This isn't just a Star Wars issue. Along with Morrowind (which is infinitely more complex), KOTOR was the first proper western-RPG console-only players would have encountered. While over the years there were horrendous ports of things like Might and Magic III, Eye of the Beholder, and Ultima VII on the SNES, almost all console RPGs were JRPGs taking their ques from Final Fantasy or Legend of Zelda. KOTOR was designed with the XBox in mind, and it's simplicity reflects the fact that, for many, it was basically a "Baby's first RPG". And it's not just the choices that are simplistic, the game is incredibly easy even on hard difficulty.
What it DOES do right is that it FEELS like Star Wars, with you as the main character. I'd argue it's far more accurate in the "feel" of Star Wars than any of the prequel trilogy which were relevant during the same rough time-period. Credit the incomparable Jeremy Soule and the way the cut-scenes were implemented for much of this. It also worked so well because being SO far in the past relative to the events of the original films allowed the writers to basically mold their own mythology without being constantly worried about being overridden by Lucasfilm.
Accepting that use of the Dark Side is intrinsically corrupting and that is really hard to come back, both gives a very satisfactory answer to many events in the films and in the KOTOR games and poses a lot of interesting philosophical questions, such as:
While the Jedi are a positive force, is it worth keeping them around given that they can be corrupted by using the force when feeling anger or hate - emotions that every human (and aliens) feels at times?
Given those circumstances do the restrictions on age and ties that people like to complain about maybe make sense?
It explains how Revan – who by all accounts likely started with good intention – and so many of the Jedi following him fell to the Dark Side so quickly. War is bad for the Jedi – and this in turn raises the question what the Clone Wars did to the Jedi.
It explains why Luke won both his confrontations where deep emotions were involved (Vader & Kylo) by choosing not to fight.
Especially the role of War and the negative emotions that come with it & the effect of it on Revan and his followers were questions that I think were touched in both games – moreso in 2, but it is there in 1.
Tldr; the scenario of there being people with great power, that turns them evil if they wield it with the wrong emotions even when their intentions are good, is not an infantile setup.
It's just that the more interesting choices are on the light side, since using the dark side by itself removes part of your freedom of choice.
On difficulty and being too easy: I think it has the usual D&D problem of it being hard to balance at higher levels. Players still should feel useful if they make less optimal choices, so if you make the right choices it is very easy. BG 2 avoids this a bit by being very harsh on the player until you get to know the system, and even so most of us would be bored without SCS by now.
KOTOR is a game that has been replayed a lot, so it feels easier now than it does in hindsight. I still remember my first playthrough quite well and even though I was familiar with 3rd edition rules I remember having some challenging fights:
The optional dueling fights on Taris
One of the bounties
The final encounter before getting the swoop racer
The governor on Taris
Final battle on Taris
The robots guarding the Star Map on Dantoine
Calo Nord (again)
The robot room close to the end
Malak
It's easy now having played the game a few times - and I agree the challenge scales poorly with the difficulty level. But I think the first playthrough - especially if not familiar with D&D - is properly tuned for the first part of the game. It breaks down quite a bit by being able to complete planets in any order in the middle.
Infantalizing maybe but I'd argue it became that way as star wars grew not as it start it. With the original trilogy the light and dark side where simply two philosophical belief, one representing power and the other representing tranquility. Now it's been some years so my memory could be wanky a bit here but even in the original trilogy the whole concept of the force and their two religions were dying. Even in the empire Vader's own men didn't believe in the ideas and just wanted power. It literally wasn't until star wars started to truly expand where they started to fall into the cliches of black and white.
Nah, it is there stronger in the original trilogy than in much of the EU.
If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will, as it did Obi-Wan's apprentice.
It is what the entire plan of the Emperor to turn Luke is based: if Luke kills Vader in the heat of hate he is lost. There is no subtle conversion to a different philosophy.
It's there in the Cave on Dagobah and when Vader fights Luke on Bespin and tells him to use his hate.
The scene o the Death Star is just due to this effect not existing for non-force. Which is why Han is allowed to stay morally gray.
I think the Light side vs Dark side was written so that 12 year old could enjoy it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that (A lot of Young Adult fiction works on the same level. So does a ton of D&D for that matter), but it does mean that the philosophical underpinnings of the system need to be relatable... to a 12 year old. Not all of the nuances, but the broad strokes are not particularly deep.
