Feigned Roleplaying

[Aegeri]

So is final fantasy an rpg?

 

That is quite the witty response (and tough to answer).

 

I'll fend off your question with a question:

 

Which one are we talking about?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, I know 7,8, and 9 best, so I'll say them. I can't defend well what I don't know well. Though, I could go with all of them and still be relatively safe...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not really. Final Fantasy 8 is an adventure game, hell it isn't even much of a game at that. Although I know the game does become more non-linear and open ended near the final 3/4 mark, the game is far too full of cutscenes. Basically like playing in a choose your own route movie.

 

I haven't bothered playing Final Fantasy 9 yet.

 

10 is alright, but you don't have a heck of a lot of control in what goes on in the game, though it has some brilliant set piece combats.

 

Final Fantasy 7 I would say is an RPG, but the other games would be more like adventure games more so than RPGs (again, as choice is rather limited and the game is more about power leveling).

 

A couple of the Final Fantasy games do come close, but few have dramatic choices that affect the game world in any way at all (aside from the obvious, which is the main plot of each game, but that isn't a choice now is it?). The older Final Fantasy games are still better than the newer ones though

[ShinIchiro]

FF8 was an awesome game... How isn't it a RPG? And the numerous cutscenes were awesome.

 

I say this all depends on one's definition of an RPG. This is not a CRPG style, but is rather the newer and more prominant console RPG style. Both are valid as rpgs, and as KOTOR is a mix of the two, it mixes the qualities and characteristics of the two.

[Kitch]

I would say FF8 is as much an RPG as the rest of them are.

[alanschu]

The choice is the most important thing in RPG`s. The power to choose is the fun of the gameplay. I understand that Bioware wanted to make a particular story, but they made it so linear that it was better to write a book.

And their job is to work. They`ve made an excellent story, but killed the choice. And that`s the biggest problem. I understand to make one such a game, but i`m sure they can cahnge the conception in later KotORs

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Is choice most important? It would probably depend on how you define RPG (which means something different to every person). Morrowind gave plenty of choice and freedom, but I know a lot of people (myself included) that prefer tighter stories.

 

Baldur's Gate is often considered one of the best CRPGs, but it's a game that has even less choice than KOTOR (from a story perspective...sure you can play a variety of classes that all play through the main plot the exact same way).

 

Excellent analysis except for that part in which you're implying that I love Bastila.

 

Man you think that I'm a total sicko? Liking some novel or game character doesn't mean that I automatically love him! Especially pixelated one. This means that I'm interested in further development of that favourite character. I like Kyle Katarn much more than Bastila. Will you say that I have a gay romance with him? Lool

 

"Love" is a term that has many meanings. I don't think that you "loved" her character in the sense that you wanted to have sex with her or something like that. But I saw numerous times when you commented that you were a Bastila fanboy, and made comments such as "things getting back to normal" in the Atris vs Bastila debate when Bastila retook the lead. But don't limit your interpretations of love. I loved the character of Dak'kon (and pretty much every other character...but him the most) in Planescape: Torment. He was very well done IMO, and was a unique type of character IMO.

 

 

The whole story of KOTOR revolves around Revan and the eventually whether or not you will pick up and continue Revans Awe-Full mantle or create a cloak of yourown. The most major choice in the game is that choice. And what changes because of it. Almost nothing. A few cutscenes, your party members, but everyone can agree that's pitiful for the most important choice of the game. The key plot doesn't really change, you still go after Malak and ultimately defeat him, and more importantly you have the same gameplay. Same enemies,(except Bastila) same Malak, same Malak tricks.

 

Question is though....why would the story change after that revelation? By that point of the game, so much has been done in terms of finding the Star Forge, that I think it would be a huge mistake to let Revan suddenly NOT go to the Star Forge. And Malak would never be an ally to Revan, since he betrayed him for the command of the Sith and would not relinquish it (if he did...I would consider that too convenient). There is no reason, at that point of the story, that the choice you make on the unnamed world would have any substantial change on the plot. It did however change the way NPCs reacted to you. There is no reason why Malak would have different "tricks" or anything simply because you chose one way or the other.

