Jediphile

I liked GOTO. He was useless as a partymember, sure, but I liked him as a character. I liked the voice-acting too, since the cold rage of his calculative personality comes across so well - excellent voice-acting by Daran Norris. And I liked the winks to HAL 9000 as well - I didn't expect to see that in Star Wars.

It's never been explained. It been suggested it was just thought up by the First WatchCircle as an excuse to knight Zayne, but I think Vandar mentions it in one issue as well, so I'll rule that out. Other speculation goes that Zayne has some sort of luck/unluck-ability that gets him into silly situations, but always arranges things so that he comes out of them somehow. Not sure about that, except it does explain some his miraculous escapes and near-deaths on several occasions. That's entirely speculative, though. They'll tell us some day.

Well, as has been speculated in the past, LA will probably be tightlipped about any upcoming KotOR game (whatever its form) until after Force Unleashed is, well, unleashed, since they know people get excited about KotOR, which could then steal the thunder. At least that's one possibility. So why did Riccitiello say anything about a KotOR MMO at all? Well, he's not LA, and EA/Bioware is not involved in TU - it's completely LA's own baby, so Riccitiello and EA/Bioware don't need to care about that. Well, Bioware might on account of their collaboration with LA, but not EA.

Actually, I think your position in the demagogical one, because if opinion (and note opinion, unlike fact) is not decided by the majority, then just whose critical opinion is worthwhile? Who has a sufficiently "valid and experienced" perspective to state the "correct" opinion? And if someone did, isn't that elitist? Of course, you could then make the argument that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is elitist when handing out oscars, or the Peabody Board when awarding a Peabody, but the difference is that giving out an award is not "right or wrong" - it's just the opinion of a select group of people that anyone is free to disagree with. If someone says "they gave the oscar to the wrong guy - he was robbed", it's not a statement that the Academy was factually wrong, but merely that the person saying it disagrees with their opinion. Don't get me wrong, I'm not about to suggest oscars should be given by popular vote. For one thing, the individual vote would probably mean little just on the simple basis that the average person would be unlikely to have seen all the nominated films. But that does mean that this person is wrong if he thinks the Academy awards the Oscar to the wrong guy. His opinion is still valid, because you'd assume he had at least seen the performance he thinks deserves an award. The weak point in that is the jump you make between the concepts of "superiority" and "good and bad". "Good and bad" are very vague and circumstantial concepts, and therefore are not used when defining standards. "Superiority", however, is a fairly easy attribute to assess when comparing two similar elements. Well, if you insist on arguing definitions, "superior" means (1) "higher in station, rank, degree, importance, etc." or (2) "above the average in excellence, merit, intelligence" while "good" means (1) "morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious", (2) "satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree" or (3) "of high quality; excellent" . Heck, if you look under the American Heritage Dictionary heading, then definition under (e) even describes "good" as "superior to the average", so I would take "superior" as almost synonymous with "good" except to a greater degree. Doesn't "superior" virtually mean "very good" or "highly good" or similar? I thought I had already made it clear we are not discussing your personal tastes? Or are you utterly unable to put those aside and make an objective evaluation of the elements of the game? I already said I HATE The Sims. But that's irrelevant when discussing the game's premises and how those are realized. If I didn't know better, I'd say you're trying to sidestep the issue with an ad hominem argument, since I believe it obvious that I was not using "I" to indicate a particular preference on my own part as much as to point to that of another person. Unfortunately, I actually don't know any better, so I shall refrain from use "I" in those statements from now on. My sincerest apologies: "And if the Sims don't appeal to someone, then it doesn't, in which case said person is not likely to consider it a classic even if he or she accepts that was a hit among some people. It really is that simple." Is that what you think passes for reasoned explanation? You'd make a great teacher, for sure. It does establish a connection... and your sarcasm is noted.

