reacting any way realistically or appropriately.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you remove any veiled threats that the player probably won't be able to carry out,<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The player should also be allowed to attack NPCs whenever they desire should they so feel the need ala Baldurs Gate 2. Unfortunately, KotoR fails to let a player even do something as basic like that.
This is aside from the point however.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->any insinuations of future violence or reconciliation, any references to the past or the future that the player could not conceivably experience, any references to bits of background that the player hasn't somehow seen firsthand, then you're left with no RPG at all, really. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rubbish.
Re-read my examples again. You are not arguing against any point I have actually raised.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're saying that someone who gave you two dialogue options to intimidate an NPC, one which said "I am going to pluck your eyes out if you don't do what I want you to" and one which said "I have powerful friends, ignore me and your company is going down," would be completely off the mark, because unless you actually COULD pluck their eyes out with the "L" button or unless you actually COULD call in a cadre of powerfull businessmen to ruin the NPC with the "C" button, there would be no point. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Strawman.
Re-read my examples again. You are not arguing against any point I have actually raised.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Of course, there's a limit to what a game can do. The point is, you've chosen to intimidate the NPC, and he's going to give in, because you've put enough points into the "persuasion" stat. Both these dialogue options give you the same result, but one casts your character as a merciless thug, and the other likens him to a manipulative schemer.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Resultantly, they should have different skills associated with them, however this is aside from any point I have argued.
Re-read my examples again. You are not arguing against any point I have actually raised.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Do both characters have the same stats, the same party members, and the same items in their inventory? Yes, but you feel different playing as one compared to the other. Both might end up brawling as much as they end up talking, but the route they've chosen to get there is the same. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then there was no choice.
Again, this is another irrelevant argument from you, which indicates you have either not read what I have wrote or you choose to ignore the rebuttals.
Re-read my examples again. You are not arguing against any point I have actually raised.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For example, I'm playing Arcanum right now. There's this museum guy NPC who's helping me figure out a mystery. There are two ways to get his help. The first way is to investigate the stuff he needs investigated, tell him everything I learn, let him put the pieces together, and hope he helps me in return. The other option is to investigate for myself, tell him only the facts that I wish to reveal, and withold everything I can. The first option lets me roleplay a trusting friend of the Panarii (the organization he belongs to and which is sort of courting me). The other option lets me be an outsider looking in, trying to get what's best for me without revealing my hand. Do I learn the same information either way? Yes. Do I end up with the same quest either way?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are two points to this:
1) In the case you gave, the NPC in question reacts different depending on the information that you have given him. He does not give you the same response (well he can't) and is fully justified by verisimilitude (a point that you either refuse to acknowledge or do not understand). I have argued that an NPC giving the same reaction or result to two entirely different and contradictory actions is inherently verisimilitude breaking. As you have neither attempted to mount a rebuttal to this point, we can assume that you inherently agree with this position and therefore much of your arguments are irrelevant (hence why I have simply dismissed much of your initial response).
2) It has been a considerable period of time since I last played Arcanum, but arcanum actually does what I've suggested in this thread very well in a large number of cases. For example, few NPCs react to an idiot savant character the same way as they do a character with max intelligence. Few NPCs react to you the same way if your character is naked, as they would if you were fully clothed.
For an hillarious example, charge into the mayors office of one of the towns (it's near the start) naked to hear the NPC exclaim "HOW DARE YOU SHAKE YOUR SYPHILETIC PIECE AT ME".
According to you however, what actions I take should make no difference and I should always derive the same result no matter my choices. Once again, Arcanum manages to contradict you in a large number of places by offering entirely different consequences for many choices that you make, even simple ones. If you have no already, play the game as an idiot savant or in fact just run away naked. It changes the way NPCs react to you accordingly, as it should. Now do this in KotoR: No reaction.
This is what 'verisimilitude' means.
Now, going back to your Arcanum example you state this:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Does my character have the same stats, gear, and party members either way? Yes. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No.
