nightcleaver

If I heard mission were going to be a jedi, I wouldn't even bother downloading your mod. It would be that bad of a sign to me. Then again, you don't want to call too much attention to yourselves, right?

I think silver/white would be a good color. If they had silver/white and orange lightsabers, I'd go with that combo for my first game. Gold (similar to KOTOR I yellow) would be a good idea, in addition to the alleged lemon (?) yellow. I don't know what a blacksaber would look like, or how they'd make it - would it give off a glow?? I think doing slightly different shades of colors already there would be cheap. Heart of the guardian type orange and a lighter, Jedi Academy type orange both being in therewouldn't be bad, though. Maybe a Blue/violet (indigo) saber, in addition to the darker purple. I can't imagine a darker green - that would be wierd to me.

This is off topic, but it doesn't feel like a new topic either... unless this warrants discussion. I'm going to refute the statement that Bastila/Revan were master and apprentice in any capacity. Bastila was at most a knight, and the council told you to take guidance from eachother, not one from another. She preached to you, sure, but I certainly didn't feel "taught" after her preaching. It just seemed like preaching, really. EDIT: Ah yes. I'd do apprentice, I guess.

Well, now I'm going into philosophical belief just for the hell of it. Human is the only POV we can see from, we being human. Even god, if that's your issue here, would have to use our understanding as a medium. We can't understand more than we can see, from our human, emotional, hormone-secreting bodies. Also, our bodies are all part of one system, and our brain is part of that system. The only separation possible is the separation "invented" in our brains.

I knew you would take it like that. Oh well. Ok, sure, it doesn't mean a damned thing that I defend gays - but was that gay man friend a gay rights defender? Come on. I'm going to get angry here - just to warn you. In response to, That's not germane to the earlier topic; I don't think anyone is advocating having a character go into detail about their sexual experiences. Now, if you're saying that just knowing someone's sexuality bothers you then I feel for you but I don't think it's fair to suggest people keep that information to themselves. I mean, even a wedding ring gives it away. I think it's called, "clarifying your position." Got it? I would think it weren't necessary except for the other things you said in response to my post. People want gay romances, go for it for god's sake. I'm just trying to get some middle ground here, and all you can think of to do is classify me as "one of them." " I find that you're lying to yourself, when you place yourself in a hypothetical position that you have no personal experience with." To a certain degree, all experiences are universal because there are only a finite number of human emotions and sensations. I might not know what it is to lose my mother but I can hazard a guess. I don't know what it is to skydive but I've been in a car accident (intense adrenaline rush) and I've ridden a roller-coaster (euphoria caused by fearful but controlled situation). If I mix that with the physical sensation of cool wind whipping my face and dropping then I have a good idea of what it feel like. Not perfect, but good. As long as I don't try to convince myself that it's *exactly* what it feels like then I'm not lying to myself. You're not responding to what I meant, here. I KNOW you can "hazard a guess". I said things that I didn't understand in the more direct manner of the word. Is it ok to not want to think of gay men or women having sex? That's most certainly not prejudice, yet that's all I was talking about. I put the example of that Usula K. LEguin book for a REASON. I find their relationship sweet; I loved the book. I don't think the book was objectionable, but I do admit there was a level of uncomfortableness there, especially at first; I WASN'T USED TO IT. Yes, I can understand it; that's why I could find it sweet. Now, I'll repeat that paragraph for good measure: You're not responding to what I meant, here. I KNOW you can "hazard a guess". I said things that I didn't understand in the more direct manner of the word. Is it ok to not want to think of gay men or women having sex? That's most certainly not prejudice. I put the example of that Usula K. LEguin book for a REASON. I find their relationship sweet; I loved the book. I don't think the book was objectionable, but I do admit there was a level of uncomfortableness there, especially at first; I WASN'T USED TO IT. Yes, I can understand it; that's why I could find it sweet.

...assuming "emotional intensity" could fundamentally be measured just by a single secretion, or that anyone would have a clue for what was what without being able to measure every single possible detail.

