Jediphile

no, it isn't. think about it: there was no predecessor to K1. Ever see a Star Wars real-time cRPG before it? I'd think, if i were LA, that if i was going to publish that game, that it would have to be teh super sveetness before it was released, else it would be a total failure (money, effort, idea). So we wait a while after K1 and everyone wants a sequel... NOW! so there is obviously more of a rush. nobody really knew what to expect with K1, heck, i didn't pick it up until a full year after it was released. because of that, with K2 there were great expectations, and a compressed time limit; there were fans whining uncontrollably. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Agreed. And lest we forget - Bioware cut an entire planet from K1 as well...

Think 'realistic', the Star Forge 'had' enough power, and a connection to the Force to create lot of things..I think if Revan would had the blueprints of the Death Star, also an armada of them <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Be that as it may, a fleet of republic ships more than thousand years older than the Death Star was still able to destroy the Star Forge. So that's where my vote goes - the Death Star would just blow the Star Forge away, while Vader smugly comments to Malak that he shouldn't be "too proud of this technological terror..."

The T3 vs. HK scene made lots of sense to me, but it require that you pay close attention to some points earlier in the game. Everybody knows that the Ebon Hawk's navicomputer is locked, but many seem to think that Kreia locked it, simply because she implies early on that she has the means to reprogram it. In fact, it was T3 who locked the computer, which you pretty much learn, if you build influence enough with him to get the Bastila (or Carth) hologram. In the LS Revan version, Carth actually confirms this when you finally meet him later, since he says that wherever Revan is now, the Hawk has been there. But it's clear that Kreia never went with Revan to the unknown regions.

The basis for most (if not all) RPGs is that you can try to do anything you can think of. This is even more relevant in a game like D&D, where there is magic and other supernatural phenomena. In that case it's more of a problem than a solution that you have to relearn or rather unlearn the laws of physics of real life before you can enter the "reality" of the game itself. That does not enhance the experience. What's wrong with actually letting the player decide what he wants to do with all those "presumed" attacks? You could make the same argument for 2e, of course, except that 2e, 1e and OD&D all stay very close to the core of the original edition of the game going back all the way to the early 70s, and so they all contain some of those concepts. 3e does not, however, since it's a complete rewrite - not a revision - of the core itself. That being the case, why does the game still hang onto antequated concepts that have long since been abandoned by far better RPG systems? No, that's a premise I don't agree with. If anything, it's much easier to hit with a dagger, where you mere have to jump forward stabbing your weapon - it's very difficult to avoid, whereas swinging a greatsword is a comparatively lengthy process, which you can avoid, if you see the swing coming. As the 2e PHB puts it, try swinging a chair to see what speed factors are all about - far too many people think that swinging a sword is very quick, but if they actually tried to do, they'd realise that large swords are actually very heavy and therefore slow weapons. Skill helps a lot, of course, but that distinction is lost to D&D. Ask any live role-player who ever used a large sword, if you don't believe. Though I don't play live-RPG, I happen to know a few who do, and they agree with me on this point. You're still avoiding the question of speed and timing. Yes, you might have greater reach with your longsword/greatsword, but a quick character can certainly stop close at the right moment and stab you before you can swing your sword at him. This is especially true in a large combat situation, where you have other enemies to consider, and which therefore allows the guy with the dagger to time his approach, while you're busy with another enemy.

Because a Jedi is not some merc or bounty hunter who doesn't have any discipline. A Jedi is discipline personified. Civilians can play around with dual-vibroblades all they like, but a Jedi wouldn't even pick one up unless he/she could achieve a level of mastery over it that an uncivilized brute of a Mandalorian couldn't even imagine. Pick up a copy of Miyomoto Musashi's "Book of Five Rings," and you'll understand what I'm getting at. Plus, it's canon for the EU. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightsaber_combat Dual-saber wielding is an advanced form of combat. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Be that as it may, canon already has non-jedi master characters who wield two lightsabers. Ventress did it in the Clone Wars cartoons, and she wasn't even a real sith. Luke did it during a confrontation with Lumiya a few years after ROTJ, which was well before he could be called a master. Oh, and Anakin did it as a padawan in Episode II...

Eeew! That's horrible! I hate spiders - disgusting vermin!

