Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Ever wondered why KoTOR II was so different from the first one?

Answer:

As integral as Revan was and is to the Knights of the Old Republic experience, when Obsidian first started working on KOTOR2 - the studio's first game - no one in the team had heard of him. "We hadn't played the original game," Avellone reveals. "LucasArts hadn't signed the contract before we started working on it, so even though we were getting paid for milestones, they didn't want to give anyone a release copy of the game, so we were kind of guessing as to what the first storyline might be like."

They threw together concept art for characters who only might exist, and whipped up a tentative story around them. When Chris Avellone finally played Knights of the Old Republic he realised how terrible and out of kilter with BioWare's his story had been, and flung it into the bin. He also realised something else: this was going to be one hard act to follow.

"The moment I hit the planet Manaan and I was walking around in the sea-floor I almost threw the controller at the TV because the game was getting so f***ing awesome. And then when the storyline played out..." I imagine him mouthing a whistle. "Incredible kudos to those guys - I thought it was a great story, I thought the team had assembled all the right beats for what made a Star Wars game and," he adds, "they made me love Star Wars again."

But, also: "Wow, I'm screwed," he laughs, recalling his thoughts. "It's a rough act to follow! Like, I'm going to Garfunkle this up."

Source: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-07-31-fear-is-the-path-to-the-dark-side

The article contains lot of interesting information.

In the nutshell, LucasArts itself is responsible for messing up KoTOR era lore by wanting sequel to original KoTOR to be done within 14-16 months timeframe. BioWare refused to make this sequel under such a limited span, and Obsidian, which was selected for this task, was ill-equipped for the job:

It's easy to look at the first Knights of the Old Republic, and at BioWare, and assume Obsidian had the same conditions to make a sequel in. Obsidian did not; Obsidian had it hard. When the deal was inked, there were only seven people working at Obsidian, all huddled in a makeshift office in Feargus Urquhart's attic. This dream job had been landed through old ties and BioWare rejecting a sequel, as it was uncomfortable with producing one in the 14-16 month timeframe LucasArts wanted. (BioWare's Chris Priestly echoed this in a panel recently.) But Obsidian couldn't and wouldn't turn that kind of work down.

It really is incredibly how amazing the game was regardless. With more time it surely would have eclipsed the first game.

So the quick answer is: Obsidian isn't BioWare.

They did well considering the circumstances.

The game they produced was a blessing in disguise. It certainly provided the universe with more meat than would have been the case with more lite-fare.

KotOR II was certainly better in many ways than I, glitches and missing content aside. Better combat mechanics, darker, greyer storyline, and it really played up the esoteric parts of SW lore. Similarly, Obsidian's Fallout New Vegas is much better than Bethesda's Fallout 3, even though it's virtually the same game engine.

I love New Vegas. Fallout 3 is really badly written in comparison, while NV excels in that area. I love reading some of the discussions about the game, which are still strong today.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
KotOR II was certainly better in many ways than I, glitches and missing content aside. Better combat mechanics, darker, greyer storyline, and it really played up the esoteric parts of SW lore. Similarly, Obsidian's Fallout New Vegas is much better than Bethesda's Fallout 3, even though it's virtually the same game engine. I have the exact opposite opinion about both those games. I'm a rebel.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
darker, greyer storyline,

lol

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I have the exact opposite opinion about both those games. I'm a rebel.

Whats up with liking FO 3 better than FO: NV. NV is better in nearly every way and is much more interesting imo.

Plus it doesn't have an ending thats ****ing shit.

Darker, greyer storyline for sure. The whole KOTOR II plot was the wet dream of a gothic teenager. I definitely enjoy the mystery of the sith and the true sith in II. With that said, the first one was a much more enjoyable game overall.

Originally posted by DanBrown19118
The whole KOTOR II plot was the wet dream of a gothic teenager.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I have the exact opposite opinion about both those games. I'm a rebel.

I'll grant you that KotOR had a great Tomato in the Mirror moment, and is far more typical SW epic. FO3, past the introduction (which was well done) turned out to be boring garbage. Lousy with super mutants and deathclaws and little else. NV actually has interesting factions, people eeking out a living, and some semblance of a future going for it. The Capitol Wateland area is pretty much doomed.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I'll grant you that KotOR had a great Tomato in the Mirror moment, and is far more typical SW epic. FO3, past the introduction (which was well done) turned out to be boring garbage. Lousy with super mutants and deathclaws and little else. NV actually has interesting factions, people eeking out a living, and some semblance of a future going for it. The Capitol Wateland area is pretty much doomed. For KotOR II (which I've b*tched about incessantly here, so I won't go much further), the atmosphere and characters of the game felt pretentious and confused (not 'ing', 'ed'), in that, they're trying to do a good dark, mysterious, morally ambiguous game, but it came off like they were trying too hard and the effect was ruined. Also it didn't help that I spent a year before I played it listening to all of you talk it up so much, so my expectation were probably unduly high.


