KotoR 3: Ideas, Suggestions, Discussion, Part 25

[Bass-GameMaster]

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

 

Thanks for that, I actually did post an exact link for that.

[random n00b]

Ooh, quote war! I can play that game, too.

 

First, I'm under no obligation to address the points you may choose to,

Yeah, but unfortunately, that's how (constructive) conversations work. If I ask about the weather and you answer that my tie is lovely, we might as well do something else.

 

Aside, the fact that you are still struggling over semantics, with online dictionary definitions as the underlying foundations for your arguments proves what I said before - you are constantly sidestepping the point.

 

 

and secondly I feel completely justified in arguing in ways that I think are appropriate whether you approve of said arguments or not.

That you believe your arguments or the way you convey them is appropriate does not necessarily make them so. Keep your apples and oranges arguments coming if you want... but they don't really add anything relevant to the discussion.

 

 

Incorrect.

Wow, "incorrect"?

 

Is that your opinion, or is it fact? Nice job at taking a shot at your own discourse.

 

 

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.

That's what you say. However, being so categorical when expressing whimsical, uninformed, and otherwise irrational (as you have been defending your right to so far) thoughts, will lead to confusion. Because, you see, people will expect you to explain why this is so, according to you. "I think X sucks", is unequivocally an expression of personal belief, and will not necessarily be put under scrutiny in the same way.

 

 

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.

 

Really. How many times do I have to explain this? It's beginning to leave a bad taste. Consensus has nothing to do with it. Consensus is merely a number of people agreeing on something. People agreeing on something do not define reality. I thought my Beethoven example would have made it clear, but obviously I was mistaken. Rembrandt had a better technique that many artists before or after him. He was self-taught as well. Those two things make him a genius, regardless of whether you feel moved by his paintings or not. Simply because most people (and most artists as well) cannot perform comparably. Therefore, the statement "Rembrandt is a crap artist" is objectively wrong, simply because there aren't many able to outperform him. It's a matter of comparison.

 

 

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.

You are wrong. The formal study of music isn't a subjective discipline, and music itself has a deep connection to mathematics. Therefore, it can be proven objectively (to the extent this has any meaning), that his compositions were of superior quality, as well as his superior mastery of music as a system, overall. Again, simply by comparison.

 

 

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.

This is wrong on two accounts.

 

First, because you are making the assumption that some expressed opinion is not openly, clearly nonsensical or contradictive of observable truth ("Earth is flat"). So, if a statement is made in that vein, it is not even an opinion, it's nonsense and the defense "it's my opinion!" doesn't apply. That's what I said in my first post in this discussion, in case you have lost track.

 

Second, because you are abusing the uncertainty aspect of the definition. Being "uncertain" doesn't equal not being subject to scrutiny or discussion. It doesn't mean that a feeble or unsupported argument is valid simply because empirical evidence doesn't exist to disprove it. Keep exploiting the uncertainty idea, and you get to the extreme of epistemological skepticism, where nobody can be sure of anything and everything is potentially a figment of your imagination. Nice loophole, and a potentially unassailable stance in a debate indeed. But rather silly nonetheless.

 

 

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.

This contradicts what I said... how? You used Galileo to show how prevalent opinions aren't necessarily correct, a counter to an argument that nobody had made. I remarked that the example works against what you said, because it proves that some opinions are objectively wrong.

 

And now you are saying that some people still don't accept (or didn't until recently) things for which an overwhelming amount of empirical evidence exists, to illustrate... what exactly?

 

What point are you trying to make by using the Church's cognitive immobilism?

 

I think you are confused. Too much quote/reply. The Vatican promoting patently wrong beliefs as true only proves they are out of sync with the times.

 

 

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?

If anyone is more informed and has a superior understanding and experience in any subject than you, they will probably be better suited to provide more accurate assessments than you are. By more accurate, I mean closer to the truth (as far as can reasonably be desired). That does not mean they will always be right and you will always be wrong. But in those instances, for those people, the credibility of their opinions rests on their baggage. The credibility of yours rests on the strength of the reasons you can come up with that contradict their opinions.

[random n00b]

Thought we were done? Think again!

 

 

And if someone did, isn't that elitist?

Sure is. So what? It makes sense that the more in-depth you go into any subject, the less people will be able to discuss that subject from an informed position. And again, being informed is the fundamental requirement to form an opinion.

 

 

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.

What does this have to do with what I said? Did you even read the part where I explained why I'm not using reviews and other means of outsourcing opinions as a valid means of gauging the worth of an idea?

