D20 system intergrated in realisted combat mode for KOTOR III !

[Soulforged]

As you can tell I am with the group that thinks the system is fine as it is. I, and many others, have no problems with the way things are presented. Adding any sort of reflex based features for the game is a negative. Believe it or not, some people who play these KOTOR games cannot even beat the Turret Mini-Game, these people would be left in the proverbial dust with the addition of 'twitch combat' features.

Fair enough Hawke, I'll keep on "revolutionary mod". Though you misunderstood me, I don't want to change anything of the rules, just maybe add a little more animations to make it less repetitive. It would not be really a reaction system, when you play this game usually you pause it and plan your actions (of course like this game is so easy it's really unnecessary, but again, with BG I had to do that), the same will be with the system that I'm planning (well the system already exists it only has to be implemented), is not a reactionary system, is the same but more interactive, more planning, and more thinking from the user's part.

[Hallucination]

i, like pretty much all my friends who've played it really dont like the combat system. It's too boring and samey for such an important part of the game.

So instead of going and playing JK you come here to say that you want to ruin other peoples fun?

[RedHawke]

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

I don't think that's funny in the least Vlad, it is actually quite sad!

 

This was a big issue, and you should have heard the praises for Darth333 and her Easy Turret Mini-Game mod.

 

+10 DS points for Vlad!

 

 

Though you misunderstood me, I don't want to change anything of the rules, just maybe add a little more animations to make it less repetitive. It would not be really a reaction system, when you play this game usually you pause it and plan your actions (of course like this game is so easy it's really unnecessary, but again, with BG I had to do that), the same will be with the system that I'm planning (well the system already exists it only has to be implemented), is not a reactionary system, is the same but more interactive, more planning, and more thinking from the user's part.

While that's cool and all, I would much rather have the other parts of the game worked on.

 

How about having the story be engrossing and fully fleshed out, leave nothing cut out, and have the effects of your DS or LS decisions be seen by you in the game.

 

Example: Onderon in TSL, if you sided with the DS faction (Vaklu), or the LS faction (Talia), when you returned to the Onderon afterward you would be treated by a unique cinematic, and see the effects of what you have done. With DS the city of Iziz would have been a depressed place with much suffering, while LS the city would be cheerful and rejoicing.

 

Also I would rather the features they already began to implement be fully fleshed out, like the Influence system, when you convert a LS NPC to the DS their responses would change to evil ones, or the opposite with DS NPC's converting to the LS. I would rather have engrossing storylines, humor, and fully fleshed out NPC's with side-quests, and goals so as to actually make me have an attachment to them. Also they need to work on the random item drops. These are the types of features I want to see improved with the game, to heck with the combat!

[The Grey Ranger]

I have to agree with Redhawke. This kind of game is about the story. The graphics don't have to be the very latest. The story needs to be really solid. That is what really makes a great CRPG.

[Manny C]

So instead of going and playing JK you come here to say that you want to ruin other peoples fun?

 

 

Did i say ruin the game? i really dont remember saying that. Combat, especially lightsaber combat is an integral part of who jedi knights are, what i want is something more than "click.....click......click...", its uninspired and gets really tiresome.

 

It doesnt have to be twitch combat, but who says just because a game is an RPG game it has to have non-existant combat? Look at Jade Empire: fantastic story, great graphics, also INSPIRED, rpg skill dependant combat, but there's more to it than just clicking from a variety of slightly varied attacks that look exactly the same every time.

 

Yes, these games are about story, but the truly great games are those that can have greatness in all aspects of the game. Deus Ex, for example, is an RPG game, the focus is on story, and it has a brilliant story, but the combat is dependant on your skill levels, you dont have to be great at First Person Shooters to enjoy the complex, inspired storyline and great characters and immersive atmosphere.

 

by NO means am i saying this game should be like jedi knight, jedi knight is terrible, the gameplay (ironically) doesnt capture jedi combat well at all. At least, i dont remember luke and vader running around like headless chooks swinging their lightsabers frantically hoping they might hit something.

[Engma48]

the kotor series is an rpg based game.....play the star wars live action rpg game and it incorporates the D20 system into, plus the kotor series has already been made with the D20 system so to change now, it would just be like making a whole different star wars game.

[Hallucination]

@Manny C: You don't have to change the game to an FPS to ruin peoples fun, you just have to take out the part that people have fun on.

