Kotor 1 or Kotor 2

[orestis]

Kotor 1 has a much better story.

 

1) You start in a crucial battle.

2) Your past is unknown until the revelation you are Revan.

3) The characters had interesting stories and backgrounds.

4) The end was very epic.

 

However kotor 1 had some drawbacks:

 

1) The level cap.

2) The fact that the end is not very different due to your path choice. (You can be a murderous hero...)

3) The story was somewhat predictable. (though better than kotor 2)

 

Generally Kotor 2 as gameplay is better.

 

1) Randomly created items (though I don't like it).

2) No level cap.

3) More Force Power choices.

4) No level spend (which is also force power spend) on soldier, scoundrel.... You start as a Jedi which means your character has more force powers.

5) Prestige classes. (though you should be better informed about this option)

6) Attributes and feats have larger effects. (means damage is not equal to strength modifiers but much greater)

7) Better lightsaber upgrades and generally upgrade system.

Different movie ending for light and dark side.

 

The facts I did not like about Kotor 2:

 

1) The start of the game sucks...

2) The whole story around Kotor 1 is ruined. You don't know what happened to Revan, the others' histories are also lost. If you haven't played kotor 1 before, you make very wrong predictions about it. Revan is considered evil and is completely lost and the Kotor 1 events are generally referred to as the Jedi Civil War... LOL!

3) The character is very strong at the end of the game (assuming you don't auto-level and know a thing or two around RPG games). So the enemies should have been more difficult. Even if you change the option to difficult you will not notice a vast difference.

4) The whole story is rather unimportant to the galaxy than in kotor 1. That makes the game much less epic.

 

One very important fact for which I liked kotor 2 was that kreia introduces a new type of character far differnet to what we knew until now from Star Wars. Although uncomplete, the story has some very interesting parts and aspects, far more than those of kotor 1. However, the rash ending ruines it completely and is very difficult for the gamer to appreciate the efforts of creating a storyline based on a completely different storyline.

 

Conclusion:

 

Kotor 1 was a great game and a very exciting game experience at its time.

Kotor 2 tried to make something even better, not only as gameplay where it is certainly better, but also in story and characters. Though the basis was good the ending was rash and in my opinion they alone destroyed what tried to create because of their attempt to complete it earlier.

 

Good effort but uncomplete.

Sorry guys but kotor 1 is still better...

 

If you try kotor 3, use more time... and imagination... <_<

[Terranova]

I sort of liked the plot behind K2 better than K1. Knights of the old Republic puts you in the midst of a war between Jedi & Sith, and somehow you manage to make a daring escape from what was a slaughter, and end up saving the galaxy (or retaking your empire). Although the game maintained a very climatic feel to it, its sort of cliched in a sense.

 

K2 on the other hand is a bit more subtle among the SW universe. In K2 your simply traveling the galaxy trying to uncover the mysteries behind your character and that of your party members. Your not there to save the galaxy, or reincarnate the legendary Sith Empire and claim the title Dark Lord. I think thats one thing alot of people don't like about K2. I'll admit I wish alot of the cut content made it into the final product, it would made much more sense and a far better game.

Edited July 9, 2006 by Terranova

[vaxen83]

Also, some cut story from K2 is almost lost. So, its story remains partial. K1 was something that was hardly a pain at all, especially when playing it first time through.

Edited July 9, 2006 by vaxen83

[Xard]

In some ways K2 tries to be too original. What pisses me is that K2 spits to the face of canon.

 

Canonicaly, there is no life without in force. K2 brings this down with its stupid mumbling planet eater and Exile, as they are wounds in the force and Exile can live even though totally losing connection to Force after Malachor. Canonically, that should be impossible.

 

In this, Exile proves what Kreia wanted him/her to do, be a living proof for her theory that life can exist without Force. Argh!

[Elven6]

K2 was probably the best since it didn't follow a fixed story line (Pc finds out his Revean, PC find out Bastillia turns evil. PC interogates party members NPC's friends follow the ship around wait for the right party member to step out).

 

In kotor 2 if you make the right choices you might not get all of your party members, you might not unlock a certain story line (Like the Atris thing or the whole Kreia trying to convice your party members to do things!

 

So im going with Kotor 2 for the reasons I stated

[vaxen83]

K1 had flexibility for having any number of non-Jedi class levels and Jedi levels within maximum range of 20.

 

K2 requires Jedi levels to be at least 15 and more. Would like to have more of Prestige levels than Jedi levels without having to go like up to say level 30+.

Edited July 18, 2006 by vaxen83

[darth revan22]

k1 is so much better i think

 

complete

 

better story

[Alec]

K2 was good as well. It had a decent story.

Bad graphics but much more specs, feats ecc. (at least u can get to 1000 HP/1000 FP)

[vaxen83]

Robes and armour were variably plentiful in second game.

[Guest The Architect]

Kotor 1 has a much better story.

 

1) You start in a crucial battle.

2) Your past is unknown until the revelation you are Revan.

3) The characters had interesting stories and backgrounds.

