There is a new petition out there that implores EA and Walt Disney to give the fans of Star Wars new deep and engaging Star Wars stories.

 

Here is a link to the petition.

 

We have been hearing how EA shuts down Star Wars game after Star Wars game and it has to stop. The fans want Star Wars games like KOTOR 1 and 2, we want stories that will leave us breathless and mesmerized. We want to play in the galaxy far, far away, immerse ourselves in its lore and experience it.

 

If you agree with this and want to see more games like KOTOR be made (heck, perhaps even a KOTOR 3), then please sign the petition! We, the fans, need to make our voices heard.

Edited January 21, 2019 by Ylliarus

Hmmm speaking for myself I would rather have a new X-Wing vs Tie Fighter game ... or another Jedi Knight game with Kyle Katarn / Mara Jade.

Hmmm speaking for myself I would rather have a new X-Wing vs Tie Fighter game ... or another Jedi Knight game with Kyle Katarn / Mara Jade.

 

Still, that would be a game with a Star Wars story, an engaging and deep Star Wars story, something we haven't had for a long while. So far EA has been shutting them down like sitting ducks.

If EA manages to hold on to it's contract for it's entirety then we'd likely see a new Star Wars game sometime around 2020 when the new next gen systems are stated to be released. EA, to make up for it's stock losses, needs money fast. They won't invest in a game that takes 7 or so years to develop. Hence the reason all these games in the "works" are being shutdown. With the sudden boom of mobile games and their microtransaction centric approach, it has become the apparent way for BIG GREED companies to move forward. It's quite simple really. Find a recipe that works and milk it dry. We got to remember that these companies can care less what we want. It's all about the money and pushing a product.

There is a new petition out there that implores EA and Walt Disney to give the fans of Star Wars new deep and engaging Star Wars stories.

 

Here is a link to the petition.

 

We have been hearing how EA shuts down Star Wars game after Star Wars game and it has to stop. The fans want Star Wars games like KOTOR 1 and 2, we want stories that will leave us breathless and mesmerized. We want to play in the galaxy far, far away, immerse ourselves in its lore and experience it.

 

If you agree with this and want to see more games like KOTOR be made (heck, perhaps even a KOTOR 3), then please sign the petition! We, the fans, need to make our voices heard.

 

This petition has no merit. the exclusive contract ends in 2023, and that is 4 years from now. a lot of big games with all the trimmings requires upwards of 5 to 7 years to make these days and the fact is that it is far too late in the day to consider the idea.

 

Even if the Petition carried on for 6 months to gather a large enough number of supporters, there is no gaurantee EA will agree to do something and even if they did it would take months to get something organised before any work starts on the potential game and even then it can be cancelled at any moment.

 

Even if EA works on the engine and barebones of their new game? it still wouldn't be enough to get it out in 3 years.

 

 

I do want EA to stand on it and get some star wars games out, but they have had years to come up with something nice and nothing has been accomplished since, not even with BFr2.

This petition has no merit. the exclusive contract ends in 2023, and that is 4 years from now. a lot of big games with all the trimmings requires upwards of 5 to 7 years to make these days and the fact is that it is far too late in the day to consider the idea.

 

Even if the Petition carried on for 6 months to gather a large enough number of supporters, there is no gaurantee EA will agree to do something and even if they did it would take months to get something organised before any work starts on the potential game and even then it can be cancelled at any moment.

 

Even if EA works on the engine and barebones of their new game? it still wouldn't be enough to get it out in 3 years.

 

 

I do want EA to stand on it and get some star wars games out, but they have had years to come up with something nice and nothing has been accomplished since, not even with BFr2.

 

Even if the petition received a large number of supporters, it would be a signal that people want Star Wars games with engaging stories and intriguing lore. It would show Disney that people want to see more of the Star Wars universe, play in it and experience it like they had with KOTOR 1 and 2.

Thing is, I don't think they care. As much as I personally would love a solo driven star wars game, the gaming industry as a whole have tried to tell us the fans that's not what we want. Apparently their industry model has us all to be multiplayer and micro transaction fan boy's and not the more linier story games.

