Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I liked the plot in Warcraft 3.....

WAR isn't dead, it's just suffering from a temporary lull in interest due to the release of some other major products out there. As others have said, WotLK just came out, and many people who play WAR still hold a WoW subscription, so they are playing with their new toy.

Fallout 3 also came out, which has been a huge draw. I have logged on WAR many times since it came out to see people in my guild talking about it. I myself bought it and have been playing it pretty much non-stop, and thereby neglecting WAR. A lot of awesome stuff just came out so I think people are just dividing their attention.

And of course there are the fools who expect an MMO that just came out to be as polished as WoW, which has been out for 4 years. Most people seem to forget that WoW was complete garbage for the first 8-12 months (no endgame and ridiculously unstable servers).

The only WoW killer that is on the Horizon, TOR. Star Wars: The Old Republic.

Its Biowares (the guys who created KOTOR, Baldurs Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect, etc.) Are creating the new Star Wars MMORPG. The scoop was in the recent PC Gamer Matgazine for this month. And Babies, it looks good. (Plus, whats more slow 12 year old than SW???)

And the real catch? It will have more content than all of Biowares previous projects to date combined. All of them.

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.

I love WAR I hardly see it as a failure, However I let my account lapse because of all the new games coming out and I will renew when the rush is past. I am sure I am not the only one who dropped their account to go through Fable, Gears, Fallout, Left 4 dead Etc.

The game doesn't suck as much as I thought it was going to, but I think it is a bit too restrictive for its aim. The game makes too much of an effort to keep you in your place to make the game anything more then an interactive movie, compairable to a single player game.

-The Communication/ interaction with other players is almost nonexistant.

- All hail the mighty goldspammers, that have pretty much turned all MMO's into an underground economy.

- The spawns are outright slowed. Absolutly nothing to write home about.

- The PvP angle has its moments, but you have little or no control over how fast you die. fighting is more of a issue of how buffed, debuffed you are, and not on how much damage you do.
- The rewards are a joke for the trouble of getting and are epic fail.

- the maps, the scenery, the tempo and feel of the environment are great, and the scenry artists completly made thier money.

- The artists have done a fine job of turning DAOC into Warhammer, now its time to start talking about crossovers.

WOW- not. WAR is completly different in its vibe and its tone.
I don't feel that you can compair the two games on an equal footing. They are so much different that they can comfortably coexist such as the coke and pepsi example Russ gave.

Star trek is coming out soon from Cryptic, the Champions online game, stargate, the zombie MMO's are starting to creep out, that KOTOR game that is supposed to be on par with the KOTOR2.

Ratbarf wrote:The only WoW killer that is on the Horizon, TOR. Star Wars: The Old Republic.

Its Biowares (the guys who created KOTOR, Baldurs Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect, etc.) Are creating the new Star Wars MMORPG. The scoop was in the recent PC Gamer Matgazine for this month. And Babies, it looks good. (Plus, whats more slow 12 year old than SW???)

And the real catch? It will have more content than all of Biowares previous projects to date combined. All of them.

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.

I don't buy it. ALL of this was said about Galaxies when it was announced and Galaxies blew big time. I have a feeling that KOTOR Online is going to be just like Galaxies: Revised(or whatever they called it when they re-released it): A bunch of idiots running around all yelling about how awesome their Jedi is.

Thr33ifbyair wrote:Well the main problem with Warhammer online is that it was trying to do what every other MMO tried to do, BE WoW.

Every time they come out they announce it as the "WoW killer" but that never happens. The day they create a 40k online is the day I sell my soul. There was just no reason to stop playing WoW and move to World of Warhammer Craft.

Huh?

WAR doesn't try to be WoW, it's got a much different focus and playerbase. The game focuses on PvP primarily, it's not a raid and grind game. If you want open world PvP and a very team based environment, there is very much a reason to move to WAR from WoW. That said, if you're into PvE raiding and the like, WAR isn't going to have anything for you. WAR was never intended to try and kill off WoW, or even compete in the same sort of playstyles. Now they function similarly in terms of movement and control and the like, but quests are much less time consuming and strenuous, and generally is there to help level you up and get some gear for PvP and to add a storyline component, as opposed to being much of the main content, and the PvP, while similar on the surface, demands far more teamwork and is *much* less gear dependent.

Have you played WAR?



That said, addressing the OP's point, how on earth has WAR been a failure? it's got a massive player base, and is looking to be quite successful. The only problem is they rolled out too many servers anticipating problems with some of them that didn't materialize, thus allowing the population to get far too spread out, once they get around to consolidating the player base to a smaller number of servers, I don't really see any other glaring problems.

