StarDestroyer.Net BBS

So I just finished KotOR II, as much as it can be at any rate, and I found it rather lacking in comparrison to it's predecessor. It just wasn't as engrossing.

I remember first playing KotOR, it took me 40+ hours to complete the first time through, and I was so drawn in by the plot and characters, I stayed awake for those 40+ hours to complete it in one go. I just had to know what was going to happen next.

Playing KotOR II, it took me around 33 hours first time though, and that was spread out over 3 days, and not just because I had to download an unoffical fix about half way though. I just wasn't drawn in by it, it wasn't a case of "Oh what's going to happen?!" It was more like "Lets get there and move on." Yet there still seem to be a fair few, who prefer it to the original.

So, which did you prefer? KotOR I, or KotOR II? And why?

KoTOR II had more, but lacked an ending. So for that...KoTOR I wins hands down, simply because at the end I felt some satisfaction instead of wanting part 3 to come out.

KOTOR 1 Pros: HK-47, Canderous Ordo, cool story, real ending

KOTOR 1 Cons: Zaalbar, Mission Vao, ugly Jedi robes

KOTOR 2 Pros: Nicer-looking robes, new feats, new powers, better upgrading system, protagonist starting out as a Jedi, possibility of multi-classing by multiple characters, and did not involve Tatooine in any way, shape, or form

KOTOR 2 Cons: Incomplete story, bugs galore, HK-47 not being as awesome as in KOTOR 1

Basically, KOTOR 2 had the potential to be far better than the original, due in large part to its much improved game mechanics, but since it was rushed to stores it was severely hindered. Luckily for us PC gamers, LucasArts gave gamers the OK to mod both KOTORs 1 and 2.

KOTOR 2 would have been the better game if they'd bothered to finish it.

There are things i miss about the original when I play number 2 though.
I dislike the fact that you're never really in any danger as opposed to Kotor where there are at least a few particularly challenging fights.
I miss the non-jedi classes (they may be inferior, but they add depth), and I don't like how 2 starts you out in with the extra hitpoints. To be blunt, the early parts of Kotor are better, from the character interaction to the difficulty scaling to the immersion factor.

Kotor 2 shines in the mid game though. Superior character interaction and just a greater sense of purpose make it better than the mid game of Kotor 1, which to me always felt more formulaic. The Kotor 1 character interaction also seems to me to taper off a fair bit mid game, whereas Kotor 2 did a fairly good job of keeping me immersed in the characters right up until the bits that they never got around to finishing properly.

Kotor 1 wins in the end.... the extras they threw into number 2 in no way compensates for the last 20% of the game being pretty much absent. But I suspect that Kotor 2 would have been the better game no question had it been properly finished before release.

Agreed, KotorII could have been so much more if acutaly finished, its eairly game and endgame was very weak but its mid-game shinned.
Comparison Kotor I's endgame was terrible terrible, last ten minutes good while the preceding 80% was so so to excellent.

What both games lacked however was a GOOD evil path, it was always Selfless, Think of the children good, mmm arn't you going to pay me neutral or, OMG I RoXXor! You SuXXOR! DIEeee Evil

But then few games do Evil good

CivilWarMan wrote:KOTOR 1 Cons: Zaalbar, Mission Vao, ugly Jedi robes

Well, Zaalbar and Mission have a purpose. You know, if you're evil and at the end... I felt like Palpy when I you know. Did that. >:)

What I liked about KOTOR1 is the revelation onboard the Leviathan. There were some minor annoying technical aspects of #1. Like not being able to equip you party onboard the Hawk. Or having to go through you entire inventory to switch to another weapon. KOTOR2 had fixed that, and greatly improved the workbench functionality. But #1 still wins hands down.

I liked both games, but KOTOR had a far better story, especially if you played on the light. KOTOR was also awesome, but as others have said, they shot it in the foot by not completing it. Character plots, sub-story lines, and the ending go no where, and the Dark Side ending is simply laughable.

Both games were strong in the force,
but Kotor2 had far greater potential, until the last 20% it was easily better than the (superb) original.

Also although anyone looking at this post probably knows, there a Kotor2 restoration project going on, so far they seem to be doing quite well.

KOTOR wins this one. I felt KOTOR II to be larger, more complex, and longer, but being rushed severely handicapped it. Also, I wasn't too crazy about the whole Influence thingy... especially, since there was no other clue than our own instinct about who would get influence throughout the dialogue. If they had put some clues in the dialogue options to help us choose, I feel it wouldn't be so frustrating (ex. gain influence with Bao-dur at one point, later say something uncompromising and loose influence, though our line made perfect sense). And I really wanted to kill Kreia as soon as she started to go around manipulating my crew.

The story in KotOR II sucked compared to the first, but I had more fun playing it, and played it more times through, so as a game, I choose KotOR II.

Nephtys wrote:

CivilWarMan wrote:KOTOR 1 Cons: Zaalbar, Mission Vao, ugly Jedi robes

Well, Zaalbar and Mission have a purpose. You know, if you're evil and at the end... I felt like Palpy when I you know. Did that. >:)

Was I the only one who liked Mission and Zaalbar?