 

I think EA basically said this when they cancelled the visceral game.

Edited January 21, 2019 by Jedi_riches

Thing is, I don't think they care. As much as I personally would love a solo driven star wars game, the gaming industry as a whole have tried to tell us the fans that's not what we want. Apparently their industry model has us all to be multiplayer and micro transaction fan boy's and not the more linier story games.

 

I think EA basically said this when they cancelled the visceral game.

That's OK, I don't want *linear* story games. Nice branchy stories with choices that actually affect things in the story. Linear is boring, and has no replay value. (If you think, "I'd like to play through this again to see what happens if I make that choice differently," it's not a linear story(1).)

 

(1) Unless the definition of "linear story" has changed in some inexplicable fashion to be the opposite of what it was in the past, where "linear" was a *fault*.

 

EDIT: "Linear" was a fault because it meant that there was only one path ("line") through the story.

Edited January 21, 2019 by SteveTheCynic

That's OK, I don't want *linear* story games. Nice branchy stories with choices that actually affect things in the story. Linear is boring, and has no replay value. (If you think, "I'd like to play through this again to see what happens if I make that choice differently," it's not a linear story(1).)

 

Basically: non-linear gameplay.

 

That being said, you can have a story that is ultimately linear within the context of a non-linear set of gameplay mechanics. Essentially all games boil down to basis paths. Fully non-linear story-based games, meaning where all basis paths are independent, are a major design challenge.

 

Also, linear can certainly have replay value depending on what you like and how you like to experience narrative or mechanics. Saying the opposite would be like saying books have no value in being re-read, which is not true for many people. Likewise, you could say films have no value in being re-watched. But, of course, many people would disagree.

 

I don't generally turn to Wikipedia for nuance, but this article gets it mostly right, I think: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_gameplay

That's OK, I don't want *linear* story games. Nice branchy stories with choices that actually affect things in the story. Linear is boring, and has no replay value. (If you think, "I'd like to play through this again to see what happens if I make that choice differently," it's not a linear story(1).)

 

(1) Unless the definition of "linear story" has changed in some inexplicable fashion to be the opposite of what it was in the past, where "linear" was a *fault*.

 

EDIT: "Linear" was a fault because it meant that there was only one path ("line") through the story.

 

I'm Fine with a linear story if it's a compelling story. I frequently replay games like God of War, The force unleashed (pt. 1) Horizon zero dawn, metal gear, GTA, Saint's Row 1 & 2, even that new Spider-Man.

 

Make a good game and I'll play it. Make good dlc and I'll buy it.

Edited January 22, 2019 by ImmortalLowlife

I'm Fine with a linear story if it's a compelling story. I frequently replay games like God of War, The force unleashed (pt. 1) Horizon zero dawn, metal gear, GTA, Saint's Row 1 & 2, even that new Spider-Man.

 

Make a good game and I'll play it. Make good dlc and I'll buy it.

 

Exactly, there are plenty of these type of games and they are still being played by people. As long as its a good story I would play it.

theres one company that made a request from disney to make a remake on star wars dark forces.

you can sign or like the petition/twitter on the twitter site wich im to lazy to look up. but good news indeed.

Basically: non-linear gameplay.

No. I said, and I meant, non-linear (branching) *storytelling*.

Also, linear can certainly have replay value depending on what you like and how you like to experience narrative or mechanics. Saying the opposite would be like saying books have no value in being re-read, which is not true for many people. Likewise, you could say films have no value in being re-watched. But, of course, many people would disagree.

That's a fair point. I'll amend my point to be "reduced replay value". (It's reduced because I can't attempt variations if the story is always the same, so "play again to try a different path" doesn't apply.)

No. I said, and I meant, non-linear (branching) *storytelling*.

 

Sure, but try writing truly and fully non-linear storytelling. It also, of course, depends on how one uses the term. Telling a coherent story that has some defined beginning and end is, by definition, linear. That's how you have thematic purpose in stories and that's how stories are effectively coherent and cohesive, with story beats actually making sense.

