213374U

Baldur's Gate 2 could do it because: It was the first sequel, and in BG1 you didn't 'lose your powers because of some incredibly lame or outright unexplained reason'. That has already been done for K1 and K2. Enough already. In BG2 you continued your character leveling where it ended in BG1. You weren't the most powerful Jedi in the galaxy, and therefore you didn't need to have your powers reduced due to game balance reasons. So really, there's no comparing the two. And again, it's nice and all to have a sequel. But nobody is going to make a sequel so attached to the previous installments that somebody who hasn't played them will have a hard time making sense of the story. No matter what the devs choose, be it Revan, the exile, dark or light, a lot of people are going to be pissed because 'that's not the way it was!'. Let them come up with a new story with new characters and pray they have the time to develop it to its full potential. If there is any mention of the previous games for those who have played them, so much better. But don't make the game a slave of past stories. Simply, no.

Nope. Kreia stays neutral no matter what.

Euhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I'm gonna have to thumbs down this one. Yeah dude. How I long for a thumbs down smiley. :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:

Of course it could be done. Could it be done right? No.

You're actually better off that way.

ok yeah I think that would take the game to a whole nother level of play mainly because now there would be a chance of cutting your own arm off while trying to fight one of these things. You don't actually fight those. They're the size of a small dog and aren't at all aggressive. All they do is cling to trees and stuff. Shooting them dead is easy enough, provided you can spot them. It's just another of those EU things that sucks big time.

while they may not be mutually exclusive, the "real deep" aspect is not present in troika games. vol isn't comparing two things that have nothing to do with each other, he's pointing out the primary focus of two games that don't have "real deep" rpg experiences. taks No. The focus of BL was the role-playing. Proof of this is that you could avoid combat altogether for the better part of the game, except for the last third or so which sucks. If you say that BL focused in combat, I say you haven't actually played the game.

Yes, it does prove my point. The US were doing all they could to prevent the germans from achieving supremacy in Europe, short of entering the war themselves. Germany and Italy had their hands full at the moment, and it would have been suicidal to declare war on the US as things were. History proved that. But anyway, I don't deal with hypothetics. None of that really happened, so your point is moot. Don't be so narrow sighted. I'm not saying that Germany could have successfully invaded the US. I don't think the US govt. considered that a threat, either. However, they didn't want a new power that could consolidate a hegemony in Europe and a large part of Asia. Preventing that was on their best interest, as it increased the US' chances of being the dominant superpower after the war, even more so considering that they were the only party involved in the war whose mainland hadn't been directly under fire. As always, it all comes down to politics. No honor, no good intentions. Deal with it.

Again, you are comparing two things that have nothing to do with each other. The RPG can be 'real deep', and the combat may suck. Those two aren't mutually excluding. That is... disturbing. :ph34r:

The PM I recieved from Chris Avellone. Uh, I don't know if it's actually against the rules to post PMs openly, but it's definitely something you shouldn't do, unless you've asked for permission beforehand. They are called private for a reason, you know.

It is BS. All the forms have the same animations.

Which means you enjoyed BL, despite its flaws. Then we come to yet another contradiction. Your arguments for quoting BL as an example of a bad RPG in your first reply on this thread are... none, since you liked it.

It would not be Kotor 3 then would it, it would be like Return of the Jedi not being set in the conflict between the Rebellion and the Empire. There could be a way of doing Kotor 3 without going into the unknown regions and fighting an ancient cult. Cheers Dan Revan and the exile are in the unknown regions. You want a game about Revan and the exile. I don't see how a game can be made about characters that are in the unknown regions, without being in the unknown regions.

No. Complaints about things cut out are only frequent among people who have been following the game, not the majority of gamers. Complaints about the last act are legit, but that was OE's fault for not polishing it enough. They had to cut things, that's a shame. But it was up to them to polish the result and make the pieces fall into place without all the material that got cut. That wasn't LA's job. And about the buginess, well, I have already admitted that was probably LA's fault. LOL. Less frequent? Take a moment to read the boards, please. Then all the stuff that doesn't make sense should have been cut out as well to prevent confusion, specially . And about Nihilus, well, they explain what he's all about. Your not liking it or its lack of depth doesn't assure they had something more planned for him. So you're just making random assumptions about things that were supposedly cut out so you can merrily blame LA. Sorry, but no.