Play the game again with different party members and you have an immediate consequence that is different when you solve that quest. The result is not significant for your character but as I have been arguing, the results of your actions can be significant if they affect the world around you. You may not believe (mistakingly in fact) that it doesn't matter what you do in that quest you get the same result, but it doesn't change you are actually wrong by your own example <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
You can figure out why for yourself eventually I'm sure.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->1) The essence of roleplaying is that you can be someone different without having to alter the rules. In Quake, it doesn't matter if you're a trash talker or if you never talk at all; your K:D ratio is still going to be the same.
2) Similarly, in an RPG that gives you plenty of choices (like Arcanum or NWN2), you might have multiple dialogue options that end up at the same place. So?
3) The point is, if one makes you sound like a brutish thug and one makes you sound like an adroit rogue, then you're roleplaying.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Numbers added by me.
1) If you are arguing Quake is an RPG then we're done here.
2) Your own example from Arcanum failed. I've played Arcanum many times and I have a good understanding of that quest, including what can and cannot result from it depending upon your choices along the way: including who you keep in your party.
Again, replay Arcanum making different choices in what you do. Even a quest as minorly insignificant as what you bought up can have consequences. Also, there are numerous examples in Arcanum where the dialogue options you choose can significantly affect the tone of a conversation and an NPCs reaction to you. This is in contrast to both the flawed Deus Ex example you gave (where you ignored my response) and to the way KotoR handled its dialogue.
3) Bollocks.
By your own self-defeating example, if you dodge an enemy in Quake instead of killing it you are roleplaying, despite this having no long term consequence of any substantial meaning to the world or story at all you are 'roleplaying'. If you think this is ridiculous, then you might be able to understand why I find the same argument but with dialogue equally as ridiculous. Choices and consequences make an RPG an RPG.
Once again, you should address my argument (I have dealt with yours comprehensively):
Meaningless faux choices with no consequence are lazy game design, if I had to present more than two options I would do the following:
1) Player stays and fights with Paul, with Paul surviving to later help out.
2) Player chooses instead that Paul is nuts and tranquilises (or otherwise knocks him out), abducts him and drags his unconcious body out the window. This causes Paul to be infuriated with the player when he wakes up and leads to further subplot developments (perhaps Paul refuses to speak with the player the rest of the game or items that would normally be given as a reward to option 1 are lost)
3) Player decides this is enough for him and gets the hell out of there. Paul is killed by the resulting UNATCO attack.
4) Player is incensed by Pauls apparent betrayl and decides that he is no longer trustworthy and kills Paul himself. This may lead to UNATCO regaining some degree of faith in the player and perhaps opens up a subplot where the player is allowed to return to UNATCO, opening up new roleplaying possibilities and expanding the game.
You choices, all 6 are faux, add nothing to the game and do not give the player meaningful choices or consequences.
All 4 of my proposed choices add to the game, they increase the players ability to roleplay their character and rewards them for how they play with a meaningful consequence to their action.
I do not need to state I believe my method is far superior, more realistic and provides greater replayability to the game than yours.
I argue that this is 'roleplaying' on a more sustained level than what you claim. You have not even begun to address this argument, except with a simplistic dismissal that ignores the substance of the argument being made.
Edit: I apologise for anyone trying to parse this post originally for the awful use of quote tags. It took exception to having one to many of them so I had to shuffle things around.
Illusion of choice is no choice at all.
As long as we don't go and warp this quote to "ooh, but the RPG will always have the same ending" in which case the game is a game and in must inevitably have a conclusion. A conversation needs a conclusion as well, but actions as simple as changing what you get, changing what a character tells you, changing what's happening in the environment, changing what the player knows about the environment,etc. all create a more dynamic, more player-centric more role-played experience.
