The story is of quintessential inportance in a RPG, as few would contest:

 

Hence many thus far have complained about the broken, unsatisfying ending; but as I've yet to finish my playthrough (despite having logged 40 hours thus far), I cannot comment on that facet.

 

However, what I have had the misfortune to experience is the gross overabundance of NPC exposition when the PC is not present (in constrast to direct dialogue & interaction used for character development in K1). Obsidian is essentially inserting stagnant blocks into the story thereby creating psychic distance between the gamer and the character - this merely reminds the gamer that we're playing a game (though at times it feels like we're in fact watching a movie ), instead of immersing us in a role playing experience.

 

Regardless, no matter how engaging and well written the exposition is, it won't engross the gamer's assiduity for long, because the role-player is not experiencing the gaming universe first hand. <_<

I found the NPC segments kind of lame as well (expept T3-M4). I wished it was my PC that stormed in

The Tomb of Freedon Nad.

Instead it was Atton!

jaguars4ever im confused.

jaguars4ever im confused.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You see Crafty, unlike in K1 where Bio fleshed out the characters through interaction and side quests, K2 employs a cut-scene movie approach when the PC is not present, e.g. two party members talking with each other as a means to develop their characters.

But who ahve to admit KOTOR was rather shallow in term of character development. Its sound mroe interesting. Why is it all about the PC anyway?

It also shows that you are not the only one that influeces your party, but other party members as well.

Why is it all about the PC anyway?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because the story/char. dev. needs to be dynamic enough to reward the PC's efforts - not an indurate eventuality.

 

It also shows that you are not the only one that influeces your party, but other party members as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's not a question of influence, as you'll find out when you play the game. It's a method to show the character arcs behind the scenes rather than first hand, thus negating the consequenes & choices of the PC's actions that would have been used for interaction.

But the truth is your actions are NEVER fully responsible for "Determining the fate of the Galaxy". Focusing all on the PC gives the false impression that there descisions are the be all and end all.

But the truth is your actions are NEVER fully responsible for "Determining the fate of the Galaxy". Focusing all on the PC gives the false impression that there descisions are the be all and end all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's fine and all, but then it ceases to be a role-playing-game, and becomes a cinematic movie.

The story is of quintessential inportance in a RPG, as few woul contest:

 

Hence many thus far have complained about the broken, unsatisfying ending; but as I've yet to finish my playthrough (despite having logged  40 hours thus far), I cannot comment on that facet.

 

However, what I have had the misfortune to experience is the gross overabundance of NPC exposition when the PC is not present (in constrast to direct dialogue & interaction used for character development in K1).  Obsidian is essentially inserting stagnant blocks into the story thereby creating psychic distance between the gamer and the character - this merely reminds the gamer that we're playing a game (though at times it feels like we're in fact watching a movie    ), instead of immersing us in a role playing experience.

 

Regardless, no matter how engaging and well written the exposition is, it won't engross the gamer's assiduity for long, because the role-player is not experiencing the gaming universe first hand.  <_<

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Each to his own, i guess.

 

FFX was filled with these kind of moments, but it didn't bother me at all.

IMO just becasuse the devs have developed the story differntly, the game shounds better. You got to admit the KOTOR story while nice was abit typical. Anything differnet is good.

FFX was filled with these kind of moments, but it didn't bother me at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Final Fantasy series are soft-core RPG's designed to please the fickle masses. They hardly compare in quality to PS:T, FO 1&2, BG1&2 and KotOR. :cool:

So is the ending leave the same feeling as half lfie 2?

FFX was filled with these kind of moments, but it didn't bother me at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Final Fantasy series are soft-core RPG's designed to please the fickle masses. They hardly compare in quality to PS:T, FO 1&2, BG1&2 and KotOR. :cool:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ofcourse not. But that wasn't my point

 

My point was, that these elements don't necessarily make a bad game.

So is the ending leave the same feeling as half lfie 2?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hopefully not. My Half-Life 2-experience was like this:

 

- Watching nice character-animations(kickass!!)

- Driving a boat(it's going to get better! please?)

- Playing around with a gravitygun(It's should be getting better somewhere after this!)

