Guest MacleodCorp Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 KotOR II - Over priced "Expansion Pack"? What do you think? As many of us know, the entire game was a direct copy of the original. While going through the planets, suddle things changed in graphics, robes, etc... 1. When you look at the game now, would you say this could be considered an 'Expansionn Pack'? 2. If they had released 'KotOR II' as an expansion pack, would you have bought it? 3. Since the price was similar to 'KotOR I', do you believe that the $50 you spent was over priced? 4. Could you conclude that you bought the same game twice, but with minor upgrades and a new story? (My general reasoning for these questions is that on a few sites, I saw some speculation about it being an Expansion Pack. Thus, I was curious to find out what others think about this.)
GhostofAnakin Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 No it wasn't an expansion pack. "Console exclusive is such a harsh word." - Darque"Console exclusive is two words Darque." - Nartwak (in response to Darque's observation)
julianw Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 Of course not an Expansion Pack. New story, new characters, new planets and many new features. The game stands alone very well. I do believe it's overpriced, since all games are overpriced (it's just a piece of plastic).
Darth Launch Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 KotOR II - Over priced "Expansion Pack"?What do you think? As many of us know, the entire game was a direct copy of the original. While going through the planets, suddle things changed in graphics, robes, etc... 1. When you look at the game now, would you say this could be considered an 'Expansionn Pack'? 2. If they had released 'KotOR II' as an expansion pack, would you have bought it? 3. Since the price was similar to 'KotOR I', do you believe that the $50 you spent was over priced? 4. Could you conclude that you bought the same game twice, but with minor upgrades and a new story? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 1. No 2. Yes 3. Didn't spend that much 4. No DL [color=gray][i]OO-TINI![/i][/color]
SteveThaiBinh Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 It's not unusual for the same game engine to be used for several games. That doesn't make them all expansion packs of the first. Kotor 2 was an entirely new game, and in fact Obsidian went out of their way to make it value-for-money and different to Kotor 1. A different story-line, nearly all new characters, a whole different feel to it. Shame they messed up the ending, but that's a different argument. It was worth a full price, and I've paid as much for worse games (Sacred :angry: ) I can't vote for any of the options above. "An electric puddle is not what I need right now." (Nina Kalenkov)
KOTORFanactic Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 An expansion pack? I don't think so. An incomplete stand-alone, I believe so; due to the cut content. (Restoration Project should hopefully change this). Sequels to the oroingal game can often be similar or almost exact copies. After all, if the formula works, then why change it? It's one of those 'If it's not broken, the don't fix it.' situations. Just because a game has the same forumla and/or engine, for say, three games running in the series, doesn't immediately make it an expansion pack. You've got to look at so many other things to decide. P.S. All things in this word are over-priced.
dufflover Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 Expansion pack, no. This poll would've been suited for Jedi Academy though. Expansion packs usually continue the story, but K2 was designed to be on it's own. In general Obsidian/LA got themselves into a ditch by trying to make a game continue the K1 story yet not have the requirement for people to have played it. Pure Pazaak - The Stand-alone Multiplayer Pazaak Game (link to Obsidian board thread) Pure Pazaak website (big thank you to fingolfin)
GhostofAnakin Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 Sequels to the oroingal game can often be similar or almost exact copies. After all, if the formula works, then why change it?It's one of those 'If it's not broken, the don't fix it.' situations. Just because a game has the same forumla and/or engine, for say, three games running in the series, doesn't immediately make it an expansion pack. You've got to look at so many other things to decide. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But...but....Baldurs Gate 2 was just an expansion pack! It used the same graphics, same engine, and even re-used a lot of the same NPCs and continued on the same PC backstory! /sarcasm "Console exclusive is such a harsh word." - Darque"Console exclusive is two words Darque." - Nartwak (in response to Darque's observation)
Krookie Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 Nah, not an expantion pack. Just an incomplete, lonley, game.
Nur Ab Sal Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 Heart of Winter had also new characters, new story and new locations. And it was an expansion pack... HERMOCRATES: Nur Ab Sal was one such king. He it was, say the wise men of Egypt, who first put men in the colossus, making many freaks of nature at times when the celestial spheres were well aligned. SOCRATES: This I doubt. We are hearing a child's tale.