My position is that any rule in any RPG that does not serve to suspend disbelief is a problem. Of course D&D is not supposed to be realistic, but that doesn't mean we should accept rules that are just examples of basic stupidity. I mean, even by 2e rules, a warrior can never take more than 60 hp (and that's exceedingly unlikely on 6d10) from any fall, which is a preposterous rule if the warrior is falling off a mountain wearing full plate onto pointed rocks. 3e also continues to support the idiotic notion that a high-level warrior can ignore any thief sneaking up on him, because there is no way the thief can do enough damage to kill him outright. That's actually worse in 3e, because you no longer stop to roll for hit points at high levels, and the hp-ratio between a normal man and a 20th level warrior is therefore even more unrealistic. Does it serve to enhance good role-playing that the warrior cannot be killed even if the thief puts a knife right in his heart? Whatever the answer is to that has little to do with whether the rules are "realistic" or not. You're right - it doesn't. Which is why there is the "casting on the defensive" option, where it's assumed that you're trying to wave your hands faster than your enemy can react. Because you're waving hands so fast, you have to make a concentration check to do it right and not miscast. There you have it - nearly any rule can be easily justified. But there's no reason to do that, really. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 2e casting times were pretty fixed, no matter what the situation. I always assumed it was the same in 3e, except now now actions have no timing any more. A knife should be a faster weapon than a two-handed sword in 3e, but it isn't - the weapon is simply a non-factor. I do, actually. I don't mind the idea that you get to roll a check to see if you can focus on the spell to cast in anyway, but concentration should definitely be impaired when someone is whipping you with the sharp end of his sword. In 2e it was impaired even if you were protected by a Stoneskin spell, which is still logical and appropriate - how can you cast a spell requiring somatic components while a giant is jumping on you? Yet in 3e, this should still be possible somehow... " The worst part is that the wizard is even more out of balance in 3e than the 2e. In earlier editions of D&D, then wizard was weak at low levels, but gained great power later. But even at the high levels, you could get to him, if you could get close and hit him. Not so in 3e - now the life of the "mageling" is basically forfeit once enemies are close because he has no skill in combat, but neither can he cast spells to defend himself, and he probably doesn't have the spells to protect himself with anyway - he might just as well simply lie down and die. But the 3e archmage is insanely powerful - he likely has a gazillion spells protecting him, and even if the enemies get close, he can probably concentrate through severe physical pain. So much for game balance... not to mention game design.

2e may not have a unified mechanic, but then so what? It's not as if rolling 1d100 rather than 1d20 for the thieving skills amounts to rocket science. The mechanics may have been spread over all sorts of mechanics, but those mechanics were actually rather intuitive and self-explanatory - they required very little or no explanation to grasp. Not so in 3e. So the fact that 3e has a unified mechanic is not a positive issue in itself to me. On the contrary, I find that the system is frequently bent all out of shape just for the sake of catering to the mechanic. For example, all the skill increases per class seem to have no logic to them at all - why do barbarians and rangers gain more skill points per level than cleric and wizards when the latter are supposed to be the scholars who learn all the academic skills? Because they are "supposed" to have higher Intelligence and so "supposed" to end up with a higher number of skill points per level that the ranger or barbarian in spite of getting less by default. That's an illogical rule bent out of shape for the purpose of game balance, and it's not very pretty game design. The same thing is true for many of the class/cross-class skill decisions. Why isn't Swim a class skill for clerics, for example? After all, the cleric could be a priest of the god of the sea, and so swimming would be relevant. Just attempts at weird game balance, I guess, but there is no explanation, and unlike 2e it's actually really costly to choose to "wrong" skills for your character. That's not freedom in character creation. Well, "free attacks" were in 2e as well. And 1e had several flaws IMO. I mean, will you truly claim that the assassin's kill-table didn't steal from role-playing? The bard was also a very strange creature in 1e, though the ranger was definitely much more interesting than in both 2e and 3e. And 2e is definitely far closer to 1e than 3e is to 2e. 2e had a "grandfather clause" to cater to 1e fans. The systems were also fairly close, since 2e was certainly a revision of 1e. 3e is not a revision of 2e - it's a different game. Still not logical. You're missing the point of timed actions - yes, I'm open to attack if I drop my guard, but it does not automatically follow from that that my enemy will be able to use it before I act. This is particularly true for spellcasting, where 3e would have us believe that reacting to a dropped guard and swinging a sword is automatically faster than any wave of a wizard's hand. It's just bad logic applied broadly, clumsily and ugly.

