nightcleaver

It's all imaginary. They have the basic idea - and it would be a little derivative to imitate the style of that comic book author. This isn't a comic book, after all - I'm sure comic book interpretations will be a bit flashier than any other media the same things are depicted in. Anyway, it seems to me like they'd have to sacrifice graphical detail to get "accurate" like that, or else scrunch everything down to size to fit in the engine, which would like bad to anyone except people who had read the comic books and wanted that look.

I thought a really big part of it was the limitations of the X-box, and that they wanted to give the game good graphics.

That's an interesting idea. It could just as well be an incredibly powerful sith, though, and I would think it a little crazy (unless there's some explanation for this not being generally known) that no one would know the Sith'Ari had come, or even when. Maybe he thinks he is the Sith'Ari, but isn't. Anyway, it would be interesting foreshadowing on Yuthura Ban's part in the first game...

It's been confirmed, but I forgot where.

Yes. The floating robot is the Zabrak's pet. This is exciting. I like that they give us a couple pinches of dialogue to ponder as well. In response to speculation about what happened on Korriban, the IGN planet preview itself (the written part, not the media part) states that people have been saying that there was interneccine fighting among the Sith on Korriban, which destroyed the planet, or that the Republic came by and blew it to smitherines. I'm thinking that the first explanation is DS, the latter LS. Or it could be a little bit of both, or something else altogether and those are really just rumors. Here's the IGN info on Korriban: http://xbox.ign.com/articles/555/555606p1.html It also mentions a group of dark creatures called, "Hssiss", and I believe those are the black looking bipeds the guy above me was referring to, probably.

To be honest, the new color scheme makes me feel a little sick. I like the color, just not that much of that color.

We were told Darth Ni or something like that wasn't the name of MSG when these forums were new and supposedly a dev let the name out by mistake the same as happened with Atris, this is also the same dev that confirmed that MSG is a male. There has also been no official confirmation that WHC (White Haired Chick) is named Atris yet everyone has settled into calling her that. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What says he's one of the Sith Lords? Hey, maybe popes right about it just being a mask. I think it looks good, except it's a little empty looking compared to the original box cover, and the Sith Atris is fighting has a lightsaber that sticks out waay too much. I agree with the "perfectionist" that even little things like that should be corrected. I mean, how professional is that? There's not any reason for it, it just feels wrong, and it feels like LA doesn't really care enough about the game to make the cover perfect.

Arr, matey!!

Well, TSL hasn't claimed superiority over all other RPG's, so I think it's probably going to come a lot closer to it's "hype" when put next to fable. The only hype I've seen for this game is that it'll have a lot more features than the first, and is a sequel to the game of the year. I have absolutely no reason to think either is false, and it would be amazing if it was. Most of the features have been confirmed as in that they've suggested were in so far.

At least tell us which forum, which section of the forum, what thread...

Are "apprentices" just a blatant rumor, or a reality? Will there just be characters that look up to and follow you, or will there be any actual apprentice(s)?

Oh, my! Brilliant idea... OH, heck, why don't I just live in the store itself?

Did they really blame it on Obsidian, though, or did they blame it on development?

Let's look at what Obsidian did differently: They apologized, but they still screwed up as LA did. LA hasn't apologized, and that's wrong. Is the problem that LA hasn't apologized, or that LA screwed up? Is LA as opposite to Obsidian as you think it is?