And New Vegas is a technically superior game in ever way to F3. Better mechanics, hardcore mode, graphics, music (discluding the radio because f*ck Johnny Guitar), and a bigger more immersive world. The joinable, explorable factions were just fantastic. But I like to say that NV had a superior world, but F3 had a superior character. The Lone Wanderer had an established and named father, mother, best friend, authority figure, bully, teacher, and community that we actually get to see them grow up with. In a home that we have to see them flee from. Something like that draws me in to a character and game better than anything. That the PC came from another world also helps explain their total ignorance about everything outside, making every initial encounter and conversation feel more believable and genuine. When it comes time to complete the main story involving this character, I actually have something to be interested and invested in, instead of nothing. The Courier was a person from that world, so the necessary disconnect for gameplay is much less understandable or explainable. Why don't they know everything about the area already? Apparently they saw one of the Tops acts play in New Reno, so we know this freaking courier gets around. So why the in-universe obliviousness? The Courier was a total blank, empty, shell. And where in some games that works, for me, I need more in my 100+ hour customizable RPG story.


Though for the worlds as a whole, when I play a post-nuclear apocalyptic game, I want to it feel post-nuclear apocalyptic. I'll never forget my reaction upon exiting the Vault in F3 and looking over the landscape. A game that makes you stop and take notice like that has done something right, and the rest of the time it always felt like the barren wasteland the world was supposed to be (the visual repetition not being forgotten, however). NV didn't feel like that. It was comparatively cleaner and less apocalyptic feeling. Visually and story-wise, it didn't always feel appropriate having a word like "fallout" as the title. Still, the hardcore mode made up for all of that. I wish Skyrim's developers had adopted it.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
For KotOR II (which I've b*tched about incessantly here, so I won't go much further), the atmosphere and characters of the game felt pretentious and confused (not 'ing', 'ed'), in that, they're trying to do a good dark, mysterious, morally ambiguous game, but it came off like they were trying too hard and the effect was ruined. Also it didn't help that I spent a year before I played it listening to all of you talk it up so much, so my expectation were probably unduly high.

It's okay, we understand if you don't have good taste. KotOR II did one thing right that KotOR got wrong, and that is add some of the moral ambiguity back into things. The Jedi weren't right, but they were hardly heroes either. Revan's brainwashing in the first game is pretty much glossed over in the ending, saying "Oh the Prodigal Son returns!" after you've done all the heavy lifting for the Jedi after being mindraped, controlled, and compelled to kill half of the Sith Empire. KotOR II instead shows that the Jedi have serious doctrine faults, that their indecisiveness during the Mandalorian Wars was not necessarily due to pragmatism or some higher wisdom but due to fear and doubt. And lastly, Kreia is a far more interesting main character than say, Bastila or Carth, or even Malak.

KotOR's strengths include the Reveal/twist, the polished end-result due to not being rushed, and novelty.




Disagreed here. While Johnny Guitar isn't anywhere near my fave, Big Iron, Ain't That a Kick in the Head, and others are awesome.



I can understand this, although I disagree that it makes FO3 any more compelling. For me, once I stepped outside of the vault for the first time, and got bored with Megaton, lost a dozen times in the ruins, and killed a billion mutants, I was completely bored with FO3 and started to run around looking for loot more than anything. I didn't feel connected with anyone in the world, and therefore my immersion factor was gone. If the game had included people from the vault as my team or allies, or I was sent out to rescue them specifically (I am rescuing my Father, but that part wasn't well done. And that simulation was annoying) I'd be more vested. Instead, I feel like Bethesda had this superb introduction chapter and a subpar result in favor of sandbox. Even Skyrim and Oblivion had more compelling reasons to pursue the main quest.

And this goes to the Courier; although the Courier is allowed to be a mostly empty cup for us to fill up with our imaginations (mine was a sort of wandering former doctor who tried his best to protect the weak and innocent and supported the NCR nominally but had more in line with the Followers of the Apocalypse) the main quest is pretty driving - that idiot shot me. Why? What is he doing? Etc.