[Manny C]

well ur right hallucination, but from what people are saying, that's the story and the characters, not the combat system. The combat system is tedious, i know plenty of people who feel the same way, i know people who've given up on the game because of the combat system. You can improve the combat system to make it more interactive without even touching the story. Also i never said make it FPS, FPS is too far away from the current system and it wouldnt work changing it that much. What im saying is make it something like Jade Empire, in which you have far more control over the combat but it still hinges for the most part on your skill levels.

[Engma48]

how would jade empire be a D20 system? i cant see that, because all i did in jade empire was jump over people and attack them from behind.

[Hallucination]

@Manny C: But think about the people who like the D20 system.

[RedHawke]

but from what people are saying, that's the story and the characters, not the combat system. The combat system is tedious, i know plenty of people who feel the same way, i know people who've given up on the game because of the combat system.

Tedious? I think not! The "classic" RPG's that many of us know and love would thusly drive you and your 'freinds' crazy then, becuse combat is only a means to an end in all of them, and combat is nothing more than numbers on the screen in some of those very "classics". Even the newer NWN, which KOTOR is based on, looks far more primitive compared to KOTOR. In all actuality KOTOR has spoiled the RPG world rotten, and any people who think differently about that are much akin to the character Oliver Twist asking for "more?" when we should all just be thankful for what we got.

 

Sorry to differ with your appraisal, but the combat system in KOTOR and TSL is one of the best that a 'pure' RPG has ever presented...

 

Lastly if the "tedious" combat made someone quit the game, then I submit to you that RPG's are not their cup of tea, and they should move on to a game more suited to their tastes.

 

You can improve the combat system to make it more interactive without even touching the story.

Combat, while part of the expirience, is not the major focus of an RPG... since the story, it's NPC's, and our choices and influence on the game world is the main focus, the game developers would be better served to spend their energies on those aspects.

 

Combat is used to futher the story, and grant the party some expirience along the way... also to find loot.

 

What im saying is make it something like Jade Empire, in which you have far more control over the combat but it still hinges for the most part on your skill levels.

Nope, Jade Empire is a Martial Arts RPG, and while it is entertaining, it's 'twitch' factor due to it's handling of combat limits it's playability by 'pure' RPG fans... and all those who cannot handle "twitch" games, especially for long sessions. I can play KOTOR for upwards of 12 hours straight, but with Jade Empire I hit my limit at around 4 hours, this is due to the 'twitch' combat factor.

 

It is clear to me Manny C that you have a love of 'twitch' style games, and since you liked KOTOR you want to add that element you love to the game to make it 'perfect' in your eyes, I can respect that... just you do have to adknowledge that there are others don't like those kinds of additions.

 

Unfortunately, though all this is a moot discussion, being KOTOR is a D20 game, it is bound by the D20 rules, and thusly classifies as a 'pure' RPG, so you will not get your wish. We likely will get some new animations/eye-candy, but the combat will remain the same or similar "tedious" Turn-Based Combat system that we have played in KOTOR and TSL.

 

how would jade empire be a D20 system? i cant see that, because all i did in jade empire was jump over people and attack them from behind.

Exactly, it is a totally different system and game... what works with one game will not work with all games.

[Manny C]

You pose a good argument RedHawke, but I think the difference of opinion stems from a confliction in our tastes in games. There is clearly a fanbase who, insane as i think it is, have grown accustomed to no more involvement in combat than a few possible actions which have the same animation over and over and over....but i digress.

 

My love of kotor, and rpg's in general has stemmed from the dwindling popularity of adventure games, and a subsequent shift into the closest thing still in fashion, so ive never been one for mind numbing tedium.

 

My opinion is that the game would be better served by being more all-rounded and making the combat more interesting and interactive, giving combat more depth as it should be in a game about jedi, instead of restricting it to the same, boring process over and over just to keep the unflexible RPG veterans happy. Games should be EVOLVING, ever improving and becoming enjoyable in ALL aspects, instead of restricting the game and its fan base in order to appease a small portion of the consumers.

[RedHawke]

You pose a good argument RedHawke, but I think the difference of opinion stems from a confliction in our tastes in games. There is clearly a fanbase who, insane as i think it is, have grown accustomed to no more involvement in combat than a few possible actions which have the same animation over and over and over....but i digress.

