Star Wars How on earth did anyone think KOTOR is an acceptable game

[almondblight]

KOTOR actually had some decent quest design. A lot better than KOTOR 2, at least for side quests. For instance the Sith initiation sidequests - IIRC, there are a number of ways you can sabotage or assassinate competition, and there are four different temples you can use to boost your own rank that are all different (combat based, stealth based, puzzle based, etc.). Or the trial - there's a number of different ways you can complete it, and there are a number of different outcomes, none of which is necessarily the correct one. You can complete the quest without realizing that you convinced others of something that's not true.

 

[Harry Easter]

It was Bioware who succeeded at stealing the thunder from Squaresoft. They understood the game was about the cinematic look and feel, so they set about doing the same with Star Wars. Under the hood, KoTOR is the same game as Neverwinter Nights, but it looks and feels completely different. The shot-reverse shot camera angles, close up for dialogues, full VO, and the cinematic animations for battles make the whole game feel like you are playing a star wars film.

Story and choices are red herrings. The point of Bioware games has never been to have a deep or reactive story. It's to have a story that looks and feels dramatic.

This.

 

[a Goat]

A sci-fi franchise would explain how lightsabers work, how the force works, why hyperspace exists, how Luke or Rey got powerful quickly while Anakin didn't etc. The prequels tried to explain some "space magic" concepts but the fans didn't like it e.g: Midichlorians.

Excuse me but you're being dense on purpose here. Sci-fi franchise explains how force, which is about the only fantastical element in the universe works, it is through midichlorians. Just because fAnDoM didn't like it and the explanation itself is shit doesn't mean it didn't meet your criteria.

I've said this before. KoTOR's innovation was cinematic presentation.

Before a certain game, RPGs were slow, grindy, number crunchers for nerds. After a certain game, RPGs became cinematic spectacles. That game was Final Fantasy 7.

You may not think JRPGs are "real" RPGs or whatever, but that is irrelevant. Game publishers absolutely did not see that distinction in 1997. They only saw a game with stats and level-ups selling ten times the number of copies anyone even thought an RPG could sell. It was actually embarrassing to western devs, many of which were told to develop 'FF7-killers' ASAP. This inspired games like PST and Anachronox, but they failed to understand FF7's true appeal.

It was Bioware who succeeded at stealing the thunder from Squaresoft. They understood the game was about the cinematic look and feel, so they set about doing the same with Star Wars. Under the hood, KoTOR is the same game as Neverwinter Nights, but it looks and feels completely different. The shot-reverse shot camera angles, close up for dialogues, full VO, and the cinematic animations for battles make the whole game feel like you are playing a star wars film.

Story and choices are red herrings. The point of Bioware games has never been to have a deep or reactive story. It's to have a story that looks and feels dramatic. It's all smoke and mirrors.

The cinematic RPG is sort of dead now so it's easy to look back at KoTOR and say yeah it's not a great game (i've always thought the story and characters were trash). But that was never the point, while the use of full voiced dialogue and cinematic framing in every part of the game was quite revolutionary.

I remember saying this somewhere as well although I've explained it as - all WRPG's eventually got hit with a result of some Bioware meeting, where they've had a problem - making xbox rpg. They thought what do these console players like and they figured out cutscenes, after all that's what RPG's that sell well on consoles have. And btw. your assumption that "cinematic" RPG's are dead is just wrong. Obviously you have Cyberpunk, released not even month ago, but that's not even the tip of the iceberg, trust me - in Div:OS, the non-definitive edition there already was "cinematic closeup[experimental]" setting in the game. Now look at BG3 and tell me, that in the end Larian isn't following the road Bioware went.

That being same the game is still bad and started trends that can be described only negatively.

 

[Tyranicon]

It was Bioware who succeeded at stealing the thunder from Squaresoft. They understood the game was about the cinematic look and feel, so they set about doing the same with Star Wars. Under the hood, KoTOR is the same game as Neverwinter Nights, but it looks and feels completely different. The shot-reverse shot camera angles, close up for dialogues, full VO, and the cinematic animations for battles make the whole game feel like you are playing a star wars film.

Story and choices are red herrings. The point of Bioware games has never been to have a deep or reactive story. It's to have a story that looks and feels dramatic.

This.

The modern games industry is a distillation of style over substance. When most of your consumers don't even finish your game and 80% of the profit is made in the first week of launch, substance doesn't matter.

