Jediphile

Seriously? Moore is 3 years older, and has never been the physical presence Connery has. Can you picture Moore in the PTS fight scene? The fight at the Heath Club? Any fight scene? Now if want to argue that Octopussy released the same year is a better film, then you might have an argument otherwise Connery>Moore My point was sort of that they should both have stopped long before they did. Moore shouldn't have done Moonraker (bleh...) and Connery shouldn't have done Never Say Never Again. Sure, Moore was a different Bond, but that doesn't make him worse by default - he had a certain classy (perhaps over-class, as in arrogang) style and finesse was resultet in some hilarious moments. I won't dismiss that so easily just because Connery excelled in other areas. And before anyone says Connery was the "real Bond", we all know that the real Bond must be the original, the person who first played the character, which would then be Barry Nelson

And in non-Dark Knight yet movie related news, I just had a chance to see Connery's last stint as Bond again in "Never Say Never Again" on dvd. Ouch... I must say, Moore has nothing to be ashamed of as Bond after Connery did that bit. I just couldn't get over how much younger they try to make him look on the dvd cover, and how much older he looked in the film. Some things you just shouldn't return to...

Why not just put Miller's "Dark Knight Returns" on the big screen then? Batman surely kicks Superman's rear at the end of that But then I don't think they have the rights to do that. Or at least I don't think Nolan does.

Ouch, new crash bug, which means it's now 6 bugs remaining (plus 11 feature)

No, the Joker is an insane psychopath. The Riddler is "merely" a highly intelligent thief with a compulsion for overly elaborate schemes and challenging the Batman to outthink him. That difference would be practically cosmetic. The Joker of the movie issues challenges to the city or he'll commit a crime. The Riddler issues challenges to Batman to stop a crime. The only major difference in activity is that Joker is asking the people to commit a crime for him. But that's the difference - the Joker does it to incite anarchy and chaos among the population. The Riddler merely wants to get rich. The whole point of The Dark Knight is that Batman is helpless against the Joker because there is no motive to figure out - "some people just want to see the world burn," as Alfred puts it. The Joker doesn't do it for personal gain. But Batman can always catch the Riddler by interpreting his clues, and unlike the Joker, the Riddler doesn't kill. So why should Batman even bother? Sure, the Riddler will rob money, but how bad is that to the drug money taken in by the mob or the chaos the Joker creates? The Riddler looks small time by comparison and scarcely someone likely to make Gotham City fall apart. The Batman simply has bigger fish to fry in these movies than hunting down some hoodlum looking for cash in a sleuth-plot with only himself and the Riddler, where Gotham City is not an issue. In these movies Batman's goal is to prevent Gotham City from falling apart and degeneration into total corruption and apathy. The Riddler simply presents no threat to that goal, and so his presence could not carry a movie by himself. He could only be a side-character.

You can't do that - this is Star Wars, and it always ends well! Well, at least we solved the mystery of why these boards aren't the place to show off...

No, the Joker is an insane psychopath. The Riddler is "merely" a highly intelligent thief with a compulsion for overly elaborate schemes and challenging the Batman to outthink him.

It's even funnier seeing HK-47 bathed in light side mastery

I say Riddler. The only Batman villains that I think would fit Nolan's realistic take are Riddler, Hugo Strange, and Black Mask. Black Mask is too new to use and Hugo Strange I don't think could carry a film. Use riddler, make him a polic cryptoanalyst on the Batman case Who decides the best way to lure Batman out for revenge is to become a criminal himself. Considering how The Dark Knight ends, I'd say Hugo Strange's public psychoanalysis of Batman in the "Prey" storyline by Doug Moench and Paul Gulacy would be perfect to open a third movie with. Hugo Strange has never been done on the big screen, and it would seem fitting in the light of Batman going nuts trying to take down the Joker for someone to pursue him for being a demented madman. And given how The Dark Knight unfolds for Bruce Wayne romantically, it also wouldn't be a bad time for Catwoman to enter the scene. She has always been the enticing femme fatale of Batman, whom he desires but knows he can never reach for. Depending on who could be cast, it could be fantastic to see the pair in a waltz of a chase across the rooftops of Gotham City similar to what can be seen in the animated Batman series. I don't think the Riddler, Penguin, Bane, or Mr. Freeze are right for Nolan's vision of Batman without either heavy rewrites of the characters or being incredibly cheesy, and in either case why bother. Riddler and Penguin could only work as small time crooks, with Penguin working in the position the comic books eventually assigned to him as a fence using a night club as cover. Clayface, Bane, Mr. Freeze or Killer Croc (though he does appear in the "prequel of sorts" animated Batman: Gotham Knight) would all be too much "action-pumped" or "visual effects bonanza" for the type of Batman Nolan is doing, and we DON'T want ANY possibility of a repeat of Schumacher's "Batman and Robin", thanks. I consider myself a Batman fan, but I'll freely admit that must one of the worst movies ever (with Alicia Silverstone's bodytight latex-suit as the only redeeming detail... )

