^^^^

I find your usage of "average player" to be inappropriate, like you attribute "people who like action games" as a majority, in this assumption you are sadly mistaken. But LIAYD has stated roughly what I would on that, so I will leave that one alone.


What the hell! i never said the majority of gamers are action gamers, lukeiamyourdad SAID i said that but i didnt. I said a large portion of gamers are the "casual gamer" who have less patience for tediousness, i dont know what that has to do with action games.

What the hell! i never said the majority of gamers are action gamers, lukeiamyourdad SAID i said that but i didnt. I said a large portion of gamers are the "casual gamer" who have less patience for tediousness, i dont know what that has to do with action games.
Sorry, but you did indeed say just what I said your statement... I'll repost it and my reasoning here to clairify things...

By NO MEANS am i saying the average gamer is immediately put off because it doesnt have a real time, action combat system, what I'm saying is that more gamer inclusive combat system in which the gamer takes a larger role in the action portrayed is more likely to make the combat enjoyable to the average player.
I am saying your usage of "average player" in this part of your statement is inapproriate. RPG's are made for the widest audience of most all types of computer games, so if any game could be considered to cater to an "average player" it would be an RPG.

This statement "what I'm saying is that a more gamer inclusive combat system in which the gamer takes a larger role in the action portrayed is more likely to make the combat enjoyable to the average player" does indeed lead one to come to the conclusion that I did, because you are saying that the "average player" average being a majority, that the majority of players are action style game players, because the average player will want these "gamer inclusive combat" based features, I read that as action. This is how I took your statement, hence my reasoning.

I hope this explains what I meant. ;)

lol ok fair enough, but, i did say in my last post:



If you look over every one of my posts, not once did i say that it hadnt to be an action game style interface. All ive said is that the current combat system is TEDIOUS and samey, I've suggested more control over the combat this DOESNT mean "it should be first person shooter" or "hack and slash" or "button masher", what it DOES mean is that the player should be given exactly what it states, MORE CONTROL OVER THE COMBAT, ie, more than 3 or 4 moves to choose from, more diversity in lightsaber forms, some sort of input into defence like "attempt counterattack" or something like that.

^^^^
:D

But to answer your statement please re-read my Post #49, specifically the middle part explaining 'pure' RPG's... that is why you cannot have those features, by the games very design.

Like I said before, some new combat animations are likely, but nothing like you are asking for, it just isn't allowed in the D20 rules... sorry.

yeah i know about how RPG's work, i play Vampire the Masquerade which uses a similar system.

I think it could easily be improved using the D-20 system. Defence for example, they could include counterattacks,

you could include chain attacks, acrobatics (leap out of battle, like an opposite of the force jump), grapples, saber locks, disarms/weapon destroy (should be able to destroy the other person's sword with a saber, ie, have non cortosis weave weapons, as cortosis weave wouldnt actually be used in every single melee weapon like it is in the previous kotor games), throws, maybe even more intereseting death animations, like saber dismemberment or something similar, all sorts of things like that could work in the D20 system. In fact, saber locks is a good example of where a D20 system would be better than the typical action game button mash.

^^^^
Those features you state are not part of D20 rules proper, so they cannot be used. It is actually out of the scope of the D20 rules to do most of those things you state. There might be a couple of exceptions in your list, but the penalties incurred wouldn't be worth it to use them.

See, the rules would have to be made up beforehand and balanced by WotC, they are the ones who have the final say in anything released with the D20 label, and many of the things you mentioned are not capable of being done in the D20 system, remember D20 is being hyped as an all-in-one game system, so additions at this time to the basic core rules are not going to happen, for reasons of balance.

As far as your misgivings about Cortosis weapons, this was needed as the NWN D20 system is a Fantasy based system, as such it doesn't allow for lightsabers, or damaging an opponents weapon. There are no rules for this. So an excuse was needed to explain why people with melee weapons could go toe-to-toe with a saber wielding opponent.

Also about dismemberment, again the majority of us don't want it, there are threads asking about it around here, also note that if the game included dismemberment it would have an appropriate more mature rating. KOTOR and TSL are Teen rated games, so this means KOTOR III will be too, so this is also not going to happen.

EDIT: While I do understand what you want to accomplish, it is just out of the scope of this type of game to give you these things.

EDIT II: Let's go over them a little more carefully...

Counterattacks & Chain Attacks & Grapples & Saber Locks... do not exist within the D20 system, and it cannot be modified to include these types of things either, in the D20 system combat is 'I attack your defense, then you attack mine'... nothing more can be done, as it is basically D&D.

Acrobatics... Your idea of "(leap out of battle, like an opposite of the force jump)", your leaving combat gives your opponent an attack of opportunity against your base defense (No Dex Bonus), basically a free easy attack on you. It is do-able yes, but... Why? Oh why would you ever want to do such a thing?

Disarms/Weapon Destroy... I already addressed the impossibility of the Weapon Destroy issue, Disarms on the other hand could be implemented, but it is not a standard rule of D20, it is a "House Rule" if I'm not mistaken, and is only limited to special Classes or attack forms. This one is do-able, but should be an optional rule at best... Why? Not everyone likes Disarm Rules.

More Death Animations... this is just something in an additional feature that seems too bloodthirsty to most people. What they have currently is rather tasteful, believe me much testing went into this.

Saber Dismemberment... I also already went into this before, but simply put the games rating is Teen, to add this would raise that rating, and LA has stated they want these games to be a Teen rating, so this bloodthirsty feature, thankfully will not happen either.

Because changing the combat system isnt touching the things that are great about kotor, the things i mentioned are related to the characters, the world, the story, NOT the combat.

Though it might not change them directly, the overall experience will see it itself changed.


again, i never did, you're twisting my words. I said "hardcore gamers" have more patience for tedious aspects of a game because they have a greater appreciation of the better aspects and will endure frustration more than the casual gamer who will simply switch off the console and go do something else rather than put up with something frustrating.

Do they?

I'm not twisting your words. Look at this post:

If a game is too complicated, too boring or too tedious, it's likely that the casual gamer wont be interested in it for very long. The "hardcore gamer" (hate that term, isnt appropriate to what its describing) is one who plays games more often, and has a greater appreciation for the details of a game, and thus tends to have more patience for a game's smaller failings in order to appreciate it as a whole.

I think you lower the casual gamer again. Casual gamers have different attitudes. It's not because he's "casual" that he's going to switch off the console at the first sign of difficulty.

That's because of Final fantasy's great story and characters, like the kotor series. Have i missed something? i dont really remember saying casual gamers wont play a game because of a poor combat system, i remember saying the game will appeal more to the average gamer if it had a realistic, more interactive combat system, and that some people give up on it because they get sick of the combat system, but where are you drawing these generalizations from?

Generalizations? What generalization? I'm not saying that you claim that nobody would play the game because of its poor combat system, just that the statement that it will appear more to "casual" gamers simply isn't true.




quote me where i say "button mashers" please. I said that the pure RPG combat system seperates the player from the action, and that it is tedious, which requires patience, which, in the case of computer games, the "casual gamer" generally has less of than the hardcore gamer.

