Prime Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 Originally posted by rccar328 My final complaint about JA was the reborn. While I appreciated the extra challenge that came from fighting one saber-wielding reborn while another tries to throw you around & zap you with lightning, there were just too many of these guys. After awhile, I found myself thinking, "Geez, I gotta fight another reborn?" Some of the fights were challenging, some were fun, but I find slicing through hundreds of stormies with my new saberstaff so much more fun. I see where you are coming from, but I found the opposite. I would get extremely bored if all there was to fight were stormtroopers and rodians. By removing most or all of the reborn, you remove perhaps the best part about having a lightsaber, which is the lightsaber duels. I really enjoy JO and JA because they provide this opportunity (much more than JK did). I have seen some complaints about the creation/existance story of the Reborn. Personally I like the Reborn a lot and feel their story works okay as a Star Wars story, and I certainly think it is worth it to provide a way to provide saber wielding enemies. The thing I find a little funny is that in KOTOR... Malak uses a dark side powered space station and transfers force power from jedi to himself through the abilities of the station. Yet everyone says that KOTOR has the greatest story ever (and I agree ). It just surprises me that many people complain about JO/JA doing this when KOTOR does something very similar and no one has a problem with it. Granted KOTOR has better execution, but the underlying concepts are quite similar. Originally posted by [ASJN] Balboa if you hate the game, why are you at this forum? He doesn't hate the game. I think that is obvious. There are just some aspects he likes more than others, like everyone else. And he is certainly welcome to voice those opinions on these forums. Originally posted by Jedi Luke Exactly. Graphics, gameplay, format were the same style as jk2. That's why a game engine other than the Q3 engine would've been sweet. But the fact that the Q3 engine was used is not why JA is so similar to JO. Raven could have made a drastically different game and still used the same engine. JA is very similar to JO because that is the game Raven wanted to make, not because the engine wouldn't allow anything different. But I agree that the Q3 engine is at the end of its lifespan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txa1265 Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 Originally posted by Prime Yet everyone says that KOTOR has the greatest story ever (and I agree ). It just surprises me that many people complain about JO/JA doing this when KOTOR does something very similar and no one has a problem with it. Granted KOTOR has better execution, but the underlying concepts are quite similar. I very much agree with you. Personally, aside from my minor quibbles, you know I love the JKII & JA plots. I also know this is heresy, but I still like them better than the original JK. I think that what makes KotOR transcendant is that it is truly epic in scale - there are several little things you can quibble about, but overall the story just sweeps you along. But it is a RPG. I just finished NWN: Hordes of the Underdark, and ended up at level 29, and truly felt part of a "Big Thing" ... just like at the end of KotOR. With JKII and JA, I feel like a Jedi Knight who had acheived greatness through strength of character, will and cunning. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txa1265 Posted January 16, 2004 Share Posted January 16, 2004 Originally posted by Prime But the fact that the Q3 engine was used is not why JA is so similar to JO. Raven could have made a drastically different game and still used the same engine. JA is very similar to JO because that is the game Raven wanted to make, not because the engine wouldn't allow anything different. But I agree that the Q3 engine is at the end of its lifespan. First, let me say that I don't consider using the same engine a bad thing in this case. I see JA as a graphically enhanced version of JKII. That, to me, is good. What happened, IMO, is that people got all drooly over the HL2 videos and Deus Ex 2 videos and Doom3 videos and MoH:Pac Assault videos and pre-declared JA as 'obsolete' where other Q3 games a couple of months before were lauded for stretching the Q3-engine (e.g. EF2). However, now we see that only DX2 on PC is out, it needs mega hardware to run at all, and looks like crap on most hardware comparable to JKII/JA standards. There are many graphical & particularly interaction things I'd love to see in a JK game. But for me, anyway, it is about the story and gameply ... if they could enhance interactivity with the environment and others, I wouldn't care if they stayed on Q3 for 10 years ... Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 Originally posted by txa1265 pre-declared JA as 'obsolete' where other Q3 games a couple of months before were lauded for stretching the Q3-engine (e.g. EF2). And of course, many people who do complain about the Q3 engine don't even know what a game engine actually does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceButler14 Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 Yeah, I think the graphics are fine, but the story is pretty slap-dash, and that kotor similarity is pretty minor in the way it unfolds in that game, so I'm not sure how relevant it is. There just really should have been something that felt like it really expanded upon instead of varying the gameplay mechanics. Maybe this isn't possible, because the only way to really make it better *might* be to move away from the running and make some way of dueling while standing in place and I at least don't see a tenable (haha bad pun, sorry) control scheme for this. I fear we may be at the end of this series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slayer_JJ Posted January 21, 2004 Author Share Posted January 21, 2004 One must realise though that not everyone who likes gaming is attracted to a game