The spoilered out comment even only focused on the good side, which I pointed out was less problematic in my post. I dont believe this is because the philosophy of Star Wars is particularly deep and complex, but because these good characters tend to be the focus of the story, and if they're at all well written, they'll be 3 dimensional. There are very few, almost no 3 dimensional dark side characters present in the original trilogy, prequels or KOTOR.
Here's maybe a better way to present my argument. The lightside characters tend to have more interesting character concepts, in part because they're "tempted" by the dark for "Insert reason here". The bad writing is when that reason is bad, and good writing tends to be when that reason is fairly good. The Darkside comes off 1 note typically because they arent ever "tempted" by the light side. They suffer no internal conflict, and typically have no arc. What made the original trilogy so good is that Vader does end up having a conflict ("I sense the conflict in you, father"). The problem is, almost no other dark side character get this sort of treatment.
They become Wily-e-coyote badguys.
Edit - I dont expect to convince anyone who disagrees with me. It's just my opinion. I love Star Wars a ton. I played the hell out of KOTOR and loved it too. I'm excited for a remake. If they keep the story exactly the same, that's fine (people might prefer it that way), I'll just ignore that it wasnt written for me at my current age and enjoy the nostalgia.
Here's maybe a better way to present my argument. The lightside characters tend to have more interesting character concepts, in part because they're "tempted" by the dark for "Insert reason here". The bad writing is when that reason is bad, and good writing tends to be when that reason is fairly good. The Darkside comes off 1 note typically because they arent ever "tempted" by the light side. They suffer no internal conflict, and typically have no arc. What made the original trilogy so good is that Vader does end up having a conflict ("I sense the conflict in you, father"). The problem is, almost no other dark side character get this sort of treatment.
Have you forgotten about Yuuthara and Dustil on Korriban? Yuuthara was the purple woman who you were partnered with on Korriban, and we find that she was attracted to the power of the dark side. The longer she remained there, the more self centred she became and she began losing interest in the people who had originally spurred her on to seeking that power. She was very close to leaving it behind it seems, but the plot didn't follow it through.
Dustil was Carths son and somehow it wasn't completely obvious to him that the Sith were nasty people. Then there was obviously Juhani and Bastila, but I am describing mainly Yuuthara for the reason that she is the one who most resembled Vader as the one who was having a struggle and lost in the end.
Actually I just found out that she can be saved and maybe I just wasn't good enough
Yep because emotions can destroy just as much as they can save even though they should've differentiated alot better.
You're definitely right about differentiating here. Emotion leads to things like compassion, empathy, loyalty, bravery, self sacrifice, etc. You'd think the Jedi would value these thing, but no. There's a good point about negative emotions, but they also forbid positive ones. Its alarmingly consistent how the Jedi more often than not are portrayed as apathetic.
I'd argue that the Jedi aren't "good". They are neutral. Well, until they are personally threatened, THEN they help. Slavery? Nah, shouldn't get involved. Intergalactic war that is leaving planets burning, killing millions (if not billions) nope. A Sith might own the corner gas station? Mobilize the Masters!
The only real good force users we see aren't part of either Sith or Jedi orders.
I'm just gonna drop the nugget that the so called pure and good side forbade love and any kind of emotional attachement. The GOOD guys.
Star Wars "philosophy" is heavily influenced by eastern philosophy and religion. The purging of emotional attachment is a foundational idea of Buddhism. It doesn't mean lack of compassion and caring for others, in fact it means quite the opposite. It does mean learning a state of detachment where the natural birth and death of things (such as loved ones) doesn't cause you to suffer.
That Buddhist emotional detachment makes sense to me for a fictional universe governed by a quasi-magical "Force" that corrupts sensitive individuals who give in to strong emotions and attachments.
Here's maybe a better way to present my argument. The lightside characters tend to have more interesting character concepts, in part because they're "tempted" by the dark for "Insert reason here". The bad writing is when that reason is bad, and good writing tends to be when that reason is fairly good. The Darkside comes off 1 note typically because they arent ever "tempted" by the light side. They suffer no internal conflict, and typically have no arc. What made the original trilogy so good is that Vader does end up having a conflict ("I sense the conflict in you, father"). The problem is, almost no other dark side character get this sort of treatment.
