KotoR 3: Ideas, Suggestions, Discussion, Part 25

[Bass-GameMaster]

Ive see countless reports of Lucas/Bio employess realasing cut up comments on the MMO but I dont know If I can 100% believe it, right now im at 75%

[Deadly_Nightshade]

MMO was confirmed by EA CEO

 

****.

[Jediphile]

This however was not the first time Riccitello said things along those lines. And, unlike on previous times, none of the companies rushed in to "correct" the statement

 

Riccitiello himself corrected it the first time, and given that he has done so before does not help his credibility, nor does the lack of confirmation from Lucasarts or even Bioware or for that matter the fact that portfolio.com was the only source for a story that would seem to be of great interest to the business in general (other media merely referenced it from portfolio.com).

[Magister Lajciak]

That's a pity, since I have precisely zero interest in MMOs...

[Deadly_Nightshade]

That's a pity, since I have precisely zero interest in MMOs...

 

This is interesting, as you echo almost every KotoR I and/or KotoR II: TSL player I know - something that makes me wonder who the MMO will even target. Will they try to go after the very people who are against the product?

[Bass-GameMaster]

That's a pity, since I have precisely zero interest in MMOs...

 

This is interesting, as you echo almost every KotoR I and/or KotoR II: TSL player I know - something that makes me wonder who the MMO will even target. Will they try to go after the very people who are against the product?

 

I highly doubt that considering most Kotor fans who hate MMO's will play the Kotor MMO hoping for a single player story.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

...considering most Kotor fans who hate MMO's will play the Kotor MMO hoping for a single player story.

 

Why would people "who hate MMOs" play a MMO for it's single player?

[Magister Lajciak]

That's a pity, since I have precisely zero interest in MMOs...

 

This is interesting, as you echo almost every KotoR I and/or KotoR II: TSL player I know - something that makes me wonder who the MMO will even target. Will they try to go after the very people who are against the product?

 

Good point! I guess they will market it at the disappointed fans of Star Wars Galaxies.

 

My response that I have zero interest in MMOs is misleading. I do have a negatively-based interest in MMOs in so far as they tend to ruin existing franchises by precluding further proper sequels from being made.

[Wolva]

If they want to target the fans who where dissappionted in Galaxies why would they choose the KOTOR setting?

Wouldn't it make more sense to make that game in the era between 3 and 4?

I mean the force unleashed is coming there's a serie coming of that era som it seems to me they want to expand that era.

Why woukld they mess up the KOTOR serie when they can use that era?

 

Please say you all agree and revive my hope for KOTOR3

Edited August 4, 2008 by Wolva

[Magister Lajciak]

If they want to target the fans who where dissappionted in Galaxies why would they choose the KOTOR setting?

Wouldn't it make more sense to make that game in the era between 3 and 4?

I mean the force unleashed is coming there's a serie coming of that era som it seems to me they want to expand that era.

Why woukld they mess up the KOTOR serie when they can use that era?

 

Maybe they want to clearly differentiate it from the supposed disaster that was Starwars Galaxies by chosing a different era, while still making it a Star Wars game. Plus, the less well-defined KOTOR era enables more creative freedom than the more well-defined era of the movies and also by setting it in the KOTOR era they may succeed in getting some section of the KOTOR fans (certainly not me though). Of course, I am just speculating here - only the decision-makers at those companies know their reasons for that.

[random n00b]

Why when there's an interesting discussion, somebody always shouts "OMG derailment!". Linear thought is boring.

 

 

It should be subjected to reason and criticism, yes, but the point that doing so does not invalidate the opinion as an opinion. More people might disagree with it - "a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty". But since it rests on insufficient grounds by defintion, who is to say that diverging opinion is "wrong"? The majority may think Rembrant is a great artist, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I'm allowed to hate it and say his work is crap if that is my opinion. Galileo once argued that the sun, not the earth, was the center of the universe and was accused of heresy and put under house arrest for it. But we know today he was right. Now, obviously that's a pretty extreme example to compare to in this case, but it does tell us that a person does not need to be wrong simply because more people disagree with him. And remember that while Galileo based his conclusions on science, they were still only suspicions and theories.

