What we can do about the state of TSL

[Volourn]

"hell I played KOTOR some 60+ times before TSL came out)"

 

BLANK me up with a spagehtti driver!

 

 

That's all i gots to say...

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Yep. With that, I must agree, to a point at least. You have a certain advantage over Atton, and that's that all of your levels are Jedi levels. But it doesn't matter because at that level, combat never lasts more than three rounds. Either you die, or they do. I think the devs realized this a bit too late, and gimped the AI so you don't have to be constantly reloading. That's what happens when you stretch the ruleset too much.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

In solo combat that is balanced out by Attons stealth and insane sneak attack damage. I dare say from stealth he could kill my Weapon Master or hurt him enough to put him totally on the defensive. Atton isnt dumb after all like he said he knows how to kill Jedi , going head to head in that respect seems totally out of character for him.

 

Spot on with the rules observation. But KOTOR wasnt hard either I'd really like to see rewritten rules for number 3 myself.

[stop_him]

How could Atton beat Sion exactly?  Storywise I mean?

 

He's been training for what? A few weeks... Sion's a friggin Sith Lord.  Doesn't work that way unless you have what I like to call "The Skywalker Suffix" (ok, it's a surname but you know what I mean heh)... or if you're an amnesiac Dark Lord- that lets you get pretty awesome pretty fast too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True, but Atton was an assassin trained to kill Jedi and even the Sith with whom he worked had a hard time detecting his presence.

 

I imagine he could use the same tactics to Sion that he used on Jedi: Don't get close to them, gun down their allies - there's even ways of "gassing them, torturing them," etc. I mean, Atton was "really good at it."

[Stargate: 2000]

yes but sion saw through that techique when Kreia used it on him (when he cut off her hand she was hidding herself from him at the time).

[Ulicus]

How could Atton beat Sion exactly?  Storywise I mean?

 

He's been training for what? A few weeks... Sion's a friggin Sith Lord.  Doesn't work that way unless you have what I like to call "The Skywalker Suffix" (ok, it's a surname but you know what I mean heh)... or if you're an amnesiac Dark Lord- that lets you get pretty awesome pretty fast too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True, but Atton was an assassin trained to kill Jedi and even the Sith with whom he worked had a hard time detecting his presence.

 

I imagine he could use the same tactics to Sion that he used on Jedi: Don't get close to them, gun down their allies - there's even ways of "gassing them, torturing them," etc. I mean, Atton was "really good at it."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, but that's like saying you think Atton could use those techniques to kill Obi-Wan/Qui-Gon/Anakin/Yoda/Mace/Palapatine/Vader that he used to kill random Jedi.

 

Everyone knows that nameless/random Jedi (even random faceless Jedi Masters, like the dude who Jango Fett got- yeah he *was* a master, how ridiculous?) get killed, miss blaster shots and die a lot. Central protagonist/antagonist Jedi are invincible, hit every blaster shot with style unless fighting another Jedi at which point they lose limbs and get cut in half and scream "NOOO!!!" a lot.

 

Sion was one of the big three Sith Lords. Atton was a main character, but a *fledgling* Jedi. So not really in the same league.

[Dehumanizer]

ShadowPaladin: don't take this in a bad way, but it seems that you want the game to be driven by stats, not story. You want the game to be mostly about turning your party into an invincible force, defeating everything in their path, until they reach the final boss, defeat him, game over.

 

In other words, you want an Icewind Dale or, dare I say it, a Diablo, instead of something like PS:T or KOTOR 1. Nothing wrong with that, but KOTOR 2 should be - and is - story-driven, like the first game. Maybe, as Obi-Wan would say, "this is not the game you're looking for".

 

Have you played Lionheart? The first half of the game was nice, using the SPECIAL system from Fallout, having a nice plot, interesting NPCs and such. The second half of the game, however, is just a huge dungeon where nobody talks to you, everything attacks you, all the social skills you improved in the first half are useless. Everything about it screams "release it now, who cares if it's finished".

 

KOTOR 2 isn't as bad, but it's similar.

 

I believe that there will be patches to fix the scripting / ATI / stability bugs, and that's good. I also believe that there will be fan mods which restore most of the ripped-away ending - maybe with voices in a black background, or even some generic animations while the characters speak. But that will never be half as good as what Obsidian could do if they were allowed to finish their game. THAT's what I want, and what I think we should fight for.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

ShadowPaladin: don't take this in a bad way, but it seems that you want the game to be driven by stats, not story. You want the game to be mostly about turning your party into an invincible force, defeating everything in their path, until they reach the final boss, defeat him, game over.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nope your wrong , totally wrong couldnt be more wrong if you tried.

