KOTOR II

[Thecla]

Did anyone get it yet? If so, what do you think?

[Armin]

Still good, but not level with part 1...

I can't exactly point the finger at the reasons, but somehow the story just didn't work that well as it did in part 1. Too confuse, too much of the same "dark side / light side" Kindergarten psychology, and just too badly defined bad guys. Sometimes a bit LESS mystery would go a long way.

Balance didn't feel quite right (too difficult early on, ridiculously easy toward the end), and the fights were generally less interesting. So were the quests. I just couldn't get as immersed as in KOTOR 1.

That you *start* as a Jedi this time but have to spend feats and powers for more than half the game before you finally get your hands on a lightsaber (several feats and powers depend on it!) was more than mildly annoying...

Still a fun way to pass 40-50 hours though

[Kylearan]

Hi,

sorry for hijacking this thread, but...

Still good, but not level with part 1...

<rant>
What exactly was good about part 1? I finally got a new computer and decided to catch up on some "must-have" games, and SW:KOTOR seemed to be one of them. "Best CRPG of the year", "Nearly as good as PS: Torment and Fallout" (which I loved), "Fantastic story and character development" etc...

Maybe it's because I'm no Star Wars fan (liked it as a colorful fairy-tale, hated it as an SF movie...) and thus lacked the "Coooool! I can be a Jedi, and can have a Wookie in my party!" feeling, but the game was horrible! Admittedly, I only played until I had left Taris and had become a Jedi, but I had enough by then.

* Horrible combat system. It looks like it doesn't matter where your characters are positioned, and the only tactical options for movement were that the melee chars could try to block the path to your blaster chars. Apart from that, all PCs and NPCs keep standing on the spot where they had been when combat started, and fire away - and I don't think they've implemented the partial cover rules, so firing at an enemy standing behind one of you party members is fine. Never saw an CRPG with more boring combats!

* Silly sidequests. You enter a bar, meet a completely unknown girl who wants a job as a dancer but needs a partner. With no more conversation happening than "Hi! I have no dancing partner.", you can try to persuade her that she should take you (why?!?), and that you're good enough. If you fail your die roll - no problem, just repeat saying the same phrase over and over again until you succeed your roll. Then you dance, collect some XP, and never see her again. Yeah, a really realistic scenario with really realistic character behavior. Quests only for the sake of increasing the quest-count ("60+ hours of fun!") - completely kills immersion into the storyline and identification with you character for me.

* You meet Canderous what, three times?, and learn on every occasion that he works for Davik. Then you meet him again in the slums, and *again* he tells you (in case you're too stupid to remember) that, surprise!, he works for Davik - and your character is really surprised again, judging from the things you're offered to say! Sorry, but I would prefer fewer sidequests but more variable conversations instead. Is it so hard to implement a flag saying "Has Met Canderous Already", so that when you meet him again, a more intelligent conversation could be possible?!?

* NPCs with a mysterious background - by now, I HATE them. I loved it in PS:Torment that Dak'kon had a secret you could slowly unveil by repeatedly talking to him and persuading him to tell you more. Now Bioware seemed to like their idea so much that they did it again. Okay, so Carth has a secret (a much more cliché one, as it seems) which you can repeatedly ask him about - fine, I'll do it even if his story looks a lot less interesting than Dak'kon's. Then you meet Mission, and you know what? Hey, she has a secret you can repeatedly ask her about! Wohooo! :angry:

* You enter the slums for the first time, and meet a merchant. You don't know him, he doesn't know you, and one of the first things he tells you about is his plan to get rid of the current leader and take control of the slums by controlling all food. WTF? How realistic is that? No wonder he hadn't succeeded by then if he reveals his evil plot to every stranger he meets! :wacko:


I would have no problems to immerse myself into a Star Wars universe if the underlying story and characters were well-made. But if you take away all the Star Wars merchandise from KOTOR, only a standard, cliché, below average CRPG remains - or what am I missing here?


