Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Review GiN: KOTOR 2 combat is cleverly designed TB

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,023
Tags: Obsidian Entertainment; Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords

Another moron who thinks that <a href=http://www.kotor2.com>KOTOR 2</a> is turn-based. The moron is Chief Editor of <a href=http://www.gameindustry.com>Game Industry News</a> and here is the <a href=http://www.gameindustry.com/review/item.asp?id=516>review</a> that scored 5 out of 5 idiotic gems in every possible category but gameplay. Obviously, good audio is more important than gameplay, so the final score is 5/5 plus a complimentary blowjob to Lucas Arts.
<br>
<br>
Most reviews are very predictable. For example, every KOTOR 2 review must mention Teh Twist (TM) of the original. Let's see:<blockquote>The original title featured a deep plot with an amazing twist that would have made Alfred Hitchcock proud</blockquote>Yep, the only plot that was deeper started with: "The President has been kindapped by ninjas. Are you bad enough dude to rescue the President?" Then there should be some description of how nervous/concerned/upset the reviewer was about Obsidian's involvement:<blockquote>As with all sequels, I was very nervous about this one. How many times have we been treated to an amazing first game, only to be let down by the follow-up game? Thankfully, that won’t happen here.</blockquote>
<br>
A good review must avoid actually reviewing the game and should mostly focus on retelling the background story:<blockquote>You however, are an exiled jedi who has lost their connection to the force after being expelled from the order for fighting alongside of Reven (the dark lord from the first game and a major player in the surprise ending). You fought with Reven before he became the dark lord of course, but the council is not very forgiving with you and you are exiled anyway ...</blockquote>
<br>
Some random crap like:<blockquote>One interesting thing about the game this time around is that not all your allies seem to be working in your best interest. .. Plus, many don’t trust the others and will advise you not to work with them. Your ship becomes a floating soap opera at times, which is great in a role-playing game.</blockquote>
<br>
No KOTOR 2 review is complete without an interesting theory on the combat:
<br>
<blockquote>Though it appears to be a real-time combat, it’s actually a cleverly disguised turn-based battle</blockquote>The search for a clue continues!
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
 

Andyman Messiah

Mr. Ed-ucated
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
9,933
Location
Narnia
The great reviewer said:
The original title featured a deep plot with an amazing twist that would have made Alfred Hitchcock proud.
Uh? Oh look, Revan wears a mask. Oh look, Revan is the only one wearing a mask. Oh look, main character has amnesia. Oh look, main character is the chosen one. Oh look, main character is Revan. Hitchcock should be ashamed if he ever thought up a plot like that during his living days.
 

aboyd

Liturgist
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
843
Location
USA
Though it appears to be a real-time combat, it’s actually a cleverly disguised turn-based battle
That doesn't sound so terribly inaccurate? As I played KOTOR1, it felt like a turn-based engine with all the stops pulled out, and queued actions to keep the engine "fed" with things to do. And I was able to queue up actions for my other players as well, so it felt like I had some control of the group. Moreso than NWN, at least. Is KOTOR2 really so different? Or is there some other aspect to the engine which you could elaborate upon?
 

taks

Liturgist
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
753
Vault Dweller said:
No KOTOR 2 review is complete without an interesting theory on the combat:
<blockquote>Though it appears to be a real-time combat, it’s actually a cleverly disguised turn-based battle</blockquote>The search for a clue continues!
most people don't understand that the phrase "turn-based" is not an appearance factor only...
taks
 

taks

Liturgist
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
753
aboyd said:
That doesn't sound so terribly inaccurate? As I played KOTOR1, it felt like a turn-based engine with all the stops pulled out, and queued actions to keep the engine "fed" with things to do. And I was able to queue up actions for my other players as well, so it felt like I had some control of the group. Moreso than NWN, at least. Is KOTOR2 really so different? Or is there some other aspect to the engine which you could elaborate upon?
you are apparently one of those people...

