I think this is just another subjective debate thread, isn't it?
Either you like JA or you don't. Either you liked JK2 or you don't. Maybe you like both games, maybe you like one, maybe you don't like either.
The differences between the games are subtle. Just as people still continue to debate the differences between Mac and IBM clone pc's, between Pepsi and Coke, etc. some really get into the nitty gritty differences, other's couldn't care less.
The key is not to flame and to try to see the other side's point of view.
Me, I liked JK2 (in some ways it was better than JK1/MotS, in other ways not as good) and I liked JA more (still better in some ways, the same in others, etc).
Each to his own I say. JA had more players for many months, and then JK2 made a major comeback and (last I checked a few weeks ago) had more players online.
Take whatever you want from those stats, since as we know many games have tons more players and that doesn't mean you have to like them! ; )
The skill thing goes back and forth. Some say X beats Y others say Y beats X, other say they are equal. Who knows? As long as there's always somebody better out there, isn't it always possible for somebody to beat somebody else?
The bottom line for me in the "Is JA a good or bad game" debates, I think a lot of people assume that the ONLY component of these games is saber dueling. I think this misses the point, this is only ONE aspect of the game, like it or not, that's what the developers intended.
Last edited by Kurgan; 04-17-2004 at 09:22 PM.