Decided to not buy the game.

[Nur Ab Sal]

I never intended to find friends on the net. I have them on my university. Don't create something that doesn't exist, cause that's lame... what for am I saying that, 90% of your analysis are lame and rude sh..

 

Even in this thread many people showed already their disapproval for your language and attitude and this tells something.

 

Goosh. That's all.

[99blackbird]

That's too bad. You don't know what you're missing out on. I mean, is the ending really all that it takes to keep a game from being enjoyable?

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

To me, an RPG is all about the story and the characters. Its just like a movie. I don't care much about special effects or how BIG the action sequences are. I want to enjoy a story. And in an RPG I want interaction with the NPCs.

 

I found the storyline convoluted and aimless. I found the interaction confusing, especially since there were cut scenes made meaningless because of the cut content. With regard to the ending, this game was like eating a pretty tasty meal only to find a ****roach in the last spoonful.

 

And I didn't run into many bugs.

 

KOTOR 1 was the better game IMHO. KOTOR introduced some nice features, (such as influence, new force powers, prestige classes, and switchable weapon sets) but it wasn't enough to carry the limp story which was further crippled by the rushed ending.

 

I played thorugh KOTOR1 several times as lightside and darkside PCs because I wanted to see how the story would be different each time.

With KOTOR2 I really don't care much about how playing as a light or darksider would change anything. So I haven't played beyond the first playthrough.

 

Take it with a grain of salt.

[Lemurmania]

I'm in the mood to feed the trolls. Here goes:

 

You are not the whole forum,

He asserted that the whole forum thinks you're nasty, not that he was the whole forum. You extrapolated his assertion to absurdity, a well-established and cheap rhetorical trick.

 

thus your opinion on what the whole membership thinks of me isn't law.

He never said it was. Again, you're setting up straw-man arguments.

 

This works in a similar way as an young infant assuming he's the centre of the universe. Draw your own conclusions.

Speaking as a father of a small infant who really does believe that the universe begins and ends in his wants and needs, I can see with some clarity who's fitting into that mold and who is not. I have no doubt my boy would declare himself "leet" if he had speech.

 

I know I don't have a single friend here.

Attempt to disarm the criticism by acknowledging it. Of the various assertions and specious arguments made here, this is the most sophisticated.

 

Neither do you for that matter. The difference between you and me, my socially challenged friend, is that I fully acknowledge this fact, while you delude yourself. I find it rather sad that you chose the 'net as a means to find friends, and perhaps it's an indication that in fact, the lone loser here isn't me.

Well, obviously he never stated that he needs this forum to find friends, and the assertion that he does is pure silliness, meant to troll for more reaction. Using extrapolations of statements to make further extrapolations into absurdity is commonly known as reductio ad absurdum.

 

Your rhetoric goes like this:

 

Person A: Everybody likes cheese.

2Leet: You aren't everybody, and there's no way everybody could fit into you, so your "cheese liking" isn't my law. Furthermore, I find it pathetic that you seek cheese on the Internet, where one can't even taste cheese. You and your cheese needs are pathetic and stupid. I pity you. I pity your cheese even more. You'll probably never find cheese, since you're so obviously cheese-challenged.

 

Okay, that's enough troll-feeding for the moment.

[Nur Ab Sal]

Your rhetoric goes like this:

 

Person A: Everybody likes cheese.

2Leet: You aren't everybody, and there's no way everybody could fit into you, so your "cheese liking" isn't my law. Furthermore, I find it pathetic that you seek cheese on the Internet, where one can't even taste cheese. You and your cheese needs are pathetic and stupid. I pity you. I pity your cheese even more. You'll probably never find cheese, since you're so obviously cheese-challenged.

 

Okay, that's enough troll-feeding for the moment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hehehe. No more words neccesary.

[213374U]

I'm in the mood to feed the trolls. Here goes:

Cool. I was rather bored.

 

 

He asserted that the whole forum thinks you're nasty, not that he was the whole forum. You extrapolated his assertion to absurdity, a well-established and cheap rhetorical trick.