 

And this is without even considering the technical considerations of it all. For NWN2, I am VERY much hoping that there will be branching paths (albeit not huge ones, with the main plot being the same, but your progress and resolution of the plot being different) based on your alignment. However, I understand that adding these choices creates extra content for the game, without actually adding to the game (in particular length). As I mentioned earlier, even Warren Spector (the guru of freedom IMO, that would LOVE to have games be significantly different based on your choices) understands that signficantly different paths in the game essentially boil down to you making two games in one (at its most extreme). To summarize, to ask for much more than different character responses to your choices is probably unreasonable, since it would add significantly to development time. Allowing the players to do more (such as killing the masters of the Jedi Order) when playing evil compared to playing good would also result in a backlash of people that would feel ripped off by playing a good character. Why should evil get the extra bit of gaming goodness at the end?

 

 

I also find it odd that you consider Morrowind, which is an extremely linear main plot, with oodles of sidequests. I think that this is a very poor way of branching gameplay. I'd much rather have a main plot that went in a variety of different ways.

 

 

 

As an aside, would you people prefer that I respond to several posts in one message like this? I am scared that it may make the message appear so big that many will skip it, but at the same time some complained (while ignoring my points) that several posts by me in a row were a distraction, and implied that I was only concerned with my post count. Some feedback please

 

 

And I would conisder Final Fantasy 7 and Final Fantasy 8 (haven't played any since) RPGs......just different RPGs than Baldur's Gate and whatnot.

[ShinIchiro]

And I would conisder Final Fantasy 7 and Final Fantasy 8 (haven't played any since) RPGs......just different RPGs than Baldur's Gate and whatnot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thank you very much. That's what I've been trying to make a differentiation between...traditional rpgs (often CRPGs) and the newer ones (often console).

[HalasterBlack]

I also find it odd that you consider Morrowind, which is an extremely linear main plot, with oodles of sidequests.  I think that this is a very poor way of branching gameplay.  I'd much rather have a main plot that went in a variety of different ways.

 

As an aside, would you people prefer that I respond to several posts in one message like this?  I am scared that it may make the message appear so big that many will skip it, but at the same time some complained (while ignoring my points) that several posts by me in a row were a distraction, and implied that I was only concerned with my post count.  Some feedback please

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think the way you define linear, or main plot may be different than how I define them. Sure there was a plot that started when the game started and asked you to follow it, but it didn't require you to follow it, which I think is the actually defining factor in a main quest, a large and important quest with good storyline that you are required to follow.

 

I know what you are refering to when you say main quest but I just consider it a large optional quest, that I personnally didn't participate in till later in the game.

 

I also don't see how that 'main' quest was anymore linear than KOTOR. In both of them you had specific places and things to do to advance the quests. In Morrowind however you could choose to abandon or even kill your links to the quest, a great non-linear factor whereas in KOTOR in order to abandon the quest you had to quit the game. In KOTOR you where stuck with companions that you had to use, a slight linear factor cause in Morrowind you can converse with who you want and rarely have companions. In both Morrowind and KOTOR you could choose what skills you wanted to gain, most likely even easier in Morrowind.

 

Then in Morrowind there was the fact that the 'sidequest' where not really sidequests but instead entire new mainquests. Instead of not much effort but into sidequests, these quilds, family, or other quests had brilliant storylines, intriguining characters, and good PC rewards. One of these rewards that most pleased me in Morrowind was status or regnition of my PC. It really irrated me that all the dark siders I encountered and told I was the Dark Lord Revan, ignored me and attacked me, because apparently they(lowly Dark Side Apprentices) think they can defeat a Dark Side Lord, and do not see the value of becoming a Dark Side Lords Apprentice as opposed to dead.

 

I read your entire thing so yah, some people read it.

[HalasterBlack]

The problem is you're expecting too much of a divergence from the story that Bioware wanted to tell.  The story breaks down in simplistic terms to either 1)redemption or 2)conquest.

