nightcleaver

kids around who's hair has totaly turned grey ( not kidding) because of the fear.....the non-stop noise from the bombs falling down and from machine gun fire....then eating that damn food ( )..1/4 of your town in ruins and tons of other things that I fortunatly don't remember anymore...... How is that for you Mr. Jaguar, does that suit for you as a trauma? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ah yes, food. Horrible stuff, that. Violence can be used humorously in day-to-day conversation, but it isn't humorous for most people by itself. It isn't the violence that's funny. I'm sure you didn't realize that most people don't QUITE share your... "extreme" sense of humor.

Unless that's what you wanted to happen, fine. And neither did the , necessarily I was hoping for something like that as well, skywalker, but I sort of had the impression Revan was initially doing something like that himself.

Without a conflict, there is no life to a given story. This is true in real life and in fictional life, or even science-fictional life. I largely agree with the decision to leave Revan out of the picture. I feel it would've been worse (to some degree) to have Revan remain in the picture when he can no longer be the focus of the story. The way they did it, KotOR is still about Revan, but the focus of the story of TSL is on the consequent actions of a different character. They had to use a different character, because LA told them to. The OT and the prequel trilogy, combined as episodes I-VI, are about anakin skywalker/darth vader, but IV-VI focus on the actions of Luke Skywalker and his friends. I believe this story was trying to do much the same thing. If it had continued to focus on Darth Vader, we would have seen a story about pretty menial tasks of governance - killing Force Sensitive babies, perhaps, enforcing the law, etc. Not too star-warsy. I believe it would be the same way with Revan's story, after KotOR I. Menial tasks - governance . In sacrifice to becoming a continuation of Revan's story, it would lose the life of the previous story, and not be a true spiritual successor. Without any epic conflict remaining to be resolved in the sequel, the franchise would become a serial, an outlet for passion about the original story, about the original characters. It would become one big War and Peace, never ending. In order for the story to continue, and continue being epic, there would have to be loose ends in the first game - and there were, and Obsidian exploited those. In my opinion, lifeless serial fan-fic isn't worth my hard cash. Serial fan-fic, if I ever had to pay for it, would be a money sink and little more. A sequel that stands on its own IS worth my hard cash, and fails to become a money sink because it continues to be a story that stands on its own. However, I have a few issues with this sequel as it stands. As much as I liked the game, it felt off as a sequel. Mind you, I don't feel like blaiming it on carelessness, or a rush job - although perhaps some of my problems with the game's story (not just as a sequel) wouldn't be there if they had had more time to flesh it out. The biggest issue I have with this sequel is the explanation of the Force. This wouldn't be a problem, except for how pervasive the explanation is, and how unsympathetic to who the characters seemed to be the explanation is. The focus of this story was... weird. These new ideas about the Force were interesting, but they weren't truly a good driving motive for a Star Wars KotOR I sequel. The story, perhaps because of the amount, the type, or just that there is so much explanation, becomes a little bit abstract - are we really talking about Kreia's betrayal, here, or are we talking about her beliefs? TSL suffered from something I've seen many sci-fi stories "suffer" from: a focus on ideas instead of characterization. The characters here, as much as a few of them were very well fleshed-out, weren't all that memorable in the same way as the characters were in the first game. The focus of just about every single conversation in TSL was about the Force, conflict, Revan... abstractions... and not past experiences, a simple sharing of the cup as was the case in the first game. For any number of reasons, it seemed like there was very little actual interaction with these characters in TSL. Even the system for talking to your companions, the Influence system, lent a more emotionally abstract center to your dealings with them. At least, that's how I feel about it. And that's why it didn't feel like a spiritual successor, which I think I wanted. I think if they had simply expanded those ideas as approached in the first game in their own light it would've been more ok for them to do. There was just more... well... "abstraction" than this community wanted, I think,and far too soon after the first game.