KOTOR, 1 and 2, are real-time with pause. all actions occur simulataneously in a given round. the phrase "turn-based" means each individual completes his turn in some specified order. this is the way D20 has been designed since the beginning, btw. pool of radiance: RoMD and temple of elemental evil are turn-based games. KOTOR is NOT turn-based. not even close. only if you don't understand what the term means does it even appear turn-based.

taks
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,023
@aboyd

Sadly, it is terribly inaccurate, and no, the system in both KOTOR games has nothing to do with TURN-based combat. The key word would be TURN, not queued action. In many RTS you can issue queued orders and commands, yet nobody thinks that such games are turn-based.
 

Greatatlantic

Erudite
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
1,683
Location
The Heart of It All
Right on Vault Dweller, that describes a lot of Sith Lord reviews.

aboyd said:
That doesn't sound so terribly inaccurate? As I played KOTOR1, it felt like a turn-based engine with all the stops pulled out...

Uh, once you pull out the stops, its not really turn based, is it?

aboyd said:
I was able to queue up actions for my other players as well, so it felt like I had some control of the group. Moreso than NWN, at least. Is KOTOR2 really so different?

Dude, control over your party has nothing, I mean nothing, to do with whether or not its turn based. The legendary Fallout gave you zero contro l over your party and is one of the best turnbased games out.

What the Old Republics and Neverwinter have is called realtime w/pause. Yeah, you give your characters a list of actions which they preform. Then you sit back and watch having no control over the situation. Turnbased means there are stops and control of the combat. Pfft... real time w/ pause tried to combine two systems and got the worse of both, in my opinion.

EDIT: Wow, talk about a Yahtzee.
 

Volourn

Pretty Princess
Pretty Princess Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Mar 10, 2003
Messages
24,924
"Then you sit back and watch having no control over the situation."

You stupid. You have as much control over RT w/pause combat as you do with either RT and TB. Afterall, you decided what your character does be it attack normally, special attack, cast spells, run,e tc. much like FO or any other Tb game. Or any Rt game. But, hey, keep up with the bullshit, it might make you think you are smart even when you are not. What makes RT w/pause much like Tb games and why many people seem to mix them up is that in a agme like NWN; your character's stats, skills, feats, and ability determines if your character is successful in an attack or other manuever.

GAME OVER.
 

taks

Liturgist
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
753
Greatatlantic said:
Turnbased means there are stops and control of the combat. Pfft...
no. that is NOT what turn-based means. turn-based is exactly what i stated above. turn-based means each critter performs his actions in a specified order. i.e. player A goes, critter A goes, critter B goes, player B goes, etc. real-time w/ pause also has stops and control of the combat. the difference is that each critter/player takes his turns SIMULTANEOUSLY.

real time w/ pause tried to combine two systems and got the worse of both, in my opinion.
subjective... depends on what you like. toee TB was fairly good, albeit a little buggy. por:romd TB was terrible. the primary reason for TB is that it is impossible for a pnp session to have "simultaneous" actions (i suppose LARPing can handle it... but that's another story). computers somewhat allow this so the "requirement" for TB went away and we ended up with other systems.

taks
 

AlanC9

Liturgist
Joined
Aug 12, 2003
Messages
505
Well, turn-based does give you more control, in a sense. Since the whole universe sits still while your piece moves (barring things like reserved actions and so on), the results of your orders are a good deal more predictable.
 

taks

Liturgist
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
753
that's not really more control, just less outside interference during your single moment of complete control. remember, on the flip side, while the other guy is moving, you're helpless... :)
takls
 

Diogo Ribeiro

Erudite
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Messages
5,706
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
The original title featured a deep plot with an amazing twist that would have made Alfred Hitchcock proud.

Cute, but the only reason the first game's narrative would have made Alfred Hitchcock proud was if the first game's narrative had been made by Alfred Hitchcock himself and had been one of his better works. The correct statement would have been "(...) would have made Alfred Hitchcock envious", but this would assume none of his work was superior to what was written in KoTOR.


