Kotor 1 vs 2
- Thread starter Runetouch
- Start date
Knights of the Old Republic was a classic Star Wars/I] tale of good versus evil, presented in an exceptional manner.
KOTOR II: The Sith Lords presented a more ambitious, more mature tale about how what you think is good and what you think is evil may not be as clear-cut as as the typical SW morality would lead its characters to believe.
TSL (with the Restored Content Mod, naturally) is my preferred game among the two, but of course you don't get it without the success of the first one. I love them both, but for different reasons.
KOTOR II: The Sith Lords presented a more ambitious, more mature tale about how what you think is good and what you think is evil may not be as clear-cut as as the typical SW morality would lead its characters to believe.
TSL (with the Restored Content Mod, naturally) is my preferred game among the two, but of course you don't get it without the success of the first one. I love them both, but for different reasons.
KOTOR 1, which us basically a remake of the first Star Wars movie. The sequel was great, if I recall, but it was something of a retread and seemed to rely on pretty much retconning out the events of the first game.
Don't think I've played kotor 2 since it came out. I remember it being pretty spectacularly disappointing. You play the last of the jedi on a mission from a jedi to find four other jedi. Because being the last of something sounds cool, I guess. Also you're some kind of nonsensical echo wound thing or something.
I'll take the first one any day. The story won't win any awards for originality, but it was fun, and there was no point where I wasn't clear on where I was, what I was doing or why I was doing it.
I'll take the first one any day. The story won't win any awards for originality, but it was fun, and there was no point where I wasn't clear on where I was, what I was doing or why I was doing it.
First one by a mile. Better story, better characters, better settings, and the most amazing plot twist ever in video games. Except for maybe something in Bioshock 
I don't remember the second one very well but I remember not really caring about the characters and all the settings being dead and depressing. Also the thing that REALLY pissed me off was the way they wrote off Revan off-screen, promising some huge future story that never materialized.
I don't remember the second one very well but I remember not really caring about the characters and all the settings being dead and depressing. Also the thing that REALLY pissed me off was the way they wrote off Revan off-screen, promising some huge future story that never materialized.
Well
Revan's and the Exile's story concludes (sort of) in The Old Republic MMO.
Revan's and the Exile's story concludes (sort of) in The Old Republic MMO.
I personally enjoyed KotOR 2 significantly more than KotOR 1. I found the characters more interesting, the storey more complex and compelling and I liked that the ambiguity regarding the antagonists, both in terms of their motivations and identities. On balance I found KotOR 1 to be somewhat overrated.
In the interests of fairness however, there are a couple factors that should be taken into account regarding that opinion. First off I didn't play either game until just a few years ago, so by which point I'd heard a lot of praise for the first game and a lot of negativity regarding the sequel. As a result I felt KotOR was more than a little overrated while KotOR 2 felt like a pleasant surprise. Also, "the" twist regarding Revan was already spoilt for me, so it had zero impact. And finally, knowing ahead of time that the game was a buggy mess, I installed the TSLRCM mod straight away, so I've never played KotOR 2 in the state in which it was released.
Despite all that though, I still think KotOR 2 deserves extra points for ambition and substance, even if the execution was hobbled by an unreasonably truncated development time. My only real complaint is that for an RPG, there's a disturbing amount of linearity and the ship got shot down or otherwise grounded *way* too often.
In the interests of fairness however, there are a couple factors that should be taken into account regarding that opinion. First off I didn't play either game until just a few years ago, so by which point I'd heard a lot of praise for the first game and a lot of negativity regarding the sequel. As a result I felt KotOR was more than a little overrated while KotOR 2 felt like a pleasant surprise. Also, "the" twist regarding Revan was already spoilt for me, so it had zero impact. And finally, knowing ahead of time that the game was a buggy mess, I installed the TSLRCM mod straight away, so I've never played KotOR 2 in the state in which it was released.
Despite all that though, I still think KotOR 2 deserves extra points for ambition and substance, even if the execution was hobbled by an unreasonably truncated development time. My only real complaint is that for an RPG, there's a disturbing amount of linearity and the ship got shot down or otherwise grounded *way* too often.
Last edited:
I only played the two games in the last year or so, and (like Reverend) I had installed the Restored Content Mod so I didn't experience the buggy and unfinished game that KOTOR 2 supposedly was at release. As such, I think the second game was better.
Firstly, let me just say that I did not like the combat system in the games. I appreciate that there are those that like that sort of turn-based system, but it just doesn't appeal to me. As such, I can't say that either game will be joining my list of favourite games. But I did enjoy the stories, role-play elements, and settings of both games.
