Preview KOTOR 2 preview at GameBanshee

[Vault Dweller]

Tags: Obsidian Entertainment; Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords

<a href=http://www.gamebanshee.com>GameBanshee</a> posted a <a href=http://www.gamebanshee.com/previews/kotoriipreview1.php>preview</a> of <b>KOTOR 2</b>. Don't expect to find a lot of new info for obvious reasons, but overall I liked it much more then the Gamespot preview.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>In the original, it was common for players everywhere to use the characters they became most efficient with, which meant that the Jedi Jolee, Juhani and Bastila were used more often than any other set of party members. Since they were Jedi, there was really no reason for keeping say, Mission or T3-M4 in your party when you could wield the power of these dominant companions unless you wanted the flavor or additional quests. In The Sith Lords, different companions may be off doing their own mission, thereby "allowing" you to utilize some of the other party members more often. It is said that each companion will have a uniquely helpful ability or trait and that missions will be designed to take advantage of these, encouraging diversification.</blockquote>That was the part I didn't like in the first game. No matter how high my character's security skill is, only T3-M4 can open that lock, and only Mission and Jolee can disable the force fields.
<br>
<br>
<br>
Spotted at: <A HREF="http://www.rpgdot.com">RPG Dot</A>

 

[StraitLacedDeviant]

That doesn't sound like its adding more choice. Characters will be off on missions "allowing" you to utilize the others. Sounds more like "forcing you". It could still be horribly unbalanced and it just forces you to deal with weaker, equally useless characters because you have no choice in the matter.

 

[Oyarsa]

synthetic semantic cement trick

Sounds like a page outta Freedom Force, though I'm sure some game did it earlier than that.

 

[Taoreich]

That doesn't sound like its adding more choice. Characters will be off on missions "allowing" you to utilize the others. Sounds more like "forcing you". It could still be horribly unbalanced and it just forces you to deal with weaker, equally useless characters because you have no choice in the matter.

Just because your availaible companions are limited by design, doesn't mean the game is unbalanced, nor does it necessarily empohasize a "forced" environment. Is the alternative design, that your companions sit quietly in the Ebon Hawk playing pazaak and making security spikes until you have need of them, really make any more sense?

 

[StraitLacedDeviant]

I meant the usefulness of some of the characters versus others, could still be horribly unbalanced. Except this time you can't just leave them sitting in the ebon hawk, you're forced to use their pointless asses.

 

[dipdipdip]

Re: synthetic semantic cement trick

Sounds like a page outta Freedom Force, though I'm sure some game did it earlier than that.

Yes, the Final Fantasy games.

 

[Voss]

Just because your availaible companions are limited by design, doesn't mean the game is unbalanced, nor does it necessarily empohasize a "forced" environment. Is the alternative design, that your companions sit quietly in the Ebon Hawk playing pazaak and making security spikes until you have need of them, really make any more sense?

It doesn't make any more sense, but its more fun for the player if they don't have to carry dead weight around with them. That droid in particular was utterly useless- and had no personality, quirks or interesting traits to boot. And yet, you *had* to get him at that shop.
Which is why its odd that they decided to carry him over to the second game. Maybe he'll be interesting this time around, but...

I guess the thing of it is, *all* of the NPCs should be interesting, and you should want to try them out. The droid- just a trash can. Mission? Went dead after you finished with her brother, the wookie was only had dialogue about his own planet, but then ended up being unavailable for most of it!
With a limited # of NPCs, none of them should be dead weight. They don't have to be uber skilled, but they should at least be interesting.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

That was the part I didn't like in the first game. No matter how high my character's security skill is, only T3-M4 can open that lock, and only Mission and Jolee can disable the force fields.

That didn't get me as much as there were no restrictions on swapping party members left and right so you didn't really have to develop many skills on your own.

 

[Rosh]

Re: synthetic semantic cement trick

Sounds like a page outta Freedom Force, though I'm sure some game did it earlier than that.

Yeah, it's called Star Trek: Away Team.

 

[Talorc]

Re: Party Members off on missions

Sounds like a page outta Freedom Force, though I'm sure some game did it earlier than that.

Yeah, it's called Star Trek: Away Team.

Actually, The Magic Candle did something like it in 1989

http://www.the-underdogs.org/game.php?gameid=1924

You could leave your Dwarf Blacksmith character working in the Smithy earning cash, your Elf Hunter / Ranger outside town collecting food, your Wizards in the inn memorizing spells, whilst you took your Halfling charisma guy round town to do all the quest talking and shopping.

I know its not quite the same thing as a Party Member leaving to "to do their own mission" (eg convenient excuse for the designer to not let you use character X, and have to use character B to accomplish task) - but it was damn cool, as you got to decide what "side missions" you wanted the party members to do.

I have not played Star Trek away team, so I dunno what their exact implementaion of the idea was.

 

[Rosh]

Well, I was going for a title that even the kiddies would have a chance of remembering.

As for Star Trek: Away Team, which was developed by Reflexive, who later created Star Trek: Away Team II: Lionheart, check out this review.