On the contrary. He made a baseless assertion which could only be proved if he was indeed the whole forum. Something obviously impossible. Thus, his original statement was flawed at the base.

 

 

He never said it was. Again, you're setting up straw-man arguments.

You already dealt with this on the last quote. Since it was part of the same sentence, it was meant to deal with the same point. Your attempt to strenghthen your post by duplicating points has failed.

 

 

Speaking as a father of a small infant who really does believe that the universe begins and ends in his wants and needs, I can see with some clarity who's fitting into that mold and who is not. I have no doubt my boy would declare himself "leet" if he had speech.

I only pointed to the fact that his opinions aren't universal, as opposed to young infants who actually believe their reality is the only possible reality. This was in consonance with Nur's assuming his opinion was automatically shared by the rest of the forum, which is obviously false. And I dare you to point a single post of mine in which I declared myself "leet".

 

 

Attempt to disarm the criticism by acknowledging it. Of the various assertions and specious arguments made here, this is the most sophisticated.

You mistake observation of the obvious with criticism. This statement could be applied in the same measure if I said "you are a poster", and you answered "Indeed I am". You really need to do better.

 

 

Well, obviously he never stated that he needs this forum to find friends, and the assertion that he does is pure silliness, meant to troll for more reaction. Using extrapolations of statements to make further extrapolations into absurdity is commonly known as reductio ad absurdum.

I never stated he needed the 'net to search for friends. But since he pointed to the fact that I don't have any friends here, it's only logical to assume that he thinks that he (or someone else) does. If he didn't, the criticism wouldn't really be applicable, thus making the whole point moot.

 

 

Your rhetoric goes like this:

 

Person A: Everybody likes cheese.

2Leet: You aren't everybody, and there's no way everybody could fit into you, so your "cheese liking" isn't my law. Furthermore, I find it pathetic that you seek cheese on the Internet, where one can't even taste cheese. You and your cheese needs are pathetic and stupid. I pity you. I pity your cheese even more. You'll probably never find cheese, since you're so obviously cheese-challenged.

That is a pretty good example itself of a reductio-ad-absurdum fallacy as well. And not a very funny one at that, if that was your intention.

[Lemurmania]

I know I'll never get in the last word with a full-time troll, but this is as good a way to pass a rainy afternoon as any other. To wit:

 

He made a baseless assertion which could only be proved if he was indeed the whole forum. Something obviously impossible. Thus, his original statement was flawed at the base.

You've stated many times that you don't care what anybody here thinks of you. You've recommended that people /ignore you. You've admitted that your style is blunt and aggressive, and that you "don't give a d@mn." And yet, despite this, your argument hinges on the fact that the poster who suggested you are an unpopular troll is not in fact the entire forum. I mean, really, you're just arguing for argument's sake at that point. His underlying point stands, i.e., you are an abrasive poster, and nobody in their right mind would want to have a drink with your online 1337 persona. Your point, that he is not an embodyment of the entire forum, is simplistic, misses the point, and is legalistic to boot.

 

 

You already dealt with this on the last quote. Since it was part of the same sentence, it was meant to deal with the same point. Your attempt to strenghthen your post by duplicating points has failed.

Nonsense! You underrate your own ability to pack a sentence with red herrings! In the first part you were decrying his lack of being everyone on the forum; in the latter half of your sentence you declare that his "law" will not be yours. (A weird way of thinking, but there you have it.) I felt your law obsession deserved its own rebuttal. You seem to have a thing for rules.

 

I only pointed to the fact that his opinions aren't universal, as opposed to young infants who actually believe their reality is the only possible reality. This was in consonance with Nur's assuming his opinion was automatically shared by the rest of the forum, which is obviously false. And I dare you to point a single post of mine in which I declared myself "leet".

His take on your popularity was "obviously false"? How would you know? You've already stated, repeatedly, that you don't care about public opinion, and that concepts such as "friends" mean nothing to you in the forum context. If I assert that you have no lovers in this forum, wouldn't it be equally true, since such relationships, by your reasoning, don't exist here?