 

[Dodo1610]

I decided to install it again and I forgot how ugly the armours are, even Kotor 2 had better looking ones.
Can't even find good mods for it since the modding community prefers KOTR2.

 

[Feargus Jewhart]

I remember when it was released on PC, or maybe year or two later, I was playing Jedi Academy a lot, and once upon a time a buddy of mine brought me a disc with pirated version of kotor he thought I'd like it. After playing for like 30 minutes I was completely disgusted with the absolutely horrible gameplay of this piece of shit, and uninstalled it forever, didn't talk to that guy for the next month.

And yet, I look at the internet and the game was received very well, people still have huge nostalgia for it etc. wtf is this, explain yourself KOTORDS. Don't even try to tell me that "hurr it couldn't be done differently", because Jedi Knight 2, that gameplay of JA is only an evolution of is like 3 years older than KOTURD. Maybe it couldn't be done differently to satistfy average KOTURDER but let's be honest, down-syndrome children are rare thanks to widespread eugenic abortions, and so by 2020 there shouldn't be that many alive for them to post on forums about videogames.

Codex is full of coomers. Codexers are so degenerate that they consider Mission Vao their waifu. Let THAT sink in.

 

[jungl]

Kotor 1 felt like a legit star wars story unlike kotor 2. Problem with kotor 2 they made the protagonist too strong relative to everyone else in the party. It doesn't feel like star wars when only one character shines and everyone sucking one characters dick and everybody else sidekicks.

Got to agree though Jedi academy was overall a better game considering you can drop in 100+ hours in its multiplayer while kotor you play 20-30 hours beat it and move on.

 

[EldarEldrad]

Codex is full of coomers. Codexers are so degenerate that they consider Mission Vao their waifu. Let THAT sink in.

Real men prefer Canderous HK-47.

 

[Ol' Willy]

Console RPGs are cancer, case closed.

 

[Ol' Willy]

Before a certain game, RPGs were slow, grindy, number crunchers for nerds. After a certain game, RPGs became cinematic spectacles. That game was Final Fantasy 7.

And once again, the origin of disease is found in Japan.

 

[Daemongar]

The Brave Rebels (Americans) fight the Evil Empire (British). No, I am not joking - the Rebels have American accents and the Imperials have British accents. Also, the Empire has more "monarchistic" structure (Emperor Palpatine), while the Rebels are a whole group of people united by a common goal, with the intent of re-establishing the old, glorious, Republic. On one hand it plays well into the American mindset, on another it's universal enough for everybody else to get it too. This kind of inclusiveness is a big part of the Star Wars, in the sense that it can fit almost anywhere.

Well, then Fallout 1 was America vs. the British, Planescape: Torment was America vs. the British, BG2 was America vs. British, etc. See, antagonists have British access because a) we can understand them b) it gives a nice clinical and refined feel to the evil, and c) everyone hates the British. You want a refined, proper, evil protagonist: British accent. Thick, brooding evil: Russian accent. Charming villain you eventually side with: German accent. It all follows a template.

 

[Funposter]

british villains are just Douglas Jardine

 

[Harthwain]

Well, then Fallout 1 was America vs. the British, Planescape: Torment was America vs. the British, BG2 was America vs. British, etc.

See, antagonists have British access because a) we can understand them b) it gives a nice clinical and refined feel to the evil, and c) everyone hates the British. You want a refined, proper, evil protagonist: British accent. Thick, brooding evil: Russian accent. Charming villain you eventually side with: German accent. It all follows a template.

Director Irvin Kershner decided that for this movie [The Empire Strikes Back], members of the Rebel Alliance would speak with American accents, while the Imperial officers would speak with British accents, to make the story analogous to the American Revolution. However, most of the supporting actors that appeared as Rebel personnel on Hoth were in fact British actors. Consequently, Kershner had to re-dub several of the scenes taking place at the Hoth rebel base with American voices in post-production.

Source

 

[Daemongar]

Director Irvin Kershner decided that for this movie [The Empire Strikes Back], members of the Rebel Alliance would speak with American accents, while the Imperial officers would speak with British accents, to make the story analogous to the American Revolution. However, most of the supporting actors that appeared as Rebel personnel on Hoth were in fact British actors. Consequently, Kershner had to re-dub several of the scenes taking place at the Hoth rebel base with American voices in post-production.

