Shevek

I think taking a 10lb sledge to a skeleton would be more effective than sawing on it for a couple minutes with pointy knife.

Ya, love that book. To your point, if I was a colonist and some SOB handed me a longbow, I'd pass it to the next guy till I got a gun.

All of the above?

This is a badly designed poll. You interject your opinion into the questioning and that taints the results. As for my opinion, I have never seen a game do this well. That doesn't mean it CAN'T be done well. I will say, it is pretty stupid to have a game say that you can kill a skeleton with a dagger. A hammer should be good at it. A dagger should suck at it.

If you have firearms in the world, then there would be no need for bows/xbows. I have never seen depictions of American Colonists fending off the British with wooden longbows. Why? Well, they had guns. I prefer bows/xbows in my fantasy games.

I do not believe this is a scientific poll. Your questions suggests players should select certain responses. That being said, level scaling sucks.

I hope they go for a more stylized look. This does not mean WoW graphics or some such. However, it would be nice if they went for the look of those classic Dragonlance or whatever covers - sorta like a drawn/painted style. That sorta gritty high fantasy stuff would be awesome (minus the steel bkinis, those were silly).

Guys, I love to roleplay and all that. I love a good story. I love good characters. Part of me, though, likes to obsess around the make up of my party. I like to crunch the numbers and find ways to maximize my orc killing efficiency. Though I like some elements of modern RPG systems (like 3E's feat system), I just do not feel as I get as much enjoyment as I did from what BG2:ToB did with 2E. I loved the multiclassing and the kits. 3E multiclassing did not seem nearly as effective unless one simply used the system as a means to reach key milestones or to achieve certain PRCs (I am pretty sure most PRCs in 3E are designed to make up for the sucky multiclassing). Sure, some stuff sucked in 2E, like dual-classing but overall, I could obsess for untold amounts of time just planning my multiplayer run-through party in BG2 in ways I never did with NWN2 (unless I had Kaedrin's PRC pack installed). The main thing about 2E is how well it HYBRIDIZED classes. Please allow to not just make fighters but also fighter/thieves and fighter/mages and fighter/mage/thieves. If within such a system, we also have a diverse feat or skill system, then all the better. Another thing, I really like what 4E does in that it gives non-magic using players more to do than simply attack.. All classes get a wide arrangement of skills that allow them to damage, support or control the battlefield. This really opens up the fight and makes it more dynamic. My dream system... the classes/multiclasses of 2E, the feats of 3E and the abilities of 4E, lol. In any case, however you guys go, please make system that would work not only in a title like Project:Eternity (story centric game) but also in something considerable less cost intensive to produce in a future (like those good ole dungeon romps from IWD).

You might want to check your history. Bows predate swords by a considerable time. Even if you meant to put firearms rather than bows, armour and firearms still coexisted for several 100 years and swords were still in use in the first and even second (Japanese) world war. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually, in Japan, Samurai were basically horse archers. The whole "Japanese Love of the Sword" is just this classic thing all us men have done throughout the ages to make up for small wang size.

I disagree. The combat was so easy that it detracted from my enjoyment of it. I need it to challeneg me in some way. See, fun means different things to different people. I simply do not see how anyone could gleen any enyjoyment from a combat system that offers them no real chance of failure. It is like playing in god mode - utterly pointless. I understand that this is an rpg and, therefore, combat as deep and satisfying as something like Jagged Alliance 2 should not be expected. However, some level of challenge and tactical depth is not too much to ask. The KoTOR series lacks this. Combat here is simply a means to bridge between the actual gameplay which occurs entirely through dialogs. In many ways, I feel the title could have functioned far better as an adventure game with branching dialogs and meaningful choice than the action/rpg which it tries to be.

Graphics: -For the level of detail of this title (textures, polys, etc), I must say that it performed below my expectations. My vid card is somewhat dated but even at 800x600 with min settings the game framed badly. This is not acceptable considering how other more graphic intensive titles have performed far better on my box. -Performance aside, the art direction was nice and generally improved over part one. I dont like the way some female exiles were designed face wise but everything else was exceptional. I only wish the exile (and Atton as well) seemed older and more seasoned as would befit a veteran of a war gone by. A little gray and some smile lines wouldnt be so bad. Sound: -By and large, the voices were well done. None annoyed me at all. This can be an issue if not handled properly (see ToEE). The sound effects and music were also all well done. One comes to expect this from all titles associated in anyway with Lucasarts. Gameplay: -Like the previous title, combat in this title is terrible. Not only is it seemingly haphazard and random but it is also painfully easy. Though tactical turn based combat seems to have gone the way of the dodo, would top down combat with less crappy ai, higher difficulty and more things to do (think BG or Freedom Force) be so bad? -There are numerous balance issues. For example, the proliferance of Jedi characters makes previous nonjedi favorites of mine woefully underpowered (though I used them anyways to add some difficulty). Why use HK47 (why did he lose so much awesomeness?) when Jedi Atton dual wielding fully upgraded zabrak blasters with force speed is so much better? -The increased use of stats/skills in dialogs is excellent. The only downside to this is that I find myself far too driven to create high int sentinels on creation due how well skill use is implemented. -The revamped upgrade system is nice but seems far too powerful. Story: -For about 9/10 of the game, its absolutely perfect. The pacing is consistent and the level of player involvement is deep. unfortunately, this does not last. -For the most part, I got it. Still, the game gets terribly convuluted at times (your the last jedi, no your not; the ebon hawk is destroyed, no its not; the remote gets blowed up by goto, no it isnt; the remote and goto have a standoff, no they dont; this goes on and on). -The Onderon sequence and what follows seems very very rushed. This is not just because of the aforementioned plot holes but also due to the general flow of the story and the jarring pacing (your here, your there, etc etc). -Several NPCs and their motivations are poorly fleshed out. This is especially true of Kreia's two henchmen. Kreia was well done, however. -The end is terrible. The sequence is nowhere near as satisfying as the first title and the encounter with Kreia seems somewhat anticlimatic. I like what they did with the character and her motivations but this could have been handled far better. Conclusion: -I list alot of gripes predominantly since blemishes are easier to notice on near pristine surfaces. This game has alot going for it but having the ending be so poor seriously detracts from how much lasting enjoyment one gets from the title. I mean, in KoTOR1, I felt driven to complete the game twice in a row in rapid succession. This is not so much the case here since I am left with the distaste of those poorly done last few hours.