It might be interesting to see this idea implemented. Perhaps during the Mandalorian wars. But I doubt it would be done well. It looks like DnD online might be up my alley, but I'm sure the community at large will be just as roleplay-clueless and level hungry as any other. Which really breaks the fourth wall for me, and makes me lose interest. I mean, what REAL social interaction can there be in such a setting that's focused on something so basic? Much as WoW is more fun than many others, it's still number crunching and looting. Endless amounts of it. And stripping parties. Just like Galaxies. I mean, honestly, the Entertainer class? It's amusing, but if they do another star wars MMO, I'd really like to see something remarkably different, and that really feels like star wars. Which is highly unlikely, if they stick to any of the tenets of modern MMo's. So I guess I really prefer Star Wars as a sandbox for storytelling.

It's been announced cancelled, or at the least postponed, by LA, earlier in the year. Or last year, I think.

Anyone here have experience with the A8N-Deluxe motherboard? I'm troubleshooting a problem with my CPU fan; it may not be working fast enough because of something the BIOS is doing? I've disabled Q-fan and cool n' quiet, of course, but maybe I need to manually underclock the cpu or something? I don't know. Or it may just be that it's broken. I'm not sure why that would make it rotate WAY too slowly for the CPU to properly be cooled. Absolute max RPM is 5000. Usually around 3000. Mind you, the computer is pretty idle; not even an operating system running yet, because it always shuts down before that point from overheating. Max temp, and this was the millisecond it shut down, mind you, was 96 C. Which translates to about 200 degrees F. I sort of wonder if my CPU isn't already melted. I'm beginning to wonder if there's something weird about the power outlets in my house... 3 out of 5 computers have had serious issues, now.

Every few years, it seems another billion or so people has come into the world. That's pretty scary.

Video card is already low range, and will be worthless pretty dang soon. I'd say shove what they're all saying, and go for one gigabyte RAM, minimum, as 512 is rather pitiful too, and if you're buying this for gaming, why the hell are you going Intel rather than AMD? Really, you'd be better off taking the plunge and building your own. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ... Making the individual parts of great quality, but who knows how well it'll work. Especially if you install it yourself, which is fairly necessary if you want to avoid paying an exorbitant amount of money for such services. You should do the research that it would take to build your own, and look at your options. If you want a warranty of any sort on the computer as a whole, and don't want to have to pay a huge amount of money for people to even LOOK at your hardware for tune-ups, or get the training yourself, or train yourself (which is a little bit dangerous) well... you might not want to build your own, and that's your choice. I found a pretty kickbutt deal on Ebay with a consistent seller... so that's one option... but you really should probably do research about every single part of the computer you can. And confirmed about the ATi vs. Nvidia. Nvidia, from what I've heard, has more stable software support, but a lot of Ati's cards are better in terms of speed. Another thing to consider is SLI; SLI allows two cards to function together as one and add power to eachother. But it only works with certain motherboards, that actually SUPPORT SLI, and that use PCI-E ports. ATi cards don't have SLI yet. What SLI means is that later on you could buy a double for your Nvidia card, depending on if SLI is supported for that particular Nvidia card, and increase the power. That wouldn't mean any improvement in actual software DX support, but it would be a cheaper way to upgrade than buying a next-generation card.

