Why think KotORII sucked?

[Darth Kavar]

Oh and I know this is gonna sound a little whiny and stuff but as for storyline -> why K2 wasn't so good? -> 1 word - Kreia.

She's planned from the beginning as the never showing weakness nor 'ever feeling stupid' manipulator and main game character but they failed completely in making her all that.

 

 

There's thousands of occasions on which you can say sth that'd make her feel extremely stupid yet the only thing you can say is "and what would you do?" "and what do you think is right?" and later "I understand" or "I'll kill you if you lecture me again".

 

So to make Kreia great they made the exile stupid and please - who likes to play a dumbass?

 

In K1 you could be

Darth Revan - Malak's MASTER, HK-47's MASTER, Canderous' BOSS, Bastila's LOVER, Zalbar's MASTER, called the Heart of the Force in K2

and everyone who pissed you off could pay a terrible price for it.

 

Yet in K2 you were

the Exile - Kreia's APPRENTICE, HK-47's MASTER yet he hates to call you so and is arrogant as hell this time, Mandalore's SCHAUFFEUR to find other mandalorians, Mira's BOUNTY, Goto's on your ship ordering you around and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it and finally you're a wound in the force.

Most of the people who annoyed you or hurt you end up laughing and unharmed.

[sotos]

I agree that K1 had better graphics -> just look at the sky in Dantooine in K1 and then in K2. Look at Taris, then at Nar Shaddaa, look at Kashyyk - then at Dxun. Just too many examples of where in K1 I just stood and marvelled at the sights, the beauty of the enviroment of the SW worlds -> and that was on MEDIUM QUALITY graphics setting!!!!

 

In K2 I just couldn't look at medium so I turned it on high but still it's... uhh when I see a blue sky in an only half-year old game have like only 5 variations of blue - (the gradient (?) or how's it called then) I really wish I could extract those textures and make them better even with my average graphic abilities.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Both use the same 3d Engine

 

But KOTOR1 had better Textures

 

Bioware had done a better work apparently

[Kalfear]

posted by Kalfear

(Illbleed @ May 5 2005, 03:54 PM)

*playtime

My first playthrough took me about 32 hours with most of the quests done.

In K1 it took me almost 50 hours and there were a lot of unsolved/undiscovered sidequests.

 

 

Its stuff like this I just dont get.

K2 was a larger game, the storylines were less linear then K1. So how do you explain taking 18 extra hours on K1?

 

I mean if you liked K1 more thats fine, say that and no one should take exception as both were great games. But to say K1 takes 18 hours (minimum ) more is just wrong. Thats like saying JE takes 40+ hours to play.

 

I truely wish people would stop this stuff.

 

It's a fact. K1 took me almost 50 hours to finish, K2 about 32. If you like K2 more thats fine but don't say it's wrong .... i can send you the final savegames if you don't believe.

 

Sorry, I dont buy it. Its the same for those that say JE takes 40+ hours to play. Its unrealistic. I dont care if you have a save game file that shows 50+ hours, that doesnt prove a thing what so ever other then game ran for that amount of time. Doesnt mean you were actively playing it for that amount of time.

 

FACT is K2 was slightly longer then K1, but even if you said K1 took 32 hours and K2 took 50 hours Id call BS on yas. 18 hour difference between the two (more really as you said you didnt complete all the K1 side quests) is NOT in the realm of reality.

 

Both games complete in a 3-5 hour window of each other, not a 18+ hour window.

 

posted by Kalfear

(Illbleed @ May 5 2005, 03:54 PM)

 

*combat

Too unbalanced

 

 

hmmmm interesting.

 

Since K1 and K2 were almost identical in combat (K2 was slightly harder but nothing that warrents any real distinction), im wondering how you came to this conclusion?

 

Again, just say you liked K1 more, dont make up false reasons to validate your opinion.

 

Take a look to some rpg forums ... there are a lot of people who agree with me.

Ever heard of the force bugs? Ever heard of the Rebalance or Hardcore mod?

There is a reason why these mods are made.

 

hehe, I think everyone here knows Im VERY active on the different RPG forums. So why should I take alook at what Ive already seen?

 

Sure some agree with yas, most however dont.

 

If you break it all down, K1 and K2 were pretty much the same difficulty with the exception of Malacor5 compared to Star Forge. Academy was definately harder then Star Forge was but Malak was harder then Kreia. In the end it all balances out.

 

posted by Kalfear

(Illbleed @ May 5 2005, 03:54 PM)

*graphics

It's a fact .... K1 looks better than K2. You don't think so? Take a look at HK47 or some of the alien textures. The planet surfaces and interiors too.

 

 

its a fact is it?