Other than the twist, the first game tells a fairly generic Star Wars story. A hero rises, becomes a Jedi, defeats a great evil, and there's a celebratory party to finish. It was a tale well-told, and the twist was really good, but I kinda forgot the story in the year-long gap between playing it and the sequel.
KOTOR 2 tells a much more interesting story in my opinion. The whole game, I was unsure of who my friends and who my enemies were, and even whether or not I was doing the right thing. For my money, Kreia was easily the most interesting character in either game. Overall, it was a great deconstruction of the Star Wars universe and of RPGs themselves, and I don't imagine its story will fade from my memory in the same way that the first game's story did.
Firstly, let me just say that I did not like the combat system in the games. I appreciate that there are those that like that sort of turn-based system, but it just doesn't appeal to me. As such, I can't say that either game will be joining my list of favourite games. But I did enjoy the stories, role-play elements, and settings of both games.
Other than the twist, the first game tells a fairly generic Star Wars story. A hero rises, becomes a Jedi, defeats a great evil, and there's a celebratory party to finish. It was a tale well-told, and the twist was really good, but I kinda forgot the story in the year-long gap between playing it and the sequel.
KOTOR 2 tells a much more interesting story in my opinion. The whole game, I was unsure of who my friends and who my enemies were, and even whether or not I was doing the right thing. For my money, Kreia was easily the most interesting character in either game. Overall, it was a great deconstruction of the Star Wars universe and of RPGs themselves, and I don't imagine its story will fade from my memory in the same way that the first game's story did.
Yeah I wasn't much a fan of the combat system either. I've never really liked it when video games do such literal translations of pen & paper dice rolling systems. I mean the basic underlying systems, sure, but nothing takes me out of a combat experience like firing a blaster volley at an enemy stood out in the open not five meters away and having "miss-miss-miss-miss-miss" appear over their heads.
You get used to it though and it didn't stop me from finishing either game. I just prefer the way they approached combat in Mass Effect which is skill based and stat enhanced, rather than being all about the stats and d20 rolls.
You get used to it though and it didn't stop me from finishing either game. I just prefer the way they approached combat in Mass Effect which is skill based and stat enhanced, rather than being all about the stats and d20 rolls.
I liked the first much better. I found it more fun overall. The sequel tried to introduce an improved alignment system, but it was ultimately broken. For example, I've tried converting the Handmaiden to the Dark side, but it was impossible as she would reset, and you'd never know what would trigger the reset. It was very frustrating. In the end, I found the alignment system useless. It had so much potential. The one thing I liked about the sequel was revisiting some of the areas from the first.
I just remember the other great thing about the first game. I absolutely loved the backstory of the Infinite Empire and the secret origin of Tatooine. I thought that was so cool, and then discovering the ancient surviving members of that race at the end was really exciting.
I agree that the combat system sucked. I never liked turn-based combat in video games, always preferred Skyrim/ FPS game combat.
I don't mind turn-based combat in and of itself, I'm just not a fan of they way it was implemented for the KotOR games. For games like Fallout, Baldur's Gate, X-Com etc. it's perfectly suitable, but I think because it's more of a hybrid system--only the combat rolls rolls are turn based, not the movement--it feels off.
I think the cognitive dissonance comes from being free to move, but not free to aim and shoot on your own skill. Kind of an either/or situation I think.
Having said that, they had more or less the same hybrid system in 'Jade Empire' but I think it worked much better because it was a unique martial arts based combat.
As for the likes of Skyrim...it was serviceable enough and a significant improvement to how it felt in Oblivion & Morrowind, but the combat scaling system in those game always felt very strange to me. I often found myself vastly outclasses or totally OP. Never seemed to find that butter zone.
I think the cognitive dissonance comes from being free to move, but not free to aim and shoot on your own skill. Kind of an either/or situation I think.
Having said that, they had more or less the same hybrid system in 'Jade Empire' but I think it worked much better because it was a unique martial arts based combat.
As for the likes of Skyrim...it was serviceable enough and a significant improvement to how it felt in Oblivion & Morrowind, but the combat scaling system in those game always felt very strange to me. I often found myself vastly outclasses or totally OP. Never seemed to find that butter zone.
KOTOR. I think Revan got off a lot better than the Exile. A pity because the Exile is one of those rare canonized female Star Wars game characters who, after the events of KOTOR2 is essentially reduced to a literal battery that keeps the more prominent male Revan alive for The Old Republic MMO. I've seen many stories where female characters are created just for the benefit of the male character, but never this literal.