 

As for calling youself leet, check your user name, 21337. You declare your ub3r 1337ness with every flaming post.

 

You mistake observation of the obvious with criticism. This statement could be applied in the same measure if I said "you are a poster", and you answered "Indeed I am". You really need to do better.

Pardon me for crediting you with more subtlety than was warranted.

 

I never stated he needed the 'net to search for friends.

Leet, meet Leet:

 

I find it rather sad that you chose the 'net as a means to find friends, and perhaps it's an indication that in fact, the lone loser here isn't me.

In a narrow, legalistic way you're correct. You didn't use the word "need." In every other sense you're contradicting yourself.

 

But since he pointed to the fact that I don't have any friends here, it's only logical to assume that he thinks that he (or someone else) does.

And here we are, back at the tiresome "friends vs. friendless" bit of semantic wrangling that lies at the heart of your wriggling. You declare that there can be no such thing as friends on the boards, and even if there were, you don't really care. Therefore his statement that you have no friends is just specious, and shows how immature and silly the poster was.

 

But isn't that just the sort of reasoning a person with no friends would use? I'm not saying that's you, of course, but doesn't it smack a bit of the person who can't play dodgeball walking away, muttering about how the game is stupid and he doesn't want to play?

 

That is a pretty good example itself of a reductio-ad-absurdum fallacy as well. And not a very funny one at that, if that was your intention.

As for how funny something is or isn't, it's traditional for the butt of a joke to not find it at all humorous. Like Mel Brooks said, "Tragedy is you get a hangnail; funny is I fall in a sewer and die."

[Baneblade]

Lemurmania... Et tu me, Brute.

[lovecraft]

It's always entertaining watching arguments on message boards. What experience has shown is that the argument will continue indefinately because neither side will ever admit to being wrong. I have witnessed arguments where members have had facts contradicting them thrown in their face and they still refuse to admit defeat or admit that they were wrong. Arguing over the internet is so pointless and idiotic it makes me wonder about the mentality of the offenders, especially when they appear to be intelligent but continue to act like 3 year olds who found their GI Joe with the kung-fu grip broken and are determined to take their angst out on someone.

[213374U]

You've stated many times that you don't care what anybody here thinks of you. You've recommended that people /ignore you. You've admitted that your style is blunt and aggressive, and that you "don't give a d@mn." And yet, despite this, your argument hinges on the fact that the poster who suggested you are an unpopular troll is not in fact the entire forum. I mean, really, you're just arguing for argument's sake at that point. His underlying point stands, i.e., you are an abrasive poster, and nobody in their right mind would want to have a drink with your online 1337 persona. Your point, that he is not an embodyment of the entire forum, is simplistic, misses the point, and is legalistic to boot.

Of course I'm arguing for argument's sake. I'm bored as hell. That doesn't imply that my points weren't valid, though. I haven't made any contradictions as you seem to be attempting to infer.

 

And while his underlying point may stand, the argument he made is still invalid; no matter how hard you try to fix it, it's still broken. So don't put words in other people's mouths.

 

 

Nonsense! You underrate your own ability to pack a sentence with red herrings! In the first part you were decrying his lack of being everyone on the forum; in the latter half of your sentence you declare that his "law" will not be yours. (A weird way of thinking, but there you have it.) I felt your law obsession deserved its own rebuttal. You seem to have a thing for rules.

No. My opinion played no part in the sentence at all. The original point was that his opinion simply wasn't shared by everyone else as he seemed to think, a fact that stemmed from the premise that he is not the whole forum. No matter how many inexisting fallacies you try to call or how twisted your discourse may be, you are not going to drive me away through confusion.

 

 

His take on your popularity was "obviously false"? How would you know? You've already stated, repeatedly, that you don't care about public opinion, and that concepts such as "friends" mean nothing to you in the forum context. If I assert that you have no lovers in this forum, wouldn't it be equally true, since such relationships, by your reasoning, don't exist here?

You are mixing things here. I don't have friends in the forum, which has nothing to do with my popularity here. And I do know that at least one person doesn't consider me abrasive, because there is a post in this very thread that says so. Search for it yourself, I have enough work already going through the twisted rhetoric you consider "arguing". And it's 100% true I have no lovers in the boards. Your point?