4) The end was very epic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah right! Despite all the cut-content, what we got from KOTOR II in terms of a storyline was far better than what we got from the overrated, simplistic, unoriginal, ripoff, cliched, black and white story that BioWare produced, sorry, but that's just my opinion.

 

1) So what? You start in a crucial battle. How does that make KOTOR's story better than KOTOR II's?

 

2) What? BioWare gives you hint after hint after hint that you were Revan. They made it so bloody obvious that you were Revan, it was not funny. They spoon fed everything to you and treated you like an idiot, a six year old could follow KOTOR's storyline. The plot twist of you being Revan is one of the most overrated plot twists I've ever come across IMO, by the way, how does this so called jaw dropping 'revelation' that you are Revan make KOTOR's story better?

 

3) True, Jolee and HK-47 were excellent characters in particular, however, most were somewhat recycled characters. KOTOR did have interesting characters with interesting backstories, but it's not like their ideas were anything new, it's all been done before, but most of the characters in KOTOR II were interesting, you just have to study their self-character and gain high influence with them to listen to their backstories. Obsidian were very clever and creative in the way they weaved the new characters in KOTOR II into the KOTOR series, they were very deep characters, not without their struggles.

 

4) The end was epic yes, if not a little corny and predictable. But considering the events of KOTOR II take place approximately five years after the events of KOTOR (after the Jedi Civil War) why would anyone be expecting the game to be epic? I guess a lot of people don't understand the military, industrial, environmental, physical, mental, economical, philisophical, spiritual and emotional effects of the aftermath of a war do they? By the way, it is not Obsidian's fault that we got an incomplete game without proper endings (no M4-78, no HK-Factory, no proper Malachor V (party member) conclusions) etc...

 

You can blame LucasArts for effecting the amazing potential that KOTOR II had as a complete product, those impatient, greedy, pieces of ****in ****! :angry: Besides, epic doesn't always equal better...

 

However kotor 1 had some drawbacks:

 

1) The level cap.

2) The fact that the end is not very different due to your path choice. (You can be a murderous hero...)

3) The story was somewhat predictable. (though better than kotor 2) 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

1) That's no big deal though, it's just a gameplay thing...

2) Yes, KOTOR is very linear, so many things are forced on you it's not funny. Where was the 'grey' ending for KOTOR? It sucks how your forced to choose between the LS and the DS, some of us don't like or don't want to be on either side...

3) The story was very much so straight forward and basic, it did not require you to think much. (And no, KOTOR does not have a better story than KOTOR II, but your entitled to your own opinion)...

 

Generally Kotor 2 as gameplay is better.

 

1) Randomly created items (though I don't like it).

2) No level cap.

3) More Force Power choices.

4) No level spend (which is also force power spend) on soldier, scoundrel.... You start as a Jedi which means your character has more force powers.

5) Prestige classes. (though you should be better informed about this option)

6) Attributes and feats have larger effects. (means damage is not equal to strength modifiers but much greater)

7) Better lightsaber upgrades and generally upgrade system.

Different movie ending for light and dark side.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

1) Yeah, the random item generator pissed me off too

2) Level 50 was the level cap in KOTOR II, but I think that level 30 should have been the level cap in KOTOR II, not level 50, that is far too high

3) Yep, can't complain about that

4) Aha...

5) Well, nah, I think your informed pretty well enough...

6) Yes...

7) Well, it wasn't really necessary IMO, it got boring spending ages upgrading, creating and breaking down items, I'd rather they just go back to basics, like in KOTOR...

Yes, however it would have been nice if we had more of an 'in-game' ending than just some brief clip...

 

The facts I did not like about Kotor 2:

 

1) The start of the game sucks...

2) The whole story around Kotor 1 is ruined. You don't know what happened to Revan, the others' histories are also lost. If you haven't played kotor 1 before, you make very wrong predictions about it. Revan is considered evil and is completely lost and the Kotor 1 events are generally referred to as the Jedi Civil War... LOL!   

3) The character is very strong at the end of the game (assuming you don't auto-level and know a thing or two around RPG games). So the enemies should have been more difficult. Even if you change the option to difficult you will not notice a vast difference.

4) The whole story is rather unimportant to the galaxy than in kotor 1. That makes the game much less epic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

1) The first time I played KOTOR II, Peragus was okay, but after my second playthrough and so on, it just got far too boring...

2) The whole story around KOTOR is not ruined. Revan has gone off alone into the unknown regions to "deal with them (the 'True Sith') in his/her own way" as Kreia puts it, and what others histories are lost? Obsidian handled everything perfectly, they didn't force scenario's/events/decisions you made in KOTOR on you and left it to your own interpretations, and even if you set Revan as LS, considering the planets you visit and the plot itself, why would you expect to see the likes of Mission, Zaalbar, Jolee, Juhani or any other less relevant characters? And don't you realise that during the conversation with Atton on Peragus that you set Revan's gender and alignment? Revan isn't considered evil, in fact, everything that is said about Revan's past/actions is written in such a way in KOTOR II that everything is left up to the player's own personal point of view, which is just one of the many reasons as to why KOTOR II is so brilliant in terms of writing. And you want to know why the events of KOTOR is known as the 'Jedi Civil War'? Well, not only was the 'Sith War' already taken by the EU (Exar Kun, Ulic Qel-Droma), the 'Jedi Civil War' makes sense to me and in my opinion, the Old Republic as a whole. Many Jedi defected to Malak and Revan's side during the war, and it doesn't feel like much of a stretch to see why the galaxy would call it that - Atton pretty much sums up the everyman view, despite his bias, but people in KOTOR II aren't really happy about the Jedi as a whole. Plus, when you hear "Jedi Civil War," it makes you stop and think about WHY people would call it that, and I think that's equally important in the context of the game. Many people cannot determine the difference between the Jedi and the Sith, they just view them as two groups who are the same (lightsabers, robes) and usage of the 'force', who just have conflicting views over their 'religion/philosophy'...