 

Think of it in terms of Return of the Jedi.  Luke had two options; (LS) defeat the Emperor and turn his father back to the light or (DS)go over to the darkside and defeat his father, taking his place at the Emperor's side.  In your post, you bring up the fact that regardless of whether we go LS or DS, we have to fight Malak.  That's exactly what happens in RotJ.  Regardless of whether Luke fell to the darkside or remained a lightside Jedi, he would have had to face the same bad guy (or in his case, 2).  It might not be what you're actually suggesting, but bringing up the fact you have to fight Malak regardless of alignment suggests that you want there to be a completely different "enemy" for each alignment.  That'd be like suggesting that if Luke remains a LS Jedi, he faces Vader and the Emperor.  But if he goes to the DS, all of a sudden Vader and the Emperor aren't there anymore and instead he has to face some new Jedi.

 

I don't necessarily disagree that we should have had our choices affect the game world more than they did, but I definitely disagree with your comment about having to face Malak either way as a negative thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Im not really asking much divergence of the part of Bioware, just some as opposed to almost none. Sure I would like alot, but I think some is a reasonable request.

One of the best things about Pen and Paper, is the ability to make your own choices, and it is this part particularly that should be imported into any RPG

 

Also you seem to be underestimating (the power of the force) Lukes choices. Also I dont think you should place labels of light side or dark side, cause its all morally perspective.

 

1) Attempt to kill Darth Vader and the Emporer for the good of the Republic

2) Attempt to convert Darth Vader and kill the Emporer

3) Attempt to convert Darth Vader and convert the Emporer

4) Attempt to subdue or capture Darth Vader and kill the Emporer

5) Attempt to subdue both the DV and Emp

6) Join with Darth Vader and destroy the Emporer (what I would have done)

7) Join with the Emporer and destroy Darth Vader

Kill both, and proclaim self new Emporer

 

Obviously some of these are not the best options, and some would not have made a great storyline, but he still had these options.

[Grand_Commander13]

Yeah. I woulda gone for #6 myself, but #8 would be a definite possibility. But yeah, Luke certainly had more than those two options (though maybe not all eight of those either).

 

Anyway, I've said this before, and I'll say it again:

On Korriban, you get the option to turn traitor against the Republic (a decision you make on Taris decides if you're forced to go to Korriban after Dantooine, or not). You and two Sith students charge onto the Hawk, killing Carth/Juhani, and converting Bastila. You then go to get the star maps, so you can find the Star Forge, slay Malak, and become ruler of the Sith. There you go. Same danged game, but a very major, worthwhile choice.

[Nightvol]

yes that's exactly what i said in a previous thread - we should of been able to make the passing to the dark side a lot sooner than the top od the temple on the unknown world and korriban was the obvious choice - when i first played through the game and heard that i wil have to go to korriban i thought : oh that's when i turn dark if i choose to. imagine my surprise when i saw i have to literaly raid the academy - i mean if i was so dark(i had dark side mastery) and was so powerful(i killed the master and yuthura lady) then they should allow me to have some followers - i mean on korriban i would of killed juhani, jolee, mission and probably carth (or i could of send some of my new strike force formed from the aprentices to hunt him down) so i could of taken some of the students there to complete my party again - maybe carth son, and those other apprentices those would of been my new party of nine along with canderous, hak-47, bastila, zaalbar(if i chose not to kill him) and t3

[LoneWolf16]

All I can say is "wow".

 

I just spent a good thirty minutes reading all of this, (That's right, every single word) and am shocked by how clearly and intelligently all of you have managed to convey your thoughts. Before this thread, I'd assumed that these forums were composed of nothing but angry, illiterate children.

 

While I may not agree with some of the points that have been made, however valid and infallible they may be, or seem to be, I still realize that each is just that, VALID. So, with that in mind, I'll just toss something out there. Agree, or disagree as you see fit...preferably with some relevant facts to back up your position...not a three paragraph post on how much I suck...

 

1.--- This is a game. The developers put an amount of effort into these things that I, in my utter laziness, couldn't even begin to comprehend. So lay off of them, they do what they can with the tools that are available, and I may be wrong, but a perfect game engine specifically built around the player's ability to choose hasn't been created yet. That makes the observation about pen and paper RPGs being superior to digital versions quite accurate.

 

2.---GhostOfAnakin. He made his point, though rather unclear at times and relying on a fair number of strawmans, ( As Aegeri was eager to point out. ) was still legitimate, in that it provided another view on the subject. Illogical in some places...yes...but still legit.

