grayjo

I have had in idea for a while, probably one that everyone has had at some point as dismissed as stupid or useless... anyways, it involes non linear charcter development. I propose, that it would be good in a game to take direct control of character development from the player, and (kinda) put it in the hands of the PC. It would mean no leveling up, but having all the stats represnted by experience. And you gain stat exp for doing something related to that stat. Fo example, Fighting. Say for fighting you use strength and dexterity mostly, with a little intellegence. Just by fighting you would go up some strength, dexerity and little bit of int. And these stats could be incorporated back into the combat itself, etc. This form of character progression is more realistic than die based system becasue you dont get to decide how you impove by selecting them at a screen, you get better at what you do. This system is kind of like a "practice makes perfect" setup. i've had this idea for a while, and i think fable might now be using a version of it... but i never played it so i don;t now fo sure. I just think that levelups are wrong. instead of getting progressivle better over time, you jump, from level to level, sometimes getting better at thing you have never even attempted before. Just an idea

The think i most wanted to do in Baldur's Gate was to take my Planar Sphere for a merry jaunt though the planes.... <sigh>

LucasArts used to always make their own games. who can forget the Monkey Island games, Xwing, TIE figher, Sam and Max, Day of the Tentacle, X Wing vs TIE, Dark Forces, DF2: Jedi Knight, and many many others. JK2 i think was the first outsouced game they produced. Shame really. They make good games.

I like the idea that the American's, for their smugness, are just beta testers.... "

As i have said, if the blade emits no light, or non visible light, the blade will not be black it will be invisible. As in Blade is there but you cannot see it. As in No colour at all. The only way for anything to appear black is if it absorbs light rather than emit it. If you have Uv light eith a smigeon of purple, you would get a semitranslucent purple blade.

:ph34r: Not really. Just the truth. Well the good thing about he X-box is the game was released early and I have the game guide in my possesion. All of Kotor 2 secrets are mine. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's still harsh and rude. And discrimiatory. Would you like it if someone said "I not going to talk to you becasue you own a cat? or a dog? or a Nvida graphics card? ect ect ect ect...

Not to mention the fact that each time the Ebon Hawk travels between stellar systems, it would take thousands of years even AT the speed of light (which is impossible for any object with rest mass according to SR). A galaxy is a big place -- ours is about 100,000 light years across. Also take into account that the passengers on the Ebon Hawk would outlive the Republic merely by traveling at near light speed since the relativistic time dilational effects would distort the sequence of events, and the galaxy would age hundreds of thousands of years while the Ebon Hawk crew only aged a few days. (w00t) Who knows, though, ever heard of quantum entanglement? Perhaps therein lies the answer to true FTL travel without breaking the laws of SR and avoiding time dilation. QE is being used now to work on quantum computing techniques and may actually, if nothing else, provide a way for instantaneous communication throughout the universe. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I always figured that with hyperspace (and ST's warp speed) ws a result of bending space. If you imagine space as a blanket, if you crumple it up, the distance between the ends is less, and would take less time. But then again, i am no physicist or even a scientist. The point we are trying to make, is that even though a lightsaber is at least almost scientifically explainable, a black lightsaber is almost definetly NOT

Not anymore.....

Why? How can you assume what is meant by a name? Define by it's name the purpose of a gun. Or a plane. why not bulletfirer and airvehicle? Since when have a torch been called a lightrod? You cant jude a device by its name, and saying that you assume you are correct when you say that when you say you have a lightsaber, you mean that your saber is made if light, is just silly. And just to point out, according to lucasFilm, the lightsaber's blade is made of "pure energy" whatever that means. Not light.

I think lucas may have made a boo boo, creating the lgihtsaber, and almost being able to justify it, it creates all sorts of conflicts on boards. But that have been just what he wanted

Does that mean that a blaster is made of blasts, and doesn't blast? light is an aspect of energy(Analagy: A Ford is a car, but a car is not necisarily a Ford, right?) as is heat and all those other aspects i can't remember. You cannot possibly know what is meant by lightsaber, unless you are Lucas himself.... Are you? And planar, thats what i meant. Just because something can transform into light, doesn not mean it is composed of light.

Absolutely ridiculous. Why would you even want a black lightsaber? But anyway, saying that the blade is made of pure light is probably (if you know better, fine) wrong, because while you say you can only define energy by it's transformations, something like electricty gives off heat and light. But that deosn't mean that electricity is composed of just heat and light. (My physics is rusty, please forgive if i am making a fool of myself)

Light is (can be) energy. Energy is NOT however light. If you want to get into the nitty gritty of light, it can be considered be consiting of waves or particles, depending on the situation. It can be defined as energy (i think). But like heat is a form of energy, energy is not always heat, etc if you take into account the conservation of energy principle, ie, that energy cannot be created or destroyed, you could say like for the lightsaber example: Blade is made of pure energy. As it is continually drawing power (otherwise it would last forever without a recharge) it must also be losing energy. The energy lost in this way is probably in the form of heat and light and sound. Oh and the reason the electromagnerically generate arc wave blade of pure energy is almost scientifically sound is coz i got it from the Star Wars Visual Dictionary, with ic a compilation from the LucasFilm Archives

We can proably assume that considering the blade is made of pure energy, that it is the energy tht cuts, like electricity burns. We can also assume that its called a lightsaber because it emits light, as all energy does. If it was possibly to create a lightsaber that doesn't emit light, it would still cut though, but can you imagine how dangerous an invisible blade would be? You would just as likely cut off your own head as someone else's.

A lightsaber's blade is an electromagnetically generated arc wave of pure enery with no mass. The colour (at least in the "real" Star Wars universe) is defined by the combination of crytals that filter out certain colours. If it was possible to filter out all the colours you could theoretically have a lightsaber that emits no light. BUT, considering that the only reason you even see the lightsaber blade is because it emits light, if it emitted no light, it would be invisible, and would only be a black lightsaber in the dark. In order for it to be black, the blade would have to be made of a substance that absorbs light, instead of emitting it. And i can think of nothing that could absorb light/energy but still act as a blade.

give obsidian a chance, just because bioware couldn't make him interesting.