RedHawke answered it, but I'd like to add something.
I'd like to bring up the adventure game genre. It's a small niche market of games that require mostly patience and observation skill.
Does it mean there's only hardcore gamers? Absolutely not. It's a style that attracts one type of gamer, certainly not a "hardcore gamer style".

interesting observation mate, one i would hypothesise is because it's more cerebral and doesnt necessarily have the male-centred appeal of a testosterone-appeasing violent shooter. However i dont see the relevance.

Oh it does. If we lose appeal to some action minded players, we'll gain it in the women gamers community.



I repeat yet again, games can still be enjoyable without a good combat system, they're just more fun when they do.

Of course it is. Now, this becomes a matter of taste does it? Since you're definition of "good" and "fun", probably differs from other people and mines does too.


no im not! If you look over every one of my posts, not once did i say that it hadnt to be an action game style interface. All ive said is that the current combat system is TEDIOUS and samey, I've suggested more control over the combat this DOESNT mean "it should be first person shooter" or "hack and slash" or "button masher", what it DOES mean is that the player should be given exactly what it states, MORE CONTROL OVER THE COMBAT, ie, more than 3 or 4 moves to choose from, more diversity in lightsaber forms, some sort of input into defence like "attempt counterattack" or something like that.

Those are all improvements upon the existing system, but adds no to little realism.
TSL has already improved upon it, the next time, more can be done.
I'm more interested in your definition of "control". You claim more control, but you want the same system that basically makes you choose your moves. Now what is it?
In my mind, more control is actually controlling the lightsaber/blaster and with my mouse or controller, use it to hit my enemy who will take damage depending on where I hit him.


No, my claim is that making the combat system more realistic makes the game
A: more accessible because the player is more involved in the game
B: allows for more diversity, thus breaking the tediousness of the same animations over and over and over again, making things more interesting (THIS is where the average gamer remark - yes, it was actually a simple remark to begin with - is in context. The "casual gamer" would be drawn in by the fact that the combat ISNT TEDIOUS)
C: Reduces frustration, the player has more control over the events, so they dont have to just sit back and watch their people get butchered because they've got bad stats, they actually have some control over whats happening. And i know ur about to say "what about the PLAYERS who suck" thats what we have different difficulty levels for.

A) No, I don't think it will be more accessible, in general. It might be for a certain group of people.
B) Have you played TSL? There was a lot more then the same animation over and over and over again like in K1. We can improve upon that. As far as I know anyway, the combat wasn't as "tedious" as you claim.
C) I can't do **** on DDR at easy.
Anyway, what would be the point of a level system then? That's what every RPG has been about, from the hack-n-slash Diablo to NWN.
Bad stats you die man, that's what an RPG is all about.

theres too many fighting games the KOTOR saga is NOT about fighting skill!

maybe new animations but no changing if i want free fighting lightsaber i will play jk3

Though it might not change them directly, the overall experience will see it itself changed.

This is true, but its a matter of opinion as to whether its for the better or worse. HOWEVER, it does not change the script, the characters, the locations or anything such as this which make KOTOR games great. The combat system cant take away these exulting traits.


Do they?


yes. Dont pose a rhetorical question unless you offer something to back up your intended side of the argument, it's bad rhetoric.


I think you lower the casual gamer again. Casual gamers have different attitudes. It's not because he's "casual" that he's going to switch off the console at the first sign of difficulty.


again, i never said they "switch off the console at the first sign of difficulty". If something is long winded, and a chore to play, then they are LESS LIKELY to endure it because their elasticity of enjoyment is much greater than the "hardcore" gamer.



I'd like to bring up the adventure game genre. It's a small niche market of games that require mostly patience and observation skill.
Does it mean there's only hardcore gamers? Absolutely not. It's a style that attracts one type of gamer, certainly not a "hardcore gamer style".


its interesting you should bring up the adventure games, and you have a good point, adventure gamers certainly arent "hardcore gamers", are usually more mature and don't necessarily play other types of games, however, i think its interesting to note the decline of adventure games, yes they are certainly still around but there's no denying that they've been on a downward slope over the past 10 years, and the crowd who play them nowadays tends to be a fairly specialist consumer group. "Monopolistic competition" if you will.



Oh it does. If we lose appeal to some action minded players, we'll gain it in the women gamers community.


gee, now there's a pretty baseless, generalized comment, and right after


Generalizations? What generalizations?




Of course it is. Now, this becomes a matter of taste does it? Since you're definition of "good" and "fun", probably differs from other people and mines does too.

definately 100% true, but here you're getting two seperate arguments mixed up. My opinions, and the opinions of a fair number of people i know who've played the kotor games (typically not genre specific people, these guys+girls play action games, adventure games, survival horror and a few RPGs) are that the combat is fairly tedious, and as a starwars fan, and a hell of a fan of lightsabers and jedi, I would like to see more control given to the player.



Those are all improvements upon the existing system, but adds no to little realism.

uh... im not completely sure but im gonna assume you meant "but adds little to realism", which is wrong. Simply by being given more options, you immediately have more CONTROL over your characters, thus meaning you have a greater range of choices of what you would do in that situation. Being given the choice to either attack, use a force power, use a grenade is less realistic than being given the choice to attack, retreat, prepare to counterattack the next enemy attack, throw the enemy, use a force power or use a grenade.
I hope that clarifies things for you.



I'm more interested in your definition of "control". You claim more control, but you want the same system that basically makes you choose your moves. Now what is it?
In my mind, more control is actually controlling the lightsaber/blaster and with my mouse or controller, use it to hit my enemy who will take damage depending on where I hit him.
.

Clearly you have misunderstood me from the beginning, so I'll explain it again.
KOTOR's combat currently gives the player a certain degree of control over the characters, by which i mean to say, you can choose what you want them to do to a certain extent. In my opinion, and relative to other games i have played, this is to a fairly small degree. I cannot attack two enemies at once with my lightsaber, I cannot effectively leap out of battle, i cannot use cover during a firefight, I cannot throw a grenade to a destination other than exactly where an enemy is standing. Based on these sorts of things, my opinion is that the control is fairly SMALL.

While your take on control is fair enough, that is in my opinion more like complete control. Naturally, as redhawke has make pretty clear, as well as hall, that wouldnt really work in a D20 game like kotor. I still think the D20 rules arent THAT inflexible, you could easily alter things to make room for extra moves and options.



A) No, I don't think it will be more accessible, in general. It might be for a certain group of people.
.

matter of opinion. To people unfamiliar with the workings of RPG's, it would most definately make it more accessible.


B) Have you played TSL? There was a lot more then the same animation over and over and over again like in K1. We can improve upon that. As far as I know anyway, the combat wasn't as "tedious" as you claim.


again thats a matter of opinion. The combat only changed when u learnt a new move, and there were only like 3 for melee and 3 for ranged. After that it was always the same. In my opinion, the same 3 moves throughout a 40 hour game is tedious.


Anyway, what would be the point of a level system then? That's what every RPG has been about, from the hack-n-slash Diablo to NWN.
Bad stats you die man, that's what an RPG is all about.

