Quote:Eugene Jarvis (also creator of Defender, Robotron, etc.) also did the Cruis'n games. And here's something he has to say on them. As you can see, it's not a "lame excuse"because it's the way it was meant to be!

http://www.wayoftherodent.com/guest...ejinterview.htm

Quote:So as I said, disagree with the intent if you wish (and there certainly are flaws there) but don't mistake the series for what it was never intended to be.

Quote:You said that complex control schemes are bad (with Pikmin and stuff) and I definitely remember you referencing BG there...

Quote:Fire Emblem is part RPG you know...

Quote:and Total War is a completely different kind of game from BG. Fire Emblem is too, but it's closer... close enough maybe that I don't see how you could like one so much and dislike the other so much; FE and BG are, in many respects, similar! Yes, battles take a lot longer to resolve in BG and there is much more depth with each character, but there are lots of similarities.

Quote:And as far as KotOR goes, the battles are the same in substance. The difference is style -- in KotOR you need to constantly refill those action queues while in BG you only need to interact when you want to use a spell or special ability (which happens more and more often the more powerful your characters get) or if you want to change targets. But other than that... they are not different to a mentionable degree. And I know you like KotOR.

Quote:I don't think you ever really explained what those poor storytelling methods were, though... I remember your opinion on storytelling in the case of Metroid Prime, but BG? I don't remember you saying why it was a poorly told story. It certainly has nothing to do with the reasons you complained about MP, because BG tells its story in a much more conventional way...

Quote:Right... it makes almost no sense for me (especially the controls part), of course, but it's clearly a factor too... though (whether you admit it or not) it IS contradictory with that position and how you clearly like strategy games like Fire Emblem.

Quote:To put it AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE (fucking AGAIN), you do not care to be immersed in games whatsoever while I DO. And Fire Emblem has far more engaging and difficult combat than Baldur's Gate, which is why I play it.

Quote:Baldur's Gate

Story: A very generic D&D story, and it's not told well so who gives a fuck.

Immersion factor: Distant isometric viewpoint, keyword being distant. You don't feel like a part of the world. Plus, I hate the bland D&D designs. The non-direct controls only add to the detachment.

Combat: Not bad, the best part of the games. But I can get better combat in many other places.

Quote:KOTOR

Story: Decent. Interesting enough to keep you going, and it's told better than it is in BG.

Immersion factor: Great. Direct controls, over-the-shoulder viewpoint. Makes you feel like you're in the Star Wars universe. Only thing holding it back are unintersting city designs and some camera problems.

Combat: Not as good as BG's, but the first two things more than make up for it.

Quote:You get the entire story through boring dialogue trees from NPCs and reading books and scrolls.

Quote:No, not true. You are simply defining 'immersion' in a very different way than I do. I certainly like to get immersed into games... you just define the term in completely different language. I find Baldur's Gate immersive by most ways I can define the term.

Quote:Can you guess that I'm going to strongly disagree? First I do not think of it as bland. The artwork is fine. Beautiful in places, merely good in others, but just fine... it depicts the world it is supposed to as well as I could possibly expect it to. If you want a complaint, it'd be that the other four Infinity engine titles didn't change the NPC sprites very much... yes they are all in the same world but the fourth game with very similar townsfolk gets a bit old.

Anyway... I like D&D's artwork. Though BG's depiction of it isn't the current one (when they did 3rd Edition they redid a lot of the style and artwork), it looks fine... I don't really understand why you call it so bland. It's better than most fantasy worlds, and the Forgotten Realms have plenty of depth (of backstory and how complex and detailed the world is, the Forgotten Realms are the most well fleshed out and complex D&D setting and it shows. Just look at all those books you can find in these games full of stories that don't directly relate to the game but show events in the Realms' long past!) to say the least!

Anyway, that perspective is worlds better than a 3d game would have looked like back then. I'd take that over Daggerfall or something any day... sure Daggerfall was 1996 and this would look better than that but still. This 2d looks far better than 1998 3d.

