The Video Game Critic

Mozart it isn't necessary at all.  Why the VGC feels the need to do this is beyond me.  The Chapters from which you can restart a game are regularly spaced throughout the Acts and it really doesn't take that long to get between them.  Not to mention when he unlocks a Chapter in co-op mode he now won't have unlocked it in single player.  It's actually a really good unified save system.

Mozart it isn't necessary at all.  Why the VGC feels the need to do this is beyond me.  The Chapters from which you can restart a game are regularly spaced throughout the Acts and it really doesn't take that long to get between them.  Not to mention when he unlocks a Chapter in co-op mode he now won't have unlocked it in single player.  It's actually a really good unified save system.

[/QUOTE]

Actually, I think I understand what you are getting at.  If you are playing either single-player or multiplayer mode, you can use the same save file and not have to start over from the beginning.  It's only when you literally want to keep a separate save file (for whatever reason) that one attempts to overwrite the other in normal circumstances?

Mozart it isn't necessary at all.  Why the VGC feels the need to do this is beyond me.  The Chapters from which you can restart a game are regularly spaced throughout the Acts and it really doesn't take that long to get between them.  Not to mention when he unlocks a Chapter in co-op mode he now won't have unlocked it in single player.  It's actually a really good unified save system.

The majority of co-op games do not even let you save mid level.  Gears is generous.  But then I also thought Dead Rising's save system worked within that game too.  Of course it's actually Breath of Fire IV's save system.

[QUOTE=The Video Game Critic] So when the 360 came around, I couldn't transfer those huge time-investments I had put into games like KOTOR. .[/QUOTE]

Ah, Knights of the Old Republic. Definitely in my personal pantheon of greatest games ever.

Just thought I'd mention that.

-Rob

[QUOTE=feilong80]Ah, Knights of the Old Republic. Definitely in my personal pantheon of greatest games ever.[/QUOTE]

I'm with ya.  It was one of my favorite games of the last console generation.  It's also my favorite video game RPG ever.

I didn't care much for the sequel, but the original was the best thing to happen to the Star Wars universe since the original trilogy.

I would agree that KOTOR II did not age well; it got a little over complicated (at least for console RPG standards) with all the extra little add ons, and the engine was really getting clunky as all get-out.

On the other hand, I really liked it, and enjoyed it equally, if not a little more so than KOTOR I (keep in mind that I actually said a few nice things about Red Steel, so according to some around here my opinion is now invalid on most things, heh). Even though the game was a bit clunky, I really did enjoy both the storyline and the characters quite a bit. I also felt that Obsidian achieved an interesting level of immersion by sort of allowing a player to not only pick right and wrong, but by actually allowing the player to choose what their version of right and wrong is (to a degree).

-possible plot spoilers to come, should be relatively harmless-

For example, I tended to pick dialogue choices that were in support of the Mandalorian War, since I did not see any evidence in either game that the war was unjustified (they did invade the Republic). I don't ever recall being punished with "dark side" points for doing that, and I liked that.

-Rob

[QUOTE=feilong80]I would agree that KOTOR II did not age well; it got a little over complicated (at least for console RPG standards) with all the extra little add ons, and the engine was really getting clunky as all get-out.[/QUOTE]

What I liked about KOTOR II was the deeper level of RPG action in the game.  But the story was all over the place.

In truth, the story could have been way up my alley.  I love philosophy.  I spend a lot of time reading the various works of philosophers, especially the ones I think were wacko.  The story actually had several popular philosophies pitted against each other -- including Objectivism, Kantianism, Dialectics, Existentialism, and even Nihilisim.  The story literally pitted knowledge of reality and the power of the sentient mind against the mysticism of the Force, and that was a weighty goal, considering the place of the Force in the Star Wars universe.  The "exile" was almost an ideal man in Objectivist terms, for being able to walk away from the mysticism of the Force, and it was that characteristic that drew Darth Treya (Kreia) to him.

The problem was that Obsidian was initially given a larger time schedule, and the story was built assuming that time schedule would remain.  In the end, their time was cut almost in half and they were forced to release the game subpar.  Much of the story was removed, which made the ending non-sequitur.  In fact, the story made less and less sense on each new planet.

There is apparently a restored version of this game out there, reconstructed by fans of the game, with much of the content added back, and a much more coherent storyline following the original script Obsidian came out with.  The problem is that my principles (already related in another thread) won't let me try it

I see what you mean. To put it in simplistic terms, I have a hard time enjoying live music sometimes, because music is the one discipline that I have spent most of my life studying in depth, and that knowledge sometimes gets in the way (I notice intonation, rhythm, and other problems more clearly than others, and of course there are stylistic biases as well). Sounds like I liked KOTOR II's plot because, having not really been a student of general philosophy (other than a required course in my college days) I didn't notice the conflict between the various schools of thought.

Again, however, I think my enjoyment of KOTOR II really came from my own character's development. By the end, I felt I had developed a true Jedi rebel, someone who didn't believe in the Dantooine Council's pacifistic stance, yet still felt that they were in the light side of the force (because the game never penalized me for playing in this manner).

Here comes possible spoilers!

I would agree that, in hindsight, the story was a bit convulated. I felt the resolution was OK because I strongly felt there would be a KOTOR III, and so I expected a bit of suspense a la Halo II's cliffhanger. I liked the idea of having my own core group of Jedi Knights that would be the foundation for a new Council, and seemed to think that was resolution enough.

Plus, and again, plot spoiler coming, I really, really enjoyed the way Ed Asner's character bit the dust. Extremely satisfying, as I consider both the character he voiced and the man himself to be a pompous windbag. (-:

-Rob

[QUOTE=feilong80]I would agree that, in hindsight, the story was a bit convulated. I felt the resolution was OK because I strongly felt there would be a KOTOR III, and so I expected a bit of suspense a la Halo II's cliffhanger. I liked the idea of having my own core group of Jedi Knights that would be the foundation for a new Council, and seemed to think that was resolution enough.[/QUOTE]

From what I've gleaned, KOTOR 3 will have a plot more related to the first game.

[QUOTE=feilong80]Plus, and again, plot spoiler coming, I really, really enjoyed the way Ed Asner's character bit the dust. Extremely satisfying, as I consider both the character he voiced and the man himself to be a pompous windbag. (-:[/QUOTE]

I know exactly what you mean.  I despise that communist political hack.  The most satisfying moment of the game was playing dark side and slaying his loudmouthed @#$!

I actually wrote a blog about him on Gamespot once, in which I actually related him to the dark side of the Force.  (If you want to read it, it can be found here).  I REALLY REALLY dislike that guy.