Kotor3: Ideas, Suggestions, Discussion Part 26

[Albion72]

I think you are much more likely to see another KoTOR game that is based on a different time frame. for instance, maybe 1500 years after KoTOR2 which will give freedom to do whatever they like and not interfere with TOR and it would still be the old republic so they could still call it KoTOR3. And you can complain all you want about the idea, but most KoTOR players would still buy and play it.

And Warcraft 4 will never happen, but that discussion is for a different thread.

The biggest problem with this is that if Kotor3 references TOR in any way shape or form, people will get angry because their actions on the world have not changed it. And if you were to put Knights of the Old Republic together fresh you could do what you want to in terms of timeline, BUT when you make a sequel you have to make sure there is a connection to the previous games otherwise you have a very high chance that it will backfire. See: Command And Conquer: Generals.

 

Well, if people who play The Old Republic want their actions to have an effect on the world, they might as well not even buy it, considering we have star wars storyline thousands of years after the Events of TOR, that will almost certainly define what happened during that events. For one, we already know the Sith lose, badly, if the Jedi in the movies barely discover the presence of two of them in episode I.

 

I don't think a K3 that ties up K1-K2 or a K3 that takes place awhile after TOR will make people angry, because they will only change events in TOR in relation to TOR's events. You can't ask SwTOR to have a thousand year long storyline, thatd be kind of dumb, considering you would die before you could play that long.

 

Yeah Cliandin, but technically, the Republic in the movies is the Old Republic too..... LOL. The New Republic is the one Luke plays a major role in making.

 

Whats wrong with Generals? I love that game, and sometimes play it online/on LAN (using Hamachi) with friends I know. It had no relation to Tiberian Sun (favorite ones IMO) or the Red Alert conflicts, but it was still a good game. Kind of noob friendly though.

[Cliandin]

Well, if people who play The Old Republic want their actions to have an effect on the world, they might as well not even buy it, considering we have star wars storyline thousands of years after the Events of TOR, that will almost certainly define what happened during that events. For one, we already know the Sith lose, badly, if the Jedi in the movies barely discover the presence of two of them in episode I.

Yes, we know the sith lose, but they still have some 4500+ years to lose badly and be considered extinct by the time Episode I occurs.

I don't think a K3 that ties up K1-K2 or a K3 that takes place awhile after TOR will make people angry, because they will only change events in TOR in relation to TOR's events. You can't ask SwTOR to have a thousand year long storyline, thatd be kind of dumb, considering you would die before you could play that long.

This may be a first, but I completely agree with you on this point. I think players will just be happy to have a KoTOR3. And even if it were 1000 years later people would be happy because they could seriously tie in the aftermath of whatever Revan and the Exile did into the game, after all the events would have occured outside known space and just start being felt in known space a 1000 years later. I think it would be an easy story for most players to buy into.

[DAWUSS]

I don't think the characters will have that much of an impact on the storyline as I have a feeling anyone can do the quests, much like in any MMO. So if I do a themepark series with LS choices, and another does the same themepark with DS choices, there's no way we will make any impact on the storyline/world because we both exist in the same environment. I think the only impact the players will have will be things like faction-controlled cities, like they have it in Star Wars Galaxies.

 

 

 

To be honest, I seriously think we're being sold excess hype with SWTOR. Although, at the same time, we really haven't seen much, or received much first hand impressions from neutral parties. All we've heard so far have come from people with ties to the game's development.

[Calax]

Whats wrong with Generals? I love that game, and sometimes play it online/on LAN (using Hamachi) with friends I know. It had no relation to Tiberian Sun (favorite ones IMO) or the Red Alert conflicts, but it was still a good game. Kind of noob friendly though.

I'm not saying Generals is a bad game, What I'm saying is it had nothing to connect it to the C&C franchise other than the name. It had a completely different money scheme, different build menu, no live action cutscenes. NOTHING that was a C&C trademark until the expansion came in that added live action cutscenes.

 

At least TOR is a storyline sequel to the Kotor games. IMHO a game must have one of two things similar to it's predecessor, the style of gameplay, so an FPS is an FPS with a similar control scheme, Strategy games have the same interface, RPG's have the same rules set and interface, or the storyline is the same/set in the same universe. If you don't have these you are either trying to zap life into a monstrosity that seemed to have died years ago (weather it works or not depends), or you're trying to milk the franchise name for cash (Generals gets a leery eye for that one)

[Albion72]

Whats wrong with Generals? I love that game, and sometimes play it online/on LAN (using Hamachi) with friends I know. It had no relation to Tiberian Sun (favorite ones IMO) or the Red Alert conflicts, but it was still a good game. Kind of noob friendly though.

