kumquatq3 Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 It ruins the overall story arc of the games in total. So you suddenly didn't have fun when playing the first game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darque Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Ok, let's apply this from a different angle. 9 out of 10 people agree that Episode 1 more or less.... umm... sucked... If that is the case, does that suddenly make ANH, ESB and RotJ unwatchable? Because now the story has been tainted by midondriacloriadianwhatevers and a whiney baby-vader? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iolo Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Ok, let's apply this from a different angle. 9 out of 10 people agree that Episode 1 more or less.... umm... sucked... If that is the case, does that suddenly make ANH, ESB and RotJ unwatchable? Because now the story has been tainted by midondriacloriadianwhatevers and a whiney baby-vader? No because they weren't direct sequels. THere was 16 years separating them and because the new prequels should be considered as a universe all of its own. This trilogy is about the fall of Anakin and should work on its own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darque Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 They were more or less direct prequals and they had several characters that were in both sets (Vader, Obiwan, Yoda, Palpaltine, R2, 3P0, Chewbacca) and were tied together. If KoTOR2 is set in any other timezone, this all becomes a null issue then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumquatq3 Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 No because they weren't direct sequels.Yes they are THere was 16 years separating them Length of time between movies doesn't nessasaily mean thier not sequels. a la Aliens 1/2 and because the new prequels should be considered as a universe all of its own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumquatq3 Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 One thing that should be pointed out is that KOTOR2 isn't seemingly going to be a direct sequel. From the rumors we have all heard, as that is all we have to work with, it won't have much to do with the people of KOTOR. It will be seperated from KOTOR by time and story. At least to some degree, if the rumors are to be believed. So since the LS ending is pretty much canon, its not like your going to have your beliefs of what events took place ruined. So whats the arguement then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iolo Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 No because they weren't direct sequels. Yes they are THere was 16 years separating themLength of time between movies doesn't nessasaily mean thier not sequels. a la Aliens 1/2 and because the new prequels should be considered as a universe all of its own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumquatq3 Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 1. They were prequels, not sequelsYou made the original referance to the "sequels". I though you viewed it from a episode 1 on kind of view Hence:No because they weren't direct sequels. prequel was 40 years before Star Wars A New Hope.Aliens was set 57 years after Alien but again, if you want to go by the book definitions, there are 2 main ones i have found. To be a sequel, it has to either a) come after the events of a previous story (edit: not nessasarily right after, or 10 years after) or B ) continue the story. The SW movies fit both. They have their own storyline so in that sense they should be considered somewhat separate universe. The people and the storyline and even the emphasis placed by the creators are different enough that I think that should be case. what are you talking about? No. If you want to keep that opinion for yourself, fine, but thats not the way it is. That arguement is just ....no. The movies are canon, not extended universe. And some people I beleive did think the Phantom Menace ruined the entire series for them but I am not one of themYou notice the people that happens to often take these things just a bit to seriously? Why a bad sequel would ruin an original for some people is something that you may not understand but I do. ok, explain it. I have clearly outlined my arguement above a post or three. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iolo Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 1. They were prequels, not sequels You made the original referance to the "sequels". I though you viewed it from a episode 1 on kind of view Hence: No because they weren't direct sequels. prequel was 40 years before Star Wars A New Hope. Aliens was set 57 years after Alien but again, if you want to go by the book definitions, there are 2 main ones i have found. To be a sequel, it has to either a) come after the events of a previous story (edit: not nessasarily right after, or 10 years after) or B ) continue the story. The SW movies fit both. They have their own storyline so in that sense they should be considered somewhat separate universe. The people and the storyline and even the emphasis placed by the creators are different enough that I think that should be case.what are you talking about? No. If you want to keep that opinion for yourself, fine, but thats not the way it is. That arguement is just ....no. The movies are canon, not extended