It's all a matter of taste (mine is clearly superior) but it's clear that I prefer Oblivion titles to their predecessors in this case. I also like Icewind Dale series better than Baldur's Gate, although I recognize the strengths of BG in comparison and that was Obsidian's original Black Isle who produced it.



Actually, a lot of the obliviousness comes from the Courier wandering a lot over the years (some dialogue implies having been as far out as Montana, iirc), it is implied that the Courier has been out of the area for some time before taking this job, and then there's the fact that you have had a bullet in your head. It's unclear exactly what was retained, and since there's no one who really knew you prior, you have only your own fragmented, unreliable memory to use.

Also, I think Nexus mods has something to fix this if you want a more established character. I readded Primm rep, real gun names, spurs and smokable cigarettes last time I played.



Hardcore Skyrim mode is being something other than a Nord two handed fighter. Those things are broken. And yes, I totally agree with you that there's nothing to surpass that first leaving the vault experience. Unfortunately, FO3's apocalypse looked more like a grey ruined, boring and lousy with mutants shithole than a land 200+ years in recovery.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
It's okay, we understand if you don't have good taste. KotOR II did one thing right that KotOR got wrong, and that is add some of the moral ambiguity back into things. The Jedi weren't right, but they were hardly heroes either. Revan's brainwashing in the first game is pretty much glossed over in the ending, saying "Oh the Prodigal Son returns!" after you've done all the heavy lifting for the Jedi after being mindraped, controlled, and compelled to kill half of the Sith Empire. KotOR II instead shows that the Jedi have serious doctrine faults, that their indecisiveness during the Mandalorian Wars was not necessarily due to pragmatism or some higher wisdom but due to fear and doubt. And lastly, Kreia is a far more interesting main character than say, Bastila or Carth, or even Malak.

KotOR's strengths include the Reveal/twist, the polished end-result due to not being rushed, and novelty. Agreed on the rushed Revan thing and Kreia being more interesting. I'd now say that most of the main cast of KotOR II were more interesting and complex people. But more complex doesn't necessarily translate to more likeable (or less annoying). I found most of the 2PCs to be irksome and irritating in their dialogue and voice. A purely subjective take, but the relatively straight forward characters in #1 were very good straight forward characters. #2's more complex and interesting characters were more irritating to me. I preferred the top notch simplicity of #1 more than the perfectly OK depth of #2. I have other gripes about the mechanics, music, plot, and atmosphere, but I'd be retreading very worn out ground at that point.




Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Disagreed here. While Johnny Guitar isn't anywhere near my fave, Big Iron, Ain't That a Kick in the Head, and others are awesome. Big Iron is my favorite song in either soundtrack, and Jingle Jangle is second. But Johnny Guitar seemed to be every 4th song and it got really irksome.



Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I can understand this, although I disagree that it makes FO3 any more compelling. For me, once I stepped outside of the vault for the first time, and got bored with Megaton, lost a dozen times in the ruins, and killed a billion mutants, I was completely bored with FO3 and started to run around looking for loot more than anything. I didn't feel connected with anyone in the world, and therefore my immersion factor was gone. If the game had included people from the vault as my team or allies, or I was sent out to rescue them specifically (I am rescuing my Father, but that part wasn't well done. And that simulation was annoying) I'd be more vested. Instead, I feel like Bethesda had this superb introduction chapter and a subpar result in favor of sandbox. Even Skyrim and Oblivion had more compelling reasons to pursue the main quest.

And this goes to the Courier; although the Courier is allowed to be a mostly empty cup for us to fill up with our imaginations (mine was a sort of wandering former doctor who tried his best to protect the weak and innocent and supported the NCR nominally but had more in line with the Followers of the Apocalypse) the main quest is pretty driving - that idiot shot me. Why? What is he doing? Etc.

It's all a matter of taste (mine is clearly superior) but it's clear that I prefer Oblivion titles to their predecessors in this case. I also like Icewind Dale series better than Baldur's Gate, although I recognize the strengths of BG in comparison and that was Obsidian's original Black Isle who produced it.I'm big on the emotional atmosphere of games in regards to the setting and characters. I went in to NV expecting an apocalyptic scenario amidst the ruins of the Old World and instead got a bustling world of large factions and sunny desert highways. I just like the grim, empty-feeling bleakness of FO3 more, but that's just atmosphere. Every facet not regarding that or the PC is objectively superior in NV.