 

 

As for calling youself leet, check your user name, 21337. You declare your ub3r 1337ness with every flaming post.

You said that, not me. Those are just random numbers to me.

 

 

In a narrow, legalistic way you're correct. You didn't use the word "need." In every other sense you're contradicting yourself.

It's called choosing your words carefully. Keep trying and some day you might learn to do it too. But so far, I am right, and you are holding to assumptions and interptetations of my posts, while I just have to point to the literal meaning.

 

 

But isn't that just the sort of reasoning a person with no friends would use? I'm not saying that's you, of course, but doesn't it smack a bit of the person who can't play dodgeball walking away, muttering about how the game is stupid and he doesn't want to play?

Heh. Not much subtlety there, pal. "I'm not saying that's you, of course, but I'm going to go to great lengths to imply exactly that". Nah, not good enough. Well, you are progressing from simply twisted logic to surreptitious personal attacks. Running out of patience so soon?

 

 

As for how funny something is or isn't, it's traditional for the butt of a joke to not find it at all humorous.

I see. So if the joke wasn't aimed at me (since you are implying I'm the butt of the joke), it was aimed to somebody else. Let's see, that can only be you or the other readers. If it was aimed to make you laugh, well, people who make jokes for themselves are somewhat sad. And if the point was to be funny in the eyes of the other posters, you have effectively assumed the "attention-whore" stereotype that every troll strives to accomplish. I don't know what's worse.

[lovecraft]

I'll come back later to see all of the "NOOB" comments that are directed at me.

[Lemurmania]

It's always entertaining watching arguments on message boards. What experience has shown is that the argument will continue indefinately because neither side will ever admit to being wrong.

I know, and I'm violating the Prime Directive -- don't argue with anonymous trolls on the internet. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

[Meshugger]

TSL is really a good game, when you're playing it without knowing about the cut content ofcourse. Otherwise, it can ruin your game experience.

 

Off-topic, i don't think that either Nur or numberman take each others arguments seriously, and neither should we. If a mod gets tired of the jibbering and locks the thread, then so be it. But let them ramble now at the time being.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Damn! Ive missed two pages of premium trollwar!

 

 

 

..Ill have to catch up with you guys tomorrow.

[Lemurmania]

Off-topic, i don't think that either Nur or numberman take each others arguments seriously, and neither should we. If a mod gets tired of the jibbering and locks the thread, then so be it. But let them ramble now at the time being.

So my leaping to Nur's defense is bad form? Impolite? Inappropriate?

 

Oh well. It was fun while it lasted.

[Daaave]

I'll come back later to see all of the "NOOB" comments that are directed at me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Shut up N00B.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[jedipodo]

Numberman and Nur, what is the reason that you two have become such radical lately? Is it the anger waiting for the patch or what?

[Meshugger]

Off-topic, i don't think that either Nur or numberman take each others arguments seriously, and neither should we. If a mod gets tired of the jibbering and locks the thread, then so be it. But let them ramble now at the time being.

So my leaping to Nur's defense is bad form? Impolite? Inappropriate?

 

Oh well. It was fun while it lasted.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Why do you care about my opinion? Does it matter in any way?

[lovecraft]

I'll come back later to see all of the "NOOB" comments that are directed at me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Shut up N00B.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, couldn't resist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ahhhhh, now I feel like a true member of this forum.

[Lemurmania]

Once more into the trollish breach (when will that silly Lemur ever learn?):

 

I haven't made any contradictions as you seem to be attempting to infer.

Never mix up imply and infer. In general, the speaker implies, the listener infers. Oh, I suppose you could argue (and you will!) that you were referring to my act of inferring meaning within your argument, but it's a stretch. You'd still get a markdown in your school paper, 1337.

 

And while his underlying point may stand, the argument he made is still invalid; no matter how hard you try to fix it, it's still broken.

I'm shocked and awed that you're admitting his underlying point stands. Surely that was a sentence-long type-o ...