Have you forgotten about Yuuthara and Dustil on Korriban? Yuuthara was the purple woman who you were partnered with on Korriban, and we find that she was attracted to the power of the dark side. The longer she remained there, the more self centred she became and she began losing interest in the people who had originally spurred her on to seeking that power. She was very close to leaving it behind it seems, but the plot didn't follow it through.
Dustil was Carths son and somehow it wasn't completely obvious to him that the Sith were nasty people. Then there was obviously Juhani and Bastila, but I am describing mainly Yuuthara for the reason that she is the one who most resembled Vader as the one who was having a struggle and lost in the end.
Actually I just found out that she can be saved and maybe I just wasn't good enough
I mean if we count flip flopping, don't forget about the car Jedi who turns to the dark side that we save, or bastella herself. The thing is though, the light tend to be written better because it tends to be the Canon while the dark is usually just a after thought. The whole light and dark dichotomy was done better in jade empire personally.
Yep because emotions can destroy just as much as they can save even though they should've differentiated alot better.
You're definitely right about differentiating here. Emotion leads to things like compassion, empathy, loyalty, bravery, self sacrifice, etc. You'd think the Jedi would value these thing, but no. There's a good point about negative emotions, but they also forbid positive ones. Its alarmingly consistent how the Jedi more often than not are portrayed as apathetic.
I'd argue that the Jedi aren't "good". They are neutral. Well, until they are personally threatened, THEN they help. Slavery? Nah, shouldn't get involved. Intergalactic war that is leaving planets burning, killing millions (if not billions) nope. A Sith might own the corner gas station? Mobilize the Masters!
The only real good force users we see aren't part of either Sith or Jedi orders.
Honestly I always viewed them as neutral than good early one which is why I said what I first said. They were usually not always but usually seen as the mediator in conflicts or between problems. Even in the original trilogy they weren't apart of the rebellion but was asked to talk with the empire first.
Either way if I ever had a issue with stars then it was the over focus on Jedi and sith to begin with. In a Galaxy far far aw ay with a ton of different species and people... I expected to see different "classes" for lack of a different word and people with different talents doing crazy things but it was always just sith and Jedi. The are these crazy powerful beings sometimes with precognition sometimes without it yet time and time again get humiliated by mercenaries and bounty hunters. I would've rather both remain a small group honestly.
@BelgarathMTH "The purging of emotional attachment is a foundational idea of Buddhism. It doesn't mean lack of compassion and caring for others,"
Well, yes, it does. Caring is an emotional response, empathy is an emotional response. You cannot repress emotion without losing your ability to connect with others or even function in a society in some cases. Its called sociopathy. Its Buddhism's biggest flaw imho.
Even if we are generous and assume that lack of attachment isn't a well documented disability and does lead to some kind of enlightenment in the SW universe, the Jedi STILL fail to embody. being completely apathetic and unwilling to take action in any situation that doesn't directly affect them.
Yep because emotions can destroy just as much as they can save even though they should've differentiated alot better.
You're definitely right about differentiating here. Emotion leads to things like compassion, empathy, loyalty, bravery, self sacrifice, etc. You'd think the Jedi would value these thing, but no. There's a good point about negative emotions, but they also forbid positive ones. Its alarmingly consistent how the Jedi more often than not are portrayed as apathetic.
I'd argue that the Jedi aren't "good". They are neutral. Well, until they are personally threatened, THEN they help. Slavery? Nah, shouldn't get involved. Intergalactic war that is leaving planets burning, killing millions (if not billions) nope. A Sith might own the corner gas station? Mobilize the Masters!
The only real good force users we see aren't part of either Sith or Jedi orders.
the kotor games along with the prequels were the first set of star wars media to show the jedi were flawed and not the perfect knights in shineing armor they were protrayed as in the original trilogy.
the kotor games along with the prequels were the first set of star wars media to show the jedi were flawed and not the perfect knights in shineing armor they were protrayed as in the original trilogy.
Ohhh. I dont think I agree with that. I'm sure it all depends on your opinion of what a "perfect knight in shining armor" is, but I'd say Luke is a somewhat flawed hero (and also a massive Mary Sue, admittedly). He decides not to finish his training to go to Cloud City to save his friends (in very unjedi-like fashion). He responds to Vader's taunts and gives into rage to beat Vader in RotJ.
