manifestus

Sounds like you're looking for extra content in terms of TC type additions. Some people just told you it isn't that simple ... do you know how many people START work on TC's and never finish them? The main problem is ... the amount of time put into quality TC's is enormous. On another note: Why the heck are you trying to compare NWN modules to KOTOR mods? That's like taking Morrowind mods and doing the same comparison ... the devs there released utilities that make anyone who looks twice at the game able to add content. That was the entire POINT behind NWN ... and it was a major marketing point for Morrowind. What you're thinking of in terms of NWN modules and Morrowind modules is more akin to making a map for Warcraft using the available tools packaged with the game. Reskinning something is tougher than doing that.

... So in the end we're supposed to be some character ripped from Dune? (e.g. read God Emperor of Dune) ... *sigh.

I thought the level cap was so high anyhow, it didn't really matter. Just kill more things!

Baydool! (w00t) (rofl ... the dork from Quest of the Delta Knights) Ok ... maybe not ....

In tennis it's a question of acceleration ... in fencing it's also an acceleration issue. Lightsabers (note the word saber) should rely more heavily on acceleration than strength? " Anyhow, just stating that while the physics lessons are admirable, you'd expect a weapon to be deadlier the faster it was swung ... expecially if the blade isn't exactly "breakable". Strength only comes into the question when ... you're REALLY weak .... or perhaps if you wanted to crush someone's armor. Since it's a energy-ish weapon, I'm thinking the crushing part doesn't really factor in? Bah whatever.

Alright ... this is stupid. The idea for sequels is: Don't fix what ain't broken. At the same time, make it work as smoothly as before. Halo 2 followed that formula, and added some things that were interesting. Kotor 2 does the same. Halo = 9.7; Halo 2=9.4 Kotor = 9.1; Kotor 2 = 8.5 So a .3 difference and a .6 difference Big deal. I care about the storyline, so to me, the graphic glitches are an inconvience. In general, as long as the game isn't suddenly a 7 when I'm expecting 8 to 9, I'll sift the reviews to see if major CTD's or experience breaking problems (fps of 4 for example) issues have propped up.

Pretty typical considering the massively inflated Halo 2 review in relation to the original KOTOR score. One of the reasons I don't take the numeric score into account when buying a game. It should be a crime that this type of prostitution has an effect on game sales. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> On the note of game sales ... Of course numeric score has an effect on game sales ... care to explain why Battlezone did so poorly? Or Thief? System Shock? Why did FROGGER (jeez!) do so well when the reviews were horrid? Since in general, the highly rated games are actually pretty darn good, it gets bought up. Halo 2 would have been snapped up regardless of the reviews. Did you take a look at the pre-ordered numbers? Furthermore, Halo 2 is a great FPS.

It's interesting that so many people are pissed about the score. If you scour most forums, I wonder how many people over-estimate the scores? I reviewed games awhile back for fun (actual reviewing; corporate pre-release stuff, not this buy and review it crap), and if you tried appeasing all the folks out there, you'd never win. My reviews were both a general indicator of how the game stacks up to the competition within and outside the genre. As I've noted, it's always easier to review hardware than software. Hardware you just get faced with the facts -- software reviews you get to deal with the "intangibles". Bleh. For example, some games with basic graphics (Exile 3 comes to mind) definately gets shafted, even though they have fundamentally sound gameplay. I for one enjoyed Exile 3 far more than a game such as ... Diablo II, but there's a solid difference in scores. You can't make everyone happy, so at least try to stay consistent. I'm thinking that gamespot decided to drop the graphics score because: 1) They said there aren't any substantial improvements in graphics over Kotor 1. 2) There are framerate issues and bugs (clipping, graphical glitches, etc) that are worse than the first game. 3) The engine has aged another year. And it wasn't exactly optimized much. We're not talking about Baldur's Gate 1 to 2 here. And probably other stuff. But hell, you were going to buy the game regardless right? The review is meant to give readers (and if the score is high enough the publisher + developer gets some extra publicity to add to their website) who weren't necessarily going to run out and grab the game an idea what the hell they should expect -- who knows. And a score above 8 isn't bad at all. Morrowind ran away with an 8.8 and took RPG game of the year honors (I think ... should quote me on this since I didn't reference it to make sure). Just my 2 cents.

Rofl Maybe they're still in high school, in which case you can attribute it to an alderian inferiority complex.

Fears: Handling of the conclusion of the storyline. About 80-90% of the endings I've ever seen have been highly unsatisfactory. Since Fallout 2 and Planescape were among the good ones, things are looking alright so far. Character interaction ... until I see for myself how it's handled, I'm just hoping for the best.