I'm not saying Generals is a bad game, What I'm saying is it had nothing to connect it to the C&C franchise other than the name. It had a completely different money scheme, different build menu, no live action cutscenes. NOTHING that was a C&C trademark until the expansion came in that added live action cutscenes.

 

At least TOR is a storyline sequel to the Kotor games. IMHO a game must have one of two things similar to it's predecessor, the style of gameplay, so an FPS is an FPS with a similar control scheme, Strategy games have the same interface, RPG's have the same rules set and interface, or the storyline is the same/set in the same universe. If you don't have these you are either trying to zap life into a monstrosity that seemed to have died years ago (weather it works or not depends), or you're trying to milk the franchise name for cash (Generals gets a leery eye for that one)

 

Ah, but Generals was made by EA too, so it was bound to be uber different.

 

Well, IMO, TOR isn't really a sequel, it has almost nothing to do with KOTOR. The only thing it has to do with KOTOR is these "sith" have attacked. There is ANOTHER WAR, or is it like, a "Cold War" so to speak? I can't remember.

 

Also, I disagree with having a lot of time for the Sith to lose badly, see the Star Wars timeline.

 

And I agree with Dawuss. It would be really hard to change a world where there are players that are DS, Light, and maybe Neutral, all in the same environment. Its physically impossible, unless they make it based on PVP, in which case it WOULD be like Star Wars Galaxies.

[Calax]

Whats wrong with Generals? I love that game, and sometimes play it online/on LAN (using Hamachi) with friends I know. It had no relation to Tiberian Sun (favorite ones IMO) or the Red Alert conflicts, but it was still a good game. Kind of noob friendly though.

I'm not saying Generals is a bad game, What I'm saying is it had nothing to connect it to the C&C franchise other than the name. It had a completely different money scheme, different build menu, no live action cutscenes. NOTHING that was a C&C trademark until the expansion came in that added live action cutscenes.

 

At least TOR is a storyline sequel to the Kotor games. IMHO a game must have one of two things similar to it's predecessor, the style of gameplay, so an FPS is an FPS with a similar control scheme, Strategy games have the same interface, RPG's have the same rules set and interface, or the storyline is the same/set in the same universe. If you don't have these you are either trying to zap life into a monstrosity that seemed to have died years ago (weather it works or not depends), or you're trying to milk the franchise name for cash (Generals gets a leery eye for that one)

 

Ah, but Generals was made by EA too, so it was bound to be uber different.

 

Well, IMO, TOR isn't really a sequel, it has almost nothing to do with KOTOR. The only thing it has to do with KOTOR is these "sith" have attacked. There is ANOTHER WAR, or is it like, a "Cold War" so to speak? I can't remember.

 

Also, I disagree with having a lot of time for the Sith to lose badly, see the Star Wars timeline.

 

And I agree with Dawuss. It would be really hard to change a world where there are players that are DS, Light, and maybe Neutral, all in the same environment. Its physically impossible, unless they make it based on PVP, in which case it WOULD be like Star Wars Galaxies.

Except that C&C3 and Red Alert 3 were also made by EA and they retained enough connection to the franchise that fans liked em. Generals was an expirament that got people to buy it by cashing in on a name.

[SteveThaiBinh]

There's a new book about LucasArts out called Rogue Leaders. The review on Adventure Gamers mentions

a fairly substantial Knights of the Old Republic 3 RPG proposal

as something that existed but hit the cutting room floor. Of course, we knew that an in-house LucasArts team was working on Kotor3 and the project got cancelled. The review is more interested in adventures and doesn't mention whether the book has more detail about this, but if someone comes across a copy, it might be an interesting read.

 

I wonder if there's anything about Kotor2...

[Albion72]

Whats wrong with Generals? I love that game, and sometimes play it online/on LAN (using Hamachi) with friends I know. It had no relation to Tiberian Sun (favorite ones IMO) or the Red Alert conflicts, but it was still a good game. Kind of noob friendly though.

I'm not saying Generals is a bad game, What I'm saying is it had nothing to connect it to the C&C franchise other than the name. It had a completely different money scheme, different build menu, no live action cutscenes. NOTHING that was a C&C trademark until the expansion came in that added live action cutscenes.

