EnderAndrew

I believe that MCA said 7 planets, not counting Peragus. So we know 3 of the 7 planets. Also, the name of the game is "The Sith Lords"

A good game is more likely to make money than a bad game. LA knows that a lot of focus is on this game and Obsidian. LA knows that people will compare it to the first game. I don't think LA is looking for a gimmic to rush sales for one month and ship a bad game. Great games continue to sell long after the month of their release.

KoTOR takes places thousands of years before the movies. Why reuse all the same species and settings from the movies? Take advantage of the time period.

Lie to the Jedi Council? It's not necessary when you play a LS character. You bad, naughty players!

As far as combat goes anyway, the system doesn't really support this. Combat rolls are vs one target.

Movement in combat wasn't great. In fact it was screwy. I'd like to see combat get more tactical, but I doubt it's happening.

I think the concept is nifty and I've love to see it. However, I think it's probably way too far in the development process to integrate this.

I think all villians need to point their pinky at the corner of their mouth.

Name the tatoo-artist Fell.

Volourn, the owners are stupid for paying $10 million a year, or so you say. The players are threatening to walk if there is any salary cap. In fact, they've outright said they won't play at all under a salary cap. The owners realize they can't pay $10 million a year anymore, and are trying to curb things. The players are throwing a tissy fit about wanting more money when there is no more money. Hockey charges more per ticket to attend games than the other sports. The Canadian government gives taxpayer dollars to keep the Canadian clubs from going totally bankrupt. Yet players are screaming for more money. And you blame owners? You asked me to look at the playoff teams. Martin St. Lious, the MVP of the NHL says he's jumping ship to the WHL. Yeah, legacy means a whole lot. Joe Sakic of the Av's says he doesn't expect to play and won't compromise on the salary cap. The owners haven't set do-or-die ultimatims. The players have. Who's at fault again?

Roscoe White killed JFK. Francis Bacon wrote Shakespeare's plays. We didn't land on the moon in 1969. Emperor Palpatine wears pink panties.

I'm waiting and watching. I'm curious to see what coaching changes Phil Jackson is going to make.

Eru. Lay down the crack pipe and walk away from these people. It's for the best. There are other modding groups out there.

I agree completely on styles of play. When I knock on D&D, what I'm really saying is that I don't care for the style of play that the rules encourage. I'm not saying that great stories can not occur during a D&D session, I merely believe that heavily rules-intensive systems seem to attract action-oriented, rules-oriented, or power-gamers. I prefer story intensive games. And while I enjoy action and tension, I like the storyteller to control said flow. I like rules systems that are simple, fast and cinematic. A good storyteller will wield these rules efficiently and fairly and keep the tone/pace appropriate to the setting. Games that are too heavy on the rules break down to mathmatical simulations rather than stories. That appeals to certain players, but not me. I refer to it as roll-playing rather than role-playing.

Calgary was a number 6 seed. They are the exception, and Tampa Bay had a much better year than expected. The real problem is this. The average NFL team makes $77 million a year in TV revenues and pays an average of $1.5 million to a starter. The average NHL team makes $2 million a year in TV revenues and pays an average of $1.5 million to a starter. No one can really afford it. Free agency is a pox on all sports. Athletes aren't playing for legacies, or to compete. They're playing for dollars. It's part of the reason I prefer college sports. The salary cap makes sense in any sport, but the NHL most of all. If the players walk, then I'm done with hockey.

I need to have Ender's Philosophy Hour

I maintain the refs should have at least reviewed the goal. If one angle shows it as in, then it was close enough to review. If they had reviewed it and waved it off, I'd feel better. And like I said, I'm not even a Flames fan. There are times when calls can go either way, and you're right that refs are just as much a luck factor as other things. However, I think most fans would agree that you never want to see the ref be the deciding factor. What's worse are the hockey primadonnas crying for more money in bankrupt league. I don't know if I'll watch the WHL.