He's probably talking about a lower population in the public quest areas at lower level.

I won't judge till I see what Ranks 35-40 are like.

I don't buy it. ALL of this was said about Galaxies when it was announced and Galaxies blew big time. I have a feeling that KOTOR Online is going to be just like Galaxies: Revised(or whatever they called it when they re-released it): A bunch of idiots running around all yelling about how awesome their Jedi is.

The focus has changed, in Galaxies they wanted you to be the joe blow of the galaxie, the common footsoldeir and the like. In TOR you are going to be a hero.

Ratbarf wrote:

I don't buy it. ALL of this was said about Galaxies when it was announced and Galaxies blew big time. I have a feeling that KOTOR Online is going to be just like Galaxies: Revised(or whatever they called it when they re-released it): A bunch of idiots running around all yelling about how awesome their Jedi is.

The focus has changed, in Galaxies they wanted you to be the joe blow of the galaxie, the common footsoldeir and the like. In TOR you are going to be a hero.

If they wanted you to be a Footsoldier, they wouldn't have handed out Holocrons like Glass-laced Candy and then restructured the system to allow Jedi at start up because that's what Little Johnny wants to play. Everyone I know who ever enjoyed Galaxies liked the fact that they were Joe Blow foot soldier(or not even a fighting class!) and not a Jedi. Jedis make money, Footsoldiers appeal to the fans(501st, whatever the Rebel costume group is). If you don't believe me, why are the Clone/Storm Trooper figures always in the highest demand?

Platuan4th wrote:
I don't buy it. ALL of this was said about Galaxies when it was announced and Galaxies blew big time. I have a feeling that KOTOR Online is going to be just like Galaxies: Revised(or whatever they called it when they re-released it): A bunch of idiots running around all yelling about how awesome their Jedi is.

So one Star Wars game was bad, so another developed by an entirely different group of people is also going to be bad? That's kind of a stretch considering no one knows anything about the actual state of balance within TOR, and how it stacks up against Galaxies.

Platuan4th wrote:

If they wanted you to be a Footsoldier, they wouldn't have handed out Holocrons like Glass-laced Candy and then restructured the system to allow Jedi at start up because that's what Little Johnny wants to play. Everyone I know who ever enjoyed Galaxies liked the fact that they were Joe Blow foot soldier(or not even a fighting class!) and not a Jedi. Jedis make money, Footsoldiers appeal to the fans(501st, whatever the Rebel costume group is). If you don't believe me, why are the Clone/Storm Trooper figures always in the highest demand?

The game was originally designed to make jedi incredibly rare, and the game ran at a loss as a result. Everything done after the fact was a stop gap to try and eek out some meager net profit. Fans may want to play as foot soldiers, but fans are not enough to drive an MMO. Even one with a setting so beloved as Star Wars.

I don't really like the idea of everyone being a jedi. Jedi are supposed to be incredibly rare and ruin every setting they are in when they become the sole focus. The original trilogy had one jedi that actually did anything. Those movies were great. Having ten thousand fighting at once is just george lucas and bioware pimping children for money.

Jedi are ex machina mary sue plot armored underdeveloped laser sword ninjas with special powers. They are not interesting.

ShumaGorath wrote:I don't really like the idea of everyone being a jedi. Jedi are supposed to be incredibly rare and ruin every setting they are in when they become the sole focus. The original trilogy had one jedi that actually did anything. Those movies were great. Having ten thousand fighting at once is just george lucas and bioware pimping children for money.

Jedi are ex machina mary sue plot armored underdeveloped laser sword ninjas with special powers. They are not interesting.

Actually, the original trilogy's success has virtually nothing to do with the relative ubiquity of the Jedi. It has a great deal to do with the relative standards of story-telling in science fiction films. Star Wars was pioneering, and as such could not be effectively compared to any similar works. The new trilogy exists in a much different historical context. Being compared, not just to the old trilogy, but to every other sci-fi flick made since then. It had an actual standard to live up to.

None of the Star Wars movies are interesting by the definition you have provided. They all feature plot-armored heroes. They all feature ex machina twists. Indeed, none of them are particularly compelling from any cinematic standpoint. What makes them popular is the richness of the universe in which they take place. People watched A New Hope and wondered at the stories behind the alien faces lining the walls of the Mos Eisley cantina. They connected to it because it felt organic and authentic. When Lucas sterilized the whole shebang with CGI that quality was lost, and the movies suffered.

