Interesting choice. I think KoToR is undeniably one of the greatest PC games ever made, it's absolutely in my top 10. But in terms of following the lore of Star Wars the game is an abomination. Most obvious example is being able to use force lightning as a Jedi. I still loved the game however :)

Bounty Hunter on the PS2 is pretty close to what I would consider the best Star Wars game ever made, but it does suffer from being overly long and difficult. I'm with you though, my favourite on the PC side of things is KoToR.

@cainetao11: Yes but not that many. Star Wars isn't as popular as what you think.

If you Google Star Wars you get: About 373,000,000 results (1.11 seconds), but if you Google Lord of the Rings you get: About 39,100,000 results (0.84 seconds). On the surface then it would seem that Star Wars is 10 times more popular that LotR.

However in terms of home video sales (Blu-Ray) the LotR Trilogy has moved 1.2 Million more units than the almighty Star Wars.

At the cinema around the world, the "best" LotR film (Return of the King) made roughly FIVE times the money of the "best" Star Wars movie (some suggest Empire Strikes Back is the best one). Things get closer if you compare the "worst" Star Wars movie (which some suggest is The Phantom Menace). TPM made just over a billion dollars around the world, not bad.

Where things get really bad for Star Wars is when you take another look at the home video market. Only the most hardcore dedicated fans buy the home video releases. Surely Star Wars must sit near the top of the list because it is so popular? Nope. It's "only" ranked 41st in the top 50, and LotR sits at 13th.

Of course there is no accounting for taste when you consider that the godawful move "Inception" sits at 6th in all time blu-ray sales :(

Sources:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/

http://www.the-numbers.com/alltime-bluray-sales-chart

I don't wanna give an opinion about a game I haven't played, but I think Tera is in a weird spot. There's gonna be better action only games out there, and there's gonna be better traditional rpg's.

What I feel is the biggest problem though, is if you go the route of where you aim is where you shoot, well then the game becomes either too easy, or too difficult. How do you tune a boss fight when player "skill" is going to vary so much?

Also, net latency is going to kill the game. There's a reason I play Battlefield 3 on local servers and not ones in europe for example.. TERA will get a base, but it will never go beyond that because of net latency...unless they decide to pull a SWTOR and put servers in other countries, that could do it.

(Of course if you're one those people who harbor the ridiculous notion that "profit" and "greed" are synonymous then you will likely find this reasoning unsatisfactory.)

dzimm

for P2500 Rumble pad.

No wonder Halo 3 got a 9.5!SentientGames

Well it certainly explains how Gears of War beat Oblivion for GOTY award on this site.

I just cancelled my sub.

You've got to be ******* kidding me!?

I'm playing through Bioshock and it's fantastic, but it's yet another in a long line of games adding to the disturbing trend of including Photography in games.

It means the developer has an interest in photography, which is fine.

Where it becomes disturbing, is that the games industry tends to borrow ideas that were "successful" in other games, take for example where Half-Life introduced having a tutorial level to first person shooters. Nowadays those levels are commonplace and it becomes annoying when everygame starts teaching you that the spacebar makes you jump, lmb is for fire and so on.

So imagine if you will a developer has an interest in art and so.... no wait that's been done already, I believe it was called Okami.

What I'm trying to say is that Bioshocks use of photography causes gameplay to suffer slightly, and I'd not like to see it turn into a trend with any future developed first person shooters or fps/rpgs.

Cuz if I'm playing a shooter I want to shoot enemies with a gun, not a camera.

BTW: I'm aware that you could argue that Bioshocks use of photography creates a unique risk vs reward system, but my argument against that would be that System Shock 2 didn't need photography to accomplish the same purpose and that any risk is negated by the fact that if you die in Bioshock you respawn (just like you did in System Shock 2).