Yeah, but I prefer the really excessively long, drawn out, over-philosophical version of that same thing

That would very likely be 'natural selection', ceteris paribus. What I am referring to would be one of your earlier examples of human intervention. E.g. 'Murder' Take the 9/11 terrorist attacks for example. Even though we cannot deny the existence of such an abhorrent event existing within the extremities of our universe, does it still qualify as a 'naturally occurring' event? To be honest, I am a little taken aback by it when I hear about other people's sex lives, especially when it's something I don't understand. I was reading an Ursula K. LeGuin book a couple years ago, and it had lesbian characters in it. I didn't want to face that they were lesbian, but I found their relationship itself interesting and not disgusting at all. Please, PLEASE don't call me prejudiced - I'm probably one of the more volatilly-inclined gay rights defenders I've known of. Still, I don't want to think of other peoples sex lives, and I see in no way how that's wrong. Still, it seems these other's refuse to see it in that light. I think, and I'm sure you understand this on some level, when these two are saying "natural" and "unnatural," they're referring to the "choice" that's made to commit these acts. But let me give you a situation. You're drowning. Someone comes to help you, but you're confused and panicking; totally understandable. You do something that gets you out of the water; coincidentally, but totally to your later horror, you find that you caused the death of the person that saved you. That person, meanwhile, had no idea you were drowning; (let's just stick with concept here) Or perhaps you die as well; but that was your CHOICE. Let me put it this way: on a daily basis, people are reacting to their view of the world. No better, usually no worse. Really, the problem is that they refuse to understand the concept of another being seeing things from a different perspective. Prejudice, naivete, Nazi-ness, whatever the heck you want to call it, it's not really important; what's important is that they refuse to understand their own limited place in the world. However, I don't think this means we all have to be the drowning man to understand him. I don't think we need to have sympathy for our enemies, just empathy; sympathy is going too far, I think. *I* would define *that* as unnatural, maybe for similar reasons. I find that you're lying to yourself, when you place yourself in a hypothetical position that you have no personal experience with. Much as they probably think gays are lying to themselves, which is a totally unsupportable claim. They take that claim on faith, though; but why not take it on faith in a way that's not offensive? The world will never know. As for craftsman's arguments... well, there's no point in addressing them. He argues and trips over his own tongue. Does that have anything to do with his intelligence? not really, though he certainly isn't giving us an intelligent presentation of himself.

Compared to movie romances, in-game romances are pretty crappy. Still, I play them, and I enjoy them. I tried the aerie romance - it made me gag, mostly, but it was "Sweet" at times. I could never get the Jaheira romance to work, for some reason, or for that matter the Viconia romance. Maybe I just skipped through the game too fast? Anyway, PS: T romances were good for computer game romances. For a computer game, I think that was a perfectly good amount of it. I sort of like the full-story side-quest treatment of romances a little better, just because there's a little more time for things to develop - even then, though I've found romances strangely lacking. I liked the Carth development stage better than the Bastila development stage, and I liked the Bastila ending stage better than the Carth ending stage. Frankly, it seemed like their was flirtation and interest - but the whole marriage thing? Didn't make a lot of sense, especially as there was no physical chemistry even IMPLIED. The Bastila romance starts out with only really obnoxious flirtation choices. I'm sure she'd get mad at you if you tried to flirt with her in more subtle ways, too, and you'd still get the ever-interesting, but admittedly over-used "you're cute when you're angry" line of dialogues. The ending I have no complaints about - it's satisfying, heart-breaking, tragic, and sweet at the end and leading up to it, starting from the first talk she has with you about how great she thinks you are (which is weird, taken out of context). I would've loved to talk to her more in depth about force and stuff, or at least tried to, just in order to make those dialogues actually mean something other than, "Here's Bastila, she starts out as an annoying little Jedi Princess". I'm sure that, too, would've made her a more palatable character to the public at large. And I'm sure more depth to the Carth/Revan relationship, male or female, would've helped for that end, as well - less annoying to some, for sure. I think all of this could've been solved with more depth on Revan's end; Sure, he/she might be developed as a character, but not enough to make a difference on the romance end. Frankly, Revan was a fool-tool and a half with no set personality of his own; understandable, when people scream and cry for more customizability and less linearity. To be honest, I sort of hate the whole "go do whatever you want thing." Not only do I dislike it because, well, I hate lots of choices (half-joking), but the choices you CAN make in a computer game only go so far. Thus, it's better for the sake of depth and for me, INTEREST, to go ahead and be linear and set your character relatively in stone. So what, you have a little less choice; at least my brain isn't frying itself trying to put any sort of meaning to it all.