Anyway, Jedi are actually far more interesting when they are more ubiquitous. It forces the story to consider them more as people, and less as powers. Lucas used the latter conception as a narrative crutch in the original trilogy. He didn't know how to write a hero, so he simply set one into the story. There's a reason Luke is considered the least interesting character by many people.

dogma: That's why Knights of the Old Republic worked. Both the Jedi and Sith had
personalities as opposed to being about Luke vs. Dad.

None of the Star Wars movies are interesting by the definition you have provided. They all feature plot-armored heroes. They all feature ex machina twists. Indeed, none of them are particularly compelling from any cinematic standpoint.

Ex machina twists maybe, but two of the three remaining jedi were dead by the end of the third film, luke had had his hand cut off, and han was frozen in carbonite and sold to a space gangster. So they weren't particularly plot armored.

What makes them popular is the richness of the universe in which they take place. People watched A New Hope and wondered at the stories behind the alien faces lining the walls of the Mos Eisley cantina. They connected to it because it felt organic and authentic. When Lucas sterilized the whole shebang with CGI that quality was lost, and the movies suffered.

The switch to high quality cg from puppets and models had nothing to do with the loss of connection. It had everything to do with the loss of grounding. People connected with the original trilogy because it was gritty and believable. People could connect with a single jedi as the last of his kind, and people could connect to the struggle of the oppressed rebels fighting against the corrupt empire. People could not connect with an underdeveloped army of supermen with no apparent weaknesses fighting armies of robots. Hell, the only non jedi combatants in the film with a pulse were all clones.

People didn't connect with the setting in the prequel films because its a bad setting. Robots fighting clones fighting space ninjas with superpowers. It also didn't help that the script was something lucas had found on a bathroom wall at a comicon.

Anyway, Jedi are actually far more interesting when they are more ubiquitous. It forces the story to consider them more as people, and less as powers.

Actually it doesn't. A single jedis struggle to control his abilities and combat the darkside within himself can only be explored when there is a single one of them. When there are thousands all your left with is a group of one dimensional characters without the screen time to be explorable. Having a multitude of jedi is exactly what makes them into powers rather than people.

Lucas used the latter conception as a narrative crutch in the original trilogy. He didn't know how to write a hero, so he simply set one into the story. There's a reason Luke is considered the least interesting character by many people.

It could also be the fact that the supporting characters in the original films were well rounded, written, and memorable. Luke wasn't a bad character, he just didn't have the force of personality that those around him did.

dogma: That's why Knights of the Old Republic worked. Both the Jedi and Sith had
personalities as opposed to being about Luke vs. Dad.

Actually they worked because of good writing, good gameplay, and the fact that you were only a jedi in the second half of the game. You got the best of all worlds, you skubbed around as a guy with a blaster then you fought sith with your lasersword and lightning. Even in those games jedi weren't really ubiquitous. They were around, but the focus was on the main characters journy through the star wars universe.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Ex machina twists maybe, but two of the three remaining jedi were dead by the end of the third film, luke had had his hand cut off, and han was frozen in carbonite and sold to a space gangster. So they weren't particularly plot armored.

In the new trilogy Anakin lost a hand, Obi-wan lost a mentor, and Windu got the axe along with many other Jedi. The only way you can consider these decisions plot armored is because they were part of a prequel which necessitates the survival of certain characters. Not unlike the original trilogy, which required the survival of Luke, and Han, as narrative devices. Luke because he was Vader's son, and Han because he was the central dynamic force in the story line. Even his capture centered around that, the whole story literally stops just to reclaim this guy from Jabba. If he wasn't plot armored no one would have batted an eye.

ShumaGorath wrote:
The switch to high quality cg from puppets and models had nothing to do with the loss of connection. It had everything to do with the loss of grounding. People connected with the original trilogy because it was gritty and believable. People could connect with a single jedi as the last of his kind, and people could connect to the struggle of the oppressed rebels fighting against the corrupt empire. People could not connect with an underdeveloped army of supermen with no apparent weaknesses fighting armies of robots. Hell, the only non jedi combatants in the film with a pulse were all clones.

People didn't connect with the setting in the prequel films because its a bad setting. Robots fighting clones fighting space ninjas with superpowers. It also didn't help that the script was something lucas had found on a bathroom wall at a comicon.

Well, clearly Jedi have died. Lucas did a poor job of illustrating that they can be killed, even by other Jedi, but they can be killed. The weakness isn't something inherent to the Jedi concept, but to Lucas' ability as a writer/director. Good characters do not have an obvious weakness. Obvious weaknesses are ex machina plot twists with little grounding outside the thematic setting. They are the 'ring of x' which is necessary to kill the 'lord of y'.