But what would you get? If I interpret it correctly, you seem to suggest that an MMO would give you control over who your character is, unlike the KotOR games, where the character is Revan (K1) or exile (K2) with a huge background thrown upon you as a player whether you like it or not. Well, that's true, but don't recall that the strong plot of the games come from those backgrounds - there is no "poetic justice" or "balance" in choosing between whether to kill Malak and take his empire or overthrown him to save the Republic if it's not Revan doing it. By the same taken, only the exile - as a wound in the force - can defeat Nihilus and have the interest of Kreia due to a huge back story that is fixed by the developer. The exile is a wound in the force because of that backstory, and everything that happens in the plot follows as a result of the choice the exile made, which made him/her so. So it comes down to a simple question - do you prefer a fixed background by the devs that you have no control over, but which makes your character the focal point of the plot, or do you prefer to have the character to have whatever background that exists only in your made, while his only representation in the game itself is a collection of stats? Because you cannot have the rich background of Revan or exile in an MMO, at least not to an extent that matters in the plot. Now, I'd certainly like to have it both ways myself. As a tabletop GM, I always encourage players to make distinct backgrounds for themselves. Granted, I'll nix 'I was a sith lord' or 'I'm the secret lovechild of Revan and Bastila', but 'my father was killed by the evil Darth Monstrosity' or 'I'm likely to have contacts to the secret TIE Defender project because my uncle worked on the project' are viable options that can be explored in the game and make the character unique. Of course, in K1 and TSL, you don't even get a choice of your background. As far as RPG goes, that sucks to some extent, since you should ideally be allowed to decide what your background is. But naturally the devs cannot write a gazillion different backgrounds, and in any event, even with only one fixed background in the single-player CRPGs, that's still one more deep background than you'll get in an MMO, because none of those backgrounds are in an MMO. So the choice becomes whether to reduce the character to a set of stats with a fixed background written by the devs in a single-player game or whether to reduce the character entirely to a set of stats in an MMO where the background that exists only in the player's mind and can even be contradicted by the plot. Given the choice I'll go for the former every time. You may imagine the character in the MMO to be closer to the backstory you imagine for him or her, but if you sacrifice the plot to get that option, then I consider the price to high. I play for plot. If I have to accept a fixed background for my character to get that, then so be it. It's still more fun, entertaining and enticing than pure monsterslashing and spelunking IMHO.

Why? LOTR was brought in relation to comments about the implications of killing Revan and exile in K3. One argument was that killing them suggested bad writing, because killing them would be because the plotwriter did not know what to do with them. I then mentioned Boromir, because he was definitely not killed in LOTR because Tolkien did not know what to do with him, since his death has major influence on how the plot unfolds later. Besides, with all the knights and mysterious "force" wielded by "a crazy old wizard" (spoken by Owen Lars about Kenobi), Star Wars seems much closer to LOTR than it is to Star Trek or Blade Runner. Star Wars is a morality tale told with very classic definitions of good and evil, and the technology is incidental to the story. We may know now how a lightsaber supposedly works or how the death star was built, but we surely had them long, long before anybody bothered to think of the technology, and even when they did, that was still only incidental to the plot. You can do sci-fi plots in Star Wars, sure, but when did we see one outside a comic book or a minor story in an anthology - one where the technology was more significant to the plot than the battle between good (LS) and evil (DS)?

Yeah, that's right! "Lucasarts can leave their KotOR MMO plans be!" "They'll get no damn MMOney from me!"

http://digg.com/design/Star_Wars_Photoshop...Contest_Artwork

It doesn't matter WHEN it happened, my point is just that it ended with the main character's death. Actually, we don't know that Frodo died in LOTR

☜ Tbh I might'e done that too

I always put Bao-Dur and Mira in that group (Mira needs to have built her Demolitions skill, though). Those two are always certain for that mission. For the last member (and usually group leader), I tend to take Handmaiden or Atton, occasionally Visas - it depends a bit on what group buffs I've built for which character.

I played a sentinel/weapon master who kicked rear and took numbers by the end of the game, and I had a starting Strength of 12 with Dex 10 and the rest of the stats on 14. I didn't even build strength. So don't worry too much about the stats. Heck, even my sentinel/jedi master was a dual wielder who dropped people left and right in saber battle. So really, any combo is viable. The feats you choose along the way are far more important than your initial stats setup. The jedi weapon master has some particularly potent combat feats for dual/double lightsaber combat.

