Jump to content

Home

jonathan7

Members
  • Posts

    3772
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by jonathan7

  1. Didn't seem to be free for me, I checked it out minutes after J7's post and it was "only" half off. Does Steam do regional sales or something?

     

    It was weird in that it listed it as 50% discount but it was free; you could just click install game next to it. Did yours have a price next to it? I'm UK Steam.

  2. Finding out that Darth Vader was Luke's father and that Leia was his sister were pretty big shocks for me when I first watched the OT. I remember I asked my dad if Vader was lying but he wouldn't tell me. I didn't want to believe it until Yoda finally confirmed it in RotJ where I finally had to accept it much like Luke did.

     

    I mean, the Vader was basically evil incarnate from what I understood about Star Wars as a child. He was the bad guy doing evil things and Luke was the good guy, saving the galaxy. To have the bad guy be the good guys father was mindblowing to me, even with the shootbangs and such going on around it.

     

    I remember this too, and this really should have been kept for future generations...

     

    There's certainly no hard feelings between myself and Alexrd and urluckyday or anyone else despite what it may seem. Believe me, I don't hold grudges, and when I do... it's for a VERY serious reason, not something so trivial as an argument about Star Wars or video games or whatever XD I can argue all day about all of this stuff with a vengeance and still like the people I've been debating with or against, or whatever *looks around*

     

    Yeah, speaking for me, I really like and respect Alexrd, urluckyday; none of my posts were meant to seem aggressive, angry or indeed attacking the individual. The forums contain many people I greatly respect - adamqd for example has the most in depth knowledge of anyone I know about Star Wars, and there is no-one on the forus I dislike (well except for MIMARTIN ;)).

     

    Jonathan7: Your idea of the Anakin/Vader portrayal in the PT actually sounds really awesome. You should totally write fanfiction of the PT from that viewpoint >.>

     

    I'll consider it, if others are interested I could post a general plotline as I (and Lynk, we were chatting about this the other day) would have done the Prequels...

     

    Here's a little taster art;

     

    samurai_vader_by_cheo36-d48l8pp.jpg

     

    Maybe I was just a sick kid who loved Vader and wanted him to win anyway. I used to think that Stormtroopers were the coolest! :D

     

    Star Destroyers are so cool too, every other Starship sucks compared to them...

  3. I cannot believe how any one can defend some of the utter awfulness in the Prequels, are they ok movies? - yes, do they entertain? - yes. Are they anywhere near as good as the OT? No. Some of you seem to be in a frankly weird denial about why the prequels don't have major issues - they do. Period.

     

    I can't link because of the adult content, but youtube redlettermedia Star Wars prequels and watch the videos to see what is wrong with all the prequels...

     

    As for my opinions;

     

    All the prequels suffer from a lack of characterization and too much of Lucas thinking oooohhhh with all my CGI I can do this, this and this, ironically I think the special effects in the OT look better than all the blue and green screen crap in the PT. The biggest problem is the Prequels have a bunch of charachters in that I don't really care about - Qui-Gon dies, but even as a kid I didn't care much, I think Mace Windu's death is the only one in the whole PT that had any emotional impact, and even that was mitigated by him not acting like a Jedi.

     

    What's wrong with TPM - biggest problem; it has no main charachter, can anyone tell me who the main charachter is? If it's Obi-Wan why is he missing for large portions of the film? If it's Anakin why are we not introduced until 45mins in? Lets not even talk about freaking accidentally blowing a whole star ship up. If it's Padme why does she spend the whole film being boring as hell and pretending to be a servant. If it's Qui-Gon whats the freaking point considering he dies? The next issue is that stupid pod race, TPM pacing doesn't work - it seems to me Lucas wanted a pod race and then made a really convulted plot to include it which just spoiled the whole film.

     

    AotC - Jane Austen in space, with charachters we don't like and horrific dialogue. "The Clone Wars" - Seriously, I think all of us wanted to see them, it's Star WARS, not Star LOVE. Also more Space politics we don't care about, and more boring dialogue I could watch on the politics channel if I really wanted. Also Anakin is a complete idiot, I don't really care about his fall later in RotS because he's a total tool. Also would you seriously fall in love with some egit who slaughtered a whole tribe of women and children. Like its early in their relationship, if you went out with someone for two weeks and then they said by the way I'm a serial killer would you really still continue a relationship? Or report them to the freaking relevant authorities? Additionally Hayden Christianson was just an awful choice of actor; I'd vote Christian Bale personally. Lets not even go into the Clone army being created the Jedi saying they will put all their resources into investigating it and then... Completely forgetting about it and just going to war.

     

    RotS. I hate this film the most. I also love it, for the fact the Emporer is amazing in it. I hate it as it ruins the twist "I am your father" in ESB, and also spoiled my visions of "Do not underestimate the powers of the Emporer or suffer your fathers fate, you will" - I'd always imagined Anakin and the Emporer fighting. As a kid I was captivated and shocked by the "father" reveal, how many kids have had that ruined by seeing the films in "order"?

     

    Here's how it should of been done... Vader should of been the Emporers private assassin from the start, we see him in a proto Vader suit, assassinating various of the Chancellors enemies. Vader is shown to think this is good by aiding the republic... He also likes that he is gaining new powers - he could learn force choke for example on a mission.