 

Wow, I must have missed that memo since both games use the EXACT same engine and graphics!!!! ROFLMAO!

 

Again, just say you liked K1 more, dont make up false reasons to validate your opinion.

 

 

OMG just take a look. Install K1 again .... play it and then play K2. You really need glasses if you don't see the difference. It's the same engine, yeah, this is why i do not understand the worse graphics (less effects).

 

 

posted by Kalfear

Sorry for tearing apart your post but Im getting tired of people making up false stuff about games to try and validate their opinions (be it KotOR1 or 2, JE, Civ 3, what ever).

 

I don't care if a game is made by Obsidian or Bioware or EA or whatever.

There is no reason for me to tell "false stuff" about K2 .... i waited for this game since i finished K1 for the first time. I had a lot of fun playing it. But K1 was better in my opinion .... i am tired of people who can't stand criticism on their favourite game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

See thats all you have to say. I accept that (as im sure others do). You prefered K1. All the power to you.

 

I prefered K2 myself but Im not going to sit here and tell you that K2 took 18 hours more to finish, that K2 was the tougher game, ect ect ect.

 

Ill stick to the valid and provable points OR make sure opinionated statements are known as just that...OPINION. Opinion is hardly fact tho, just personal preference.

 

K2 had the better storyline IMO.

K2 had the more interesting party NPCs IMO.

K2 had a more mature storyline IMO (and Volos to, she just being difficult and refuses to admit it ).

Visas is the very definition of sexuality in RPGs (ok thats one is fact not opinion )

 

Illbleed should be drawn and quartered for mentioning Visas in the same vein as Go-To!!!!!!! (thats just crimes against humanity after all!!!!)

 

hehehe

[Brickyard]

FACT is K2 was slightly longer then K1, but even if you said K1 took 32 hours and K2 took 50 hours Id call BS on yas. 18 hour difference between the two (more really as you said you didnt complete all the K1 side quests) is NOT in the realm of reality.

 

Both games complete in a 3-5 hour window of each other, not a 18+ hour window.

 

Since K1 and K2 were almost identical in combat (K2 was slightly harder but nothing that warrents any real distinction), im wondering how you came to this conclusion?

 

hehe, I think everyone here knows Im VERY active on the different RPG forums. So why should I take alook at what Ive already seen?

 

Sure some agree with yas, most however dont.

 

If you break it all down, K1 and K2 were pretty much the same difficulty with the exception of Malacor5 compared to Star Forge. Academy was definately harder then Star Forge was but Malak was harder then Kreia. In the end it all balances out.

 

Interesting stuff.

 

For me, K1 took longer than K2. Not 18 hours longer, but longer. As far as I can tell, my first play-through on each pretty much fully explored everything I could as a Light Side character, but I could have missed things in each game, for sure.

 

As for graphics, overall K1 is better than K2, mostly in scenery (the world atmosphere).

 

As for interesting places, in K2 you have Nar Shaadda, and a bunch of dullish type planets. I found Dantooine slightly interesting in K2, but beyond that, not much of interest. Telos, outside of Atris' stronghold, was rather dull to me, and Korriban was almost non-existant. Dxun/Onderan were, individually, pretty sparse, but combined seemed on the level of Dantooine. M5 was atrocious.

 

In K1, I found Taris pretty intriguing, as well as Dantooine and Korriban. Manaan...not so much. And the mystery planet seemed rather uninspired, also.

 

As for combat, K1 was much more challenging than K2, in all ways. First time through I had all kinds of troubles on the Star Forge, while in K2, I put the game on hard to hopefully give myself a challenge in the Trayus Academy (didn't work). Combat in K2 was, for me, largely an uninvolved affair. I simply didn't ever need to DO anything about 90% of the time. In K1 there were times when I had to use strategy (very seldom, but they existed). In K2, the only time I had to make an effort was when I was Mira on Nar Shaadda, and I intentionlly didn't level her when I got control. That took some doing to get out of on normal settings (I wanted her to get as many Jedi levels as possible, just like in my now-halted 2nd playthrough as DS, I didn't level Atton at all until I converted him to a Jedi - this made some early combat challenging, though not much).

 

As for the whole "mature" plot line thing, I don't find K2 any more mature than K1. Different, yes, but not more "mature". It's darker, for sure, but that doesn't make it mature. Just darker. My main problem with K2 is that from the beginning, I wanted to kill Kreia, and yet I was stuck with her as a teacher. I suspected her to be evil from the first chat (as my LS char), and in the end, even though she's "neutral", she really is a form of "evil". Yet I was stuck with her from day 1. Only got through Peragus, Telos and a little of Nar Shaadda as my DS char, and I thought I would like her better, but I actually like her less this time.