- Driving a beachbuggy(What?! meh, hopfully just temporarely)

- Jump-puzzles(For the love of God, NO!!)

- Returning to City 17(Hey, it's getting better...)

- Going inside the huge tower whateverthatnamewasagain(Eeeh, what's up with uberpowerful gravitygun? This isn't fun anymore. Excellent surroundings though).

- The End (Meh, back Halo 2)

 

To put it short, the game just stopped when it was about to start getting interesting. What a letdown.

To put it short, the game just stopped when it was about to start getting interesting. What a letdown.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

K2 Endgame Spoiler and opinion:

 

 

Up until the last few areas, the game is excellent. The story begins losing steam as soon as the Jedi Masters are assassinated on Dantooine. Everything after that moment seemed rushed, like Obsidian was pressed for time and was desperately trying to create an ending that made sense. But after the climax - battling through the Trayus Academy to fight Darth Sion, and then finally Darth Traya - the story ends abruptly with little resolution. Indeed, after the final battle, you almost expect the game to last another 30 hours after it's revealed that there's an even greater threat beyond the Outer Rim! But no - instead, Darth Traya sums up the future of the galaxy and your companions through "splash screen" conversations, Fallout-style, and then a movie rolls showing the Ebon Hawk rising from within the surface of Malachor V as the planet is shattered once again by the power of the mass shadow device... and then it flies off into a nebula... and then you hear the Star Wars theme and the credits roll. No catharsis, no chance to meet with your companions one last time to tell them why you must leave them behind. In short, no satisfaction. KOTOR 2 felt like TESB: it was a darker story overall, but with great action, plot devices and revelations... but it ended with Luke falling down the shaft on Bespin.

 

The story is of quintessential inportance in a RPG, as few woul contest:

 

Hence many thus far have complained about the broken, unsatisfying ending; but as I've yet to finish my playthrough (despite having logged  40 hours thus far), I cannot comment on that facet.

 

However, what I have had the misfortune to experience is the gross overabundance of NPC exposition when the PC is not present (in constrast to direct dialogue & interaction used for character development in K1).  Obsidian is essentially inserting stagnant blocks into the story thereby creating psychic distance between the gamer and the character - this merely reminds the gamer that we're playing a game (though at times it feels like we're in fact watching a movie    ), instead of immersing us in a role playing experience.

 

Regardless, no matter how engaging and well written the exposition is, it won't engross the gamer's assiduity for long, because the role-player is not experiencing the gaming universe first hand.  <_<

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I stopped reading after trying to pronounce "quintessential". No, j/k. I do agree except for your comment on "creating psychic distance". I actually think that by putting these cutscenes, you realize that there are somethings your character does not know.

Perhaps they were striving to make a more cinematic RPG, which the Japanese market seems to both crave and pump out.

 

This is Star Wars after all.

Perhaps they were striving to make a more cinematic RPG, which the Japanese market seems to both crave and pump out.

 

This is Star Wars after all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

More cinematic than KOTOR I?

 

That would require quite a few extra hours of cutscenes.

KOTOR 1 is overrated I beleive, the story was a peice together of elements from other games and movies. At first it was great, then it just began to realy seem boring and more rip off like every time I replayed it. I haven't played KOTOR 2 but it sounds better than KOTOR 1

 

These are all just my opinions

I don't think KOTOR was one of the five best RPGs I've ever played. Maybe not even in the top 10, but it was one of the better games I played in 2003.

More cinematic than KOTOR I? 

 

That would require quite a few extra hours of cutscenes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There are 63 movies and many in-engine cutscenes. There are a crap load of movies.

There are 63 movies and many in-engine cutscenes. There are a crap load of movies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How does that compare to KOTOR? I never counted how many were in KOTOR I.

More cinematic than KOTOR I? 

 

That would require quite a few extra hours of cutscenes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There are 63 movies and many in-engine cutscenes. There are a crap load of movies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Indeed you are correct Maria. The vast quantity of in game cutscenes is jarring to the point of distraction.

The cutscenes are really short. Most are of you leaving/landing on a planet and ships fighting. I would say only a handful lasted longer than 15 seconds. It isn't that big a deal, considering you'll spend a good 45 hours (I spent 52) if you do the sidequests.