Jediphile

ok now you don't know that. this is star wars the selkath might emit powerful pheramones that make them smell like Chocolate chip cookies for all you can prove, it isn't like your computer has smell-o-vision Actually, The Architect's computer system is renowned for its multi-senses applications, which means... well, it stinks...

Which I guess is the point I was trying to get to, yes.

I caught that too. All along the watchtower, indeed. Also notice that none of the other 4 heard the music either after they left the nebula. Actually, she said, "Everything was so clear when I first got back. I mean, if I could just focus, then I know I could find that sound again." Even so, it does point to a connection to the use of "All Along the Watchtower" than ended season 3, yes. However, they did obscure it by using the word "sound" instead of "music".

I know. That is why I was clarifying how you should focus your discussion. A comment about the trends of the video game industry in general in a thread is misleading in a thread about why a PC Exclusive developer has reconsidered that stance. Yes, I need you to define how I'm to focus my approach to the discussion Seriously, just because you see it differently does not mean I have to adhere to your approach to the discussion. And you'll please forgive me if I also reserve my right to disagree with it. No. But please forgive me for thinking gaming history is relevant to a discussion of this sort. Did you even read what I actually wrote? I didn't say there was little piracy in the 80s, just that for the pc it was comparatible less than other platforms that were more widespread at the time. Which brings me to something else: That is just not true. That depends a lot on your point of reference. In the 80s the pc was use far less as a gaming machine next to many other personal computers out there at the time. Does 1000 pirated games constitues "much piracy"? Does 10.000? In that case, then sure, there was piracy on the pc. Perhaps even a lot depending on where you put down the number for what constitues "much piracy". However, it was far more widespread on other personal computers because the pc was not the most viable gaming platform for most people at the time. Oh, and note Bioware's lastest anti-piracy pc approach: http://pc.ign.com/articles/871/871900p1.html Will it work to stop piracy? No. Why? Because the pirates will just remove the code checking for updates. End result: Pirates end up with a product less troublesome than paying gamers like me. Whether I'll play Mass Effect is another question, though. I've been mildly interested, but I've had to wait for a long time, and I neither like being dictated to by Bioware nor letting them take control of my system to share information without my consent.

[quote name='H

O RLY http://web.telia.com/~u42704646/Kotor/

There is a big difference, though, in that the Selkath are very arrogant about it, while the Ithorians are very much aware of their own shortcomings in the area. The ithorians come to the exile in TSL precisely because they know Czerka will manipulate and trick them in ways their nature won't let them anticipate. The Selkath, however, are arrogant enough to believe that they can impose their rules over both the Republic and the Sith without being manipulated and tricked themselves because they know better than both. And while I respect the desire for peace, their idea that peace will simply fall out of the sky by itself if they just hope for it is so annoying they almost deserve having Malak bombard the planet - if you want peace, then you fight for it, instead of sitting around being all passive and hope for the best. Besides, the Selkaths' approach was highly hypocritical - on the one hand they demanded no confrontations between the Republic and the Sith, yet they were perfectly willing to let the Sith insult the Republic at every opportunity. That's a recipe for disaster, since tensions will build until something gives. And of course both sides secretly broke the rules with impunity, while the Selkath just remained blissfully ignorant. Sheesh...

I disagree. I think Baltar left him the paper. Six told him there were 12 models, and being on the run with the fleet, this is somethign he would have wanted Adama to know, except not where he knew this from, since it would raise questions that could expose him as the traitor who compromised Caprica's security. So he simply left an anonymous note in Adama's quarters instead. Just my theory, though.

Indeed. Actually, one of those is in the ROTS dvd as a deleted scene. And once TFU presumably finally kills her off (which is my suspicion and not a fact), I'm looking forward to the now inevitable "The Many Deaths of Shaak Ti" article EDIT: In fact, Shaak Ti is destined to be the Kenny of Star Wars... Jedi 1: "OMG - They killed Shaak Ti!?!" Jedi 2: "Those Sithspawn!!!!"

