Comment after reading KOTOR 2 exclusive, Devs read

[Fearless_Jedi]

Hades One actually has a good point!

 

I myself would like it to be real time cause it makes the game more exciting but the combat wouldn't look cinematic at all! (I know this sort of contradicts some other things I have said but due to the fact that real time combat wouldn't look cinematic that makes me prefer the real time/turn based style of combat)

 

More options in combat? Definitely a great idea. More options means more of a difference from one fight to another and more variety makes it alot more fun.

 

As for the not being able to roleplay your own character....this isn't the game to do it with. Try Star Wars: Galaxies instead.

[Gorth]

Depends on what the developers and the publisher are trying to accomplish with the game. Do they wan't it to be a combat game or a role-playing game ? They usually don't really go that well hand-in-hand as players (and fans) of the one or the other will resent the osther aspect of the game for intruding into their favourite aspect

 

If I buy a game that claims to be a crpg, I expect a roleplaying game, not a combat game, if i want a combat game, I'll go buy a combat game. Usually makes for a better overall experience to keep genres seperate

 

For the records, I like combat games. Anybody remember Exploding Fist by Melbourne House for the C64 ? Coolest combat game ever B)

[Volourn]

Lacklustre titles? So titles that you rate 80% + are lacklustre? Weird...

[Craftsman]

Dw about hades. He tends to be negitive. It just the way he is.

[kefka]

Anyway, Kefka I have to say I like your ideas and the web site u posted about the jedi fighting styles, is that your web site??

No, it isn't my website, but thanks for asking

 

Anyway, even if Obsidian don't include unique styles, I'm happy about the new animations. When every attack looks the same, regardless of level, you get no sense of progression. As your character improves I want to see that, not just as extra damage or stats.

[Spook]

As for the not being able to roleplay your own character....this isn't the game to do it with. Try Star Wars: Galaxies instead.

Almost all Massive Multiplayer Online games are Powergamer games, not Roleplaying games. :ph34r:

[Fearless_Jedi]

Yeah some MMRPG can be powergamer games but at least you create a character that is your own! That is what someone said they wanted!

 

Any way, I have to agree with Kefka at least they are making better animations and that should add alot more to the game.

[Eddie]

You can't have a d20 system CRPG without any "turns" (rounds). The whole system is based upon that. But they could tweak the animations or whatnot to make it appear as real-time if that helps you feel better. We

[Opus131]

Yeah some MMRPG can be powergamer games but at least you create a character that is your own!

So ?!?

 

Without roleplaying possibilities and an extended, living world it's utterly meaningless.

 

You can create your own character on a peice of paper and hang it on a wall if you want, much more pratical, and defenatly less expensive...

[Fearless_Jedi]

I was just trying to make them feel better.

[Judge Hades]

Sorry, I don't play MMORPGs. I gave them a try with Ultima Online and Anarchy Online but found them downright pathetic. All they were was level milling and zero story. Sorry, I don't play games like that. I want a game that not only allows me to make any character archtype I want while still give me a good interesting story and role play opportunities.

 

Morrowind and KotOR are the extremes, I prefer a balance in between.

[Volourn]

s that why you rated KOTOR about 90%? WOWSERS!

[Judge Hades]

It deserves that score. Leaving out all my own personal biases and tastes, it is a well crafted CRPG.

[Morgoth]

So which criterions do you then use when you're giving a game a score? I think mere objectivity would indirectly suggest that you're a bad reviewer.

Giving a game 90% and then ranting the whole time about it is just a bit "irrational" for my taste.

*waiting for the predictable answer*

[Judge Hades]

Criterions that I use in judging a game objectively is not that hard to follow and anyone could use it to determine a game's overall worth without getting into biases.

 

I judge a game on how well each aspect of the game works with one another and how well it provides entertainment. I also keep in mind the target audience of the game as well. Music, graphics, story aspects, artwork, gameplay, and etc must be consistant with each other and provide entertainment during the process of playing the game. If all the elements are consistant with one another and gives a good presentation of entertainment it gets a high score. If there are inconsistancies and bad game play the game recieves a lower score. Its not that hard to be objective.