 

One very important fact for which I liked kotor 2 was that kreia introduces a new type of character far differnet to what we knew until now from Star Wars. Although uncomplete, the story has some very interesting parts and aspects, far more than those of kotor 1. However, the rash ending ruines it completely and is very difficult for the gamer to appreciate the efforts of creating a storyline based on a completely different storyline.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, Kreia is a simply superb character, I think without her, KOTOR II would not have been that good, and yes, the fact that the game was rushed and cut into shreds makes it hard for people to really appreciate the storyline, since the jigsaw puzzle is incomplete, so to speak, but people cannot really form a proper opinion in the story, since, it was unfinished, I think it's unfair to talk down on KOTOR II, considering what we got from Obsidian in something like eight months-one year, it was truly remarkable, and was much better in terms of depth, detail, themes, issues, attitudes, values and creativity than what KOTOR was IMO...

 

Conclusion:

 

Kotor 1 was a great game and a very exciting game experience at its time.

Kotor 2 tried to make something even better, not only as gameplay where it is certainly better, but also in story and characters. Though the basis was good the ending was rash and in my opinion they alone destroyed what tried to create because of their attempt to complete it earlier.

 

Good effort but uncomplete. 

Sorry guys but kotor 1 is still better...

 

If you try kotor 3, use more time... and imagination...    <_<

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, I still liked KOTOR, it was an entertaining game that felt very much like a traditional epic Star Wars movie, despite the fact I thought the storyline was pretty ordinary. IMO, everything about KOTOR II was better than KOTOR, they took the history of the Mandalorian Wars, the events of KOTOR (the 'Jedi Civil War') the Jedi teachings and the Sith teachings and explored the meanings, effects, philosophy, etc of everything and turned KOTOR into something so much greater than what it originally was.

 

And what do you mean "use more imagination"? Obsidian was very creative with KOTOR II, unlike BioWare, they didn't have to deal with the whole problem of a previous PC (gender/alignment/appearence/voice) and the list goes on and BioWare got more than a year to make KOTOR, unlike Obsidian, who only had what, not even a year. But seriously, did you even pay attention during the game or understand anything from it? How you could say KOTOR II was not imaginative enough is beyond me. Obsidian, unlike BioWare, had to cater for two different endings and somehow weld it into one plot, which they did successfully, they had less freedom to work with their own story than what BioWare did, you could say that BioWare had more of a handicap/advantage than what Obsidian did when they made their KOTOR game...

Edited July 29, 2006 by The Architect

[Sturm]

K1 for reasons explained here

[Darth Blivion]

Kotor 2. Better story IMO, it had more layers to it, there was more to do and affect in each planet than mere personal missions (like Kotor 1) i.e. you were bringing economic and political stability to the Republic with each planet you came across rather than spending time with party member family and friend reunions, or simple fetch missions.

 

Also, I liked that Kotor 2 explored some SW themes and philosophies rather than settling for the tried and trusted RPG story cliches like Bioware did. The gameplay improvements also made it more enjoyable.

[seejai]

K1 had the better story

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

yeah.. it actually had a story. 2 didnt have much of one

and i do like the unlimited xp in 2

Edited July 29, 2006 by seejai

[Dark_Raven]

K1 had a better ending.

[seejai]

yeah way better

[Jesse Conroy]

I loved both games and just recently finshed 1 and started 2 again. I would have to say for right now 2 but I will have to beat it again to really tell.

[GhostofAnakin]

Both had their strengths. Ironically, if each game combined their relative strengths and deleted their relative weaknesses, it would have been a true masterpiece, IMO.

[Jinny]

K1, it was funner and it was orginal plus it didn't have all the glitches that K2 had.

[Jesse Conroy]

Both had their strengths.  Ironically, if each game combined their relative strengths and deleted their relative weaknesses, it would have been a true masterpiece, IMO.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

The first part of your statement was right, but I still belive that they both were true masterpeices anyway, IMO.

[seejai]

yeah kotor 2 is way to glitchy (i didnt even have a problem with 1)

and the graphics are worse but the good thing about 2nd games is that it gets rid of the pet peeves for the most part (altho when u go through the menu i hate how it kinda loads when u flip through em)

i guess i like them both bc kotor 1 was just great cus it started this all and the 2nd has unlimited xp and all that good stuff