 

It was very transparant to me from that first conversation with Kreia that she was the final boss I'd have to fight, yet I could do NOTHING about it.

 

In K1, I'll admit I had no idea that I was Revan, and therefore I liked the twist. For someone who saw it coming, I can see how it would be predictable. My brother-in-law could see the twist in Sixth Sense coming, and because of that, he doesn't really think the movie is all that good. But I didn't see it, and so my feelings on the movie are that it's one of the best twists ever.

[Brickyard]

K2 had the more interesting party NPCs IMO.

Visas is the very definition of sexuality in RPGs (ok thats one is fact not opinion )

 

 

Carth - dull

Bastilla - interesting

Mission - interesting

Zaalbar - boring Wookie

Jolee - awesome

Juhani - liked her lots

Canderous - dull

T3 - meh

HK - great

 

Atton - interesting

Kreia - moody and annoying - incredibly annoying

T3 - meh

HK - good, but not as good as in the first one

Handmaiden - interesting

Visas - almost interesting

Mira - almost interesting

Mandalore - dull

Hanharr - boring Wookiee (so far)

Disciple - no idea

Goto - annoying

Bao-Dur - interesting

 

I don't know if Visas is better as a DS person or not, but as LS, she just wasn't deep enough for me. I think I learned about 90% of her in the first 5 minute conversation. From that point on, she was a body just like the rest of my crew (apart from the ever-annoying Kreia).

 

In general, I find the NPCs in K2 to lack a story that feels....lengthy. They have deep-seeming backstories, but there's just not a whole lot of exploring of those in the game (or it all happens at once). Only Handmaiden has one that SEEMS deeper, but that's due to the level limits on when you can fight her, so it's really just forced.

 

But then again, I've only played LS in K2, so there may be some DS options I've not seen yet.

 

But I do know that I have no clue WHY Visas went from DS to full LS in the space of one converstation after I didn't kill her when she attacked me.

 

Overall I'd rate the K1 NPCs slightly better than the K2 ones. But I would also rate the KOTOR (both 1 and 2) NPCs as a group only behind the BG2 NPCs (best ever). Both K games have better NPCs than any of the NWN games, for sure.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

  My brother-in-law could see the twist in Sixth Sense coming, and because of that, he doesn't really think the movie is all that good.  But I didn't see it, and so my feelings on the movie are that it's one of the best twists ever.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That ones so easy to spot. No one actually reacts to Bruce except for the kid who sees dead people. It's a major give away.

 

Bioware are masters of obvious storytelling. They start off telling an ok story then they ruin it by sticking in so many obvious clues that it gives the game away. Jade Empire is exactly the same. The story twist is given away long before it happens. I'd worked it out before chapter I was over although it was a case of a badly done cinematic which didnt fit with what you were told.

[Darth Kavar]

"K2 had the better storyline IMO" -> oh yes it did but after rebuilt enclave it sucked.

 

"K2 had the more interesting party NPCs IMO" -> everybody had a disturbing past, Kreia was so interesting that they made you the 2nd most important char in the game. Almost everyone except for T3, Bao and Visas was like "in reality it is I who am the master!".

 

"K2 had a more mature storyline IMO" -> oh yes but the dialog options for the Exile are a great counterattack to that maturity (sp?) not to mention his [sarcasm]mature[/sarcasm] decisions throughout the game which are forced upon you.

 

You're pretty much right but in my opinion on the other hand every good thing about K2 has it's depressing attachment.

[Grone]

"It's a fact. K1 took me almost 50 hours to finish, K2 about 32. If you like K2 more thats fine but don't say it's wrong .... i can send you the final savegames if you don't believe."

 

Both games took me 24 hours to finish. If you don't believe me, look at MY savegames.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Kreia was a refreshing blow of air in contrast to that hideous woman Bastila.

 

EDIT: I don't remember who asked but I've played both games as both light and dark.

[Darth Kavar]

"Kreia was a refreshing blow of air in contrast to that hideous woman Bastila."

 

Well it depends on what turns you on j/k

 

Honestly Kreia was the most hated by me character (acctually not her but the way they fixed everything around her in K2) but I ain't gonna ramble about her anymore cuz I've done it in too many threads.

[Illbleed]

@Kalfear

 

Okay, i just wrote down my expierences with K1 compared to K2 and you teared apart (to use your own words) my post. You said that i wrote down "false stuff" about K2 which isn't the truth.

But youre right - its all about personal preferences. There is no need to start a lightsaber-fight.