You're almost at the right idea, but your stumbling by attributing the fault to the Jedi concept and not its poor development. A well developed character is always interesting, even if he is super-human, or has an obvious ex machina flaw. Just look at Gandalf, Superman, Spiderman, Dr. Manhattan, or any other number of similar examples.

For me, the puppets are an aesthetic thing, but in a very real sense they limited the scope of his film making. When someone died he was center-stage in the action. With CGI almost every death is peripheral to the main events. The rescue on Geonosis is a good example of this.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Actually it doesn't. A single jedis struggle to control his abilities and combat the darkside within himself can only be explored when there is a single one of them. When there are thousands all your left with is a group of one dimensional characters without the screen time to be explorable. Having a multitude of jedi is exactly what makes them into powers rather than people.

Luke wouldn't have been interesting if he were the only Jedi in the setting, and had complete command of his powers. He was interesting because his powers were not infallible. Because he could be killed. Again, it has nothing to do with volume specifically. Good writing can make a multitude of Jedi interesting, and bad writing can make them very boring. So long as the proper emphasis is placed on their limitations there is no issue. A multitude of Jedi makes this easier as they act as concurrent foils to one another. When all the Jedi are on one side of the battle this doesn't happen. Again, this is not a thematic limitation, but a narrative one.

ShumaGorath wrote:
It could also be the fact that the supporting characters in the original films were well rounded, written, and memorable. Luke wasn't a bad character, he just didn't have the force of personality that those around him did.

Of course the next question is 'why not?' Which would lead to an explanation centered around how he was both plot-armored, and singularly empowered in a way which was not reflective of his personal merit.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Actually they worked because of good writing, good gameplay, and the fact that you were only a jedi in the second half of the game. You got the best of all worlds, you skubbed around as a guy with a blaster then you fought sith with your lasersword and lightning. Even in those games jedi weren't really ubiquitous. They were around, but the focus was on the main characters journy through the star wars universe.

I beg to differ. The Jedi were quite ubiquitous in KOTOR. Far more so than in the original trilogy. You spend the first quarter of the game racing to rescue a Jedi from another Jedi. Then you take her to a planet populated by Jedi. Where you become a Jedi, and pick up another Jedi for your party. After which you go on a prolonged adventure during which you fight many Jedi, acquire a 3rd Jedi for your party, all with the ultimate goal of taking down a big bad Jedi. It is the perfect example of how the setting has far less of an affect on the quality of a given narrative than the construction of the narrative itself.

Did someone call Star Wars science fiction? Because I thought I saw someone call Star Wars science fiction.

I found that Rifftrax makes the prequels more watchable, though not by much. There are no Rifftrax for the original movies.

I'll be here all day if I go off on the countless ways in which WoW was deliberately irritating to prolong the amount of time it takes to do ANYTHING in that pitiful excuse for entertainment. WAR is far more efficient. Unlike WoW, You don't have to grind through 800 hours of monotony just to have a couple hours of fun. And that's aside from the 1600 hours of wading waist-deep through crap which makes absolutely no contribution to anything whatsoever. Everything you do in WAR, at any level, contributes to the overall goal. Not only is the pvp more dynamic and require more coordination, but you also get experience for pvp kills, which annihilates the twink problem, and makes the fun of pvp actually worthwhile through all stages of the game. Wow has absolutely nothing on WAR, imo... Of course, If you don't like to have very much fun, then I guess wow is the "game" for you, as it is much more focused on keeping fun just out of reach.

Ahtman wrote:Did someone call Star Wars science fiction? Because I thought I saw someone call Star Wars science fiction.

Yeah, it is a fantasy yarn, but so are all good 'sci-fi' movies. Film doesn't lend itself to long-winded technical explanations of the kind featured in works by Clarke, Asimov, or Herbert (who borders on the fantastic himself).

In the new trilogy Anakin lost a hand, Obi-wan lost a mentor, and Windu got the axe along with many other Jedi.

Yet I never once felt connected to any one of those characters because up until their expeditious deaths they were simply background characters (with the exception of anakin, who I only wish was).

Even his capture centered around that, the whole story literally stops just to reclaim this guy from Jabba. If he wasn't plot armored no one would have batted an eye.

Yet Hans ordeal brought the viewer closer to him and tied well into the surrounding storyline. Batman has plot armor, Han just lived to the end of the movie. My reasoning for claiming that jedi are plot armored is because of the central good vs evil dichotomy that they are an integral part of. If the jedi were gone there would be no star wars.

Well, clearly Jedi have died. Lucas did a poor job of illustrating that they can be killed, even by other Jedi, but they can be killed. The weakness isn't something inherent to the Jedi concept, but to Lucas' ability as a writer/director. Good characters do not have an obvious weakness. Obvious weaknesses are ex machina plot twists with little grounding outside the thematic setting. They are the 'ring of x' which is necessary to kill the 'lord of y'.

Replace ring with jedi and lord with... well sith lord, and you have all starwars fiction ever written/filmed. The reason it worked in the original films is because that aspect wasn't so horrifically overplayed as it is now. Jedi were new and fresh and rare in the film that they debuted in.

You're almost at the right idea, but your stumbling by attributing the fault to the Jedi concept and not its poor development. A well developed character is always interesting, even if he is super-human, or has an obvious ex machina flaw. Just look at Gandalf, Superman, Spiderman, Dr. Manhattan, or any other number of similar examples.

Those are all examples of a single well developed character. Superman can be a well written and conflicted character, ten supermen are just a plot device no matter their personal conflictions.

Luke wouldn't have been interesting if he were the only Jedi in the setting, and had complete command of his powers. He was interesting because his powers were not infallible. Because he could be killed. Again, it has nothing to do with volume specifically. Good writing can make a multitude of Jedi interesting, and bad writing can make them very boring. So long as the proper emphasis is placed on their limitations there is no issue. A multitude of Jedi makes this easier as they act as concurrent foils to one another. When all the Jedi are on one side of the battle this doesn't happen. Again, this is not a thematic limitation, but a narrative one.

When equal jedi are on both sides of the battle it serves to make the rest of the elements of said battle take a back seat. When you have too many characters that require depth to be interesting (because you can not naturally identify with them) then it is very hard to make them have that depth. You have to take the time to do so individually, which simply isn't possible in a movie or single novel context. Modern comic superheroes have a depth and history that fifty years of development in the singular has given them. Jedi don't have anything even close to that, and there is only one jedi with an iconic personal story.

Of course the next question is 'why not?' Which would lead to an explanation centered around how he was both plot-armored, and singularly empowered in a way which was not reflective of his personal merit.

I would blame the wooden dialogue he's given in the films, rather than any level of plot armor. Keep in mind he didn't have plot armor when the original trilogy was released, since nothing else hinged on his survival.

I beg to differ. The Jedi were quite ubiquitous in KOTOR. Far more so than in the original trilogy. You spend the first quarter of the game racing to rescue a Jedi from another Jedi. Then you take her to a planet populated by Jedi. Where you become a Jedi, and pick up another Jedi for your party. After which you go on a prolonged adventure during which you fight many Jedi, acquire a 3rd Jedi for your party, all with the ultimate goal of taking down a big bad Jedi. It is the perfect example of how the setting has far less of an affect on the quality of a given narrative than the construction of the narrative itself.

Are you sure you're not thinking of KOTOR 2? The one that is widely believed to have an ok storyline, but certainly not stellar? The first game had me running around a few planets, killing giant monsters, talking to a few jedi, and going through tons of dialogue before I got a lightsaber. Roughly half the game could be played as the soldier class before you were forced to pick up a lasersword because if you didn't you would die repeatedly (something i hated).

ShumaGorath wrote:
Yet I never once felt connected to any one of those characters because up until their expeditious deaths they were simply background characters (with the exception of anakin, who I only wish was).

What character that you connected to died in the original trilogy? Certainly not Obi-Wan, his character was about as multi-dimensional as y=f(x).

ShumaGorath wrote:
Yet Hans ordeal brought the viewer closer to him and tied well into the surrounding storyline. Batman has plot armor, Han just lived to the end of the movie. My reasoning for claiming that jedi are plot armored is because of the central good vs evil dichotomy that they are an integral part of. If the jedi were gone there would be no star wars.

If Han just 'lived to the end of the movie' why does ever central character bend over backwards to make sure that is what would happen? Sorry, Han is far more essential to Star Wars than the Jedi as he emphasizes the righteousness of the light. If Luke had just let him die he would have been no different from Vader, or the Emperor.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Replace ring with jedi and lord with... well sith lord, and you have all starwars fiction ever written/filmed. The reason it worked in the original films is because that aspect wasn't so horrifically overplayed as it is now. Jedi were new and fresh and rare in the film that they debuted in.

You're judging the narrative worth of a universe by the fan faction written about it? Seriously? This isn't even a reasonable point by the greatest stretch of the imagination.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Those are all examples of a single well developed character. Superman can be a well written and conflicted character, ten supermen are just a plot device no matter their personal conflictions.

