legend222 Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 KotOR II is doubtlessly a great game, but one of the few things that bothered me is the Dark side path. While it's fun being a Dark Jedi I feel that the DS path feels too thuggish. The easiest way to get DS points is to beat up people for credits, I can't imagine Darth Vader or Sidious threatening people for money. When or if a sequel is made it should definitely improve this and add a few chances to manipulate people and events like Sidious or Traya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaldaRaric Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 I agree 100% on this. When I play I sit there and think "I would never see any 'real' Sith doing this". It might be good if you want to roleplay a mercenary type character though, and not use the force or lightsabers. I do hope #3 will be better in this category. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanius Anglesmith Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 If you ask me, KotOR I had way more of that kind of thing than TSL, but yea, there should definitely be way more manipulative dark side acts in KotOR III. Beating up on homeless people just isn't very fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legend222 Posted May 25, 2007 Author Share Posted May 25, 2007 The only moment that made me feel as a Sith was on Onderon when I convinced Vaklu to give me his force sensitives to train. But things like hurting refugees to get close to the Exchange is something a thug would do not a Sith Lord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanius Anglesmith Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 The only moment that made me feel as a Sith was on Onderon when I convinced Vaklu to give me his force sensitives to train. But things like hurting refugees to get close to the Exchange is something a thug would do not a Sith Lord. That's why you don't "hurt" them. You... "persuade" them to give in to the Exchange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_shot_the_jedi Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 I agree. Some Sith can be blunt as a sledgehammer, but people tend to prefer the ones who do the destruction with a measure of subtlety and intelligence. Like Paltapine. Or, to take a character from a different universe entirely, Gríma Wormtongue in both his literary and recent movie portrayals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaelastraz Posted May 26, 2007 Share Posted May 26, 2007 Some of it was in TSL already. For example, when helping Vaklue you can in fact persuade him to "give" you every force sensitive of the entire planet! That's the kind of influence I want to have as an intelligent Sith. Even though it has absolutely no effect in the game, I really liked the thought. In order to get my support, Vaklu has to offer a LOT more than just items and credits. He agreed to let me command every force sensitive, which would be the first step to a cult with me as the leader... Would be cool if Kotor III had a lot more of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Avlectus Posted May 27, 2007 Share Posted May 27, 2007 Yeah. I'd say it is rather annoying having really (in a relative way) only a few ways to truly be a mastermind DSer while most darkside stuff is making an @$$ out of yourself trying to be like some macho guy. For awhile it seems ok, however, it gets old even for the path of the dark. I agree. You're basically just painting a bright target reticle on your head and saying "look, I'm an @$$hole who blatantly fights and bullies others for lunch money." A merc (or more realistically a hoarde thereof) would but blaster bolts (or lightsabers if force adept) through you while you act like that which.... would end your rampage as the next great sith lord real quick wouldn't it? ......or more justly the sith you were to overthrow would see you miles away and order you assasinated...if you survived you'd fight for so long and so hard only to get to the end to be off'd in a rather unceremonious manner. Darth Bane, though a true bad@$$ in a physical sense, had the wise mind as well. Obviously the blademaster who trained him in lightsaber combat would keep the "good stuff" from those considered to be lesser pions--as such they viewed him. So when that blademaster was sent to assasinate him, he used his raw power and a bit of tactical knowledge with his environment to crush him before the two ever had the chance to fight face to face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ame Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 Couldn't agree more. ...I think the Light side is actually a lot more subtle than the Dark side tends to be at most times. Jedi are secretive and deceptive, and tell half-truths and dodge questions for no reason. Most examples of Sith are mindless brutes who happen to have lightsabers and Force sensitivity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoiuyWired Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 Well, the Sith Brutes are "usually" the shock troopers who can never really advance beyond the level of "guy who smash things good" But most experianced Siths that survive long enough would learn about ot killing everything in sight on a regular basis. Plus, even the Sith Brutes(or marauder for the better ones) even them spent quite some time perfecting their skillz of smashing and chopping. I do agree with the whole secretive deceptive self-rightous Jedi scum comment, but I think there difference lies in that jedis usually hide their "failures" Those younglings and stuff not "jedily" enough they would condamn their lives into the eternal miserable existance