Source

This makes no sense at all. He directed the second movie in a series of three. How would he set the tone for the series, starting with the middle? And if his effort was to make the story analogous to the American Revolution, he failed. There really is nothing in the movie that parallels the American Civil War at all except the part where Luke gets stuck in the ice cave. That happened to Abraham Lincoln when he was a kid. The Director didn't create Palpatine. He didn't write the script. Nobody else "got it too" as you state. The rebels had a monarchy as well. I mean, nobody voted for Luke Skywalker - he just showed up and led folks because of his lineage. Same with Yoda.

 

[Harthwain]

This makes no sense at all. He directed the second movie in a series of three. How would he set the tone for the series, starting with the middle?

He solidified the whole thing with accents in the movie he directed. On a related note - Princess Leia has a Brittish accent in New Hope, but it disappears forever after conversation with Grand Moff Tarkin. Coincidence? I think not.

And if his effort was to make the story analogous to the American Revolution, he failed. There really is nothing in the movie that parallels the American Civil War at all except the part where Luke gets stuck in the ice cave. That happened to Abraham Lincoln when he was a kid. The Director didn't create Palpatine. He didn't write the script. Nobody else "got it too" as you state.

He didn't fail, because the whole of Star Wars can easily fit into this concept as it's fairly universal. It may not have started as the analogous to the American Revolution (like Ocelot have said - you can draw more parallels to WW2 than to American Revolution), but it's not hard to see it as such. Accents simply help to amplify this connotation.

The rebels had a monarchy as well. I mean, nobody voted for Luke Skywalker - he just showed up and led folks because of his lineage. Same with Yoda.

You have strange concept of monarchy. Luke Skywalker is the classic "from zero to hero", but he raises up in the Rebel movement by the virtue of his actions (he's the literal farm boy, who has managed to blow up the first Death Star, saving the whole rebellion). His lineage doesn't matter until he starts his Jedi training, which sets him apart from everyone else (as a Space Paladin). The main reason Leia is a Princess is because it's a trope. In the same way Darth Vader is personification of a Black Knight and Emperor Palpatine is an Evil Sorceror who at the end fires lighting from his hands.

 

[Daemongar]

No. Darth Vader is second in command. Luke Skywalker is his progeny and in control of the rebels. So is Lea, the daughter of nobility. Royalty. You stated that Star Wars was analogous to the Civil War, but it turns out that this concept was initiated by a director of the second movie, but was never intended by the writer of the story nor the director of the first story, nor any writer of any of the three scripts. Statistically, the director of one out of three - so if you include 3 directors and 3 script writers, the odds are about 1/6 that Star Wars is analogous to WW1 as you state. Maybe we could weight The Empire Strikes Back higher because it's damn good - but still - you have to accept "The Invisible Fortress" or "King Lear" as the inspiration of the series as it stems from the creators intent, not some hack brought in 3 years after the original movie.

 

[Harthwain]

No. Darth Vader is second in command.

So what? He's still incredibly influental figure, because he's the right hand of the Emperor himself. Aside from also being a Force User.

Luke Skywalker is his progeny and in control of the rebels. So is Lea, the daughter of nobility. Royalty.

"Luke Skywalker is in control of the rebels"? I am going to need a source for this, because as far as I can tell he leads a squadron in the battle of Hoth and that's as far as he gets in the original trilogy. I think he gets to be a general later on, but that's outside of the scope of the movies (and even so, it still wouldn't make him a leader of the Rebel Alliance, as you claim).

As for Leia - the founding members of the Rebel Alliance are Mon Mothma, Bail Organa and Padme Amidala. Padme is dead by the time A New Hope starts. Bail Organa (Leia's father) dies when Alderaan gets destroyed. We don't even get to see the man. This makes Mon Mothma the political leader and the voice of the Rebel Alliance as a result. And that's exactly how I understood it when I first watched the movies. Leia's role was to be an inside woman as she used her diplomatic status to serve as a courier for the Rebels. Her being a princess means shit in the movies, so I don't know why you keep bringing this up.

Han Solo and Lando become generals.

You stated that Star Wars was analogous to the Civil War, but [...]

For me it's analogous to the Civil War in a VERY broad sense: the Free American People rebelling against the Evil British Empire and its armies. But coming back to you saying that "Nobody else >got it too<", actually I did see other people sharing my impression in this matter. And it's pretty much official as far as the Empire Strikes Back is concerned, whether you accept it or not. Not sure why you hung up on this so much though.

By the way, from the mouth of George Lucas himself:

"We're fighting the largest empire in the world, and we're just a bunch of hay seeds in coonskin hats that don't know nothing," he says, referencing the American Revolution against the British Empire, and how he based the heroes of Star Wars on real-life rebellions against powerful empires.