Sorry. There was a time feminist wasn't an insult, hehe LoN seems to be in that spirit, the spirit of working in the interests of the female gender. As opposed to putting men in their place, you know. There are many levels of feminism, in my opinion, but maybe I should be careful about throwing that around? Anyway, there WAS some overall.... iffiness... about how powerful bastila was. I mean, she's pushed off as being kind of average, but she practically LEADS this expedition to capture revan and malak. There was no glory for her, except for battle meditation. But that's ultimately not a horrible thing. Some people don't get glory - from what I can tell, Carth gets far less glory. Let me see if I can try and get what Nur Ab's talking about here: Bastila Shan was a strong-willed person, but towards the end that strong will was attached to sheer emotional fragility. With Carth, his strength of will was never attached to fragility, to the very bitter end. Bastila becomes the ultimate prize, where Carth doesn't, and nor do any of the other characters; everyone but Bastila is still acting on their own will. If you manage to turn Bastila back, there's not much way to attach it to HER will to resist; instead it's attached to yours. If you don't turn her, or you go with her to the darkside, it seems to be Malak's will, and the malice of the Star Forge, that turns her. She doesn't choose this path. And Aribeth is a little bit the same way. She turns because of her lover's death; she evidently doesn't have the strength of mind on her own to resist the temptation. They are both thrown about by outside forces; but they themselves are strong willed and powerful characters. In one way it could be construed that the world, the gods, the Force, whatever, is trying to put these woman in their place, in a sense; or it could be seen as making a good story. Fairy tales about sleeping, helpless princesses and such can have a charm for woman and men alike, beyond the fact that at the time woman could never be warriors. In my eyes, Aribeth's and Bastila's conclusions come from this sort of fairy-tale charm, but in place of princesses are actual warriors, with the delicate charm of royalty. Which can be fascinating; although I must admit that I find it a little bit over-done. Is it sexist to tell stories that put woman in vulnerable situations? Would it be sexist if we did that with male characters? I think it's up to personal aesthetic. Not personal opinion or even choice, mind you, but aesthetic.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were girls out there who hated his writing. I don't agree that LON, the feminist aspect of gaming, would at all cover the female population. But I don't think there's much of anything truly sexist about Bastila or Aribeth. Except, perhaps, that they were both female leads and both annoyed a lot of people. You might call this sexism; but the fact is that gaider wasn't saying anything about woman in general really, or even trying to cast the important female character's in a negative light for being strong, but trying to write an interesting character. I think he could've done this better; but that's all. Better writing, not better intentions. I should add that I like the strong female leads, who aren't mind-numbingly girly (that's the sort of female character I focus on in my own writing), but it's the actual character traits that were written into these characters that annoyed people. My actual criticism would be this: I think he could've made their intentions more apparent, instead of just essentially setting up a fairly generic female lead in a special situation. That wouldn't please everyone, but I think it would please more people.

The more conservative morality is a morality based on service to some higher purpose. Generally, this means religion of some kind. For adherents to this view, a particular act is defined a "moral" or "immoral" depending on existing dogma based on interpretations of some historically-revealed truth. (disclaimer: yes, there are deeply religious liberals who find support for their political views in ancient texts. As anyone else describing populations as "liberal" or "conservative," I am generalizing a bit.) The more liberal morality is a morality based upon fulfillment of ones inner potential. Thus, there is strong liberal support for public education, family planning, aid to the poor (since economic realities often prevent self-fulfillment), etc. "The Joy of Sex," for example, is a very moral book, according to this view-- it helps people lead happy, fulfilling lives, and society as a whole is bettered. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That was a very impartial approach; thank you. I have to disagree with you, though, because of that. First of all, liberal can mean several different things, as can conservative. In many ways, modern repbulicans aren't entirely conservative; and democrats are sometimes conservative as well. The public school system is in-line with a conservative approach to ruling, but it is not republican. But I understand that, in this country, we don't usually talk about the conservative/liberal approach to government, but rather we talk about parties. Now, I'm liberal, and I believe in high purpose. I can think of quite a few republicans who don't, who prefer their twenty bucks in the mail to soup kitchens for the poor. That's an exaggeration, but you get my point; DIFFERENT high purpose. Their "high purpose" could just as well be called "fulfillment of the self" for how it encourages capitalism, as opposed to socialism. I think that people think too much about party alignment; it's unbelievably wrong when people decide based on party, EVEN IF THAT'S TO BE EQUALLY IN AGREEMENT WITH EACH. Yes, you heard me correctly. Because then, are you really thinking for yourself in being "independent" of either party, or in fact having your opinions controlled and determined equally by the parties, and thus by the larger culture? Now, mentioning the division of parties is hardly a crime; truthfully, PARTICIPATING in the division isn't. Maintaining individuality isn't done by avoiding names and the mentioning of such division, but by not committing yourself to actions you find distasteful and don't truly want to do. Here I go into my own opinions. And I know some "liberals" who are all about "fulfillment of the self," and they REALLY annoy me. And I'm sick of Bush being compared to Hitler; Hitler was a speed freak, yes yes, but I feel that Bush is just an idiot. Sorry for being so partisan, but I have to say that. I suppose the facts are "up for opinion" on how important it really is to stop drilling holes in the earth for relatively frivolous purpose. Good for the economy? What about GOOD for PEOPLE? Or even GOOD for GOD? If you destroy the earth, you quicken your death, sorry; you make it impossible for people to just live and be who they are. There won't be any amish as they are today if the US becomes a corporate wasteland, GB junior. We forget the importance of survival and culture. And christianity isn't our culture; that's been tested, and proven. It annoys me when people try to govern themselves on no better basis than 5 bucks in the mail on Tuesday, or, "That man has a nice smile," no matter how hellish their life becomes. But I'm patient, and understand I can only control myself. I am a liberal, and I believe in the higher values, beyond forcing my opinions on others. Unlike some. Such is life.

