Cantousent

Yeah, them too.

I like the idea that we'll have better organization, but I actually liked the fact that the game didn't go hogwild about the ability to carry stuff. I would have thought unlimited inventory would hurt the game. There's no doubt that I noticed that I never had to worry about encumbrance. Still, there was something cool about not having to worry about what stuff I'd left behind or where I was going to store all of the crap I picked up during the game. Realism is over-rated.

Keep going in this vein and we'll end up with midiclorians in the game... or whatever the hell they were called.

I don't care what it's called nearly so much as how it plays and if it's fun. KotOR sure as hell beats Episode One and Two put together. Especially Episode Two. Ugh. KotOR is the best Star Wars movie we've had for over the past decade.

That's the wrong relationship you doofus. It's more like: "I know it's been a while since I went away to school, but I've thought about you the whole time. Do you think there's any chance we could, uh, maybe... go out Friday to, you know, get reacquainted?"

The pictures flash between the evil looking wretch and the angelic looking blond. So, the question is, does this represent another dark side/light side picture of the same picture or no?

Sweet. It's all good. I'm really looking forward to this one.

Yep, I agree. They should have the second game run as if the players had decided to turn to the darkside in the first game. Sounds like a great idea.

Mischievous Child

If I get another Dan Akroyd joke about my picture, I'll have to hurt someone. B)

Oh, I have Winterwind on the brain. Now I beg your pardon, WinterFOX.

No problem, Winterwind. Any mistake that puts me in company with Tigranes is welcome indeed. ...And I count the company very good, indeed.

I guess my point is that "flat" characters aren't bad in and of themselves. Literature is replete with examples of characters depicted in such a way. Charles Dickins portrays his characters as what we might consider flat. That's irrelevant if they serve the purpose for which they are fashioned. Some folks might suggest that Dickens is inferior or that his works don't deserve attention or praise. However, his works have received both attention and praise and passed what is perhaps the most important test of any literary work -- enduring renown. This is the Tolkien argument all over again. Whether folks on this board like Tolkien or not, he has had an enduring influence and it is quite likely that he will continue to do so. That puts him in a different category from those who enjoy fame during a short span of years. Put it this way, I see no end of harsh criticism for Shakespeare. ...But Shakespeare has a commanding influence, STILL, on our society. So, folks arguing to the contrary are usually just grinding an axe. Fair enough, grind away, but the axe will be ground to dust before you can change reality. "Flat" characterizations serve a purpose in some strories. Some stories revel in creating "complex" characters. Each should be judged on how well it achieves its individual goal and how worthy that goal is in the first place.

lol. Well, you might as well take it as a compliment, Gromnir. I, for one, would be interested in see a picture. Let the rest of us specimens at the zoo here decide what's what with the biker picture.

heh, clever photo.

Eh, I'm not so sure about that. Melkor/Morgoth, IMO, behaved like a spoiled brat. First he went, "Daddy's so mean! He actually dared to chastise me! I'm taking my ball and go play elsewhere!" He basically kicked over lamps and killed the trees he didn't like with the aid of his pet spider. His attitude toward the Valar's creation was mostly "Ahhh, I can't create these toys! So I'll break their toys! Hehe!" Tolkien's characterization is pretty flat on all counts, anyway, for the good and the bad guys alike. This is an interesting quote. I appreciate the response. However, I didn't write either one.

I thought the cost to benefit ratio makes a lot of sense. I'm not dead set against all races, but I'm not angry we can only play humans right now. The fact is, any change in the variables will have a significant impact on the outcome. For that reason alone, we might as well speak in terms of cost v. benefit as anything else. Now, how many races should we see. It's become a conversation centered on an either/or model. Why not narrow it down to a question of which races should be playable? For the record, I think including wookies as playable sounds just plain dumb. B)

HAHAHAHAHA. At least he didn't call you a half-orc as I'm wont to do. EDIT: I love phat loot. I just wish they'd spread it out a bit. I mean, if they're doing a sequel, why not save some of that uber crap for game 2. I guess they don't know that they'll have a game 2 for sure.

So speaketh Magena, the first level spammer. Hey, maybe we can band together. Just a thought.

I guess that's true. I mean, I didn't worry nearly so much about the ultimate bad guy in KotOR as I did the adventure and I thought the adventure was great. With that in mind, I'm not sure I'd want them to stop using a formula that, for whatever reason, worked for me personally.

Yeah? Neither of them had any trace of personality. They were just "there" to be Big Bad Ultimate Evil. Boring. Yes, and that worked out very well simply because the story wasn't about Morgoth or Sauron. Sometimes it's not such a bad thing to leave the Antagonist as some remote evil when the focus of the story rests on the good guys. If they had played a significant part of the books, then Morgoth and Sauron would have been boring. As it was, they weren't really characters at all. They were symbols.

I agree. The only purely evil characters I find compelling are the ones who are remote. That is, if it's some remote evil against whom the Prot struggles, and we don't ever really see the evil character, then that's fine. In that case, pure evil isn't so bad. ...But for the rest, I say develop them in 3d. That doesn't mean the player has to sympathize with them, merely that they don't seem cartoonish. You can have the antagonist display normal motives and feelings without leaving any doubt that he's the bad guy.

You know, some of the best villains have been pure evil. Morgoth and Sauron were evil through and through. Scrooge, prior to the visitations, is depicted as quite two-dimmensional. Satan is pure evil. On the other hand, I prefer Milton's portrayal of Satan as an almost sympathetic character. I prefer Shylocke to Scrooge. I prefer Ravel to Malik.

Basically, it sound as if you'd like to see two releases from Obsidian rather closer together. I would also. I don't know how feasible that is, though.

Well, I'm still at a very low level. On the other hand, you can't really go up a level unless you post in the on topic fora.