KotoR 3: Ideas, Suggestions, Discussion, Part 25

[Xard]

Except you get to kick ass of Arthas himself

 

 

Only difference would be trivial - you control one character or platoon.

 

In WoW you don't play as some random foot soldier. You go on and kick ass of Kel Thuzad and like, obvious core characters and enemies of the setting just like in RPG. Only difference is there are millions others doing the same thing.

 

MMO players don't want to have nothing IMPORTANT to do. In Guild Wars your actions and importance is just as vast as in single player RPG. same with WoW. Your ragtag bunch of players does all the same stuff your hero and NPC party would.

 

As always, it depends on how it is handled. But WC4 can perfectly be settled in the defeat of Arthas. You being the one leading the armies of the Alliance or the horde. You just cannot have this sort of closure in a MMO. WC is not about the fighting itself (like WoW), but of the war effort: resources, preparing armies, and yes, making the battles, but not of a single men: of the whole battalion, of the whole army.

 

As I said difference would only be trivial. And Battleground system or whatever it is called is quite advanced. I'm not sure if it lets you to command AI characters fighting but YOU and your FRIENDS are the key of quests, shaping the world, saving plot critical characters (like millions of others), investigating strange ruins (like millions of others), kicking bad mofos asses (like millions of others) etc.

 

ONLY difference is that in MMO it all is utterly meaningless. But that doesn't change core nature of game's important missions.

 

Besides, the Battlegrounds system (based on which you refer MMO characters as foot soldiers) is not integral to main storyline quests and raids which players are doing all the time.

 

 

Exactly: thae main plot left AFTER the frozen Throne. Wow doesn't add per se new factions or world places. It is all a continuation of WC3. You don't introduce a new threat in WoW: it is just the continuation of the conflict on the perspective of a "foot soldier" instead of the one leading the armies, that would be WC4.

 

No, WoW retconned whole Warcraft mythos and added bazillions of new stuff. And you don't play as mere "foot soldier" if you don't want to, you get to change the whole world, defeating slumbering Ancient Gods (stolen from Lovecraft btw) rising from depths of earth... untill mission resets to next party that is.

 

Again, if this MMO is held during hte K3 "war", you will be either a foot soldier, a low rank officer or a base jedi (don't know if padawan or jedi knight). In other words, an anonimous fighter. you can't be The One, the Leader of the armies. There can be only one Mandalore, if you get my point.

 

K3 will be about the leader, not the base soldiers.

 

again you're confusing battleground skirmishes and small time missions with BIG storyline quests and raids that are ever present in MMO's. Especially in games like LotR Online and Guild Wars difference in main character's importance (in comparison to single player PC) is near to null.

 

You save the world in MMO's too. It is completely meaningless but you do it.

 

 

You really think MMO players would be happy with merely standing by and not doing anything important?

 

 

I find this whole deal with you guys trying to squeeze out the hellhole kotor has fallen in rather humorous as your misconceptions about MMO story and quest structures

Edited July 29, 2008 by Xard

[Jediphile]

Yes, taking refuge behind "but it's my opinion!", is always a good defense when making statements that cannot be formally (as in, with mathematical rigour) disproven, but that are otherwise... unsound.

 

I disagree with content of that statement, and please note that while you're basically making the same thing yourself by declaring the position as unsound without providing a basis for that position or, indeed, accusing people of hiding behind their opinions as an excuse, I shall take that too as a merely statement of opinion and not hold it against you.

 

Saying that EA is only good for sports games is as close to being an objectively wrong statement as it can get, simply by analysing the games published by EA, and the quality of the games it competes directly with.

 

Yes, though - again - only in your opinion.

 

You may not like The Sims (I hate it myself), but it's an excellent, innovative game.

 

Excellent: "possessing outstanding quality or superior merit; remarkably good." Since it speaks to quality, which is entirely subjective, it again becomes a matter of opinion. As for innovative, I'm skeptical. It undoutedly looked very different when it came out, but it can also be seen as highly derivative of the various earlier Sim games blended with a hefty dose of inspiration from Activision's "Little Computer People".

 

The Battlefield series is also great. I haven't played the MoH series, but it's another critically acclaimed franchise, etc.

 

Which is all down to personal taste. I've actually played Battlefield, but it just didn't appeal to me because I don't find FPS that interesting in and of themselves. A good plot helps, but then that is what I'm interested in, and I really just endure the FPS aspect.