 

3.---Seeing as how I've never played either game in the Fallout series...which I'm beginning to get curious about, since the gameplay appears to be outlandishly open according to your descriptions...I can't offer a decent comment on its failings or successes. But I can say this...FO and KOTOR are apparently two vastly different games in terms of plot progression and routes, since KOTOR has a pretty linear story-line and Fallout is more...vast in its aspirations of PC freedom, so, reasonably, how can one compare them?

 

4.---In regards to the Final Fantasy thing...Well, I just don't believe that any of the games in that series could be defined as a true RPG, save for the very early ones. Something about them just seems off to me. I know that's not a good enough reason for thinking that, but I just can't explain it any better. Don't get me wrong, I like the FF series, particularly the more recent ones (Rikku...for a combination of pixels and voice-overs, is kind of hot... .)

 

That's really it, considering that most, if not all, points I desired to make upon first glancing at this thread's title have already been made or disproved. Thanks for reaffirming my faith in this forum...

[ShinIchiro]

All I can say is "wow".

 

I just spent a good thirty minutes reading all of this, (That's right, every single word) and am shocked by how clearly and intelligently all of you have managed to convey your thoughts. Before this thread, I'd assumed that these forums were composed of nothing but angry, illiterate children.

 

While I may not agree with some of the points that have been made, however valid and infallible they may be, or seem to be, I still realize that each is just that, VALID. So, with that in mind, I'll just toss something out there. Agree, or disagree as you see fit...preferably with some relevant facts to back up your position...not a three paragraph post on how much I suck...

 

1.--- This is a game. The developers put an amount of effort into these things that I, in my utter laziness, couldn't even begin to comprehend. So lay off of them, they do what they can with the tools that are available, and I may be wrong, but a perfect game engine specifically built around the player's ability to choose hasn't been created yet. That makes the observation about pen and paper RPGs being superior to digital versions quite accurate.

 

2.---GhostOfAnakin. He made his point, though rather unclear at times and relying on a fair number of strawmans, ( As Aegeri was eager to point out. ) was still legitimate, in that it provided another view on the subject. Illogical in some places...yes...but still legit.

 

3.---Seeing as how I've never played either game in the Fallout series...which I'm beginning to get curious about, since the gameplay appears to be outlandishly open according to your descriptions...I can't offer a decent comment on its failings or successes. But I can say this...FO and KOTOR are apparently two vastly different games in terms of plot progression and routes, since KOTOR has a pretty linear story-line and Fallout is more...vast in its aspirations of PC freedom, so, reasonably, how can one compare them?

 

4.---In regards to the Final Fantasy thing...Well, I just don't believe that any of the games in that series could be defined as a true RPG, save for the very early ones. Something about them just seems off to me. I know that's not a good enough reason for thinking that, but I just can't explain it any better. Don't get me wrong, I like the FF series, particularly the more recent ones (Rikku...for a combination of pixels and voice-overs, is kind of hot... .)

 

That's really it, considering that most, if not all, points I desired to make upon first glancing at this thread's title have already been made or disproved. Thanks for reaffirming my faith in this forum...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

What I've been trying to point out is the difference betwen a "true" (CRPG old school style) rpg and the newer style (present on most consoles. I've been saying KOTOR is a mix of the two, making it so successful and popular, and appealing to gamers from both catagories.

[Exar Dulo]

Another one of the Major Flaws in KOTOR is the fact that your choices didn't really have any impact on the storyline. I kept hearing how my choices would alter the story line, but they didn't not for the first 90% of the game.

 

 

I remember in the very beginning trying to get out of helping rescue Bastila but that bastard get whining about duty, and somehow I could not get my blade to connect to his skull. I remember the great anticapaction of being the leader of the Sith Academy, but to no avail.

 

I really hadly never got any choice much at how the story went.

 

Until the very end of the game, in which I choose evil, and dark powers, and for some reason I was forced to attack my comrades, which I didn't want to do. I didn't want to attack, but their supposedly "light-side" booties attacked me without provocation and I was forced to defend myself. Then when I got back to my other friends and teammates they run from me, and enrage Zaalibar into attacking me, what the heck.

 

If you've played the original Jedi Knight, you realize that Jedi Knight had more choice between light and darkside storylines than KOTOR.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, your choices did affect the way the game played throughout.