Hrm ... what a convoluted yet meaningless argument you propose. Every game is an amalgamation of a variety of factors. As you adroitly pointed out, games have been shuffling towards a cross-genre feel. So what? KOTOR2 is meant to be it's own game -- it's not Deus Ex, Halo, MGS, or GTA. It's our natural tendency to compare games like Half-Life 2 to Vampire Bloodlines -- jeez they use the same Source engine. Being the first two games to utilize the Source engine, people were expecting a bit more out of Vampire Bloodlines graphically (maybe not to the same extent as Half Life 2, but there is a certain bar they were looking for and it definitely did NOT meet it -- I've played both and can safely make that comment). For KOTOR2 ... I don't care much about the graphics. I'm looking for a gameplay experience, and the short turnaround (this wasn't a 4 year dev cycle buddies) means that I don't expect much to change graphically from the last KOTOR. Take a look at Halo 2 -- graphically how much "better"does it look from the initial one? Yeah some things improved, but it's essentially the same as the original. Don't fix what ain't broken. The graphics weren't broken -- they worked. While it may be NICE to gripe and whine about everything they could have done, it's pointless. They added weather effects. And hell, if you're so pissed, go mod it yourself when it comes on the PC, rather than complaining about the various nuances to the game that aren't going to change regardless. If you don't like it, don't play it -- the graphical issues in Vampire: Bloodlines pissed me off so I stopped playing the game. There you go.

rofl

The Sith are chasing you across the galaxy because you think they think you are thinking that they think you are the last jedi. Or maybe you are only thinking that they are thinking that ... "

Personally, it's a sorta moot point. I'll get it for PC, but that's because I'm personally busy over the next two months doing stuff anyhow, so in no rush to buy it asap. Besides, there are way too many games out or about to come out in Q4, Q1 for me to run through anyhow. Ghost Recon 2, GTA, Halo 2, Half Life 2, Doom 3, Prince of Persia, Jade Empire, Metal Gear Solid 3, the new Splinter Cell ... The PC vs XBox question comes down to this: What do you use your PC for? I mean, if you're chucking out 2000 bucks to run stuff at high res graphics, high fps, and so on ... then that's a great option. If on the other hand, you'd rather pay 100-300 dollars for a console system instead that won't become graphically outdated within 2 years (given the video card cycles of 6 months), then that works too. When the XBox came out, I was running an Athlon T-Bird 1.4, Geforce 3, and 512 mb of DDR Ram. That was decent at the time. Now it's at best minimum specs for everything out there. So I chucked out a few hundred bucks to upgrade my computer. Now, I don't use my computer primarily for gaming, but I do keep it updated for when I do WANT to game. The XBox on the other hand isn't about to start making good civilization games anytime soon (or micromanaged strategy). But it has a lot of great games. I guess the real issue is what computer system you have, and your own wants.

My math is awful so do you own ... but the minigames might add this amount of "filler time": I'm not sure the average time it takes to play a pazaak game. If the time it takes you to place a card and click + wait for your opponent to place a card (and listen to the bwang sound until your head explodes) is about 4 seconds ... and it takes at least 2 cards down on your side to win ... and you go first ... and assuming there is a 2 second delay between each round ... and you play a minimum of 3 games to win ... and lets say you blitz through all dialogue in around 15 seconds .... Add the fact you have ... we'll say at least 20 people (don't remember exact numbers off my head here, so we'll use a nice random, round number) to play pazaak with ... And you need to beat them say ... 7 times overall (net gain) to play them to the useful prizes / highest payouts ... 4*2 + 2 (games + since you go first) = 10 seconds 10 + 2*3 (round delays) = 16 seconds 16 + 15 (dialogue) = 31 seconds 31*7 (beat them 7 times in a row) = 217 seconds 217 + 31*3 (lose 1 game for every 2 you win, or reload a lot) = 310 seconds 310*20 (# of people) = 6200 seconds 6200/60 = ~103.33 minutes or ~ 1.72 hours Racing: Swoop racing takes ... can't remember how many races to win -- i think it was 3?. Lets say you make 1 mistake (and lose one time) and string together the rest of them as wins. That would be (if my numbers above were correct to begin with): 4 (3 wins, 1 loss) total runs. around 20+ seconds a run. 4*20 = 80 seconds 3 tracks * 80 = 240 seconds (10 sec win/lose animation + 15 sec dialogue)*4 runs*3 tracks = 300 seconds 300 + 240 = 540 seconds 540/60 = 9 minutes For quest related materials (e.g. dialogue with other racers): Add 15 minutes of dialogue = 24 minutes .... so to this point we have: 103.33+24 = 127.33 minutes Now we add the turrent game. Suppose you have one turrent game 1/3 the time you travel between planets. If you decide to do some quests crossing around a few times ... lets say you jump back and forth between planets 21 times. If you do that you'll have 7 turrent games. A typical turrent game starts with a cutscreen sequence + an ending winning sequence. I have no idea how long it takes. Suppose you use the PC version and skip it. It adds approximately 5 seconds on each end to the sequence start + skip (and load encounter) and sequence end + skip (and load planet). That's 10 seconds. If there are 10 (I have no idea how many targets you have to shoot down anymore) enemy fighters, and you take 4 shots to down each one (you're a bad shot but you aim well), and shoot at a rate of 2 shots per second ... and it takes you 1 second to aim at the fighter ... 10*(2 shots/sec + 1 second aim) = 30 seconds 30 seconds + 10 second sequences = 40 seconds 40 seconds * 7 encounters = 280 seconds 280/60 = ~ 4.67 minutes 127.33 + 4.67 = 132 minutes So congrats, you've added 132 minutes of additional gameplay! Or a little over 2 hours. * forgot to note the 2 seconds it takes to enter a pazaak game and 2 seconds it takes to exit. And the 4 seconds you might spend choosing pazaak cards. Furthermore, the 5 minutes in game you might ever spend looking at a trader's selection of pazaak cards.