Should you know? Well depends on how much of a Star Wars freak you are. She did participate in the Clone Wars cartoon didn't she? Yes, she did. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Shaak_Ti

Indeed. I wouldn't have thought it legal to have these online, but then I suppose 2e is now so old that WOTC doesn't care anymore. Anyway, to see how it works, consult the Critical Hit section in Combat & Tactics. I used to follow that pretty closely in my campaign with the following house rules. I had two notable rulechanges, though. For one, I revised the Weapon vs. Creature Size table that determines the severity of a critical. In my rules it looked like this: Weapon vs. Target Size - Dice Roll Weapon size is 4 or more sizes < target size - 1d4 Weapon size is 3 sizes < target size - 1d6 Weapon size is 2 sizes < target size - 2d4 Weapon size is 1 size < target size - 1d6+1d4 Weapon size is = target size - 2d6 Weapon size is 1 size > target size - 2d8 Weapon size is 2 sizes > target size - 2d10 Weapon size is 3 or more sizes > target size - 2d12 You'll rarely use the extremes of this list, since most will fall into the M vs. M, S vs. L or similar categories, but note that it means that a critical hit struck against a halfling (size S) from the claw of a huge dragon (size H) will be lethal, since it would fall into the 3+ sizes category and so have a severity of 2d12 (natural weapons are usually one size category lower than the creature, so since large dragons are usually size G, that will make their claws size H). And of course, even a human or elf would still face a 2d10 severity if critically hit by that dragon's claw. Keep your distance, folks! Also, if the critical hit was scored on a natural 20, I added a +1 bonus to the above results to reflect the special status of a natural 20. As mentioned before, I also made some additions to the thief's backstab ability, so that it became associated with critial hits:

Agreed. While I like the NPCs of both games (yes, even G0T0), I've always wondered what the point of up to 10 NPCs was, when you could only take two of them with you in the group. Having a few above the number allowed in the group is okay because it allows the player some variety and strategy in to construct the active group, but honestly, how many of us used T3 in K1 or G0T0 in TSL? I'd rather have fewer characters with more dialogue and story to them. I mean, as much as I like Visas, you can have one long conversation with her when she joins the group in TSL, and if you're thorough in that conversation, she has virtually nothing more to say for the rest of the game. Actually, same pretty much goes for Mira. And Bao-Dur may be a softspoken, quiet guy, but is that really all he has to say? TSL was an improvement over K1 in this regard, but the characters should still have much, much more contribute with and far more spontaneous comments to make on the protagonist's choices. The original movies had less major characters: Luke, Han, Leia, Chewie, 3PO, R2 and Ben (replaced by Lando in ESB and ROTJ). That's seven major characters, which is fine to me. Obviously HK and T3 will be droids, and we have the protagonist. Four more beyond that is enough, although in KotOR games, at least two of those should probably be jedi/sith. Besides, less characters gives each of them a better chance to be a prominent influence in the plot. How much impact did Juhani or T3 have in K1 or Mira or Disicple in TSL? They could probably have been cut with very little impact to the plot...

You might wanna' be careful around the Revan fanboys. Not to mention those who think highly of Palpatine. Yeah, we don't want to get into one these "Revan was the greatest ever (because I played him" - "No, Palpatine was the greatest Sith ever, 'cos George Lucas said so" flamewars...

http://www.starwarsknights.com/tools.php#Kotor

It'll reduce the problem, but it won't make it go away. Since I hated 3e's muncking approach, my D&D experience lies mostly with AD&D 2e rules, where I used the Player Option rulebooks along with my own houserules. The Combat & Tactics book as a critical hits system that works fairly well with D&D rules. Essentially if you hit someone with a natural 18, 19 or 20 *AND* beat his AC by a margin of five or more, you score a critical hit, which means you inflict double damage. The target must then roll a save vs. death or suffer an additional effect, depending on where you hit him (which can be rolled randomly unless specificed beforehand by the player with a "called shot") and the size of the weapon used compared to the target's size. For instance, a critical hit will be more lethal if done with a two-handed sword (size Large) against a halfling (size Small) than if done with a Longsword (size Medium) against a hill giant (Size Huge). Basically the rules have a "weapon vs. creature size" table for how severe the effects can be, since the higher the weapon is compared to the creature size, the greater the chance will be of rolling a high value on the dice used. I modified that table in my own game to make things even more severe, so that a short sword will have very little chance of really injuring a large dragon, while a pixie may be devastated by being hit by a lance. I also included special rules for backstabs, so that any backstab would always be a critical hit and possibly fatal (save vs. death or die), if a critical hit was actually scored on the attempt. Never got to use it much, since the players preferred warriors and wizards, but I felt satisfied it make thieves and assassins a good deal more dangerous again. The problem is that those values were always assigned rather arbitrarily, and like so many things in D&D, the rules are now stuck with them. For example, are elves really in poorer health than most creatures? I don't get that impression reading Lord of the Rings... Are gnomes more intelligent in general than humans? Not really, but you've got to give them a bonus somewhere because, well, they're demihumans and so must have modifiers. And while you could argue a WIS bonus for half-elves on the basis of their status as outsiders in both societies, the classic elf has always been wiser than the average human and so can make an argument for the same bonus. And why should half-elves get a CHA penalty? They're outsiders, sure, but so are all demihumans in a human society. At least half-elves can often pass for humans, where elves, dwarves, gnomes and halflings cannot. Frankly, I think if elves should have a penalty, it would make more sense to STR than CON, though I'd limit it to -1 to show that they are just that but more limited in physical strength than humans and dwarves. I'd give elves a penaty not on CHA as such but on NPC Reactions when meeting non-elves, because elves tend to come off as rather arrogant or at least superior to other humanoid species (I prefer that term to 'race'). In general, I think a CHA penalty applies only to orcs and half-orcs. Dwarves are not uncharismatic, but they may appear so to non-dwarves because of their gruff nature. I'd replace a lot of those CHA penalties with disfavorable NPC reaction modifiers that reinforce the strained relationships between the various humanoid species. Sure that dwarf may seem less charismatic, but only to a human or elf, not to another dwarf, so why should he be penalized on a general level? Limit his beginning CHA to 16 or so if you must, sure, but don't give him a penalty. Sorry, I'm probably not much help here. I've long since given up on making sense of D&D rules, and 3e and now 4e have scarcely made it better...