 

No matter how many inexisting fallacies you try to call or how twisted your discourse may be, you are not going to drive me away through confusion.

So if I'm understanding your disputation style correctly, someone with an easy argument is "stupid" or a "n00b," but someone with a subtle argument is "twisted" and "surreptitious." You seem to have a dismissal on hand for everyone. Bravo!

 

I don't have friends in the forum, which has nothing to do with my popularity here.

That's sig material right there.

 

I have enough work already going through the twisted rhetoric you consider "arguing".

I'm really enjoying this "twisted" thing. Makes me sound all kinky, like I'm some dude wearing a corset and black eyeliner. Elaborate!

 

You said that {1337 = leet} not me. Those are just random numbers to me.

Silly too leet for me, your easy denial of the obvious leaves me breathless. More! More!

 

It's called choosing your words carefully. Keep trying and some day you might learn to do it too.

And he gives me more! In response to the fact that his attack on another user was only lacking the word "need," he gives me a patronizing lecture about choosing my words carefully! Bravissimo!

 

Heh. Not much subtlety there, pal. "I'm not saying that's you, of course, but I'm going to go to great lengths to imply exactly that". Nah, not good enough. Well, you are progressing from simply twisted logic to surreptitious personal attacks. Running out of patience so soon?

It's the truth. I don't know you in RL, so I'm hesitant to ascribe charactersitics to you. I can say plenty about your online persona, and I could even attempt to infer what sort of person you might be from it, but it's all just grabbing at the wind. I've known people who were quite pleasent in the flesh but flaming jerks online. One never knows.

 

So if the joke wasn't aimed at me (since you are implying I'm the butt of the joke), it was aimed to somebody else. Let's see, that can only be you or the other readers. If it was aimed to make you laugh, well, people who make jokes for themselves are somewhat sad. And if the point was to be funny in the eyes of the other posters, you have effectively assumed the "attention-whore"

Here your reasoning plunges into the deep end. What's the source of your confusion? My silly little cheese dialogue was clearly aimed at your argument style -- I even said so. And then I said that the butt of a joke rarely finds it funny. Very clear. How did you get yourself tangled up in knots over that one? There's absolutely nothing to be confused about.

 

Let me go over it again: Lemur makes fun of your arguing style using cheese. You state that cheese joke isn't funny. Lemur says that you shouldn't think it's funny, since you're the butt. 1337 responds with a convoluted argument about attention whores.

 

Whatever.

[lovecraft]

Numberman and Nur, what is the reason that you two have become such radical lately? Is it the anger waiting for the patch or what?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It could be anger directed at the entire gaming industry in general. I remember the days back when pc games were released relatively bug free. Nowadays companies are releasing console games with bugs. That is simply inexcusable on so many levels. I realize that games nowadays are much more complicated then their counterparts a decade past but that is still no excuse for releasing unfinished/bug ridden software.

If car companies were to start selling cars in the same condition as publishers sell games with a sell it now and fix it later mentality then I believe the auto industry would soon be a thing of the past. I realize there is a huge difference between the auto industry and the game industry but the principle is the same.

It just seems to me that companies no longer take any pride in releasing a quality product.

[GhostofAnakin]

I realize there is a huge difference between the auto industry and the game industry but the principle is the same.

It just seems to me that companies no longer take any pride in releasing a quality product.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Probably has to do with automobiles have a safety standard in which they have to atleast pass, whereas, as far as I know, there is no "completeness" standard for games, thus it's easier for game makers to take shortcuts since they aren't being regulated.

 

If there is some kind of standards bureau for games, then the standards must be incredibly low (ie. as long as the game works on 10% of systems tested on).

[213374U]

Never mix up imply and infer. In general, the speaker implies, the listener infers. Oh, I suppose you could argue (and you will!) that you were referring to my act of inferring meaning within your argument, but it's a stretch. You'd still get a markdown in your school paper, 1337.

Hmm. Ok, you got me there. That's what I get for trying to appear pompous in a language that is not native to me.

