Muad'Dib

Ha, ha, I know what you mean. But I wasn't referring to playing online, I meant so you could try out the SP modes to see if you thought it was worth buying. Or you could download the SP demo, if there is one?? Still, I sense neither you or me are going to be truly happy until February rolls around anyway.

Yeah I know which one Republic Commando is. When it was first announced, Republic Commando was stated to be an online only shooter so I immediately lost interest. I just checked up on it and apparently has both so I guess they changed their minds on that. Still don't know if I'll buy it or not, depends if there's any kind of story within the SP campaigns instead of just run and shoot everything and that's all. Though I like shooters, I like them to have more variety within than just a bunch of different guns, like Call of Duty or Aliens vs Predator 2 which imo had terrific storylines and characters. Ghost, Battlefront's SP stuff is kinda short. It's cool to run through the massive battles and watch huge numbers of soldiers duke it out. However, there is no storyline or real characters, just soldier types and command posts to capture since it was primarily designed for online play. It's not a bad game at all, but being an SP player such as yourself, it's just all right not great. The battles are fun though, if you know anybody with a console or someone that can lend you the PC version try it out first and see if you like it.

Truly it's not possible. Only in the EU do we see this sort of thing happening. They sort of have to do it in the games otherwise you'd be too powerful early in the game so for the sake of balance they say you lost your connection with the Force or some other such nonsense. Just call it suspension of disbelief and that it doesn't have to make sense.

I'll just be getting KotOR 2 when it comes out for PC in Feb. Republic Commando is an online MP game only and I hate those so there's nothing to hold my interest over it.

Battelfront is a game set up in similar fashion to Battlefield 1942 and Vietnam which are online games. And though the game is primarily geared towards the MP crowd, the games are like team based capture the flags with vehicles and such. Unlike the Battlefield games though, Battlefront will include 3 separate single player modes including planetary conquest and historical battles. Republic Commando however is strictly MP.

Yup that's what he said. According to him you know who you are from the beginning, there's no amnesia. What might be confusing some people is that you don't know how you arrived at the miining station (Probably an abduction of some sort) and maybe also that you don't where this station is located (In terms of geography). But he was quite clear that the PC knows exacly who he/she is and isn't suffering from any kind of memory loss.

Thanks Akari for your post, it's really nice to see devs such as yourself that is concerned with player's feelings. Like it has been stated by several others I too am not bothered much by the fact that the PC version is coming out 2 months after the X-Box. It's annoying sure, but hardly catastrophic as I've had experience like this with plenty of games before. What truly disappointed me is the fact that from day one of announcing the game, every interview, magazine article and answer delivered said yes, both will be out together. Not that they were trying to get them out together but a definitive both will be out together. I even recall one person even said, it will not be like the first game where PC gamers had to wait, this time both gamers will have the ability to enjoy the game at the same time. Then to further add to insult, I found out by looking at the news in Gamespot. The announcement simply said the dates with such excitement and indifference to what had always been repeated time after time, that it was disheartening. Further there wasn't even a small mention that the plans had changed because the XBox version was ahead nor any kind of apology or explanation for the previous remarks throughout the game's development for a simultaneous release. I felt like my trust had been taken advantage of and that's why I am upset with the news. The waiting is merely an annoyance but not much more than that. It's a shame that this happened and it was handled this way.

Cause I've played the X-Box and I don't like it. And I'm not going to waste what little money I do have to play one game in a console that next year will be replaced by X-Box 2...

Well consoles generally have a shelf life of about 4-5 years before they become obsolete then the "nrxt generation consoles" are released. So I think you upgrade pretty much the same as PC gamers do. I was always a console gamer up to Playstation 1, then I bought a PC around 1998-99, since then I've had 1 major overhaul of the PC to bring it up to date. My point is that is all relative as far as how much money we dish out upgrading PCs as you do getting the next gen consoles once your current ones become useless (Like my old PS ).

I read in an interview that they said they were expecting approx. 40 hours worth of gameplay. The original had an expected 60 hours of gameplay. I do hope it's longer than that.

The original date was February 5 quite true. But when the rumors and clues of an earlier release date surfaced it was for both versions also, not just the X-Box which suddenly got ahead of schedule. I don't know how many times I've read people asking the same question of will both be released at the same time and always saw the response of yes they will. So I'm disheartened at the new development, though to be honest it was to be expected. While some people might be making more of a fuss than this is, I want to tell LA as a consumer, I am very disappointed in them because I feel they have been misleading me.

A friend of mine has an X-Box and I've played it over there. I honestly didn't like it at all. So no.

