TSAdmiral

However anyone thinks the game should be, combat is just as much a part of the game as its story. Sometimes the combat can actually drive character interactions and such. And no matter what you may think of as being most important, it is a game that has many elements to it. If any single feature or aspect is found in the game, then it should be an issue if that feature is found to be broken. Some prefer story over combat while others state that both must be preserved. I myself think that the game should largely fulfill what it is trying to be. Speaking of what makes an RPG, no doubt many would agree characterization is a part of the process. It is through combat that you determine your character's play style and skills, which in turn determines how the game progresses for the player. It may not necesarily determine your character's background, but it is an inherent part of the game. I don't know about you guys, but I enjoyed the wide variety of combat in KotOR and found it just as enjoyable as the story. It was what contributed to what made the game so great. No matter what type of game it is, it is nonetheless a game and should have some playyer interaction and gameplay. The scope of this gameplay is up to the developer's vision, but whatever their vision is, it should work as it is envisioned. If the system itself is bad, then that is another matter, but it isn't, judging by the amount of KotOR fans here. Combat plays a large role in the game regardless of what is more important, as that is purely subjective. I think most would agree that whatever is in the game should work as it is intended. The bottom line from my point of view is that a great game with some bugs does not completely reduce it to the point where it is not such a great game. However, the bugs do lessen it to some extent and hits at what the game could have been. Especially if some bugs effect gameplay in a very direct way, such as this one. Although I'm waiting for the PC version and have very solid faith in its quality, I do believe that some of these more obvious bugs and flaws should not be in the shipped game in the first place.

I just read it right now and it claims that they optimized the engine, reducing save game size and load times, while increasing performance and frames per second. Now is it just me, or did the opposite occur on many people's Xboxes? As well, he admitted that the game was under severe time restraints. He claimed it got finished on time. Then he goes on to say that the international and PC versions were delayed to fix up some aspects of the game. So why wasn't the US version delayed as well? The logic here fails me. So far as I know, besides being different platforms, the game is largely the same! Heck, so far as we know, the PC version isn't even getting any extra stuff so that is not an excuse. If the PC and international versions were not ready and needed additional time, what is the logic behind releasing the US version early? Was the game rushed? It sure as heck implied that. Heck, there are broken quests left inside the game, if this droid factory thing I keep hearing about is true. Either fix it and add it back in in the PC and international versions, or competely remove anything to do with it. Having random hints or dialogue regarding quests we cannot complete is not a good thing. As well, was the ending meant to be so vague? I've been hearing a general agreement around here that the ride was great aside from huge bugs and technical issues up until the end, which felt incredibly rushed and incomplete. The original KotOR PC had bonuses and enhancements that was not in the Xbox version, at least initially. It is possible at all to remove useless clutter (ie broken quests) and make fixes and additions (again broken quests) that more fully restore the original vision? New content is realistically probably not going to happen, so can broken stuff be removed at least? Overall, can the international and PC versions make TSL what it was supposed to be? I'm just hoping a dev reads this.

Indeed, they did. At first, it was a risk for them since the original game wasn't a proven franchise, but obviously it paid off and now we have the second game. Some of the primary complaints of the first game were it's bad endings. They weren't bad in and of itself, but given the quality and immersion of the entire game, having it end so suddenly and abruptly, not to mention completely clichedly, without more specifics as to what your actions caused or what happens to the rest of your party is just a huge letdown. In a HUGELY ironic move, Obsidian goes about replicating this exact mistake. They knew, from the get go, that one of the biggest weaknesses of the first was the endings. So why did it end so completely weak? If you ask me, this year has introduced a new story mechanic to the world of gaming--the cliffhanger. First it was Halo 2, then Half-Life 2, and now KotOR II. So what were the developer excuses so far? It's part of a greater series... I never played these games, but this new trend is starting to worry me. It seems like a cheap way to sell a franchise knowing that dollars are guaranteed. There is no closure in the plot arc or pyschologically to the fan. Well I don't have an Xbox, but it's kinda hard to avoid the opinions, mostly unanimously, of the ending...

As was said before, the loot system is completely random this time around. I can only say that your finding these items is completely based on luck.

The best we have is "February." I do not recall specific dates. However, I hope it's late February, considering all the issues with the Xbox version.

I largely agree with Naso. Homeworld 1 was completely revolutionary at its time is and still large unsurpassed. I honestly think that Homeworld 2 was a very solid sequel. The gameplay and story may not have been as new and fresh as the original, but then again I thought it would be difficult to top the original. I thought some elements of the scale, gameplay, music, and story was actually better. I guess I'm the rare believer that the sequel was better than the first in most respects. Doesn't mean however, it was a classic like the first was however.

Speaking of Homeworld 2, that game was great. Too bad Sierra was paltry in terms of support. Now that Sierra has died and Relic is a part of THQ, I doubt we'll ever see Homeworld 3.

As was said before, they are using the old engine and thus system requirements should be similar and at worst only slightly higher. Minor tweaks have been made (such as more characters being present on screen) but otherwise everything should remain largely similar. HOWEVER, the Xbox version is not a good sign as to the level of performance we should expect. The exact same thing can be said of the Xbox (and even more so given the fact that it should have far more optimizations) and TSL has proven to be far more buggy and jumpy in terms of performance. I dearly hope the same issues do not hold true for the PC version. And should they do, LA BETTER let Obsidian patch the game. They already dropped support for KotOR1 when it had many issues remaining.

I agree, it's more than likely that it's EA's copy protection schemes messing with people's drives. I don't blame the DVD format itself, but EA. That's why I hope KotOR2 has a more accessible way to play the game.