where you have to walk around to talk to people for ages and every now and then get into a little fight, namely RPGs ! As much as I love RPG I can understand that there are ppl that just want to plug in and play at a fast pace, and perhaps with a competitive edge; all the FPS +/- MP games aim to deliver this, to a certain extent...... Not to be rude or anythin but RPGs are nothing like how you describe them(at least the RPGs I know). NWN and Morrowind both have a lot of combat and not just little fights but huge battles but you do have a point about ppl wanting to plug in and play at a fast pace. It also gives what many a gamer wants - freedom. The ability to go wherever you want and not be restricted by the size of the level, having the choice of what to do next, what kind of character you want to play as and lots others. RPGs have what many games lack - depth. So my point is that MOST gamers would love those to games even if they're not a fan of that genre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txa1265 Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 OK - let's stem any RPG vs. FPS battle before it starts. They both have action and fighting, fine. The point and mechanics of the games are different. Agreed? You don't fine tune aiming and circle-strafing in RPG's, and you don't spend much time finding traps in FPS. Personally I like both - I'm working through XIII (FPS) and Baldur's Gate 2 (RPG) right now. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy867 Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 Well, I have to say that I went with that they both have their own strong points and some of you will probably argue my point system, but it is unbiased as I have played both thoroughly, and am not one to favor any particular gaming style.                     Jedi Outcast     Jedi Academy                     ------------    -------------- Puzzles                  +4                +2 Level Design           +3                +4 New Features         +5                 +5 Storyline/Plot         +4                 +4 Game Modes          +3                 +4                     ------------    -------------- Total                    19                19 As you can see, I feel both games have their strong points, and some of their weaknesses. Some of you will agree, others will obviously disagree, but it is not my decision on which arguement is more accurate, this is just based on my own experience in both games . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kengo Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 Interesting way of looking at it Andy. I can see why JA gets such a low puzzle rating (what puzzles...), I think I still prefer this to some of the mind boglingly illogical and frustrating puzzles there were at times in JO. As many people have said, JO had the better storyline. It was also longer, but I did like the format of short, mission type levels in JA a lot, it gave the level designers far more room to manouver and be a bit experimental, and I think it resulted in a far more varied gameplay. JA has some cool features that should have been expanded further than they were, the character customisation elements and the RPG force selection were great ideas, that weren't really taken far enough for my liking. Both games felt a little bit like the designers were 'playing it safe' a little, but both are very solid titles. They are without doubt very worthy games to have been given the SW lisence, I think Raven did a really good job (no surprises there). I was dissapointed with the MP of both. Even with cable, the saber detection is really poor in both games in MP, and it takes a lot of the fun out for me. Gun fighting is OK, but not as good as a plethora of other games online. The Siege mode was OK, but all we got was 3 maps. I'm sure level designers will come up with more, but it sure isn't an easy gametype to map for. I think I prefer JA overall - it takes the good in JO and builds. It's not miles better than JO, and it really doesn't feel like a true sequel (more Doom 2 than Half Life 2) but if you go back to old JO, you find yourself feeling a little more restricted in what you can do. I'd love to see a really ambitious FPS with saber aglow, with the kind of extensive devlopment time and ambitious aims that KOTOR had. As great as Raven are, they weren't given a huge amount of time for either title, nor a new engine that was specifically suited to sabers. I hope this happens! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 The ability to edit and customize just about everything in Jedi Academy is really great. I've torn the game files apart and modded the hell out of it, it's practically a whole new game. Editing in Jedi Outcast felt just a little... restricted, especially with NPCs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkLord60 Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 Jedi Outcast had better story! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy867 Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 The reason why they (raven) had to play it safe was because there were certain expectations yet limitations imposed by both LucasArts and Activision, and before the game could even go gold, everything must meet those expectations AND limitations. I know for a fact that Raven wanted to incorporate quite a few things, but in order to get the gold seal approval, Raven had to restrict on many things in order to give it the polished look that would give them the go in mass production. I felt that both games had great storylines.. Jedi Outcast for its long and insightful story and Jedi Academy for its tempation with the dark side, plus kind of mixing in the movies with how a person full of hatred can be easily seduced by the power of the Dark Side. I do believe that Jedi Academy can and possibly might be played out for a depended sequel, kind of what MOTS did for Jedi Knight. but I feel that if they do create a dependent sequel, that it might lack the polished look that the community will want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 