 

Well, Visas is definitely the hottest KotOR-female but thats one of the reasons why i was so disappointed about her ... i wanted to hear more about her past life ..... her planet and her story (like Juhani). But most of the stuff she has to say is about her master and you can read almost all of it when she joins the party.

 

And YES - K1 took me almost 18 hours more than K2 - maybe its because the foreign people had more to say in K1 .... i never skip dialouges and i talk with everyone i meet in the games. So stop tellin me its unrealistic.

[Kalfear]

 

"PS: Question Grunker (not meant as a flame). You state your a role player. Im seeing this statement more and more on the web now aday for single player games.

 

What exactly do you do in game that makes you a roleplayer? See in a MMORPG roleplayers play a role and interact with others incharacter. In P&P you play a role and interact with other people incharacter.

 

In a single player RPG you DONT interact (which is the fundemental aspect of roleplaying) with other players because, well your alone! Hense why its called a single player game.

 

Sure you play a role, every single person that plays the game does, with in the paramenters of the game design. But to hear folks now adays, you dont consider every single person that plays game to be a roleplayer.

 

So my question is, what exactly do you do that makes you a role player rather then a player like everyone else in a single player game?

 

As I said, this not meant as a flame, im seriously wondering how you get the distinction.

 

Im an old MMORPG Role Player (back in oNWN on AOL in 1990). There I role played a drow by learning to speak the special language, writting stories, and trying to stay incharacter during impromptu conversations and situations while ingame. I played the role and interacted with others. So as a true Role Player from many years ago, the obviously new classification confuses me and Im just looking for someone to explain it to me please."

 

RolePlaying Gaming is charachterized by interacting with others in a (in the rules of the world you're playing in) realistic surroundings. The key to roleplaying is being able to identify with you charachter, and like when you're drawn into a book you're reading, be drawn into that character.

 

PCRPG (Personal Computer RolePlaying Gaming) must fill out some criteria to call itself an RPG. All uncommon persons in the game must have dialogue. A good PCRPG must have long, realistic and deep dialogue, especially for more important persons.

 

PCRPG is also characterized by free options. You choose where to go, when to go there, who to speak to and which quest to concentrate on, contrary to other games where the game chooses for you.

 

Besides that, RPG is more philosophical and more set upon bringing the player into the game than giving the player an actionfilled experience.

 

I've played D&D(Dungeons and Dragons), AD&D (Advanced Dungeons and Dragons), GURPS (Generic Universal RolePlaying System), Storyteller, White Wolf, and other systems for over seven years now, and I still play both that and Live Roleplaying including semi-live. AND I've written my own compendium filling out 150 pages so I think I've earned the right to say I know what I speak of

 

I don't take it as a flame, I'm actually glad that the question is posed because I agree that the term is misunderstood often. Just the other day, one of my friends call Deer Hunter an RPG *SHIVER*

 

But by the looks of the posts on this topic, KotORII isn't as hated as I thought it was thank god.

 

To the one who said Bioware has many fans:

 

Doesn't Obsidian to? I mean they're the old Black Isle.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Grunker,

 

Sorry but im not following your answer here. I know what makes an RPG games.

 

What I dont understand is what you (and others) do that seems to seperate yourselves from other players.

 

IE: why are you considered a Roleplayer but player B isnt?

 

Everyone tries to identify with their character so some degree, so immersion isnt the answer.

 

Everyone has the same level of cutomization so thats not the ticket.

 

Like I said, In a Single Player RPG I would never call myself a roleplayer because Single Player RPGs lack the fundamental aspects needed to Roleplay successfully.

 

The game itself can be clasified as a RPG because its focas is on the storyline rather then action. successful RPGs make you care about the character you play and the npc characters in the game. A unsuccessful one fails in that aspect. but neither (no matter how well done) allows the player to be a "roleplayer" any more or less then the next person playing.

 

As I said before, I use to roleplay in oNWN on AOL. To do that I:

1) Learned to speak (communicate) in the Drow language

2) Wrote interactive stories weekly about my character in the setting

3) Stayed in character while in game (didnt talk about last nights awsome Hockey game out loud, ect), replied as my character I was roleplaying would reply to other players.

 

I played D&D and AD&D, as a player and as a DM, as well as countless other RPG games. But none of that relates to the clasification of roleplaying in a single player RPG game, so still lost to be honest as why 1 person thinks they are a roleplayer in KotOR1 or 2 (or JE) and the next player isnt?

