NeverwinterKnight

not really sure what this has to do with k2 and spoilers for k2. you do realize there are k1 forums, right?

but tell me you didnt get even the slightest bit of satisfaction from putting a bullet in her skull?

a rather biased poll, considering how few choices there are. if it was just a thread about which game do people like better, bg or iwd, then there was absolutely no point to adding a poll with only 2 (well 4, 2 from each game series) choices.

go in to your party selection screen and de-select everyone. that way its only you.

there were quite a few instances where you could support vaklu. number one, inciting the rioter. also, convincing those two conversationalists that vaklu was better, plus agreeing with canderous/mandalore about vaklu being the right choice. then youd have that agent of vaklu ask you to remove 3 of the guard captains. do that and again you lean towards vaklu. then right when you meet kavar in the cantina and vaklu's men intercept, agree to side with him. im sure there are other instances, but those come to mind. its actually quite easy to side with him.

simple answer about kreia and influence: because she was about manipulation, not about pure violence. if you slaughtered someone for the sake of slaughtering them, she might reprimand you for it because in her mind you could have used that person as a pawn to further your own goals instead of being a butcher. shes all about manipulation, so senseless violence is obviously going to draw a lecture from her.

did you play lightside or darkside? "

jolee=gary coleman "wha choo talkin' bout, revan?"

make sure to add this thread to your checklist.

again, you seem to think that your posts "bother" me or affect me in some way. they dont. im just pointing out what you do and why people take exception to it. and the reason i bother responding to you is because, well, im bored and have time on my hands. your words mean nothing to me since a)i dont work for obsidian and thus b)whether or not you like or hate the game holds no consequence to me, either in terms of hurt pride or losing sales of the game.

btw, draahk (or whatever your username is), what exactly are you arguing for or against? i dont feel like getting into a debate over semantics if youre not actually agreeing with volourns initial statement. it gets rather tedious when people come out of the woodwork and quote a specific example or comment i made and pick fault with it, when they dont actually comment on the general idea that im arguing for. in other words, if you agree with volourn, say what you believe. but if youre just going to pick apart something ive said that might not have been my best option for an example, then dont bother.

yes, i did. and even permitting that my EXAMPLE was not a good one, that doesnt mean that what volour says about monopolies is correct, since the gas industry is probably closer to an oligopoly as it is. so if a company with relatively few competitors can do such damage with the price of gas, how much more if there is an absolute monopoly.

really? wow, i should gas up where you live then. because where i live not even ten years ago i could gas up my pos car for about $15 to $20. now its well over $30 and closing in on $40 for a fill up. dozens SELLING (ie. distributors). where do you think they get their gas sources from? there arent a dozen of sources that control the oil and gas. dont mistake seeing shell and esso and whatever as the "monopoly" im referring to. btw, where did i insult volour? i stated that his view of monopolies is messed up at best and that indicates he doesnt have a clue about the topic.

using one of volourns favorite comebacks. "proof please?". you make unfounded hypotheses and conjecture about what will happen, but i have yet to see actual real life proof where a "monopoly" suddenly turns into an open market over time. by definition, a monopoly destroys competition, not attracts it. what you are commenting on isnt a true monopoly. really? so nfl and espn can just break their contract with ea if ea doesnt produce quality titles? thats called a lawsuit if they tried to do that. and if ea drives other competitors out of business, who exactly is going to have the kind of money needed to come in and take their place, especially when the nfl license is still contracted out to ea?

this statement proves you have no clue what youre even talking about. uh? the entire point was about how a monopoly is bad for consumers. so the fact you think the consumer isnt important just adds to the proof you have no clue whatsoever about this topic.

and if you actually responded to topics in the above fashion, i dont think people would necessarily take issue with your posts. they might not agree with what you say, but they wouldnt take issue. its all your "no, the game sucks", or "kotor2 sucks" type one-line posts that people are tired of. and obviously you dont care what people think because youre just that cool and whatnot, but im stating what it is people have issues with whether you want to take it to heart or not (my guess is no, because youre the stereotypical "i do wut i want cuz im an internet badazz!"). so meh.

same can be said for your argument. where is your "proof" that ea owning the market place is a good thing? if you want "proof" of how monopolies work, just look at the gas industry. or is the fact that gas prices have soared over the last 20 years not proof enough for you that monopolies are a bad thing for the consumer?

in the long run, maybe. but then you just crushed your own theory that monopolies "work" in the long run. all youre stated is basically that eventually a fair market system will re-establish itself to break the monopoly. which means that again, the best possible system is a fair market system. your basic argument is that a monopoly works because it eventually leads to competition when the business who has the monopoly's market share starts to falter due to no competition. that seems like a messed up theory when after all is said and done, you assume that a new fair market will rise in its place. and even if that does, in fact, happen eventually, ea will have a run of about 10 or 20 years of monopolized profits and consumers will have to wait until "joe average" shows up a decade or so down the line. im still not seeing how that is good for the CONSUMER.

keep thinking that in a couple of years when ea doesnt have competition and can get away with releasing half assed games for twice the price because the consumer has no other viable options available to them.

jolee=puff daddy?

volourn, just an observation, but you dont have much of a business background or knowledge do you. its quite evident in the way you have this twisted view of how a monopoly is a good thing.

you dont give opinions. you just derail threads with either a one or two line sarcastic comment about how bad you think the game was. i dont think anyone would even be commenting on your posts if you actually said something constructive about the game. all you do is act like a 12 year old having an e-tantrum (using your own "witty" use of "e-language"). so state your opinion by explaining whats wrong with the game. but you dont do that. you either a)just say "the game sucks" or b)call people fanbois if, God forbid, they actually have something positive to say about the game. im still not sure how thats stating your opinion. i believe thats called trolling for no reason other than to be a ****disturber. again, you think too highly of yourself and the affect you have on others. i doubt that i, nor ivan, go away from this message board crying our eyes out because some immature kid wants to throw his hissy fit because he spent money on a game he hated and now feels the need to remind everyone of it. im neither offended or hurt by anything you post. im just pointing out how immature you seem.

considering malak was on the cover of kotor1, i dont see the big deal. he didnt exactly have a tonne more "air time" than nihilus, and atris definitely had a bigger part in the story in terms of "air time" than malak did in kotor1.

im wondering the same thing. his posts have become quite pathetic as well. atleast at first hed actually write more than one or two sentences explaining why hes so pissed off with the game. but now all he does is troll and say how crappy the game is over and over in every single thread about in which he posts. i have to wonder how old he is (both in age and in maturity) because most people, if they dislike a game as much as he professes to, would leave the forums of a game they hate. you dont see me sticking around toee or morrowind forums derailing a bunch of threads by posting "morrowind sucks, the devs suck" while others are trying to have a legitimate discussion about the game.

theyre usually out first as well, so perhaps the pc version suffers from the "seen that already" bias. plus i think much higher expectations due to the power a pc possesses.