How well is the story told? Seems just fine to me... you start out knowing nothing (though there are clues to more of the story which you probably won't notice your first time through the series (and yes, I mean series, not game)) and it is slowly revealed to you as you progress. It is very easy to figure out where you are supposed to be next and as you do the main quest the story gets revealed to you. It's a bit thin in overall plot I guess in the first BG but it's hardly shallow and it's better than a whole lot or RPGs out there... and when you combine it with the huge depth you get from all the sidequests and exploration and how well they flesh out the world, I see no problems worth nothing. Well, except for that BGII has a more focused and much deeper (more to it) story, fixing that one weakness.

Oh, and it's not exactly a generic D&D story... I certainly don't know of many other D&D works where the main character is the child of a god! It's not the most innovative story ever, but it is not a pure cliche (lots of plot twists and plenty of depth are to be found, especially in the later games!). It only kind of seems that way before you get into the deeper part of the series. And besides, there is always the aspect of the world and the depth and complexity they have put into background for the setting... NPCs really flesh out the various places you go in great fashion.

Anyway, the deep history and backstory (most of which is optional reading and doesn't impact the game or your understanding of the plot but increases your knowledge about the world of the Realms and, IMO anyway, is quite interesting... not to mention all the NPCs in towns and everything they have to say! And that stuff actually DOES impact understanding of the game events and areas you're in.), great graphics (from the great character art to the perfect depictions of most of the classic D&D monsters to the beautiful scenery, there is nothing bad here to report), and great soundtrack make the game very involving and, yes, immersive. The BG games can do to me like few others can on the subject of losing yourself... there aren't many other games where I can find myself playing a game for six or eight hours straight without noticing much time has passed, but BG can and does do that. That's immersion. KotOR is good too but doesn't quite compare. BG I, and even more so with BG II / ToB, are some of the best and most immersive games I've ever played.

As for the combat you know my opinion.

Quote:Story... there is a lot to it and it is interesting. One of the best aspects of the game. Having two completely different paths is also great. It also is a great depiction of the Star Wars universe. Bad points? The character stories seem to move so fast -- if you talk with people each time you can your major party members will have their personal stories done with a lot of game left. Yes, those deep personal backstories are great and one of the strengths of the game, but they could have been spaced out better. It should be more like the main story in BG or BGII -- spaced out across the game, or the portion of the game that that character is in. As it is you get a constant stream from that character for half the game and then it ends. That is not good pacing. Oh, and how about not letting you get stories from the people who aren't in your party? Okay, it might seem irritating. But honestly... why not? I'd improve replayability and make your party member choice (who is with you in missions) matter a lot more... I think that that would have been a great change. Make people actually choose between characters! KotOR doesn't force that issue much, and it's for its detriment. And how about more character-focused sidequests? That is, sidequests where one of yoru party members is the focus of what is happening in the story. Most characters in BGII have one. A few do in KotOR (like the Wookie character on Kashyyyk). It'd be nice to see more of those. And how about more inter-party interaction (that is between your party members and not just you and them)? I know with 3 person parties this is necessarially limited, but BGII has thisto great effect and I wish this game had more of it. Still, the story aspect of this game is quite good.

Comparing it to BG... comparing it to BGI is hard. BGI has virtually no character development... only your character has anything happen. No one else speaks to you or each other. This really is a flaw and it's something BGII fixed in a big way, with character sidequests and party interaction (though not party interaction you can start yourself). However, BG probably has better in-world story -- that is, the backstory you get from each town or area and the people in it. KotOR has this too and it's good, but it's just not as well done as the BG games, and there is less depth in each location. As I've said before, probably the price of trying to do too many too different areas.

Immersion... the graphics are nice. Limiting without up/down look controls, and not with the best art design ever (lots of similar looking areas, a pretty similar look to the graphical design of the whole game... the areas look decent, but they don't look great.), though. The artwork in BGI/II is definitely better from an artistic perspective as well as from a game design perspective (sure, BG has lots of tree-filled zones. But the major areas are quite unique. And BGII has every zone being unique. In contrast KotOR has lots of very similar areas that look like they were just copied and shifted around from other areas... originality, folks! Use some!).