Originally posted by Andy867 I know for a fact that Raven wanted to incorporate quite a few things, but in order to get the gold seal approval, Raven had to restrict on many things in order to give it the polished look that would give them the go in mass production. Like flyable X-Wings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 Well if you look in the assets you can see many things they wanted to include but didn't have time to, notably another Siege Map, at least 4 Siege teams (including characters not seen in any of the released maps, even one character that had a "Ysalamari"), various ships (Millennium Falcon, X-Wing, TIE Fighter, two TIE Bombers, Lambda Shuttle, Z-95 and possibly the Vader's TIE Advanced IIRC), etc. Not to mention the haphazard (rushed feeling) bot routes and the lack of bot support in Siege (except for the jumpy bots you can spawn through the console). Then there's the inclusion of the "Air Support" voice command that can only be done through the console or a cfg file (it's not listed in the click through menu). Remember that work on JA started shortly after JK2 was finished and they had other games they were working on at the time (Soldier of Fortune II then Quake IV). Add that to the fact that they had LucasArts breathing down their neck the whole time... they did a great job considering all they were up against! And the support for this game has actually been a higher level of quality (and speed) this time around than for JK2. Sure the initial release had some BAD bugs but at least they didn't radically change the gameplay in the patches, the patches came a lot sooner and so did the tools and support. They also talked a lot more on the forums to people and seemed to really care about the community (within the boundaries set by LA of course). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi Wolf Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 I never really played Jedi Outcast so i say Jedi Academy is better. I like how u can choose your light saber color and which type like dual or staff or the standered. Also the apperence this was cool too. One thing i was sad with was u did get to choose which side u wanted to go to until the second to last level. It should of been the way u did things but i still think its good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azymn Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 Yeah, if you sift through the MP code you can see a ton of stuff they fleshed out but never fully implemented. It was a grand work they undertook, but like Kurgan said they had to scale it down and polish off the fundamentals. They left dozens of tools that allow modders to get a jumpstart into a variety of directions. They shipped a good game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sith_master2000 Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 JA and JO were both great. JO with it's story and JA with the customization. JA didn't suck how could some of you think that . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kengo Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Originally posted by Azymn Yeah, if you sift through the MP code you can see a ton of stuff they fleshed out but never fully implemented. It was a grand work they undertook, but like Kurgan said they had to scale it down and polish off the fundamentals. They left dozens of tools that allow modders to get a jumpstart into a variety of directions. They shipped a good game. I have to agree. In the end time constraints had to come in, hence the dissapointing number of MP maps I think, and some non-implemented features that it looks like they planned. It was a very fast development time, it really must be said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 In the end I would rather have a game with fewer but more polished features than a lot of stuff that doesn't work very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Kengo, while I respect your opinion isn't that a misleading statement? JA had a "disappointing" number of MP maps? How many was it supposed to have? IIRC it had actually MORE unique maps on release than JK2 did, and if you count official support, it had more added later by the team (the JA bonus mappack) than JK2 did (the measly 4 duel maps added in the first patch). JK2 seemed to have a lot of maps out of box, but when you think about it most game modes simply re-used the same maps with a few items placed differently (and you can do the same in JA with a console command or two). If you were talking community created maps, that's debatable. Did JK2 have as many MP maps available at this time in its life? (4+ months?) Plus since the engines are similar porting JK2 maps to JA (with improvements from the improved engine) is very simple to do. While I too would have loved to see the game come packed with hundreds of super perfect maps and the community churn out thousands of Siege maps I don't really see why it's a fair criticism of JA when the same thing didn't happen in the previous community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLiberator34 Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Personally I think JO was the better game. I got many reasons for this statement. First, it was a challenge. JO took me quite a few days out of my life to finish. JA took 1 day to beat. Im talking about single player here. Plus I think a game should be good on it's own without mods. As it is, I think this game will need mods just to make it last. The story was basically a repeat( sith cult with anoyying leader seeks force artifact or location to use in galactic tackover) plus the picking your missions thing was useless and made the story feel disjointed. My biggest beef is ultimately the lightsaber fights have lost their memorable quality and tactical challenge. All it was is a repeatitive button mashing combine with some luck= dead sith wannabes. The only thing I like about JA was siege, thats IT. You want a good story and a good star wars game, go to KOTOR. Unless you utterly hate RPG's KOTOR is a game you can enjoy, with