 

Most stories in games -- including those that branch -- are linear. They simply have many basis paths. Even variations on those basis paths are still just that: basis paths. Even having multiple endings is linear. It's just a case of which path you took to get to which ending.

 

Thus branching does not equal non-linear. By this logic "Choose Your Own Adventure" books would be non-linear due to all their branches. I say this because people might run into articles like Non Linear Narrative in Games. That article makes the mistake of conflating "open world" with "branching" and, for those who have worked in the story writing business or the development business, it's clear there's confusion over non-linear and linear. To quote just one part of the article:

 

"Branching nonlinear stories are generally thought of as one of two styles: 1) a tree that branches out with different end points; or 2) plot lines that converge or diverge like parrellel roads to the same destination."

 

It's the "generally thought of" there part that is misleading. To designers, that is not how such stories "are generally thought of."

 

But notice (1) is still linear; you just reach different endpoints. (2) is also still linear; it just different paths to the "same destination." Linearity can have loops and cross-sections. I find it interesting that the graph in the article labeled "Example of a student's high-level nonlinear narrative hand-drawn graph" is basically filled with linearity. Again, linear doesn't mean lack of loops or branches or bends in the path.

 

The narrative definition doesn't actually change the precise definition of non-linear which is often "not denoting, involving, or arranged in a straight line." Because the question is: could you pick basis paths that ultimately line up in a sequence? Can you line them up so that, given the choices made, you end up with a straight line? If the answer is yes, then you have a linear story/game no matter how it appears when you play it. If the answer is no, then you have true non-linearity.

 

Truly non-linear is where the very nature of the story itself could change. That's where games move from "let's tell a story" to "let's tell a story together." This is where pure randomness could lead to an entirely different story being told. But ... try writing a story in a game that truly does that. So I often ask students for such design:

 

"Draw me something that is actually non-linear. That cannot, when choices and paths are accounted for, be reduced to a straight line."

 

It's a fun challenge!

 

In case people reading this think both of us are grasping at semantic straws, these notions -- and the confusions around them -- are right now very much at the heart of why Star Wars games are being canceled. In any event, thanks for engaging on this! It's an interesting topic, to be sure.

In case people reading this think both of us are grasping at semantic straws, these notions -- and the confusions around them -- are right now very much at the heart of why Star Wars games are being canceled. In any event, thanks for engaging on this! It's an interesting topic, to be sure.

(Bunch of good points removed above for brevity.)

 

While there is a certain amount of semantic grasping going on, that's partly my fault for not distinguishing between different interpretations of "linear", and what exactly I meant by it.

 

The fully-open thing you mentioned above is one of the things, I think, that drives RPers to RP - that ability to use a fairly detailed open-ish(1) world environment like SWTOR's to write their own collaborative stories that go where they want.

 

What I'm thinking of, though, when I distinguish between linear and non-linear storytelling, is a finer distinction and/or a narrower definition of "linear". When I said "linear", what I really meant was "set in a single non-divided path", very like most MMORPG (and even some, mostly older, single-player RPG) stories are set. Consider:

* FFXIV (base story): there's really only one way through the base main-line story. To be sure, each class has its own related story, but there's only one way through those as well.

* Allods Online has a main story with a bunch of minor quest storylines (or just "kill ten rats"(2) quests), and there are no branches at all on it, nor are there dialogue choices.

* Runes of Magic has several on-going long questline stories, but none of them have any branches.

 

Now consider some less-linear cases:

* GW1's Eye of the North: you can choose the order in which you do three large tasks. The ultimate destination is the same in all cases, and the events *in* each task are single-path linear, but you have some choice to add a bit of variety to the tasks.

* GW2's original Personal Story is what I'd call "converging multi-path" where you have multiple starting points (races, mostly) and multiple, but progressively less numerous, paths from those starting points to a single destination.

* GW1's base campaigns "Nightfall" and "Factions" both have a few "do this or do that to progress" points, but ultimately they don't add any real variation to how you go through the story.

