metadigital

Why does this myth persist? VO is not expensive, not compared to every other component of game production. They don't employ Robert DeNiro and Mel Gibson, y'know! Jobbing actors are happy to not starve, they don't get tens of thousands for VO. And your point about tone is not really valid. Sure, early phone systems sounded like Stephen Hawking, but the latest generation do not. It is quite possible to create different intonations and the speech is well within acceptable limits, and a lot better than even some of the poor VO on K2.

Get some further advice from your university about careers with a mathematics degree, that should remove all doubt. (After all, mathematics is the only discipline with Proofs.:D)

Why does this not surprise me in the least?

It's true. There were about a dozen re-writes in addition to the three or more directors. I think it was originally a SF story without the added Aliens, IIRC.

So has Baley gone on leave, yet?

*Notices polished pickelhaube* Ooo, Pretty! Can I have one of dose?

There are some classic lines in it, too. (even though I forgot that one. :"> ) Good to see that Mad About You actor as an evil bad guy, too.

Haha. No, I didn't mean that I enjoy them in the ordinal rank opposite to their ordinal release! (I doubt there is anyone on planet Earth that likes Alien:Resurection more than any film, let alone Alien!) 'Tis true that Aliens is a different genre to Alien (action, rather than thriller; or, as :Darque: for say, Survival HORROR a opposed to SURVIVAL Horror). I like the first two films a lot more than any of the others. It's a real pity that the third film was treated so poorly: it was originally based on a short story about a bunch of monks in a decrepid wooden satellite.

A strong, ambient wind can be heard in the background. Tumbleweeds roll across the thread. In the distance, several dark figures can be seen ...

Just a note, Vagrant, even though I haven't read your incredibly long posts, I did notice that you are keeping different paths for LS and DS: that's good, I like that. You might want to change it a lot more, though, so that the DS and LS paths are completely different (the reverse?). Just a thought.

You have to complete a set amount of tasks on your first planet, whatever it is. Once you have, you will be given the lightsaber parts as loot. Once you have all the parts, there will be crystals or lightsabres themselves as loot.

Boy, you really just plastered "I AM A NOOB" on your forehead, Kevin. Try reading the stuff that's here first, before gracing us all with your opinion, because chances are we have already heard it.

No, you called it a worthy target for an expansion. There are two chances LA will release more content for K2 in a patch: Buckley's, and None.

I would extend the definition of "character creation" to include all the defining moments of a character's creation, including key ethical decisions and even and especially mistakes made during their "lifetime". All of these aspects help the player to identify with their avatar, their alter idem. I also can envisage Llyranor's point where it might be necessary to place story integrity over gameplay "fun". After all, the frustration of almost being able to do something can be a good build up to being able to do it, as long as it is handled in a reasonable way. (I'm struggling for a good example, maybe have to come back later with one. )

How on earth does my argument have you believe that? I truly cannot fathom how you would come to such a ludicrous conclusion! If this is how you wish to play it, your argument would have us believe that it technically isn't Italian for Black, because almost every Italian speaker on the planet, speaking both formally and colloquially uses the word "Nero" to mean "very, very, very dark grey"! Tell me, mets, what does the word "cleave" technically mean? Does it technically mean "To split with or as if with a sharp instrument" or " To adhere, cling, or stick fast"? Or could it maybe be that both are valid and correct definitions? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Listen, I mentioned that there wasn't a true "Black" colour merely for your edification, and after this aside I continued, thus: Hence why I stated that "Irrespective of historical chomatics, however, you are trying to insist that because there is a general meaning for the word black, that there is not a specific technical meaning for the word, as well. Which is patently nonsensical." BLACK is technically, not idiomatically (as in the clothing industry), the absence of colour. If you want to bastardize "technically" to include the clothing indutry, then that is your perogative. But then you are just playing semantics with "technically", instead of "Black". I can do that too, but it is pointless. Technically, as in in science, the term BLACK is not a colour but the absence of colour. It was Launch's statement, that I backed up, that explained the specific semantic definition of "BLACK", and used the terminology "technically". It was your exclusive definition that precludes this specific definition on principle. You are not going to convince anyone that there is not a technical term, called BLACK, that is defined as THE ABSENCE OF COLOUR. Hence "Black Holes": or are you suggesting that these are just the same colour as your tee-shirt ? Right, so the term "black" exists as a technical term. (I can't think of another way to describe the specific use of a word in a reference about the imploded remnants of a solar explosion that resulted from the gravitation force being stronger than the energy produced in that explosion, delineated by the Chandrasekhar limit.) Technical. So, technically, there exists a definition for the word "black" that equates to "the absence of colour". Now it is your contention that because you can provide a "technical" definition of "black" that includes it as a colour (and you provide the rag trade as your star witness ) therefore "technically" black is a colour. But even using your perverted logic, there is still a technical scientific (which I would argue is a more correct use of the word "technical", and probably so would you if you weren't trying to worm out of an obvious error on your part) definition of "black" that means "the absence of colour". This is why I used the argument for a different term for black (Italian). So, either way, you are wrong. Q.E.D. PS The homonyms cleave, even though they originate from the same root, do in fact mean both to seperate and to cling. Just as "derivative" can mean the subject that is derived, or the root of the derivation. And, my personal favourite, "sanction" means both to allow and prevent.

Ha! Well done. It seems that the modders have managed to provide the most requested features of a sequel to the original KotOR (apart from the obviously implicit one of a cohesive story). Can you play a Yoda?

INVERSE PROPORTION

The inner workings of the protestant moral compass.

Anything from Infocom.

... Or how about K1 and K2 ? As long as it is in context, I see no problem with abbreviations. Then again, I used to work for IBM, and they are almost as fetishist about acronyms as the armed forces. (It comes from having to quickly create accurate descriptions for complex concepts; it just isn't practical to make up snappy little proper nouns for everything, and it defeats the purpose.) For example, if they called K1 "Revan" and K2 "Gizka's Revenge"? Would that be better? You would then have to spend even more effort to explain that it is a sequel to a game with a totally different name. And then there would be those who would argue that it wasn't intended to be a sequel, because it was named differently.)

Agreed. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'll concur, as well. Pick the enemy's weak spot: this guy is a spotlight-dweller, so anything that takes away his moral-highground in the press will hurt him the most. He's operating on the Terrorist modus agendi: he's banking on the premise that you'll get bored / disinterested (or in the case of Steve, insulted out) of the argument. There really ought to be some sort of ombudsman to adjudicate lawyers; especially those deliberately involved in self-aggrandizement to the detriment of the law they profess to serve. Then some of the true professionals might have some respect for them, as a vocation.

Wasn't he in Spanglish? If that were he, then he did that very well. (I haven't seen any of his other recent offerings, as they were the worst sort of US lowest-common-denominator humour.)

well there was that '32-3 Bodyline series, where Douglas Jardine took the Ashes from the Australians by bowling Harold Larwood using "leg theory" at the them. I think they might have won an Ashes or two in the meantime ...

I have read the entire Bible, have you? Furthermore, I have lived a life not isolated from real people, cosetted in an artificial reality where bogus notions of what is "natural" are fostered and foisted on unsuspecting gullible fools, under the guise of wisdom. If your message weren't so dangerous, your obliviousness notwithstanding, I wouldn't bother trying to correct you. You are preaching a dangerous form of intolerance. "I don't mid, BUT it is not natural" is one step from "it is not natural, so it is forbidden". You are already claiming the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, and therefore is a sin. You are dangerous. You are so feebleminded that you don't even realise how wrong you are. You seem to think I'm flaming you for some arbitrary reason. I am flaming your bigoted attitude. Repent! Salvation is at hand.