alx1078

Bastilla hands down. There was just little or no attatchment to any of the others, except for Mission but as someone said before me she has more the little sister vibe. Handmaiden probably is close second in the hotness scale, but it just wasn't developed enough for me (the romance i mean) And i can't understand how you could vote Visas as Hot?? You can't see her frigging face (well... the top half anyway, which is the most important. You can't see her eyes!!) She always reminded me of the jokes about really ugly women/people ... bag over the head... etc.

Someone mentioned BG Mods. Can anyone suggest any good Mods they have actually tried? NPCs Storylines whatever... As for Bloodlines, i just couldn't be bothered after about 3 hours of play. It just didn't do it for me. NWN i have played through it and have finished it. I quite enjoyed it apart from the ending which was plain...

Concerning the debate of whether it has plotholes or if it is clear as to what exactly happened, i'm going to just say that the important aspect of PS Torment was that while playing (despite not knowing what exactly you did in the past) you really got the feeling that you would probably get what you deserved at the end. I do not doubt that. My main grief with it is that in the end it just felt rushed. While the pace was fairly slow throughout the whole of the game (which i certainly didn't mind), suddenly you hit the fortress and you're going at a 100 miles per hour on the freeway just before the finish line. I was not allowed to enjoy fully as i should the ending of my quest and the thing that bothered me most, is that in the end i didn't get to interact with my companions as i would have liked to. That kinda killed it for me. As to whether the story line is better than BG: I do not deny that it is in fact deeper, with much more morally ambiguous decisions and plotlines, but i get the feeling that for most people it's just: darker=better, deeper, more clever etc. Everytime i talk with someone about PS Torment i get the feeling that the sole reason they consider PS so much better story-wise than BG is the fact that it's darker and more twisted than BG (which of course goes along with the delight of most RPG players of playing it evil.... which i never quite understood... -not that i don't enjoy the occasional evil run in a good RPG )

Ok. I remember playing the game, but i don't remember anything about any contract. I know (or at least i realised) that he was trying to escape from the blood wars, but i can't say i remember anything said about contracts.

Exactly my point! Although i wouldn't go so far as to call it a plothole, as throughout the game you got the feeling that you weren't the nicest guy. But still there should be something more thn just "off to hell with you!"

Or it could just mean that the story is so good that you don't mind replaying it, kinda like a really good movie. At least that's how it was for me.

Many times i was on the verge of buying Deus Ex as i have heard quite a few positive reviews about it, but every time i changed my mind. I don't know something about it always threw me off. Maybe i'll have to give it a try. Twice i started both of them (FO & FO 2) and twice i gave up, simply because i can't stand all this turn based nonsense. It just gets on my nerves that you have to calculate each friggin square or you might loose a turn! And mice! AAARRRGG!!!!!!

Ok now i'm confused.... I didn't want to say anything specific as i'm not sure what the spoiler policy is for other games but here goes. Inside the fortress the story suddenly sped up! And when i reached the final battle, after i beat myself, i had literaly a couple of lines with each member of my party, and i'm back to the demon wars! Now as i played through it only once i'm not sure if i missed anything else. ToB was an epic story. It has of course an unfair advantage being a trilogy, but the whole story was very nicely done and extremely satisfying. And i believe you are wrong, meaning, the story may have been pretty straightforward as a whole, but the story-telling was amazing. you felt as if everything you did tied to a greater picture, which started way back in BG I and culminated with the conclusion of the story of the God of Murder. That coupled with the excellent supporting cast and the interaction with them, is what made BG the most satisfying series i've ever played. :cool: BTW Sargallath love the gif with Anna. My favorite character in PST, and one of the main reasons i was bummed with the ending. I was looking for some tail lovin'

I'm almost done with my second play through of KOTOR II as DSM, and find myself not knowing what to play now... I'm reaching a point where i'm close to installing KOTOR again and playing it for the fourth time, or even worse BG II and playin it for the gazillionth time. Any suggestions would be very welcome. Thanks Alex PS- I'm more interested in the story, characters and interactions aspects of RPGs not so much the rules (i never cared whether a game had 3rd edition rules or whatever). Also i don't care much for hack 'n slash style junk like Diablo or IWD. Favorites incl. BG II, PS Torment, KOTOR, FF 8 & 9. Tried Gothic, Morrowind, Divine Divinity and Bloodlines but soon lost interest in them.

I've read through many posts in these forums and practically everyone seems to be praising PS Torment and hailing it as the best crpg, and at the same time diss games with abrupt or/and crappy endings. Don't get me wrong PS Torment is indeed one of the best games out there and certainly among the top 3 crpgs of all time but the fact remains that its ending sucked!!! The whole thing started going downhill since you entered the final stronghold, with sloppy storytelling and leaps in logic, and after you beat ... the final opponent... it's just a 10 second video and that's it. For a game to be considered the best crpg it has to be consistent from start to finish, and Torment while amazing almost throughout, hobbled for the last couple of meters. BG Throne of Bhaal on the other hand which is just labeled as "good" by most, is the most consistent and balanced game out there (granted that the final revelation of your true enemy in Throne of Bhaal is not THAT exciting) from beginning to end. It leaves you feeling that indeed you just completed this epic adventure/journey (along with your friends- the most important aspect of the BG series), and most of all it leaves you with a sense of CLOSURE, something lacking by PS Torment and indeed most other games out there incl. KOTOR and especially KOTOR II.

1. BG 2 and Throne of Bhaal (PC) 2. Championship manager series and FM 2005 (PC) 3. Total War series (PC) 4. Final Fantasy 8 & 9 (PS) 6. Pro Evolution Series (PS2) 5. PS Torment (PC) 7. WWE Smackdown HCTP (PS2) 8. KOTOR (PC) 9. KOTOR II TSL (PC) 10. Civilisation series (PC) Close but not quite GTA San Andreas (PS2) Quite diverse, wouldn't you say? :cool:

I do not understand how, as many before claimed, TSL handled romance better than KOTOR I. If what they mean is that there was practically no romance and that suits them better, fine by me. I know a lot of people don't like romance or romantic stuff in general in their games and that's fine, but that doesn't mean that the absence of something means better handling. Yes there were hints, there was a (VERY) subtle flirting of sorts, but that's about it. Emotional involvement with any characters (save Kreia) was practically non existent, because the whole thing was not handled that well. Let's take Visas who plays a major (supposedly) part in one of the final battles. As it happened in my game i didn't use her that much and had miniscule influence with her, hence very few dialogue went on between us. Then all of a sudden before i'm off to the Ravager she's that major player in the story who (apparently) loves me and would sacrifice herself for me. I'm left with no choice but to have her in my party in the battle with Nihilus, hence my choices up to that point (concerning the rest of my party) and the influence i had with them, are rendered useless and unimportant. The same of course would hold true if i didn't use the handmaiden and had little influence with her, and she then went on her revenge thingy with Atris. It would have been out of the blue. (at least you're not forced to have the handmaiden no matter what) If the devs wanted for certain events to happen no matter what, then they shouldn't say that your choices matter, and they should just force you to develop a more intimate relationship with the character they plan to make so important later on. That way at least when the event with that character happens it might actually mean something. In KOTOR I you were more or less led into developing feelings for Bastila (and luckily i did), so when the events of the end unfolded, you WERE emotionally involved in the whole thing. RPGs, adventures and generally games with story lines and characters work exactly like movies and novels. If you don't feel an emotional attatchment to the characters, then you don't give a rat's A%S what happens to them, which in turns affects the whole experience negatively. Having said all that, i must say that TSL had many things that were far better than KOTOR I (moral ambiguity, more dark and mature storyline) but character development and romance were not among them.

Exactly what i've been trying to say! Very true. In Kotor I actually cared what happened to my teammates, and the only time i was actually worried in KOTOR II is when you go to Telos and find Atris and the Handmaiden and Atris strikes down the Handmaiden. After i defeated Atris (before i talked to her again) i rushed to where the Handmaiden was lying and there was no little circly thingy on her. It was like she was part of the background and for a minute i thought Atris had actually killed her. That's the only time i can remember in the game that i actually cared what would happen to any of my teammates. Other than that (with the exception perhaps of the maiden) they could have all crashed with the Hawk and i wouldn't bat an eyelash (at least in my first run of the game)

Perhaps i didn't make myself clear before. Of course the bigger the pool of NPCs the less development each will have. That's not what i meant. What i had in mind was having a large pool of NPCs (say around 10-12 as in this game) but only taking with you each time you play about 4. That way those 4 characters would have to talk a lot more and be more complex in order for the game to not be a Diablo hack and slash fest, and you'd become more engaged with the characters you had with you each time.

First off romance -wise there was none in TSL. There were hints, and probably some flirting (not even pg stuff " ), but not a romance. As for the NPCs i agree that there should be a large pool of NPCs and then 4-5 came along for the ride. You hold the replayability factor, but then they would have to make the characters with much more depth and much more talkative to cover for the whole of the game. Having 4-5 characters in the ebon hawk will also feel like a closer camaraderie, than a whole army of NPCs most of whom you'd never pick anyway. With so many NPCs they just have to think of one part on the whole story that each would fit, and that's it. That's why in the end you don't really care too much for any of them. And i disagree that they are more in depth or more mature than the first one. Kreia is, but that's about it. The fact that they are all more morally ambiguous is a given since the game as a whole is like that, but that alone does not make them more in depth or more mature, than Bastila, Carth, Mission, Jolee and HK-47. Sure they have the potential to become so much more, but they stop way before they reach it.