Not only are you not quite addressing my point, you are also relying increasingly on semantic minutiae to build your arguments - you are effectively grasping at straws.

 

Indeed, opinions are belief. Nowhere have I disputed that. However, belief, when dealing with something related to the physical world, needs to be based on reasons, which are in turn subject to criticism. If those reasons can't withstand the test of peer review, the opinion is baseless and therefore is utter nonsense. The problem is how opinions are expressed. "Rembrandt is a crap artist" is not opinion, it is a statement of fact. That sort of statements are either right or wrong, because they deal with empirical aspects of the physical world. Beethoven's mastery of music alone is objectively superior to that of other musicians, regardless of whether it's your cup of tea or not. "I don't like Beethoven", however, is a perfectly respectable opinion.

 

Yes, to your shock and dismay, opinions can very well be wrong - scientific theories that lack formal proof are often confined to the realm of opinion, and those opinions are often proven wrong when proof is provided that makes theory into law, or refutes it altogether. That is why your Galileo analogy is not just "extreme", it also works against what you said. It was *proven* that those whose "opinion" was contrary to Galileo's were simply wrong. Sure, you are entitled to thinking that the Sun revolves around Earth... but you are wrong (and irrational).

 

Again, read what I said before. The worth of an idea is not related in any way to the number of people supporting it. That's why I have not brought up sales numbers, reviews, or supported my arguments with what is "widely considered", so please stop using that as an argument because it's demagogical. Critical thought goes beyond holding fast to an opinion regardless of the amount of reasons or proof provided to dispute it.

 

 

1. Quality speaks to "native excellence", "superiority" or "accomplishment or attainment" among other things, and as such becomes a measure of whether something is good or bad, which is always subjective.

The weak point in that is the jump you make between the concepts of "superiority" and "good and bad". "Good and bad" are very vague and circumstantial concepts, and therefore are not used when defining standards. "Superiority", however, is a fairly easy attribute to assess when comparing two similar elements.

 

 

2. It may be well implemented and executed. I accept that. It would not have sold if it were not. But just because the people who played it didn't know play the "Little Computer People" (because it is really old) doesn't make the Sims any more or less derivative of it or even innovative. And if the Sims don't appeal to me, then it doesn't, in which case I'm not likely to consider it a classic even if I accept that was a hit among some people. It really is that simple.

I thought I had already made it clear we are not discussing your personal tastes? Or are you utterly unable to put those aside and make an objective evaluation of the elements of the game? I already said I HATE The Sims. But that's irrelevant when discussing the game's premises and how those are realized.

 

 

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sim_games

Is that what you think passes for reasoned explanation?

 

You'd make a great teacher, for sure.

 

 

I see your and raise you a

[Xard]

It should be subjected to reason and criticism, yes, but the point that doing so does not invalidate the opinion as an opinion. More people might disagree with it - "a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty". But since it rests on insufficient grounds by defintion, who is to say that diverging opinion is "wrong"? The majority may think Rembrant is a great artist, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I'm allowed to hate it and say his work is crap if that is my opinion. Galileo once argued that the sun, not the earth, was the center of the universe and was accused of heresy and put under house arrest for it. But we know today he was right. Now, obviously that's a pretty extreme example to compare to in this case, but it does tell us that a person does not need to be wrong simply because more people disagree with him. And remember that while Galileo based his conclusions on science, they were still only suspicions and theories.

Not only are you not quite addressing my point, you are also relying increasingly on semantic minutiae to build your arguments - you are effectively grasping at straws.

 

Indeed, opinions are belief. Nowhere have I disputed that. However, belief, when dealing with something related to the physical world, needs to be based on reasons, which are in turn subject to criticism. If those reasons can't withstand the test of peer review, the opinion is baseless and therefore is utter nonsense. The problem is how opinions are expressed. "Rembrandt is a crap artist" is not opinion, it is a statement of fact. That sort of statements are either right or wrong, because they deal with empirical aspects of the physical world. Beethoven's mastery of music alone is objectively superior to that of other musicians, regardless of whether it's your cup of tea or not. "I don't like Beethoven", however, is a perfectly respectable opinion.

