I don't know, I might try again and keep those strategies in mind, sometime. I really did want to like those games, mostly because of the story.

The story is pretty good, tbh.

I just spammed the right grenade types, as I said(Ion for bots, concussion to stun organic enemies, adhesive grenades to stick enemies in place so I could attack them from afar for a bit, frag grenades to do good damage overall, etc).

I also used stealth(if high enough) to sneak in and set mines near them/in doorways they had to run through and then shut off stealth and let them run through them to remove a good amount of health.

Also good is using jedi stun/stun droid powers to stun them a bit so you can pick them off easier(when you have such abilities), and also some areas have terminals you can hack into with the proper skill levels to sett off traps and kill some foes in some rooms of some bases/etc.

Lastly, remember to equip good enough armor and mod it at workbenches properly to make sure you are tough enough to shrug off damage.

There's more I could suggest but that should be fine for now......also KOTOR 2 has more options for skills & other things than the first, and imo the 2nd game is a bit better for those getting into the series as they polished more features of it and added some good stuff as well to the gameplay from the first.

The Dark Sun games are infinitely (pun intended) superior to the Baldur's Gate games.

I HATE "platforming" elements in first person games. They can be fine/great in 3rd person games though; like the Arkham games, Prince of Persia, Castlevania: Lords of Shadow, etc.

They're the worst part of one of my favorite games: Ultima Underworld 2

Unpopular opinions? Not a big fan on the idea every game has to be a complete freedom experience. Some great games are made with a linear path in mind. As long as they don't take away all meaningful agency and make your choices matter, it's all good. That's one reason I'm not big on stories that pretend like it'll have multiple endings but only make minor variations on one event, like what the TellTale games did.

This is also one of the things I didn't like about Metroid Prime when I played it.

(The only (somewhat) similar games I have played ane enjoyed are the Elder Scrolls games (up to and including Oblivion), but those games are structurally very different, and some of them have ways to circumvent the platforming (Levitate in Daggerfall and Morrowind).)

I would go further; not every game, and not every RPG, needs to have choices that matter.

I would also say that not every RPG needs to have a plot that's more complex than an excuse plot; RPG gameplay should be enough to carry the game.

Ha-ha-ha, my post presenting my unpopular opinions about games in the thread about unpopular opinions about games has been downvoted as low-rated and become very unpopular!

The miracles of democracy, pluralism and freedom of speech: your opinion can be unpopular but it must not be too unpopular in order not to become really unpopular.

Thanks to all the philistines and the good Samaritans, you're the best!

I think Starcraft is one of the worst RTS games ever made. I love the story but the game was hard for all the wrong reasons. Take the following scenario: You are playing skirmish as the Zerg. Your foe? The Terrans. You build up your base fairly quickly. You have a solid ground army of Hydralisks, maybe you even have Devourers and Ultralisks. Your base gets attacked by Siege Tanks you can't see. Frantic, you send your Ulttralisks at the foe, thinking, "they have a lot of HP, they should be able to get to the tanks and do some damage." But what happens is they all die before they can get within attack range. This happened to me a lot. It infuriates me when there is only one strategy(Mutalisk swarms) that works against a particular faction, that is not something you are prepared for by the campaign(which normally helps you learn the game-didn't for me, much) because the only way to win is to micromanage everything, expand to having several bases, which takes time and effort(to harvest resources faster than your opponent) but doing this may actually makes you less likely to succeed because your foe has a unit that's totally OP because the developers forgot to balance the factions well enough.

I know each game is different, and while I play some RTS games and get my a** handed to me sometimes, like Supreme Commander, when I don't build Mass Extractors on enough nodes, and remember to build enough of the necessary counters to my enemy's units, at least then I can tell, it's me, not the game.

Also in Starcraft, you can build enough of the right type of units, and the game still forces you to constantly hop from moving them offensively, to base building, to fending off an attack, to establishing a new base, almost at the same time. I know all these things are, in some sense, the building blocks of RTS games, but no other game has made me feel like I need to grow three more arms and two more heads to be good at it.

I don't know if my opinion is "unpopular" or not... I don't see the point of playing skirmish in RTS games. When the campaign is over, the game is finished and I move on to the next game.

Ok, I played a few Warcraft II skirmishes in the 90s - but I was a teenager with more time than money (and games were really expensive back then; it just doesn't compare to nowadays).

This reminds me of one thing: I consider the combination of real-time gameplay and controlling more than one character to not be a good mix. Either a game should be turn-based and let you control a party, or the game should be real-time and have you only control one character. (Alternatively, turn-based and controlling one character can work; see (true) roguelikes for examples of this.)

With that said, sometimes in speedruns part of the strategy is this sort of multi-tasking. For example, Final Fantasy 5 Advance has parts where you need to wait to continue, but the timer doesn't stop when you're in the menu. In Baldur's Gate 2 speedruns, often the player will separate the party having characters do different things at the same time. In Baldur's Gate 1, one can give the characters movement orders, then do inventory management while they're moving (this doesn't work in BG2, except maybe in the Enhanced Edition, because the game pauses in the inventory).

These days I play skirmish because I've found that in games like T.A. Kingdoms and Supreme Commander, skirmish mode is harder than the campaign, so it's like a type of practice, but as a gamer who usually can't get interested in a game with a thin, or bad, story, I do see where you'e coming from.

Practice for what? Multiplayer?

It's been ages ago that I played an RTS local against a friend. It was Red Alert 1 or 2 I think and it sure was fun. Fun because of the social interaction - we didn't really care about how good we were or the competitive aspect.

Since I view the campaign as the main reason for getting the game, skirmish mode is my practice for that. I know that if I can get reasonably good at skirmish mode, then the campaign is usually much easier, except for those damn escort missions, LOL. And yeah, I'm not trying to brag about being good or anything. I'm actually pretty bad in some ways(currently playing the Supreme Commander Campaign on Easy), which is why RTS games are no longer my favorite genre, but still fun in a lot of ways.

I definitely feel you on this, although I've always chalked it up to my not being a wiz at RTS games. I love playing them, but I've never come close to mastering the art of micro and macro management. Other people don't seem to struggle that much, so it must just be me.

Alright, I'll say it - upset a Polish taxi driver by enthusing more about Witcher 1 EE than Witcher 3 then proceeded to rub salt into the wound by extolling the virtues of the TV series Hexer.

Still, I left his cab on pretty amicable terms.