I dont like that i have no influence, combat should be more than that, it should be fun and detailed, as it should be in a game about jedi.


btw, whats DDR?

As far as the battle engines goes, I would really like to be able to see a big lightsable battle like it the movies if you just sat and let the game go in a battle, without all the little pauses between "moves" or "turns". If you want time to give oders or whatever that what the pause botton is for. Other than that I would say leave it the way it is. For freedom of movement I'll go play Battlefront 2. Just my 2 cents worth. :)

i havent played battlefront 2, looks awesome tho. Whats the jedi control like?

Ya know guys, a simple explanation of why this would suck would be:

The whole point of an RPG is for you to choose the most logical abilities for your characters so they get more powerful. If combat were controlled by the player, stats, powers, and the meat of the game would be gone. It would require skill, instead of intelligence.

Maybe that's a better explanation. I dunno.

yeah it is, but there are plenty of hybrid RPG's that incorporate skills into the gameplay excellently and its still an rpg. Take deus ex and jade empire for example.

This is true, but its a matter of opinion as to whether its for the better or worse. HOWEVER, it does not change the script, the characters, the locations or anything such as this which make KOTOR games great. The combat system cant take away these exulting traits.

True, to an extent, but again, it's all part of the overall experience.


yes. Dont pose a rhetorical question unless you offer something to back up your intended side of the argument, it's bad rhetoric.

I did, you just seemed to miss the rest of that part.

again, i never said they "switch off the console at the first sign of difficulty". If something is long winded, and a chore to play, then they are LESS LIKELY to endure it because their elasticity of enjoyment is much greater than the "hardcore" gamer.

I think this is a big generalization. I don't think hardcore gamers are going to endure anything tedious more then a casual gamer. The only people who actually do endure really atrocious games are game reviewers and that's because they have too.



its interesting you should bring up the adventure games, and you have a good point, adventure gamers certainly arent "hardcore gamers", are usually more mature and don't necessarily play other types of games, however, i think its interesting to note the decline of adventure games, yes they are certainly still around but there's no denying that they've been on a downward slope over the past 10 years, and the crowd who play them nowadays tends to be a fairly specialist consumer group. "Monopolistic competition" if you will.

So has the RTS been on the downward slope. Will it pick up in the future? who knows. RPGs, including those with "bad" combat system haven't been in any downward slope.



gee, now there's a pretty baseless, generalized comment, and right after

I thought the careful inclusion of the word "some" would avoid any generalization. I see I was wrong...




definately 100% true, but here you're getting two seperate arguments mixed up. My opinions, and the opinions of a fair number of people i know who've played the kotor games (typically not genre specific people, these guys+girls play action games, adventure games, survival horror and a few RPGs) are that the combat is fairly tedious, and as a starwars fan, and a hell of a fan of lightsabers and jedi, I would like to see more control given to the player.

And I'm pretty sure that "a fair number of people" means people you do know. More anecdotal evidence then actually having a serious survey on the matter. This isn't up for debate anyway.


uh... im not completely sure but im gonna assume you meant "but adds little to realism", which is wrong. Simply by being given more options, you immediately have more CONTROL over your characters, thus meaning you have a greater range of choices of what you would do in that situation. Being given the choice to either attack, use a force power, use a grenade is less realistic than being given the choice to attack, retreat, prepare to counterattack the next enemy attack, throw the enemy, use a force power or use a grenade.

I hope that clarifies things for you.


Clearly you have misunderstood me from the beginning, so I'll explain it again.
KOTOR's combat currently gives the player a certain degree of control over the characters, by which i mean to say, you can choose what you want them to do to a certain extent. In my opinion, and relative to other games i have played, this is to a fairly small degree. I cannot attack two enemies at once with my lightsaber, I cannot effectively leap out of battle, i cannot use cover during a firefight, I cannot throw a grenade to a destination other than exactly where an enemy is standing. Based on these sorts of things, my opinion is that the control is fairly SMALL.


But how does that make the more "action" hungry player feel that the game is less tedious? It's more options. I simply don't think that's how you can qualify that as more "control".



While your take on control is fair enough, that is in my opinion more like complete control. Naturally, as redhawke has make pretty clear, as well as hall, that wouldnt really work in a D20 game like kotor. I still think the D20 rules arent THAT inflexible, you could easily alter things to make room for extra moves and options.

Of course there's more then enough room and I'm all for that. However, I don't see how you and me are not on the same side of the fence. Your proposition won't change anything, just add more options. I don't think we can qualify it as more control.


matter of opinion. To people unfamiliar with the workings of RPG's, it would most definately make it more accessible.

Perhaps yes, perhaps not. Personally, I think it would make no difference.

again thats a matter of opinion. The combat only changed when u learnt a new move, and there were only like 3 for melee and 3 for ranged. After that it was always the same. In my opinion, the same 3 moves throughout a 40 hour game is tedious.

It's actually 4 moves, including the regular attack and there has been a lot of improvements in the department of animations. Thus, it made it less tedious since it wasn't the same flurry animation all the time.

I dont like that i have no influence, combat should be more than that, it should be fun and detailed, as it should be in a game about jedi.

See, this is the thing where I think you contradict yourself. You want more influence but no manual aiming or manual fighting, just more option, but more influence within the D20 system?
The influence you have, depends on what move you choose to use. That's what an RPG is about and according to your earlier explanation of what you wanted, nothing has changed and you'll have the same amount of influence, just more option.
Far from more control and influence.

btw, whats DDR?

Dance Dance Revolution.

i havent played battlefront 2, looks awesome tho. Whats the jedi control like?

It's similar to JKA. Only thing is you only get 2 force powers per Jedi and they are not of your choosing. It's a lot of fun, but it's even more of a botton masher's paradise as a Jedi than it is as a normal soldier. Really cool atack animations and stuff, Yoda's espicially. Pretty neat getting to play as one of those Yeddy looking creaters on Hoth. Only complaint is that the entire AI for the enemy zooms in on you and only once they spot you on the feild of battle. Kind of annoying watching a group of them come running through a large group of ally soldiers to chase you around. Does add more challenge and can be funny when you and your allies mow them all down. Prolly should be back on toppic, if you want anymore info feel free to shoot me a PM or something... :)

Back on topic, I will say this, I do agree with the "purists" here about the fighting engine, but isn't this series suppose to be an RTS to some extent as well, not just an RPG? I would enjoy the chance to use my character like you can in Battlefront, but only in say a "Battle Arena" Situation, not during the normal game play. You put all that time into developing them, be nice to "really be in control" at some point... But that's a ton of extra coding to add and another can of worms and all that good stuff, so I understand not being able to do it.

but isn't this series suppose to be an RTS to some extent as well, not just an RPG?
Nope, KOTOR/TSL are 'pure' RPG's, nothing more... Real Time Strategy is more of a Warcraft III or Starcraft thing. ;)

yeah it is, but there are plenty of hybrid RPG's that incorporate skills into the gameplay excellently and its still an rpg. Take deus ex and jade empire for example.
I thought I already explained about the differences between 'Hybrid' RPG's and 'Pure' RPG's... they are not even the same type of game.