of a stinking farmhand in the agricorps, where they will be forgotten and controlled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_shot_the_jedi Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 The problem is that when Sith start sounding right and the Jedi start sounding wrong, who really earns the Dark Side points? Morality isn't nearly as black and white as Star Wars would like to portray it; there is no sliding scale of 'Light Side' and 'Dark Side' - there are contradictions, moral dilemmas and alternative points of view from equally good (or seemingly good) parties - the question of "which choice is truly right?" is as eternal as "what is the meaning of life?" But I'm not going to wax poetic right now. In any case, I still support the idea of more subtlty and more truly evil choices. Currently, Star Wars villains just aren't nearly evil enough. Being brutish is an animalistic evil, not the kind of deeply thought out evil that really requires a bit more chutzpah. I want more insidious options, to make me feel like my character is truly evil and not just lashing out with hatred. It requires special people to be entirely loathesome, not just people filled with hate or anger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 When the Sith sound right and the Jedi wrong, you get the Dark Side points. But I've always said that there's nothing about the Light Side that makes you Good and nothing about the Dark Side that makes you evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentScope001 Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 The problem is that when Sith start sounding right and the Jedi start sounding wrong, who really earns the Dark Side points? The Sith. Always the Sith are Selfish (not evil, just selfish, willing to care for themselves) while the Jedi care for the whole galaxy and is Selfless. Sometimes, a selfish person like Revan wants to take over the galaxy, and ends up helping to save it (possibly a right act) which is still Dark Sided, but good. And the Jedi, wanting to save the galaxy and prevent the Jedi Civil War, do not intervene in the Mandalorain Wars, which is a Light Sided act, since they are working for the best interest of the galaxy, but an act that most other Jedi, including the canonical LSF Exile claims is the wrong choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gargoyle King Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 I agree 100% on this. When I play I sit there and think "I would never see any 'real' Sith doing this". It might be good if you want to roleplay a mercenary type character though, and not use the force or lightsabers. I do hope #3 will be better in this category. If "3" is even in development! I think K3 should focus less on Jedi, it would be good to play the game through a different perspective (as a soldier etc). I agree with the fact that the Sith should be more "Sith-like" in the game; i feel the Dark-Side option in the KOTOR franchise are quite immature and lack the ruthlessness of a true Sith - you wouldn't threaten anyone if you were a Sith, you would just force-choke them or fry them with electricity, it's that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaldaRaric Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 If "3" is even in development! I think K3 should focus less on Jedi, it would be good to play the game through a different perspective (as a soldier etc). I agree with the fact that the Sith should be more "Sith-like" in the game; i feel the Dark-Side option in the KOTOR franchise are quite immature and lack the ruthlessness of a true Sith - you wouldn't threaten anyone if you were a Sith, you would just force-choke them or fry them with electricity, it's that simple. If you played the perspective of a non-Jedi then the title of the series would make no sence at all. "Knights" of the Old Republic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Yeah, well, by that logic we shouldn't be allowed to play Sith either, since it's Knights of the Old Republic, not Sith of the Old Empire or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gargoyle King Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 If you played the perspective of a non-Jedi then the title of the series would make no sence at all. "Knights" of the Old RepublicIt's just a name, that's all. The games chronicle the events of the Jedi back in the Old Republic which in this time period had a Sith following that engulfed the Galaxy in the Jedi Civil Wars etc. Therefore, i see fit to make these points: (1). The game would be terribly unbalanced with just Jedi, the force must be balanced at all times; thus where there is light there will always be dark. (2). Since K1 & TSL did this, K3 will carry on in a similar veign but there will have to be an element of sith if the exile has gone in search of Revan to fight the "True Sith Empire". (3). The tilte still makes sense, Jedi are the "Knights of Light" whereas Dark Jedi are "Knights of Darkness", the word "Knights" itself doesn't always have to conform to chivalry and heroism especially in the confines of Star Wars. (4). It's the developer's choice to name the series as they are, and thus you can't do anything about it. Besides the name is irrelevant, what matters is the games themselves (and what fine games they are). Yeah, well, by that logic we shouldn't be allowed to play Sith either, since it's Knights of the Old Republic, not Sith of the Old Empire or something. You don't play "Sith" in Kotor or TSL, just a dark or fallen Jedi, the "True Sith" would be the species: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sith_%28species%29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.