 

What I want is a story that RESPECTS the reality of the game not just makes stuff up because the writer thinks its a good idea.

 

If Atton sacrificed himself on Koriban so you could escape, that would respect the reality of the game. He's buying you time to get away. You know you cant defeat Sion at that point your not strong enough, and neither his he. But he's doing it so you can continue.

 

That works both as a story element and it also respects the reality of the reality of the setting.

 

If you are in the end game and he gets killed by Sio with his AC in the 50's and a lightsaber that can cut a banther in half. Then 5 minutes later you arrive and kill Sion with 1 critical strike, chat repeat till dead and he dosnt even get to hit you. Well there's something wrong there. Your character isnt special, your character isnt much tougher than Atton and the only reason Atton died is because the writer thought hey thats a great idea (but luckily someone thought otherwise). Which makes the whole death cheap and meaningless. Not to mention cheesey and unrealistic.

 

Like I said before would you be happy if you got to the end boss and just died?

Think about it.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Yes, but that's like saying you think Atton could use those techniques to kill Obi-Wan/Qui-Gon/Anakin/Yoda/Mace/Palapatine/Vader that he used to kill random Jedi.

 

Everyone knows that nameless/random Jedi (even random faceless Jedi Masters, like the dude who Jango Fett got- yeah he *was* a master, how ridiculous?) get killed, miss blaster shots and die a lot.  Central protagonist/antagonist Jedi are invincible, hit every blaster shot with style unless fighting another Jedi at which point they lose limbs and get cut in half and scream "NOOO!!!" a lot.

 

Sion was one of the big three Sith Lords.  Atton was a main character, but a *fledgling* Jedi.  So not really in the same league.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

They are only invincible because the story makes them that way. This is a game. If you kill them by the rules they are dead it's that simple. They are not special in a game. Your character WILL die if you dont play them right and although you can reload thats just to save people starting over.

 

Atton was in the same league as you. So care to explain why you could kill them in 2 rounds tops while he couldnt do the same with the exact same stats and equpment ? Save the whole he isnt a main character stuff thats irrelevent in a game.

[Dehumanizer]

ShadowPaladin: don't take this in a bad way, but it seems that you want the game to be driven by stats, not story. You want the game to be mostly about turning your party into an invincible force, defeating everything in their path, until they reach the final boss, defeat him, game over.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nope your wrong , totally wrong couldnt be more wrong if you tried.

 

What I want is a story that RESPECTS the reality of the game not just makes stuff up because the writer thinks its a good idea.

 

If Atton sacrificed himself on Koriban so you could escape, that would respect the reality of the game. He's buying you time to get away. You know you cant defeat Sion at that point your not strong enough, and neither his he. But he's doing it so you can continue.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sorry, but I disagree, again. You keep insisting that:

 

- any battles in the game must follow the rules, be "real" battles instead of scripted ones

 

- it's perfectly OK for a party member to defeat the main boss if his stats are enough to do that

 

- the writing is less important than stats, and writers should never "take control", but instead remain subjected to them

 

I can't agree with those. The rules of the game aren't perfect, and, as many have said, break down at higher levels. But that should NOT cripple storytelling, IMHO.

 

Besides, we're getting away from the point of this thread, aren't we?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Sorry, but I disagree, again. You keep insisting that:

 

- any battles in the game must follow the rules, be "real" battles instead of scripted ones

 

- it's perfectly OK for a party member to defeat the main boss if his stats are enough to do that

 

- the writing is less important than stats, and writers should never "take control", but instead remain subjected to them

 

I can't agree with those. The rules of the game aren't perfect, and, as many have said, break down at higher levels. But that should NOT cripple storytelling, IMHO.

 

Besides, we're getting away from the point of this thread, aren't we?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Only battles which involve your party. When Mira kills Hanhar it dosnt matter because you never know Hanhars capabilities anyway.

 

Scripted battles are fine for people not in your party. If you want a space battle with a set outcome then there is no problem. If you want a space battle with a set outcome that involves you then you need to be involved. Like the battle over Dxun. You could flee to the planet or you could fight. The outcome was the same but you got to give it your best shot and during that battle the ship will get hit at least once. Which enough for the two realities to not be odds.