True, to an extent, but again, it's all part of the overall experience.

how to any extent is it not true? combat and story/characters are seperate, combat, like what has clearly been stated is a minor part of the kotor games. Yes the overall experience would be effected, for good or bad hinges on the opinion of the player, but the fact remains that it really wouldnt effect the game significantly at all, i think it would make it better, you think it would make it worse.



I think this is a big generalization. I don't think hardcore gamers are going to endure anything tedious more then a casual gamer. The only people who actually do endure really atrocious games are game reviewers and that's because they have too.


of course the harcore gamer will, like i said earlier, the casual gamer may have no knowledge whatsoever of D20 or any of the goings on behind the scenes of KOTOR combat, they simply hire kotor off the shelves and play it. When it gets to a battle they're gonna say "what the hell is this, why cant i hide behind this wall while i shoot, this is stupid".

everyone's all pent up on keeping it a "pure RPG" so that people who are completely uncoordinated dont suck at it. But look at Fable, that's got real time combat and that's still almost completely dependant on your skills. Being quick and twitchy is all well and good but if you're guy is only doing like 4 damage to a guy with 200 hp you're not going to get very far.



I thought the careful inclusion of the word "some" would avoid any generalization. I see I was wrong...




And I'm pretty sure that "a fair number of people" means people you do know. More anecdotal evidence then actually having a serious survey on the matter. This isn't up for debate anyway.


Yeah man but do you? other than a clearly biased forum you can't honestly make an accurate guess at the actual number of people who'd like it or not.


But how does that make the more "action" hungry player feel that the game is less tedious? It's more options. I simply don't think that's how you can qualify that as more "control".


well the simple fact is that the more options you have, the better your control is over what the character does, i think that qualifies as more "control" quite easily.


Of course there's more then enough room and I'm all for that. However, I don't see how you and me are not on the same side of the fence. Your proposition won't change anything, just add more options. I don't think we can qualify it as more control.


my argument is that combat is too detached from the player, whatever means that is reduced i don't mind, all ive argued is that it wouldn't be a bad thing. (good even)


It's actually 4 moves, including the regular attack and there has been a lot of improvements in the department of animations. Thus, it made it less tedious since it wasn't the same flurry animation all the time.

yeah but thats kind of like chucking a drop of water at the fireplace to put it out,

4 moves instead of 3 for a 40 hour game
5 or 6 animations


See, this is the thing where I think you contradict yourself. You want more influence but no manual aiming or manual fighting, just more option, but more influence within the D20 system?
The influence you have, depends on what move you choose to use. That's what an RPG is about and according to your earlier explanation of what you wanted, nothing has changed and you'll have the same amount of influence, just more option.
Far from more control and influence.


what im saying isnt that specific, all i said was that there isnt enough control in the combat, there's plenty of ways to increase it. Like make it a real time 3rd person style like Fable or Jade Empire. or if you dont want to have to rely on your senses at all, then keep the D20 system but expand it.




Dance Dance Revolution.
I'd hardly compare the sort of real time action like fable in talking about to dance dance revolution

Change the KOTOR combat system? What a great idea! I just thought of another one - let's all set ourselves on fire so we'll stay nice and warm!

lol how insightful

the battlefront jedi control sounds a bit crappy. JKA is the worst at controlling jedi i cant stand it.

It's hard for me to compare. I've got JKA on X-Box and Battlefront 2 on PC... I do have JKO, but I haven't played with the lightsaber a whole lot on that one. Jedi are also limited to put them on a more even playing frield with the rest of the characters in game.

I still chuckle everytime I read the two poll options and how the author was so leading in the way he phrased it.

I just can't make myself vote no because the description of the no vote isn't my reason for why I'd vote no.

KOTOR is a roleplaying series, not a FPS or Action series. The idea isn't to have fast action, twitch based combat, but to have involving story archs, and characters. If KOTOR3 is twitch based, I simply will not buy it. The D20 system is based off of dice rolls, and stats. You would completely undermine that system by changing it to a more point and click setup.

Go play Neverwinter Nights, think it should have a fast action, clickfest style fighting where you aim your characters attacks? No, that isn't how these games are built.

Infact, I could see KOTOR playing out as a turned based game much better than any FPS styled game. Go play the Jedi Knight series, if you want a FPS experience.

KOTOR is a roleplaying series, not a FPS or Action series. The idea isn't to have fast action, twitch based combat, but to have involving story archs, and characters.

since when does having real time combat prevent the game from keeping the focus on the story and characters? everyone seems to think if a game has real time combat, it immediately doesn't have a story. do i really need to list all the games that prove that wrong?

If they go to ture turn based combat I may not buy the game. I have one of the LOTR games and it's way too tedious to wait through all the battles. I just quite playing it, because of how slow it was. I think the system is fine the way it is, but wouldn't mind the battles being more flowing. The way they are currently, I think makes them much more enjoyable than other RPG's I've played.

dude it already is turn based, its just hidden like baldur's gate

^Believe it or not, but KOTOR is turn based. Every three seconds you get one turn. After that its your enemies turn. Its very cleverly disguised don't you think? ;)
@Manny C: Its like eating soup with a fork, you don't get enough of it and its very messy.
Edit: Damn, Manny C beat me to telling Eagle Racer...

Duh, it's turn based. pretty obvious when in the middle of a battle every chracter stands there for 2 seconds not doing anything, then people swing some weapons for half a second then stands there for another 2.5 seconds and things start all over again........................

yeah, but it's not a true turn based (one chracter attacks at a time) system like some other games where you get a lot of time to decide what to do. it's quick and if you aren't, too bad... I would like to see them shorten the turns myself, and leave things up to being time to complete the attack or whatever instead, for how quickly things move. Introduce a "speed" factor in the game, like you see in other RPG's.

of course the harcore gamer will, like i said earlier, the casual gamer may have no knowledge whatsoever of D20 or any of the goings on behind the scenes of KOTOR combat, they simply hire kotor off the shelves and play it. When it gets to a battle they're gonna say "what the hell is this, why cant i hide behind this wall while i shoot, this is stupid".

Or he might not be bothered at all. I came in KotOR without any knowledge of the D20 system and haven't even touched either Baldur's Gate or NWN.
It didn't bother me, as I don't think people are as bothered with it as you make it sound.
I think "casual gamers" know more about RPGs then you make them sound like.


everyone's all pent up on keeping it a "pure RPG" so that people who are completely uncoordinated dont suck at it. But look at Fable, that's got real time combat and that's still almost completely dependant on your skills. Being quick and twitchy is all well and good but if you're guy is only doing like 4 damage to a guy with 200 hp you're not going to get very far.

More or less. I'll take Diablo 2 for example. The game relies on skills, true, but anyone who has ever been in a duel knows that the guy who clicks first wins or the one who can click faster.
It removes emphasis on skills.




Yeah man but do you? other than a clearly biased forum you can't honestly make an accurate guess at the actual number of people who'd like it or not.