 

It's possible to argue that everyone is wrong and that one's own opinion is the one that counts, and that has some merit. But having radically divergent opinions, by itself and regardless of one's ability to sustain them, only makes you a crank.

 

So for someone's opinion to be valid it must conform to or not stray far from the established norm or consensus? If that's your position, then I doubt I could disagree more.

[Jediphile]

Again, if this MMO is held during hte K3 "war", you will be either a foot soldier, a low rank officer or a base jedi (don't know if padawan or jedi knight). In other words, an anonimous fighter. you can't be The One, the Leader of the armies. There can be only one Mandalore, if you get my point.

 

K3 will be about the leader, not the base soldiers.

 

If I understand you correctly, you're saying a character in an MMO will not be unique in a way that matters in the plot. I would agree with that.

 

To quote Syndrome from "The Incredibles": "And when everyone's super, no one will be."

 

Syndrome wanted that in the film, which is why he is a villain.

[I want teh kotor 3]

I don't like EA. I don't like MMOs. I don't see why you seem to take it personally. I wasn't alive to play most of those games, I don't find the Sims appealing, Crysis is an average FPS popular because it will only run on teh Jesus-computer, MoH and Battlefield are meh, I might've liked Populous if I had been alive, and Rock Band is the only game that I think is good on that list. It's my opinion, and I really don't feel like spending the ATP to write a long post defending it.

[Xard]

Again, if this MMO is held during hte K3 "war", you will be either a foot soldier, a low rank officer or a base jedi (don't know if padawan or jedi knight). In other words, an anonimous fighter. you can't be The One, the Leader of the armies. There can be only one Mandalore, if you get my point.

 

K3 will be about the leader, not the base soldiers.

 

If I understand you correctly, you're saying a character in an MMO will not be unique in a way that matters in the plot. I would agree with that.

 

To quote Syndrome from "The Incredibles": "And when everyone's super, no one will be."

 

Syndrome wanted that in the film, which is why he is a villain.

 

And if you read my post you'd know it doesn't mean ****

[Bass-GameMaster]

Who said I took it personal, I just was trying to stop you of making your self seem completely half-minded.

[random n00b]

I disagree with content of that statement, and please note that while you're basically making the same thing yourself by declaring the position as unsound without providing a basis for that position or, indeed, accusing people of hiding behind their opinions as an excuse, I shall take that too as a merely statement of opinion and not hold it against you.

No, that was a general introductory statement, I wasn't seeking to apply that this to this particular case. I dealt with particularities later.

 

Since you are so fond of quoting online dictionaries:

Unsound:

4. not well-founded or valid; fallacious: an unsound argument.

For instance, "Rembrandt was a crap painter". Sure, that's an opinion. But it is poorly sustained if at all. Or are you suggesting that opinions don't need to be subject to reason or criticism?

 

 

Since it speaks to quality, which is entirely subjective, it again becomes a matter of opinion. As for innovative, I'm skeptical. It undoutedly looked very different when it came out, but it can also be seen as highly derivative of the various earlier Sim games blended with a hefty dose of inspiration from Activision's "Little Computer People".

1. Quality is *not* subjective. It is an attribute measured, in this case, against the rest of computer games. It is a standard. A consensually agreed measure (albeit not necessarily expressed in a formal fashion) that is used to establish a hierarchy between the elements of a given set.

 

2. The Sims provides an innovative concept of game that, regardless of your tastes, is well implemented and executed. Again, you are taking refuge behind something that is not numerically measurable to construct your entire discourse. Do try and find something more substantial than semantics.

 

3. Please explain how The Sims is "highly derivative" of Sim City, Sim Earth, or Sim Copter to name a few. HINT: "Sim" is not a proprietary term. It's an abbreviation of "simulation" - the similarities end there.

 

 

Which is all down to personal taste. I've actually played Battlefield, but it just didn't appeal to me because I don't find FPS that interesting in and of themselves. A good plot helps, but then that is what I'm interested in, and I really just endure the FPS aspect.

Which has nothing to do with the actual quality of the game itself. I may prefer to travel on car, but that does not mean that the materials used in aircraft frame construction are lacking quality. This is the concept you obviously fail to grasp - quality is not defined by you or affected by your preferences in any way.