I used a lot of variety through and through. After having played the game and more or less knowing who I would be facing where, I would alternate between my group choices to use everybody as much as possible. Playing against Mandalorians, natives, soldiers or creatures: I would sometimes use 2 non-Force users, giving the droids some work outs; sometimes I'd have one Force user and one not though the Force user was more of a medic than an attacker. Playing against Sith warriors (Saber and Force users) more often than not I'd use 3 Jedi. Especially in wall to wall Force users like the Star Forge. Sometimes I'd have the one Force user and one not combo but that was when not many Force users would be my enemies. The character I used the least was Juhani because I found Jolee a better Force user and Bastila a better saberist so my all Jedi party was usually made this way. Juhani I used only when I had no other choice and needed to Jedi or when I knew she had fellow npc dialogs like in Korriban.

Hardly Hades_One, it's pretty obvious when you look at either character. I'm not saying Jedi/Sith are unkillable, far from it, or that a non-Force user can't kill a Jedi. I said it would be unrealistic for this particular character to face an army of Jedi/Siths and survive much less win. The movies hardly seem to demonstrate Jedi using their abilities to the maximum of their potentials (Which always bothered me). Imagine if instead of running at the droids with their sabers raised like idiot lumberjacks in the Geonosian arena of Ep2, the Jedi had all banded and used their Force powers simultaneously or in the least strategically in coordinated efforts (You know somewhat the way we use it in the games) to unarm, topple over, fling, short circuit or whatever Force power of your choosing to attack the droids. Imagine if the Jedi used their powers in combinations with their saber instead of one or two times like Fisto dropping C-3PO. Or if they used Force Speed to fight where a normal humanoid or android can't even see more than a blur. There are tons of other examples I could give where any one without any Force powers would find themselves in a huge disadvantage and most probably lose against the Force user. Does this mean that a non-Force user can't come up with a way to cleverly kill a Force user, of course not. Using guile, cunning, and maybe a little improvisation from an experienced combatant they might be able to take a Jedi down, if using explosives where somehow a group of Jedi is trapped maybe can kill them all in a one swipe. However, take some poor schmuck just doing battle with a blaster rifle against say three Sith warriors (True Sith, not KotOR's Empire wannabes) as sometimes appeared in the first game; then one can disarm him and immobilize him with the Force, the second cuts him to itty bitty pieces and the third can just do a happy dance while looking on. Now put this PC in this situation about a five hundred times and you are seriously telling me the PC comes out victoriously every single one of those...I just wouldn't buy it. Now say we have a scoundrel PC like Han Solo coming up against the main villain who's something like Vader. If ESB is still fresh in memory you can just see how that scene would play out. Don't get me wrong Hades_One, I'm not voting against doing a SW CRPG with a non-Force user (Or a choice to be that) as the PC, I'm saying the formula doesn't work for KotOR. To be able to do that, you need to balance the opposition the PC will face to a believable level (Especially in a game where you take down 700 opponents with little or no help). So this would work if the enemy faced was something like the Empire, people who the PC can actually use his/her skills or wits to defeat them through the course of an entire game. Sure you can put in an enemy Force user or a few more, maybe these will be those really excrutiating boss battles where you have to do everything and anything to win. But it would be completely unbelievable if that character is the Lord of the Sith or even a really powerful master of the Force and saber. Even though SW is a fictional universe with fantastic laws you still have to abide by the realism of those laws otherwise you're just making stuff up as you go along.

Sion might be the most ingenously written villain in the SW universe (Doubt it but could happen) nevertheless the fact remains he looks like a Doom 3 reject and I don't like that. To me his character seems more like a Darth Maul wannabe character than the main villain but since the article called him THE Dark Lord of the Sith I am hoping that's just a misinterpretation. I much more look forward to MSG and the third Lord (Or Lady).

While it may be plausible that a non-Force user find a way to defeat a Force user (Like Jango did in Ep2 though I find that particular incident insulting) it is impossible that a non-Force user go through hordes of Force user enemies and Sith Lords and the such and survive, much less win. This in accordance with the rules of the SW universe as presented. Sure you could run around in a game defeating bunches of Jedi and Sith as a mere soldier or something like that but that would be completely unrealistic. Not because any fanbase says it, because you only have to use logic in comparing the abilities and skills of the two to make a reasonable assumption about who would win. Killing one Jedi, two....could happen. Maybe some more but these Jedi would have to be at padawans, poorly skilled at both the Force and the saber, have some kind of huge disadvantage or combinations of these. But it would go beyond suspension of disbelief that a non-Force user could go through an entire army of Jedi or Sith by him/herself and win. For a non-Force user PC in a SW CRPG, it would be best to set the enemies more up to par with those abilities and have enemies that resemble the Empire, Black Sun, Hutts, etc.

