Review KOTOR2 Reviewed by 1Up

[Sol Invictus]

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

This <a href=http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3137063>review</a> of <a href=http://www.obsidianent.com/>Obsidian's</a> brand new title raises a few points that would probably annoy the fanbase at the <a href=http://forums.obsidianent.com/>Obsidian Forums</a>. The review says that the game is nothing more than what would probably be an expansion pack of KOTOR if it was released solely on the PC due to its lack of improvements on the technical side of the game, stating that all of the flaws that were present in <a href=http://www.bioware.com>Bioware's</a> original title are present in its 'sequel' as well with only a few minor improvements to the interface.
<br>
<blockquote>Is it churlish to think less of Sith Lords because it's called KOTOR II when it shouldn't be? If this had been released solely as a PC game instead of debuting on a console, odds are good that it would have been labeled as an expansion pack rather than a sequel, and simply labeled KOTOR: The Sith Lords. All the hallmarks of an expansion pack are there, after all: new content using the same graphics engine and battle system, created as a side project by another developer while the original creators work on a real follow-up.
<br>
<br>
Since it's numbered as a proper sequel, though, the lack of improvement on some of the fundamentals on KOTOR I is a little disheartening. It really is exactly the same shell that covered the first game's story, with the same bugs (I noticed my party still had a tendency to warp and skip around the map at times, and the pathfinding AI isn't any better than you remember it) and the same graphics engine that's like watching a car crash. When they were known as Black Isle, Obsidian's strength was always more toward improved content rather than improved technology, so it's to be expected ... but don't come into Sith Lords expecting many of the technical problems that plagued the first game to be fixed. </blockquote>
<br>
<br>
The <a href=http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3137063>review</a> does however go on to note that the story is much better this time, with superior characters, plot, moral choices and that the story is a lot less predictable than the original. The overall score is <b>7.5</b>.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>Many people learned with KOTOR I to take the bad with the good, a rule that'll serve them well when playing through The Sith Lords. The bad is still there and no better than ever, but the good shines through more clearly than before. Net shift: Light Side gain.</blockquote>
<br>
Thanks for the news tip, <b>kumquatq3</b>.

 

[dojoteef]

Stuff like this always surprises me. They give the first one a 10/10, yet this one in their eyes improves on the original, just not in all areas, so they give it a 7.5/10. How do they decide ratings? It doesn't seem to have an absolute measure. Clearly in their eyes, this one is better than the original. They say as much in the review. How then does it recieve a LOWER SCORE?! I just don't understand these review ratings at all. I don't fault them if they want to give the game a 7.5 or a 2.5, whatever floats their boat, but I would like to see some consistency in reviews.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Now you know why we don't do ratings on here. However, no game should ever get a 10/10 anywhere. 10/10 is "perfect", and there's no such thing as a perfect game.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

Clearly in their eyes, this one is better than the original. They say as much in the review. How then does it recieve a LOWER SCORE?!

Because, and I could care less what certain trolls might say, Bioware didn't make it. A lesser known company did. Since they don't have this big muscle hovering in front of their face, they are calling the engine on all it's faults. What do you think the first one would have gotten if Obsidian had made it? Probably 7.5.

 

[dojoteef]

Otaku, I don't know if I agree with you. I think it has more to do with an inconsistency with how most of these people review games. They have no real guidline on how to score a game. And like Saint said, no game should recieve a 10 for a rating because no game is perfect.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

I think it has more to do with an inconsistency with how most of these people review games.

Oh, I am quite sure this averages in there as well. And, yes, there is no perfect game. So why did the first KOTOR recieve a 10/10? I don't think that had alot to do with inconsistency. I think it has alot to do with either the developer, setting, hype, or a combination of the three. I don't agree with the perfect scores HL2 are getting all over the place. It has problems like any other game does and is definitely NOT perfect. So why all the 5 out of 5's, the 10 out of 10's, or the 100%'s?

And, yes, I realize there's no conspiracy involved in all this. Just plain and simple hype vs. fact, or what have you.

 

[Mendoza]

Whilst I thought that KotOR was a great game (though not perfect by any means), I'm starting to get pissed with these reviews. If they'd given KotOR a score which made sense compared to their KotOR 2 review, then fair enough, but most of the reviews seem to think that a) KotOR 2 is better and b) KotOR 2 deserves a significantly lower score than KotOR. It's one thing to say that KotOR was fantastic but now the sequel which is better is simply good, but in a year where there have been no comparible console RPGs, it's just plain stupid.

Until this I was at least clinging to the idea that reviews, whilst flawed, weren't just completely stupid. Which I guess makes me completely stupid. At least I'm encouraged enough to buy it, so I'll make my own mind up in February.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Well, I wouldn't go so far as calling Half Life 2 "flawed". It has some "quirks" but it's undeserving of "flawed". Now, some people might not like the game, but that's really their point of view. If anything, I'd call HL2 the "perfect" FPS. At least at the moment.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

I didn't say HL2 was flawed, I just said it wasn't perfect as it had it's problems. And as for it being the "perfect" FPS, well I disagree on that. Yes, it was fun (the airboat levels especially; felt very James Bond-ish), and had some great scripted moments, but the AI was nothing phenomenal in comparison to Far Cry's. Plus, the linearity of the levels compared to the huge amounts of freedom you had in 98% of Far Cry just don't cut it. I would consider Far Cry more of the "perfect" FPS then HL2, but even it had it's problems. Again, as you pointed out though, it's also a matter or personal opinion. And that's yet another factor that tends to seep it's way into reviews.

 

[Shagnak]

Despite being primarily an RPG fan I LOVE both Far Cry and HL2. But as for 'I'd call HL2 the "perfect" FPS', thats a hard call. It was very good, but aside from kewl boat races and funky physics it does not advance anything it terms of story line, gameplay, and a bug-free experience. While the last may be elusive to current title makers (due to many reasons - inlcuding publisher constrants), the previous two criteria are bettered by both the original HL title and NOLF 1 and 2 (and FUCK they made me laugh too).

 

[Mendoza]

Whilst I thought they were both fantastic games, HL2 to me was clearly superior. Far Cry had (from memory) better AI but the was for the most part quite samey (both the environments and opponents). As for the non linearity, I liked the different ways to get past obstacles (sniping/guns blazing/sneaking) rather than the fact you could take path a vs path b (with generally the same gameplay whatever path you took.

While Half Life 2 was more linear in just about every respect, everything it did just seemed a class above what has come before. It was the first time physics had been integrated and really affected the gameplay. The locations and gameplay kept introducing new elements and stayed varied. And the world just seemed more real, detailed and believable than anything else.