Nonsense. Buying and paying for games and music gives you the right to consume it privately. If I knew how, I could crack the heck out of every movie, game or cd I ever bought without breaking any rules as long as I don't give copies to other people or share it over the internet. And buying two copies to avoid tear and wear is ludicrous. While I'm sure the companies (and gaming companies are scarcely the worst there) would love that, they would do so only by letting their own money-loving tendency rear its ugly head. For example, if I buy a cd, I can rip the music down to my harddrive because that's how I prefer to listen to it. How are games any different? The customer is ALWAYS right! (Note: A pirate didn't pay and so is not a customer)

I am skeptical as to how much money PC game development really makes, especially since PC Exclusive titles seem less common, and many development houses that once supported PC games no longer do. Obviously it is preferable to release a game over several platforms, because while you need to program the game for each, you only need to design characters and backgrounds, write music, record voiceacting and develop the plot once. PC Gaming does not make more money than the movies do, you're talking about the videogame industry in general, which everybody knows the bulk of the revenue today comes from the console game companies. The Crysis developers aren't saying that the piracy of video games is why they made their decision, but the piracy of PC games. As an avid PC gamer that does not feel like PC gaming is going to die, I do feel that PC gaming is on the decline. I never said pc gaming specifically, so kindly do not try to infer that I did. I consistently spoke of the gaming industry, because the history of comptuer gaming goes back way before the pc was a viable platform for computer games. The pc didn't have much piracy in the mid 80s, but the C64 did. After that it was mainly Amiga and Atari ST. And in each case, there were these talks of how piracy would destroy the basis for the new games being produced. But it never happened, and they grew into their own industry instead. Obviously piracy is potentially detrimental to computer games, and while I don't believe the claim that a copied game equals a lost sale by definition, the counterargument is equally unconvincing. Piracy is not a good thing for the industry. And piracy does occur on the consoles too. I'm less certain if it's as widespread as it is on the pc, but I fairly certain that it will be, if games really are produced less for the pc. Bad as it may seem, piracy is just a fact of life in the gaming industry, and it always will be. The idea that consoles are impervious to piracy is ludicrous. The idea that registration over the internet will solve everything is equally self-delusional, because the hackers/crackers/pirates/whatever they are called today always find a way around it. But it does not mean the end of gaming. And franky I doubt pc piracy is the primary reason for the success of consoles. For one thing, buying a console is a lot cheaper than buying a pc. But the games are more expensive, and they are easier to program, because the developers don't have to consider programming that is compatible for multiple soundcards, graphics-chips, and CPU-speed into account, since the specs on various consoles are virtually identical respectively. And since prices tend to be higher, they make more money too. After all, the developers and publishers don't have to worry about Sony selling the PS3 with a loss. It's not their problem. Customers tend to overlook that they pay a little more for games on the consoles. Besides, MS and Sony may even pay devs to release titles exclusively for their system to promote it. No such thing on the pc. And exclusivity can be a great benefit to a console, where games is the only selling point. I'm still miffed that I must buy a PS2 to try the 24 game, for example (not that I'm getting one just to play one game). And if consoles is where the devs see more money, then that's where they will go. It's really quite that simple. In short, pc games sell at a lower price than console games, and so makes less money for the publishers and developers. And sometimes the manufacturers of the consoles will pay publishers and developers to release games for their consoles, making them even more money. Taking that into account, where would you publish your games?

Not really. I sort of like him too. If he was less preachy and less naive, he'd be a nice enough guy to have on the team. True. This is exactly why I prefer Visas over Brianna as a love interest for the male exile. The problem is that given Mical's feelings for the exile, he is scarcely in a position to make an objective decision on the matter. In fact, he was so much in love with female exile that he would have no one else train him. That being the case, he has no choice but to disagree with the jedi code on this matter when he consider that he did want to be a jedi. Yet he is a lovestruck little puppydog when he wants it. His only redeeming characteristic in that regard is that he at least does not preach the jedi ban on relationships at the same. Somehow that doesn't quite justify it for me, since he seems unaware of just how much he violates that part of the code himself. Mical is a very immature person in this regard and should be about the last person to be trained as a jedi until he comes to terms with his feelings for the female exile. The problem is that while you've quoted Mical correctly here, you've left out the very part that does make him look creepy, unstable and immature. Mical: "And I knew that if I were to have a Master, I would want it to be you. And then you went to war. Many Jedi went to war, and the Jedi Masters proclaimed that you were Jedi no longer. Atris, the mistress of the archives, was first among them. I knew at that moment, that if you would no longer be a Jedi, then you must be correct. I realized I did not want to be a Jedi - instead, I wished to follow your path. And in any event, there was no one to train me, even if I wished it. They all went to war, as I grew past the age of acceptance.It is possible to forget the Force, you know - if you not have felt it strongly enough, then there is little to miss. But I never felt the Force as strongly as I did when I was with you.And so I decided to serve the Republic, study the Jedi teachings, gather them, perhaps. It was important to me to understand the Jedi now that they were gone.I felt some part of you should be preserved, so that your lessons would not be lost." Whoa, down boy - that's way, WAY over the top!!

1. HPs are not realistic. Not because having a measure of damage represented in points is silly as such, but as you correctly points out because the way it scales in D&D is ludicrous. One of the better ways to represent damage that I've seen is, I believe, in Twilight 200, where you get a number of points for each body part based on your health/constitution value. Some would argue that having body parts be virtually separate is illogical, but actually it is not unreasonable to assume a person is able to run quite well, just because his arm is greatly injured. The real problem in D&D is how HPs grow over the course of the game. This means a normal man can have 8 or less HPs, but a great warrior can have well over 100. The rationale is that the warrior is battlehardened and so can resist more damage, but once you begin throwing fireballs or the thief's backstab into the mix, the logic soon falls apart. I mean, why would the warrior better resist the assassin's knife in the back than the common man? The assumption is that the assassin goes unnoticed, or it would not be a backstab - that's why a backstab does multiple damage. However, at high levels and full health, the warrior can ignore the assassin's knife, because there is no way the backstab damage can add up to enough damage to kill him. It's sort of like, "Yeah, so he stabbed me in the back through my heart, so what? How much damage did I take?". Same goes for arrows shot to vital parts of the body - why are those fatal to a common man, but not to high-leveled warrior? Being shot by an arrow that pierces your body is actually very dangerous. Boromir should have played D&D - then he never would have been killed by a few measely arrows... But HPs are an arbitration used for the sake of making the game easier to play. It does that, but only at the cost of logic and credibility to the game's basics, which does not serve to suspend disbelief, in which case I've always thought the costs outweigh the benefits. 2. It's the same rationale behind AC - it's simple can convenient to use in the game, but it makes no sense. Fallout has a much better system close to the GURPS system, where armor absorbs damage, but sometimes actually make the person wearing it easier to hit. You don't wear armor to avoid being hit. If that were the case, then no armor would be best of all. No, you wear armor because then it takes the damage instead of your body. In GURPS, armor provides a Damage Resistance (DR) depending on type measured by a value. When you're hit or struck on the part of the body that the armor covers, you subtract the DR from the damage inflicted, and the rest goes through as damage to the body. It's a far more elegant and realistic approach to the use of armor, which is not really that much more complicated to use. 3. Races are difficult to judge, since they are by their very nature unreaslistic, given that we don't have elves and dwarves or vulcans and klingons or whatever in the real world. Some games, like D&D, handle it by letting you generate stats and then force modifiers to various stats on that. The problem is that if you roll fairly average stats, that still makes all the resulting characters very, very similar - your dwarf is not going to have the fabled resilence of the dwarves if he rolls a Constitution of 12, nor is the elf going to have elven grace if the player a Dexterity of 11. I prefer the approach of some games, where all the initial stats are fixed but different depending on race and can then be modified from there during character generation. But that also speaks to a personal preference regarding something I don't like in D&D, which is how you have to generate stats at random for your character. I hate that. I shouldn't get to play an average character just because of some bloody dice rolls. Dice rolls are fine, but I don't want to roll any until I've actually begun playing the game - I want none during character generation. I'll take GURPS' approach any day, where all stats begin at 10, and then you can modify them up or down to your heart's (and character points') content until you like the emerging character. I used to think about making D&D more realistic, but frankly with 3.X and now 4.0 on the horizon, I've long since given up - D&D is now munchkin fanboy RPGs. It has nothing to do with any semblance of a roleplaying game that even approaches a realistically convincing approach to role-playing, and it never will.