You obviously think I don't have a life outside of my room.
I know a lot of casual gamers who have played KotOR, some like it, some less. Overall, nobody was bothered that much by the combat system. You're right though, it can't be an accurate picture.


well the simple fact is that the more options you have, the better your control is over what the character does, i think that qualifies as more "control" quite easily.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=control)

my argument is that combat is too detached from the player, whatever means that is reduced i don't mind, all ive argued is that it wouldn't be a bad thing. (good even)

I don't think it's too detached. It's different. You might have less abilities to do what you want but that can be changed with more options or abilities to play with the environment, without changing the current D20 system.

yeah but thats kind of like chucking a drop of water at the fireplace to put it out,

4 moves instead of 3 for a 40 hour game
5 or 6 animations

At least 3 animations for every attack, 4 for the regular.
3x3+4=13

You do notice the repetition of animations, but that happens with every game in history. Animations tend to repeat themselves.


what im saying isnt that specific, all i said was that there isnt enough control in the combat, there's plenty of ways to increase it. Like make it a real time 3rd person style like Fable or Jade Empire. or if you dont want to have to rely on your senses at all, then keep the D20 system but expand it.

Read definition of control. We can and we should keep the D20 system, but nobody is resistant to improving the current system. What people truly fear is the total change of the system, moving away from turn-based.


since when does having real time combat prevent the game from keeping the focus on the story and characters? everyone seems to think if a game has real time combat, it immediately doesn't have a story. do i really need to list all the games that prove that wrong?

You're right, since KotOR does have a real-time combat system. Though turn-based, everything happens in real time.

At least 3 animations for every attack, 4 for the regular.
3x3+4=13
Correction: 3x3+4=13x3=39. You forgot that there are 3 different lightsaber types (dueling, dual-wielding and double-bladed). ;)

Correction: 3x3+4=13x3=39. You forgot that there are 3 different lightsaber types (dueling, dual-wielding and double-bladed). ;)


Oh right, thanks for the heads up :)

^^No problem. :) The D20 system needs all the support from us "hardcore" gamers :D.

You got that right. Leave the original combat mode in the third KOTOR. I liked how it appeared in the first two and even though it is turn based, it looks real and neat at certain angles. :slsaber:

Or he might not be bothered at all. I came in KotOR without any knowledge of the D20 system and haven't even touched either Baldur's Gate or NWN.
It didn't bother me, as I don't think people are as bothered with it as you make it sound.
I think "casual gamers" know more about RPGs then you make them sound like.


I was the same, it only bothered me for a bit but then i got used to it, its really a minor inconvenience, but my argument is that it shouldnt be an inconvenience at all.



http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=control)


you know that really doesnt prove me wrong at all, in fact it really does the opposite: "To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; direct."

more options means increased ability to direct your characters' actions, ie, more control


I don't think it's too detached. It's different. You might have less abilities to do what you want but that can be changed with more options or abilities to play with the environment, without changing the current D20 system.


The bold is wherin lies my "quam" with the combat system. I suggested changes like that earlier but redhawke said it doesnt follow the "d20 rules" or something.


You do notice the repetition of animations, but that happens with every game in history.


bold statement, one i would have chosen to avoid. Half-life 2 has a simulated physics engine, ie there are no "animations" so thus no repetitiveness.



Read definition of control. We can and we should keep the D20 system, but nobody is resistant to improving the current system. What people truly fear is the total change of the system, moving away from turn-based.


In the end its a matter of preference. There's no way they're gonna change the combat system that much because its too big a step away from the other two, but as someone who gets tired of clicky clickies, id prefer something real time, more exciting and variable in my opinion.



You're right, since KotOR does have a real-time combat system. Though turn-based, everything happens in real time.

ie "hidden turn-based"

I was the same, it only bothered me for a bit but then i got used to it, its really a minor inconvenience, but my argument is that it shouldnt be an inconvenience at all.

It's not. It's like getting into any game ever. You have different interfaces, different weapons, etc.
Getting used to the new setting is always present or else, you'd have every game with the same HUD, same weapons, same everything.


you know that really doesnt prove me wrong at all, in fact it really does the opposite: "To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; direct."

more options means increased ability to direct your characters' actions, ie, more control

Yeah, I thought about it for a long while before adding it in. Still, I don't think I can qualify that as "control".
Anyway, it's a debate on terminology, so let's leave it at that.



The bold is wherin lies my "quam" with the combat system. I suggested changes like that earlier but redhawke said it doesnt follow the "d20 rules" or something.

Meh, things can change with or without RedHawke's purism :p

It's my opinion that we should be able to play with the environment and setting.

bold statement, one i would have chosen to avoid. Half-life 2 has a simulated physics engine, ie there are no "animations" so thus no repetitiveness.

You're partly right, but the movement of various characters are animations. There is no death animation but that doesn't mean there's no animations at all. We can go as far as to qualify the SMG firing the same way all the time as repetitive animations or seeing your hand throw a grenade. Same grenade throwing animation, all the time.



In the end its a matter of preference. There's no way they're gonna change the combat system that much because its too big a step away from the other two, but as someone who gets tired of clicky clickies, id prefer something real time, more exciting and variable in my opinion.

Well, you might have to click again. Unless they use a system where you play almost exclusively with your keyboard and/or controller, you'll click to attack, right-click to defend, etc. You get the idea, and for RPGs, it usually is the regular setting.
Really though, I play a lot of FPS and RTS and that mostly involves clicking.

I do think that if some people think the combat is unexciting it might be linked to the difficulty of the game. On normal setting, the game is too easy the second you get a lightsaber and force powers. It becomes some sort of weird "hack-n-slash" in turn base.
You mow down mobs of enemies in one or two hits so the combat system has no time to really flourish.


ie "hidden turn-based"

Doesn't make it less real-time.

I suggested changes like that earlier but redhawke said it doesnt follow the "d20 rules" or something.
Meh, things can change with or without RedHawke's purism :p
Not unless WotC changes the D20 rules! :sign2:

Rules Lawyers FTW! :xp:

Leave the RPG ALONE!!! I like it as I've stated in several posts. Combination games are for those who like JA or Episode 3

While I don't feel the need to jump into this debate with both feet I feel I should point out that in real life "combat" is "turn based."

Here's what happens if two guys in real life having a sword fight attack at the same time: They both die, one might die quicker but they both still get layed out.

Hell, its even something I do when foil fencing, if I have a particually tougth opponent I force my attack, i.e. when he goes to parry I drop my blade and carry on lunging. I hit him first but in real life we'd both be pushing up daisies.

If someone swings at you you block, if they shoot at you you duck. If they attack you defend, if they defend you attack. People who just go hack hack in JO or JA last about 30 seconds in MP against someone who knows what they're doing.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha; Can't even beat the Turret Mini-Game; Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.

Hey, no kidding, this happened to me one time early on when I'd only played the game a few times. I was playing with my son and when we left Taris, we could not beat the fighters to save our lives. We must have reloaded like 10 times. Now, I'd beaten it before, so I couldn't understand the problem--thought it might be my computer (I'm playing on a laptop with the bare minimum graphics card).
Then I realized that every time I shot up 2 fighters, 2 more would spawn in some really weird glitch. I finally had to uninstall/reinstall the game in order to get it to work properly again. Of course, that also gave me the incentive to try mods (I didn't want to mod the game before playing it a few times, and believe it or not, K1 was my first real PC game).

