KotOR 1 + 2 Question Poll

[Dragula]

Sorry to botch it up for you, but KOTOR2 is considered canon, and the canon have evolved to a more grayish scale ever since the role playing game, wheter you think it's right or not, the franchise will not be like the first movies again, not the expanded universe at least.

 

[Sander]

Sorry to botch it up for you, but KOTOR2 is considered canon, and the canon have evolved to a more grayish scale ever since the role playing game, wheter you think it's right or not, the franchise will not be like the first movies again, not the expanded universe at least.

And similarly, Fallout 3 is now canon. That doesn't mean it magically fits the original franchise, it simply means that they've changed the franchise. And that is what KOTOR2 has done, as well as many other EU products.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

I'm saying that the story is pretty good if you look at it without the burden of established Star Wars lore that you don't encounter in the game.

I don't disagree that it's a better more complex story in it's own right, but that it's done/handled better. If the story is inappropriate, as in it breaks with the original franchise and given it's historical context in that franchise's lore it doesn't really offer the same opportunities for choice and consequence, important for the type of game. Plus it's rushed and unfinished then how can the 'way it plays' be better?

Kreia is much, much more complex than Jolee Bindo and plays a wholly different role.

Kreia doesn't have to be in your party, she could have been just be an npc that you have to interact with, a lot, but she fills a similar Obiwan role as Jolee did.

But yes, if you're going to look for similarities, they're going to be there, as it's nearly impossible to create wholly unique characters.

The original characters follow the template of the film characters, okay maybe that was needed in the first game to give it a Star Wars feel. But with all the established species and what nots in the films and EU they could of gone really wild with the party members in the sequel but nope you still have a human male pilot with a distrust of the Jedi, a female Jedi that can be redeemed from the dark side with love, an enigmatic grey Jedi mentor figure, a wookiee with an emotional attachment to a female rogue. Sure they might of needed to give the player a choice of a soldier, scoundrel, and jedi etc but they really couldn't come up with any, more, original characters?

 

[Dragula]

And similarly, Fallout 3 is now canon. That doesn't mean it magically fits the original franchise, it simply means that they've changed the franchise. And that is what KOTOR2 has done, as well as many other EU products.

Yes but then again, Fallout 3 i devolution while KoTOR2 was evolution of the franchise because that even appealed to the purists, unlike Fallout 3.

 

[Ravager69]

And similarly, Fallout 3 is now canon. That doesn't mean it magically fits the original franchise, it simply means that they've changed the franchise. And that is what KOTOR2 has done, as well as many other EU products.

Yes but then again, Fallout 3 i devolution while KoTOR2 was evolution of the franchise because that even appealed to the purists, unlike Fallout 3.

While I agree that in my opinion KotOR 2 is a good way for SW franchise to go, Sander's right that it breaks the cannon in a way that Fallout 3 does.

As for the game itself, it has a lot better dialogues than the first, better gameplay and a light post-apocalyptic feel to it, that *reminds* me of Fallout (though it's quite distinctive from it). One of those games I can replay many times.

*EDIT* oh, I just remembered that people used to complain heavily after the first KotOR about it's lack of moral ambiguity (I discussed this on Gamebanshee forum back in the days), so I guess Obsidian wanted to answer to those complains. This may be why we have so similar NPC companions (which were the bad-ass versions of the originals) and a twist of gray morality.

 

[Sander]

I don't disagree that it's a better more complex story in it's own right, but that it's done/handled better. If the story is inappropriate, as in it breaks with the original franchise and given it's historical context in that franchise's lore it doesn't really offer the same opportunities for choice and consequence, important for the type of game.

Which is why I noted that if you view it *without* that established canon, it's a better story.
If you have someone who has never heard of Star Wars play both games, I'd expect him to see the second as having a better story.

Plus it's rushed and unfinished then how can the 'way it plays' be better?

Both are highly repetitive and similar roleplaying games, but I felt that Kotor2 offered a bit more interesting locations and quests, and better dialogue.
I never really noticed many bugs or problems with the game until the very endgame.
Plus, I don't care much about combat.

Kreia doesn't have to be in your party, she could have been just be an npc that you have to interact with, a lot, but she fills a similar Obiwan role as Jolee did.

Kreia being in your party is pretty important, as it focuses on her guiding the Exile into what she wants, and manipulating events around here.