Could anyone clarify how (preferrably in statistics, sales lingo at the least) exactly Microsoft gains from this whole "fiasco"? It sounds to me like Microsoft was a contributing factor, but do they receive royalties for all x-box games, I forgot? It seems that LA and Obsidian have an obligation to listen to the company for certifying the validity of THEIR game on the x-box, but by no means does this really even faintly imply conspiracy theory. I mean, seriously, let's think about what we're talking about here: video games. It's not Vietnam, it's not the Cold War, and it's not bloody flying saucers. It can't really be said that this hurts anyone except for being "unfair," whereas the first delayed release on the PC version was reason for much irritation because they just kept pushing it off. I never had the impression, and I don't think it logical to suspect anyone at LA had the impression, that people really cared that much about a non-simultaneous release date as they did a continually prolonged release date, which WAS an active hurt on the PC users. Until someone brought up that this wasn't a simultaneous release date, I don't think anyone would have cared - because they forget? Because that wasn't the issue, and that's not what LA promised us. On the other hand, this could be the way LA was trying to get better publicity. Semantics; they say February, knowing the XBOX version will be coming out in December. However, Feargus' post was very kind, respectful, straightforward and seemingly honest, don't you think? And everything seems to show that THAT decision was made on the fly. Now, maybe someone high up had a guess that they could manage a december release date on the XBOX version, and saying February could put them in the clear (using the argument I just gave above), but honestly, not even the developer's knew when the versions were going to be ready The thing is, people get angry about this and give all the reasons: That it's unfair, that they're screwing over the PC users again. But all the arguments seem to break down to one thing: That this was a purposeful and malicious lie. The lie is the problem, but the alleged "lie" is the one factor we know nothing about, so what's actually making people mad? The lie that was likely more of an accident than a lie? And then the argument that it's their responsibility to avoid this mess, therefore we can assume it was a lie. Are we mad about the accident, or the lie? We're mad about the lie, but we don't know the lie happened, and we're still thinking "lie" when we say "accident." Would it hurt anyone to recognize that this could be a big, stupid mistake? Would it change the fact that the company fell into a really, really bad situation, and would've hurt if not for people being rational for once? Does it benefit us to continue acting irrational, or does it hurt us to avoid slightly more rational possibilities just because, "It shouldn't go unpunished?" You could say a murder is the fault of anyone in a blocks radius of a murder, but should you kill/incarcerate almost everyone on the block just to make sure you get the murderer? No, you try to single out the murderer, the cause of the death. And just in case it was, in fact, a heart attack, we run an autopsy. Obviously this is a little more serious, but the mechanics are the same even for lesser hurt/retaliation, and that's what I'm driving at. If the public is smart enough to figure out when they're being irrational to assume the worst of a company's intentions, doesn't that sort of nullify they whole point in the first place about the company not doing those things? It seems pretty plain to me that the whole idea of saying, "it's your fault, no matter how unreasonable to say so, if the public doesn't like you," is so that companies don't squabble with their customers and dig themselves into deeper misunderstanding with the customers (when the two perspectives aren't taking any common ground to understand eachother), thus losing them profit. If the customer's don't have any reason to squabble, though, and they do because they can, isn't that an expansion and a needless limitation? Is not the reason for avoiding confrontation to avoid actual confrontation, instead of avoiding the theory of confrontation? Well, if you prefer the latter, you're pushing the rules and limiting companies to the utmost while totally spoiling the customers.

I'm fine with being wrong, but please point me to some clue that defines you as having an apprentice.

The clues don't point specifically to YOU having any sort of formal or informal APPRENTICE. Your party members will react to you, and you'll likely have a few instances of being able to tell the impressionable "youngun'" (whether they're actually young or not, or just look up to you) one or two things about life or the Force, probably by them asking you, "what do you think on this such and such issue?" I'm sure multiple Jedi Master's can influence a training padawan, but only one is THEIR master that works with them personally. It doesn't seem likely to be there anyway, and for that matter we don't know that it would be a specific one character in your party.

Neat footage. Thanks. I just wish there was more displayed than a single empty, wide-open space.

His problem is that he doesn't agree with you. But, I wanted to say: LA couldn't have been lying all along. It doesn't make any sense to make people like the game by saying, "simultaneous release," because in the end, if it's a lie and there isn't a simultaneous release, people will be pissed. I think it's pretty obvious people cared about simultaneous release not just in theory but in actuality. Then again, this IS getting publicity. It's going a little overboard, I think, to say they were doing this all along just to get publicity, because bad publicity is WORSE than all the good publicity they were getting in the first place. They have plenty to work from on the positive, so there's no reason to go to the negative.

Anakin can avoid those spoilers and such, but why should he have to? Why should he be punished and forced into doing something he doesn't want to do because of LA's mistake?

I've already STATED that it's wrong. I've stated that they SHOULD say why they made that decision, at least in general terms, to settle this mess down. Just because they made a MISTAKE, though, doesn't mean that they are LYING. Saying, "well, I might as well decide they were lying, because it's all on them", doesn't validate or put any more truth into the possibility that they were lying all along, which is actually really, really slim - unless you're saying LA marketers don't have as much, if not far more, business experience than yourself? Is it taught in business class to try and get the largest profit margin NOW, while pissing off half of your customers, and not address the issue? Something's going on here, and it stinks more of "mistake" than of "lie". And it's FAR from stinking of, "money under the table", unless you have good points that contradict that.

What makes you think they're laughing at you? Do I need to re-iterate everything I've already said?

Spoilers. Spoilers, spoilers, spoilers, and more spoilers - everywhere. Plus, you're standing there drooling over the fact that SOME people are playing the game and YOU aren't. I don't see anyone collecting their thoughts all that coherently, anakin. It's a surprisingly difficult thing to do.

Shin, I was responding to kumquat's, "you've gone off the deep end". No biggie. And it wasn't intentional. It would be butt-stupid to be intentional. It's almost a certainty that something came up and LA changed their gameplan; Republic Commando was pushed til february, from what I remember. Also, didn't they just have a bunch of lay-offs? Maybe they're trying to make a recovery here? Right, it's a broken promise. Sometimes promises can't be kept, but we shouldn't be TOO optimistic; it's really dumb for them to do something like this and pretend that it's water under the bridge. By all accounts, it never has been when a publisher does something wierd like this...

Maybe I wasn't talking to you. So maybe it wasn't unexpected developments. (by the way, my post came after yours by an accident - I didn't see yours while I was still typing mine, as I didn't "bother" to update the page) I think they were certainly trying to get them out the door at the same time, though, and that's no proof, certainly, that LA had no intention of releasing them at the same time. Think about it: Why would they say that if they didn't intend it at some point?