 

An example would be the statement Volo half jokingly adds to her posts often. "True Roleplayers think JE>KotOR". LOL, whats a true Roleplayer in a Single Player RPG????? Near as I can tell I use to be a true Roleplayer (*use to be, became to much work, lol) in oNWN but dont see how that effects single player RPGs? I know roleplaying in MMORPGs almost doesnt exist anymore or what is clasified as roleplaying is extreamly dumbed down from what use to be clasified as Roleplaying, but thats MMORPGs, Im refering specifically to Single Player RPGs in my question to you

 

Looking forward to your reply

[Sir Fink]

But in a CRPG, it's the roleplaying that counts, and that was good.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It was the LACK of role playing in Kotor II that bugged me the most. Yes, the ending sucked. Yes it was a little buggy, but it was the complete lack of choices as I made my way through the game that really killed it for me.

 

Half the game was just watching cut-scenes. I'm not sure how you think that qualifies as "owned" RP-wise, but christ, give me a couple choices at least. Most of the choices in the game were illusions, i.e. it really didn't matter what you said or how you went about things, you always got the same result in the end.

 

Sure, there were a few minor choices similar to Kotor 1, i.e. will you work for the good guys or the bad guys, but no matter which side you chose you always ended up with the same end results. You literally could just randomly click dialog choices and always end up with the same loot, the same henchmen, the same ending.

 

This was all especially disappointing to me considering the prior work of some of Kotor II's designers, i.e. Fallout and Planescape: Torment. Now those were CRPGs where you had a ton of choices; where you could just wander freely all over the map and stumble upon all sorts of surprises. And these are the guys who gave us Kotor 2? What the heck happened to these guys in 10 years?

[ncr]

I could be wrong, but I think a lot of the "lack of consequences for choices" has to due to with the cut content.

[Grone]

 

"PS: Question Grunker (not meant as a flame). You state your a role player. Im seeing this statement more and more on the web now aday for single player games.

 

What exactly do you do in game that makes you a roleplayer? See in a MMORPG roleplayers play a role and interact with others incharacter. In P&P you play a role and interact with other people incharacter.

 

In a single player RPG you DONT interact (which is the fundemental aspect of roleplaying) with other players because, well your alone! Hense why its called a single player game.

 

Sure you play a role, every single person that plays the game does, with in the paramenters of the game design. But to hear folks now adays, you dont consider every single person that plays game to be a roleplayer.

 

So my question is, what exactly do you do that makes you a role player rather then a player like everyone else in a single player game?

 

As I said, this not meant as a flame, im seriously wondering how you get the distinction.

 

Im an old MMORPG Role Player (back in oNWN on AOL in 1990). There I role played a drow by learning to speak the special language, writting stories, and trying to stay incharacter during impromptu conversations and situations while ingame. I played the role and interacted with others. So as a true Role Player from many years ago, the obviously new classification confuses me and Im just looking for someone to explain it to me please."

 

RolePlaying Gaming is charachterized by interacting with others in a (in the rules of the world you're playing in) realistic surroundings. The key to roleplaying is being able to identify with you charachter, and like when you're drawn into a book you're reading, be drawn into that character.

 

PCRPG (Personal Computer RolePlaying Gaming) must fill out some criteria to call itself an RPG. All uncommon persons in the game must have dialogue. A good PCRPG must have long, realistic and deep dialogue, especially for more important persons.

 

PCRPG is also characterized by free options. You choose where to go, when to go there, who to speak to and which quest to concentrate on, contrary to other games where the game chooses for you.

 

Besides that, RPG is more philosophical and more set upon bringing the player into the game than giving the player an actionfilled experience.

 

I've played D&D(Dungeons and Dragons), AD&D (Advanced Dungeons and Dragons), GURPS (Generic Universal RolePlaying System), Storyteller, White Wolf, and other systems for over seven years now, and I still play both that and Live Roleplaying including semi-live. AND I've written my own compendium filling out 150 pages so I think I've earned the right to say I know what I speak of

 

I don't take it as a flame, I'm actually glad that the question is posed because I agree that the term is misunderstood often. Just the other day, one of my friends call Deer Hunter an RPG *SHIVER*

 

But by the looks of the posts on this topic, KotORII isn't as hated as I thought it was thank god.

 

To the one who said Bioware has many fans:

 

Doesn't Obsidian to? I mean they're the old Black Isle.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Grunker,

 

Sorry but im not following your answer here. I know what makes an RPG games.

 

What I dont understand is what you (and others) do that seems to seperate yourselves from other players.

 

IE: why are you considered a Roleplayer but player B isnt?

 

Everyone tries to identify with their character so some degree, so immersion isnt the answer.

 

Everyone has the same level of cutomization so thats not the ticket.

 

Like I said, In a Single Player RPG I would never call myself a roleplayer because Single Player RPGs lack the fundamental aspects needed to Roleplay successfully.