I believe the word you're looking for is "sexist". Go on, you can say it. Because you're right that I (being male) would be accused of being sexist if I were to suggest that jedi guardian fits best with a male character.

Why?

so you thought that I was just throwing some random crap on your comments. That's awesome. I wonder if Jediphile has noticed I added it to his, too. He seemed to be the only one that got my joke. Of course I noticed. But don't get me started on the Pythons. Seriously! Once I begin, there is no way of stopping it! It's like an overdose luring me to the dark side... must... resist... BLASPHEMY!! *throws rocks* "Stop it! Who threw that? Nobody throw anything at anybody until I blow this whistle... even if they do say Jehova"

But tha'ts just the point - I can choose to not take those options, but it means ONLY that there are parts of the game I don't get to see. There is NO other impact, good or bad. Conversely, if I choose to pursue those options, I get NO negative impact or actually positive (as with Bastila in K1), so there is no downside to defying the jedi code, which is a cop-out. Don't get me wrong - the jedi code is stupid in this regard. I don't blame people for choosing against it. But it speaks ill of the jedi council that their code dictates this, when seems to solve nothing, and given how wise the masters are supposed to be, it means that the credibilty of the plot suffers as a result. Presumably the ban on relationships is there to protect the jedi from being swept away by their feelings. As such I understand that, but all the evidence in Star Wars speaks to the contrary. You could mention Anakin, but I never bought that - Anakin always wanted power, and in that regard his love for Padme and need to save her from some uncertain possibly harmful future just became a convenient excuse for him to delude himself into thinking he chose the dark side for some greater good. Jolee's story of his wife is far more to the point in K1, but it's just one he tells in one conversation in the game and not one we experience.

No-one knows what the eyes look like - it could not be as bad as everyone makes them out to be. Ah, but that picture is Visas before she is captured by Nihilus. After he is done with her, so looks like this... Presumably Nihilus either removed her eyes or it was a consequence of him forcing her to "see the galaxy." This is why Kreia was to say to her towards the end of the game, when the companions confront her without the exile at the Trayus Core: "And you, blind one, you have hungered to strike me down ever since you saw the bond the exile and I share.Can you feel the Force running through me, even past the veil, past your bloodied eyes? You know you cannot win." But it was cut from the game, of course. (You can see Visas' response to that at the bottom of my sig.)

Lol no. It's called an excuse. They can make up any number of those to justify their game not living up to their sales expectations, but that doesn't make them true. Yours is living in denial. You can state that people that pirate wouldn't buy the game anyways, but that doesn't make it true. Nor does claiming that a pirated copy of a game equals a lost sale make it so. There simply is no clear evidence either way, and it's pretty convenient to blame piracy for your game (or movie, novel or music) not selling so well. Because there will always be piracy, and so it can always be blamed. But despite how much piracy allegedly harms those industries, they still make money. This is even more relevant in computer games, which has always dealt with piracy. Since the days of the very first computer games, I've heard this "oh the pirates copy our games - the sky is fallng!!" sort of arguments, but despite the purported impending doom of computer games, they still evolved into an industry onto its own and a business so successful, it now makes more money than movies do. So succesful that no movie wants to open on the release date of GTA4, because they fear losing to people being at home playing... Doesn't sound like the industry is quite that threatened.