Brian Fargo, the creator of the Bard's Tale series from the 1980's, has recently said something along the lines of, "The average computer gamer is about 25 years old. The average CRPG player is about 30 years old. The average age CRPGs are made for is 14.", and I fully agree with him - I hope he manages to change that with his upcoming "Bard's Tale" for the PC.
</rant>

Next up on my list is Morrowind, and at least the beginning looks more promising.

-Kylearan

[Urza-DSF]

* Horrible combat system. It looks like it doesn't matter where your characters are positioned, and the only tactical options for movement were that the melee chars could try to block the path to your blaster chars. Apart from that, all PCs and NPCs keep standing on the spot where they had been when combat started, and fire away - and I don't think they've implemented the partial cover rules, so firing at an enemy standing behind one of you party members is fine. Never saw an CRPG with more boring combats!

What CRPG has realistic combat in the first place? Since you quoted PS: Torment and Fallout - PS runs off of the BG engine if I'm not mistaken (havent played Tormet yet) and theres no "friendly fire" option in there, only thing that can affect your party as well as your enemies are certain area of effect spells. As for Fallout yes your party could shoot you in the back, but combinging that with the generally small maps and at times narrow passageways and NPCs that you couldnt control meant that Ian with a bust weapon could mean a total party kill.

* Silly sidequests. You enter a bar, meet a completely unknown girl who wants a job as a dancer but needs a partner. With no more conversation happening than "Hi! I have no dancing partner.", you can try to persuade her that she should take you (why?!?), and that you're good enough. If you fail your die roll - no problem, just repeat saying the same phrase over and over again until you succeed your roll. Then you dance, collect some XP, and never see her again. Yeah, a really realistic scenario with really realistic character behavior. Quests only for the sake of increasing the quest-count ("60+ hours of fun!") - completely kills immersion into the storyline and identification with you character for me.

Thats kinda why its a *side* quest. It's standard of any RPG, Computer or otherwise. And the only time you could re-try your roll is when your initially talking to her (for that one example). If you screw her over while trying to help her out then thats it, no going back on the decision. Not only that but what if you actually decided on a character who *was* trained as a dancer at some point? Just because it may not be a common undertaking dosent mean that its completly impossible. Not only that but because its a sidequest it's entirely optional. Your character dosent have any experience dancing? Dont help her out. Just because the option is there dosen't mean you have to take it and "waste your time"

* You meet Canderous what, three times?, and learn on every occasion that he works for Davik. Then you meet him again in the slums, and *again* he tells you (in case you're too stupid to remember) that, surprise!, he works for Davik - and your character is really surprised again, judging from the things you're offered to say! Sorry, but I would prefer fewer sidequests but more variable conversations instead. Is it so hard to implement a flag saying "Has Met Canderous Already", so that when you meet him again, a more intelligent conversation could be possible?!?

I believe it was because you dont have to talk to him all of those times, so they made sure that if you missed one or two of them that you could still get the guy's story. Yes they could have implimented it slightly better, but who is perfect?

* NPCs with a mysterious background - by now, I HATE them. I loved it in PS:Torment that Dak'kon had a secret you could slowly unveil by repeatedly talking to him and persuading him to tell you more. Now Bioware seemed to like their idea so much that they did it again. Okay, so Carth has a secret (a much more cliché one, as it seems) which you can repeatedly ask him about - fine, I'll do it even if his story looks a lot less interesting than Dak'kon's. Then you meet Mission, and you know what? Hey, she has a secret you can repeatedly ask her about! Wohooo! :angry:

Ok...so you would prefer that everyone just tell people that they have just met their entire life story? It's character interaction there, getting to know the backgrounds of your teammates as they come to grow and trust you. Because theres currently no such thing as true AI then the game has to come up with some way to gauge how well the characters know each other.