universe. And some people I beleive did think the Phantom Menace ruined the entire series for them but I am not one of them You notice the people that happens to often take these things just a bit to seriously? Why a bad sequel would ruin an original for some people is something that you may not understand but I do.ok, explain it. I have clearly outlined my arguement above a post or three. By different universe, I meant the stories in each trilogy are a serial and overall stand separate from the other trilogy. Just the fact that there is a different of 40 years should imply that. Different characters meant different representation of the characters. Different emphasis because the first trilogy was more adult oriented. I never claimed the movies weren't 'canon'. By separate universe I meant what I wrote above and not that they weren't connected. Why explain why a bad sequel would ruin an original? You have your own opinion. Highlander 2 ruined the original Highlander movie. It took a story that was completed in the original movie and added on elements that didn't make sense. All three endings happened in Deus Ex 1 apparently (removing whatever choice the player did). In fact, Helios and JC Denton figure pretty prominently in the sequel it would seem and I think you can kill JC if you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumquatq3 Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 By different universe, I meant the stories in each trilogy are a serial and overall stand separate from the other trilogy.I would say, overall, that the movies are connected in one big story. That is the point after all. They don't stand seperate "overall". As for being serial, remember they are Episode 1,2,3,4,5,6. Not 1,2,3 and a,b,c. Just the fact that there is a different of 40 years should imply that. Ok, but by that logic, each movie should be able to stand (and be enjoyed) alone. Just like each game should be able to be enjoyed and stand alone. After all it can't be more than 20 or so year between episode 3 and A New Hope. Hell, it's ten years passed between episode 1 and 2, and the changes in main chacters is almost as great. Large time gaps arn't exactly unusual in these stories. Your looking at the time between episode 1 and 4 to get your 40 years as well. Which isn't a fair way to look at it, especially after you used the word "serial" (Serial: published or presented in installments or successive parts). You have to look at them from one to the next. Hence "Successive". All three endings happened in Deus Ex 1 apparently (removing whatever choice the player did). In fact, Helios and JC Denton figure pretty prominently in the sequel it would seem and I think you can kill JC if you want. If you are going to make a direct sequel, and alot of people seem to want that, then you HAVE to step on a few toes or the story would be much much to ambiguous. Even FO2 declared that the hero was male, statue in NCR, among other things. Plus, FO2 was about as "indirect" as a direct sequel gets. Not to say either of your above examples were great in the way they did it, but I just can't see hating something that I once liked, that in itself hasn't changed at ALL, just because a sequel comes out I don't like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darque Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 From the rumors we have all heard, as that is all we have to work with, it won't have much to do with the people of KOTOR. It will be seperated from KOTOR by time and story. That's a shame, I'd much rather they be connected. Even if you can't use the characters from the first one, it would be nice to see an older Jedi Master Bastila somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumquatq3 Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 That's a shame, I'd much rather they be connected. Even if you can't use the characters from the first one, it would be nice to see an older Jedi Master Bastila somewhere. eh, thats just a rumor. EDIT: and not in the "its kotor2" way either. Tho, I would expect that they have, at best, a loose connection. It would be hard to follow up the KOTOR story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joren DarkStar Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 You don't get it, do you? Because KOTOR 2 will have ALL NEW CHARACTERS, it will be a COMPLETELY NEW STORY. The story from KOTOR 1 remains untouched, and the new story is just that, a new story that carries on during the time of the Old Republic - we are talking about 10,000 years here - we can have stories that don't affect each other in that span of time... Actually, there has been no indication given yet that if made KOTOR2 would be all new characters or not a direct sequel or that it would be a completely new storyline. There were two endings to the game. They could choose one, such as Revan and Bastila becoming the new Sith Lords, and run with it. In that case, you would play a new character this time, not Revan with amnesia. Yes, there is an indication that it will be all new characters. When interviewed about the possibility of KOTOR 2, a LucasArts producer said its being planned, and with ALL NEW CHARACTERS. If that isn't the definition of a "clear indication", then maybe you need to define what "is" means. And Hades, on whether or not it's a sequel, its semantics. Ok, it isn't a true sequel in this case, but if