 

At least TOR is a storyline sequel to the Kotor games. IMHO a game must have one of two things similar to it's predecessor, the style of gameplay, so an FPS is an FPS with a similar control scheme, Strategy games have the same interface, RPG's have the same rules set and interface, or the storyline is the same/set in the same universe. If you don't have these you are either trying to zap life into a monstrosity that seemed to have died years ago (weather it works or not depends), or you're trying to milk the franchise name for cash (Generals gets a leery eye for that one)

 

Ah, but Generals was made by EA too, so it was bound to be uber different.

 

Well, IMO, TOR isn't really a sequel, it has almost nothing to do with KOTOR. The only thing it has to do with KOTOR is these "sith" have attacked. There is ANOTHER WAR, or is it like, a "Cold War" so to speak? I can't remember.

 

Also, I disagree with having a lot of time for the Sith to lose badly, see the Star Wars timeline.

 

And I agree with Dawuss. It would be really hard to change a world where there are players that are DS, Light, and maybe Neutral, all in the same environment. Its physically impossible, unless they make it based on PVP, in which case it WOULD be like Star Wars Galaxies.

Except that C&C3 and Red Alert 3 were also made by EA and they retained enough connection to the franchise that fans liked em. Generals was an expirament that got people to buy it by cashing in on a name.

 

CnC 3 and Red Alert 3 were like the previous games in the franchise yes, but thats because its easy to get people to buy sequels. Generals was not necessarily a bad game because it was a new world. Well, maybe in your opinion it is.

 

But back on topic (since we are not really supposed to talk about RTS' here):

 

Referring to your earlier post, you said, "IMHO a game must have one of two things to its predecessor, a similar style of gameplay (like fps and fps) and have the same rules/interface/be set in the same universe."

 

This is true... for sequels. K2 is the sequel to K1. TOR is an MMO and does not NEED these things (except of course be set in the Star Wars universe because I mean you can't have it called Star Wars and its NOT in the Star Wars universe. And because its an MMORPG, it will most likely have a similar interface and rule sets to OTHER MMORPGs, unless they really become amazingly innovative.

[Calax]

Whats wrong with Generals? I love that game, and sometimes play it online/on LAN (using Hamachi) with friends I know. It had no relation to Tiberian Sun (favorite ones IMO) or the Red Alert conflicts, but it was still a good game. Kind of noob friendly though.

I'm not saying Generals is a bad game, What I'm saying is it had nothing to connect it to the C&C franchise other than the name. It had a completely different money scheme, different build menu, no live action cutscenes. NOTHING that was a C&C trademark until the expansion came in that added live action cutscenes.

 

At least TOR is a storyline sequel to the Kotor games. IMHO a game must have one of two things similar to it's predecessor, the style of gameplay, so an FPS is an FPS with a similar control scheme, Strategy games have the same interface, RPG's have the same rules set and interface, or the storyline is the same/set in the same universe. If you don't have these you are either trying to zap life into a monstrosity that seemed to have died years ago (weather it works or not depends), or you're trying to milk the franchise name for cash (Generals gets a leery eye for that one)

 

Ah, but Generals was made by EA too, so it was bound to be uber different.

 

Well, IMO, TOR isn't really a sequel, it has almost nothing to do with KOTOR. The only thing it has to do with KOTOR is these "sith" have attacked. There is ANOTHER WAR, or is it like, a "Cold War" so to speak? I can't remember.

 

Also, I disagree with having a lot of time for the Sith to lose badly, see the Star Wars timeline.

 

And I agree with Dawuss. It would be really hard to change a world where there are players that are DS, Light, and maybe Neutral, all in the same environment. Its physically impossible, unless they make it based on PVP, in which case it WOULD be like Star Wars Galaxies.

Except that C&C3 and Red Alert 3 were also made by EA and they retained enough connection to the franchise that fans liked em. Generals was an expirament that got people to buy it by cashing in on a name.

 

CnC 3 and Red Alert 3 were like the previous games in the franchise yes, but thats because its easy to get people to buy sequels. Generals was not necessarily a bad game because it was a new world. Well, maybe in your opinion it is.

 

But back on topic (since we are not really supposed to talk about RTS' here):

 

Referring to your earlier post, you said, "IMHO a game must have one of two things to its predecessor, a similar style of gameplay (like fps and fps) and have the same rules/interface/be set in the same universe."

 

This is true... for sequels. K2 is the sequel to K1. TOR is an MMO and does not NEED these things (except of course be set in the Star Wars universe because I mean you can't have it called Star Wars and its NOT in the Star Wars universe. And because its an MMORPG, it will most likely have a similar interface and rule sets to OTHER MMORPGs, unless they really become amazingly innovative.