I think you misunderstood me. I know that the comics portray Exar Kun and the Sith War, Ulic Qel-Droma, Nomi Sunrider, etc. I didn't say there was a conflict of interest, I said that KotOR 1 wasn't based on the comics of the same name but used them as a historical background. One of the posters here appeared to believe that KotOR 2 would be related to the comics named Dark Lords of the Sith. I pointed out that there would probably be no direct relation in the same fashion KotOR 1 had no direct relation to the comics.

Though I am not sure because I have not read any of the Tales of the Jedi comics, I am fairly confident the events and characters of the Dark Lords of the Sith comics and the Sith Lords game are not the same in the same fashion as the events and characters of the Knights of the Old Republic comics and the game weren't the same. So the timeline as far as the game goes has no true relevance to the timeline of the comics (In other words KotOR 2 can happen 5 years after KotOR 1 because the game isn't following the comics of the Dark Lords of the Sith, they're just named similarly). Again I might be wrong, but there was no Malak and Revan I was aware of in the comics (The comics just served as an inspiration for the game with the backdrop of Exar Kun, Nomi Sunrider, etc) so Sion is probably not a character from the Dark Lords comics nor are the events in those comics the ones that will appear in the game.

Oh man I hope that's not how it sounds, if Sion is THE Dark Lord of the Sith and not one of the lower Sith Lords then this game just went down a couple of notches of interest due to lousy looking main villain.

I agree that it would be good to have a SW CRPG where you can choose to be a Force user or not. However I disagree that it should be one of the KotOR series, the whole point of the series is to highlight the Jedi Order. But another game, even in the same timeframe as KotOR, would be just fine.

Revan's death would be tied to the role he has to play in TSL. If he/she were to die it could be associated with the alignment you choose for the ending of the original game. If you choose Revan Dark Side, Revan might show up as the ultimate Sith Lord in the game. If you choose Light Side, Revan might die in the end sacrificing him/herself to save everyone else. I don't know if KotOR 2 will have more than just 2 endings, LS and DS, as the first. I do hope it has more and with fair difference depending on the choices you make. While a DS Revan fight would be intriguing and a LS Revan sacrifice would be tragic and heroic I would also hope for the possibility that Revan doesn't die. Revan was an extremely well developed character and I would be disappointed to see that my long effort in redeeming him just resulted in an inevitable death. All would be cool and interesting in their own right, but if asked to choose my preference for Revan's fate, I hope he/she lives.

I asked this a while back but got no response for it, frankly it seems like a major plot hole so far. Just how the PC knows anything about how the original story ended if he/she was exiled is beyond me, I just hope it isn't something lame like the visions you mentioned, or I read it somewhere, or some guy told me. I myself would have liked this to have been a true sequel also, still keeping the original or some of the original characters while still incorporating the new ones as sequels often do.

I think that it's a little weird how Obsidian said they didn't want Revan to be the PC because they didn't want to contradict or ruin the choices the players made in the original KotOR but still end up doing it anyway. If Revan's fate in TSL is the path of redemption that still contradicts the players that voted for the dark Revan ending, if Revan falls back to the DS it contradicts his redemption by players in the original, if Revan dies well that just sucks all around. As to the specific question, I believe it was said somewhere Revan has some part to play in the story of TSL so I think he will probably be seen, hopefully a little more than a single chat.

The Jedi in the movies don't wear armor either. Still I think it would be cool to have a SW knight-like armor with helmet for the Jedi and Sith exclusively. I've seen sketches of the armor worn by the knights during the war of Exar Kun I believe and would've liked very much to see something like that being put ingame.

I believe you might be responding to something I said. However I fail to see the point you are bringing up since not one of those characters faced a Force user or saber weilding opponent (Unless you are counting Vader chasing Luke in the trench run on the Death Star) during ANH. Han, Luke and Leia were doing fine against Stormtroopers (Miraculously btw since Stormtroopers are supposed to be the end all be all of military might as the opening sequence suggested and Ben's comments in Tat; it always bothered me how crappy Stormtroopers became after the Tantive 4 sequence and in the other movies) but I believe it would have been very different if any of them had encountered Vader or the Emperor and still be realistic to the laws of that universe. Like I said, the only way I see a game like this working (Where the PC isn't Force sensitive) is if the enemies they face aren't Force sensitive either. Say against enemies like Thrawn or Saul Karath and their armies respectively, or mercenaries, bounty hunters, whatever.