 

People seem to keep overlooking little things that change depending how you act. People are so fixated on the "Dark Jedi/Light Jedi" thing and overlook other things. For instance, on Taris you have a choice of working with the Vulkars or the Beks. If you choose one, you have to fight the other. In other words, your "choices affect the story", because if you choose DS, you side with the Beks and have to kill the Vulkars. If you choose LS, you defeat the Beks.

 

So to use your comments, your hypothesis is in fact incorrect.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That isn`t a real choice. The choice here is - who to kill?

[Nur Ab Sal]

I've been saying KOTOR is a mix of the two, making it so successful and popular, and appealing to gamers from both catagories.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Speak for yourself

 

KOTOR is succesful becouse of graphics, music, being first SW RPG and good NPCs. Storyline is painfully linear and little more work would do KOTOR more

resourceful. I'm not saying that everything must lead storyline to endless ways cause that would kill the game as well. I think that adding possibility to avoid Leviathan or kill Malak onboard wouldn't mess up things much if good writers would construct such possibility. I understand that I can't affect everything but

on some things I want to have influence. Morrowind isn't good example - that game was just too big. But some minor changes in KOTOR would be nice.

[alanschu]

I would think it would be an oversight to assume that KOTOR was only successful because of graphics, music and being a Star Wars RPG. If the story was utterly ridiculous, people wouldn't buy it, and it wouldn't get all the rave reviews.

 

As for Halaster, I will concede that I probably define linearity completely differently than most people. And you present a different perspective on how to look at the plot of Morrowind. However, my comments about Morrowind were not in defense of KOTOR's storyline. I will agree that it is quite a linear game. But I will comment that I don't think a lot of choices would realisticly change a whole lot to begin with. I do not think a confrontation with Malak could be avoided within the scope of the game, so I am perfectly okay with Malak still being the endboss despite which path the PC chose.

[Grand_Commander13]

3.---Seeing as how I've never played either game in the Fallout series...which I'm beginning to get curious about, since the gameplay appears to be outlandishly open according to your descriptions...I can't offer a decent comment on its failings or successes. But I can say this...FO and KOTOR are apparently two vastly different games in terms of plot progression and routes, since KOTOR has a pretty linear story-line and Fallout is more...vast in its aspirations of PC freedom, so, reasonably, how can one compare them?

 

Well, specifically, Fallout and Fallout 2 let you do a lot. For one, since your character starts out with his own transportation (his feet) and can wander freely about the map (eventually hitting vital story spots, even if not told about them), there aren't very many NPCs so vital to the plot that they cannot die yet still have the story continue. So, you can kill anyone (with the exception of in your starting town/place, where you cannot kill anyone without the game ending).

 

Chalk one up for Fallouts 1 and 2. Though many people say that it's dumb to let people kill anyone, because then they do "stupid" things like massacring entire towns and getting large amounts of exp they shouldn't get. Lemme tell you something mister: You get CRAPPY exp for shooting up towns. It's only really worth it to waste Vault City, because they're all n00Bz begging for a whoopin. Aside from that, people's arguments against being able to kill anyone are largely morality police actions (and imho, the M.P. deserve no jurisdiction over violence).

 

So yeah. What I love about the Fallouts is how you feel like your actions matter. There still are these final plot points that you must hit (and in Fallout 1, in a time limit), but you can wander freely until then (as opposed to KOTOR's tiny towns, and limited expanses of wilderness that served only as enemy-infested paths to your specific objectives). And your actions affect the world, both in NPC dialogue and in more "real" things (you have no idea how satisfying it is to see an empty slaver headquarters and empty slave pens in The Den).

 

Score another for the original Fallouts.

 

There really is no comparing Fallout and KOTOR. Fallout is a classless, very free CRPG. KOTOR is a class-based story-driven RPG/adventure game made primarily for the console. Totally different; I, for one, was very disappointed with KOTOR in the replay value department. Sure, you can play again, but the only thing that makes any real difference in your gameplay is how you choose to kill enemies (note: force powers choice only, really; in FO, you can choose sniping, burst weapons, or melee, while KOTOR is just lightsabers and light/dark force powers set). Also, in FO, you can wander around and do different stuff different ways, while KOTOR is the same old game no matter how you do it.