Lucas and Cameron discuss how during the Vietnam War, America became "the Empire."

"The irony is that, in both of those, the little guys won. The highly technical empire -- the English Empire, the American Empire -- lost. That was the whole point," Lucas says.

Source

 

[DraQ]

I like space fantasy and space westerns but SW should have been 1 movie or maybe 1 trilogy and never receive any sequels whatsoever.

I guess a trilogy would be fair enough - provided they had Wookies or something doing guerilla-ing instead of those damn teddy bears.

 

[DraQ]

head cocked sideways

That's how you get to be a fan in the first place, if you know what I mean.

 

[DraQ]

I disagree, the Empire is based on Nazi Germany. Stormtroopers, grey/brown uniforms, Vader's helmet, speciesism etc. SW isn't sci-fi IMO.

Yep.

A sci-fi franchise would explain how lightsabers work, how the force works, why hyperspace exists, how Luke or Rey got powerful quickly while Anakin didn't etc.

Sci-fi doesn't need to explain everything but it needs to be prepared to.
In proper Sci-Fi handwaving gets you no benefit of doubt.

The prequels tried to explain some "space magic" concepts but the fans didn't like it e.g: Midichlorians.

Because they didn't explain shit. Midichlorians were a huge fucking joke conceived by someone just not understanding how explanations work.
In OT you had space voodoo. An actual explanation would remove space voodoo by showing how it works - you lose the air of mysticism, but gain sci-fi (which would arguably defeat the point of having space fantasy in the first place, but I digress).
Midichlorians "explanation" just shifted space voodoo onto magical space mitochondria everyone has (but in different concentration).
The part that was cool (the air of mysticism, as befits space fantasy) was lost, the part that explanation meant to remove (space voodoo) remained, now supplemented with magical space mitochondria.

 

[Bruma Hobo]

The Brave Rebels (Americans) fight the Evil Empire (British).

I disagree, the Empire is based on Nazi Germany. Stormtroopers, grey/brown uniforms, Vader's helmet, speciesism etc.

It’s a bit of both.

It's neither. Star Wars was about tradition vs modernity, the world of knights, wizards and religion fighting a modern industrial superpower that turns its people into soulless machines. Modern Star Wars completely forgot about that, which is why the new movies are crap (it was never about muh progressive rebels resisting fascism).

 

[wahrk]

It's neither. Star Wars was about tradition vs modernity, the world of knights, wizards and religion fighting a modern industrial superpower that turns its people into soulless machines. Modern Star Wars completely forgot about that, which is why the new movies are crap (it was never about muh progressive rebels resisting fascism).

Ok, sure, but that modern industrial superpower still takes inspiration from elements of the British Empire and Nazi Germany, at least on a superficial level. Both things can be true.

 

[Dodo1610]

Another thing I forgot is that Kotor is actually challenging, unlike KOTOR2 the optional bosses really do require buffing at least on the higher difficulties. Though one of the reasons for that is that KOTOR 2 has a lot more options for character building including more feats, powers and crafting. Still, the game has too few options to solve quests; I killed both gangs in Taris and doesn't react to that at all.

 

[Cpt. Dallas]

It should be stated that the restored content mod is mandatory for '2'. It was released unfinished.

 

[Absinthe]

I remember when it was released on PC, or maybe year or two later, I was playing Jedi Academy a lot, and once upon a time a buddy of mine brought me a disc with pirated version of kotor he thought I'd like it. After playing for like 30 minutes I was completely disgusted with the absolutely horrible gameplay of this piece of shit, and uninstalled it forever, didn't talk to that guy for the next month.

And yet, I look at the internet and the game was received very well, people still have huge nostalgia for it etc. wtf is this, explain yourself KOTORDS. Don't even try to tell me that "hurr it couldn't be done differently", because Jedi Knight 2, that gameplay of JA is only an evolution of is like 3 years older than KOTURD. Maybe it couldn't be done differently to satistfy average KOTURDER but let's be honest, down-syndrome children are rare thanks to widespread eugenic abortions, and so by 2020 there shouldn't be that many alive for them to post on forums about videogames.

KotOR's gameplay fucking sucked. The story was mostly celebrated for no other reason than being an opportunity to play a Star Wars hero in a game that focused on the Star Wars narrative. Some people really liked that.