 

Sure it is, your not some super powerful entity you dont hold the only weapon capable of inflicting the killing blow. So there is no reason why anyone else with the same abilities cant do what you do. Mandalore killed Nihilus in one my games he got in the last blow. It didnt make any difference to the story.

 

The writer should be paying attention to what the rules are reflecting or they should be writing books not games. If you can only tell your story by ignoring reality then your either poor writer or your in the wrong career and should be writing books.

 

You still havnt answered that important question which is would you be happy if you got to the end of the game and just died (regardless of your previous actions) just because the writer thought it was a good idea ?

[Dehumanizer]

Sure it is, your not some super powerful entity you dont hold the only weapon capable of inflicting the killing blow. So there is no reason why anyone else with the same abilities cant do what you do. Mandalore killed Nihilus in one my games he got in the last blow. It didnt make any difference to the story.

 

I don't mean, in a fight between the party and the boss, the final blow being from a party member. I mean in a battle where the player isn't fighting.

 

For instance, in KOTOR 1, when Bastila fights Malak (it was Malak, right? Or his number 2? I don't remember) one on one, telling the player to get away, and the door closes. What if the player had done every single sub-quest in the game and Bastila was *really* powerful, stats-wise? Should she just defeat Malak then and there? You probably think so, I don't - the plot calls for her to be captured, so that's what should happen.

 

The writer should be paying attention to what the rules are reflecting or they should be writing books not games. If you can only tell your story by ignoring reality then your either poor writer or your in the wrong career and should be writing books.

 

Game rules and stats are not reality, but an approximation. Should Luke have had to hit Vader in RotJ several times, because there was no way to take away all his hit points just by hitting his lightsaber?

 

You still havnt answered that important question which is would you be happy if you got to the end of the game and just died (regardless of your previous actions) just because the writer thought it was a good idea ?

 

I'd call that bad writing. But *good* writing should be more important than the CRPG rules or stats. Some games do have unhappy endings, no matter how you play, BTW.

[stoo]

IMO, the scripted ending might be sw-like or not, good or bad, cruel or cheesy, whatever, but at least it is an ending, and it pertains to the game (which can't be said of the provided 'ending' -which to call an 'ending' at all is about over-stretching the meaning of the word itself-).

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I don't mean, in a fight between the party and the boss, the final blow being from a party member. I mean in a battle where the player isn't fighting.

 

For instance, in KOTOR 1, when Bastila fights Malak (it was Malak, right? Or his number 2? I don't remember) one on one, telling the player to get away, and the door closes. What if the player had done every single sub-quest in the game and Bastila was *really* powerful, stats-wise? Should she just defeat Malak then and there? You probably think so, I don't - the plot calls for her to be captured, so that's what should happen.

 

Game rules and stats are not reality, but an approximation. Should Luke have had to hit Vader in RotJ several times, because there was no way to take away all his hit points just by hitting his lightsaber?

 

I'd call that bad writing. But *good* writing should be more important than the CRPG rules or stats. Some games do have unhappy endings, no matter how you play, BTW.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well the games already cheesed at that point since I killed Malak before the cutscene played.

Plus the only way they could stop you killing him at that point was by CHEATING and paralysing you with no saves, paying no attention to your equipment or class (sentinels cant be stunned and or paralysed so I just call Malak a cheating piece of excrement and Bioware a bunch of hacks). Since they are breaking the rules of reality in order to get their half assed story out.

 

Your WRONG game rules are reality. Try using force wave before level 15, cant right. Why because the games rules are your reality. Try walking through a wall, nope cant do that either because the game rules are your reality and a million other things that I cant be bothered to type. What happens in game is dictated by those rules and thats reality. If you never leveled up you would die a long time before you ever got to the end and thats reality your not protected by some grand destiny because of who you are. And that is reality.

 

Films are not games. They are not relevent to what happens in games , same with books.

 

Writing that ignores reality is not good writing.

 

Umm you still havnt answered my question either is that because you cant answer it or because you dont want to answer it ?

[Darth Drabek]

When Leia was giving Luke the tongue on Hoth, that was just wrong.  It was Star Wars going to the Kentucky backwoods.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you look close, you can see Obi-Wan's force ghost trying to stop that debacle.

 

"NOOOOOOOOO!"

 

[Dehumanizer]

Your WRONG game rules are reality. Try using force wave before level 15, cant right. Why because the games rules are your reality. Try walking through a wall, nope cant do that either because the game rules are your reality and a million other things that I cant be bothered to type. What happens in game is dictated by those rules and thats reality. If you never leveled up you would die a long time before you ever got to the end and thats reality your not protected by some grand destiny because of who you are. And that is reality.