 

The game itself can be clasified as a RPG because its focas is on the storyline rather then action. successful RPGs make you care about the character you play and the npc characters in the game. A unsuccessful one fails in that aspect. but neither (no matter how well done) allows the player to be a "roleplayer" any more or less then the next person playing.

 

As I said before, I use to roleplay in oNWN on AOL. To do that I:

1) Learned to speak (communicate) in the Drow language

2) Wrote interactive stories weekly about my character in the setting

3) Stayed in character while in game (didnt talk about last nights awsome Hockey game out loud, ect), replied as my character I was roleplaying would reply to other players.

 

I played D&D and AD&D, as a player and as a DM, as well as countless other RPG games. But none of that relates to the clasification of roleplaying in a single player RPG game, so still lost to be honest as why 1 person thinks they are a roleplayer in KotOR1 or 2 (or JE) and the next player isnt?

 

An example would be the statement Volo half jokingly adds to her posts often. "True Roleplayers think JE>KotOR". LOL, whats a true Roleplayer in a Single Player RPG????? Near as I can tell I use to be a true Roleplayer (*use to be, became to much work, lol) in oNWN but dont see how that effects single player RPGs? I know roleplaying in MMORPGs almost doesnt exist anymore or what is clasified as roleplaying is extreamly dumbed down from what use to be clasified as Roleplaying, but thats MMORPGs, Im refering specifically to Single Player RPGs in my question to you

 

Looking forward to your reply

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm not sure I quite follow you, but I'll give my respond to what I did understand

 

Now, if I understand you right, I think we might have misunderstood each other. Nothing seperates player A from player B in a single player RPG game, and I never said there was anything seperating them. What I said was the roleplaying options the GAME offered. We as players aren't much different from each other when it comes to identifying with the character, acting realistic in the enviroments the game sets for us etc.

 

The question is if the game LETS us do this.

 

Which brings me to what I meant: KotORII was good because it offered enviroments and (so I believe, contrary to many others it seems ) goot dialogue options etc. AND on top of that it posed paradoxes and interesting storyline, and THAT made it a good CRPG.

 

Now I've got a question for you: When did you get the idea that I thought anything different of player A and player B?

 

Because other than a roleplayer is more used to bringing their mind into fantasy enviroments, and the fact that maybe we're a little better at dicerning whether there's to many clich

[Kalfear]

 

"PS: Question Grunker (not meant as a flame). You state your a role player. Im seeing this statement more and more on the web now aday for single player games.

 

What exactly do you do in game that makes you a roleplayer? See in a MMORPG roleplayers play a role and interact with others incharacter. In P&P you play a role and interact with other people incharacter.

 

In a single player RPG you DONT interact (which is the fundemental aspect of roleplaying) with other players because, well your alone! Hense why its called a single player game.

 

Sure you play a role, every single person that plays the game does, with in the paramenters of the game design. But to hear folks now adays, you dont consider every single person that plays game to be a roleplayer.

 

So my question is, what exactly do you do that makes you a role player rather then a player like everyone else in a single player game?

 

As I said, this not meant as a flame, im seriously wondering how you get the distinction.

 

Im an old MMORPG Role Player (back in oNWN on AOL in 1990). There I role played a drow by learning to speak the special language, writting stories, and trying to stay incharacter during impromptu conversations and situations while ingame. I played the role and interacted with others. So as a true Role Player from many years ago, the obviously new classification confuses me and Im just looking for someone to explain it to me please."

 

RolePlaying Gaming is charachterized by interacting with others in a (in the rules of the world you're playing in) realistic surroundings. The key to roleplaying is being able to identify with you charachter, and like when you're drawn into a book you're reading, be drawn into that character.

 

PCRPG (Personal Computer RolePlaying Gaming) must fill out some criteria to call itself an RPG. All uncommon persons in the game must have dialogue. A good PCRPG must have long, realistic and deep dialogue, especially for more important persons.

 

PCRPG is also characterized by free options. You choose where to go, when to go there, who to speak to and which quest to concentrate on, contrary to other games where the game chooses for you.

 

Besides that, RPG is more philosophical and more set upon bringing the player into the game than giving the player an actionfilled experience.

 

I've played D&D(Dungeons and Dragons), AD&D (Advanced Dungeons and Dragons), GURPS (Generic Universal RolePlaying System), Storyteller, White Wolf, and other systems for over seven years now, and I still play both that and Live Roleplaying including semi-live. AND I've written my own compendium filling out 150 pages so I think I've earned the right to say I know what I speak of

 

I don't take it as a flame, I'm actually glad that the question is posed because I agree that the term is misunderstood often. Just the other day, one of my friends call Deer Hunter an RPG *SHIVER*

 

But by the looks of the posts on this topic, KotORII isn't as hated as I thought it was thank god.