Not really a big KotOR fan, but I know some reasons why it was well received:

1. KotOR was set in the Old Republic times - it was a breath of fresh air at the time.
2. There are common melee weapons that can withstand lightsabers, so Force Users can't melt everything.
3. It used D20 system (there are actual rolls involved).
4. It's not an action game.
5. In KotOR 1 you get to be cool (story-wise) one point in the game (other than that it was trashy run-of-the-mill story you could expect).
6. Some companions are interesting (KotOR 2 had more interesting companions).
7. KotOR 2 had a fairly original and not one-dimensional plot (considering the setting), so I liked it a lot more.

1. Old Republic times were kinda interesting but nothing special was done there. It was just a rehash of a Star Wars story.
   
2. It's also mostly the shields rather than the weapons that withstand lightsabers.
3. Being a d20 system was by no means a fucking improvement. The gameplay is absolute fucking garbage in KotOR 1 and 2, and anyone who thinks there is inherent value in a d20 system ought to be smacked. The AI and balance are both complete shit.
   
4. Not being an action game is not an improvement either. If anything it would probably have been better as an action game because then there would be actual impetus to use your head, if only slightly. This shit is less engaging than fucking Diablo-likes.
   
5. Being a Star Wars hero is pretty much the whole appeal of the game.
6. Maybe. Depends on the person, I guess.
7. Ditto.

I've said this before. KoTOR's innovation was cinematic presentation.

Before a certain game, RPGs were slow, grindy, number crunchers for nerds. After a certain game, RPGs became cinematic spectacles. That game was Final Fantasy 7.

You may not think JRPGs are "real" RPGs or whatever, but that is irrelevant. Game publishers absolutely did not see that distinction in 1997. They only saw a game with stats and level-ups selling ten times the number of copies anyone even thought an RPG could sell. It was actually embarrassing to western devs, many of which were told to develop 'FF7-killers' ASAP. This inspired games like PST and Anachronox, but they failed to understand FF7's true appeal.

It was Bioware who succeeded at stealing the thunder from Squaresoft. They understood the game was about the cinematic look and feel, so they set about doing the same with Star Wars. Under the hood, KoTOR is the same game as Neverwinter Nights, but it looks and feels completely different. The shot-reverse shot camera angles, close up for dialogues, full VO, and the cinematic animations for battles make the whole game feel like you are playing a star wars film.

Story and choices are red herrings. The point of Bioware games has never been to have a deep or reactive story. It's to have a story that looks and feels dramatic. It's all smoke and mirrors.

The cinematic RPG is sort of dead now so it's easy to look back at KoTOR and say yeah it's not a great game (i've always thought the story and characters were trash). But that was never the point, while the use of full voiced dialogue and cinematic framing in every part of the game was quite revolutionary.

An interesting take, but wrong. Cinematic presentation has been a part of pretty much every fucking Star Wars game. And RPGs had been doing cinematics long before KotOR ever came out. KotOR in no way represented something new on that front, nor did it represent particularly good graphics. What you are doing is basically historical revisionism in order to make KotOR look ground-breaking somehow. What KotOR did do, was give the player an opportunity to play out a typical Star Wars adventure as a Star Wars hero. They did focus on the look and feel of a Star Wars adventure, yes. And it made a lot of Star Wars fans happy, especially the ones who didn't like action games so much.

Kreia manipulates and sabotages your crew for her own ends and openly tells you to treat everyone like disposable tools, intentionally sets up conflict and then murders the Jedi masters. That’s not really morally grey, I’d say she’s fairly sinister throughout. She’s not a cackling villain but she is the villain.

Nah, Kreia is dark side alright (although also somewhat gray-sided in her own way), but murdering the Jedi masters was not her goal. If you kill the Jedi masters yourself she'll really lay into you. What Kreia was looking to do was prove her way of teaching, demonstrate the flaws in the Jedi masters' way of doing things, and make them broaden their perspectives. The protagonist is on some level proof of Kreia's teachings and the errors of the Jedi masters, an opportunity for them to understand where they went wrong and fucked things up so colossally. It's just that during your meeting the Jedi masters prove they're not learning animals and double down on their mistakes, resolving to fuck your character over, at which point Kreia has pretty much had it with their shit and steps in before the wrongdoing can set in. But her goal was never to kill them. That was just the unfortunate outcome.

And Kreia's villainy is a bit sketchy too. She definitely does villainous things, but I think half her goal was to get you ready for dealing with the threat of the True Sith who were a massive threat to the galaxy.