Not only are you not quite addressing my point, you are also relying increasingly on semantic minutiae to build your arguments - you are effectively grasping at straws. First, I'm under no obligation to address the points you may choose to, and secondly I feel completely justified in arguing in ways that I think are appropriate whether you approve of said arguments or not. And while you say I grasp at straws, I note that you do so rather than offer a counter-argument of your own Incorrect. There is no inherent requirement to put "I think" before or after such a statement in order to indicate opinion, since it obviously so from the context. If someone says that MMOs suck, then that is not a statement of fact requiring disagreement from other people, but just an opinion, because whether something sucks or rocks is always down to personal taste. A person might stray far from the consensus opinion if he or she claims Rembrant was a crap artist, but that does not make the opinion "wrong" by default. Fewer people saw Battlestar Galactica in its third season, yet it won a Peabody award for that season. Does that mean the Peabody Board is elitist and "wrong" because their opinion of the show differs from the majority of viewers? That would seem to me to be logical consequence of what you suggest, assuming I understand you correctly. Given that empirical aspects are by definition based on experience rather than fact, that does not support your idea that of right or wrong, because that comes down to the experience of the individual which may therefore difffer. Again, That "grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty" is fairly important, because it's the difference between valid, perhaps even very certain assumption and fact. Opinion are never factual, and thus there can be no way to "prove" them correct. But it also follows from that, then, that they can neither be "proven" wrong, because if they could, then would be misconceptions, delusions, lies or similar rather than opinions. No, for the above reasons. Scientic theories are opinions only until they are confirmed or denied, and then they become either factual, if correct, or a disproven theory, if incorrect. After a conclusion is reached they obviously are no longer theories or opinions. The trouble is that it can take such a long time to be proven that most people have pretty much accepted then as fact by then, and even after they are proven, there are still people who will deny it and refuse to accept the proof. That's why the Galileo example is appropriate, because, well, is it even ten years since the Vatican accepted that Galileo's observation that the earth moved around the sun might be correct? Maybe it's more than ten years, but not by much IIRC. (continued)

Evidently. Luckily I only had to endure seeing it once on DVD due to a friend's insistence that I watch it with her, and, yes, the movie was even worse than I had expected. The best part of the movie was the sinking, I was cheering the iceberg towards the end of the film, although that was not as redeeming to the film as I had hoped it would be. I, too was cheering the iceberg. It wasn't just the fact that Sprout Face was bad, but that everyone on the boat had been made out to be an a-hole. I wanted everyone concerned out of their misery. I was particularly confused by my supposedly cheering on the watery tart who cheats on her brand new husband. I was cheering the iceberg too. Mostly because it meant the abominable thing was over. Titanic< K3 MMO, and that's saying something. Well, I don't find Titanic quite THAT bad, though I do think it's massively overrated. I mean, 11 Oscars?!? Really?!? But it is true that you go through almost two hours of agonizing and painfully sentimental melodrama, and the only reason you can endure it is because you know the iceberg is waiting ahead. When you're waiting for an iceberg to hit as something positive, you know something is wrong... I mean, that's a pretty big giveaway, isn't it? Sadly I don't think enough people realized that. I mean, it's best selling film of all time - go figure. Yes, I saw it in the theatre too, but only once. It was a decent flick as those things go (despite Sprout Face), but that was about it.

Relax. First of all, TG has consistently said that the bug count is not a countdown to release. Second, take a look at those new errors. Two of the are text issues in the dialog.tlk. Heck, anyone here able to use Notepad to open the file (= anyone) could probably fix that. The minor one is a detail ("Kreia shouldn't be there anymore"), which is incorrect, but does not hinder the game. The new trivial bug is similarly, well, trivial. Only one issue is significant, and has apparently happened to only one player. Frankly, I find it encouraging that the testers are putting the mod through a microscope, and yet it is these sorts of things they find.

i should add that this is why i think it would be nice to hear about the NUMBER OF TICKETS sold, not just the dollar value of tickets sold. the production companies don't want this, however, because it will point out declining sales more readily. taks To get a perspective on popularity, you could look at the list for all time grosses adjusted for inflation. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm Then again, that list is domestic (US only), and obviously other factors can then be considered just as valid, such as ticket price vs. salery (how often can someone afford to go to the cinema?) or the number of theatres showing a particular film during its opening weekend.