.... and the one turret is on the BOTTOM, not the top

I'm going to put my case down and leave. Trudging through the sludge isn't the most fun on this forum. I remember them saying that you wake up after a long sleep or some such on the Peragus station, cryogenic storage maybe, and thus you haven't been using the force. I've read somewhere about a force user having his powers taken away by the Jedi Council before he was exiled for whatever offenses he commited - official stuff here, not just fan-fic. That means it's perfectly plausible, whether you like it or not, to have that happen. Also, the Jedi Council's power has faded, so maybe with that they allow you to regain your powers... or they don't have control over whether you begin to or not... So the main character was exiled by the Jedi Council after the Mandalorian war, and somehow he ends up on the Peragus mining station, just waking up from a years-long cryogenic sleep.

Funny thing is, even fighting without a saber was pathetically easy at the later stages of the game (minus the extended battles on the Star Forge). Maybe it was just on easy, but I think I tried the hardest setting too.

I've read somewhere on the internet (feel free to question my source) that Jedi aim to incapacitate in battle, unless they have no choice but to end their lives - and if they do so, they would avoid disembowelment (slow, painful), lopping their heads off, and just hacking a person to bits in general - in preferece to a direct, clean stab, say to the heart. Can anyone confirm this for me? So the possible solution for this could actually be quite simple: put this in the animations. I'm afraid, though, that they've already pretty much done all the animations, and I don't remember them saying anything other than skill level (NOT darkside/lightside alignment) determined the animations played. Still, there are problems with CRPG combat, and it's part of the reason games have the Star Forge phenomena, with endless waves of the same type of enemy which would be totally implausible in a book or story, with good reason; much the same reason you don't explain your character's bathroom habits unless it relates to the story. Action, in excess, is just action, but for the sake of computer games it should still be there. Making combat easier per individual enemy, lowering XP benefits, thusly increases the amount of monster's fought considerably, which I've always found pointless. In fact, if it weren't for the horribly toohard/tooeasy gameplay in NWN, I'd probably be playing some fan-made module than blabbing on these boards right now when no one (read: few enough that I rarely get response) actually reads, understands, or cares about my posts. The battles could have been longer, I think. It seems a little odd how often hits would go to each side of a duel. In my opinion, combat would have been much more effective if there were less of it (the Star Forge was disgusting, and I dread the tedium of going into it whenever I replay KotOR) and what existed were more dramatic. Many people complained about the difficulty of the final battle with Malak. I think that's just people not being used to that level of difficulty - the final battle really isn't any harder than making use of what you have. Still, though, I think he should have missed you about as much as you missed him, yes? the use of healpacks and drugs in general is sort of cheap, gives you a very un-cinematic feel for your involvement. In fact, the design of the DnD system in general is such that you feel like you're playing with stats, not that you're playing through your character. Actually, I take that back - it's like hammering the healthpack/drug button over and over again. I don't even call that strategy - that's a clickfest, and I don't frankly understand how that's any different than twiddling your thumbs, or pressing "EEEE" over and over again on your keyboard in notepad. Something else I've noticed: in all (except maybe less KotOR) Bioware RPG's I've played, your success depended on how many items you found during the game. IF you didn't find all the items, were mostly interested in how the main story played out than hopelessly bashing heads for an eternity, the final battle was much harder - no, WAAYY harder, simply because you aren't enthusiastic about big shiny's. Game's have difficulty levels. This could be used to change how much the player needs to micromanage, not just how many HP the enemy's have. As I saw in the first KotOR, higher difficulty just meant a few more healthpacks and drugs, and maybe a character would die now and again. It saved them from the beast of repetitive save/reload gameplay, but dug them deeper in their whole of over-simplifying combat. The nature of Force powers is much simplifier, less involving of strategy than magic from DnD games. I think, maybe the force points should increase at a more flat rate while you level. All that to say this: Bioware keeps making things easier and easier, more reachable by more people, supposedly, when that wasn't ever the way to go. Seeing how it's not my job to figure these things out, I'm not the one to give you a ruleset or system or whatever that would function effectively for this purpose, but I understand enough to see it's possible. (or perhaps I don't understand enough to see it isn't possible, eh?)