GhostofAnakin Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 Heart of Winter had also new characters, new story and new locations. And it was an expansion pack... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Your point? Was it as long as IWD's OC? Were there as many areas? Just because an expansion pack shares similar qualities as what was described, does not prove KOTOR 2 was just an expansion pack. Seriously now. "Console exclusive is such a harsh word." - Darque"Console exclusive is two words Darque." - Nartwak (in response to Darque's observation)
Petay Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 I couldn't and don't really see K2 as an expansion pack really, as im sure expansion packs only add on short features which werent included in the original game, or improving parts of the game. To me, K2 seems to fit into the incomplete stand alone complex.
Guest MacleodCorp Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 I couldn't and don't really see K2 as an expansion pack really, as im sure expansion packs only add on short features which werent included in the original game, or improving parts of the game. To me, K2 seems to fit into the incomplete stand alone complex. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> AH! You are right and wrong. Diablo II's & Rainbow Six 3 expansion packs added new content and new levels. Especially Diablo II's expansion pack. After fighting for thirty years to beat the game, they added on another 20 years to the game... Unfortunatly, after you played it once, you will never play it again. Way too long. It has to be the longest game in the world without the patch, and the largest Expansion Pack in the world to be added.
BattleCookiee Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 No, It was a standalone... They didn't try to immediately follow or expend the story of KOTOR1, yet tell an other one (that of the Exile) The size (almost same as KOTOR1) also makes it Stand-alone There were many (not all were well done though) new functionalities, expanding KOTOR1's already plenty ones... So, It is and was qualified as Stand-Alone Sequel from the begin... 1. When you look at the game now, would you say this could be considered an 'Expansionn Pack'? No 2. If they had released 'KotOR II' as an expansion pack, would you have bought it? Yes 3. Since the price was similar to 'KotOR I', do you believe that the $50 you spent was over priced? If there was abit more Beta-Testing, No... But since it was abit bug-ridden, a lower price would have been asked... 4. Could you conclude that you bought the same game twice, but with minor upgrades and a new story? No
Krookie Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 Since when do expantion packs get a number? I mean, look at Half-Life. They have like 576 expanion packs for that game and now with Half-Life 2 they give it a number. If KOTOR 2 was an expantion pack, it wouldn't have a number. :ph34r:
Gabrielle Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 Absolutely not. It's a game not an exspansion pack.
Guest MacleodCorp Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 Since when do expantion packs get a number? I mean, look at Half-Life. They have like 576 expanion packs for that game and now with Half-Life 2 they give it a number. If KOTOR 2 was an expantion pack, it wouldn't have a number. :ph34r: <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually, in Diablo II another character class was aaded by the expansion pack, and an enitre title was added to the game. So, changing a title does qualify in a small part.
Petay Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 Not sure really if this helps much but.... An expansion pack is an addition to an existing game. These add-ons mostly add new game areas, weapons, objects, and/or an extended storyline to a complete an already released game. The original developer may contract out development of the expansion pack to third-party company, or it may choose to develop the expansion itself (see Hellfire for Diablo and Lords of Destruction for Diablo II).Some expansion packs do not require the original game in order to use the new content, as is the case with Blue Shift for Half-Life or Rainbow Six: Covert Operations Essentials for Rainbow Six. This type of expansion pack is often termed a "stand-alone expansion pack". The term "expansion pack sequel" is sometimes used to describe a full game, most commonly a sequel that continues the storyline of the previous game, has completely new levels and characters, and adds a few new features, but has gameplay and graphics that are essentially identical (i.e., Doom II). The term is also sometimes used to describe a new game that's released after the original but before the official sequel. To quote wikipedia definition there. EDIT: woo 400th post!!
