GhostofAnakin

YOU SPOILED IT FOR ME!!! Kidding. Good article and good find.

This has been asked multiple times. And yes, the devs have said (although it's unofficially) that the requirements will be the same or very similar to the first game.

That was an interesting read, if nothing else.

My guess is you'll have chosen a side by then, so depending on which side you choose (siding with the Sith, siding with the Republic) that'll determine which prestige classes are available to you.

I thought the Revan DS robes looked cool, but the Star Forge robes looked kinda like what an alterboy/altergirl would wear. I didn't really like the look of them.

See, there's the problem right there. When I initially made my point, it was directed at what the original poster stated. When I made the statement about it being wrong that saying the choices you make have NO effect on the game, that was in response to the original poster. Then you responded to my post with your own theories and opinions, in which I mistakenly answered in relation to the original post, rather than scrutinizing what you posted. My mistake. But my opinion still stands directed at the ORIGINAL post, that there ARE instances where your choices DO change or slightly alter how the story plays out.

A Zabrak is Darth Maul's species.

No....

Just letting you know that this idea caused a bunch of flames towards the person who suggested it the first time around.

I guess the search button wasn't working before you posted this, huh? Considering there's a huge thread probably a couple pages back arguing this exact idea.

How'd Sirus get his hands on a picture of Hades_One's family gathering?

I was in the mood for a SW game, and KOTOR just happened to be one of the ones I'd heard about so I figured I'd give it a try.

We can blame Hades for any delays in the release of KOTOR: TSL, since we'll know it's due to Feargus going in to hiding from Hades.

Mission looked a lot older than 14, although I suppose I have no idea what a 14 year old Twi'lek should look like. I always thought of Mission as between 15 and 17 and Bastila in her late teens to very early 20's (18-22).

Hades is a Chris Avellone groupie <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Nah, my heart only goes to Feargus. :D <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I can see Feargus right this moment getting on the phone with attorney to write up that restraining order.

Hades is a Chris Avellone groupie

Where's the option for both? I usually had one Jedi in my party along with one ranged weapon user (usually Canderous and his big guns).

I agreed with that. I'm just saying that, IMO, the current storyline that they're going for wouldn't be condusive to this sort of thing. I hope they do adapt a story that would permit the feasibility of this type of character options, and as long as the franchise remains popular, I think that perhaps it might. I think that for this to be the case, the story has to be more Empire Strikes Back-eque or A New Hope-esque, since most of the "battles" were waged against Stormtroopers/Snowtroopers, and a non-Jedi would do fine against those foes. But I think the problems arise when the main enemy is a Darth Vader or Emperor, and thus you'd need a character such as a Luke Skywalker to defeat them. In other words, A New Hope would have been a story that could be played as a non-Jedi, but Return of the Jedi could not, since the final encounter aboard the Death Star required Force useage.

I agree with Hades in principle, but not necessarily in the context of the KOTOR story. I believe that for this specific story, with Revan, the Sith, the Jedi, etc. as the main elements, I don't think it's very feasible for the PC to be allowed to be a non-Force user. Obviously, from a gameplay standpoint it can happen. But from a story standpoint, I can't see the feasibility of having the "star" be a non-Force user when he/she is up against powerful Sith Lords. Having said that, I agree with Hades that it would be fun to use a non-Jedi PC if the story permitted. And to take that a step farther, I hope that in the future, with the success of the KOTOR series, I hope LucasArts branches out like the FF series, and does release a game or two where the story would be ideal for a non-Jedi as the protagonist.

To be honest, I wouldn't be opposed to them. But I don't think your ideas would work in a game such as KOTOR, which is more story driven than something like FO. The thing is, even though much of what transpired happened regardless of what path you took, I still felt like I was "roleplaying" because it felt like I was the centerpiece of a movie. I didn't expect every decision I made to change things. I wasn't upset that Malak was slapped around aboard the Leviathan but was able to run away. I guess my idea of what roleplaying is differs from much of you.

Let me just clarify one last time, since everyone seems to want to throw all these Fallout 2 examples at me and all these examples where KOTOR "failed" at me. I am NOT saying that KOTOR was the perfect roleplaying game. I know that it was limited in what your decisions did to affect the environment, and furthermore, I KNOW that Fallout does give you more freedom and allows more subtle changes based on decisions. That wasn't my point. My point was that even Fallout is restricted in terms of how far it'll deviate the story based on your choices. My entire point, and one that I only wanted to make once, before I got drawn into a pointless debate, is that I just think the original posters title is a bit too overexaggerated. He maintains that there is NOTHING you do in KOTOR that alters the story or affects the game environment. NOTHING. To me, that's just wrong because there are instances that do affect things. For instance, killing juhani in the grove or not. Another instance, as has been mentioned, is the wookiiee and slave thing on Kasshykk. So his title is already false, since your choices do have impact in some places. As much as Fallout? No. As much as we all would have liked? No. But to suggest that there is basically NO impact is wrong.

I just looked through the thread again, and no where do I see anyone saying Taris should be saved, so where the heck did you get this idea from? In this sense it most certainly is the Straw Man fallacy, since you are attacking a distorted view of the original point. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The guy I was debating with made the point that Taris is destroyed regardless of whether you side with the Beks or Vulkars. I was responding to that statement, since it inferred that which gang you chose should have had some kind of bigger impact on whether or not Taris got destroyed. I know that he didn't say that which gang you chose should decide whether Taris got bombed, but he brought up an argument why your choice is made irrelevant, so I made the exaggerated point that "what do you expect? If you chose the Beks, then Taris is saved?" type rhetorical question.

Jedi. Good guys always win.

No. Just no.

It's much easier to quote every single thing I've stated and break it down, considering I don't exactly proof-read every single statement to make sure that all my posts on this forum are 100% in correlation. So I'll break it down in this one post to express (perhaps I didn't do a good job of it) what my entire point in this thread is. 1-Forget the whole Vulkar/Beks thing. I brought up that example in direct response to the ORIGINAL poster saying that NO choices actually change anything to do with the storyline. I brought the Vulkar/Bek thing up to prove to HIM (the original poster) that there are subtle, small options that can, in a slight way, change how the story plays through. Story shattering choices? No. But they DO change small portions of it. 2-My point was that it's impossible to suggest that every little decision should have a huge impact on the overall main story. But that there are options where you can alter that story somewhat (such as Juhani, either killing her, or allowing her to join your party). That's my entire point. If I brought up bad examples, then my bad. But my only point in responding to this topic is that I think it's an idiotic claim to suggest that NONE of your choices affect the story in ANY way. 3-The Fallout 2 example. You never bothered to actually respond to this. You just kept reiterating "Strawman this, strawman that". True or false, if you side with the Mordino's, you still can make your way to Enclave to achieve your goal? True or false, if you side with the Wrights, you still can make your way to the Enclave to acheive your goal? Etc, with the other families? In other words, if you side with the Mordinos, you aren't suddenly unable to make your way to the Enclave and instead have to finish the game in Broken Hills or something, correct? That was my entire point. Not that KOTOR has as much freedom as Fallout, or that Fallout doesn't have options to change the course of the story. Just that, from the larger picture, both games have options that, despite choosing them, certain events still take place. And that was my entire point. That the original post was way off base in their statement, because KOTOR does in fact allow certain instances where a decision will effect the rest of the story (as I stated, killing juhani means she isn't an NPC, redeeming her allows you to use her as a NPC).