Now, I'd like to keep the D20 system the way it is. I feel like I'm managing enough just picking out the various attacks and Force powers--I don't want to have to manage every single move, too. Except for the boss fights, I like the battles to be over fairly quickly.
Now I have to go play the game instead of talking about playing the game.... :noel:

Mandalore wants the combat to stay the same. Only enhanced

The combat system is great, but more movement of the fighters would be great, like in the movies!!!

I don't think that's feasible. Wouldn't that end up altering the system anyway?

I was the same, it only bothered me for a bit but then i got used to it, its really a minor inconvenience, but my argument is that it shouldnt be an inconvenience at all.

I think a little story would best describe this situation. There was once a happy little Jedi Knight, but he thought all that peace and serenity stuff was an inconvenience... so he ran off and joined the Sith, and was no longer bothered with that incnovenience.

My point: Pick a game that's not as "inconvenient" for you. If you do not like RPG combat, then I regret to inform you...

KOTOR IS AN RPG.

If you like FPS combat, then go play a FPS game. It's that simple. You're basically trying to turn a game into something that already exists, but you don't seem to know it. I believe the proper quote for this situation is "reinventing the wheel".

you know that really doesnt prove me wrong at all, in fact it really does the opposite: "To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; direct."

You still don't have the full definition. It can be in a physical or mental sense.

more options means increased ability to direct your characters' actions, ie, more control

Are you saying you prefer swining lightsabers in all sorts of angles to developing your character's personality?

The bold is wherin lies my "quam" with the combat system. I suggested changes like that earlier but redhawke said it doesnt follow the "d20 rules" or something.

He was correct... If you change the D20 rules, they no longer are the D20 rules.

Change: To lay aside, abandon, or leave for another; switch: change methods; change sides.
To transfer from (one conveyance) to another: change planes.

bold statement, one i would have chosen to avoid. Half-life 2 has a simulated physics engine, ie there are no "animations" so thus no repetitiveness.

I'm not sure you understand... in video games, when a character moves, it is an animation. If a characters moves forward, that is considered an animation.

id prefer something real time, more exciting and variable in my opinion.

Then go play a game that's more "real time". IT'S THAT SIMPLEl.

ie "hidden turn-based"

more options means increased ability to direct your characters' actions, ie, more control

Can anyone detect a bit of inconsistency here? :rolleyes:

I think a little story would best describe this situation. There was once a happy little Jedi Knight, but he thought all that peace and serenity stuff was an inconvenience... so he ran off and joined the Sith, and was no longer bothered with that incnovenience.

thats the worst metaphor ive ever heard. In essence, id depicts nothing more than your opinion: "RPG COMBAT=GOOD, REAL TIME COMBAT=EVIL"


My point: Pick a game that's not as "inconvenient" for you.

really, your story has nothing to do with that point, but just to humour you: firstly, read through my posts before you make wild generalizations like "the game is inconvenient". The game is not inconvenient. I found adjusting to the combat mechanism inconvenient, and i find having to watch the same animations continuously inconvenient. Jesus, ud think the combat system was the only part of the game.

KOTOR IS AN RPG.
so is deus ex. so is jade empire.
regardless, ur argument is redundant, the classification of the game has already been made. You cant say "i like rpgs, i like FPS, lets change this game into an FPS", because its really not that simple. I like games with an excellent sense of immersion, a great story, great characters and is fun to play. I just so happen to find more enjoyment in real time combat style action than RPG action, simple as that. But that doesnt mean ill not play kotor because i find the combat system tiresome, fact remains that its an awesome game because of its other qualities, i dont "do or die" on a game based on one of its faculties.



If you like FPS combat, then go play a FPS game. It's that simple. You're basically trying to turn a game into something that already exists, but you don't seem to know it. I believe the proper quote for this situation is "reinventing the wheel".

Again, its stupid to abandon/hail a game based on one of its attributes. and what is this idiotic assumption that "real time=FPS". It's a jedi game, how can you use a shooter style game for a weapon that doesnt "shoot", thats why ive always thought the jedi knight series is stupid. I feel like a game about jedi knights would benefit from the ability to directly control the lightsaber, others like the way it is. Take it or leave it.


You still don't have the full definition. It can be in a physical or mental sense.


i have the definition thats relevant to this discussion.


Are you saying you prefer swining lightsabers in all sorts of angles to developing your character's personality?


no. dont see what more options has to do with swinging wildly and dont see what it has to do with personality. To be honest this is really starting to bug me. How does changing the combat system affect the rest of the game in any way? i honestly dont understand this preconceived notion that if a game has real time combat that it cant have character progression or a story. Hasnt anyone played fable or deus ex? Also, havent i made it clear that i HATE the idea of swinging a lightsaber at all angles, that is not what real time saber combat should be like. JEDI ACADEMY HAS POORLY DESIGNED GAMEPLAY!!!!!


He was correct... If you change the D20 rules, they no longer are the D20 rules.

to be honest i dont really understand the d20 rules they have in starwars RPG. I play vampire the masquerade, and thats really adaptable to anything a character does. An action will always require the use of a skill and an attribute, and you just add them up and thats how many dice you use and your successes determine wether u succeeded or failed. This system is adaptable to pretty much any action. I dont really get the D20 thing.


I'm not sure you understand... in video games, when a character moves, it is an animation. If a characters moves forward, that is considered an animation.

lol no its not. by "animation" we mean a prescripted action that has been written by an animator. like in say, goldeneye, when an enemy dies, he sometimes falls to his knees then on his face. That is a death animation that has been prescripted.


Then go play a game that's more "real time". IT'S THAT SIMPLEl.

dont take it out of context mate, i was talking about the COMBAT SYSTEM. not the game as a whole.



Can anyone detect a bit of inconsistency here? :rolleyes:
nope, neither of these contradict themselves, and they're both taken out of context. What are you, micheal moore's protege?

can we get redhawke and luke back in here? they've got much more guided and sensical discussion to add.

thats the worst metaphor ive ever heard. In essence, id depicts nothing more than your opinion: "RPG COMBAT=GOOD, REAL TIME COMBAT=EVIL"

You are incorrect again. The point is that you seem to want to turn KOTOR into an action-based game, even though action-based games already exist.

firstly, read through my posts before you make wild generalizations like "the game is inconvenient".

I'm sorry. I thought you meant it when you said it was inconvenient.

so is deus ex. so is jade empire.

True. However, most RPGs do not use that kind of combat.

I like games with an excellent sense of immersion, a great story, great characters and is fun to play. I just so happen to find more enjoyment in real time combat style action than RPG action, simple as that.

http://jade.bioware.com/)

no. dont see what more options has to do with swinging wildly and dont see what it has to do with personality.