 

SWTOR, currently, has the most diverse set of "end-paths" - at the current moment (end of 5.10), we have at least four (arguably eight or even more) incompatible states of the story, to the extent that there are unresolved questions about (see spoiler box):

 

 

 

I expect they will resolve at least some of those issues before 6.0 comes out, but until then, there is not one single "state of the Galaxy" that anyone can report.

 

That's a fairly radical thing in an MMORPG, and it has caused some ... stress ... among the RP community, since they cannot RP at the "tip" of the progression of narrative time, since there isn't a single state of the Galaxy to RP in.

 

(1) If it were fully open, we would, for example, be able to travel to parts of Korriban that were not just the Valley of the Dark Lords, the Sith Academy, and a sprinkling of Sith tombs.

 

(2) In some cases in Allods, the number "ten" should be replaced with something larger, like, say, 125. In GW2, there is one "kill ten rats" event where once you have killed the ten rats, you must kill an eleventh, called Tenrat.

The fully-open thing you mentioned above is one of the things, I think, that drives RPers to RP - that ability to use a fairly detailed open-ish(1) world environment like SWTOR's to write their own collaborative stories that go where they want.

 

Absolutely! I did Narrative and Story Experience Testing for SWTOR as well as for other games. And one of the aspects of that testing is how well emergent stories and player-generated stories can be supported. Behind the scenes this is partly done by persona-injection which is fun as heck in games.

 

I could give a long detailed example of what I did regarding this game but short version: I created a story around a character that tied into the events of the novel Red Harvest as well as a full backstory. Basically my character was "part of" the events surrounding Darth Scabrous and the "zombies." This, in turn, led them to a very specific view of death and the Force and the idea of immortality. And I tried this with all character classes, essentially coming up with why each would have been on Odacer-Faustin.

 

The goal of the narrative and story experience testing is finding out if the game ever forces you to contradict whatever you come up with. But think of how challenging that is! For any story elements that any player may bring to their character at any time, you have to see how and to what extent the narrative(s) in the game actually challenge that, confirm it, or outright contradict it.

 

For example, if you head-canon that your character had a horrible upbringing but then later a throwaway line in the game suggests your character grew up happy and content, that essentially breaks your internal story narrative. But even then: that only matters if you, as player, find that particular conversation path.

 

Perhaps interestingly, SWTOR originally had the concept of a backstory, similar to the minimalist backstory Commander Shepard gets in Mass Effect (i..e, Colonist / Ruthless, etc). That backstory notion was removed from SWTOR very early on.

 

There is also the concept of emergent storytelling, where a story emerges based on what you (as player) do. And it's really tricky to get right.

 

I expect they will resolve at least some of those issues before 6.0 comes out, but until then, there is not one single "state of the Galaxy" that anyone can report. That's a fairly radical thing in an MMORPG, and it has caused some ... stress ... among the RP community, since they cannot RP at the "tip" of the progression of narrative time, since there isn't a single state of the Galaxy to RP in.

 

Indeed so. And that's the notion of emergent gameplay around story. People have stories of their own that emerge around the story that is being told. If there was no story that required a coherent narrative, then you could always RP whatever you want. And go wherever you want and so forth. But story dynamics introduce just that: dynamics. Perhaps slightly off-topic, but one of the most problematic is that of pacing.

 

Consider in SWTOR as, say the Jedi Knight. You're racing to stop some (usually) planet-killer superweapon. But ... along the way you stop off to do any manner of random quests. Now, of course, you don't have to. And the "purple quest" streamlining actually was an interesting viewpoint into how pacing works and how pacing can be modulated. This often failed, by counter-example, in Dragon Age: Origins where the time it took to move between locations was instant but it was clear that days and often weeks passed between going from one location to another.

 

Anyway, that was a bit of a side-topic. But pacing is very important for emergent stories as well since RP does involve the notion of time and their character developing and evolving.