Kreia is much more a manipulator who pulls everyone's string than Jolee Bindo was - the latter was more a hanger-on.

The original characters follow the template of the film characters, okay maybe that was needed in the first game to give it a Star Wars feel. But with all the established species and what nots in the films and EU they could of gone really wild with the party members in the sequel but nope you still have a human male pilot with a distrust of the Jedi, a female Jedi that can be redeemed from the dark side with love, an enigmatic grey Jedi mentor figure, a wookiee with an emotional attachment to a female rogue. Sure they might of needed to give the player a choice of a soldier, scoundrel, and jedi etc but they really couldn't come up with any, more, original characters?

They gave all of them some twists, except the Carth stereotype who seems to be present in every Bioware game, even though this wasn't even a Bioware game.

In any case, while some characters are similar, others aren't, and I think Kreia is fundamentally different and plays a completely different role. Hell, the story revolves more around her than around the Exile at times.

Yes but then again, Fallout 3 i devolution while KoTOR2 was evolution of the franchise because that even appealed to the purists, unlike Fallout 3.

Yes. So you agree with KOTOR2's change because you like it, and disagree with Fallout 3's change because you dislike it.

You can't just say "Fallout 3 betrays the franchise!" then turn around, see it happen somewhere else, then decide that that is different because you like it and no one is really complaining. That doesn't matter. It's still a fundamental change of the franchise, and hence doesn't fit the franchise.

 

[Dragula]

Yes. So you agree with KOTOR2's change because you like it, and disagree with Fallout 3's change because you dislike it.

You can't just say "Fallout 3 betrays the franchise!" then turn around, see it happen somewhere else, then decide that that is different because you like it and no one is really complaining. That doesn't matter. It's still a fundamental change of the franchise, and hence doesn't fit the franchise.

No, I agree with KoTORs change because it has more thought to it then "It's cool", it takes place several thousand years before the movies where moral could have been less absolute. Compare modern age to the dark ages, morality has changed.

On a side note, in the movie it's just the protagonist that decides who is evil, the rebellion is good because they say so, the empire is evil because they say so. There is no form of backstory to it, which expanded in the EU.

And yes I can say Fallout 3 betrays the franchise, because there are two very different kinds of change.

 

[Sander]

No, I agree with KoTORs change because it has more thought to it then "It's cool"

As I said: you think this change is fine because you *like* this change. That's fine. I think the game is a good game. But that doesn't mean that whatever it does doesn't fuck with the fundamentals of the franchise.

Similarly, if Fallout 3's gameplay had been good, it would've had solid quests, choices and consequences, the game still would not have fit the Fallout franchise.
More appropriately, since it's about putting thought into it apparently, if Fallout 3 had been set in a Washington DC that had been almost completely rebuilt in 250 years in a logical way, would've omitted any mutations and simply depicted a now thriving society, that would not have fit the franchise. Yet, according to you, it should be fine because hey, people put some serious thought into it!

, it takes place several thousand years before the movies where moral could have been less absolute. Compare modern age to the dark ages, morality has changed.

On a side note, in the movie it's just the protagonist that decides who is evil, the rebellion is good because they say so, the empire is evil because they say so. There is no form of backstory to it, which expanded in the EU.

What? No, that doesn't happen in the movies. In the movies, and in the actual lore and canon, the force has a very clear dark and light side. And the dark side corrupts. You can't go about using the dark side for good ends and remain a good guy, you will turn evil.
This is built into the *base rules of the universe*. This has nothing to do with an evolving society and morality, it is a hard rule.

And yes I can say Fallout 3 betrays the franchise, because there are two very different kinds of change.

What's the fundamental difference, then? They take a franchise, then ignore the fundamental basis of the franchise and simply insert their own ideas.

Hell, Avellone has actually said that that is exactly what he did: he hated the Force, the idea of destiny and the black and white morality that were all built into the franchise, so he decided to explore what would happen if you changed that, the fundamental basis of the franchise.

 

[Dragula]

Well fuck it then, I'm with Avallone on this one, screw Lucas. And I'm glad this evoles the franchise, because then the fundementals were shit.

 

[x'il]

So it comes down to whether a mature and ambiguous morality can be considered objectively better than an absolute black/white morality for the purposes of roleplaying capabilities and story development possibilities? Hmmm...