You however, are an exiled jedi who has lost their connection to the force after being expelled from the order for fighting alongside of Reven (the dark lord from the first game and a major player in the surprise ending). You fought with Reven before he became the dark lord of course, but the council is not very forgiving with you and you are exiled anyway.

Thank you for ruining the first game's events for those that did not played it.


Though it appears to be a real-time combat, it’s actually a cleverly disguised turn-based battle

Unfortunately clever seems to elude the writer.
 

Volourn

Pretty Princess
Pretty Princess Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Mar 10, 2003
Messages
24,924
"Thank you for ruining the first game's events for those that did not played it."

This has gots to be the silliest thing to bash this article over. OMG He's psoiling ana ncinet game form yesteryear. Pretty much anyone who has wanted to play KOTOR has alreayd play it. Those who haven't are just shit out of luck.
 

Diogo Ribeiro

Erudite
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Messages
5,706
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
Volourn said:
This has gots to be the silliest thing to bash this article over.

I'm allowed to be silly once in a while. It's them thar powah of teh intraweb. :P

Seriously it's just something I don't like much, though I suspect it's of little concern to others.
 

Volourn

Pretty Princess
Pretty Princess Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Mar 10, 2003
Messages
24,924
Of course, reading that post of mine calling you silly with all the typing errors in it; I'm the last one who should be accusing you of being silly! :lol:
 

PennyAnte

Liturgist
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
769
Location
Here instead of playing an RPG.
If anyone is honestly still having trouble understanding the difference between real time and turn based systems:

Chess is turn-based.
Basketball is real time.

In a role-playing game, is the flow of combat more like chess or more like basketball? That should pretty well establish whether it's turn based or real time.
 

Otaku_Hanzo

Erudite
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
3,463
Location
The state of insanity.
What if someone makes a turn-based basketball RPG?
icon_confused.gif
 

Shinan

Educated
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Messages
54
Location
Raseborg, Finland
taks said:
no. that is NOT what turn-based means. turn-based is exactly what i stated above. turn-based means each critter performs his actions in a specified order. i.e. player A goes, critter A goes, critter B goes, player B goes, etc. real-time w/ pause also has stops and control of the combat. the difference is that each critter/player takes his turns SIMULTANEOUSLY.
Would it be turnbased if one gave all the orders to the PCs and then pressed a "play" or "execute" or "whatever" button to let the PCs do their turn simultaneously until pausing to make for another turn of action-giving.
Thinking about it I suppose not since that is what real-time-with-pause is all about isn't it?

But on the other hand it is a system that many PnPs try to emulate so that the players have to choose what to do before the turn starts. (With a bunch of exceptions mostly having to do with interrupted and forced defensive actions)
 

taks

Liturgist
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
753
Shinan said:
Would it be turnbased if one gave all the orders to the PCs and then pressed a "play" or "execute" or "whatever" button to let the PCs do their turn simultaneously until pausing to make for another turn of action-giving.
Thinking about it I suppose not since that is what real-time-with-pause is all about isn't it?
NO!!! sheesh, c'mon. read what i wrote, TWICE NOW!
turn-based means SEQUENTIAL ACTIONS. simple concept man...

But on the other hand it is a system that many PnPs try to emulate so that the players have to choose what to do before the turn starts. (With a bunch of exceptions mostly having to do with interrupted and forced defensive actions)
pnps don't "emulate" turn-based. they ARE turn-based by necessity. it has nothing to do with when you choose the actions, but everything to do with how they are executed.

taks
 

Sol Invictus

Erudite
Joined
Oct 19, 2002
Messages
9,614
Location
Pax Romana
I can imagine how a real time board game would be played:

Players ram their chess pieces around on the board smashing at each others hands. The game ends with a stalemate when one of them clocks the other.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom