Spider

I don't understand how you can say this, then say this: It WOULD make sense, IF there weren't enough computer spikes in game to have 0 ranks in the skill, and still "hack da gibson" and avoid battles. If the consular has advantages, and access to the Sentinel's ability to avoid battles, hows it balanced? Because there are more skills than hacking and because I didn't find that many spikes. Comparing my first playthrough with my second I found that computer made a HUGE difference (I maxed it the second time). And I picked up every spike I could find. Anyway, it's all pretty moot since even if there were enough spikes in the game it doesn't necessary mean it's the Sentinel that's unbalanced, I'd rather argue that it's the consular that is unbalanced (as in overpowered, my definition). Comparing the three classes I'd say the Sentinel is the norm (ie balanced), the guardian is underpowered (my definition) and the consular is MAYBE slightly overpowered (again, my definition). As for balance vs power, I think the two terms are fairly interchangeable (in the context of a computer game). But it's already been established we have different definitions of what underpowered means so arguing about it is fairly moot.

Unnecessary I can agree with. But as I said, that is true for most options in the game. The fact of the matter is the game isn't all that difficult and you can probably create a pretty nerfed character and still beat it. Your definition of underpowered (I saw the post containing it after I made mine) is quite different to mine. To me underpowered means less powerful than the norm. Unbalanced means either more or less powerful than the norm depending on context. In this context oviosly less powerful. So to me underpowered and unbalanced is the same. Debating is useless unless everyone uses the same definitions. So I won't use underpowered anymore. Now then, is the Sentinel unbalanced? I actually don't think so. My first playthrough was as a Scoundrel going Sentinel and while I kinda messed up some when choosing levels (didn't realize how useless ranged weapons would be for instance) had I planned the character a bit better I would have gotten all the feats and forcepowers I needed. Having more than one feat that increases your damage potential is rather redundant anyways. In my mind redundant feats < skills. Maybe the consulars are more powerful though since force powers really is what it's all about and more force points do help quite a lot. More force points makes battles easier but on the other hand skills allows you to avoid a lot of battles so it evens out a little. In the end I like skills because they give you options. And they're fun.

BIO fanboy? I'm almost insulted. I'm a BIS fanboy dammit!

From Dictionary.com: Useless 1: Being or having no beneficial use; futile or ineffective. 2: Incapable of functioning or assisting; ineffectual: He panics easily and is useless in an emergency. Funny, none of these applies to skills in KotOR. Maybe they weren't NEEDED to complete the game, but they were far from useless. In fact through the two times I played the game I used pretty much all the skills several times. So much for that fact. If everything you don't NEED to beat the game is useless there are a LOT of things in the game that are useless. I'm pretty sure I can make a character that won't use a single force power nor a lightsabre throughout the entire game and still beat it. Does that make lightsabres or force powers useless? What's the difference between unbalanced (in a negative fashion) and underpowered? To me they mean the exact same thing, ie less powerful than the norm. So what am I missing? Now I'm curious. The sentinel is the least powerful class, but not the least effective. In my mind the character that has the easiest time beating the game would also be the most powerful. So to me effectiveness = power. Obviously not to you, so would you care to enlighten me what your definition of powerful vs effective is?

Given the state some recent RPGs have been released in, obviously not as important as you'd think...

Inventory management definiteky needs improving. As well as the controls (for PC). It was so obvious they were designed for the X-box and then ported over.

Multi-player is definitely NOT necessary. Wether or not it's a good thing can be debated though (but I'm not going to, that horse has been beaten to death a few times). Examples of good RPGs without multiplayer includes: Fallout 1 & 2 and Planescape: Torment.

*trying to shake off the arguing* If we're still nominating mods, I'd suggest Kumquatq3, Sammael and Ewen Brown for consideration. If they want to and have the time that is.

Combat in KotOR wasn't bad... Combat in KotOR was cool. It had lightsabres for crying out loud... I do agree it didn't have a wealth of tactical options to it, but it really REALLY didn't need it. The combat in KotOR, in fact the entire game, accomplished exactly what it set out to accomplish. Nothing more, nothing less. Now, a sequel needs to improve in may areas and adding complexity to combat could be one, but it isn't necessarilly so. KotOR was a very streamlined game and complex combat could disrupt that which in turn really could make the game stutter.