As far as a link, you seem distrustful of certain news sources. I just did a quick google search for "WMD FOUND IN IRAQ" and found tons of stories. I'll leave you to your own research. However, you're most likely do discover stories on Sarin gas. In addition to this, months ago we discovered training labs with manuals detailing Iraq's techniques for the use of WMD, small samples and empty containers. You'll have to search a bit more for that however. As far as the letter, I understand completely that man's sentiments. I think the CIA is a horrid organization. I think we made mistakes in past foreign policies. I've never argued that. I merely stand by our current involvement in Iraq. As far as claims that our embargo killed a million people, that wasn't our embargo. That was the UN's embargo. I find it odd how often the UN does things that are unpopular, and the US gets blamed for it. Then people say that the US ignores the UN. I would contend that two major differences seperate Norway, Canada, and Sweeden from the U.S. One is our history. The other is money. We have our past mistakes, and all we can do is try to deal with the consequences as best as we can. However, I do believe that the US is a target because of our ideals and money. Here's an analogy. Take baseball. The New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox have the two highest payrolls in baseball, and in recent years have practiced similiar business practices. However, the Yankees are the king of the hill. Everyone points to them, and hates them. The Red Sox however, are much beloved despite doing the same things that people hate the Yankees for. Thusly, I think to a certain extent some of the animosity towards the United States that does not befall other countries is because we're the king of the hill for the moment being. Why attack Canada when you could attack the US? Read the Quran sometime. While there are non-violent Muslims, the text itself reads as being very militant. It calls for jihad, the destruction of infidels. It calls for blood, and promises a multitude of virgins in heaven for those who die in such pursuits. The problem is, that they need a villian. The US would likely fit that role even if past history weren't a factor. If you doubt any claims I've made, then do some searches. You'll find that I'm an avid news junkie that does his best to base his opinions of facts.

Korriban and Taris were my favorite worlds. I hope to see more worlds like them.

I think alot of CRPGs have had bad mini-games. The Final Fantasy series have featured a lot of great mini-games. Thusly, I think mini-games could largely improve in the CRPG genre.

HDTV = chewy goodness.