There is a list in the article. Not that I disagree , but the law is the law until it's changed. It's not really a double standard because there is no law saying you cant draw Mohamad. But there is a law that says you can't deny the halocaust (in those listed countries). Given his apparent contrition 3 years is ridiculous even if you took the law seriously. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Even so, I do tend to agree a bit with Volourn. That Irving is criticised for claiming there was no holocaust is not a problem as such. As a historian, he is considered an authority on the matter to some degree, and when he then questions a historical fact, he is essentially lying about what truly happened. What's not okay, however, is that he has since admitted that he was mistaken, and yet they will not allow him to take back his statements. That's not so cool. I might think that he changed his position mainly to avoid a harsh outcome of the trial, but factual mistakes are made all the time, and if it is deemed acceptable for some to take back their statements, then it is inexcusable that they will not allow Irving to. That makes it look like he was to made an example of, and that the outcome of the trial was therefore motivated by politics instead of judicial considerations. And that is inexcusable. Politics should have no place in the court room. Judges should not be politicians, or else the division of power is threatened.

I think the True Sith would be those that are the species known as Sith (IIRC, Ludo Kressh, Naga Sadow, et. al.) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm not so sure the Sith species any longer exists at this point. It seems to have pretty much ceased to exist by the time of the Hyperspace Wars a thousand years before KotOR1. They are partially Sith, though, since the dark jedi interbred for centuries with the original Sith species. Naga Sadow is a special case, though, since he is said to have "true jedi blood", whatever that means. He still doesn't look quite human, though more so than Ludo Kressh.

From Wikipedia: I know we should not trust Wikipedia as a reliable source of information, but is there any truth to this? It would explain the remote's hologram of Bao-Dur towards the end of the game.

Definitely light side. I only play dark side to see the alternate chain of events and movies, and I feel like a creep when I do. Hence I've only ever played DS once for each KotOR game. People who like DS will almost certainly disagree with me on this, but I always feel that the appeal of being evil in games like this is because our society has advanced to a point where morality is almost guaranteed by law, so that you really can't do nasty things. That's a good thing, but it does leave vacuum or lack of choice that people then fill with "make believe" evil in games like these. You can also feel a strange sense of freedom in that, since you're able to truly horrendous acts. But I think it's usually because people don't have a lot of imagination as to how nasty evil themes can really be. I don't need that myself, and so I don't enjoy playing evil. I always think of Shakespeare's Macbeth or, more relevant, Richard III, when it comes to assuming an evil role. Somehow being an evil manipulator who suspects everything and treats everybody as a means for more power only is just too easy. If I use my skills and abilities only toward selfish ends, then I can never trust anybody, and so I'm doomed to be either alone or else to be betrayed. And I can never feel safe, because everybody is looking to bring me down... :ph34r:

My favorite comment

I'm still trying to cope with the fact that they made Apollo commander of the Pegasus. That was a surprise to say the least

You refer to the comment about not wanting to read plot suggestions? Actually I don't pay that any attention. If people want to post plot suggestions then they will and should. Besides, many of us have posted them in the past, only we didn't exactly want the same things in the game. Oh well... I don't discuss it anymore, because I sort of regret that I posted my own ideas. Not that I mind other people reading it, but now I'm thinking I'll be disappointed when K3 does come out and it's not what I expected. I would have been better off not thinking about it and instead just accepted the surprise of the next game's plot...

In that case I prefer N to any of the alternatives.

Well, in a sense, yes it is. Unfortunately its creator is deadly serious. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Unfortunately he is. I mean, I can read his comic and laugh hard, but it really scares the wits out of me that there people out there who truly believe garbage like this. Don't forget, we're all gamers here, so we're probably "misled by the word of Satan" already. I'm a role-player and GM of more than a decade (no comparisons to the goth DM of the comics, please ), so my soul is probably oh-so black and sordid, and I probably lead innocent players away from the Lord Jesus and to their eternal doom before I meet with the other GMs and drink blood and hold virgin sacrifices or whatever... (Do these people even realise how rare real virgins are?) Yes, Jack Chick is dead serious. But for another humorous take, someone subjected the entire comic to a Mystery Science Theatre 3000 approach on Planet AD&D. Take a look - it's truly hilarious (and puts Jack Chick in his place).

Cthulhu is gothic horror, so you have to play with their nerves. First advice is props. Whenever the investigators get a note or other important writing, make sure to have it written out. I prefer to write it in word, print it out, and then tear and fold the paper a bit to make it seem worn and haphazard. Also play on the things the characters can't do anything about. A cthulhu zombie is not of the regular D&D slow-punching-bag variety - in Cthulhu they are actually very dangerous... unless you're playing the d20, which I've never played, nor intend to. IIRC, the Haunting has a bed on the first floor, which the zombie can animate to attack the investigators. That's a good place to start, because how do you fight a bed? They can sit down on it, lie in it, whatever - it's just a regular bed, no questions. But if they go close to the window, it'll suddenly leap forward and push them out. I remember running one Cthulhu game, where the characters were talking to a dying man. To underscore the mood, I had a hankerchief with me, in which I put some ketchup just before I used it in a feigned cough. That sort of thing is good for mood - sure, it's a bit theatrical, but then that's what you want. Oh, and Cthulhu works best in long campaign/adventures, I think, because you'll lose lots of characters along the way. Among the best are "Walker in the Wastes" and the (complete) "Masks of Nyarlathotep".