 

 

YES

[Wolva]

It should be subjected to reason and criticism, yes, but the point that doing so does not invalidate the opinion as an opinion. More people might disagree with it - "a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty". But since it rests on insufficient grounds by defintion, who is to say that diverging opinion is "wrong"? The majority may think Rembrant is a great artist, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I'm allowed to hate it and say his work is crap if that is my opinion. Galileo once argued that the sun, not the earth, was the center of the universe and was accused of heresy and put under house arrest for it. But we know today he was right. Now, obviously that's a pretty extreme example to compare to in this case, but it does tell us that a person does not need to be wrong simply because more people disagree with him. And remember that while Galileo based his conclusions on science, they were still only suspicions and theories.

Not only are you not quite addressing my point, you are also relying increasingly on semantic minutiae to build your arguments - you are effectively grasping at straws.

 

Yes, to your shock and dismay, opinions can very well be wrong - scientific theories that lack formal proof are often confined to the realm of opinion, and those opinions are often proven wrong when proof is provided that makes theory into law, or refutes it altogether. That is why your Galileo analogy is not just "extreme", it also works against what you said. It was *proven* that those whose "opinion" was contrary to Galileo's were simply wrong. Sure, you are entitled to thinking that the Sun revolves around Earth... but you are wrong (and irrational).

 

 

Off topic:

 

actually Galileo was also wrong, well partially.

He said the sun was the centre of the universe which is wrong, we're actually on the edge of the universe not in the centre.

Edited August 5, 2008 by Wolva

[Magister Lajciak]

It should be subjected to reason and criticism, yes, but the point that doing so does not invalidate the opinion as an opinion. More people might disagree with it - "a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty". But since it rests on insufficient grounds by defintion, who is to say that diverging opinion is "wrong"? The majority may think Rembrant is a great artist, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I'm allowed to hate it and say his work is crap if that is my opinion. Galileo once argued that the sun, not the earth, was the center of the universe and was accused of heresy and put under house arrest for it. But we know today he was right. Now, obviously that's a pretty extreme example to compare to in this case, but it does tell us that a person does not need to be wrong simply because more people disagree with him. And remember that while Galileo based his conclusions on science, they were still only suspicions and theories.

Not only are you not quite addressing my point, you are also relying increasingly on semantic minutiae to build your arguments - you are effectively grasping at straws.

 

Yes, to your shock and dismay, opinions can very well be wrong - scientific theories that lack formal proof are often confined to the realm of opinion, and those opinions are often proven wrong when proof is provided that makes theory into law, or refutes it altogether. That is why your Galileo analogy is not just "extreme", it also works against what you said. It was *proven* that those whose "opinion" was contrary to Galileo's were simply wrong. Sure, you are entitled to thinking that the Sun revolves around Earth... but you are wrong (and irrational).

 

 

Off topic:

 

actually Galileo was also wrong, well partially.

He said the sun was the centre of the universe which is wrong, we're actually on the edge of the universe not in the centre.

 

Actually, we are not on the edge of the universe. The center and edge of the universe are all relative.

[Bass-GameMaster]

...considering most Kotor fans who hate MMO's will play the Kotor MMO hoping for a single player story.

 

Why would people "who hate MMOs" play a MMO for it's single player?

 

The future Kotor game has been being called a Kotor Online game.. What does that mean? Usually games with those titles throw in a story line that can be played solo or in groups... for example : Phantasy Star Online, World Of Warcraft ONLINE, (theres more but Im really tired so sorry).

[Rosbjerg]

This is a good discussion, but perhaps you should talk about it here in a new thread?

[Deadly_Nightshade]

The future Kotor game has been being called a Kotor Online game.. What does that mean? Usually games with those titles throw in a story line that can be played solo or in groups... for example : Phantasy Star Online, World Of Warcraft ONLINE, (theres more but Im really tired so sorry).

 

Um... Neither of those games has a particularly strong story line, as far as I know, and WoW is definitely aimed towards multi-player parties at the higher levels - although I do not know about Phantasy Star. Also, just so you know, I am almost positive Phantasy Star Online could be played off-line.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

This is a good discussion, but perhaps you should talk about it here in a new thread?

 

Are talking about the MMO discussion?