10 Supermen are not interesting if they all continue to remain invulnerable. Hell, one Superman isn't interesting when he remains invulnerable. Jedi do not have to be invulnerable, and in fact have never been portrayed as such. Lucas failed to play up their vulnerability, but that is his failing, and one which can corrected by others.

When you have parity you have narrative. Or is every story set in the real world somehow deficient due to the presence of many different characters all equal in power and influence?

ShumaGorath wrote:
When equal jedi are on both sides of the battle it serves to make the rest of the elements of said battle take a back seat.

Not always, you can have Jedi on either side and still feature other elements. That's what good story-tellers do. They see beyond the figure-heads to the people that do the grunt work. Ever seen The Longest Day? Or Richard the III? Hamlet? MacBeth?

ShumaGorath wrote:
When you have too many characters that require depth to be interesting (because you can not naturally identify with them) then it is very hard to make them have that depth. You have to take the time to do so individually, which simply isn't possible in a movie or single novel context. Modern comic superheroes have a depth and history that fifty years of development in the singular has given them. Jedi don't have anything even close to that, and there is only one jedi with an iconic personal story.

Again, you're talking about contextual difference rather than the merit of the concept itself. You're switching debate stances mid-argument to one which agrees with my own. Either way, many films feature multiple characters who are deeply explored. Titanic is a good example of this. So is Saving Private Ryan. Wrath of Khan is another good one. Good writing

Regardless, all characters require depth to be interesting. A shallow foot soldier is just as boring as a shallow Jedi. Or do you have some personal experience as a Storm Trooper which allows you connect to his day to day struggles?

ShumaGorath wrote:
I would blame the wooden dialogue he's given in the films, rather than any level of plot armor. Keep in mind he didn't have plot armor when the original trilogy was released, since nothing else hinged on his survival.

Oh, yes he did. In the first movie he was the central character, the hero from humble beginnings around whom all the action centered. The guy with the special powers, and unassuming appearance who rescued the princess from under the nose of the all-powerful dragon. If that isn't plot armor I don't know what is. And it just gets worse after we find out that he's Vader's son.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Are you sure you're not thinking of KOTOR 2? The one that is widely believed to have an ok storyline, but certainly not stellar?

Yeah, I am.

ShumaGorath wrote:
The first game had me running around a few planets, killing giant monsters, talking to a few jedi, and going through tons of dialogue before I got a lightsaber. Roughly half the game could be played as the soldier class before you were forced to pick up a lasersword because if you didn't you would die repeatedly (something i hated).

Actually, you went to one planet before you got a lightsabre. Two if you count Dantooine. In a game which features 7 planets. That's hardly half the game as a 'normal'.

You end up on Taris because you fled from Malak, and the Jedi who boarded the Endar Spire. On Taris you rescue Bastilla, a Jedi. Then you go to Dantooine, which is a sanctuary of Jedi. There you become a Jedi, and acquire Juhanni, another Jedi. After that you can proceed in any order. But on Manaan you fight at least 3 Jedi in the Sith embassy. On Kashyyk you may, or may not, fight Darth Bandon; who is obviously a Jedi derivative. While simultaneously meeting Jolee Bindo, a Jedi. On Tatooine you may also face Darth Bandon, and always face at least 2 groups of Sith Assassins; who are Jedi. Eventually you get to Korriban, an entire planet of Sith apprentices and their masters; Jedi or Jedi in training. Somewhere in all of this you end up on the Leviathan, where you come against Saul Karrath, and his Jedi minions. Finally, you crash land on a planet filled with Rakata. Aliens who utilize the force as the basis of their technology because they were all once force-sensitive; more Jedi equivalents. The you fight your way to Malak on the Star Forge; through waves and waves of dark Jedi.

That's an awful lot of Jedi, or Jedi equivalents.

What character that you connected to died in the original trilogy? Certainly not Obi-Wan, his character was about as multi-dimensional as y=f(x).

None of them, because just dying doesn't make you a developed character.

If Han just 'lived to the end of the movie' why does ever central character bend over backwards to make sure that is what would happen? Sorry, Han is far more essential to Star Wars than the Jedi as he emphasizes the righteousness of the light. If Luke had just let him die he would have been no different from Vader, or the Emperor.

Why did they rescue him? Because thats what you do when your a brigade of honorable rogues who have had their friend captured by a space gangster. Was it inherent to the plot? Yes. It was also one of the better parts of the three movies. It doesn't show plot armor and had he died by the end of the third movie we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Batman and the hulk have plot armor. They don't lose, no matter the circumstance. The punisher has plot armor. The earth has plot armor in most films, as does the human race. I'm trying to say that the jedi order has plot armor because it's integral to Lucas' fourth grade vision of good and evil, and its been followed in every novel and comic adaptation to date.

ou're judging the narrative worth of a universe by the fan faction written about it? Seriously? This isn't even a reasonable point by the greatest stretch of the imagination.

