D20 system intergrated in realisted combat mode for KOTOR III !

[Manny C]

^^^^

 

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.

[RedHawke]

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.

[Manny C]

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.

[RedHawke]

^^^^

 

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.

[Manny C]

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.

[RedHawke]

^^^^

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.

[lukeiamyourdad]

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.

[rhinomatt]

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

[SITHSLAYER133]

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

[Manny C]

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?

[Eagle Racer]

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.

[Manny C]

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

[Clone L68362]

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.

[Manny C]

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.

[lukeiamyourdad]

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.

[Eagle Racer]

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.

[RedHawke]

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.

[Manny C]

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

[Emperor Devon]

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!

[Manny C]

lol how insightful

 

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

[Eagle Racer]

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.

[IndianaSolo]

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.

[Rediy]

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.

[Manny C]

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?

[Eagle Racer]

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.