Lucasarts wanted KOTOR II to have more features than the first game, but still have a good plot. Unfortunately, the time they spent adding the new features could've been spent on improving the story, and making it so that fans would not have to restore the cut content. It seems that Lucasarts doesn't care much about finishing both aspects of the game. If they spend even more time focusing on the combat, there'll probably be less time for them to work on the story.

To be honest this is really starting to bug me. How does changing the combat system affect the rest of the game in any way?

Because for both KOTOR games, they've used the same combat system. If KOTOR III doesn't, it won't feel like KOTOR as much.

i honestly dont understand this preconceived notion that if a game has real time combat that it cant have character progression or a story.

Scoll upward a bit, and you'll see the reason.

Hasnt anyone played fable or deus ex?

No. I heard Fable was an awful game, though.

to be honest i dont really understand the d20 rules they have in starwars RPG.

I dont really get the D20 thing.

:eyeraise:

Yet another reason why KOTOR doesn't seem to be the game for you...

lol no its not. by "animation" we mean a prescripted action that has been written by an animator. like in say, goldeneye, when an enemy dies, he sometimes falls to his knees then on his face. That is a death animation that has been prescripted.

And when characters move forward, their legs go back and forth. That is an animation. The animators had to write it.

What are you, micheal moore's protege?

No, I am not.

I fully agree with this statement.
There is an evolution of the genre, but evolution does not mean changing everything.
Of all the actual RPGs, KotOR has one of the best combat system.

Look at some Japanese RPGs, mainly the Final Fantasy serie. Stand at point x, move towards enemy, attack, return to point x.
It's even more horrendous then KotOR, yet there's less whining about it. Why? Great story and characters, just like KotOR.

It's like some heretics who dare say that Civ should be made into an RTS. The series of Civilization games are management games so combat isn't the main focus, just like real RPGs.

Or even better, Rainbow Six doesn't have enough fast-paced action. It's not supposed to have fast-paced action.

I hate with a passion what Ubisoft has done to consolizing the R6/GR series. Taking a slow paced real tactical shooter and turning it into a fast action FPS with squad support. Revan Shield will be the last game in that series that I will buy.

So far as Dues Ex is concerned most gamers consider it to be a FPS-RPG hybrid.

Fable, from what I understand is a decent game if you forget all that was promised and cut from the game.

I have no problems with how the combat is done in KotOR series. I wouldn't mind seeing something like what Bethesda is doing with TES IV:Oblivion. However I have no idea how it would be implemented in a KotOR game.

http://morrowind.com/codex/team_teamprof_stevem.htm)

You are incorrect again. The point is that you seem to want to turn KOTOR into an action-based game, even though action-based games already exist.
hold on, i think you need to reread my posts. For some twisted reason you seem to think the entire game hinges solely on the combat system, I don't know if you've played the games (you wouldnt think this if you had) but a very large portion of the game is in conversation, developing character, getting to know people learning the story. Now, if the combat system were to change, then none of these other facets would be affected in ANY way. In fact, if i had the programming skill id try and make a mod which implements real time combat into kotor 1, and in doing so i wouldnt touch any of the game in which there is no combat.



I'm sorry. I thought you meant it when you said it was inconvenient.

Apology accepted, but i really think you should actually go back and read through the posts before shooting your mouth off. If you had, you would have realised this entire discussion is about the COMBAT SYSTEM. You don't need to change the script, characters locations or anything like that to change the combat system.


True. However, most RPGs do not use that kind of combat.

your point? Since when should "most dont do it" be a legitimate reason for something not to be done. If everyone had that attitude, the gaming industry would be a dull world indeed.


http://jade.bioware.com/)

is this supposed to prove something? Ive played through jade empire, its good but its not as good as KOTOR. Firstly, KOTOR is a starwars game, and i love starwars, secondly, kotor has better characters and story, plus it's more immersive, its bigger and the locations are better. To me, all of those facets are more important than the combat system.


Lucasarts wanted KOTOR II to have more features than the first game, but still have a good plot. Unfortunately, the time they spent adding the new features could've been spent on improving the story, and making it so that fans would not have to restore the cut content. It seems that Lucasarts doesn't care much about finishing both aspects of the game. If they spend even more time focusing on the combat, there'll probably be less time for them to work on the story.
hmmmm. Ok i think some things need to be made clear to you. Firstly "Lucasarts" didnt make the game, they funded a company called "Obsidian Entertainment" to develop the game, who created what we now know as "Kotor 2". The reason there's so much content cut out is not because "they spent too much time on features" but that Lucasarts (the publisher) pushed for an early release date so the game would be out well before the new movie in order to make more sales. This meant Obsidian didnt have enough time to finish the game completely and had to cut alot of stuff out.



Because for both KOTOR games, they've used the same combat system. If KOTOR III doesn't, it won't feel like KOTOR as much.
Yes, it would be different, thats already been debated, but its a matter of opinion as to whether it would be for the better.



Scoll upward a bit, and you'll see the reason.

By this i suppose you mean "more time on combat means less time working on story". But the thing is that the people who code the combat system and animate the game aren't the same people who write the story. The people who write the story are "writers" hired by obsidian to write the main story and the script, not the programmers and animators. Plus, if lucasarts learn from their mistake from KOTOR 2 (which they wont, as it didnt affect sales too much, and thats the only way things ever change on the publisher's end), they'll give the development team as much time as they need to get the game completely finished.


No. I heard Fable was an awful game, though.

It's like aratoelar said, it was a good game if you forget about all the hype. I happened to play the game without hearing all the hype so for me i thought it was great. It probably has the most in depth character customization of any RPG, thats for sure. how interesting, that sort of contradicts something i read earlier:
Are you saying you prefer swining lightsabers in all sorts of angles to developing your character's personality?


:eyeraise:
Yet another reason why KOTOR doesn't seem to be the game for you...

God almighty! Unlike a judgmental grandmother, i don't immediate deem a game as "for me" or "not for me" because i dont like something about it. Not only that, but since when do you have to completely understand the mathematical probability mechanism behind the combat in kotor in order for the game to be suitable to play? Ill wager most of the people who bought and played kotor havent even heard the phrase "D20". Could you have said anything more stupid?


And when characters move forward, their legs go back and forth. That is an animation. The animators had to write it.

thats about as relevant as your comment about the "control" definition. tiny movements like that are NOT what me and luke were talking about. Don't butt into a discussion then have no idea what the discussion is about.


Originally Posted by Manny C
What are you, micheal moore's protege?

No, I am not.
Ever heard the phrase "rhetorical question"? At any rate, the point of saying it is that pretty much everything uve said has either been irrelevant, already said and in a better way, or is a response to something ive said taken out of context because you havent read through the discussion. Please read through it before you start posting, you'll save us alot of time.

hold on, i think you need to reread my posts. For some twisted reason you seem to think the entire game hinges solely on the combat system,

I do not think that. I thought that you did, but you seem to have cleared the matter up.

Apology accepted,

It was actually sarcasm. I thought you could tell.

your point?

You claimed that not all RPGs use a traditional RPG combat system, and then pointed them out. I then told you that most RPGs do not use an action-based combat system. [/QUOTE]

Since when should "most dont do it" be a legitimate reason for something not to be done.