 

For those following this discussion, a few good books on this topic overall (all links to Amazon):

 

Video Game Storytelling

 

The Game Narrative Toolbox

 

Narrative Design for Indies

 

I'm so glad the RP aspect came into this discussion because it is still one of the most under-rated aspects of player experience from a game design perspective. Or, rather, being more accurate, good game designers entirely understand this desire to immerse in a story world balanced with the notion of telling a good story. What's harder to do is get game development budget that supports this kind of work because ultimately it's seen as hard to do and hard to monetize.

 

Equally, however, one of the most searched terms on Google for games is this: "Does {game name} have a good story" or "Does {game name} have a story." And that notion of having a story at all, and particularly a good one, can run into interesting roadblocks when you also want to allow emergent storytelling and expansive role-playing options.

Consider in SWTOR as, say the Jedi Knight. You're racing to stop some (usually) planet-killer superweapon. But ... along the way you stop off to do any manner of random quests. Now, of course, you don't have to. And the "purple quest" streamlining actually was an interesting viewpoint into how pacing works and how pacing can be modulated. This often failed, by counter-example, in Dragon Age: Origins where the time it took to move between locations was instant but it was clear that days and often weeks passed between going from one location to another.

You called this a side-topic, but it's closely tied to the themes of narrative because the flow of time affects the "feel" of a narrative.

 

Let's take a quick look at my take on the various kinds of time in MMORPGs. The terms are my own, and might not bear any resemblance to "industry" terms.

 

Wall-clock time. This one's fairly easy, but it's worth noting that the clock is on my wall in the real world. It generally doesn't affect the narrative as such, but does affect e.g. certain sorts of long-duration buffs.

 

Connection time. This is real-world time I spend connected to the game playing a character. As above, it normally doesn't affect the narrative, but affects e.g. buffs. One example from SWTOR where it does affect the narrative is the Rakghoul Vaccine mission on Pub Taris, where you are injected with a dose of serum and then have an hour and a half of connection time to be infected by raks. (I think it's connection time, but I haven't ever had the clock running enough to want to log out while it's running.)

 

Quest time. This is a sort of amalgam of the in-universe and real-world time that a quest or mission takes to evolve, and ties very strongly to the narrative. An event that happens in quest time will tend to happen "just in time" e.g. you arrive just in time to save this person, or to fight that person before he blows up the reactor or whatever, but occasionally you are just barely too late, as in the case of Uphrades in the JK story. Quest time is, therefore, somewhat elastic in its relationship to connection time and the final item, narrative time.

 

Narrative time. This is the flow of in-game time as it would be experienced by the player and non-player characters in the game universe. As such, it is highly elastic in its relationship to connection time and quest time. Classic examples of this elasticity revolve around the time taken to travel - it is in no way reasonable to think of a player ship taking a few seconds (or even a few tens of seconds) to travel between the ground and 25K miles altitude, where you are in "orbit" around a planet when you arrive. On one of the planet arrivals, the player remarks on having arrived forty thousand kilometres above the planet. That's 25,000 miles. From there to the ground (assuming a "soft" landing) would realistically take several hours at the best of conditions.

 

The concept of narrative time also occurs in "paper" storytelling, i.e. novels and short stories, and mismanaging that elasticity can mess up a story quite severely. I remember a fantasy novel (it was 30 years ago that I read it, and its name is lost in the mists of time) where the protagonist and his travelling companions spend a couple of hours of narrative time over five or six pages escaping from some caves, then the author disposed of six months of travel time with one sentence, more or less along the lines of "And then they travelled across the land for six months." The sudden shift of time-detail was extremely jarring. (There were other reason not to like the novel, but that sort of thing certainly didn't help.)

 

This separation of narrative and quest time is occasionally odd in SWTOR, and probably the most jarring case is when you leave Nathema at the end of KotET Chapter VII, and Aygo calls to tell you the attack is beginning on Odessen. You somehow manage to arrive on Odessen during the attack. Equally, Lana and Theron get the call from Aygo on DK during Chapter II, and recover you and travel to Odessen so you can walk into the hangar just as a certain person begins speaking. (In reality, you'd be counting on 10 minutes spent getting into low orbit at DK and another 10 minutes getting down to the surface on Odessen, plus the hyperspace time, during which time that person could have not only begun speaking, but persuaded the entire crew of the accuracy of her case.)