 

To the one who said Bioware has many fans:

 

Doesn't Obsidian to? I mean they're the old Black Isle.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Grunker,

 

Sorry but im not following your answer here. I know what makes an RPG games.

 

What I dont understand is what you (and others) do that seems to seperate yourselves from other players.

 

IE: why are you considered a Roleplayer but player B isnt?

 

Everyone tries to identify with their character so some degree, so immersion isnt the answer.

 

Everyone has the same level of cutomization so thats not the ticket.

 

Like I said, In a Single Player RPG I would never call myself a roleplayer because Single Player RPGs lack the fundamental aspects needed to Roleplay successfully.

 

The game itself can be clasified as a RPG because its focas is on the storyline rather then action. successful RPGs make you care about the character you play and the npc characters in the game. A unsuccessful one fails in that aspect. but neither (no matter how well done) allows the player to be a "roleplayer" any more or less then the next person playing.

 

As I said before, I use to roleplay in oNWN on AOL. To do that I:

1) Learned to speak (communicate) in the Drow language

2) Wrote interactive stories weekly about my character in the setting

3) Stayed in character while in game (didnt talk about last nights awsome Hockey game out loud, ect), replied as my character I was roleplaying would reply to other players.

 

I played D&D and AD&D, as a player and as a DM, as well as countless other RPG games. But none of that relates to the clasification of roleplaying in a single player RPG game, so still lost to be honest as why 1 person thinks they are a roleplayer in KotOR1 or 2 (or JE) and the next player isnt?

 

An example would be the statement Volo half jokingly adds to her posts often. "True Roleplayers think JE>KotOR". LOL, whats a true Roleplayer in a Single Player RPG????? Near as I can tell I use to be a true Roleplayer (*use to be, became to much work, lol) in oNWN but dont see how that effects single player RPGs? I know roleplaying in MMORPGs almost doesnt exist anymore or what is clasified as roleplaying is extreamly dumbed down from what use to be clasified as Roleplaying, but thats MMORPGs, Im refering specifically to Single Player RPGs in my question to you

 

Looking forward to your reply

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm not sure I quite follow you, but I'll give my respond to what I did understand

 

Now, if I understand you right, I think we might have misunderstood each other. Nothing seperates player A from player B in a single player RPG game, and I never said there was anything seperating them. What I said was the roleplaying options the GAME offered. We as players aren't much different from each other when it comes to identifying with the character, acting realistic in the enviroments the game sets for us etc.

 

The question is if the game LETS us do this.

 

Which brings me to what I meant: KotORII was good because it offered enviroments and (so I believe, contrary to many others it seems ) goot dialogue options etc. AND on top of that it posed paradoxes and interesting storyline, and THAT made it a good CRPG.

 

Now I've got a question for you: When did you get the idea that I thought anything different of player A and player B?

 

Because other than a roleplayer is more used to bringing their mind into fantasy enviroments, and the fact that maybe we're a little better at dicerning whether there's to many clich

[Grone]

Yeah, well, then we agree, because I'm not about to make that distinction.

 

And oh yeah, when you say (as you call it) "live-acting" is weird I'm not sure we're speaking about the same thing. In the US I know the ones who play live roleplaying are incredibly weird and play in some really odd sets... But in Denmark we have about 12 organizations, just in Copenhagen, handling live, and its becoming more and more popular. Half or so of the youngsters in Copenhagen have actually played live at some point...

 

Hrhrmm. Back to the matter at hand:

 

I think the fact that we are "roleplayers" gives us some tools to better understand the setting, and to see the bigger picture in games of this kind, because we're familiar with such from the campaigns we played in, books we've read etc.

 

But any "normal" player could do that to methinks

 

That dude you're speaking 'bout seems whacked... I sure as hell aren't a roleplayer if that means I have to play through every damned quest in a game.

 

But one thing I didn't get was:

 

Did you like KotORII, or didn't you? And which one of the games did you like better?

 

(An thanks for a bit of RPG discussion )

[ncr]

KOTOR I was boring. However, it had that "Star Wars feel". KOTOR II was interesting. But, it did not have that "Star Wars feel", it felt like... something else. If you put them both together, you'd have a great Star Wars game.

[mstormrage]

My first playthrough of K I was about 40 hours or so.

 

My first (and only) playthrough on K II was 28H 54M.

 

I'm pretty sure I missed a few quests here and there.

 

Surprisingly, I didn't mind the ending (which is what I thought I would hate). At the ending I said, "I'm done. Thank God!"

 

With that being said, I am starting a new one just to see why I didn't like it the first time around.