Camera? The camera's okay. Though being able to move it around would be a badly needed improvement (both for up/down and in/out).

And as for combat, I'd agree that it's good but not as good as BG. Less repetition (as in having to re-tell people to continue to doing the action they are already doing) and more control over CPU control (as in being able to disable party AI completely -- only do actions I tell you and nothing more in combat!) would be welcome changes, if paired together (ie having a disable party AI button with this constant-refill scheme would never work). But overall it's pretty good. Less complex than BG combat, and with less special abilities and choices to make, but still deep enough to be pretty fun. BG wins for being more complex and strategic, overall, however.

Quote:Most of the stuff on books and scrolls, as I said, is Realms backstory with no connection to the story of BG itsself... a few books and scrolls are actually about the game story, but only a few. Most of that comes from conversations and the chapter intros. Now I really like that they have so much added world depth with the books, but even I will admit that I don't read them all... there are so many in some areas of the game that it gets tedious and they are just there for interest, not for any effect on your understanding of the games.

As for conversations, of course! Conversations are the lifeblood of non-combat portions of RPGs and adventure games, after all, so I'd be pretty concerned if there weren't plenty of conversations and a reasonable amount of depth to them... RPGs with less conversations often end up as pure dungeon hacks, and while that is fun for a while it is ultimately boring.

Quote:BG's art is crap. I don't care how you put it, but it's in the same category as the immature goth-kid style that id uses for all of their games. Your tastes need to grow up.

Quote:Like I said before, you don't know what good storytelling is.

Quote:I don't know why I bother when I know you will come back with idiotic "responses" like that one... sure my post was a bit confusing (that always happens when you go back and add in paragraphs without rewriting the whole thing), but still... I really hate it when I spend a long time to make a post like that one and you clearly ignore it and don't pay any attention to what I have to say. I mean, to all that all you can say is "you are wrong and stupid and my opinions are right and your are dumb"? Do you HONESTLY expect me to take your opinions seriously when you so clearly do not act like a person who should be listened to? I guess I just expect too much when I hope you will act intelligently...

I spent something like 45 plus minuites on that post. It looks like it took you five mintuites to throw out that reply. Sure you don't need to be as detailed as I was but you could at least TRY to actually make it a debate... or discussion, or whatever... it only becomes an arguement because you want it to with how you act, I think.

Quote:You make no sense. This and Doom? Huh? Their art styles have nothing in common! It's about trying to be high fantasy as western high fantasy has always been drawn. And I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's a great art style.

Quote:Also, you need to grow up and realize, like many adults do, that their view of the world is not absolute... people who don't realize that don't act as grown up. The way you constantly insist that your way is the only way that could ever be right is not acting like an adult. This discussion is a case in point.

Quote:I don't understand why you hate D&D artwork so much... so it is influenced greatly by past fantasy. So? All fantasy is! It's not the most unique graphical style ever but very few games are truly unique... but what I really don't get is what you want from the graphics. I'd say that making them very well done fantasy artwork should be the goal and they succeed at that. And it's not like D&D has nothing unique... lots of the monsters are unique to D&D! Sure stuff like Orcs, Trolls, and Goblins are all over but D&D (and, to be specific, the Forgotten Realms) have all kinds of unique monsters... Illithids, Beholders, Gelatious Cubes, etc, etc... and anyway I think that basing your artwork on high fantasy as we know it is the right choice. D&D IS high fantasy, so any other choice would be kind of silly I think...

It also depends on what you mean by 'art'. Do you mean character art or backgrounds? I think the monsters are fine and the backgrounds are fantastic for the most part, but I'd admit that the character (and NPC) art could be better in the BG engine... in that respect KotOR probably wins. But once I look beyond the characters and look at the world as a whole I cannot give it the victory. BG's backgrounds are just so much better looking than the mostly mediocre 3d environments in KotOR... as well as larger (or larger seeming at least) and more varied.