some nice plot twist. Plus you customization option actually make a difference in gameplay. End Rant(sorry I just had to get that out) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Originally posted by JediLiberator My biggest beef is ultimately the lightsaber fights have lost their memorable quality and tactical challenge. All it was is a repeatitive button mashing combine with some luck= dead sith wannabes. How is the lightsaber fights vastly different than JO? Just wondering why you think this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLiberator34 Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 What made JO different is that TACTICS actually worked and skill and a sense of timing came into play. In JA sp when i try to come up with tactics to beat enemies they ussually don't work because your opponent uses the same basic moves and beat you that way. Plus I think the only jedi you should fight should be either full blown bosses(tavion, desann, jerec, etc) or fights like that one in JO where you fight alongside Luke against four or so lightsaber wielding opponents. Lightsaber dueling should be a treat, a big moment, a climax even. Not an everyday occurence. And every opponent should have a weakness in their fighting style. Not the same weakness, but a weakness. That would allow you to use tactics and make it less of Mortal Combat in space. I should not be fighting sith all the time in a star wars games. Some puny force adepts every now and again, okay, but someone swing dual lightsabers and chocking me while he's at it every now and again, that's just silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 Originally posted by JediLiberator What made JO different is that TACTICS actually worked and skill and a sense of timing came into play. Personally, I find things to be pretty similar, and my overall strategies for the most part haven't changed too much from JO. But that's just me. Originally posted by JediLiberator Plus I think the only jedi you should fight should be either full blown bosses(tavion, desann, jerec, etc) or fights like that one in JO where you fight alongside Luke against four or so lightsaber wielding opponents. Lightsaber dueling should be a treat, a big moment, a climax even. Not an everyday occurence. I know what you are saying, but for me I want to be able to use my lightsaber in duels. If I only get to do that a few times during the course of the game, I'm going to be disappointed. Yes it is a big moment, but I would also have the feeling of "finally!" Originally posted by JediLiberator And every opponent should have a weakness in their fighting style. Not the same weakness, but a weakness. That would allow you to use tactics and make it less of Mortal Combat in space. I don't find it to be Mortal Combat in space because I find that button mashing (if that what you are refering to?) does not lead to success. And I also find that I fight different enemies in different ways. Originally posted by JediLiberator I should not be fighting sith all the time in a star wars games. Some puny force adepts every now and again, okay, but someone swing dual lightsabers and chocking me while he's at it every now and again, that's just silly. Personally I don't see a problem with this. The game needs to be fun, and for many (most?) players dueling lightsaber-wielding opponants is fun. Sure, there comes a point that there are too many, but IMO JA did not pass this point. Your milage may vary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kengo Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 Originally posted by Kurgan JA had a "disappointing" number of MP maps? How many was it supposed to have? IIRC it had actually MORE unique maps on release than JK2 did, and if you count official support, it had more added later by the team (the JA bonus mappack) than JK2 did (the measly 4 duel maps added in the first patch). If you were talking community created maps, that's debatable. Did JK2 have as many MP maps available at this time in its life? (4+ months?) Plus since the engines are similar porting JK2 maps to JA (with improvements from the improved engine) is very simple to do. While I too would have loved to see the game come packed with hundreds of super perfect maps and the community churn out thousands of Siege maps I don't really see why it's a fair criticism of JA when the same thing didn't happen in the previous community. Well...its definately a debatable point. I think I was mostly thinking of three Siege maps for a start - its a wonderful feature, my favourite non-SP thing, and yet it has only three maps for it. One is saber only, and the desert one isn't what I would call an easy one to learn. I just think having such a cool mode with only 3 maps is strange, especially when you consider just how difficult they are for community mappers to add to. There don't seem to be that many Siege servers online, and I think the lack of maps has to be a major reason. I wasn't really meaning community created maps - errr...by about this time in JO's life? I think I just joined the mapping community, so its hard for me to say I guess probabaly about the same? Certainly less SP maps for some reason, but thats another matter. To me the selection of out of the box maps seemed sparcer than for JK2, I'm not sure if this is legitimate or purely my imagination. I know Raven released a bunch of cool additional maps for JA though, so that would have helped. Perhaps in all honesty, as someone who focuses on maps more than the average, I'm just over-concerned with this one aspect JA does seem rushed in some areas to me, some cool ideas weren't carried through to fuller potential - however in the time limits they had, I think they did a magnificent job. Raven also has a deservedly great reputation for helping the modding and mapping communites for its games out a lot, and I think all the tutorials they've posted just go to prove it, so I don't want to seem to be criticising them, its just one area I feel was a bit weaker in comparison to others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.