* You enter the slums for the first time, and meet a merchant. You don't know him, he doesn't know you, and one of the first things he tells you about is his plan to get rid of the current leader and take control of the slums by controlling all food. WTF? How realistic is that? No wonder he hadn't succeeded by then if he reveals his evil plot to every stranger he meets!&nbsp; :wacko:

Your actually doing this backwards. In the slums your suppost to talk to the old man first, who asks you to collect these datapads that could possibly help out everyone down there. *After* that the merchant will tell you it would better for you (since you already accepted to gather the pads) to give them to him so he could essentially take control of things down there. Yes, it could have been implimented better (ie: not giving him the ability to ask about it unless you've already accepted the "good" side of the quest) but it still does make sense as another light/dark path for your character.

I would have no problems to immerse myself into a Star Wars universe if the underlying story and characters were well-made. But if you take away all the Star Wars merchandise from KOTOR, only a standard, cliché, below average CRPG remains - or what am I missing here?
[right][snapback]68643[/snapback][/right]

Quite a bit apparantly, since you've only really met like a few of the possible NPCs in the game, or actually seen the story apart from the level 1 beginnings. Really its like you read the first chapter of a book and decided that the whole thing was crap because you didnt like the placement of a word or two here and there.

An easier question would probally be: what made Torment and Fallout such good games in your mind? For Torment I have no clue myself, but Fallout is because of the excelent storyline which, franky, is somewhat cliche at the beginning. If you really compared the three games I think you'll see a lot less of a difference between them other than their fictional settings/genras.

[Jester]

Neither game had anything resembling a real challenge, as far as I could tell. I like both of them, but by the end of each, your character is such a ridiculous killing machine that the game loses all immersive quality.

In KOTOR I, we (my brother and I) made a Jedi Guardian that, with just a double bladed lightsaber, the power attack feat, and master speed, could kill the last bosses in two hits each (or one, in a couple instances). Our consulars, both light and dark, didn't have much more trouble than that.

In KOTOR II, which we finished last night, it was even more sick. None of the last bosses was more challenging than the average stormtrooperesque throwaway creature. Ridiculous in the extreme. Wisdom enhancing items just got far, far out of control, and the best lightsabers were too good by about 3X.

I love the universe, the plots are pretty cool, but for god sakes, they need to make it harder to become a deity.

Jester

[jahcs]

Things like books, games and movies, especially if they are made for entertainment, need to have a "hook" early in the game to grab the reader/gamer/viewer. They also have to hold back enough to give you a few suprises. It's a tough balance.

The easiest way to get me to shelve a game is to have bad gameplay/archaic control structure that is not easy to learn or to make a very early boss or puzzle so difficult that I want to snap the CD in half or use it for a coaster. I am not one of those people who thought Myst was too easy and never went searching for hints on the internet but I will take the time to examine my approach to a problem and try to find another solution. Since I am very carefull when selecting what games I purchase, and I don't buy many, I will even try to play a "dumb" game through to completion. There is a difference between game difficulty and gamer frustration.

Morrowind was a great game, in my opinion. A few faults to watch out for:
-The leveling system sounds good in theory (Practice a skill enough times and you level in that skill, level enough skills and your overall level increases.) but in execution it's a bit silly. There are a few mods out there that may address this.
-Spellcasters don't regenerate fast enough unless you pack some serious potions. Again, there are mods to fix this.
-No multiplayer. This game is huge with lots of neat things to do and find, It was tough to keep playing because I wanted to share places and items with friends.
-There are a few nearly game breaking items you can find. Use items like the Robe of St. Roris at your own peril.
-The game in it's original version has quite a few issues that cause lock ups and crashes, patches fix most of these. Save often on multiple files. A few quests can be broken on accident too.

[Drasca]

-No multiplayer.&nbsp; This game is huge with lots of neat things to do and find, It was tough to keep playing because I wanted to share places and items with friends.
[right][snapback]68731[/snapback][/right]

A few comments, as always. Just adding some perspective, I generally agree with you jahcs.

No multi-player is a trade off. I've never seen this level of modibility (since, bolo) or focus on single-player so much in any multiplayer game--as multiplayer games tend to try to make the game hard to tamper with. Warcraft and Starcraft mods have gone above and beyond expectations, but even those maps have their limits.