But as I said in the previous post the biggest problem here isn't that, it's how you ignore everything I say. I talked about so many issues and you pull out this one that has been beaten to death before... why? Don't want to bother to actually 'think' about what I was saying? And it doesn't really work in other ways too... after all, that segement was primarially about KotOR, not BG (yes I was comparing the two, but it was as much about KotOR as BG...), which you would have known had you actually read it.

Quote:I'd love to hear why you think you are oh so much more knowledgable than everyone else about this... but I understand storytelling just fine. And BG has a decently done story... but as I said, it has problems with slow pacing (that is, how the story is quite drawn out and you get it little bits at a time interspaced with lots of gameplay). I don't mind that much because there are all kinds of people to talk to and new places to go, but when I compare it to BGII I understand what Bioware meant when they said that BGI's story was a problem (and the result of a freshman effort)... BGII's is much deeper and more complex and keeps moving at a much better pace.

As for the optional reading books, I guess you are comparing that to Metroid Prime and your opinions on story there, but it doesn't work, I think. Prime's optional reading directly explained the game's backstory. The vast majority of the BG optional reading (books and scrolls) does not do that. They tell self-contained tales that have no bearing on the game and are just there to read for fun if you wish. That isn't bad storytelling because it doesn't really have an effect on the overall game's story!

Quote:They both share immature dark art styles commonly seen drawn by that one brooding kid from 8th grade english class.

Quote:BG's art is very unappealing to me, it's the type of art I kind of liked a bit when I was younger and in my dark art phase, and since then I've discovered that there are more colors than just grey and black and that even then this sort of stuff wasn't doing it well. There's no soul in that art, it's as bland and generic as can be.

Quote:I've probably spent a total of ten years repeating myself over and over to you (amazing considering that TC has only existed since 1999), so excuse me if I don't feel like wasting any more of my time on your inane retorts.

Quote:I love it how you criticize me for acting like my opinion is fact when the post in question was a response to a comment you made about BG's art being objectively better than KOTOR's! If only this hypocrisy were something new from you I could get a kick out of it.

Quote:Strange depiction, because I would not say that the BG art style is particularly dark... well Sarevok is, but he's the bad guy so he's supposed to be that way. But I guess I don't really know what you mean... I haven't taken a class in art in ... what is it, nine years now?... Lack of color? Huh? Seems perfectly colorful to me in the places where there should be color... the main problem is that the game is fantasy-medieval and the medieval world just wasn't that colorful. It does what it can with stuff like letting you choose your clothing colors, but there's only so much they can do if they want to have a remotely accurate fantasy-medieval world... The forests are all brown, green, and grey, but that's how it should be. Similarly towns are medieval town colors. Water is blue. BG only really has two environments (town and forest) but both are decently done. Not super colorful but they shouldn't be... medieval homes were not purple. And there are some colorful parts... see temples! The temples, especially the ones in BGII with giant statues, are often truly beautiful... Anyway, I just do not know what you mean by that. The only theme I can think of for BG, and all D&D art, is to be similar overall to the themes that fantasy art (such as book covers) has established over the decades. And it is.

Quote:I'm sure the amount of time I have spent repeating myself to you has been longer...

Quote:I've said a million times that it's supposed to be implied (and maybe even stated -- I know I've said before that it's my opinion that overall BG beats KotOR artistically...) that it's my opinion... and as for that, it's not just quality that affects it. Technical issues matter a lot, as I think I made clear... the hardest part is that it's just really tough to compare the art in a 2d game and a 3d game. They are so different that a direct comparison is hard. It's also hard to seperate from the gameplay, for me... when I think of the KotOR art (for cities particularly) I can't help but factor in how the cities are so limited into that, for instance. And KotOR is a pretty good looking game. What is there to complain about? As I've said, similarity and the graphics engine, mostly, as well as their design choices for zone quantity (and to a lesser degree size -- though with this design style I wouldn't really want them bigger).