I'm pretty sure I was talking about all the films novels and comic releases. Since, y'know, it's all fiction.

10 Supermen are not interesting if they all continue to remain invulnerable. Hell, one Superman isn't interesting when he remains invulnerable. Jedi do not have to be invulnerable, and in fact have never been portrayed as such. Lucas failed to play up their vulnerability, but that is his failing, and one which can corrected by others.

Jedi are not invulnerable. Hell they seem to have a short life expectancy. That doesn't mean that they can be connected with by the viewer or reader when they are not personally explored. I don't care if mace windu got thrown out of a window or eaten by a shark, and I don't identify with him because I don't have the ability to jump 20 stories and see the future. I also don't leave a mary sue monastic order of unexplained space ninjas. An interesting character needs to have his flaws balance with his better traits, and thats only possible with individual exploration. Something that is inherently difficult with a multitude of equivalently powered characters. One may be explored, maybe even a few, but the setting will be detached and one dimensional if it can't overall be connected to by the one experiencing it.

gain, you're talking about contextual difference rather than the merit of the concept itself. You're switching debate stances mid-argument to one which agrees with my own. Either way, many films feature multiple characters who are deeply explored. Titanic is a good example of this. So is Saving Private Ryan. Wrath of Khan is another good one. Good writing

An invulnerable character can be quite interesting to read about. The sandman is a multidimensional godlike force of nature, and had one of the most emotionally charged and interesting stories I've experienced in fiction. He also had to have an entire comic series dedicated to him and him alone to reach that point. Personal growth and conflict makes for a good story, you can't do that for 300 bronzed supermen at the same time, thus the jedi "order" is one dimensional and bland.

I'm not changing debate stances at all. My opinion has always been that the number of superhuman characters is inversely proportional to the quality of the setting. KOTOR had an excellent narrative and that made up for the bad setting. You can write excellent fiction about World of Warcrafts setting as well, it's still not going to be a good universe. The setting to the prequel movies and the KOTOR games is quite different from the original trilogy. The original trilogy was about rebuilding, rebellion, and overcoming oppression using what meager resources you have. The others are about marshaling your armies of supermen to fight other armies of supermen.

As for identifying with a stormtrooper, actually I can do that. I have friends in the military, I live next to a sizable naval air station. And I have fired an automatic before. Put me in a white suit and make that automatic shoot red laser beams and I'm right there. Titanic is also equally relatable because I've been on a ship and have had a crush. Saving private ryan is relatable for the same reason the stormtrooper is.

Oh, yes he did. In the first movie he was the central character, the hero from humble beginnings around whom all the action centered. The guy with the special powers, and unassuming appearance who rescued the princess from under the nose of the all-powerful dragon. If that isn't plot armor I don't know what is. And it just gets worse after we find out that he's Vader's son.

And it would have been very, very, very plausible for him to die by the emperors hand and be avenged by his father. Thats not plot armor, it wasn't plausible at all to have batman get killed by the end of the dark night. Which is plot armor

actually, you went to one planet before you got a lightsabre. Two if you count Dantooine. In a game which features 7 planets. That's hardly half the game as a 'normal'.

Considering you spent more time on that planet then any other and half of the games planets were basically pit stops I would consider it "half the game".

Also in actuality the narrative and pacing of the game was bad by movie or novel standards. It was a videogame script in an RPG, which is a medium that has a much lower glass ceiling to account for player decision and control.

ShumaGorath wrote:

None of them, because just dying doesn't make you a developed character.

You're right, it doesn't. Just like the quality of being a Jedi does not remove all possibility for character development.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Why did they rescue him? Because thats what you do when your a brigade of honorable rogues who have had their friend captured by a space gangster. Was it inherent to the plot? Yes. It was also one of the better parts of the three movies. It doesn't show plot armor and had he died by the end of the third movie we wouldn't be having this conversation.

The plot centers on good versus evil. So yes, Han's life is absolutely plot armored as it is essential to Lucas' conception of Good, and its undeniable ability to best Evil. If he had died, Evil would have won. There are no sacrifices in Star Wars.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Batman and the hulk have plot armor. They don't lose, no matter the circumstance. The punisher has plot armor. The earth has plot armor in most films, as does the human race. I'm trying to say that the jedi order has plot armor because it's integral to Lucas' fourth grade vision of good and evil, and its been followed in every novel and comic adaptation to date.