 

Ending character was a Sentinel/Watchman (18/9) Lightsider. Isn't this a little low?

[Darth Vader]

Ending character was a Sentinel/Watchman (18/9) Lightsider. Isn't this a little low?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yep...you have to try to focus on the quests a bit more...you'll get more experience...

once you're level 15...talk to kreia and you can become a prestige class...you don't need to wait level 18...

hope you will like like it this time...

[mstormrage]

Ending character was a Sentinel/Watchman (18/9) Lightsider. Isn't this a little low?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yep...you have to try to focus on the quests a bit more...you'll get more experience...

once you're level 15...talk to kreia and you can become a prestige class...you don't need to wait level 18...

hope you will like like it this time...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think the quests aren't so obviously thrust at you in K II. Probably because the levels are bigger and less linear.

 

In the new game, I am thinking of leveling up at 20 instead of 15 because of the last Sentinel feat you get at L19. :D

 

I may even do a Mace Windu character at some point (Guardian/Master) but I've gotten used to playing as a skilled character, so it may not be my cup of tea.

 

Even with a Sentinel/Watchman combination, I had so many Force points that I may as well had an unlimited force pool...

[Guest WyteScar]

I agree with Grunker...

[darthhair]

i never played an rpg before knights 1 and even then the first time i played it , i hated it . when i picked it up again a week later i loved it . i couldnt stop playing it . the story was full of twists and everything was new . by the end of the game i was still learning how to do things like fight and have conversations with other characters . i didnt have the book for the game so i had to learn everything .

 

when knights 2 came out i had already played #1 about 6 times . i thought the game play was some what redundant and the story was slow from the beginning and didint really pick up for me .

 

i would love for obsidian to be able to finnish the game . i would totaly pay another 50 bones to play the real deal . i just hope that whoever does knights 3 makes their own game instead of using the K1&2 system to make another remake .

 

i hope i enjoy it more the next time i play it i will be able to get more into it like some of you have said . i think its a good game , not as great as the first but it still holds its own .

[Kdy-worker 1138]

In the final analsis Kotor2 feals and plays like some overambisius Fans mod of Kotor1.

[Kalfear]

But one thing I didn't get was:

 

Did you like KotORII, or didn't you? And which one of the games did you like better?

 

(An thanks for a bit of RPG discussion )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Loved KotOR2 Best RPG Ive played in last decade.

 

Im an old RPG fan and all the stuff like fallout, FF series, New NWN, Balders Gate, ect never really appealed to me. The KotOR series was a very welcome return to story based RPGs for me (as was JE).

 

My top 3 RPGs (in last 10 years) are:

1) KotOR2

2) KotOR

3) Jade Empire

 

Parts one and two are actually very close in rankings for me, just part 2 gets the nod because it wasnt as predictable, found my group mates more interesting and enjoyable (biggest disappointment in K1 was I couldnt kill Carth, cause lightside or darkside, I was SICK TO DEATH of his never ending whining by the time we hit the planet below the Star Forge), and was slightly larger (with greater replay value) then part 1.

 

JE could have been better then both but Bioware missed the boat by having influence only matter in love stories (other characters stories you learn by just speaking to them often), limit of one party npc traveling with you (rather then the 2 members we have in KotOR series), and game was far to small content wise (as I said, 20 hours to play and that includes watching all the cinematics and listening to the voices)..

[Volourn]

JE > KOTOR series

 

And, JE does influence better than either KOTOR as unlike KOTOR2 it doens't throw it at you in BOLG LETTERS.

 

 

 

"just part 2 gets the nod because it wasnt as predictable"

 

R00fles! Part 2 was completely predictable. Anyone who didn't KNOW that Kreia was the main bad girl ebfore the end of the first section wasn't playing the game.

 

 

"slightly larger (with greater replay value) then part 1."

 

Same size. Replay value was the same = 1 time through.

 

 

"JE could have been better then both but Bioware missed the boat by having influence only matter in love stories (other characters stories you learn by just speaking to them often),"

 

This is blatantly false. Perhaps, you completely missed certain other character that you can influence aka Wild Flower.

 

 

"and game was far to small content wise (as I said, 20 hours to play and that includes watching all the cinematics and listening to the voices).."

 

Length wise it was short comapritvely. CONTENT wise it was sabout the same. It just gets rid of useless battles (mostly), and no more retarded inventory matrix. And, JE was closer to 30 hours than 20 hours.

 

JE has better graphics, music, characters, combat, items, balance, quests, meaningful choices, endings, and replay than either KOTOR.

 

The only things KOTOR series wins on his 2 npcs at once, non combat skills (though JE has THREE dialogue skillz), and length (barely).