As for BG, because of how much I love those games I probably have a tendency to ignore similar issues in those games -- how some areas aren't as good looking as they could be (like Baator... I imagined more of the place...), how bars are all so similar looking, homes based on a few maps that are just varied by who is in them and where you can find items, etc... I'll admit that. But KotOR uses repetitive map styles not just for the insides of buildings but for the outside areas as well, while the closest you can get to that in BG (and only in BGI, not II) is how so many zones were full of trees. Which was certainly repetition but it was something Bioware fixed in their next game... strange they reneged when they went to NWN. 3D doesn't have to be that way.

Quote:Now I don't expect BG to look a tenth as good as Frazetta work, but it's still bland and uninteresting.

Quote:Only in your delusional mind, my very young apprentice.

Quote:I don't think KOTOR looks great or has great art, but it does look better than BG. IMO.

Quote:That artwork reminds me of lots of fantasy artwork... 'generic' in many senses of the word. But the first thing I thought of when I saw it was Warhammer. Seems like it looks a bit like Warhammer art styles... anyway,whatever. If you say so. I don't see it or agree.

Quote:My thinking is that because my posts are usually longer I spend more time writing them...

Quote:Characters I can see, but the environments and backgrounds?

Quote:Great screenshot.

Quote:You go off on tangents all of the time. I'm the one who has to constantly repeat myself.

Quote:Hahaha, I can't believe you just called Frank Frazetta art "generic". My God. All of your favorite video game art copies heavily from Frazetta but can neither come close to matching his incredible talent nor begin to imagine something new and original like Frazetta did. That right there shows your complete and utter ignorance and ineptitude towards all art.

Man...

*shakes head in disgust*

Quote:This has something to do with time? From my perspective it's frequently either similarly lengthed short(er) posts or long ones from me and shorter ones from you...

Quote:The first shot looks like a pretty normal piece of fantasy art, though as I said not in D&D's style. The second is different but in the same line. The third doesn't really look like fantasy, more like history.

And as for D&D, there is one thing you might be missing. When they moved to third edition they changed the art style of D&D quite a bit and standardized a lot of it... that's why Icewind Dale II in some ways looks quite different from BGII. One thing they did in 3.0 is changed the non-human races to make them look less human... and different from other fantasy-world races. For instance Elves are actually shorter than humans, not taller...

Quote:How about the BGII screenshots? Or even better the Mobygames page...
the Harper Hold (which I tried to post) is IMO one of the most beautiful
places in the series. That and places like the Temple of
Lathander...

Quote:Hmm... actually, thinking about it more those shots you posted
really make me think of Conan covers... even more so than the Hero Quest
box (HQ is by the people who made Warhammer if you didn't know).

Quote:So if BG has such awful art what games have good art? Compared
to most games out there BG's artwork is great!

Quote:I've already played the game, so you don't need to post screens. The
backgrounds are all well-rendered and I admire the artists' hard work,
but they are still very aesthetically bland to me.

Quote:Syberia has pretty nice art, even if it is all FMV...

Quote:I don't think you have ever said that you have played Baldur's Gate II, so no, to the best of my knowledge you have not played the game. And as I said BGII is clearly better looking than BGI so you cannot just say that they are the same. They are not, in graphics, gameplay, story, etc. Similar yes. The same? Not at all.

Quote:As for those screenshots, way to answer my question and post shots of RPGs... Ico is great looking but it isn't an RPG.

Quote:That Okami game... stylized, but I wouldn't say it's THAT great... it looks fine, sure. But among a 'most beautiful games ever' list?

Quote:And as for Metroid, those shots don't exactly show off the title's style... still, it is a very good looking game for sure. Not in those pictures so much, but it is.

Quote:Defininitely far better looking than KotOR...