Part of what Bioware is banking on with TOR is that the people who liked K1 and K2 will pick it up because it's set in the same era, and I would think that Bioware isn't that stupid so you'd find there are story connections that largely link it to the two previous games (Jediphile liked the quote where they said it was the be all end all sequel to Kotor.)

[OldRepublicRules]

I, like many others HATE, or at the very least DESPISE MMORPGs. I won't be paying anything but a one off for a game EVER, and there are times and places where its JUST me & MY computer...NO INTERNET.. HELLO...

 

Anyway, With regards to a playable character I'd BEG Obsidian & Lucas Arts (after the at least ten year begging [the length ill beg for] for KOTOR3 to begin development), for it to be:

 

CARTH ONASI..

 

..everyone loves him! And second of all he's IN the dark horse comic "Knights of the Old Republic" ...

 

..ADDING new awesome information and intrigue to an ALREADY awesomly intriguing CHARACTER in the Old republic world!!

 

Also many questions for the series to tie off, and from his unique point of view they'd be FASCINATING to watch..

 

 

...who knows he could even be one of those force sensitives who ONLY later on (ie in KOTOR 3) is GIVEN the idea (by a master/wise man) that his survival and fleet skills are MORE than just well developed SKILL....

 

CARTH RULES

 

PLEASE consider it my Lucas Arts & Obsidian folk!

 

Thanks for reading my beggin-you-to-do-it contribution

Edited January 4, 2009 by OldRepublicRules

[Deadly_Nightshade]

..everyone loves him!

 

Nooooo...... That's not quite true....

[Guest The Architect]

To say that's not true would be an understatement.

[Albion72]

Whats wrong with Generals? I love that game, and sometimes play it online/on LAN (using Hamachi) with friends I know. It had no relation to Tiberian Sun (favorite ones IMO) or the Red Alert conflicts, but it was still a good game. Kind of noob friendly though.

I'm not saying Generals is a bad game, What I'm saying is it had nothing to connect it to the C&C franchise other than the name. It had a completely different money scheme, different build menu, no live action cutscenes. NOTHING that was a C&C trademark until the expansion came in that added live action cutscenes.

 

At least TOR is a storyline sequel to the Kotor games. IMHO a game must have one of two things similar to it's predecessor, the style of gameplay, so an FPS is an FPS with a similar control scheme, Strategy games have the same interface, RPG's have the same rules set and interface, or the storyline is the same/set in the same universe. If you don't have these you are either trying to zap life into a monstrosity that seemed to have died years ago (weather it works or not depends), or you're trying to milk the franchise name for cash (Generals gets a leery eye for that one)

 

Ah, but Generals was made by EA too, so it was bound to be uber different.

 

Well, IMO, TOR isn't really a sequel, it has almost nothing to do with KOTOR. The only thing it has to do with KOTOR is these "sith" have attacked. There is ANOTHER WAR, or is it like, a "Cold War" so to speak? I can't remember.

 

Also, I disagree with having a lot of time for the Sith to lose badly, see the Star Wars timeline.

 

And I agree with Dawuss. It would be really hard to change a world where there are players that are DS, Light, and maybe Neutral, all in the same environment. Its physically impossible, unless they make it based on PVP, in which case it WOULD be like Star Wars Galaxies.

Except that C&C3 and Red Alert 3 were also made by EA and they retained enough connection to the franchise that fans liked em. Generals was an expirament that got people to buy it by cashing in on a name.

 

CnC 3 and Red Alert 3 were like the previous games in the franchise yes, but thats because its easy to get people to buy sequels. Generals was not necessarily a bad game because it was a new world. Well, maybe in your opinion it is.

 

But back on topic (since we are not really supposed to talk about RTS' here):

 

Referring to your earlier post, you said, "IMHO a game must have one of two things to its predecessor, a similar style of gameplay (like fps and fps) and have the same rules/interface/be set in the same universe."

 

This is true... for sequels. K2 is the sequel to K1. TOR is an MMO and does not NEED these things (except of course be set in the Star Wars universe because I mean you can't have it called Star Wars and its NOT in the Star Wars universe. And because its an MMORPG, it will most likely have a similar interface and rule sets to OTHER MMORPGs, unless they really become amazingly innovative.

Part of what Bioware is banking on with TOR is that the people who liked K1 and K2 will pick it up because it's set in the same era, and I would think that Bioware isn't that stupid so you'd find there are story connections that largely link it to the two previous games (Jediphile liked the quote where they said it was the be all end all sequel to Kotor.)