And I need a backstory and characterization in my character for me to be interested in them. For all Skyrim's awesomeness, what keeps me playing isn't the Dragonborn's compelling history or personality. That world alone is enough to fuel the game, the main character is who-the-f*ck-cares. That works for Elder Scrolls I guess, but the Fallout games feel like they need a person to drive the gameplay, not a blank slate. Maybe it's cuz it involves (a fictionalized) version of the real world and real things we know, so having a real-feeling character to navigate through it makes it easier to get immersed.



Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Actually, a lot of the obliviousness comes from the Courier wandering a lot over the years (some dialogue implies having been as far out as Montana, iirc), it is implied that the Courier has been out of the area for some time before taking this job, and then there's the fact that you have had a bullet in your head. It's unclear exactly what was retained, and since there's no one who really knew you prior, you have only your own fragmented, unreliable memory to use.

Also, I think Nexus mods has something to fix this if you want a more established character. I readded Primm rep, real gun names, spurs and smokable cigarettes last time I played. I've gotta start playing more PC versions of games.

That's a suitable answer, but lacking anything regarding exposition or backstory in the game doesn't make the Courier any more interesting. I want a reason to be interested in my character outside the fact that I'm controlling them. The Courier's sole motivation seems to be to find Chandler Bing in an incredibly anti-climactic ending after a long search. And it's not even the point of the main quest or close to its resolution. The Lone Wanderer felt connected to Project Purity though the parents, there was a sense of completing a legacy or following in the footsteps (the name of one the quests, actually). I actually felt like there was an identifiable, understandable, and relatable motivation. I didn't feel any of that with the Courier.




Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Hardcore Skyrim mode is being something other than a Nord two handed fighter. Those things are broken. And yes, I totally agree with you that there's nothing to surpass that first leaving the vault experience. Unfortunately, FO3's apocalypse looked more like a grey ruined, boring and lousy with mutants shithole than a land 200+ years in recovery. I don't get the recovery part; that's not something that I think was the point of the game. But yeah, it had some really wearying problems, not least of which was the repetitiveness of the Wasteland. The Mojave may not have felt post-apocalyptic, but it at least had some good variety. And it felt big. And I didn't like that there was a perfect set-up for removing the Super Mutants as a threat and part of gameplay, and they did nothing with it.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I don't get the recovery part; that's not something that I think was the point of the game. But yeah, it had some really wearying problems, not least of which was the repetitiveness of the Wasteland. The Mojave may not have felt post-apocalyptic, but it at least had some good variety. And it felt big. And I didn't like that there was a perfect set-up for removing the Super Mutants as a threat and part of gameplay, and they did nothing with it.

Actually, the 'main' story of both games (and the previous FOs) is that of hope. Although it's a crapsack world, all of the main stories revolve around the PC (potentially, it IS sandbox) making it all better. The Mohave is in better shape than the Capitol Wasteland (which cannot sustain agriculture, has seemingly fewer numbers, smaller and weaker communities, and greater external threats) and thus the potential for the PC to actually make a difference was huge.

The Courier gets a lot of development in the expansions, particularly in Lonesome Road, which is all about the Couriers past before the game.

Also you get to flirt with your own brain in Old World Blues, making NV the objectively superior brain-GAME! I said game. Curse that sexy grey matter!

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Actually, the 'main' story of both games (and the previous FOs) is that of hope. Although it's a crapsack world, all of the main stories revolve around the PC (potentially, it IS sandbox) making it all better. The Mohave is in better shape than the Capitol Wasteland (which cannot sustain agriculture, has seemingly fewer numbers, smaller and weaker communities, and greater external threats) and thus the potential for the PC to actually make a difference was huge. And unlike in FO3, they succeeded. That's why NV's world (both in story and design execution) is superior. Simply completing quests isn't enough; showing results matters. I'm glad Obsidian knew that.

Originally posted by Nephthys
The Courier gets a lot of development in the expansions, particularly in Lonesome Road, which is all about the Couriers past before the game.

Also you get to flirt with your own brain in Old World Blues, making NV the objectively superior brain-GAME! I said game. Curse that sexy grey matter! I've really got to get around to playing those.

You should, if you can dare to face the deadly robo-scorpions of DOCTOR MOBIUS!

Oh I dare, Master Uthar.

And as for you, Neph: my robot monkeys should take care of you.

I might add, sir, tha you are arguing against FO: NV from the basis of:

1. Only having played console version (No mods, no anything fun)

2. No DLC.

Shame on you.

Hey I'm arguing for NV a lot of the time. But yeah... I suck.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Hey I'm arguing for NV a lot of the time. But yeah... I suck.

Quoted so I can use it out of context.