Quote:though it's in a different genre and everything. And that really is important... comparing things to similar products. Within the RPG genre BG looks quite good. Of course others look nice too... but I'd definitely say BG looks good. And I happen to think its art style is just fine. I will say that I don't understand this "dark" thing you are talking about though...

Quote:FMV? No, it's not FMV, it's rendered... there is a difference there...

Quote:Well I wasn't sure if it was taken from FMV or not. And you mean pre-rendered, not just plain rendered. But pre-rendered backgrounds are the same concept as FMV, as in that they are not real-time 3D.

Quote:Yes you see, I know what good art looks like while you think Baldur's Gate has great art. You think Frank Frazetta is generic. You do not know what good art is.

Quote:I've played both.

Quote:Wait, so if they're not RPGs you can't compare? What great logic.

Quote:That doesn't make an ounce of sense. They don't "show off the title's style"? I didn't post many shots, but they perfectly capture the style of the Prime series.

Quote:And a hundred times better than any Baldur's Gate game.

Quote:But of course you don't. And that's because you are precisely that type of goth-kid audience that those PC developers cater to.

Quote:Those are ingame shots (or mostly are, at least). I do think that it's probably pre-rendered, though.

Quote:Looking at game and book fantasy art today, yes, that is definitely a very common style... so what's wrong with saying so? How would I know when it's made?

Quote:And you still say such things about Baldur's Gate. Utterly bizarre. Just utterly bizarre.

Quote:Because traditionally adventure games have often been graphical showcases, while RPGs have most definitely not been. And much more of the game of an adventure is about looking at the world and interacting with it while much more of the game of a RPG is about the complex game system and combat... so no, a direct comparison really doesn't work that well.

Quote:They are decent I guess... but Prime looks best not in a single shot but when you look around a room...

The one problem with its engine is that everything is so angular. But it seems to be a concious stylistic choice.

Quote:You know I'll disagree here. Sure Prime has better art direction than BG, but given how dramatically different the games are it's tough to compare... BG is about top-down static drawings of areas, while Prime is about a crafted world all around you. Very different goals and implementations... KotOR is partway between and doesn't match up to either end.

Quote:I don't know what you mean by that but it sure sounds like an insult... to me and to BG. I mean 'goth'? What in the world? You make no sense! How does that have anything at all to do with BG?

Quote:I do believe gothic is a word that described the style of old world cathedrals with gargoyles camped on them.

Quote:Actually, Syberia, while having more interaction than the demo, does have less interaction than in, say, Monkey Island 3 (which also uses "pre-rendered" (if you count hand drawings as rendering ) backgrounds). It would be nice to be able to examine stuff. Rather they focused on interacting with stuff. Still, it's a full world that really feels fleshed out. I'll take some pics with the character in them. The characters fit into the scenes pretty well considering. I will say the least artistically inspired character is the MAIN one... She's the only one from America though, so I suspect, given the game's story, that her whole look was actually intended to be in stark contrast and look more like an American game character. The second game has a LOT more animation in the backgrounds than the first, which is great.

Quote:Yes, and that is what the term should be used for... Medieval cathedral architecture. That is, big and ornate...

Quote:What are you guys old women or something? Ever heard of slang before?

Quote:The style was nice, a mixture of Mexican art and a sense of those old detective movies (think what Cowboy Bebop is obviously based off of). Not only is that what they were going for, they actually succeeded in it .

I agree, interaction is always good. More always is better, even in the sense of adding lots of false leads in puzzle adventure games . Syberia is still very fun though. Just NEVER cave and check an FAQ for the answer though. That defeats the whole point

Quote:If my mother and I ever start one of these sorts of games at the same time, she always gets ahead of me by the end... She's frickin' GOOD at these sorts of games. She also totally hates to get hints of ANY kind. She is the reason I have this "gamer's code" engraved on my soul.

Quote:Oh I've heard it, but I think the term would be best used for what it was meant for for centuries...

Quote:Many words have modern slang second meanings. Live with it.

Quote:Rayman 2 had great art, along with all of Michel Ancel's games. And Grim Fandango, of course.