 

True, but people who enjoyed KOTOR may also enjoy a game that takes place during the Great Hyperspace War.... So saying that people who played a certain game or games will want to play this one due to story is a bit wrong, considering its just the overall crowd of gamers. (I'm going to safely assume most people on these forums enjoy deep, intense storyline based games... like KOTOR....).

[Calax]

True, but people who enjoyed KOTOR may also enjoy a game that takes place during the Great Hyperspace War.... So saying that people who played a certain game or games will want to play this one due to story is a bit wrong, considering its just the overall crowd of gamers. (I'm going to safely assume most people on these forums enjoy deep, intense storyline based games... like KOTOR....).

Probably the biggest draw back to setting a game in the Hyperspace War is that practically nobody who games today saw them and the Devs would probably have to change the way that the hyperspace war played out to make it more dramatic for the player and have the player rather than the the Dragons or whoever save the universe.

[Albion72]

True, but people who enjoyed KOTOR may also enjoy a game that takes place during the Great Hyperspace War.... So saying that people who played a certain game or games will want to play this one due to story is a bit wrong, considering its just the overall crowd of gamers. (I'm going to safely assume most people on these forums enjoy deep, intense storyline based games... like KOTOR....).

Probably the biggest draw back to setting a game in the Hyperspace War is that practically nobody who games today saw them and the Devs would probably have to change the way that the hyperspace war played out to make it more dramatic for the player and have the player rather than the the Dragons or whoever save the universe.

 

Well yeah I'm just stating an example.. I mean, it doesn't have to be the Great Hyperspace War... it could be numerous things within the Star Wars universe.

[DAWUSS]

The formative years of the Galactic Republic. Maybe the 24900 BBY period

[Ciaphas]

Please do not hype up graphics to stupid lengths and listen to stupid ideas about unnecessary customization!

 

I would REALLY like to be able to actually play this game, upping graphics constantly and adding ridiculous amounts of customization forces us to deal with horrible lag/crashing/bugs that wouldn't be there otherwise.

 

Example: "Left 4 Dead" was AWESOME!!! But did it have great graphics? NO, instead they gave us more zombies, and it paid off.

 

Please, please, please, don't make the system req's anything special.

[Tex Willer]

Eh, having all the 24 characters of the two games in a third installment of the series could be fun, and being able to have a group of 5-6 people instead of 3 every time you get out of the ship could be a neat idea.

[CoM_Solaufein]

All hope is given up now?

[dustin19]

i havent i hope im not the only one!

[Magister Lajciak]

Yes, unfortunately, this franchise is probably dead.

[Canadian Devil]

Although even I, a newcomer has noticed this almost dead.. I shall post my thoughts since I have never been on this site before now..

 

What I would really like to play.. is the Mandolorian Wars as another Padawan following his mentor into battle.. though that would be back-tracking and you wouldn't find the ties for the exile or Revan.

 

I just think that having large-scale battles like that would be awesome (though it would take a lot of computing power) to witness/be a part of.

 

 

 

But since I know that really isn't possible.. then maybe during the time of the ancient Sith such as Freedon Nadd or those buried in the valley of dark lords.. lightside would be against the Sith, and darkside would be falling to them and fighting against the Jedi..

 

 

Some of the history from the kotor series I would like to know more about, or even witness

[Magister Lajciak]

Let me be the first to welcome you on the boards!

[Anubis the Lord of Death]

Hello everyone, i's been a while since my last post. I feel very disappointed about LucasArts/Bioware project about "The Old Republic". 300 years after Revan's journey to the Unknown Regions and no mention about the Jedi Exile means the death of story, and the creation of an other classic MMO with no point at all. But I will not continue any more complaining, just to avoid get off topic. So what I would like to see at KOTOR 3 would be the storyline. I am very curious (as all Star Wars fans) to know what really happened to Revan and Exile in their search for the ancient Sith Empire. And not only to read some refenses in a quest or something. I'd love the idea taking over as an appreantice who desided (or forced) to search for the two previous main characters into the Unknown Regions. I'd love to see the storyline of those who left behind, all of them, and I would'n like to see that they have been forgoten in the oblivion... I mean, of course, the parties of those two, all of them who had something to say and something to do in the upcoming storyline.Or at least a tribute to them. Sorry for the length of my post, but for me story is everything in a role playing game. And when it has to do with Star WArs, story counts the double.

[Magister Lajciak]

Welcome to the boards Anubis the Lord!