Individual modability is inherently left to single-player games. This is a practical limit and trade off to multiplayer games. What is cool and stable on one machine will not necessarily be so on another.

-There are a few nearly game breaking items you can find.&nbsp; Use items like the Robe of St. Roris at your own peril.

There are, but generally you must go out of your way to get them. Those with foreknowledge of the game will not find it difficult to acquire goodies, but generally a short bow and quiver of 100 arrows used for sniping off roof-tops is going to be as game breaking as you'll get. Even then, you must find some out of the way manner to perch onto untouchably high areas.

-The game in it's original version has quite a few issues that cause lock ups and crashes, patches fix most of these.&nbsp; Save often on multiple files.&nbsp; A few quests can be broken on accident too.

Since we're web saavy people, patching should not be a problem. Additionally, the retail version is mostly "Game of the Year" version with extra expansion packs and their respective patches included. Just be sure to install in the following order: Morrowind--->Tribunal--->Bloodmoon.

I recommend multiple save files too. Just good practice. WIth the exception of a killing spree, it is generally difficult to break quests. Be confused on quests on where to go, always a problem--at least mine. . . throughtout many games

[Dozer]

Did anyone get it yet? If so, what do you think?
[right][snapback]67902[/snapback][/right]

(Referring to plot only)


It builds up excellently with a deep, thought-provoking storyline that really makes you think. It then builds on this, creating a slightly over-complicated array of subplots and overstory, which made me think that this game would be better than the first one (hard to do!).


And then the second you leave Dantooine for the second time, it goes from an incredible Metal Gear Solid 1-esque plot to something they threw together in 20 minutes becasue LucasArts pushed the game out by christmas.


Yuck.

[Kylearan]

Hi,

maybe I was a bit unfair towards the game in my post but hey, that's why I've tagged it as a rant... ;)

PS runs off of the BG engine if I'm not mistaken (havent played Tormet yet) and theres no "friendly fire" option in there, only thing that can affect your party as well as your enemies are certain area of effect spells.&nbsp; As for Fallout yes your party could shoot you in the back, but combinging that with the generally small maps and at times narrow passageways and NPCs that you couldnt control meant that Ian with a bust weapon could mean a total party kill.

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...

I believe it was because you dont have to talk to him [Canderous] all of those times, so they made sure that if you missed one or two of them that you could still get the guy's story.&nbsp; Yes they could have implimented it slightly better, but who is perfect?

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...

Your actually doing this backwards.&nbsp; In the slums your suppost to talk to the old man first, [...]

That's exactly my point. 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.

An easier question would probally be: what made Torment and Fallout such good games in your mind?

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

[loonygloss]

Did anyone get it yet? If so, what do you think?
[right][snapback]67902[/snapback][/right]

It's - Nice. I got $AU20 off for pre-ordering, and I think if I didn't, I would have felt a bit ripped off. There are several significant issues.

*Minor Spoilers?*










1. In a few places you are forced into solo areas/forced to progress. This leads to you looting everyone as they die, because you aren't sure whether you'll be able to come back and pick over remains after a big battle, or, and this is a big one, complete quests. Another issue is the random loot, which can be an issue if you get bad rolls, OTOH, it is quite easy to get powerful. I also had no real problems finding some quite powerful loot.

2. The game is a little buggy. Scripting errors, jarring transitions, and a general lack of polish in some areas. In a few parts of the game, an area transition will slow the game to a crawl, and to fix it you must change and apply an option on the video card to flush its buffer. Influence can be hard to juggle, but then, it is supposed to be that way. The odd quest is a bit broken, but nothing too serious.

3. The plot was criminally slaughtered by the decision to ship the game for christmas. For those who have completed the game, here is a summary of material in the game that was cut which would have made the ending far more satisfying. It really does make you hope that Obsidian will be able to afford to put a patch out to fix this... but I wouldn't hold out much hope. Damn.

Overall, enjoyable, though flawed.

[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&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.