That sounds about right, really. It's just that I don't know how "used" should lower the cost. What's wrong with celeron, exactly? Bad 3d marks scores? Oh, feh.

I put this on the dell forums as well. What can I get for: Dell Dimension 2350 Desktop CD-ROM 52X DVD-Rom 16X 30 Gig harddisk 2.0 GHZ Intel Celeron Great, brand new power supply - 520 Watt 768 Megs memory DDR complete set of productivity software I've been wanting to sell my current computer and get a new one for a while now. I'm thinking 400 dollars might be about right, but it IS used. I can get about the same thing, without the improved power supply (which helps out for playing with PCI video cards, is more reliable and more quiet than the convential PS), 256 megs less memory, but 50 gigs more HD space and a 2.4 GHZ celeron, for about 600 dollars under the current sale. All things considered, is 400 good? Should I go higher, lower?

I'm amazed. But the fact that they said combat is "pixel perfect, on contact" amazes me, and just goes to show that this review probably isn't terribly accurate. But it's a good sign that SOMETHING good has been said of the story, even if they've told us nothing about it.

Uhh, JE will be okay. I think it's being way-overhyped, and I'm surprised at how well these things work with people. It is what's in the description. There's a lot of oddness/gimpiness in the 3d engine, like all bioware RPG's, possibly BECAUSE it's an RPG, but there's lots of pretty graphics and animation thrown in. And I'm sure the combat will be a bit more fun than KotOR's was, which is to say it'll be pretty good. Not breathtaking, though; it's not a party-based RPG, and it's not an FPS of solid quality. Button-mashing will be perfectly feasible, so people who don't like to think won't be left out. And it will have a less intriguing story than past Bioware games. That might be pushing my luck, but they've given me absolutely no reason to think that the plot will be any good. They might manage to match the power of a martial arts thriller, while throwing in some more emotional aspects of (some) Martial Arts films without much of the punch. There is always the possibility that they're hiding the truly good aspects, so that it'll be a surprise. I don't think so. I'll probably buy it anyway.

Any attempts at this point to maintain accuracy with the last two games in the next game, while still keeping originality and freedom for the user intact, would get pretty convoluted. They'll have to compromise something, and I don't like that. Of the possible compromises, I would almost prefer sacrificing freedom for the other two; except that torment wasn't a financially successful game (even if it was EXTREMELY successful as a game), and we've seen that people don't require great depth in their star wars games. I don't understand the criticism there was of KotOR 2 for, "dated graphics." Very, very few games have graphics that aren't "dated," it would seem to me, and as far as games in general go the graphics were still as great as ever. And I didn't think the graphics were half as great the first time around as was thought be many. Good graphics are only a must insofar, I think, as advertisment goes, (Can you imagine how successful pac-man has been?) but I would definitely look forward to incredible graphics in any future star wars RPG.