 

Putting my own personal bias in a review is just bad form because my tastes in games are quite different than the mainstream and casual gamer.

[Morgoth]

Putting my own personal bias in a review is just bad form because my tastes in games are quite different than the mainstream and casual gamer.

Putting your own personal bias into a review without knowing your "preferences" would probably suggest the reader that this must be the crappiest game ever....

 

Anyway, a good review also mentions some "great experiences", or "wowsers", that sometimes tells you more than a list of features without knowing how good they work together....

IWD had technically the same features as BG2 (if not more), but the difference, quality wise is huge...

[Judge Hades]

I view IWD and BG2 pretty much the same except for the focus of the games. IWD was a purely a hack and slash CRPG while BG2 was more of a story based CRPG. Same quality, different focus.

[Morgoth]

Both had a story, but how should I know whether e.g. IWD's one sucked and BG2's one rocked when there is at least not a little bit of "bias" in the review....

[Judge Hades]

IWD's focus wasn't the story though. IWD's focus was the action. You also need to take a good look at what the game is trying to accomplish and what its primary target audience is. IWD primary target audience was the Diablo hack and slash gamers, but to give them better strategic combat. BG2's target audience was the fanbase of BG1 and thusly it gave a wider story arc building from the first game.

[Morgoth]

Well maybe that comparison about IWD and BG2 was bad, but that wasn't actually the point I wanted to make anyway.

I just wanted to say that a good and informatively review needs both objectivity and a healthy portion of subjectivity... without beeing too single sided biased.

Therefor someone who gives a game a very high score without loving it personally is just.... hmmm weird. Such reviews are not very usefull for me. It happend very often that actually well done games were underrated because they hadn't those cool "must have features within the genre frame".

E.g. Freedom Force was mostly underrated but I loved this game.... Not very solid in some ways, but as a whole a little masterpiece. Without a bit subjectively written reviews you can't figure this out immediately...

[Judge Hades]

Not that it matters any more. I quit that job 4 months ago.

[Maria Caliban]

Fearless Jedi:

" Dont make feats like flurry, critical hit, or power attack. For one, you never have enough feat points to master them all, and all of them except maybe flurry where useless."

 

I'm going to disagree with you on "power attack" as I found it to be quite a useful feat to have. I was often able to take an enemy down with one hit using it. Critical Strike never became powerful enough to warrant spending three feat points on it but that can easily rectified. Also, you can acquire enough feat points to master all three.

 

Aurara:

" You couldn't use more than one feat at a time, so it was *worthless* to master them all"

Not necessarily true. Different situations often call for different tactics.

 

Morgoth:

"Giving a game 90% and then ranting the whole time about it is just a bit "irrational" for my taste."

Not so, 2001: A Space Odyssey, is a fantastic movie. It's made with a skill and precision that put it on par with greats like Citizen Kane or Casablanca. It pushed the boundaries of movie making and presents us with some of the most powerful imagery in American cinema. Yet, it bores me to tears. If asked about this movie I will go on about how god awful I thought it was. Most people can differentiate between their personal reaction and more objective criteria.

[Chris Avellone]

You know, about Critical Strike, it actually was pretty powerful as it stood - when we were looking over revamping the rules and feats from the first game, Critical Strike was one we didn't want to mess with, since with the right combo of lightsaber crystals and repeated use of Critical Strike, you could plow your way through hordes of enemies without too much trouble. And that's without any Force powers paralyzing your opponents.

[sniggy]

You know, about Critical Strike, it actually was pretty powerful as it stood - when we were looking over revamping the rules and feats from the first game, Critical Strike was one we didn't want to mess with, since with the right combo of lightsaber crystals and repeated use of Critical Strike, you could plow your way through hordes of enemies without too much trouble. And that's without any Force powers paralyzing your opponents.

what about the opponents? it felt like they hardly used any special attacks. are they going to show some deadly battle tactics as well? i could usually let my jedi fight close up while keeping the others at distance and blast everything apart

[Karzak]

I used CS and PA exclusively, CS against live opponents and PS against droids. combat was boring and uninteresting, clicking boxes four times over and over.

 

I don't expect to see any revamping of KotOR combat in version 2.