I also want to know what HK says about that, since i never managed to gain influence enough with it to tell me the story. Besides this is the spoilers forum so...

Aside from all the grief almost everyone has with the ending of the game (one of the most unfulfilling endings in RPG history if one takes into account the potential of the story), i believe having too many NPCs and not using them correctly also contributed to the final disapointment i felt upon completion. I believe that the purpose of having many NPCs is for the player to have a great variety of personalities and skills to chose from. If the game makes the choices for the player it kills the excitement and the engagement the player feels. For example i really liked the character of the handmaiden and in my mind she slowly started playing a major role in the story of my character, but during the final 2 hours of my game (when most of the important stuff was happening), i could not select her! Instead the game force-fed me (pun intended) Visas and Mandalore, and later on Mira and the Remote for crying out loud!!!!!!!! Not only that, the game was taking liberties with my story and trying to convince me that somehow Visas was an important character to me, when the time she came with me to fight Nihilus was the first time I EVER picked her in my threesome (pun intended). In the first KOTOR i was far more engaged with the NPCs in my party than in KOTOR II (maybe apart from Kreia). Bastila was not only a romantic possibility for your character but also played a major role in the story and the development of your character. There were no scenes in KOTOR II that got me as emotionally engaged as those in the first one with Bastila (i admit though that in order for this to work on KOTOR one has to like the character of Bastila, and from what i got there were some who downright despised her. Lucky for me i liked her and consequently the story.), or even Mission. With the exception of Kreia all the others either weren't explored so well, or you just didn't have enough time with them to get to know them. Either way the result was disappointing. So for future games pls Obsidian if you want that many NPCs (i want them too.) follow the path of BG II and expose them all adequately, but don't force the player into playing with specific characters as that destroys the enjoyment and engagement of the game. And another thing. I'm not sure whether this was a bug of my game, but i had to constantly recycle over the same dialogue lines with the other NPCs in order for something new to maybe appear. I lost interest after a while and i might have missed dialogue lines with some of the ones i didn't use that much. If it is indeed a bug then does anyone know how to fix it? If it's not a bug WHY did you go and change the first one's format of dialogue, when if nothing new needed to be said then there was nothing to be said, and you didn't have to search through endless dialogue trees to find something new.

Deciding to reclaim the mantle of the Dark Lord gives Revan a purpose. And since all geniuses (even the evil ones) try to make every action count towards their goal, i simply see no such thing in killing Mission. In fact as someone stated above she could be a valuable ally therefore rendering the act of killing her idiotic. If for any reason she was not considered a valuable ally that would mean that she would also not pose a threat, which means that a simple spank in the tooshy and sending her off on her own would be enough for anyone. But instead you're forced to kill her just to prove how eeevill you are. A truely powerful character would not need to resolve to such petty thugish actions to prove his power. He would later on let them taste his power once his ultimate goal was realised.

Being A potential conqueror of the world, for me wouldn't involve proving how eeeeviiilll you are by killing off a tennager who is unable to defend herself. Granted that there are people who would do that, i believe that these kinds of people would never in amillion years succeed in conquering a galaxy or somesuch. And i disagree about Star Wars being just about light and dark sides. Jolee is neutral and i would guess that there are other characters as well who have chosen a more neutral path. (And i'm not saying neutral as in EVIL- NEUTRAL - GOOD. i mean neutral in the Sith-Jedi council equasion)

Does anyone know how the hell Revan came to "fall" to the dark side? I can't seem to find ANY clues as to how that fall came to be and it seems to me like an extreme about turn. From the savior of the republic to suddenly massacaring millions without a second thought. I understand Bastilla's fall but Revan's is somewhat of a mystery to me. What made it even more difficult was the portrayal of the dark side in the game itself. I could not find myself to be able to fall to the darkside (and believe me i tried). This is because when i play an RPG i like to think beforehand how my character is going to behave and what moral codes he adheres to (of course that changes somewhat during gameplay, which is understandable). First time around i finished in the side of the light (effortlessly i might add) even though i cared little for those fundamentalist Jedi in the council and their stupid codes. Second time around i tried an approach where my character would behave more like Revan (or at least how i believed an evil genius who had world domination on his mind should act). Again i had a real hard time slipping to the dark side. The only real opportunity i saw (and the only logical one) came at the end on the top of the temple when Bastilla tells me to reclaim the mantle of the dark lord and that she would join me (an offer i could not refuse ). Even then i was barely dark enough. And then i was forced (by the game) to do something i thought was completely unnecessary (and frankly should not have been worth of my involvement) :killing Mission. Anyway what i'm saying is that in the second one i want to feel the dark side's seductive power (something that completely evaded me in the first game). And i want a chance to deny both sides a chance to claim me. The alternative to the Jedi council can't possibly be the Sith! That kind of thinking is what led Yuthura, Revan and Bastilla down the dark side in the first place.