Quite the contrary. KOTOR I and II use the same graphics engine. "Most don't do it" would actually be one of many good reasons for KOTOR III not to use a new one.

Ive played through jade empire, its good but its not as good as KOTOR.

Strange. Jade Empire met more of your requirements for a good game than KOTOR.

kotor has better characters and story,

Personally, I found quite a few Jade Empire characters superiror to the ones in KOTOR. For example, Death's Hand was much better than Darth Bandon. However, I found KOTOR to be a better game than Jade Empire.

Firstly "Lucasarts" didnt make the game,

Actually, some members of Lucasarts worked on KOTOR II. It is true that Obsidian did the majority of the work. Given how you know this, I thought it would be unnecessary to identify Obsidian and simply say "they". Perhaps I need to be more clear when speaking to you.

The reason there's so much content cut out is not because "they spent too much time on features" but that Lucasarts (the publisher) pushed for an early release date so the game would be out well before the new movie in order to make more sales.

The early release date was a reason, but they actually spent quite a bit of time working on the new features for KOTOR II.

But the thing is that the people who code the combat system and animate the game aren't the same people who write the story. The people who write the story are "writers" hired by obsidian to write the main story and the script, not the programmers and animators.

That is true, but then the factor of money comes in. I imagine that Obsidian did not work for a low price. While Lucasarts may be rich, based on their behavior, they seem like the people who want to keep cost to a minimum. If the new features for KOTOR II were deemed unnecessary, that money could have gone into hiring more writers.

God almighty! Unlike a judgmental grandmother, i don't immediate deem a game as "for me" or "not for me" because i dont like something about it.

That's odd. Most people tend to buy games they like.

Not only that, but since when do you have to completely understand the mathematical probability mechanism behind the combat in kotor in order for the game to be suitable to play?

You said that you did not understand the D20 system. I assumed by that you meant the combat system itself, since that is what you said. Now you're going on about the mathematics of it. Where did that come from?

You inconsistency is destroying your arguments. You might want to work on that a bit before you post a reply.

thats about as relevant as your comment about the "control" definition. tiny movements like that are NOT what me and luke were talking about.

Technically, they are animations.

I do not think that. I thought that you did, but you seem to have cleared the matter up.
sigh:


The point is that you seem to want to turn KOTOR into an action-based game, even though action-based games already exist.

Are you saying you prefer swining lightsabers in all sorts of angles to developing your character's personality?
You're basically trying to turn a game into something that already exists, but you don't seem to know it. I believe the proper quote for this situation is "reinventing the wheel".

in all of these quotes, you have conveyed the opinion that changing the combat system will mean the game will no longer be an RPG, but will be an "action game". Do you even know what an RPG actually is? theres more to it than turn based action and numbers and dice rolling im afraid.

It was actually sarcasm. I thought you could tell.

did you even read the rest of that sentence? Do you have selective eyesight or something? you only read what you want to and ignore what refutes your argument. In case you missed it, here ill make it easier for you:

but i really think you should actually go back and read through the posts before shooting your mouth off. If you had, you would have realised this entire discussion is about the COMBAT SYSTEM. You don't need to change the script, characters locations or anything like that to change the combat system.


You claimed that not all RPGs use a traditional RPG combat system, and then pointed them out. I then told you that most RPGs do not use an action-based combat system.
i noticed that, thankyou. but do you actually have a point or was it just for the sake of it?


Quite the contrary. KOTOR I and II use the same graphics engine. "Most don't do it" would actually be one of many good reasons for KOTOR III not to use a new one.

hold on a minute. So u said most RPG's dont use a real time combat system, which can only mean you're saying they shouldnt change the combat system because its not common, now you're saying the reason they should keep a two year old graphics engine is because its UNcommon? not only is that self contradicting, but it also goes on about the graphics engine which has nothing to do with this discussion.


Strange. Jade Empire met more of your requirements for a good game than KOTOR.
what do you know about my "requirements for a good game". Ive made it so blatantly clear that i value story, characters and immersion over combat, and where it counts, kotor beats Jade Empire in my opinion. Don't pressume to dictate my opinion.


Personally, I found quite a few Jade Empire characters superiror to the ones in KOTOR. For example, Death's Hand was much better than Darth Bandon. However, I found KOTOR to be a better game than Jade Empire.
well thats entirely a matter of opinion, but your comparison doesnt make much sense. Darth Bandon is a very minor character in KOTOR, he's not "KOTOR's version of death's hand". when i say the characters, im talking about major characters like the party members and the main villains, of which darth bandon is not.


Actually, some members of Lucasarts worked on KOTOR II. It is true that Obsidian did the majority of the work. Given how you know this, I thought it would be unnecessary to identify Obsidian and simply say "they". Perhaps I need to be more clear when speaking to you.
sigh, uve missed the point again. you wrote a paragraph on why kotor 2's story suffered because the game developers spent too much time on "new features" which is wrong.


The early release date was a reason, but they actually spent quite a bit of time working on the new features for KOTOR II.
are you saying they shouldn't introduce new features? keep the game completely the same and just have a new story? Why the hell am i even bothering to argue with an opinion like that?


That is true, but then the factor of money comes in. I imagine that Obsidian did not work for a low price. While Lucasarts may be rich, based on their behavior, they seem like the people who want to keep cost to a minimum. If the new features for KOTOR II were deemed unnecessary, that money could have gone into hiring more writers.
the kotor series has always been about story, and the focus will always stay that way. Lucasarts know this and they aren't going to boycott the selling feature of the series for the sake of "new features".


That's odd. Most people tend to buy games they like.

that really has to be a joke. You can't possibly be that stupid. Is english your first language? because you clearly dont seem to be interpreting simple sentences properly. Since when does "there's a part of the game i dont like" mean "i dont like the game".

im getting the impression that the combat system is the REASON you play kotor and that its the single most important factor. Can we get someone else in here to offer a third party opinion?

You said that you did not understand the D20 system. I assumed by that you meant the combat system itself, since that is what you said. Now you're going on about the mathematics of it. Where did that come from?
lol you just made it perfectly clear that you don't even know what the D20 system is yourself. Even so, you would have found out HAD YOU READ THE REST OF THIS DISCUSSION. Go back and read RedHawke's definition of the D20 system.

You inconsistency is destroying your arguments. You might want to work on that a bit before you post a reply.

this might be a sad fact to face, but in the little time you've been in this discussion you've misunderstood simple sentences, completely ignored points which refute your argument, brought up completely irrelevant things, contradicted yourself and brought up arguments which have already been dealt with and with better eloquence than you seem capable of. I beg of you, read the rest of the posts in this discussion BEFORE you post again, it will firstly answer plenty of your questions and clarify things for you.


Technically, they are animations.
i cant be bothered repeating myself so ill just cut and paste it:
"thats about as relevant as your comment about the "control" definition. tiny movements like that are NOT what me and luke were talking about."

if luke had a problem with my definition of animations, he would have said so, stop wasting my time.

Emperor Devon & Manny C: you're welcomed to give your opinion about the game but play nice. Flaming won't be tolerated.