If you have anything constructive to add, please feel free to do so. What are you babbling about? Revan isn't too powerful? No, you're right, he/she's just level 20. Considering the level cap for K2 was 50, level 20 isn't too powerful. Having Revan or the exile lose levels would be LAME, no matter how it was done. We have had that for two games already, talk about being repetitive. We need a game that can be played by itself, without depending on its predecessors. If Revan or the exile were the main PC, that would be difficult to do. And to explore the whole True Sith Empire plot would be damn hard to do without losing the SW feel. SW is made in cantinas, spaceports, and battlefields filled with known aliens. Not in the dark halls of a forgotten cult in the other side of the galaxy in which dark side beasts roam free. Star Wars is not TotJ. So, no. Leave Revan and the exile wherever they went. I want a new story.

Uh, the Tripartite Pact stated that if any member was attacked, the other would come to the rescue. But that doesn't mean that if a member attacks another country, the other members need to declare war on that country too. It was a mutual defense pact, not a mutual aggression pact. And we all know the US didn't move a finger until Pearl Harbor was attacked. And as for the US selling weapons to England, well, they were selling them after all, and not giving them away. That way their losses wouldn't be too much (if any at all), and they were making an effort towards stopping the germans' advance. Which was in their own interest, mind you. So you're kinda proving my point here.

LA gave guidelines to be followed. OE implemented some of those poorly. The same thing with the player starting as a Jedi. That was a requirement by LA. However OE circumvented this by taking the PC's Force powers and lightsaber away. Yep, you start off as a Jedi alright, or at least that's what it reads in the character sheet. Sorry, but I'm with Volo on this one. Damn, I'm beginning to sound like I hate the game, when actually there's nothing farther from the truth. The game however, is not without its flaws, and OE is just as responsible for those as LA.

Um, so?

This statement is a contradiction. Let's see how. First you say you do like it. This means, that despite its flaws, you enjoyed the game. That is consistent with what you have been saying these past months. But then, and here comes the contradiction, you say that the combat ruins the role-playing. Since the combat and role-playing elements of the game are two separate parcels, one can't influence the other. Which means the only way to interpet that sentence is that the FPS combat which you dislike so much offsets the great role-playing, yielding an overall unsatisfying experience. Behold: Volourn, or how to uphold two opposite opinions, simultaneously! And please don't ask me to stop trolling, you know I like it too much to stop.

That still doesn't account for the POOR game balance, uber lame random item generator, and other faults. The overly buggy state of the game may be to blame on LA, but that's about it. And I didn't run into any bugs, apart from a few freezes.

Yep, that's exactly it. The US were only looking after their own interest. It turned out that dealing with Germany was also in the interest of the rest of the Allies, because they were getting their asses handed to them by the Germans, but that's a mere coincidence. It was just a matter of preventing a hegemonic power from rising in Europe. It's the same move France and England tried to pull, only they underestimated the german war machine. As you can see, there was no other reason for the US to declare war on the germans. Their issue was with the japanese. Nobody goes to war out of kindness and friendship. It's too costly and nasty a business for that. There are always underlying interests. If you can make it look in such way that you can later claim you had a more humane reason to bring on the slaughter, as paradoxical as that may seem, even better, but that's not a requirement.

Heh, nope. I think I wouldn't like a SW story that revolves around some hidden old and scary 'True Sith Empire'. I'm not saying it couldn't be a great game, it's just I don't think it would have a very SW feel to it, just like TotJ doesn't.

No. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes. Prove it.

No.

I really hope they do that. The ending of K2 left me with the same aftertaste I had when I read TotJ. I'd rather they didn't explore all the 'True Sith Empire' business. It doesn't feel very 'star wars-y' to me.