 

My love of kotor, and rpg's in general has stemmed from the dwindling popularity of adventure games, and a subsequent shift into the closest thing still in fashion, so ive never been one for mind numbing tedium.

 

My opinion is that the game would be better served by being more all-rounded and making the combat more interesting and interactive, giving combat more depth as it should be in a game about jedi, instead of restricting it to the same, boring process over and over just to keep the unflexible RPG veterans happy. Games should be EVOLVING, ever improving and becoming enjoyable in ALL aspects, instead of restricting the game and its fan base in order to appease a small portion of the consumers.

I appreciate your feelings on this matter, but the best you can hope for in KOTOR III would be that they could add additional animations to spice up the combat, but it will remain the same slow "select the attack from the menu" turn-based system we have now. That is because KOTOR is a correct depiction of the PnP D20 system.

 

'Pure' RPG's. like D20 KOTOR, are not really meant to be enjoyable in your "ALL aspects" either, they are, at their core, cerebral tests, not tests of dexterity and adrenaline, and you are talking about adding just that.

 

Lastly, the so called "unflexible RPG veterans" are not a "a small portion of the consumers" as you seem to think, you seem to underestimate just who these games are made for, and what type of people they cater to.

 

Look above in this threads posts, and browse this section of the forums, you will eventually see that you are definately in the minority on this issue.

 

I, and I think you will find many others, do not want any twitch based combat systems in the KOTOR series.

[SITHSLAYER133]

the combat in kotor is unique im sick of games that are essentialy clones of other games

[lukeiamyourdad]

Lastly, the so called "unflexible RPG veterans" are not a "a small portion of the consumers" as you seem to think, you seem to underestimate just who these games are made for, and what type of people they cater to.

 

 

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 serie 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.

[Manny C]

the best you can hope for in KOTOR III would be that they could add additional animations to spice up the combat, but it will remain the same slow "select the attack from the menu" turn-based system we have now. That is because KOTOR is a correct depiction of the PnP D20 system.

 

I would settle for this. Having far more animations, different animations for different lightsaber forms, more interesting attacks, stuff like that i would be perfectly happy with. Truth is i dont mind the combat system that much, ive gotten used to it, but i would prefer more diversity, diversity that feeds into the game as your character becomes more skilled and faces more skilled opponants so that everything isnt seen and done in the first 10 hours of the game.

 

 

Lastly, the so called "unflexible RPG veterans" are not a "a small portion of the consumers" as you seem to think, you seem to underestimate just who these games are made for, and what type of people they cater to.

 

Look above in this threads posts, and browse this section of the forums, you will eventually see that you are definately in the minority on this issue.

 

 

in a forum like this, of course im in the minority, but i think ull find kotor has a much wider audience than you think, that's how its been so successful, and the majority of the gaming community nowadays is the more casual gamer who plays games for the fun of it, and wont venture onto forums like this.

Those sorts of players are the sorts who get bored with the combat and will not bother anymore, and they really do take up the majority of gaming consumers nowadays.

 

Although im not gonna fuss and complain if they dont change the combat system, the games are too bloody awesome to not play them on account of a mildly boring combat system, i just think the game would benefit from a more interactive system, as it wouldnt affect the story or anything negatively, and it would draw in more customers.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Those sorts of players are the sorts who get bored with the combat and will not bother anymore, and they really do take up the majority of gaming consumers nowadays.

 

If this is true, how come both games were financial successes?

After KotOR 1, people who would get into the sequel were mostly players of the first game, at least, that's what a sequel usually attracts, then they knew what was waiting, the same old D20 system.

 

Another combat system will affect the game. It's a definite negative for pretty much everyone.

What I think you refer to as "casual gamer", is the generation of FPS players, the more "action" oriented gamers. They're not every single gamer. The Sims, a franchise who has basically no "action", is among the most succesful.

Again, Final Fantasy, who has a horrible combat system, is wildly popular and having kept the same old turn based system they had years ago, with minor modifications is still a financial success.

 

You have to realize that the market is not composed of one type of gamer who needs "x" kind of gameplay. The gaming market is extremely vast and complicated and you cannot simplify it and say, if there's more action, it will sell better.

Certain games appeal to certain people.

 

My take on why some of these people were unhappy with the combat system is:

 

a) They don't know what an RPG is all about and assumed that it was like JK;

 

or

 

b) They bought the game because it had "Jedi" and "Star Wars" on the box.