.... it's closely tied to the themes of narrative because the flow of time affects the "feel" of a narrative.

 

Entirely agreed. The internal "feel" is the pacing. It's how we often recognize that something is off about a film or a book. And equally certainly this can be quite jarring in games where temporality matters in the context of a narrative.

 

One thing that's interesting is a concept borrowed from physics: that of proper time. This is the time that you record and "feel" in your local reference frame regardless of other aspects outside of you.

 

In narrative where there is agency -- i.e., games -- this proper time is not just your proper time as a player, but the proper time of the player character, and -- crucially -- the proper time that you the player feels should be the proper time of the player character. There are entire techniques devoted to temporality in game design and storytelling. We can call all that subjective time.

 

That gets reconciled -- consciously and unconsciously -- by players with objective time. Meaning, how long something actually takes to experience. This is all very rooted in the psychology of human beings: how we interact with elements that are presented to as expansions or compressions of what "really" seems to be the case.

 

Character evolution is another one here, particularly from the RP side of things. Being simplistic for a second, think of how compressed the narrative is on the starter planets. Let's just take the Jedi Consular. You basically are "rushed through" your training discovering a threat to your Master. Consider the Jedi Knight. You are also basically "rushed through" your training but here you discover a threat to the Jedi Order itself.

 

During story and narrative experience for the Jedi Consular, for example, it was determined that you are "realistically" on Tython for 28 to 32 days before you actually leave for Coruscant. Time is compressed because the narrative space (i.e., the Tython map) is compressed. This was seen in testing for Dragon Age: Origins as well. Here are some test notes (for the Noble Human) during story and narrative experience testing:

 

Fergus left ahead of you. Just ahead of you.

But even with a day's head start, he could have been sent into the Wilds.

From Highever to Ostagar: 17 days. (343 miles)

300 miles: at 5mph, 10 hours a day. It would take 6 days.

 

About 12 days to Ostagar.

Half a day of getting ready.

Next half a day getting into the Wilds.

Battle overnight.

 

Three days at Morrigan's.

About 5 days to get from Korcari to Lothering.

(Normally would take about 3, but we were careful to avoid the Darkspawn)

A day in Lothering.

 

5 days to Redcliffe.

1 day of battle.

About a day to go across the lake from Redcliffe to Circle.

1.5 days with the Circle and back to Redcliffe.

 

These were then (ostensibly) used as input to narrative and dialogue options. But, as most people who play the game can see, this rarely worked well. For example, Alistair has "been very quiet" (the implication being those days of travel from the Korcari Wilds to Lothering) but in game terms you might have only been talking to him "a few seconds" ago.

 

All of this, of course, can be orthogonal to the notion of emergent gameplay and is cross-cutting with linearity. Specifically, all of this can just be based on world and narrative consistency, reconciling the realities of something (playing a game in a compressed time format) with the realities of something else (an expansive landscape or the need for quest giver to be present just at the time they need you).

Edited January 22, 2019 by Kryptonomic

Hmmm speaking for myself I would rather have a new X-Wing vs Tie Fighter game.

 

They tried that. It was terribad.

Edited January 22, 2019 by ALaggyGrunt

The goal of the narrative and story experience testing is finding out if the game ever forces you to contradict whatever you come up with. But think of how challenging that is! For any story elements that any player may bring to their character at any time, you have to see how and to what extent the narrative(s) in the game actually challenge that, confirm it, or outright contradict it.

 

For example, if you head-canon that your character had a horrible upbringing but then later a throwaway line in the game suggests your character grew up happy and content, that essentially breaks your internal story narrative. But even then: that only matters if you, as player, find that particular conversation path.