[Magister Lajciak]

This is a good discussion, but perhaps you should talk about it here in a new thread?

 

Are talking about the MMO discussion?

 

I think he means the 'edge/center of the universe' discussion.

[Wolva]

Just read that LA is searching for mmo-testers

So more confirmation that an MMO is coming

What do you say who wants to infiltrate

[Xard]

lol

 

am i rite or am i rite?

[qt3.14159]

Just read that LA is searching for mmo-testers

So more confirmation that an MMO is coming

What do you say who wants to infiltrate

 

Seriously?? How does one get in on that? Anyone know?

[Xard]

well, getting into beta involves various means

 

for example; to get in Red Alert 3 Beta one had to buy Kane's Wrath expansion pack for C&C 3

 

In WoW getting into Wrath of the Lich King beta had something to do with clans for some people, but in there (like usually) it is simply matter of enlisting and hoping for best

[Jediphile]

It should be subjected to reason and criticism, yes, but the point that doing so does not invalidate the opinion as an opinion. More people might disagree with it - "a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty". But since it rests on insufficient grounds by defintion, who is to say that diverging opinion is "wrong"? The majority may think Rembrant is a great artist, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I'm allowed to hate it and say his work is crap if that is my opinion. Galileo once argued that the sun, not the earth, was the center of the universe and was accused of heresy and put under house arrest for it. But we know today he was right. Now, obviously that's a pretty extreme example to compare to in this case, but it does tell us that a person does not need to be wrong simply because more people disagree with him. And remember that while Galileo based his conclusions on science, they were still only suspicions and theories.

Not only are you not quite addressing my point, you are also relying increasingly on semantic minutiae to build your arguments - you are effectively grasping at straws.

 

First, I'm under no obligation to address the points you may choose to, and secondly I feel completely justified in arguing in ways that I think are appropriate whether you approve of said arguments or not. And while you say I grasp at straws, I note that you do so rather than offer a counter-argument of your own

 

Indeed, opinions are belief. Nowhere have I disputed that. However, belief, when dealing with something related to the physical world, needs to be based on reasons, which are in turn subject to criticism. If those reasons can't withstand the test of peer review, the opinion is baseless and therefore is utter nonsense. The problem is how opinions are expressed. "Rembrandt is a crap artist" is not opinion, it is a statement of fact.

 

Incorrect. There is no inherent requirement to put "I think" before or after such a statement in order to indicate opinion, since it obviously so from the context. If someone says that MMOs suck, then that is not a statement of fact requiring disagreement from other people, but just an opinion, because whether something sucks or rocks is always down to personal taste. A person might stray far from the consensus opinion if he or she claims Rembrant was a crap artist, but that does not make the opinion "wrong" by default. Fewer people saw Battlestar Galactica in its third season, yet it won a Peabody award for that season. Does that mean the Peabody Board is elitist and "wrong" because their opinion of the show differs from the majority of viewers? That would seem to me to be logical consequence of what you suggest, assuming I understand you correctly.

 

That sort of statements are either right or wrong, because they deal with empirical aspects of the physical world. Beethoven's mastery of music alone is objectively superior to that of other musicians, regardless of whether it's your cup of tea or not. "I don't like Beethoven", however, is a perfectly respectable opinion.

 

Given that empirical aspects are by definition based on experience rather than fact, that does not support your idea that of right or wrong, because that comes down to the experience of the individual which may therefore difffer.

 

Again,

Opinion: 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

 

That "grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty" is fairly important, because it's the difference between valid, perhaps even very certain assumption and fact. Opinion are never factual, and thus there can be no way to "prove" them correct. But it also follows from that, then, that they can neither be "proven" wrong, because if they could, then would be misconceptions, delusions, lies or similar rather than opinions.

 

Yes, to your shock and dismay, opinions can very well be wrong - scientific theories that lack formal proof are often confined to the realm of opinion, and those opinions are often proven wrong when proof is provided that makes theory into law, or refutes it altogether. That is why your Galileo analogy is not just "extreme", it also works against what you said. It was *proven* that those whose "opinion" was contrary to Galileo's were simply wrong. Sure, you are entitled to thinking that the Sun revolves around Earth... but you are wrong (and irrational).