 

 

We cannot qualify somebody as "the average gamer". What is the "average gamer"?

The guy who's not a hardcore gamer?

In Korea, it could be the RTS and MMORPG player. In the US, it could be the GTA player, in England, it could be the Pro-Evolution player.

Is there a genre representing the average gamer? No.

Is there a definition of average gamer, accepted by everyone? No.

Is he male?

What age group?

 

I think what your defintion is, it's someone who plays video games for fun, but doesn't know about mods, doesn't post on forums and usually owns a console.

What does that mean?

Nothing.

 

Does the "average gamer" play action games only?

 

There is no way you can accurately answer those questions.

 

Until then, you cannot pose a judgement on the whole gaming community and say:"If we make this type of game, we'll sell more." Simply because it is totally false. There are trends, I won't deny it, but it comes and goes. A few years ago, it was RTS, right now, FPS, in a few years, we'll see.

[OptimalOptimus]

I Voted NO. I want the Computer to do the Combat moves.. its' liek watching a Fight in a moive.. Or it could be if the had More combat moves. & the battles lasted longer.

 

There needs to be combat Styles for each The PC & NPCs

 

combat moves for Each weapon

combat moves for each Jedi

Jumps, Flips, dodges , Blocks, Brute Force moves. Force Jumps

 

I want to see Better Force moves.. things that you can really tell what the force has changed ot help you.

[Hallucination]

Another point for the D20 system: KOTOR is about travelling in a party. If you had it like Jade Empire, a real-time system, or JA, how are you going to control 3 people at once?

[Manny C]

If this is true, how come both games were financial successes?

After KotOR 1, people who would get into the sequel were mostly players of the first game, at least, that's what a sequel usually attracts, then they knew what was waiting, the same old D20 system. .

 

Because they're such great games in all other aspects, the story and characters give the player motivation to continue playing, and this is the continued reason for their success. I can assure you, gamers do NOT play kotor for its combat.

 

Another combat system will affect the game. It's a definite negative for pretty much everyone.

What I think you refer to as "casual gamer", is the generation of FPS players, the more "action" oriented gamers.

 

Ok i think there's something big that you've got mixed up here, the term "casual gamer" is not a genre specific term at all, in fact it really has nothing to do with genre, it has to do with the gaming habits of the consumer. the "casual gamer" plays a game for the entertainment value of the game, pure and simple. 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.

 

From this perspective, the "casual gamer" will not see KOTOR's combat system as a "pure RPG" because they don't really know what that is, what they do know, is that the style of combat inhibits their control over the action and is more of the same thing over and over. Someone like myself, however, who is not necessarily an RPG veteran, but knows how it works, etc, can appreciate that the combat system goes with the genre and i will put up with it.

 

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.

 

 

My take on why some of these people were unhappy with the combat system is:

 

a) They don't know what an RPG is all about and assumed that it was like JK;

 

or

 

b) They bought the game because it had "Jedi" and "Star Wars" on the box.

 

lol you tell me not to generalize, but that looks like a pretty big generalization to me. To some extent, it's true but it doesnt portray the whole picture. Yes, the person who doesnt like the combat system is probably likely to not fully appreciate the workings of an RPG, however, it's more the fact that the combat seperates the player from the action on screen. They don't like the fact that they have absolutely no control over whats happening save for a choice of what move to choose. This, and the fact that "jedi" does tend to relate to notions of combat skill, crazy lightsaber technique, and "starwars" tends to relate to awesome blaster battles and shootouts. It's also the fact that the combat will ALWAYS be the same, in a more realistic setting, combat changes depending on your environment, your weapon, your enemy, everything basically, no one fight is ever the same. These factors in an RPG merely alter the numbers upon which your chances of success are dependant.

 

 

 

Considering the "average gamer" point is a fairly small part of what i was saying earlier is kind of frustating. Just like a forum to so effectively go off in a tangent.

[Manny C]

Another point for the D20 system: KOTOR is about travelling in a party. If you had it like Jade Empire, a real-time system, or JA, how are you going to control 3 people at once?

 

That's actually a really good point, I hadn't thought of that. The only real solution to something like that would be to make it like Xmen Legends, in which your other party members simply run like an AI and you control whichever one you want.

[OptimalOptimus]

WEll think about this.. IF Jotor 3 is built on X-box 360 wich i'm sure it will be.. There could be up to 500 NPCs in teh game.. all with A.I.