True, but there is still a limit to how much you should have to put up with. I really can't stand the hard-line and holier-than-thou Christian types, especially when they resort to outright misinformation and hateful propaganda. Like Jack Chick. I mean, how do you even talk to people like this? They are the worst, for they make dispel my belief that a meaningful and constructive dialogue is possible.

Midi-chlorians? Yes, silly. Totally disperses the mysticism and magic of the force. JarJar? - Play Star Wars that lets me kill gungans? Wound in the force? Actually I liked the idea. That wasn't about silly medi-chlorians or other such nonsense, but more the will to deny your fate and suppress the truth. If they follow up on that in K3, it could be very interesting. But they could also mess it up completely, if they don't get it right.

Well, in the sense you're describing, I actually see atheism as its own sort of "religion" in that sense that it is a religion that says there are no higher beings and that any and all comments to the contrary are delusions. In that sense, atheists are just as bound to respect other religious beliefs, as followers of other religions are to respects their's (i.e., that there isn't any). I consider myself more of an agnostic in that I don't believe that there are any gods. But unlike an ateist, I'm not ruling out the possibility entirely - I just don't think that it matters. I will, if I choose, try to convince others that I might be right, in which case I would be using my right to free speech. But I will accept it if people disagree with me, because I have to respect their belief if I'm to truthfully expect that they will respect mine. If they tell me that they don't want to hear my arguments, I will not pursue them, because I too reserve the right not to listen. People have the right to believe whatever they want. I'm not going to have issue with it, unless they begin to take actions that affect other people as a consequence of their beliefs. When they do that, society can and should interfere and ask questions - no matter what your religion is. I'm not saying all muslims support the recent fury. I know many do not. But some of them do burn down embassies in the name of islam. Some of them do carry out suicide bombings in the name of their religion. Some of them do fly planes into buildings with thousands of people with others cheering in the streets over it. When that happens, islam will be questioned and should be, just like any other religion.

Well, the wound is personal - it was created by the Exile's choice. So I don't see how it would extend to his offspring. Just because a man lost an arm doesn't mean his son will be born without one too. Maybe that's a bad example, but the force does seem to be physically measurable (midi-chlorian counts... Yes, I hate that explanation too).

Welcome. Too long. K2 seems to end in a way that directly sets up K3, so it should be a fairly short time after that, I think. Not more than a few years at most. Ah, a love-thing. Several problems here, notably that perhaps the Exile was female herself, and even if not, the Exile may still have sacrificed Visas to defeat Nihilus. You may not prefer those factors, but they are still viable alternatives in K2 and therefore must be taken into consideration for the plot of K3. Since that outcome is fairly central and pretty much ruled out by the options of a female Exile and maybe even a DS male Exile, I'm rather convinced that will not happen. I have voiced support for this myself in the past. It does have the problem not being possible if the Exile was DS and so turned them all to the dark side, but then that could be solved by replacing the known characters with new jedi if the jedi are, well, lost... Still, either handmaiden or disciple could appear anyway. Bastila is also a problem if Revan is DS, but then I don't want her there anyway - she should still be out there looking for Revan. No, we cannot assume that HK was on Malachor V. Though the cut content may suggest that, it was not in the official version of the game and therefore cannot be assumed. However, that also means that Bao-Dur cannot be assumed to have died, since the entire section of his alleged death was also cut from the game. Besides, we know that HK survives, because he appears in a Star Wars: Galaxies expansion much later in Star Wars history, so HK-47 must live either way. And we cannot have KotOR without HK-47. That would be sacrilige! Erm... You *do* realise that T3 has been aware of this all along, don't you? It was T3 who locked the navi-computer in the first place... And the council arbitrarily deciding this after nearly two decades seems very odd, especially if there is no particular reason to. Yes, the "random" loot is a fair bit too random for my tastes as well

I don't think the current combat system is bad as such. I prefer that over the real-time stuff of the JK games. As has been said, this is an RPG, and the only way your combat skills and feats are going to count for anything is they are deciding factors during combat. I just think the current system could be implemented better than it is now, or even replaced by a better system that is still based on the skills and feats of the character.

The truth is that I already have Jedi Outcast, only I seem unable to make it work on the system I have now And I cannot to back to my old pc, since it decided to do some force lightning or somesuch on the motherboard and fried the mother... away a few years back - that's why I got a new machine...