KOTOR II

[loonygloss]

Hi,

I liked the Fallout combat system better, even with the stupid NPC AI. It felt more tactical, combat was more than just selecting the right combat  feat and clicking on the next target. If combat takes such a big role in a CRPG, then a more sophisticated system should be used IMHO.
I can live without friendly fire, but then cover rules (trying to hit a target standing behind someone else giving you a malus on the to-hit roll) would have been nice, to make movement a bit more meaningful. This flaw wasn't so apparent in PS/BG since the view was isometric, but with KOTOR's 3D engine, it looks a bit silly if you have problems clicking on your target because somebody else standing between you blocks the clickable area, but actually hitting him is as easy as ever...
[right][snapback]68800[/snapback][/right]

Yes, it's dumbed down a bit, but it's an Xbox game. It's 3rd person, one character controlled at a time. Any more control, and you have to make it turn based(due to view/controller), which would detract from the appearance of frenetic blaster and lightsaber battles. They are going for immersion/atmosphere over tactics. On consoles, typically those RPS with more tactical combat are considered a genre apart, and are more like wargame/RPG hybrids, with pretty light plot development.

For me, immersion is the most important part with any RPG. Things like this break immersion for me.  The more characters behave/conversate different from real-life people, the more problematic. My example with Canderous was one of several occasions that got me woken up saying, "Ah yes, it's only a computer game". It became apparent that it only was important for Bioware that you wouldn't miss the stroyline, sacrificing realism for it. I could live with something like that if it wouldn't be so easy to fix...
I *hate* it when games are built upon the assumption that you're doing things in a specific order. Hey, it's a role-playing game where I should be able to do things the way I like! And again, implementing a flag to check if you've already spoken to the old man, combined with some more dialogue options in case you haven't, would have solved this. As I've said, I'd prefer fewer side quests but more realistic conversations instead.
[right][snapback]68800[/snapback][/right]

To be honest, the only complex RPG I've seen without this problem is PS:T, and it's because dialog/quest stuff is hard to do well. Most devs seem to go for the extra content over the polishing phase, not to mention the lax attitude Lucasarts has adopted with QA in its Star Wars franchise. Heck, check the vast quantity of bugfixes in the Baldurdash packs for BG and BGII. Most of them you'd never notice, but they're still there.

Good question. It's been a very long time since I've played those games, so maybe I'm glorifying things a bit, but in my memory Torment had much better writing. I had the feeling they actually had hired some professional writer, while KOTOR has dialogues I could have written, too. Fallout just felt more original (maybe I would see that different nowadays), and had a much better combat system - if combat playes such a huge role in a game, the combat system should be designed accordingly.

-Kylearan
[right][snapback]68800[/snapback][/right]

Torment has (IMO) the best writing in a computer game ever. Very hard to live up to its legacy. Fallout is a wonderfully unique and well-realized setting as well. I would put them in my top three RPGs ever. So if the SW/Jedightsabre thing holds no draw for you, it's understandable that KOTOR is a letdown. It's a good solid RPG, nothing wonderful, but the SW mythos is widespread in our culture and is a big drawcard for most people. Especially those who are so turned off by TB combat, and the traditional fantasy settings. Which explains the wide acclaim for it - it's the everyman's RPG.