 

 

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?

No, it doesn't. "Good" can mean virtually anything you want, depending on an infinity of factors and circumstances. A Big Mac can be "good". But it's not especially healthy, so in that respect is not "good". <insert any number of similar examples here>

 

"Superiority", however, is a meaningless concept when applied to a single element, evaluated in isolation from those which, due to their attributes, would make it superior or not, over a set of well-defined parameters. It is an inherently comparative concept.

 

 

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."

It doesn't matter who's making the assessment. It's still based on personal preferences rather than an objective consideration of that game's elements. Your accusing me of an ad hominem argument on that paragraph is way off the mark.

 

 

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

I didn't ask for a connection, I asked for an explanation to a statement you made that I think holds no water. The "connection" doesn't go beyond the game being "Sim"-something, something I already noted.

 

Look up the difference between "explanation" and "connection", in one of those online dictionaries you are so fond of, if in doubt. (how was that for sarcasm?)

[SteveThaiBinh]

Could I please remind everyone to be respectful in their manner towards fellow community members, and also to stay on topic (KotOR3). Thanks.

[Lord2]

This is insane, I've been looking very often (about every day) on this website:

http://www.lucasartsbioware.com/

 

to see any update about a KOTOR III, now I know it's not that game because a Bioware employee said it before. Seriously?! Still no update, it has soon like passed a year. They can at least say something.

 

*grumbles*

 

KOTOR III is fading away for each day. Not good

[Wolva]

Off topic:

 

Can't we give jediphile and random n00b their own threat?

 

On topic:

 

of course it isn't updated because if they would it would mean an confirmation and they'll gona do that big time not just by updating a site.

 

So yes still no news and we're still living between hope and fear

[Jediphile]

This is insane, I've been looking very often (about every day) on this website:

http://www.lucasartsbioware.com/

 

to see any update about a KOTOR III, now I know it's not that game because a Bioware employee said it before. Seriously?! Still no update, it has soon like passed a year. They can at least say something.

 

*grumbles*

 

KOTOR III is fading away for each day. Not good

 

Well, as has been speculated in the past, LA will probably be tightlipped about any upcoming KotOR game (whatever its form) until after Force Unleashed is, well, unleashed, since they know people get excited about KotOR, which could then steal the thunder. At least that's one possibility.

 

So why did Riccitiello say anything about a KotOR MMO at all? Well, he's not LA, and EA/Bioware is not involved in TU - it's completely LA's own baby, so Riccitiello and EA/Bioware don't need to care about that. Well, Bioware might on account of their collaboration with LA, but not EA.

[esabria]

This is insane, I've been looking very often (about every day) on this website:

http://www.lucasartsbioware.com/

 

to see any update about a KOTOR III, now I know it's not that game because a Bioware employee said it before. Seriously?! Still no update, it has soon like passed a year. They can at least say something.

 

*grumbles*

 

KOTOR III is fading away for each day. Not good

 

Well, no one said K3 was being made by Bio. The confirmation must come either from Lucas Arts and/or the developer in question. Be it Obsidian, Bioware or whomever is making it.

 

The direction you gave it is only for projects regarding to Bio AND LA. If K3 is made by, let's say, Demiurge Studios, it won't appear on that direction but on LA's page or on Demiurge's page. If it is made by Bio, then yes it will appear on that page.

Edited August 12, 2008 by esabria

[Bass-GameMaster]

Sad But True-Metallica.

 

I believe it wont be developed by Obsidian which is a bummer, but it was been "confirmed" that it is a Bio/LA which pretty much means EA/LA. But like Jediphile said Star Wars games dont usually come 5 times a year the are frequent and usually follow the release of another.

[esabria]

Sad But True-Metallica.

 

I believe it wont be developed by Obsidian which is a bummer, but it was been "confirmed" that it is a Bio/LA which pretty much means EA/LA. But like Jediphile said Star Wars games dont usually come 5 times a year the are frequent and usually follow the release of another.

 

Well, all we know about is of a MMO in the KOTOR 'verse, not K3. That is held with maximum secrecy? Possible. That a MMO CAN be K3? Unlikely but plausible. That is in development? Possible. Hell, it is even possible that K3 is even packed for release next christmas for all that we know.

 

I guess we'll just have to wait and see (how strange, huh? ) how Force unleashed works out and how the MMO works out and wait some more for official confirmation that K3 is indeed in development and will bring closure (an actual end) to the saga.