 

Perhaps interestingly, SWTOR originally had the concept of a backstory, similar to the minimalist backstory Commander Shepard gets in Mass Effect (i..e, Colonist / Ruthless, etc). That backstory notion was removed from SWTOR very early on.

 

They should have done this, though it may not have made much difference if they couldn't predict non-class specific races [much of the early constraints seem baffling now]. So if you're an alien SW, the only way for any coherent headcanon to persist is to basically ignore all the class-specific text options, which were written for humans/sith/cyborgs*. And the options aren't clearly written enough to know that the first time around, so you're either stuck with it or you do a lot of ESC redos on your first char.

 

SW is an egregious example, and it also comes up for any imperial aligned species on pub classes - not just the lack of acknowledgement, but for instance, the Hoth planetary mission where you're searching for the Chiss defector and the questgiver doesn't trust Chiss or think the men will want them around. Better avoid that one if you happen to be playing a Chiss!

 

I seem to recall troopers have species-specific backstories, to some extent. Humans, cyborgs and Sith [because the game reads them as human] supposedly got high marks at the academy [this isn't an option, Jorgan says it because he was snooping around] whereas alien PCs were guerilla fighters before joining the space marines. The only way to ignore that if it doesn't fit your headcanon, iirc, is to ignore Jorgan's comp stories.

 

*speaking of cyborgs, Krypto, do you know why they made them a separate species? Or why they had the game read Miraluka as aliens? If my PC puts a helmet on, why am I still subject to xenophobia? Are these telepathic bigots or something?

Edited January 25, 2019 by Ardrossan

*speaking of cyborgs, Krypto, do you know why they made them a separate species? Or why they had the game read Miraluka as aliens? If my PC puts a helmet on, why am I still subject to xenophobia? Are these telepathic bigots or something?

 

Cyborgs were literally a "We don't know what else to add." More specifically, though, they were a hurried addition when they realized they needed something to even out their initial offering. They imposed a whole lot of restrictions on themselves at the start regarding playable species. Originally "cyborgs" weren't going to be separate. Cyborg components were just a customization option. But they ran into a slew of problems with that in terms of the different species.

 

Speaking to your other point, though, here's some (possibly) interesting notes on the testing around that notion of in-game consistency. There's tons of examples of these I have but I'll be brief and pick just one class.

 

Consider the Imperial Agent. The notorious pirate "Red Blade" is mentioned in text. Jheeg says he is "small-time pirate." Keeper just says "a visiting pirate and trader." Jheeg also says "rich" and "mysterious." And, of course, dialogue states: "No one knows true species, gender, or color." All plausible perhaps. But a few issues were raised.

 

If this "Blade" is "notorious", they would at least be known in terms of what they broadly look like in armor, right? (And if they are "small time" why would Nem'ro care about the rumors of the pirate visiting?)

 

But let's go back to the body size thing. Again, even if people knew very little of the Blade, they would see that it was a big person. When you encounter the Red Blade, it's clearly a body size 3 male. Originally our testing suggested that the body size of the Red Blade character should be matched to whatever body side the player chose. But they opted not to go that route. It still seemed odd. So then testing suggested this actually could have been handled in game as an intelligence screw up. Meaning, have some dialogue where the agent of a disproportionate body size says something like "How was I ever supposed to pass for that guy?!" The idea being to show that Intelligence has some glaring flaws, which could be played on later in the story. But that was ruled out.

 

Another miss right out of the starting gate: they didn't give you Red Blade armor! The last thing you would do is go undercover without your actual cover identity in place. By the time your identity is even given to you, tons of people have seen you at the spaceport! We brought this up during testing as well. Even if the Red Blade is mysterious, they are also notorious and thus would likely be known at least by appearance in armor. So the suggestion was to start the player off in that armor. Ignored.

 

Beyond that -- and more to your point -- if you are wearing full armor as an agent, people will make comments about what you look like -- but they can't possibly know. You're in armor! As an agent being undercover, this obviously should have been thought of. And it was during the narrative experience testing.