Here's an idea...let's all Bastila lovers scream, cry, flail around and just generally throw a fit over the idea that she died in the end, no matter what you did at the end of the first game? ... and then put the idea to rest. The game's not out yet, it isn't a bad game. The game doesn't exist yet. The game will be out in several months. The dev's have plenty of time to take fan reactions into consideration. Considering how these dev's compose themselves on the boards, I doubt they'll do something that people are so vehemently against - but it's still possible. I don't think it's likely, maybe you do. Considering the ease of just putting mention of Bastila, or omitting her completely, I don't see why they would kill her. Remember that these people know the first game, they like the first game, so they probably have the same sort of respect for it that you do. Sure, developer's sometimes have trouble making plot/gameplay fit eachother, and make such compromises, but with all due respect, I haven't seen a single sign that these developer's are like that. They're intelligent, unusually creative people. When pavlov's bell rings, supper for his dogs often followed after. Could the bell have rung otherwise? Yes, and the dog's wouldn't necessarily get their supper when expected. Don't say that just because you hear the bell ring (you see bad signs) you'll get your supper (this game will be bad). However, if you see it cooking (the tidbit's that obsidian has given us through reviews and interviews) expect dinner to be made. Yes, maybe the owner will throw dinner away completely, but it's more dependable sign, anyway, than the bell.

Not an absolute answer, dereth, but I remember something about how those silly encounter's in space where you fought sith fighters were still in, though optional, but if you didn't manage to kill them the troopers boarded your ship. I'm sure they could extend that, having pirates of different sorts trying to board your ship. Personally, I think that'll get boring after the first coupla' times. If you were stumbling around exploring a bit, or going on unexplored detours, I could see them adding the things you mentioned.

A couple of interesting details that I've yet to see covered: Will the character in the second game have a set name? It wouldn't, after all, make any (not even cosmetic) difference in character creation, except for the people that want to walk around being Luke Skywalker. Maybe there are people out there who would be discouraged from buying the sequel because they couldn't use their custom name, but to me that doesn't make any sense - especially considering how much more effective it is when you have the character's name in VO. Not a necessary thing, just nifty - and any sequels to THIS one, set within a reasonable timespan of this currently in the making sequel, wouldn't have to deal with an unnamed PC from the last game in the series. Also, will there be MULTIPLE romance options? You obviously have a whole bunch of characters to choose from, but would both/either male and/or female have multiple NPC's to choose from for romance sub-plots? would there be any conflict over said subplots, ala BG II? (a side comment, totally not a question: I REALLY hope, if there are multiple possibilities, that all the romances aren't that easy to fall into as BGII. Forcing you to choose between two woman you haven't really encouraged or discouraged is just silly, and not a strong part of said game)

Sorry I didn't type out a 2 page essay on exactly what I meant. All I was eluding to is I find it extremely frustrating/annoying/partly strange that certain posters insist on doing nothing but bitching about how certain aspects of the game "ruined" it for them and in effect, made the game terrible (their words, not my own interpretation of their words) keep coming back here to post over and over about it. Constructive critisism is one thing. But that's not what these people do. They just bitch and moan about how crappy the game was and how they don't understand how people can actually call it a great game. So my rhetorical question to them was then why keep coming back to a message board dedicated to that game. My intent was not directed at those who maybe felt the graphics could have been better, but enjoyed the game none the less. Or those who think the combat wasn't as good as it could have been, but played through the game countless times. Rather, it was directed at those who have nothing good to say about the game, yet constantly return to post on this (and other KOTOR message boards) about how much they thought the game sucked because of the various aspects of the game (ie. storyline, twist, combat, graphics, etc.). You can keep on building and building on top of other people's methods, but you're putting a method to a method which doesn't actually work, because a method is immaterial and a method has to be applied to something material. A method can ADD to a method, but never take another method into account. Myself, I've played many games I didn't particularly care for in a lot of ways, as games are rarely any good in plot, voice acting, or in any way except that they're an advanced (and somewhat more fun) way to twiddle your thumbs. That said, anything you put your mind to has flaws, and many (good) things have a lot of flaws; this is fact. Pointing out many flaws gives the impression of a negative impression, but it doesn't inherently MEAN a negative impression. That's what Maria was saying. Really, you could go on and on about the good things too in order to give a more quote-unquote "accurate" portrayal, but really the only person who takes all these flaws to mean, inherently (which it doesn't) a negative view, is the person who fails to see that the other person is actually just criticizing the good thing in all it's flaws. Basically, this would be a better way to say what Maria originally intended: People are criticizing the game. People, who obviously enjoyed the first and are looking forward to the second, to whatever extent they enjoy/look forward to said game, criticize the game. The flaws are not self-evident in the game being a bad thing, even if they flaws themselves are bad. Thus, saying that people are contradicting themselves by critiquing the game and at the same time looking forward to it is false. And yes, I read your full post, but I was also responding to the discussion that was going on after your initial post, anikin.