 

I disagree. Rules serve the game, and the story, not the other way around. But I can see that I'll never convice you otherwise, and it's OK. Let me tell you, though, good think that we don't play P&P RPGs in the same group - you're sure to be what is called a "rules lawyer". (see http://sy.cowiki.org/566.html )

 

Umm you still havnt answered my question either is that because you cant answer it or because you dont want to answer it ?

 

But I did answer. You asked what I'd think if I got to the end and just died, I answered that I'd call it bad writing, but a game doesn't necessarily have to have a "happy ending".

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I disagree. Rules serve the game, and the story, not the other way around. But I can see that I'll never convice you otherwise, and it's OK. Let me tell you, though, good think that we don't play P&P RPGs in the same group - you're sure to be what is called a "rules lawyer". (see http://sy.cowiki.org/566.html )

 

But I did answer. You asked what I'd think if I got to the end and just died, I answered that I'd call it bad writing, but a game doesn't necessarily have to have a "happy ending".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No a rules lawyer is someone who sticks to the letter of the rules. That is not what this is about. This is about the DM/writer ignoring everything the character has done and accomplished to the this point in order to tell their whack job story.

 

Exactly so if it's bad writing to completely ignore the PC's accomplishments it's equally bad to ignore anyone elses because in the world setting there is nothing that makes Atton or anyone else less real than the PC. They deserve an equal chance to survive by the rules.

 

So your the one who is a bad roleplayer here because you see the people who occupy the world as nothing more than dvices to fuel your own ego. Something I got over a long time ago.

[Dehumanizer]

No a rules lawyer is someone who sticks to the letter of the rules. That is not what this is about. This is about the DM/writer ignoring everything the character has done and accomplished to the this point in order to tell their whack job story.

A rules lawyer is more than that. It's someone who is obsessed with every little detail of the rules, to the detriment of everything else, including the story and the enjoyment of other players.

 

And as to "writer ignoring everything the character has done and accomplished to the this point in order to tell their whack job story", two points:

 

- first, that's not what you wrote in all your other posts. What you complained about was that it wasn't right for a "uber-stats" party member to automatically be defeated by the final boss for plot reasons, when stats-wise he could probably win. That's a "rules are everything" attitude, if you ask me.

 

- second, if you don't care about the writers' "whack job story", why are you playing their game? Maybe you are really looking for a different kind of game... nothing wrong with that, of course.

 

So your the one who is a bad roleplayer here because you see the people who occupy the world as nothing more than dvices to fuel your own ego. Something I got over a long time ago.

Hey, I didn't call you a "bad roleplayer". You just have different tastes from mine - or those of KOTOR's (1 and 2) authors'.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

A rules lawyer is more than that. It's someone who is obsessed with every little detail of the rules, to the detriment of everything else, including the story and the enjoyment of other players.

 

And as to "writer ignoring everything the character has done and accomplished to the this point in order to tell their whack job story", two points:

 

- first, that's not what you wrote in all your other posts. What you complained about was that it wasn't logically for a "uber-stats" party member to automatically be defeated by the final boss for plot reasons, when stats-wise he could probably win. That's a "rules are everything" attitude, if you ask me.

 

- second, if you don't care about the writers' "whack job story", why are you playing their game? Maybe you are really looking for a different kind of game... nothing wrong with that, of course.

 

Hey, I didn't call you a "bad roleplayer". You just have different tastes than mine - or the KOTOR (1 and 2) authors.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

A rules lawyer is someone who plays by every little niggly rule. Thats a far cry from someone who just wants the game to maintain some semblemce of realism and immersion.

 

Same difference , just different use of language. It makes no sense that a character is simply sacrificed on the alter of storytelling whether it be one you have created or one that travels with you. It can be done and it can be done well but in KOTOR II it would have been trite and unrealistic and totally ruined the believability of the game. Thats a reality is everything attitude if you ask me

 

You wouldnt accept automatic death for your character so why should I accept it for someone I travel with ?

 

Yes well you obviously see your companions as a way to advance your ego. It's a common thing in CRPGs. It's the I am all important attitude and everything else in the game is there to facilitate that. It's very common in NwN players.

 

I on the other hand see them as much as part of the world as my character is. They are no less real because I did not create and they deserve to be treated with the same considerations and the same reality that my character is. Or the whole concept of reality and thus the immersion of the game is broken.