 

SO a party size might to up to 4 NPCs & the enemies would be larger as well.

 

A.I. , longer battles, more NPCs, larger maps to explore.. Open universe Kotor,

 

Other ships in the game you could Buy .. Ebon Hawk & others .. OR jsut buy upgrades.

 

As for Combat i want to see Movie style camera moves. i want to be able to do 360 camera move while in combat,

[lukeiamyourdad]

Because they're such great games in all other aspects, the story and characters give the player motivation to continue playing, and this is the continued reason for their success. I can assure you, gamers do NOT play kotor for its combat.

 

Exactly, so what's the point in changing the system then?

 

 

 

Ok i think there's something big that you've got mixed up here, the term "casual gamer" is not a genre specific term at all, in fact it really has nothing to do with genre, it has to do with the gaming habits of the consumer. the "casual gamer" plays a game for the entertainment value of the game, pure and simple.

 

And "hardcore gamers" don't?

I never said it has anything with genre specifics, more that the term "casual gamer" engulfs a lot of gamers and you cannot equate them to button mashers. Again, The Sims is a popular success, yet has no "action".

 

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.

 

It goes for hardcore gamers too. We do take more attention to detail, but when a game is boring, it's boring. I don't see how you can equate "hardcore gamer" with boring games. That simply isn't true.

 

From this perspective, the "casual gamer" will not see KOTOR's combat system as a "pure RPG" because they don't really know what that is, what they do know, is that the style of combat inhibits their control over the action and is more of the same thing over and over. Someone like myself, however, who is not necessarily an RPG veteran, but knows how it works, etc, can appreciate that the combat system goes with the genre and i will put up with it.

 

You underestimate the "casual gamer". I know plenty of casual gamers who have played the Final Fantasy serie and enjoyed very much, even with the horrible combat system.

 

FF is a bigger success then KotOR and yet, still uses the same old combat system.

One does not need to be an RPG veteran or to know them to enjoy and RPG. Casual gamers are smarter then you make them sound like.

What you refer too specifically are the button mashers and more action oriented types of gamers. Nothing to do with your definition of "casual".

 

Also, I forgot to point out that KotOR attracts a LOT of female gamers, unlike other games. Look at the Battlefront, JK.net and Republic Commando forums. No females or only a very small number (2-3).

Here, on an RPG forum, we have a very large (compared to other places) female population.

From certain comments gathered from them, twitch gaming isn't what they're looking for in KotOR.

We can conclude that KotOR does seem more interesting for women, in general.

 

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 repeat again, Final Fantasy is a popular success with a much worse combat system.

It doesn't have to be "full control" for people to enjoy. This has been proven with many popular serie.

Like I say, you're putting the "average gamer" in a single basket, the one labelled "we like action-oriented" games.

 

 

 

lol you tell me not to generalize, but that looks like a pretty big generalization to me. To some extent, it's true but it doesnt portray the whole picture. Yes, the person who doesnt like the combat system is probably likely to not fully appreciate the workings of an RPG, however, it's more the fact that the combat seperates the player from the action on screen. They don't like the fact that they have absolutely no control over whats happening save for a choice of what move to choose.

 

Then it's not their cup of tea obviously. Every RPG is about choosing what your move should be.

 

This, and the fact that "jedi" does tend to relate to notions of combat skill, crazy lightsaber technique, and "starwars" tends to relate to awesome blaster battles and shootouts.

 

True, to some extent. Perhaps for kids who only saw the PT, it would relate to those notions only, but for OT lovers it would be different, but you do have a point.

 

It's also the fact that the combat will ALWAYS be the same, in a more realistic setting, combat changes depending on your environment, your weapon, your enemy, everything basically, no one fight is ever the same. These factors in an RPG merely alter the numbers upon which your chances of success are dependant.

 

Thus, why we need to improve upon the already existing system. This "realism" is also dependant on player skills. If the person is bad, he's just bad.

I know people who can't play an FPS because they really do suck.

RPGs are a good gateway for them and having the genre "evolve" into action won't be good for everyone.

 

Considering the "average gamer" point is a fairly small part of what i was saying earlier is kind of frustating. Just like a forum to so effectively go off in a tangent.

 

Actually, it is a bigger part then you think. A more "realistic" combat system is made for "average gamers" to enjoy, which is what your claim is all about.

[RedHawke]

^^^^

I have to agree with LIAYD here Manny C!