If you are 15, sure... Right. So based on YOUR respective age, the other person acts differently. People are individuals. I wonder if you know what that means.

He doesn't mean no romance. If he meant no romance, he'd say that. What I'm thinking is that something in the thread, some implication or maybe just what he was thinking about at the time(again, quests), related to a greater portion of the story time devoted to romance. I don't think there was any question as to whether or not romance was in or not b efore, and this statement doesn't conclusively say otherwise. I would like to see the thread in question where he says this so that I could do a better analysis, though I'm sure anyone else is perfectly capable of doing it. I seriously doubt anyone would, though, without prompting. I think, maybe, it could've been how much or any number of factors to him thinking it. But like Adria said, he's not answering the question. Seeing as how he's not a politician, I would suspect he has reason for answering the question the way he did. Just to make this clear: I'm all for romances. However, romances are based on character development, and with a lack of that we get soap opera syndrome. Now, soap operas are REALLY popular, but not good quality stories. I think that may be the concept that Chris was responding to. As for Bastila? How do you know they were making her mean to fit an ARCHETYPE (note the E in there) of hollywood? People in real life are like that. She seemed to have perfectly real reasons to act like she did. I didn't see her as a very strong woman; Mission, however, was strong, as was Juhani, and neither of them even faintly fit the stereotypes you mentioned. So, you see, Bioware wasn't going the "b*tch" for the "Strength" route at all, and it's more a sign of your own limited view of the world, rather than my own pre-pubescant ignorance. These are fictional characters, sure, but real life characters don't follow the rules of the mind, so why SHOULD fictional characters? She wasn't really well developed, but, thank you very much, she was a perfectly full character. It's like saying that because you don't like someone in real life, they're a stereotype - because that's exactly what you're doing. So please, please, put more thought into what you say - and don't, while making typo's and unfounded assumptions about what went into a writers writing, insult the intelligence of everyone who isn't as jaded or cynical as you are. Contrary to the opinion of many such as you, (including my own brother) cynicism and jadedness is not, in and of itself, truth. And I hope, moderator, that you intended your reprimand for both sides of the fight.

Where's the 100 meg one? is it one of those "subscribers only" deals?

if you noticed, I numbered the paragraphs I wanted to respond to. 1. The player responses aren't being Vo'd. What might be funny, though admittedly out of character, is if the other characters totally ignored what they were actually saying. Certainly add some possible comic relief to the game. It would make it, in effect, extremely difficult for the PC to express themselves as they wished, which I thinks works just fine. Cutting out and pasting different parts might be used for effect. So, really, I'd be all for it, but I don't know how much the common audience would like it, and LA would very likely veto it. 2. I don't understand this at all, but alright. Maybe for feats, but not PrC's - doesn't make any sense to me. 3. Unless combat were avoidable for high-int characters that had learned to make their way without the other power stats in life. That is, most of the combat in the game would be cut out, and what little was left could easily enough be taken care of by the other party members. Basically this would balance things pretty evenly, if they did it right.

it was pretty much determined publically that soule wouldnt be coming back for this. As well, it was said by one of the devs on these forums, I believe, that obsidian had no control over that aspect of developing - LA is responsible for this switch. I wouldn't assume that this new guy is worse than soule, either, but he hasn't had a chance toprove himself. Not everyone thinks soule is all that, either.

Ground shipping is more expensive than (slightly) and you get it a few days later than the stores (and thus those who don't pre order) do. If you by overnight, which is what stores really do, you'll pay way more than you had to. For me, personally, it's not worth the extra money for the game to be delivered right to my door. Might as well just go out and buy it.