Ehm, you could turn that off...
Make it an action-rpg...
Personally i wish they would release the source code to the exe so other people can update it like Id did with the older Quake and Doom games...
I've never played pen and paper RPGs, it's just not my sort of thing, so I felt lost during the combat sequences. Most enemies were simple to kill unless they attacked in large numbers, which was the only time that there seemed to be genuine strategy to the game, while the bosses seemed to require a great deal of luck and some min-maxing, something I had no idea how to do. I eventually discovered what I assume was a glitch that allowed me to apply health packs during combat turns through the inventory menu, and that was the only way I managed to make it to the end.
At some really difficult parts, I would just game the combat mechanics in stupid ways. One trick I learned was that if I ran around in circles then an enemy that was focused on me would also run in circles, which allowed my squadmates to shoot or slash them as we passed by. It was really ridiculous looking, but it got me out of many difficult situations.
At some really difficult parts, I would just game the combat mechanics in stupid ways. One trick I learned was that if I ran around in circles then an enemy that was focused on me would also run in circles, which allowed my squadmates to shoot or slash them as we passed by. It was really ridiculous looking, but it got me out of many difficult situations.
I agree. I know some people don't like shooters, but I personally prefer the ME combat systems. I like knowing that if I missed, it's because I missed, it's not because of a dice-roll that I have no way of influencing.
^An odd attitude I've often encountered is the idea that games that don't slavishly adhere to the basic D&D model are automatically considered "dumbed down" and "not real RPGs". To my mind, that's like insisting that a movie adhere to the same rule of structure and pacing as the written word. It's crazy.
To my mind, in video games the rule sets must always exist to support the gameplay experience, not the other way around. A role playing game should be about PLAYING a ROLE, not fiddling with mostly meaningless stats. Especially when there's really only one effective build that the system will allow. The whole excersise becomes rather pointless in that case.
To be fair, the character wasn't actually created with that purpose in mind. She/he was created as a protagonist in their own story. Not that I'm a huge fan of how either of the two characters were handled in TOR. On the contrary I think they cheapened them both considerably.
To my mind, in video games the rule sets must always exist to support the gameplay experience, not the other way around. A role playing game should be about PLAYING a ROLE, not fiddling with mostly meaningless stats. Especially when there's really only one effective build that the system will allow. The whole excersise becomes rather pointless in that case.
To be fair, the character wasn't actually created with that purpose in mind. She/he was created as a protagonist in their own story. Not that I'm a huge fan of how either of the two characters were handled in TOR. On the contrary I think they cheapened them both considerably.
Amen. It annoyed me when Mass Effect 2 came out and some fans lamented that it wasn't a role-playing game any more, and that the series had become a glorified shooter. It's true that they went too far in minimising stats and the like, but it was still a role-playing game. You still defined Shepard's personality, you still shaped the story through your choices, and you still had freedom to visit various hubs and engage in quests at your own leisure. It's like suggesting that Europa Universalis isn't a strategy game because it doesn't take place on a grid map.
That's not to say that I think their criticism of ME2 was unfair, I can understand why some RPG fans were upset that the game strayed too far from the sort of RPGs that they liked the play. But it was actually more like the sort of RPG that I like to play, the sort that doesn't have an inventory, and doesn't send me on repetitive quests.
Yeah, the inventory is one of those vestiges from classic fantasy RPGs that they used in ME1 seemingly just because it was the done thing. In reality it served no real purpose since the economy and loot system in the game was broken, pointless and went against the lore to boot.
I mean do we seriously believe Shepard fought her way through Saren's base on Virmire toting a dozen sets of full body armour--two of them Krogan---about fifty assorted pistols, shotguns, assault and sniper rifles plus hundreds of mods, spare omni-tools and bio-amps? Nah, me neither.
I agree though, ME2 went a little too far in streamlining, but at least ME3 more or less found the sweet spot in terms of equipment customization and power sets. I just would have preferred they made it so you could mod the armour pieces like you could the weapons so you could balance aesthetics with functionality.
I mean do we seriously believe Shepard fought her way through Saren's base on Virmire toting a dozen sets of full body armour--two of them Krogan---about fifty assorted pistols, shotguns, assault and sniper rifles plus hundreds of mods, spare omni-tools and bio-amps? Nah, me neither.
I agree though, ME2 went a little too far in streamlining, but at least ME3 more or less found the sweet spot in terms of equipment customization and power sets. I just would have preferred they made it so you could mod the armour pieces like you could the weapons so you could balance aesthetics with functionality.
Similar threads