 

The Battlefield series offers fast-paced combat combined with simple to learn basic game mechanics which make it easy for new players to get into. But at the same time it allows for complex coordination between players for great effect, which rewards teamplay and effort, giving long-time players something to work for. It also invariably features broad choice of maps which represent different scenarios combined with fairly good graphics and sensible game balance. There aren't many MP-oriented shooters that offer all that.

 

"But FPS games don't appeal to me!" - Apples and oranges. Please come up with relevant arguments. We aren't discussing your tastes.

 

 

So for someone's opinion to be valid it must conform to or not stray far from the established norm or consensus? If that's your position, then I doubt I could disagree more.

Are you misrepresenting what I said out of ignorance, or is it a conscious effort of demagoguery?

 

The worth of an opinion only goes as far as one is capable of defending it against others. That's how the strength of ideas is measured and proven.

 

I'm going to repeat myself here, because you either didn't read it, or just couldn't deal with it. Having different opinions is fine. Holding fast to those opinions regardless of evidence or reason has nothing to do with prevalent opinions.

Edited July 30, 2008 by Rosbjerg
flaimbaiting

[random n00b]

I don't like EA. I don't like MMOs. I don't see why you seem to take it personally. I wasn't alive to play most of those games, I don't find the Sims appealing, Crysis is an average FPS popular because it will only run on teh Jesus-computer, MoH and Battlefield are meh, I might've liked Populous if I had been alive, and Rock Band is the only game that I think is good on that list. It's my opinion, and I really don't feel like spending the ATP to write a long post defending it.

Translation: LALALA I'm not listening.

 

Nobody's taking it personally. Expect your opinions to be questioned when you make them public, though.

[Darth_Sunnyboy]

Well.. No matter what, I`m looking forward to the outcome of the game..

It`s star wars no matter what.. I even have one of the sh*tty games: Force Commander on my shelf..

I don`t play it, I only have it

[Bass-GameMaster]

Nice? And man Random Noob we make a good tag team, wait... I forgot your just a random noob! Heh Heh, im bored.

[Darth_Sunnyboy]

Nice? And man Random Noob we make a good tag team, wait... I forgot your just a random noob! Heh Heh, im bored.

 

LoL.. Thanks for the complement ^^

[Albion72]

This went from a K3 Discussion to a YourOpinionMeansNothingYesItDoesNoItDoesn'tItDoesn'tMatterAtAllSoBeQuietButIfISayThisthenThisMustBeTrueNoItsNot.

 

So back on Topic.

 

Hi. For those of you who don't know me, I'm Albion. My views are often hated by everyone. So here they are.

 

In a K3, when or if they release it, I would like to see these things:

 

1. One more party member allowed at one time... So four instead of three.

 

2. More advanced party features (Like forms, such as Agressive, Jedi Support, Stationary, Grenadier) so that we may make our 4 person party truly innovative to our playstyle.

 

3. Of course, lots of lore.

 

Well... Can't really think of much else that hasn'talready been covered.

[Darth Clumber]

I think LA and whatnot NOT saying anything about the KOTOR MMO points more to it existing than not existing, because they could so easily justr deny it if it wasn't true and be done with the rumors

[Bass-GameMaster]

Well its in its early stages when they usually deny it it means their working on it extensively...

[Jediphile]

For instance, "Rembrandt was a crap painter". Sure, that's an opinion. But it is poorly sustained if at all. Or are you suggesting that opinions don't need to be subject to reason or criticism?

 

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.

 

1. Quality is *not* subjective. It is an attribute measured, in this case, against the rest of computer games. It is a standard. A consensually agreed measure (albeit not necessarily expressed in a formal fashion) that is used to establish a hierarchy between the elements of a given set.

 

2. The Sims provides an innovative concept of game that, regardless of your tastes, is well implemented and executed. Again, you are taking refuge behind something that is not numerically measurable to construct your entire discourse. Do try and find something more substantial than semantics.

 

3. Please explain how The Sims is "highly derivative" of Sim City, Sim Earth, or Sim Copter to name a few. HINT: "Sim" is not a proprietary term. It's an abbreviation of "simulation" - the similarities end there.

 

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. I don't really disagree with your defintion, but it seems to me you overlook that it is a matter of subjectivity when that standard is applied to something. Lots of people (including myself) think that the new Batman movie is an exellent work of high quality, but just because we're more people thinking so does not make it any less subjective.

