Volourn

Common sense. And, 'rumour's, 'myths', and 'innuendo'. Though LA hasn't flat out said this. First off, this isn't to say KOTOR2 didn't sell. It did. However, we know this: 1. Obsidian wants to make KOTOR3. Mr. U, and company have stated in interviews they want to make KOTOR3. 2. LA flat out turned them down (at least for now). 3. LA actually was in the process of developing KOTOR3 in house before they scrapped it. 4. they now have BIO making the MMO version of 'KOTOR3'. 5. There were rumblings that LA wans't all that pleased with the criticism that KOTOR3 (bothd eserved and undeserved), and that while KOTOR2 did sell; it wans't nearly enough to make they excited for an Obsidian developed sequel. And, yeah, LA hasn't come out and publically smacked down Obsidian (not really professional to do so); but really reading between the lines there has to be a reason or reasons why LA won't allow Obsidian to make KOTOR3. And, since we know LA is about money there is only one logicla reason. Afterall, Atari doens't seem to have a problem with obsidian making NWN2 expansions so obviously they were/are happy with NWN2's financial performance.

"Volourn does magic tricks! Did you see that one? Instead of pulling a rabbit out of a hat, he pulled an opinon out of his backside." Wrong. Again, called research. reading interviews, prss releases, previews, reviews, watching vieos, reading FO3 threads from actual gamers, and the like are all about research. I do this for all games I might be interested in. With this research, I've successfully determined that FO3 isn't worth full p0irce; but I *mighT* get it when the price lowers. "Alright Volo has now lost his rights to post in any Fallout 3 thread." The cool thing is I haven't relaly posted much in FO3 threads, and this isn't a FO3 thread, btw. It's a 'Obsidian doing a FO game' thread. "Why does Obsidian have a spotty track record? They've released three successful titles. They might not have been huge blockbusters, but I doubt they failed to meet expected sales numbers." Well.. According to LA, KOTOR2 didn't make their sale expecations hence why they won't allow (currently) Obsidian to make a KOTOR3 instead deciding on a MMORPG so while KOTOR2 did sell reasonably well, it surely didn't meet LA's expecations and that's what matters.

"I didn't realize you had Fallout 3? I'd love to hear your opinions of it." I don't. But, I use common sense to choose what agmes I find worthy of my money. From solid long term research, I've determined that FO3 sucks like other Bethesda games and isn't worth full price.

The chances that Bestehda would let Obsidian (or any company)P use their IP is near nil. Obviously, the thing with Interplay is a special case 'cause of the circumstances of the sale. And, FO3 sucks like the rest of Bethesda games most likely so Obsidian should stick with the good stuff like NWN. And, I don't really see Obsidian pursing a turn based game. they've mad eit clear that tb isn't their thing. Unelss that changes don't count on it.

It does. I've been twinking it to no success yet.

Awesome except for the fact the computer hits nearly everything. Hard to get pumped when they computer hits 70% of shots when youa r ein their face. And, your teammates satnd around like statues when it comes to rebounding. L0L Otherwise, an okay game.

Yeah, the defense (outside fo 3rd period yesterday) is helpful. The offense are a bunch of punks. No dominating force, no scary guy that otehr teams need to really focus on. A bunch of wannabes crying for Mommy Jagr to come back and show them how you own a game.

Comeback wouldn't have happened if the Rangers were smart enough to keep Jagr. Dumb idiots. They should be thankful they have a King in net or the Rangers would be last overall. Stupid GM.

More dwarven subraces. That's all I need. Wild, Jungle, Desert, and Urdurrin are all awesome.

Jack Thompson's only point here is to make sure we haven't forgotten that he's a punk who is obviously insane. Even his fellow lawyers agree, and considering the silly lawsuits some lawyers file; that's saying a lot. He has nothing worthwhile to say.

"who are oppressed after awhile will eventually rise and remove that oppressive system. Given time the Iraqis would have done the same." Living in Happy Fantasy Land, again? "And on the policing matter, how come the US don't make the same demands on countries like Germany, after all some the 9/11 terrorists started out from that country?" Oh, come on. That's a lame comparison. And, random n00b has squashed you like a bug on this issue so I'll quyote him so you don't miss his superb answer: Noob wrote: "Because, you know, the Germans do everything in their power to police their territory and hunt down terrorists? Jeez." Game over.

NHL 09- Still awesome playing in my league, and club games. NBA 2K9 - Pretty good basetball game. I just wish the Assoociation wasn't so retardedly set up.

No. The only time I mention selfishness is in terms of business ie. the customer's relationship with businesses is all about selfishness on both sides. I'm into actually caring about what happens to other people even if it doesn't help me.

"If the people feel the need to change the current government, they will, eventually." Stated by somebody whose never had a dictator rule their country in their lifespan.

Bought this game. It's the only sports series that 2K ssems to be better than EA at.

More needless crying over someone maybe having a differnt opinion than yourself. Big deal. And, if they get 'bribed' to give higher scores. Big deal. We're talking about video game reviews. And, this talk about how in the past reviewers were more 'honourable' is also hogwash. Besides, if anyone buys a game simply based on another's opinion is dumb. Plain, and simple. We have a brain, use it, and make your own decision. As for inflated scores. Yeah, they've inflated; but they basically mean the same thing. Instead of 9 meaning 'best game'; '10' is the new 9. *shrug* Not a big deal.