Guest MacleodCorp Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 Not sure really if this helps much but.... An expansion pack is an addition to an existing game. These add-ons mostly add new game areas, weapons, objects, and/or an extended storyline to a complete an already released game. The original developer may contract out development of the expansion pack to third-party company, or it may choose to develop the expansion itself (see Hellfire for Diablo and Lords of Destruction for Diablo II).Some expansion packs do not require the original game in order to use the new content, as is the case with Blue Shift for Half-Life or Rainbow Six: Covert Operations Essentials for Rainbow Six. This type of expansion pack is often termed a "stand-alone expansion pack". The term "expansion pack sequel" is sometimes used to describe a full game, most commonly a sequel that continues the storyline of the previous game, has completely new levels and characters, and adds a few new features, but has gameplay and graphics that are essentially identical (i.e., Doom II). The term is also sometimes used to describe a new game that's released after the original but before the official sequel. To quote wikipedia definition there. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Since when does anything follow rules. Legalism is allways broken, and life is not bound by limited vision. I think you just agreed with me...As I read through your definition, it does support my theory as well.. Some expansion packs do not require the original game in order to use the new content edit:: The term "expansion pack sequel" is sometimes used to describe a full game edit::
Petay Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 I've just realised that that sort of contradicts itself there really, as it says that it is an add-on to a game, with just new features and such, but also says that it can be a kind of continuation of a game's story or plot, so yeah i guess you are right about everything not following rules Macleod. If K2 were an expansion pack of K1 then i would say it would be an expansion pack sequel really.
Guest MacleodCorp Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 I've just realised that that sort of contradicts itself there really, as it says that it is an add-on to a game, with just new features and such, but also says that it can be a kind of continuation of a game's story or plot, so yeah i guess you are right about everything not following rules Macleod. If K2 were an expansion pack of K1 then i would say it would be an expansion pack sequel really. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Therefore, the definition confirms my theory! Thank you!
BattleCookiee Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 I've just realised that that sort of contradicts itself there really, as it says that it is an add-on to a game, with just new features and such, but also says that it can be a kind of continuation of a game's story or plot, so yeah i guess you are right about everything not following rules Macleod. If K2 were an expansion pack of K1 then i would say it would be an expansion pack sequel really. Therefore, the definition confirms my theory! Thank you! No, as it also says CONTINUATION. KOTOR2 wasn't really that. It was more a different story (Exile's story vs. KOTOR1's Revan's Story) Also other things included in KOTOR2 clearly make sure you can speak of Sequel, and not "Expansion-Pack-Game-Continuation-Without-Original-Normal-Cost" or whatever it is called... My definitions Game Expansion = additions to original game, needing original Stand-Alone Expansion = some new missions made like the originals game Sequel = Another game, based on the first game, yet with another story, many new missions and tools/objects/weapons and improvements. Sometimes continues the original plot, yet far longer expanded than in an expansion "Fake Sequel" = So called sequel made by Developers, and gotten a new number (usually 2), while it contains not the needed requirements for a sequel, yet they do for a standalone expansion, while fullpriced. Kotor2 is NOT the last one and just a normal Sequel...
alanschu Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 You don't need KOTOR to play KOTOR 2. It's not an expansion pack.
Guest MacleodCorp Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 I've just realised that that sort of contradicts itself there really, as it says that it is an add-on to a game, with just new features and such, but also says that it can be a kind of continuation of a game's story or plot, so yeah i guess you are right about everything not following rules Macleod. If K2 were an expansion pack of K1 then i would say it would be an expansion pack sequel really. Therefore, the definition confirms my theory! Thank you! No, as it also says CONTINUATION. KOTOR2 wasn't really that. It was more a different story (Exile's story vs. KOTOR1's Revan's Story) Also other things included in KOTOR2 clearly make sure you can speak of Sequel, and not "Expansion-Pack-Game-Continuation-Without-Original-Normal-Cost" or whatever it is called... My definitions Game Expansion = additions to original game, needing original Stand-Alone Expansion = some new missions made like the originals game Sequel = Another game, based on the first game, yet with another story, many new missions and tools/objects/weapons and improvements. Sometimes continues the original plot, yet far longer expanded than in an expansion "Fake Sequel" = So called sequel made by Developers, and gotten a new number (usually 2), while it contains not the needed requirements for a sequel, yet they do for a standalone expansion, while fullpriced. Kotor2 is NOT the last one and just a normal Sequel... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There is no evidence to back this up!
SteveThaiBinh Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 There is no evidence to back this up! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> We have reliable information that there was an in-house LucasArts team working on Kotor 3, though the project was cancelled. So it's likely that when Obsidian were working on TSL they fully expected it to be part two of a trilogy. Whether Kotor 3 will actually be made is a different question, of course. "An electric puddle is not what I need right now." (Nina Kalenkov)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now