It also took less home in its opening weekend than The Dark Knight did in its third (40,6 million vs. TDK's 42,7 million)...

Erm. You DO realise that Titanic had a budget of 200 million dollars (vs. Dark Knight's "mere" 185 million dollars) and was renowned as the most ludicrously expensive film ever, requiring funding from both Paramount AND Fox, and whispered to possibly bring both companies down, right?

Yes. And: "How about a magic trick - I'm gonna make this pencil disappear..." Nasty! And the movie is doing well - in the seventeen day's total, it's smashing even Titanic: $394,887,000 vs. $157,467,971 for Cameron's shipwreck. Holy iceberg, Batman! http://www.boxofficemojo.com/

Thats what I happen to believe, considering Palpatine had to clone himself in order to not have the Dark Side completely annihilate his body and that be the end of him. Lol. Whether that was the reason for the cloning is still uncertain. ROTS sees him disfigured due to the fight with Windu. It's true that he says in Dark Empire that his body does not well sustain his power in the dark side. It's also stated that he has died many times before, but I believe that was later retconned, so that he had never "died" before ROTJ. That would make sense, though, if we assume he used the technology of Kaminoans, who needed decades to clone Jango Fett.

Riccitiello himself corrected it the first time, and given that he has done so before does not help his credibility, nor does the lack of confirmation from Lucasarts or even Bioware or for that matter the fact that portfolio.com was the only source for a story that would seem to be of great interest to the business in general (other media merely referenced it from portfolio.com).

Not so far. As Xard mentions, EA's CEO John Riccitiello apparently said to a reporter or blogger during E3 that Bioware was working on a KotOR MMO for Lucasarts. http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/the-t...he-old-republic Funny thing is that this was a total scoop for that single reporter. It was reported elsewhere, but always pointing back to this one story as the source with no confirmation, word or even a press release from LA or Bioware, not even now weeks later, which seems a bit suspicious to me. Especially since LA said in febuary that they were working on something with Bioware, only it was not KotOR (see my sig).

They're nice, but they're just window-dressing. If we cared all that much about that stuff, we'd all be playing MMOs for the cool gadgets instead of sitting around here hoping for KotOR3. Liking KotOR means liking plot and character depth. Honestly, I really don't care that much about the buff crystals in my lightsaber. They're nice, sure, but I can't even be bothered to use KSE to try them all out. But I love it when Kreia says, "It is such a quiet thing to fall. But far more terrible is to admit it." Just thinking about it almost makes me shiver. All that stats are is just icing on the cake. But if you take the cake away, what remains will make you sick.

Yes. But remember that the bug count is not a countdown to a release. Besides, "feature"-bugs are not counted, and there are 11 of those left.

Agreed. Especially with regards to point 1, because if people want to pirate games, then they will - they'll simply hack the game, remove the DRM and then spread it. It's that simple. It may not be fair or legal, but it's what happens. And as more companies install DRM, the number of people tempted to put their hands on pirated games is only likely to increase. So why do the companies use DRM anyway? Well, for one thing, they want to protect their property. But what I really don't understand is how they can embrace DRM simply on the basis that it is said to work... by the company selling you DRM. Ahem, does the term "conflict of interest" mean anything to you, Bioware? Of course companies like SecuROM will say DRM works. But they make their money from selling DRM, so they're scarcely an objective source in any case.