the game system remains relatively untouched, or just upgraded, then it is enough of a sequel for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumquatq3 Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 When interviewed about the possibility of KOTOR 2, a LucasArts producer said its being planned, and with ALL NEW CHARACTERS. Never saw that. Is there a site with the interview up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Director Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 When interviewed about the possibility of KOTOR 2, a LucasArts producer said its being planned, and with ALL NEW CHARACTERS. Well, what LucasArts wants, LucasArts will get... I assume you can back that statement up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumquatq3 Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 When interviewed about the possibility of KOTOR 2, a LucasArts producer said its being planned, and with ALL NEW CHARACTERS. Well, what LucasArts wants, LucasArts will get... I assume you can back that statement up? Thats what I wanted: A link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert the Beardless Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 I think that the SW universe is pretty much limited. The strong archetypal elements like the farmer boy who saves the universe, the struggle between good and evil, a princess to be saved from an evil warlord, are set in an eclectic universe which has this materialist-scyentiphic shine (spaceships, droids, etc) and a symplistic religion. (those who follow the Force) Also it is very anthropocentric, humans being presented as a main race, while alien species are just, well, aliens. Actually that galaxy "far far away" isn't that far from us. The movies borrowed something from westerns (cantinas, bounty-hounters) from samurai movies (swordfights, the religious warrior, etc), the locations reproduce existing exotic places like Tunisia's desert, trophical jungles or north american pine-forests. I don't say I don't like the SW experience. It is a succesful coctail made from Earth's different cultures and places. It is a almost a fairytale. While I like fairytales, I would'nt mind visiting other, more consistent worlds like the post-apocalyptic Earth of Fallout or the galaxy of Frank Herbert's Dune. Even the LOTR universe has more depths than the SW one, in my opinion. Star Wars feels somehow weightless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darque Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 with the "extended universe" Star wars has kinda evolved past that first movie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TankorMike Posted February 25, 2004 Author Share Posted February 25, 2004 Star Wars is much more in depth then LOTR , LOTR took everything from D&D and every other fantasy RPG ever made. Star Wars was original , came out in the 70's and still had more depth then LOTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darque Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Star Wars is much more in depth then LOTR , LOTR took everything from D&D and every other fantasy RPG ever made. Star Wars was original , came out in the 70's and still had more depth then LOTR If you are under 21, you are instantly forgiven.. otherwise... what the heck are you talking about? The Hobbit/LoTR predate DnD by about 40 years Your statement is reversed, DnD pulled from the LoTR setting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TankorMike Posted February 25, 2004 Author Share Posted February 25, 2004 D&D came out before LOTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iolo Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 D&D came out before LOTR No it didn't. LOTR came out in the 1950s. D&D came out in 1974/1975 and heavily borrowed from LOTR in its initial incarnation to the point that Tolkien's estate forced TSR to change Hobbits to Halfling and Ents to Treants for instance. Of course there were other influences to D&D such as Jack Vance's books as well among others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TankorMike Posted February 25, 2004 Author Share Posted February 25, 2004 Your probably right then , I did not know LOTR came out in the 50's , when I used to play AD&D I had a Hobbit on my team. Still Star Wars is still more in depth then LOTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darque Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Still Star Wars is still more in depth then LOTR Debatable. But personally I'm going to lean towards the SW side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TankorMike Posted February 25, 2004 Author Share Posted February 25, 2004 Well one of my main reasons for saying Star Wars was because Star Wars was a movie first and George Lucas knew he would be very limited to making a movie in the 1970's that would look the part so he admitted limiting the cast , clothing , planets , races and anything else that would take away from the Galaxy. Now with computer technology he brought in a queen and her wardrobes, the senate , more and more space ships , etc. I like the LOTR but I just think it got old with RPG's in the 80's with D&D , Might and Magic , Bards Tale. Star Wars RPG was only done once (The right way) KOTOR Imagine in the 80's Star Wars Dungeon and Dragons style that would have been great Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now