To conclude your posting into short words : The lesser the depth, the greater the graphics ? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/badsmile2.gif" alt="" />
Let's see:
1) A single game is a step up graphically, but poorer in other respects, than its predecessors.
2) It therefore follows that the greater the graphics, the lesser the depth, in all games, at all times.
Sorry, but I'm having trouble getting from 1) to 2). I suspect this is the kind of humor you really have to hear in a voice, than read. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />
It's purely my opinion, but I think that Bioware stuck to "the basics" in getting KotoR out on time. They were working with a new engine, and they didn't have the resources to "get fancy." If I'm right, then future games employing the same engine may be more "creative" in the sense of being less linear, or providing reasonable puzzles, or featuring quests that make more sense in context (less of the "Oh, hey, I don't know you from an oil slick but you're obviously the Famous Chosen One In Disguise, so please get back our family's life savings, okay?").
The other possibility behind KotoR's "dumbing down" of some of the features in BG2 is that LucasArts/Bioware deliberately tried to include a younger market. The fact that the visuals discreetly faded on a kiss could indicate that (though admittedly, they could just as easily point to the problems inherent in showing facial expressions and human contact with the engine).