So is Han. He is the means of communicating Nobility as something beyond adherence to the codified teaching of an ancient society. His death would have re-characterized the entirety of the trilogy, and all of its characters. So, unless Star Wars is going to be something altogether different, he was indeed plot armored.

ShumaGorath wrote:
I'm pretty sure I was talking about all the films novels and comic releases. Since, y'know, it's all fiction.

Sorry, I read 'fan fiction' because that's about what I expected from you. Either way, I'm not going to debate the entirety of the Star Wars fictional universe with you. Mainly because I haven't read much of it, but mostly because it isn't pertinent.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Jedi are not invulnerable. Hell they seem to have a short life expectancy. That doesn't mean that they can be connected with by the viewer or reader when they are not personally explored. I don't care if mace windu got thrown out of a window or eaten by a shark, and I don't identify with him because I don't have the ability to jump 20 stories and see the future. I also don't leave a mary sue monastic order of unexplained space ninjas. An interesting character needs to have his flaws balance with his better traits, and thats only possible with individual exploration. Something that is inherently difficult with a multitude of equivalently powered characters. One may be explored, maybe even a few, but the setting will be detached and one dimensional if it can't overall be connected to by the one experiencing it.

So then it is impossible for a sci-fi/fantasy setting to feature reasonable character development? That's quite a stretch there Shumi.

ShumaGorath wrote:
An invulnerable character can be quite interesting to read about. The sandman is a multidimensional godlike force of nature, and had one of the most emotionally charged and interesting stories I've experienced in fiction. He also had to have an entire comic series dedicated to him and him alone to reach that point. Personal growth and conflict makes for a good story, you can't do that for 300 bronzed supermen at the same time, thus the jedi "order" is one dimensional and bland.

Vulnerability does not have to be physical for it to be vulnerability.

Either way, you don't have to do it for 300 bronzed supermen at the same time, just a few. The remaining characters are just scenery, juts like the majority of characters in any film production. So long as you establish a background which is reflective of human emotion it doesn't make a difference what the physical relations of the universe entail.

ShumaGorath wrote:
I'm not changing debate stances at all. My opinion has always been that the number of superhuman characters is inversely proportional to the quality of the setting. KOTOR had an excellent narrative and that made up for the bad setting. You can write excellent fiction about World of Warcrafts setting as well, it's still not going to be a good universe. The setting to the prequel movies and the KOTOR games is quite different from the original trilogy. The original trilogy was about rebuilding, rebellion, and overcoming oppression using what meager resources you have. The others are about marshaling your armies of supermen to fight other armies of supermen.

Again, not really. The quality of the setting can only be judged by the types of narratives which that setting can encapsulate. KOTOR allows for a pretty compelling story because its characters can be both human and superhuman. The new trilogy failed at that because Lucas can't write. The original trilogy succeeded at that because the setting basically forced it on the story.

ShumaGorath wrote:
As for identifying with a stormtrooper, actually I can do that. I have friends in the military, I live next to a sizable naval air station. And I have fired an automatic before. Put me in a white suit and make that automatic shoot red laser beams and I'm right there. Titanic is also equally relatable because I've been on a ship and have had a crush. Saving private ryan is relatable for the same reason the stormtrooper is.

Yeah, it is. That's what abstraction does. The specific details of the image do not matter so long as the distribution of affect remains consistent. Kind of like it would if you were just one Jedi fighting in a war featuring many of them.

ShumaGorath wrote:

And it would have been very, very, very plausible for him to die by the emperors hand and be avenged by his father. Thats not plot armor, it wasn't plausible at all to have batman get killed by the end of the dark night. Which is plot armor

Why couldn't Batman die at the end of Dark Knight? What if he did so in order to kill the Joker? He might be plot armored because you expect a sequel, but not because of the way the movie plays out.

Luke wasn't going to die because it would not have entailed a victory for Good. Why? Because his death would have ended the Jedi, the ultimate force for Good in the black and white SW universe.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Considering you spent more time on that planet then any other and half of the games planets were basically pit stops I would consider it "half the game".

Maybe you spent more time there because you weren't fully familiar with the game. Because, in terms of number of quests and other activities, all the planets are about the same.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Also in actuality the narrative and pacing of the game was bad by movie or novel standards. It was a videogame script in an RPG, which is a medium that has a much lower glass ceiling to account for player decision and control.

Obviously, its interactive, you don't have to try as hard to keep people interested.

Warhammer Online has no Jedi.

Locking thread.