I think you can also surmise from the events of only the first three movies that Anakin fell (although you never see it) and that Obi Wan was far from perfect in how he failed to keep Anakin from falling.
Have you forgotten about Yuuthara and Dustil on Korriban? Yuuthara was the purple woman who you were partnered with on Korriban, and we find that she was attracted to the power of the dark side. The longer she remained there, the more self centred she became and she began losing interest in the people who had originally spurred her on to seeking that power. She was very close to leaving it behind it seems, but the plot didn't follow it through.
I dont remember the first two at all. I'm guessing they werent super plot centric characters though, based on my complete inability to remember a single thing about them.
Bastilla, I obviously remember (and she doesnt really fit into what I was saying because she's a Jedi to begin with). Juhani is also interesting... I think she was Jedi and has already fallen when you meet her. Since she's a companion, there's a bit more meat on those bones for returning to the light (which I think you can, IIRC?). So I wouldnt really characterize her a darkside villain.
I don't recall any star wars media telling us the Jedi were "knights in shining armor". Luke was though. He and the Jedi couldn't agree with each other regarding Vader, and Luke decided that his mentors lacked a sense of compassion. It was the major plot twist that lead to him and yoda breaking up if you recall, to the aid of his friends. So that is the essential difference between so-called heroes, and the jedi. They might seem like heroes in relation to the sith, but they do not have compassion. I'm sure it is possible to make a story from the Sith perspective that makes the Jedi look like the uncaring and cold super-humans that they are, and it would be such a hot take that I'd eat it up.
I don't recall any star wars media telling us the Jedi were "knights in shining armor". Luke was though. He and the Jedi couldn't agree with each other regarding Vader, and Luke decided that his mentors lacked a sense of compassion. It was the major plot twist that lead to him and yoda breaking up if you recall, to the aid of his friends. So that is the essential difference between so-called heroes, and the jedi. They might seem like heroes in relation to the sith, but they do not have compassion. I'm sure it is possible to make a story from the Sith perspective that makes the Jedi look like the uncaring and cold super-humans that they are, and it would be such a hot take that I'd eat it up.
Well, his mentors lacked a sense of compassion because they were the only two people to survive the purge Anakin helped facilitate. They watched security footage of him murdering children. Obi-Wan watched him essentially kill the woman who was the sole reason (supposedly) he gave in to Sidious in the first place. And AFTER all that, Obi-Wan saw him burned to near cinders and let an absolute all-consuming rage overtake him in his defeat. So, I mean, Obi-Wan and Yoda had absolutely no reason to give Vader the benefit of the doubt. Luke had to basically offer his life and come within a couple more seconds of force lightning from dying for his father to finally do the right thing. If you ask me, Vader's "redemption" is a little overrated. Certainly compared to everything else he did. It doesn't even come close to balancing out.
I don't really blame Obi-Wan for Anakin's fall at all. If anyone is responsible, its Qui-Gon, who wouldn't take no for an answer and instilled in a young boy who already had a big head about his abilities a sense of destiny that would lead him to be nothing less than an entitled, narcissistic brat by the time he was a teenager. Looking back at the prequels, I struggle to see what positive qualities Anakin even has aside from his innate talent in the Force. Once he leaves the security of his mother (who was guiding him on the right path), everything is let out. His rage is manifesting itself as soon as the first meeting when he is presented to the Jedi Council.
Like Mass Effect, like the Mana series, like several other series at this point, i'd wish they would stop with the remakes and make a new game. Instead of buying another Skyrim why can't we get a sequel?
Comments
What it DOES do right is that it FEELS like Star Wars, with you as the main character. I'd argue it's far more accurate in the "feel" of Star Wars than any of the prequel trilogy which were relevant during the same rough time-period. Credit the incomparable Jeremy Soule and the way the cut-scenes were implemented for much of this. It also worked so well because being SO far in the past relative to the events of the original films allowed the writers to basically mold their own mythology without being constantly worried about being overridden by Lucasfilm.
While the Jedi are a positive force, is it worth keeping them around given that they can be corrupted by using the force when feeling anger or hate - emotions that every human (and aliens) feels at times?
Given those circumstances do the restrictions on age and ties that people like to complain about maybe make sense?