 

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.

 

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

 

I may prefer to travel on car, but that does not mean that the materials used in aircraft frame construction are lacking quality. This is the concept you obviously fail to grasp - quality is not defined by you or affected by your preferences in any way.

 

I'm going to repeat myself here, because you either didn't read it, or just couldn't deal with it. Having different opinions is fine. Holding fast to those opinions regardless of evidence or reason is not - that is the defining trait of a crackpot. It has nothing to do with prevalent opinions.

 

 

I sense derailment...

[SteveThaiBinh]

A little nudging back in the direction of Kotor 3 would seem in order, yes.

 

I like four party members better than three, if only for the banter possibilities.

[esabria]

A little nudging back in the direction of Kotor 3 would seem in order, yes.

 

I like four party members better than three, if only for the banter possibilities.

 

Absolutely! I can see jealous backstabbing when Revan, Exile, Atton and Bastila gather... Seriously though, if a four member party was implemented would be easier to choose your companions. I always missed someone else to complete the party in both games: in K1 I usually carried Canderous and HK or Juhani and Jolee, and I missed either Jolee or T3 (for the first group) and Canderous or HK for the second goup; in K2 I carried either Kreia and Mira or Kreia and Mandalore. Occasionally Brianna or Visas. With four characters I could have my most used chars in the same party...

 

But it has to be very well balanced... I mean, if an army of three delivered havoc and utter-doom to any battlefields they were, imagine an army of four. It would be the damn apocalypse!

[I want teh kotor 3]

That would be good. Revan, Exile, Jolee, and Jedified Handmaiden would pwn together. Three Marauders (I'd make Revan one) and a Sith Lord FTW.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Four characters could make some interesting conversations.

 

And I want two characters to absolutly hate each other. It adds a more important choice and might also produce some nice dialogue.

[Albion72]

A little nudging back in the direction of Kotor 3 would seem in order, yes.

 

I like four party members better than three, if only for the banter possibilities.

 

Absolutely! I can see jealous backstabbing when Revan, Exile, Atton and Bastila gather... Seriously though, if a four member party was implemented would be easier to choose your companions. I always missed someone else to complete the party in both games: in K1 I usually carried Canderous and HK or Juhani and Jolee, and I missed either Jolee or T3 (for the first group) and Canderous or HK for the second goup; in K2 I carried either Kreia and Mira or Kreia and Mandalore. Occasionally Brianna or Visas. With four characters I could have my most used chars in the same party...

 

But it has to be very well balanced... I mean, if an army of three delivered havoc and utter-doom to any battlefields they were, imagine an army of four. It would be the damn apocalypse!

 

There would probably be more enemies. If not more enemies then enemies would be tougher... Say more HP and better stats in strength or dexterity depending on what your enemy is using.

[Bass-GameMaster]

Its always fun having goons that are easily disposable. And I think itsquite fun when some of the enemies are a minor threat and you have fun just plain schooling them Kotor style, it is funny watching your enemy miss a block and groan falling to the floor. But I believe there should be some instances where it is quite difficult even if its on easy, so aspects of kotor 2 were far to easy imo.

Edited August 3, 2008 by Bass-GameMaster

[Magister Lajciak]

I have been out of the loop regarding KOTOR 3 discussion for some time. Please update me, are there any new rumors about Kotor 3 being in development, or is it the same old, same old? If there are new rumors, do they indicate something else than a MMO, which I don't play?

[Xard]

MMO was confirmed by EA CEO

[Jediphile]

I have been out of the loop regarding KOTOR 3 discussion for some time. Please update me, are there any new rumors about Kotor 3 being in development, or is it the same old, same old? If there are new rumors, do they indicate something else than a MMO, which I don't play?

 

Not so far. As Xard mentions, EA's CEO John Riccitiello apparently said to a reporter or blogger during E3 that Bioware was working on a KotOR MMO for Lucasarts.

 

http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/the-t...he-old-republic

 

Funny thing is that this was a total scoop for that single reporter. It was reported elsewhere, but always pointing back to this one story as the source with no confirmation, word or even a press release from LA or Bioware, not even now weeks later, which seems a bit suspicious to me. Especially since LA said in febuary that they were working on something with Bioware, only it was not KotOR (see my sig).

[Xard]

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