[KOTORFanactic]

There really is no comparing Fallout and KOTOR. Fallout is a classless, very free CRPG. KOTOR is a class-based story-driven RPG/adventure game made primarily for the console. Totally different; I, for one, was very disappointed with KOTOR in the replay value department. Sure, you can play again, but the only thing that makes any real difference in your gameplay is how you choose to kill enemies (note: force powers choice only, really; in FO, you can choose sniping, burst weapons, or melee, while KOTOR is just lightsabers and light/dark force powers set). Also, in FO, you can wander around and do different stuff different ways, while KOTOR is the same old game no matter how you do it.

 

I wholeheartedly agree. Since they r such different games, they cannot be compared.

 

KOTOR2 is a very story driven game, and the story is so engrossing, that it makes me play through the end of it every month, just so i can see it all without having to find the starmaps, killing darkjedi, Calo, Bandon etc who ambush u.

 

The ending is good enough for me.

[Darth Sirius]

KOTOR2 is a very story driven game, and the story is so engrossing, that it makes me play through the end of it every month, just so i can see it all without having to find the starmaps, killing darkjedi, Calo, Bandon etc who ambush u.

 

The ending is good enough for me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Every month? Just the ending?

 

Erm You really are a fanatic aren't you.

[KOTORFanactic]

Every month? Just the ending?

 

Erm  You really are a fanatic aren't you.

 

Heh, the rest of it is boring mostly, since i hav played through the game entirely at least 10 times now. Still, i do play thorugh it entiely at least once every 3 months or so, since i find the story that damn good. I concentrate on the best parts.

 

The Leviathan

From the top of the Rakatan Temple onwards.

 

And i hav never been this hyped up about a game than KOTOR2, which i will mst likely play through three or four times before i put it down.

[Darth Sirius]

which i will mst likely play through three or four times before i put it down.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pfft! And you call yourself a fanatic?! I'll play through three or four times before I even sleep!

[KOTORFanactic]

A samll mistake, i meant 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000 before i put it down

 

Corection 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

9999999999999999

Edited September 13, 2004 by KOTORFanactic

[Darth Sirius]

But back on topic, I just went and bought Fallout 1/2/tactics, and to be quite honest, I'm not impressed with them at all. I by far prefered KotOR.

[KOTORFanactic]

To be perfectly honest, i prefer the more story driven guided RPGs (KOTOR) since it at least gives u what u need to do right away, rather than spending up to days, weeks even trying to figure out how to do this or how to do that.

 

To put it simply, Ill take KOTOR+KOTOR2 over Fallout1+Fallout2 anyday

[Grand_Commander13]

Tactics is a whole different animal than Fallouts 1 and 2. As for not liking 1 and 2, I guess you just don't like the RPG genre.

 

And no, KOTOR is not an RPG; it's an adventure game (for lack of a better term).

[GhostofAnakin]

Tactics is a whole different animal than Fallouts 1 and 2.  As for not liking 1 and 2, I guess you just don't like the RPG genre.

 

And no, KOTOR is not an RPG; it's an adventure game (for lack of a better term).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think that's where a lot of the dispute between myself and others has arisen. I view a "rpg" as something quite different than I suppose the industry definition.

 

For me, a rpg is one in which I play a "role" and actually feel like I become that character and start to get pulled in to the main story, as if I'm the leading character in a movie. I felt KOTOR did that, with me being the lead "actor" and the story pulling me in. I did not get that same "immersion" from FO, because I didn't feel the main story was as involving. Yes, the freedom was there, but I don't believe that freedom=roleplaying.

 

Again, that's just my own personal opinion and it obviously doesn't coincide with what the industry defines as a RPG, but for me that's what it is, and that's why I believe that people underestimate the "choices" that KOTOR provides.

[ShinIchiro]

Tactics is a whole different animal than Fallouts 1 and 2.  As for not liking 1 and 2, I guess you just don't like the RPG genre.

 

And no, KOTOR is not an RPG; it's an adventure game (for lack of a better term).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Just wondering, where did you get that?

 

Therefore, is D20 not an RPG style? O, my bad...the original basis for Roleplaying games is an adventure game...

 

 

I must once again bring up my FF and definition of RPG piont.