 

[Kyuu]

Except that, again, this is strictly prohibited by Star Wars lore. The Force is divided into dark and light, and the dark side corrupts absolutely.

I don't think it's much of a stretch to perceive that that perspective of the Force could be simply that, a perspective. Just because that's how the Jedi and the Sith operate, doesn't mean it's breaking lore to say that the Jedi Order and the Sith may not actually understand everything about the Force.

However, I acknowledge that I may be grasping at straws on this one.

I don't know about "the fundamentals are shit," but it's difficult to make a story more interesting than yet another "oh brother here come the Sith again" by sticking to the way the Force is represented in the original movies.

Star Wars was built on a simplistic good vs evil conflict, to change that is to abandon Star Wars.

That's what the story of the original Star Wars movies were built on, yes. I don't think that necessarily precludes assuming that not everything really is exactly as represented by the characters in the originals for the purposes of expanding that universe. After all, we only have the word of Yoda and Obi-Wan to go on about that being the way the Force truly operates.

Also, you could probably make an argument that the original Star Wars Universe and the Expanded Star Wars Universe merely have many elements in common but are actually separate things.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

If you have someone who has never heard of Star Wars play both games, I'd expect him to see the second as having a better story.

Oh what's the expression, that wouldn't be hard? No, that would be saying much? Kotor's main story is simplistic but unobtrusive for most of the game, which worked better for an rpg than Kotor2's convoluted twists and turns IMHO. For the first two thirds of the game it's mostly there to make you visit every planet (though it probably would of been better if you only needed/could visit half the planets per playthrough) allowing you to explore and do side quests without the nagging feeling 'shouldn't I be off saving the galaxy and not looting every locker and container in the game'.

Both are highly repetitive and similar roleplaying games, but I felt that Kotor2 offered a bit more interesting locations and quests,

Hmm I found the second game's locations dull and repetitive.

Kreia being in your party is pretty important, as it focuses on her guiding the Exile into what she wants, and manipulating events around here.

But she doesn't need to be in your party, just with it. She doesn't need to be a selectable character she could of just been an npc on the Ebon Hawk.

 

[lasix9]

I remember KOTOR. I'm actually not a huge fan of Star Wars. Still, the gameplay wasn't TOO bad. I liked it, but if felt clunky at times.

Everything else was kind of sub-par. Few of the characters were memorable. The sound was okay... to an extent. I guess character development was the one thing that I thought they put something into.

Wouldn't mind playing it I guess. Still, it kinda feels like a pain.

 

[Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude]

I'm pretty deep in it right now, and really enjoying how the story is playing out.


My only gripe is that the new content (environments and the jedi robes especially) look like shit. It all has this terrible spray painted cardboard look. It's insane how much uglier it is from the first, like they made it 5 years before the original. At first I thought it was just my eyes playing tricks on me, so I fired up KOTOR... and the environments/textures look great! It's all detailed with nice textures and a healthy amount of shininess/bump mapping.

Then I go back to KOTOR 2... and it just looks fucking terrible. Muddy textures (some of them look like they were made in mspaint) and poorly modeled locales. They had some exceptionally good writers working on this, but every last one of their artists should have been fired.

 

[Dragula]

Blabla go jack off to Crysis you graphic whore you.

 

[Ravager69]

My only gripe is that the new content (environments and the jedi robes especially) look like shit.

There is a lot of re-skin mods out there and at least one-third reskins the robes. Take a look here:

http://knightsoftheoldrepublic.filefront.com/

You should find something that'll fit your taste.

 

[Big Feet]

I liked both games but 2 left me disapointed because of the ending.

The best i can compare the feeling to is if you were reading a book and when you got to the last chapter pages were just randomly ripped out.

Its a shame though,because i think two was the better game but whenever i get a jones for KOTOR i play one because of my issues with the ending.

 

[aenemic]

I liked both games but 2 left me disapointed because of the ending.

The best i can compare the feeling to is if you were reading a book and when you got to the last chapter pages were just randomly ripped out.

Its a shame though,because i think two was the better game but whenever i get a jones for KOTOR i play one because of my issues with the ending.

pretty much the same here. and I didn't even complete KoTOR 2... but it still feels so unfinished and at points confusing that I'd rather play KoTOR again. but the sequel is indeed better in many ways. I especially like the crafting/upgrade system better.