 

To give you an idea of how badly input was taken in, consider: when all of the above testing was brought up, there was one change made. One -- and only one -- of the dialog options has the Red Blade that you meet tell you that you could perhaps have been one of the Red Blades. Implying, of course, that there are many. That perhaps it's a group. Except -- wouldn't this group also be notorious? And why was the Red Blade previously spoken of (by Jheeg and Keeper) in a very singular sense?

 

A lot of people think that extra bit of dialogue was due to the Red Blade being a concept that was meant to be expanded but never was. Nope. It was just a poor response to a lot of testing that was suggesting that the narrative cohesion is a bit off.

 

As a bit of backstory into how the agent and bounty hunter were broken out, consider that the little side quests in the starting area make no sense for an agent; even an undercover one. They do for a bounty hunter. A way to have reconciled this was to have the Red Blade be a ... bounty hunter! Then doing these side jobs would have been the agent maintaining their undercover identity. Or a suggestion was made that perhaps the Red Blade is known to have fallen on hard times and is no longer "rich" thus will do anything for money. Dialogue from Keeper and/or Jheeg was suggested to accommodate that.

 

What happened? There's one line you can say to Karrels Javis where you say you "need money and you're not picky how you get it." So, again, you can see the common response that often came up to this kind of testing. The mantra (often) became "This is an MMO; people aren't going to pay attention to details on quests." I'm not even saying that' entirely untrue. But further testing showed that many people (players; not professional testers) immediately noticed these discrepancies as well.

 

Again, I'm just picking on one area here of one class right at the start. I wrote an article about this kind of "bumping the lamp" style testing, albeit not for SWTOR but for GTA 5.

Edited January 25, 2019 by Kryptonomic

Cyborgs were literally a "We don't know what else to add." More specifically, though, they were a hurried addition when they realized they needed something to even out their initial offering. They imposed a whole lot of restrictions on themselves at the start regarding playable species. Originally "cyborgs" weren't going to be separate. Cyborg components were just a customization option. But they ran into a slew of problems with that in terms of the different species.

 

That squares with how many people seem to view cyborgs. It's a bit pathetic considering the number of humanoid species in this IP. It also suggests, going from your other dialogue, that there were a lot of missed opportunities. Cyborgs show up in the earlier kotors, and they're seen as abnormal, and when they show up as NPCs in this game, there's a lot of revulsion around them, but Cyborg PCs are just treated like baseline humans, even if you're a cyborg SI trying to kill Skotia, or a cyborg RT who has to kill a room full of people because they *might* be cyborgs.

 

To give you an idea of how badly input was taken in, consider: when all of the above testing was brought up, there was one change made. One -- and only one -- of the dialog options has the Red Blade that you meet tell you that you could perhaps have been one of the Red Blades. Implying, of course, that there are many. That perhaps it's a group. Except -- wouldn't this group also be notorious? And why was the Red Blade previously spoken of (by Jheeg and Keeper) in a very singular sense?

 

This crops up again on NS during the pubside planetary, The Mountain, who is apparently six [very weak] Nikto.

 

Regarding the silliness of an IA doing missions while undercover, at least now with increased xp since launch, you can skip most or all of those missions and still leave the planet over-level. But it crops up again on Balmorra.

 

I guess the moral of all this is that BW ignoring feedback is timeless.

Edited January 26, 2019 by Ardrossan

Sooo, whats Rockstar or CDProjekt up to now?

or a cyborg RT who has to kill a room full of people because they *might* be cyborgs.

Oh God, I remember thinking exactly that, on my second character, the Cyborg commandogirl Kylath. It was the source of her undying emnity towards a certain big-butted general, because I interpreted it (incorrectly in retrospect) as Garza saying that *cyborgs* were bad, rather than that those *potential* cyborgs were a major risk. (Not that "they might have been encyborgified for bad purposes, so murder them out of hand" is any less bad a thing to say, mind you.)

 

And I still wonder why we didn't have the "take them into custody until we can work out whether they are really cyborgs" option.

Basically an unfunded mandate. A petition < > the investment cash necessary to build a AAA title game.