 

i just think the game would benefit from a more interactive system, as it wouldnt affect the story or anything negatively, and it would draw in more customers.

This view likely stems from a misunderstanding on your part... while yes, to do as you are implying would draw in a few new players, but it would alienate many more in your core audience than you would possibly bring in... not a good choice with any business venture.

 

From this perspective, the "casual gamer" will not see KOTOR's combat system as a "pure RPG" because they don't really know what that is, what they do know, is that the style of combat inhibits their control over the action and is more of the same thing over and over. Someone like myself, however, who is not necessarily an RPG veteran, but knows how it works, etc, can appreciate that the combat system goes with the genre and i will put up with it.

Now we are getting somewhere...

 

Let me explain to you what 'pure' RPG means, and a little about them; (And what new RPG players like yourself can expect from them) It basically has to do with any RPG made that is based off of a Paper and Pencil Role Playing System, KOTOR is based off of Wizards of the Coast D20 system. And is a damn fine reproduction of that system, IMHO. This means that the game has certain built-in restrictions beforehand, restrictions of the system itself, and so it will have issues with some players, like yourself, because the PnP systems are not meant to give fluid or interactive combat, they are typically meant for slowly plotting moves out with lead or pewter miniatures on either a hex or square grid. Movement during combat in most all RPG systems is either to close with an enemy to engage, or to run away, it is no matter though because any movement after combat is initiated incurrs severe penalties to your character, usually loss of inititive or attack penalties. The game system itself is what dictates the look of the combat, and while you only 'see' very little in the way of ducking/blocking and such, behind the scenes there is a lot of die rolls and numbers flowing. While new animations can help this somewhat, it will still be basically the same.

 

This is the way 'pure' RPG's work, they are always less visually stunning compared to say a FPS, or Hybrid RPG's, and as I have previously stated KOTOR broke a lot of ground in giving a 'pure' RPG some real visual enhancements.

 

What I am trying to say is when you see a label like D20 or D&D on a RPG game, you should then expect to have a slower paced "cerebral" game... I only bought KOTOR because of the D20 label, telling me that it isn't a "twitch" game, it is a game you play to relax, have some munchies, and a good relaxing time cursing and reloading your save game because you just got a bunch of wrong alignment points in a dialogue.

 

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.

Sorry, but these kinds of 'pure' RPG's cater to a broad pre-existing RPG audience, and while they do try to appeal to as many players as they can, the additions you are talking about would alienate a large part of the core RPG audience simply to placate a very small 'new player' minority.

 

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.

 

In the end your "action based" suggestions, while they are quite alright, they are simply out of place in 'pure' RPG's that have their own rules to follow.

[Manny C]

Exactly, so what's the point in changing the system then?

 

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.

 

 

"casual gamer" engulfs a lot of gamers and you cannot equate them to button mashers.

 

never did.

 

It goes for hardcore gamers too. We do take more attention to detail, but when a game is boring, it's boring. I don't see how you can equate "hardcore gamer" with boring games. That simply isn't true.

 

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.

 

You underestimate the "casual gamer". I know plenty of casual gamers who have played the Final Fantasy serie and enjoyed very much, even with the horrible combat system.

 

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?

 

 

One does not need to be an RPG veteran or to know them to enjoy and RPG. Casual gamers are smarter then you make them sound like.

What you refer too specifically are the button mashers and more action oriented types of gamers. Nothing to do with your definition of "casual".

 

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.

 

Also, I forgot to point out that KotOR attracts a LOT of female gamers, unlike other games. Look at the Battlefront, JK.net and Republic Commando forums. No females or only a very small number (2-3).

Here, on an RPG forum, we have a very large (compared to other places) female population.

From certain comments gathered from them, twitch gaming isn't what they're looking for in KotOR.

We can conclude that KotOR does seem more interesting for women, in general.

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.

 

 

I repeat again, Final Fantasy is a popular success with a much worse combat system.

It doesn't have to be "full control" for people to enjoy.

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

 

 

Like I say, you're putting the "average gamer" in a single basket, the one labelled "we like action-oriented" games.

 

 

 

 

Then it's not their cup of tea obviously. Every RPG is about choosing what your move should be.

 

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.

 

Actually, it is a bigger part then you think. A more "realistic" combat system is made for "average gamers" to enjoy, which is what your claim is all about.

 

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.