I myself am no longer using my Battle for Middle Earth DVD. Personally, I'm beginning to hate the disc with a passion. As of now, I'm playing it with an image in a drive emulation program. Should KotOR2 come out in DVD format, ensure it doesn't have copy protection that is so dense and pointless it discourages legit users from using it in legal ways. I think it's completely stupid to force actual buyers to use pirate-like methods just to get their $50 worth.

I agree with your stance on Blu-ray Worthgarian. Blu-ray is technically a superior format but some manufacturers are taking sides on the HD-DVD side purely for cost efficiency. The end result is a format war and increased confusion for the consumer. History has shown that oftentimes, it's cost efficiency that wins over technology. Sony has lost their superior Beta format to the VHS format of JVC. I do not know the specifics of the two types, only that Beta was techically better. Just to support the Blu-ray argument, that would be the only format that could fit the LotR movies onto one disk. It would be impossible to fit a high-definition version of The Return of the King for example onto an HD-DVD. Ironically, didn't New Line support the HD-DVD format? As far as PC users go, if a format war happens then we will ultimately get the shaft again in storage medium. The DVD format has been available forever and only now are we barely beginning the transition to the DVD. To this day, the vast majority of releases are still CD. This is due mainly because computers require standardization, and since people are still using older machines or older drives, everyone suffers because the only solution is the least common denominator. I predict both of these formats will likely not be used on PCs for years to come. If it took so long for us to transfer from one universally accepted format to the next, how long will it take to transfer to two competing formats? Even today we are experiencing problems with DVD-R vs DVD+R, and those are the same medium! Considering the vast differences between Blu-ray and HD-DVD, it would be impossible to support both formats. Personally I hope Blu-ray wins out. I think Sony will attempt to obtain a huge immediate foothold with the PS3. By utilizing its own film studios and partners who have sided with Blu-ray, they can effectively and immediately penetrate an extensive foothold in the next-gen market.

Agreed, despite bad reactions to the ending, I'm looking forward to the overall experience. However, I would seriously lose enthusiasm if the PC version is riddled with issues. Regarding my Battle for Middle Earth DVD, I've done some research and it surely isn't only my problem. There are many players with many issues, either with their discs not being detected quickly and properly (like me) or even worse, they can't even install or play it. As far as I know, there will be two DVD replacement technologies. One is known as Blu-ray, which is more or less something Sony developed. HD-DVD is the other format, the one which the DVD Forum supports. Blu-ray, according to the technical specs, is superior to HD-DVD in every way, from storage to pure toughness. From what I hear, TDK developed some form of protection in which even permanent markers couldn't scratch a Blu-ray disc. As well, I believe Blu-ray can scale all the way up to 100 GB if they desired. I think HD-DVD is less than half of that. The Blu-ray vs HD-DVD issue may not be a good thing. The DVD format is as successful as it is precisely because it was one single universal format touted by all as the latest technology. We could wind up with another Beta (Sony) vs VHS (JVC) war (which JVC won obviously). This may lead to people who get screwed over for buying one particularly format. Movie companies are now taking sides over the two formats. If it ends up that we will be unable to see specific movies simply because companies are taking sides, this will be a great blow to the consumer. As well, this format war will have a massive battleground in the next-gen consoles. Blu-ray is technically the superior format, although I don't know if HD-DVD has anything that it does better. It's entirely assured that future consoles will act more like "entertainment systems" with the ability to play back movies and audio. Should Microsoft choose to use HD-DVD, they will be competing against Sony's PS3 Blu-ray. Sony has a trump card up its sleeve. The current generation of consoles is so much more successful over the last generation because improved graphics are drawing more people into gaming. As of now, about 73 million PS2s are in domestic homes and this number is only increasing daily. Sony owns several movie companies that can transfer their products over to the Blu-ray format. Plus, with the PS3 launch, huge amounts of people will have an installed base of THE ultimate Blu-ray player, whereas HD-DVD will struggle to find a foothold. If Microsoft chooses to use HD-DVD instead, they may be alienating lots of potential customers. But should they use Blu-ray, then they will be forced to pay royalties and other fees to Sony. How these next-generation equipment will effect PC is unknown. I personally hate format wars, as ultimately the consumer is the loser. I suspect the PC will again be using the backwater format. To this day, when consoles have used DVDs for years, the PC's library of new releases are vastly CDs. If the format wars continue, then it is entirely possible that at best, PC publishers will switch to DVD and no more. PCs require standardization. If alienating one group is the consequence, most will choose not to do so. In fact, us PC users just may be see CD releases well into the future.

Obsidian need not change much about the actual game itself. I wish to see their original artistic vision. All I think they would need to do is explain the intent of the ending. If it was intended to end with a chaotic cliffhanger, I would be satisfied. If Lucasarts killed it, then yes the original vision should be restored. They knew full well people were dissatisfied with the original game's endings, it is possible that the outcome of the game was their specific choosing. Then again, we wouldn't know unless a dev specifically comments. Yet again, I doubt they would come here and confess they didn't finish all they had planned, assuming they left anything undone.

I may be able to explain that. Though I may not have their same views, I do have some qualms with the single DVD game that I have bought. I don't know if the copy protection for DVDs are the same as the CD versions or not, but I have the DVD of Battle for Middle Earth and that disc is giving my drive a hell of a time. Everytime I stick that disc in, it takes literally several (you read that right) minutes for the disc to detect and boot. I'm assuming EA pressed in forty feet of copy protection onto that one DVD. When I leave the disc in my computer and restart it, it adds several minutes to my boot time. As well, if I wish to play the game without resorting to shady means, it also takes several full minutes for it to spin up so that I can play. Before it spins and finally reads, it just "clicks around" forever. It's TERRIBLY annoying. Whether my problem is with EA only or if all DVDs would have similar copy protection I don't know.

This would be an incredible combination of talent and experience, however I suspect something like this would never happen.