 

Luckily for me, I no longer have to submit school papers. )

 

 

I'm shocked and awed that you're admitting his underlying point stands. Surely that was a sentence-long type-o ...

Nope. I didn't admit his underlying point actually stands. I admitted that it might stand, from your far-fetched perspective, or whatever. I didn't wish deviate from the issue by discussing that issue at that particular moment, and that's why once more, I chose my words carefully. )

 

 

So if I'm understanding your disputation style correctly, someone with an easy argument is "stupid" or a "n00b," but someone with a subtle argument is "twisted" and "surreptitious." You seem to have a dismissal on hand for everyone. Bravo!

No. You are not understanding it correctly. Someone adamant about an easy yet wrong argument is indeed stupid. Someone who has joined recently or has not had much participation in the discussions here is indeed a n00b. Someone who mixes, takes out of context, or purposefully makes malicious (and erroneous) interpretations is twisting. And if that someone also uses rhetoric to hide personal attacks, he is being surreptitious. Hope that clears it up.

 

But yes, I try my best to have a dismissal ready for any contingency.

 

 

That's sig material right there.

You have my permission to use it as a siggy. But if you do, you will be showing to everyone that you don't know the difference between having friends and being popular. And that won't make you very popular or earn you any friends.

 

 

I'm really enjoying this "twisted" thing. Makes me sound all kinky, like I'm some dude wearing a corset and black eyeliner. Elaborate!

Everyone's entitled to their own fantasies. And I already elaborated in a previous quote.

 

 

Silly too leet for me, your easy denial of the obvious leaves me breathless. More! More!

Can you prove I chose my username for that particular reason? Didn't think so.

 

Next.

 

 

And he gives me more! In response to the fact that his attack on another user was only lacking the word "need," he gives me a patronizing lecture about choosing my words carefully! Bravissimo!

So? It disarmed your entire argument, and you admitted yourself that I was right. What are you trying to prove? I'm not as sneaky as you are, I tell what I want to tell plain and bluntly. Don't try to find second meanings in my posts.

 

 

Let me go over it again: Lemur makes fun of your arguing style using cheese. You state that cheese joke isn't funny. Lemur says that you shouldn't think it's funny, since you're the butt. 1337 responds with a convoluted argument about attention whores.

Obviously it's you who is confused. Read it through again, take a glass of hot milk with a drop of honey, and call me in the morning.

 

Really, is this your concept of baiting the troll? Discussing rhetoric and trying to make you fall for fallacies isn't quite my idea of "fun".

[DarthWeevil]

Probably has to do with automobiles have a safety standard in which they have to atleast pass, whereas, as far as I know, there is no "completeness" standard for games, thus it's easier for game makers to take shortcuts since they aren't being regulated.

 

If there is some kind of standards bureau for games, then the standards must be incredibly low (ie. as long as the game works on 10% of systems tested on).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Then again no-one ever died from buying an unfinished video game.

 

Though I suspect there is a lot of raised blood pressure over this one, so.. "

 

fingers crossed eh? (w00t)

[GhostofAnakin]

Then again no-one ever died from buying an unfinished video game.

 

Though I suspect there is a lot of raised blood pressure over this one, so.. "

 

fingers crossed eh? (w00t)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No gamers have died from buying an unfinished video game. But by the sounds of the people, and the ferocity of their anger, on this forum about them being "owed" something by Obsidian...

[lovecraft]

I believe it all depends on the circumstances. I am one of the few who likes to take a chance and buy $20.00 budget titles. I find that while some are certainly worthy of their "budget title" moniker, I have bought some budget titles that I felt were superior to some full price "legitimate" titles from well known developers.

I fully accept that when I buy a budget title that I am gambling with my money and there is a good chance the game will not even be worth 20 bucks. If I buy a game from a company like Lucasarts and spend 50+ dollars on it then I am expecting a certain level of quality. I have a feeling that if I were to buy Kotor 2 that I would be greatly dissapointed.

It seems as though the gaming industry has changed so much and not for the better. Instead of releasing a few high quality titles each year the mentality now seems to be lets flood the market with low quality games and make our profits through quantity not quality.