The best games are the ones that take subtle nuances of in-game player actions (like getting naked, having an unsheathed weapon, being dumb as a doorknob, etc.) and previous in-game responses (say in a conversation you mention you like cats, and in a later part of the game there's a cat instead of a dog in some important point).
Now, KotOR 2 isn't a bad game, it's actually a very fun game (except the ending, which is quite apparently being addressed by some people); but its lack of diverse NPC interaction and superfluous content (as in utterly useless content, content that serves no purpose besides the illusion of depth) are simply unnecessary.
what's all the arguing about?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm on holiday rawr.
<img src="http://www.knitemare.org/cats/429catninja.jpg" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />
this thread is sure full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. what's all the arguing about? can't we all agree that dialogue choices are stupid if they don't change anything about the game, but awesome if they do?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No dangit that's my freaking point. For example, in Vampire: The Masquerade, the head vampire dude of LA eventually gives you a quest to take out a hotel full of bad guys. You can say "Sure thing buddy" and head off to waste them. You can say "Yeah, okay, but you know, wasting bad guys is expensive..." and wring some money out of him and then head off to waste them. Or you can say "No way Jose, that's suicide" and then he uses his vampire powers to force you to agree with him and you head off and waste them. It doesn't change anything in the game (except the money which really doesn't matter) but in all three cases you roleplay a different person.
there's obviously technical limitations of making a game too in-depth, but having choices is nice even if they don't influence much. now, if saying different things doesn't even make the NPC *act* different toward you, then that sucks. like if you constantly abuse an NPC and they still act like you're their best friend, etc.
I think we have a disconnect here. I'm saying that if you take either of two or more branching dialogue paths and end up with the same XP, loot, and quest at the end, it's an example of two different conversations that still had the same outcome. I think you're taking the different reactions you get from the NPC within that conversation to be different outcomes. I was thinking in terms of concrete stuff; when I said "reaction" I meant something tangible that happened in the game world and changed a number or a stat or something, whereas your were just thinking in terms of dialogue. So I think we're saying the same thing. My point is that no matter how many different conversations you have with a person, if you get the same entry in your quest log at the end, it still didn't really change the computer's idea of your character at all. It shaped your conception, which is the important part.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, then I have no idea why you're calling my roleplaying into question. I don't like superfluous inclusions into my conversation trees which serve no purpose other than giving the player (on the initial play through (or at least the first few conversations)) the illusion of free choice. The idea that every dialogue option should change some aspect of your inventory, character or party is kind of absurd anyway, and I don't know of any game that physically works that way.
KotOR 2 does a horrible job with many of them because they're just slightly different, jedi-esque, elaborate descriptions of irrelevant things (like that psuedo-example from when you get your connection back to the force through Kreia). Why let the player say something different if you don't plan on having it impact anything?
And, just to point it out: branching dialogue and different responses from NPCs do add concrete things to the game - they provide you with new information and story (which is why they're sweet, when they're in-depth and specifically based on what the player asks and implies). This is why Fallout 1 and 2 were so awesome, it would have dialogue trees that were not relevant to anything, but the NPC would not react the same to any of your choices (like Flick in the Den in FO2, you can insult his Joe Pesci accent - which could conceivably flesh out your character, if you want to think about it that way (and I believe it can lead to fighting Flick, if you want), but doesn't serve any great purpose). Now, if you had the option of insulting Flick or just saying hi and either way he just says "so, wanna buy anything?" that'd be retarded, and that's how KotOR 2 handles a lot of dialogue. And so my conception of my player is based off of what I can do, and not what I think I can do.
I'm still waiting for a game that follows your dialogue options and determines when you're going to lie based on previous actions instead of some lame [lie] tag. Heck, how do I know if I really want to lie right then or not? Maybe it's the truth then but then I figure out something later that would make it a lie, but oops, I've set my character to be 'good' so I can't do what I wanted to do - bah.
...Kinda off the subject of KotOR 2 there, though, so ....err, look over <a href="http://www.itsatrap.net/" target="_blank">there</a>!