It explains how Revan – who by all accounts likely started with good intention – and so many of the Jedi following him fell to the Dark Side so quickly. War is bad for the Jedi – and this in turn raises the question what the Clone Wars did to the Jedi.
It explains why Luke won both his confrontations where deep emotions were involved (Vader & Kylo) by choosing not to fight.
Especially the role of War and the negative emotions that come with it & the effect of it on Revan and his followers were questions that I think were touched in both games – moreso in 2, but it is there in 1.
Tldr; the scenario of there being people with great power, that turns them evil if they wield it with the wrong emotions even when their intentions are good, is not an infantile setup.
It's just that the more interesting choices are on the light side, since using the dark side by itself removes part of your freedom of choice.
On difficulty and being too easy: I think it has the usual D&D problem of it being hard to balance at higher levels. Players still should feel useful if they make less optimal choices, so if you make the right choices it is very easy. BG 2 avoids this a bit by being very harsh on the player until you get to know the system, and even so most of us would be bored without SCS by now.
KOTOR is a game that has been replayed a lot, so it feels easier now than it does in hindsight. I still remember my first playthrough quite well and even though I was familiar with 3rd edition rules I remember having some challenging fights:
It's easy now having played the game a few times - and I agree the challenge scales poorly with the difficulty level. But I think the first playthrough - especially if not familiar with D&D - is properly tuned for the first part of the game. It breaks down quite a bit by being able to complete planets in any order in the middle.
It is what the entire plan of the Emperor to turn Luke is based: if Luke kills Vader in the heat of hate he is lost. There is no subtle conversion to a different philosophy.
It's there in the Cave on Dagobah and when Vader fights Luke on Bespin and tells him to use his hate.
The scene o the Death Star is just due to this effect not existing for non-force. Which is why Han is allowed to stay morally gray.
The spoilered out comment even only focused on the good side, which I pointed out was less problematic in my post. I dont believe this is because the philosophy of Star Wars is particularly deep and complex, but because these good characters tend to be the focus of the story, and if they're at all well written, they'll be 3 dimensional. There are very few, almost no 3 dimensional dark side characters present in the original trilogy, prequels or KOTOR.
Here's maybe a better way to present my argument. The lightside characters tend to have more interesting character concepts, in part because they're "tempted" by the dark for "Insert reason here". The bad writing is when that reason is bad, and good writing tends to be when that reason is fairly good. The Darkside comes off 1 note typically because they arent ever "tempted" by the light side. They suffer no internal conflict, and typically have no arc. What made the original trilogy so good is that Vader does end up having a conflict ("I sense the conflict in you, father"). The problem is, almost no other dark side character get this sort of treatment.
They become Wily-e-coyote badguys.
Edit - I dont expect to convince anyone who disagrees with me. It's just my opinion. I love Star Wars a ton. I played the hell out of KOTOR and loved it too. I'm excited for a remake. If they keep the story exactly the same, that's fine (people might prefer it that way), I'll just ignore that it wasnt written for me at my current age and enjoy the nostalgia.
Have you forgotten about Yuuthara and Dustil on Korriban? Yuuthara was the purple woman who you were partnered with on Korriban, and we find that she was attracted to the power of the dark side. The longer she remained there, the more self centred she became and she began losing interest in the people who had originally spurred her on to seeking that power. She was very close to leaving it behind it seems, but the plot didn't follow it through.
Dustil was Carths son and somehow it wasn't completely obvious to him that the Sith were nasty people. Then there was obviously Juhani and Bastila, but I am describing mainly Yuuthara for the reason that she is the one who most resembled Vader as the one who was having a struggle and lost in the end.
Actually I just found out that she can be saved and maybe I just wasn't good enough
You're definitely right about differentiating here. Emotion leads to things like compassion, empathy, loyalty, bravery, self sacrifice, etc. You'd think the Jedi would value these thing, but no. There's a good point about negative emotions, but they also forbid positive ones. Its alarmingly consistent how the Jedi more often than not are portrayed as apathetic.
I'd argue that the Jedi aren't "good". They are neutral. Well, until they are personally threatened, THEN they help. Slavery? Nah, shouldn't get involved. Intergalactic war that is leaving planets burning, killing millions (if not billions) nope. A Sith might own the corner gas station? Mobilize the Masters!