I agree with you. More and varied npc interaction should be implemented in the game. I would prefer a combination of Torment, NWN and more importantly Baldur's Gate II. Having quest specific dialogue is all ok and good, but they are people (well most of them anyway). They need to be more emotional and vocal. One of the main reasons for the high replayability of BGII is the interaction with NPCs and the occasional romances between them. That would certainly improve a great deal an already very good game.

There were indeed a lot of replies that gave you no light or dark points it's just that in the overall story of the game they had no consequence whatsoever, neither to your character or the story of the game. It's either a choice of being a goody goody jedi or a bas**rd sith.

I totally agree that the dark side must be redone a bit, as it was not so evident in the game why it was so hard to resist. As i said on a post of mine the game needs more subtlety on both sides and a gray area, because not everything is dark and light. I mean i disagree with so much that the jedi council did and said in the game, does that mean that i'm genocidal maniach? I think not and i believe that this should be reflected in the game (a la Jolee).

Don't get me wrong. I loved KOTOR. I also loved Torment and i... liked a great deal Neverwinter nights. But it seems to me that Bioware doesn't try to correct the only (probably) deficiencies their past games had. For example... While i was approaching the end of KOTOR i started having a very strong deja vu. The whole plot line with Bastilla turning to the dark side (which i liked a lot), i was like "haven't i played this before?" And the answer was yes! I had played it before in Neverwinter nights. And since it has been a looong time since i finished that, i don't remember the name of the female palladin character that you ended up having romance with in NWN, but it was the exact same ending (she too became evil and joined your enemy only to confront you, fight you and then -if you wanted- you managed to bring her back to the 'light'). Again i repeat that i liked this plotline and have no problems with it being redone in KOTOR. BUT! In NWN the ending did not feel complete. Not by a longshot! It told you nothing of what happened to the characters you had interacted with and especially your own character and the female palladin i'm talking about. It seems that when they decided to repeat this story they didn't bother to at least change the ending so it felt more complete than before. Their only excuse can be that we hear about Revan and Bastilla in part 2 so that they couldn't actually say anything from part 1. That i would probably understand. It just seemed to me like a trend with Bioware related games, as the same happened in Torment (fantastic story with a short and hurried ending that left you feeling somewhat cheated). :angry: The only exception to this rule is Baldur's Gate II (probably the best RPG ever). B) That game left you happy that despite all the troubles your character has been through, he achieved his goal (whatever that might have been), and it told you what happened to the characters that helped you along the way. You couldn't ask for anything more from an ending! So i'm hoping that in the second part the folks at Obsidian (since most of them were involved in creating Baldur's Gate) will correct this and we will be treated with a conclusion that a game like this deserves. Another problem i had with KOTOR (and in general with the whole Star Wars Universe), is the simplicity and naivety of the fundamental values light and dark. What happens in the between? Are there no gray areas in this Universe? Of course there are. So why was your character forced to adhere to either of these two misguided (in my opinion) notions of light and dark, right or wrong. Jolee was a character that in my opinion represents the only reasonable and sane person in that game. I mean why should you be forced to either choose- without a fight- between a manipulative Jedi council and a murderous blood thirsty fraction that desires to rule the world (how original). Granted that the Sith had to be stopped you should have been able (after you defeated Malak) to tell the Jedi order and the republic to stuff those medals where the sun don't shine! During the course of the game the only thing that i think Revan would find worth fighting for (besides saving millions of lives) was not for the light or the jedi council but for Bastilla. And that was rendered to a mere subplot in the telling of the unparallelled glory of the light and the Jedi! I repeat i liked the game a lot (even in its simplicity) and that's why i'm being so critical of it, because i believe that it's got a hell of a potential, and i want to see it realised in part II: if the creators add a much needed subtlety in the game, make the whole story character-driven (that's what RPGs should be about), add a gray area for the non-fundametalists to duel in, and for God's sake make the dark side less... Eeeevil. :angry: They must have goals, reasons, agendas etc. The best 'villains' are the ones you're not sure whether to brand them as such! So let's not have lines like 'Death to the jedi', or brutally killing Mission, a defenceless child just for the heck of it. More subtle villainy is much needed. :ph34r: Please. Sorry for rambling on, i just needed to let all these stuff out. Tayrion