"Valid reason to go to war for me and my country is only a defensive war." Really? You don't believe in defending friends, and allies then? Afterall, Germany was no real threat to my country yet we still went to war against them to help our European allies. *shrug* I'm glad we did, too. "I think you are confusing Iraq and Iran. Prior to the invasion there was very little support for terrorism in Iraq." Not true. Iraq supported terroism. In fact, they paid terrorists (after the fact 'of course') aka suicide bombers in Isreal as just one proven example. Iraq also did have some dealings with AQ (and, yes, I know Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11). So, to say that iraq didn't support terrorism simply isn't teue. Terrorism does not AQ. "I wonder what made Saddam unacceptable to the US. I remember a time when he was counted among friendly to the US Arab leaders. I also seem to remember that he got weapons of chemical warfare from the US and the EU and he used it all on dissident Kurdish people. That's why they never found any weapons of mass destruction by the way, despite the propaganda lies that the then Secretary of State told the UN, to get the approval to invade Iraq. As far as allies are concerned: sure, as long as they give the US what they want, namely military bases and oil, there ok, but as soon as they dissent, they are bound to become a target." Really? I don't know of any Amerikan bases in my country (ther ekmiught be I don't worry about such things), and last I checked we aren't on the US target list. *shrug* And, my country disgarees with the US a lot including on the Iraq War. As for why Hussein went from being an 'ally' to the US to an enemy. First off, he was never an ally. They used him in their war with Iran. That's it. And, I like how you try to blame eveyrone but Saddam for his use of chemical weapons. "especially a imperialistic war fought to secure more oil." I love how the defintion of imperialism has changed just so that label cna be pinned on the US. And, contrary to the conspiracy theory, not all Amerikan Wars are base don oil. In fact, if they were, the Iraq War would be a failure since the pirce of oil/gas has gone up since it occured.

"Volourn, first of all, learn to quote. Second, get a spell checker. That said, they way I remember the declaration of war on Iraq is: "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and it supports Al Quaida." Both of the reasons, were simply fabrications. The real reason was to get some revenge on the "bloody arabs" and most importantly to secure the oil fields of Iraq for the US. On the bombing of Bagdad: it's undeniable that they bombed a lot of targets in the city that had no military value, with high civilian casualties, and with the only intent to break the morale of the opponent and make him surrender. And yes, war is ugly. It's even uglier when it is fought for no reason." L0LZ How cna anyone believe what you write when you contradict yourself in your own post. First you say: 'The real reason was to get some revenge on the "bloody arabs" and most importantly to secure the oil fields of Iraq for the US.' Then you write: 'when it is fought for no reason.' So, the question remains, did the war have a reason, or was there no reason? NEWSFLASH;' Just because you disagree with a reason doesn't mean it isn't a reason. And, oh, once again there were many reasons given for the Iraq War. You named two. Others include Iraq's general support of terrorism (FACT!), and Saddam's Hussein being in power was unacceptable to the US espicially given the events of 9/11. The fact you think the US attacked Iraq simply because they were 'bloody Arabs' is just fooliosh considering the US has ARAB/Muslim/ ME allies including inside Iraq. War is ugly. That's why it's best to avoid it if at all possible. That's why someone needs a chat with Saddam Hussein has he brought the invasion to his country due to HIS poor choices. It's also nice that you accuse the US of being biogted against 'bloody Arabs' when you show your bigotry towards Amerika (and, who knows, maybe you are one). But, plenty of people are full of self hatred.

"Actually, we did. But we are doomed to not learn from our mistakes, it would seem" That was no real negotiation. Germany got the heck bombed out of them until they surrendered. L0L It's called 'negotiation after the fact'. "The War on Iraq is another example: not only was this war fought under false pretense" Nope. Stop being fixated on just ONE reason for the war. Multip0le reasons wer egiven, and most of the them were legit. "but Bagdad was bombed into submission with no real regard or consideration for civilian casualties." Simp0ly not true. If there wa sno consideration for civilization casulaties, they would have just flat out carpet bombed the city. They didn't hence why most of the ciity still stood afterwards. *shrug* "It's those issuing those orders that are responsible and should be on trial. To illustrate my point more: after WWII German leaders were tried for crimes against humanity, while the victors went unpunished, although they had committed equally hideous acts, eg. bombing of Dresden (at that time Dresden was full of refugees with very little defending forces), the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which were really more intended to show the world: Watch out, we got the ultimate bomb!" Boo hoo hoo! War is ugly.

You cna only p0lay poloyics if the other side is willing to play politics. This is why you won't be seeing the US strike at 'terrorist cells' in Kanada without permission any time soon. Or most European countries as well. *shrug* But, yeah, we all know WW2 would have been avoided if the rest of Europe had just negotiated with Hitler. Bad, Europe, Bad!

NWN.

God is a punk so I hope no Coruscant just out of spite for God. I hope they included what they want to include and ignore those who think they actually give good advice. I'm sure BIO, EA, and LA know what theya re doing in order to make a successful game. And, if they fail they should get blame for it. Afterall, now if they add Coruscant and the game flops, I'm blaming you Will 100%.

"Has there been any word on what planets this awesome game will let you visit?" Why do you care? You surely aren't interested in this crappy game, right? Oh yeah. Wrong. You most assuredly are hence why you have probably posted the most of anyone in this thread. As for the question, since it's a MMO, chances read you'll be able to visit practically all of the 'known SW universe', eventually.

"Many things are not an MMO's strong point besides that. Story, interaction with npcs, development of characters, etc." MMORPGs > KOTOR series

"TONS eh? Where?" Everywhere. "P.S. NWN is still overrated." Even if one were to rate NWN 200%; it would still be underrated.