Yeah, I know. I may be grasping at straws, but I have to hold onto the last bit of hope, right? Oh, I guess that means I'm one of the good guys -yes, I knew it. There you have it, I'm not a darksider

There is another possibility for the this rumored MMO, though. We know that LA registered the "Old Republic" recently. Maybe this is an MMO developed to take place in a period of Star Wars that has so far gone unexplored. I mean, we know lots about the Great Hyperspace War around 5000 BBY or the Great Sith War and the KotOR games around 4000 BBY, Darth Bane around 1000 BBY or the movies era, etc. But there are other times that are virtually explored. What happened around 2500 BBY, for example? No idea. That is definitely "Old Republic" even though it's not what most of us would call KotOR. It might be all the same to Riccitiello, though, which could explain why he can say there such an online game, while LA says it has nothing to do with KotOR. And another thing, people would want to play jedi in such a game, and frankly post-TSL would be terrible for this. Why? Because the purge of the Sith Triumpherate virtually wiped out the jedi order in TSL to such an extent that the Sith thought the exile was the only one left. You'd want an era for an MMO where there could be loads of jedi, and in the years after TSL, there would indeed be few. Besides, Bioware seems to like the idea of doing original IP. A Star Wars MMO would not be that, but they could establish an entirely new segment inside the franchise with their own jedi order and sith lords as they see fit by placing the action at another time.

Well, I peeked at Lucasforums and was positively surprised that they seemed to share most of the sentiments expressed here. Funny, though, since my visits to that place has not left me with the best of impressions of that crowd...

Unlikely. In fact, unlikely to the point of "just not gonna happen." Reason: Oversaturation. Besides, Lucasarts has held the position for several years that they will only release so many Star Wars games per year for that very reason. KotOR represents only a distinct segment within the franchise. That being the case, how great are the chances that they will then release two games within the same segment of the franchise and thereby postponing games for the rest of the franchise - games that would target the same partial fanbase? Answer: Astronomically low. Of course Lucasarts want to break into the MMO market and rake in the cash. Looking at WoW, most publishers see $$. Why would Luca$art$ be an exception? And if they decide to base this on KotOR, then what are the chances that they'll try to force the sizeable KotOR fanbase onto that MMO on the logic of "well, what else are you going to play if you like KotOR?" The odds of that way of thinking are pretty good. Or at least so they think. I may want single-player KotOR3 and be vocal in my support of it, but if Lucasarts is indeed in collaboration on a KotOR MMO, they've already decided that in spite of my protests, I'll probably play KotOR MMO over a non-KotOR game. If they release KotOR3 at the same time, then they'll allow me an out to give KotOR MMO a miss, effectively releasing to games competing for the same Star Wars gamer demographic. They simply won't do that. They're wrong, though. I won't be paying a monthly fee, and since that is the major incentive for Luca$art$ pursuing a KotOR MMO, it means I will be a lost customer. I have yet to be enticed by an MMO. There are even free MMOs out there, but I still don't play them. They just don't appeal to me. Of course, losing me as a customer is probably not a big deal. The problem only arises if a sizeable portion of the KotOR fanbase feel the same way I do. Now, I'm still not entirely convinced of an upcoming KotOR MMO. This story is based on the EA CEO, not representatives of Bioware or Lucasarts, speaking to ONE reporter without confirmation from Bioware or Lucasarts (yes, I know EA own Bioware, but they are not the same - EA is a corporation which recently bought Bioware as a somewhat independent developing division under the parent company). So I think retraction is still a possibility. I'll admit, though, that with time passing without comment from Lucasarts, they are essentially confirming the rumors through their silence. It would be very easy to put a press release saying that rumors of a KotOR MMO are not true. However, that has not happened. It's sad, though, because either way, if reports of a KotOR MMO are indeed true, then single-player KotOR3 is quite dead, I fear. Gone and buried. It's dead, Jim. Because if there is a KotOR MMO, then it will play out one of two ways. If the game succeeds, LA will declare the move to MMO successful and build on it, never returning KotOR to its single-player milieu. But if the game tanks, it still won't revive single-player KotOR3, because LA will then decide that interest in the era has waned, as the fanbase did not support the game, and so discontinue further games in KotOR-segment of the franchise. The worst part is that the current fanbase of the games may not have a voice. They can embrance or hate the MMO, but even if they turn against it, they could do so only to see a new MMO-loving fanbase embrace it and giving it success, in which case LA will still declare the success as per scenario number one above, not caring who the fanbase is as long as they can rake in the MMOney. Either way, a KotOR MMO seems to be a deathblow to KotOR games the way I like to play them. If LA confirms a KotOR MMO, it'll be a dark day indeed

Well, first, thanks. We like to think that is true of us, obviously. However, as Xard points, Obsidian has no say in this. Sadly, I might add, since Obsidian wanted to do a content patch for TSL (which LA shut down) and has stated several times they wanted to do K3. Had it been up to Obsidian, development of K3 would long since have begun. Heck, given how quickly they did TSL despite having more than a 10th of the schedule cut, we'd probably all be playing K3 by now. But Obsidian has no say in this, except to whether they want to do the game or not. And we know that they did. If you want to lobby for this, you need to direct your attention towards Lucasarts. They own Star Wars, and whatever they decide is law for the franchise, both as the publisher and as the owner of the franchise. Neither Obsidian nor Bioware has any say in this. They own neither the universe nor the characters in it.

Or at least they think they can. MMOs do not always work out [cough]SWG[/cough] - ah, sorry 'bout that...