 

No, for the above reasons. Scientic theories are opinions only until they are confirmed or denied, and then they become either factual, if correct, or a disproven theory, if incorrect. After a conclusion is reached they obviously are no longer theories or opinions. The trouble is that it can take such a long time to be proven that most people have pretty much accepted then as fact by then, and even after they are proven, there are still people who will deny it and refuse to accept the proof. That's why the Galileo example is appropriate, because, well, is it even ten years since the Vatican accepted that Galileo's observation that the earth moved around the sun might be correct? Maybe it's more than ten years, but not by much IIRC.

 

(continued)

Edited August 6, 2008 by Jediphile

[Jediphile]

Again, read what I said before. The worth of an idea is not related in any way to the number of people supporting it. That's why I have not brought up sales numbers, reviews, or supported my arguments with what is "widely considered", so please stop using that as an argument because it's demagogical. Critical thought goes beyond holding fast to an opinion regardless of the amount of reasons or proof provided to dispute it.

 

Actually, I think your position in the demagogical one, because if opinion (and note opinion, unlike fact) is not decided by the majority, then just whose critical opinion is worthwhile? Who has a sufficiently "valid and experienced" perspective to state the "correct" opinion? And if someone did, isn't that elitist? Of course, you could then make the argument that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is elitist when handing out oscars, or the Peabody Board when awarding a Peabody, but the difference is that giving out an award is not "right or wrong" - it's just the opinion of a select group of people that anyone is free to disagree with. If someone says "they gave the oscar to the wrong guy - he was robbed", it's not a statement that the Academy was factually wrong, but merely that the person saying it disagrees with their opinion. Don't get me wrong, I'm not about to suggest oscars should be given by popular vote. For one thing, the individual vote would probably mean little just on the simple basis that the average person would be unlikely to have seen all the nominated films. But that does mean that this person is wrong if he thinks the Academy awards the Oscar to the wrong guy. His opinion is still valid, because you'd assume he had at least seen the performance he thinks deserves an award.

 

1. Quality speaks to "native excellence", "superiority" or "accomplishment or attainment" among other things, and as such becomes a measure of whether something is good or bad, which is always subjective.

The weak point in that is the jump you make between the concepts of "superiority" and "good and bad". "Good and bad" are very vague and circumstantial concepts, and therefore are not used when defining standards. "Superiority", however, is a fairly easy attribute to assess when comparing two similar elements.

 

Well, if you insist on arguing definitions, "superior" means (1) "higher in station, rank, degree, importance, etc." or (2) "above the average in excellence, merit, intelligence" while "good" means (1) "morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious", (2) "satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree" or (3) "of high quality; excellent" . Heck, if you look under the American Heritage Dictionary heading, then definition under (e) even describes "good" as "superior to the average", so I would take "superior" as almost synonymous with "good" except to a greater degree. Doesn't "superior" virtually mean "very good" or "highly good" or similar?

 

2. It may be well implemented and executed. I accept that. It would not have sold if it were not. But just because the people who played it didn't know play the "Little Computer People" (because it is really old) doesn't make the Sims any more or less derivative of it or even innovative. And if the Sims don't appeal to me, then it doesn't, in which case I'm not likely to consider it a classic even if I accept that was a hit among some people. It really is that simple.

I thought I had already made it clear we are not discussing your personal tastes? Or are you utterly unable to put those aside and make an objective evaluation of the elements of the game? I already said I HATE The Sims. But that's irrelevant when discussing the game's premises and how those are realized.

 

If I didn't know better, I'd say you're trying to sidestep the issue with an ad hominem argument, since I believe it obvious that I was not using "I" to indicate a particular preference on my own part as much as to point to that of another person. Unfortunately, I actually don't know any better, so I shall refrain from use "I" in those statements from now on. My sincerest apologies: "And if the Sims don't appeal to someone, then it doesn't, in which case said person is not likely to consider it a classic even if he or she accepts that was a hit among some people. It really is that simple."

 

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sim_games

Is that what you think passes for reasoned explanation?

 

You'd make a great teacher, for sure.

 

It does establish a connection... and your sarcasm is noted.