Somewhere in the distance a squirrel twitches it's nose.

I'm trying to form my own opinions here, so please, if you would oblige me, answer me the following questions: What did you feel about the gameplay itself? Did you get into it much? can you go into specifics, like about strategic options, difficulty, high/lower ground bonuses and such? What about controls/interface did you actually dislike; you don't say anything too specific here. I also wanted to know if you could clarify what you meant about the character models feeling especially blocky? NWN has pretty blocky character models, and I didn't care for most of the portraits. Did you feel this game was worse than NWN in these respects, or are you comparing to, say, KotOR? Like, is it all a matter of the art direction being bad, and feeling too lifeless? I've played games like that, and it's hard to pinpoint. Arcanum, much as I enjoyed it, seemed to be lacking in similar manner. Just something to consider: if you expected this to be a great RPG, ala KotOR or VtM: BL, and this was actually intended to be a strictly comparatively lifeless tactics game, it's to be expected that the game would be a let-down for you. You make it sound like no one should be interested in this in their right minds, and so my next question is this: Might the game get a better review from someone NOT looking for amazing VO and dialogue and such?

As for role-playing in NWN, well... most of what I've come across is something of a joke, or just simply way too dry for me. I've gotten very little from the PW roleplaying servers you see up every day, and only slightly more from NWC. Haze, as an example, seemed great, except for the battles that took place in the crappy, over-spent, gimpy, glitchy combat engine of NWN - I VASTLY prefer role-playing a hero character to a Cannon Fodder character, especially with how much time I spend on forming a character concept if I want it to be a good, fun concept for everyone. And it just peeves me when DM's go like, "Oh well, you must be stupid for playing this game and putting so much time and energy into the game," when it's not about the engine-run game, it's about the character-making game. Characters can just as well mean something if the mortality rate isn't 99.99 percent. People DO die in real life - but I roleplay to escape real-life, or at most parody it. And the vast majority of role-players don't put that much thought or effort into it. Maybe they just can't write deep characters, and while I'm ok with that, it's just not what I want to do. Give me live banter in combat, give me long, personal talks of some depth between characters. DON'T give me elves who talk very distinctly like full-of-themselves junior high boys, using all the crappy colloquialisms and slang of this, our MODERN day time. I'll humor them, I won't be unkind, but I just can't have fun with them. I have enjoyed myself with NWN roleplaying quite a bit in the past, I'm just completely sick to death of PW's and all their problems, and good, RP-oriented, selective NWC games are few and far between. Eru: That's pretty sad, although I'm not sure if the person doing the commentary is any less so...

NWN is too much combat (not very fun combat, at that) and not enough role-playing for me. MMO's, well... I've yet to see any actual role-playing in an MMO. Too many lousy power-gamers, or just incredibly casual role-players. I've heard of this idea of, "online roleplaying" websites, and want to join one. There was one that was star-wars centric, called shattered force or something, but I was hoping for something less... licensed. Anyone know of a website? It would be a great help. Thanks. EDIT: I wanted to add that if anyone wanted to do online PnP, I'm all for joining in. And if you don't feel like PnP online, but do feel like NWN with better role-playing than usual, I'm looking for that as well.

I wouldn't say so. There's some incredibly exciting stuff coming up, although by then you may have to upgrade your computer again :/ But really, there's Dragon Age and NWN 2, and you could always give KotOR 2 a try. I really enjoyed it, myself.

Ah, no. I'm afraid I might end up selling them for 50 bucks each, in the end, once I get a new computer. I understand, finger of death, thank you for clarifying.

Steam. Half-Life 2. You have to get both of those to get the one, I velieve.

To work with one display, or to work with SLI? and what is Flash video card's BIOS? Help me when I fail? Fail what? I'm willing to sell one of the PCI cards for fairly cheap, if that's what your LAST sentence meant.