Heh. Turns out the writers of the KotOR comic book apparently didn't like "Squinquargesimus" as a surname for Alek (Malak) either and decided to drop it. As I've mentioned before, the surname was chosen by the Jedi vs. Sith: The Essential Guide to the Force book, not by the comic book series, which seems to refuse to even use it In issue 31 of the comic book, Alek has to go to Coruscant incognito and uses the alias "Captain Malak" to secretly meet with jedi masters Vrook and Vandar. Vrook upon seeing him calls him "young Squin... Squar... whatever your name is!" Alek/Malak replies: "It was always just Alek. We didn't have surnames on Quelii, only names of our home village. That's what wound up on the immigration records after we escaped." In short: Malak/Alek is from the Qeulli, where they don't use surnames. Since he is from a village called Squinquargesimus, the Republic noted that as his surname when he left the planet and joined the jedi order. Apparently fellow jedi nicknamed him "Squint" for the same reason. But while he was known officially as Squinquargesimus in the Republic's records, it was never truly his name. Also of interest is that issue 31 is the first time he uses the name Malak, and he appears with this large, broad "lines" on his bald head, meaning he now looks exactly like we saw him in the flashback scenes of the KotOR games (particularly the first) and uses the name Malak too. EDIT: Is it just me or are there a lot of KotOR1 characters in the comic books series by now? In issue 31 I note: Carth Onasi, Malak, Vrook Lamar, Vandar Tokare, and Saul Karath.

Wasn't the entire run of both the Young Jedi Knights and the Junior Jedi Knights about that?

try Reven - he could have destroyed the republic, but he was doing it... how does Kriea say it? to mask another war? the war with the true sith. but he did not think he was doing right, he knew he had to do it to save the republic. Given that Revan did fall the dark side and waged war on the Republic, he's not the best example, I think. And for one thing, Kreia is stating her opinion of what happened. She need not be wrong for that reason, but she is biased and her position subjective... and she is quite proud of having taught Revan, isn't she? Besides, while Revan may have returned to the LS (canonically), there is little so suggest he did so out of choice. "Suffice to say redemption was not Revan's choice, and I have never believed those of the Council who attempt to console themselves otherwise for the crime they committed," as Zez-Kai Ell puts it. A similar example would be Atris, who thought that she did good by sacrificing others in an attempt to expose the sith so they could be stopped. But instead she was corrupted herself. A better example is Luke Skywalker in the Dark Empire comic books. He needs to embrace the dark side to get close enough to the Emperor to destroy his cloning factility. He is redeemed, but he too wouldn't have made it back without the intervention of his sister.

Meh. First of all, the very black and white aspect of Star Wars is one of its strengths. Yes, it may seem overly simplified and forced, and it even is IMHO, but it's still the charm of the plots and the setting. As for what the Force really is, I honestly don't think we should know, because it would ruin the mystery - never did Lucas harm Star Wars as much as when he introduced midi-chlorians, because it takes away from the mystery of the force, and that's a bit sad, just as it would be a bit sad to uncover the truth of the Loch Ness monster or the Bermuda Triangle, and just as Nihilus would be a lot less scarier and interesting if we knew all about his backstory in TSL. Or to quote Stephen King in a recent article: "... nightmares exist outside of logic, and there's little fun to be had in explanations; they're antithetical to the poetry of fear." We need that scary stuff, because if you explain the force, then you unmask the dark side. And we need to keep the dark side as something we're supposed to fear.

Team Gizka rules - they're finishing TSL for us for free Nuff said

True. It's not very much X-Files, But frankly, given how this movie has been received, I'm now very skeptical that we'll ever to see the alleged invasion of 2012, which Carter has mentioned plans for doing - http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2008/04/chris-carter-wa.html

I liked it, but it has a few problems. For one, it has lots of Mulder and Scully, but very little X-Files. It's not particularly scary, and there is very little supernatural about it. But it's a pretty good crime-thriller. But I acknowledge that I'm obviously pretty alone with that opinion. 10.2 milllion in the opening weekend? Ouch! First no KotOR3 and not it looks like no X-Files 3 movie either...

Can't we do that with KSE already? I forget...