The only real good force users we see aren't part of either Sith or Jedi orders.
Star Wars "philosophy" is heavily influenced by eastern philosophy and religion. The purging of emotional attachment is a foundational idea of Buddhism. It doesn't mean lack of compassion and caring for others, in fact it means quite the opposite. It does mean learning a state of detachment where the natural birth and death of things (such as loved ones) doesn't cause you to suffer.
That Buddhist emotional detachment makes sense to me for a fictional universe governed by a quasi-magical "Force" that corrupts sensitive individuals who give in to strong emotions and attachments.
I mean if we count flip flopping, don't forget about the car Jedi who turns to the dark side that we save, or bastella herself. The thing is though, the light tend to be written better because it tends to be the Canon while the dark is usually just a after thought. The whole light and dark dichotomy was done better in jade empire personally.
Honestly I always viewed them as neutral than good early one which is why I said what I first said. They were usually not always but usually seen as the mediator in conflicts or between problems. Even in the original trilogy they weren't apart of the rebellion but was asked to talk with the empire first.
Either way if I ever had a issue with stars then it was the over focus on Jedi and sith to begin with. In a Galaxy far far aw ay with a ton of different species and people... I expected to see different "classes" for lack of a different word and people with different talents doing crazy things but it was always just sith and Jedi. The are these crazy powerful beings sometimes with precognition sometimes without it yet time and time again get humiliated by mercenaries and bounty hunters. I would've rather both remain a small group honestly.
Well, yes, it does. Caring is an emotional response, empathy is an emotional response. You cannot repress emotion without losing your ability to connect with others or even function in a society in some cases. Its called sociopathy. Its Buddhism's biggest flaw imho.
Even if we are generous and assume that lack of attachment isn't a well documented disability and does lead to some kind of enlightenment in the SW universe, the Jedi STILL fail to embody. being completely apathetic and unwilling to take action in any situation that doesn't directly affect them.
the kotor games along with the prequels were the first set of star wars media to show the jedi were flawed and not the perfect knights in shineing armor they were protrayed as in the original trilogy.
Ohhh. I dont think I agree with that. I'm sure it all depends on your opinion of what a "perfect knight in shining armor" is, but I'd say Luke is a somewhat flawed hero (and also a massive Mary Sue, admittedly). He decides not to finish his training to go to Cloud City to save his friends (in very unjedi-like fashion). He responds to Vader's taunts and gives into rage to beat Vader in RotJ.
I think you can also surmise from the events of only the first three movies that Anakin fell (although you never see it) and that Obi Wan was far from perfect in how he failed to keep Anakin from falling.
I dont remember the first two at all. I'm guessing they werent super plot centric characters though, based on my complete inability to remember a single thing about them.
Bastilla, I obviously remember (and she doesnt really fit into what I was saying because she's a Jedi to begin with). Juhani is also interesting... I think she was Jedi and has already fallen when you meet her. Since she's a companion, there's a bit more meat on those bones for returning to the light (which I think you can, IIRC?). So I wouldnt really characterize her a darkside villain.
Well, his mentors lacked a sense of compassion because they were the only two people to survive the purge Anakin helped facilitate. They watched security footage of him murdering children. Obi-Wan watched him essentially kill the woman who was the sole reason (supposedly) he gave in to Sidious in the first place. And AFTER all that, Obi-Wan saw him burned to near cinders and let an absolute all-consuming rage overtake him in his defeat. So, I mean, Obi-Wan and Yoda had absolutely no reason to give Vader the benefit of the doubt. Luke had to basically offer his life and come within a couple more seconds of force lightning from dying for his father to finally do the right thing. If you ask me, Vader's "redemption" is a little overrated. Certainly compared to everything else he did. It doesn't even come close to balancing out.
I don't really blame Obi-Wan for Anakin's fall at all. If anyone is responsible, its Qui-Gon, who wouldn't take no for an answer and instilled in a young boy who already had a big head about his abilities a sense of destiny that would lead him to be nothing less than an entitled, narcissistic brat by the time he was a teenager. Looking back at the prequels, I struggle to see what positive qualities Anakin even has aside from his innate talent in the Force. Once he leaves the security of his mother (who was guiding him on the right path), everything is let out. His rage is manifesting itself as soon as the first meeting when he is presented to the Jedi Council.