 

Let's hope for it, at least.

[Bass-GameMaster]

Agreed, that gives fans something to look forward to for now.

[Wolva]

Isn't that what we're telling for years now

We have to have hope that KOTOR3 is coming and that it's a good game

[esabria]

Isn't that what we're telling for years now

We have to have hope that KOTOR3 is coming and that it's a good game

 

hope is last thing to be lost, that we say in catalan... So, unless someone officially confirms there will be no KOTOR 3 nomatterwhat, let's keep it alive...

[Darth_Sunnyboy]

hope is last thing to be lost, that we say in catalan... So, unless someone officially confirms there will be no KOTOR 3 nomatterwhat, let's keep it alive...

 

 

I agree fullheatedly... IF there will be 2 types of KotOR games comming out, it will be cool.. However.. If there will be ONLY the MMO KotOR, I couldn't care less.. I love Starwars, have most of the games, and are looking forward to The force uleashed.. So my oppinion is: Give me KotOR, and I will be happy ^^

[Bass-GameMaster]

I agree with you man, im pretty sure Bio will atleast attempt to put some of their talent in their storyline, even if its like similar to WOW's style of presenting it. As long as its good ol' enticing KOTOR.

[Jediphile]

MMO with a regular fee = won't be playing or paying.

Edited August 19, 2008 by Jediphile

[Bass-GameMaster]

Then you must not play MMO's period. But a lot of people say they "wont" play it. But the truth is you will! You will resist at first, listening to the overwhelming hype and pay for it, for 1 month, hell some might continue playing it just because its a freaking awesome series.

[Jediphile]

Then you must not play MMO's period. But a lot of people say they "wont" play it. But the truth is you will! You will resist at first, listening to the overwhelming hype and pay for it, for 1 month, hell some might continue playing it just because its a freaking awesome series.

 

I'm split between whether that statement is more insulting or just untrue. However, given how much I dislike it when people try to infer that they know better than I do what I'll do in the future, I'll probably go with the former

[SteveThaiBinh]

Let's keep this polite and respectful, eh? I appreciate there are strong opinions about KotOR - that's why we're here.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Then you must not play MMO's period.

 

Yep.

 

But a lot of people say they "wont" play it. But the truth is you will! You will resist at first, listening to the overwhelming hype and pay for it, for 1 month, hell some might continue playing it just because its a freaking awesome series.

 

Bull****. I will not be playing a pay-per-month MMO anytime soon, nor can you convince me that the Kotor MMO would be worth waisting my money on.

[Jediphile]

Bull****. I will not be playing a pay-per-month MMO anytime soon, nor can you convince me that the Kotor MMO would be worth waisting my money on.

 

That's how I feel. Seems you're allowed to say it and stand by it without being repeatedly deleted by the mods. Unlike me.

[Fionavar]

It's nice to see that you two do in fact agree. Perhaps we can ratchet down the rhetoric and do some listening to one another and, hopefully, the shared interests might be better appreciated.

[FullMetalHollow]

If they make a KOTOR Pay-per-month MMO

 

I would not play. Not cause i don't want to, simply cause I can't afford to, I was barely able to afford to buy Guild Wars And I stiill got to get Never Winter Nights and all these games my friends keep talking about.

 

Also that means I don't play Pay-per-month MMOs at all. In fact the only one and probably the last one I ever played was Eve Online, which was for about a year of intense budgeting before I finally had no choice but to stop playing.

 

So yea I hope they make the THird KOTOR a non-mmo RPG ^_^

[qt3.14159]

I play WoW. At $15 a month, that's equivalent to seeing one movie (with refreshments) or maybe one dinner out. I know not everyone can do it and it does seem like a racket that they get to keep squeezing money out of you month after month, but really... compared to the other ways to spend your entertainment budget, MMO's are freaking cheap, especially when you consider how many hours of entertainment you can get out of them. On light weeks, I can log over 10 hours without even thinking about it.

 

So, basically, if KOTOR 3 is an MMO, I will be trying it. If it's entertaining enough, I will continue spending the money on a month by month basis as long as it is still keeping my attention. If it's not, I won't.

 

I don't *want* K3 to be an MMO, at all. I don't think it can do justice to the story line and I'd really like to see Obsidian finish up the story they were wanting to tell. But I am looking forward to a (hopefully) good Star Wars MMO.

[I want teh kotor 3]

I refuse to play a MMOPOS.