I don't trust a whole lot of news sources. Our major networks ABC/NBC/CBS all seem very biased and irresponsible in news reporting. I've seen textboots just flat out lie. I get my news from CNN and BBC, two world-wide respected companies. As far as WWII goes, the war had three major fronts (discounting Africa). I never claimed that the Americans were the key to the entire war, though I probably could try to make that argument. I merely said the US bailed out the French in both World Wars, which I still contend. The United States did play a key role in WWII to pushing back Germany on one front, and Japan on the other. The other major key was Hitler being foolish enough to march into Russia in the winter. He didn't learn from Napoleon's mistakes. Iran attacked the US, or to be more correct, terrorist organizations from Iran attacked the US. The government refused to cooperate with our attempts to recover hostages, and to root out terrorism. Yes we gave weapons to Iraq and the Taliban. These were huge mistakes. And the CIA did a bunch of really horrible things in the '80s. I think it's funny that we discuss this now while everyone is paying their respects to Regan. When he was alive people had no problem debating whether he was a great or horrible president. He brought down the Berlin wall, and worked with Gorbechov, but Regan had his flaws. He turned a blind eye to the CIA and gave them free reign. Regardless, the Iraq/Iran conflict existed before the US. We didn't start that war. We didn't start a war in Afghanistan. Russia invaded. We helped protect an existant sovereign nation from invaders. You said the US started more wars than anyone else. You've still yet to mention a single war that the US started. The US may have been involved in more military conflicts than any other nation, but that doesn't mean the US started these conflicts. Isreal/Palestine is a very difficult subject. First off, it was the UN's doing though the US played a large part in it. Perhaps it wasn't a fair compromise. One could argue that the nation should never have been created. I'm not sold one way or the other on that. However, the fact remains that Palestine is a terrorist state whose leadership supports suicide bombings of civilians. It's hard for me to have sympathy for Palestine. The CIA was horrible in the '80s. What has our track record been since then? Check the past few years. Check Liberia. During the 9/11 hearings, Democrats in the US have tried to lay the blame on Bush for the 9/11 attacks. Some say that we should have assassinated Osama Bin Laden years ago. However, that is no longer US policy. We do not try to assassinate foreign leaders. We did it with Castro, and it was a mistake. No. I would never contend as such. Does Sweden have a police force? Don't most countries have a police force? Why? This is an imperfect world. Violence is deemed necessary to uphold law in most societies as sad as that may be. War is deemed as a necessary evil. Sweden has the luxury of not being a target of terrorism. When people show up on your doorstep and want you dead, let's see how you react. A few things. Saddam Hussein admitted on television to using WMD on his own populace. In 1991, we seized WMD but we believed more were hidden. The UN Security Council UNANIMOUSLY voted over and over again on resolutions in regards to Iraq. These unanimous votes consistently said that Iraq had WMD and was in violation of previous resolutions. That wasn't some lie that we just made up. That's the opinion of the entire security council. Bill Clinton then bombs Iraq and claims to have wiped out a signifigant amount of these weapons. Who knows. Then Bush points his finger at Iraq and says he's comming, but spends two years on diplomacy. During these two years weapons could easily have left the country. When we do get into Iraq, we find training labs, containers and documentation for WMD. And eventually we do find small stashes of WMD. The question is not whether WMD existed in Iraq. They were found, and Hans was mistaken in that regard. The question was how many WMD existed, and have they left? For years Iraq kicked inspectors out of the country. When we told them to comply, they'd say, you can search in Place A at Time B. They didn't cooperate, and Hans Blix said that was just fine. What kind of inspection is that? In Hans Blix did a thorough job of checking the country, how come he missed the weapons we found? Home come the security council unanimously said for 12 years that Iraq was not complying? How was it that anyone could see (except for Hans) that only allowing inspections in certain areas on certain days and kicking inspectors out of the country repeatedly was not cooperation. Yet Hans swore they were cooperating just fine. Perhaps we did not have the agenda. Perhaps Hans had an agenda. Maybe it was one of peace. But covering up for a mass-murdering psychotic dictator in the name of peace is a case of misplaced intentions. Do you know why the trade blockade was in place? Saddam Hussein had something like 29 huge palaces. Each of these palaces was a full compound, a series of buildings. Each of these had to prepare royal feasts for every meal, regardless of whether or not Saddam showed up. Yet he starved his own people. Police made $20 a month in salary. Running water would be shut off in major cities. Saddam and the elite members of his political party were extremely wealthy while he denied food, water and medicine to his people. The trade blockade wasn't a full blockade. We said you can sell oil, so long as you can show that money is going to buy food for your country. Saddam refused. He sold oil but wouldn't show where the money went. Palestine has been doing the same thing. I love how people scream about how the US is behind Isreal and hates Palestine. They fail to mention how we drop a 400-500 million dollar relief package each year on Palestine. In return, we ask to see how they spend the money, and each year they refuse. Last I heard, Bush was considering not giving them money. I hope he doesn't. I think the Cuba embargo needs to be lifted. Jimmy Carter is very vocal in his agenda of trying to get it lifted. Maybe it will someday. I don't see the United States as being perfect, nor the outside world as being the enemy. However, as someone who does keep up on the news and remains politically active, I do support our involvement in Iraq. And so does the UN, though their support came after the fact. Immediately after 9/11, the UN Security Council unanimously passed another resolution in regards to Iraq and several leaders said they would support military action in Iraq. We then pursued two years of diplomacy while sympathy for 9/11 died down. All of a sudden, no one supported military action anymore. One could argue that by our pursuit of diplomacy we gained more of a reputation for being a war-mongering country. I mentioned several conflicts. In WW1, we bailed out France. Diplomacy had well failed there, and the US didn't rush into that war right away. We waited until we saw there was no other option. The same thing in WWII. Europeans usually knock on the US for waiting too long, but we didn't want to go to War. Vietnam was a mistake. France called us in for help and things got out of hand. This is perhaps the one time where diplomacy may have helped out quite a bit. In Korea, China was supplying North Korea. North Korea was hell-bent on conquest and invaded South Korea. I don't think diplomacy was an option there initially. Though I should note that it was diplomacy that ended that war. In Afghanistan, Russia invaded. Russia invaded many small countries in adding to the Soviet Union over the years. Repeatedly they told the world it was none of anyone's business but their own. Once again, diplomacy wasn't key here. Diplomacy has failed in Iraq/Iran and Isreal/Palestine. That doesn't mean we haven't tried. How would you define the US's role in relationship to France in WWI and WWII since that is what spawned this debate?

Same here. Each year it seems they keep on stretching the playoffs out more and more.

Welcome to the forums. The devs have mentioned that you'll be able to take apart inventory for parts and build other items/upgrade items. I'm imagining the gear won't be as plentiful in KOTOR:2 because of this.