 

The sad thing is that 99% of the time this sort of forced storytelling is not required anyway. It would take oh about 5 minutes to come up with a non cheesey Malak encounter. So what if you kill him with saber throw as he runs to the tanks ? Thats much less damaging that having him immortal until he's fully healed thats just cheap.

[213374U]

The sad thing is that 99% of the time this sort of forced storytelling is not required anyway. It would take oh about 5 minutes to come up with a non cheesey Malak encounter. So what if you kill him with saber throw as he runs to the tanks ? Thats much less damaging that having him immortal until he's fully healed thats just cheap.

No, I don't think so. That might be true for K1, but to do as they planned in K2 and still have it be 'by the rules', would have required a major rebalancing, removal of the scaling, revision of the AI scripts, and probably restitution of the level cap. That would take a bit longer than 5 minutes...

[Msxyz]

The "Atton death" was only one of the things cut. There were other endings, with other bosses, other missions cut out (HK droid firm), more NPC dialogues options and cutscenes.

 

This is what I want to be restored

[Ashe]

Yeah true. I'd like to see the droid factory, amongst other things. The Atton debate has more or less been done to death, except that I personally agree that the provided ending is pants, but on the whole, I'd rather half my characters didn't die, thank you very much. Leave 'em barely alive, and in prime location to be rescued, but give me an opportunity to mount a heroic rescue (with all that entails). Star Wars had always been about heroes and villains, good vs. evil. While often dramatic and emotional, I'm not sure that a phyrric victory or one of those "well, all my friends died... but I won" endings is apropriate to the setting, unless maybe at a stretch you're talking an ESB/ROTS kind of deal (bad things just happened, but there's another episode to set it all right.)

 

 

I'm just a sucker for a happy ending, really.

[Malagance]

I agree with Shadowpaladin on this one. Cases like these really bug me. It cheapens a character if they're absolutely slaughtered without even being given a chance to fight, what's the point of leveling or using him then, if you know it's all pointless?

 

That's really what disgusted me with KOTOR2's ending. All that time I spent getting influence and turning companions into jedi was completely and totally pointless. You might as well solo the game, because your stats are the only ones that matter as is. At least Mira has some sort of an endgame type thing where her stats WILL matter as she fights Hanharr again on Malachor V.

 

I think that an honest solution to this would have been to up Sion's power to where it should have been. That way, if this ending were to be put in, you could fight Sion as Atton, lose, and then have whatever happen instead of ending the game. Or keep it as is, and since Atton doesn't have a clue about what's going on, he can't weaken Sion or kill him permanently, therefore he will eventually die. The difference is that when your character comes along, you know how to get Sion to give up for good, allowing you to "win" the fight and move on.

 

My point is that I understand where most of you are coming from but that there are a lot of people who have their suspension of disbelief shot to HELL when they see something happen that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever in terms of the game rules. It is not hard at all to do storytelling within a game without utterly disregarding the game rules. When you're in a game, these rules might as well be the laws of physics, why sucker punch the physicists? (Besides the obvious answer of "Because they're physicists and nasal-voiced scientists piss me off" While this is a valid answer, it isn't exactly relevant to the situation )

 

What we have here is a textbook example of gamer types and what they prefer, but what we also have here is a stupid example of how to piss off both types when it's reasonably possible to please both types.

[Volourn]

I smell SP is flipfloopping. Elsewhere, SP was arguing that story comes first. ie. The player FORCED to play certain characters, the player FORCED to keep certain npcs in the party; etc., etc.

 

I smell a huge flip flopping here.

[bob_the_kitty_hunter]

Err, uh... Well, since the argument was partially about: OMGOMGOMGOMG! You l0sars! Atton cewd t0t4lly kixx0rz Sion's arse!

 

I somehow doubt that. Sion is supposedly unkillable. The Exile was only able to kill him because he/she broke down his will, or something, then convinced him to die at the end. The Exile made Sion want to die, somewhat. I doubt Atton could even think of that or would even affect Sion in such a way. Sion knew that what the Exile was saying was more or less true, and knew that the Exile was plenty strong. Atton, well, as we can see from the cut dialogue, Sion thinks of Atton as a fool and wouldn't give a damn about his words, really. Even IF you fought Sion as Atton, even IF you killed him, he would just keep coming back till Atton dies or to some point where Sion gets tired of fighting and such force crushes or force storms Atton or something.

 

Besides, happy endings are boring. :/

 

EDIT: Also, like Msxyz has said, that was only one of the many things cut out. You could just leave that out, but all the other things would more or less fit and make sense.