     

    Anakin is doing his Jedi Hero routine. We never see them togeather (like say Batman and Bruce Wayne). Anakin goes to confront the Emporer having figuered out he's a Sith, he gets his ass handed to him with lightning... And that's the last we see of him; he's presumed dead. The Emporer then orders Vader to attack the Jedi etc etc, so would of been saved until ESB for us to finally realize (if watched in chronological order) that Anakin and Vader are infact the same person, and gives a whole new twist on Anakins fall.

     

    Yet another problem - totally inconsistant tone, this started with RotJ and the flipping teddy bears, but this gets ever more worse in the Prequels, on the one hand we have the super daft and stupid Jar-Jar, the totally stupid and goofy battle droids, then we have Anakin slaughtering women and children, and finally see him dismembered and burned alive. GL, what on earth were you thinking?

     

    Finally Yoda should never hop around like some feral kitten high on speed. He also shouldn't draw a lightsaber, should just fight enemies with the Force. And he should of been the one to kill Grevious, Grevious should of been shown killing a few Jedi, then he fights Yoda, and Yoda just crushes him with the the ceiling...

     

    (Could I of done a better job of the OT than Lucas, undeniably not. Could I of made the prequels a hell of a lot better, entertaining and coherant than they are... YES. Also if anyone tries to defend the new Indiana Jones film, I'm liable to think you completly devoid of any ability to discern a good film).

  4. As I have said since ME2 came out with its go nowhere side-quest and sudden injection of all new (and contradictory) lore, this is what happens when you make up the overarching plot for a trilogy as you go along. It's never going to end well.

     

    Aye, I certainly agree, and the way the three games play out it seems to me that Bioware suddenly thought we can make a lot of money off Mass Effect so we should do a sequel, the games don't play out as an over arching plot IMO. I agree ME2 is an entirely pointless - you spend the whole game trying to stop the reapers coming back and then ends with the reapers coming back... My biggest bug bear across the series; Cerburus being terrorists/"good" guys/Indoctrinated I found extremely painful/fanciful.

     

    Funnily enough of course I think Star Wars and the Prequels also show this problems, the cracks started appearing in RotJ and then the prequels...

  5. The "space child" was not at the beginning of the game.

     

    Space child does look an awful lot like...

     

    2147334-mass_effect_3_demo_boy_655x368.jpg

     

    That was what I was meaning.

     

    Could that have been done better? Probably. Was it completely unexplained and/or out of left field? No.

     

    I think it definitely could of been done better :p

     

    I'm only cursorily familiar with this. Based on my understanding of it the indoctrination theory would make both existing ending even more meaningless. Am I wrong?

     

    I think it would of made for an absolutely awesome plot twist. Usually with "amazing" plot twists, say Revan I already saw it coming from way off, I certainly wouldn't of guessed Shepard was indoctrinated. From a story perspective it would be great I think, for an RPG (which ME is and isn't) it would be awful; having the PC in an RPG as an unreliable narrator seems highly problematic ;)

    It would of course make all gameplay after the point Shepard was indoctrinated 'pointless' - but isn't the point of indoctrination the insidious you think you are doing what is right part of it.

     

    Did you mean From Ashes?

     

    Leviathan explains

    why the Reapers look like giant cuttlefish, where indoctrination comes from, and how the cycle started

     

    I'm not sure what the name of the DLC is as I played it on a friends computer but whichever one has the Leviathan hiding out below the waves on a far off planet.

     

    From Ashes, on the other hand

    provided the foil for Shepard, and by extension, this cycle. All the other cycles took the Javik route (i.e. one dominate species over all others), whereas Shepard was able to unite species, help them to work past their insurmountable differences, build trust where no one else could. In other words, he did what no other organic was able to do in the history of the universe: bring the galaxy together. This is how he showed the Reapers that they were wrong and forced the recalculation of their directive.

    You can still figure this out without the DLC, however it certainly helps to show, rather than tell.

     

    I was more meaning in terms of the origins of the Reapers and what happened, space child says a bit but personally I thought the Leviathan explain it much better.

     

    Meh. I suppose it would have been possible to write a story that was interesting, engaging, satisfying, etc without revealing the motivations of the Reapers, however antagonists which are "evil for evil's sake" tend to be boring. While the whole

    AI takes instructions a little too literally, resulting in mayhem for the organics it was intended to protect

    schtick may be a little thread-bare, it does afford a little umph for the modern tragedy.

     

    Whenever I see this one, I wonder if the person who made/the person posting it either doesn't get that it's wrong or conveniently pretends not to get that it's wrong for the sake of the lolz.

     

    For me, you go back to ME1, and Soverign (sp) talks about the Reapers being far above human understanding and how humans cannot understand their motives, when you can actually explain it in a sentence, that I found highly frustrating. It's not so much evil for evils sake as the motives behind it at least being more complex than what was explain in ME; I think thats my gripe was ultimately the explanation was simple. As for the picture I was originally intending to say the above, but I found that picture too tempting to post instead succumbed to the lolz :p

  6. As long as no-one starts attacking those who think the ending is good/bad I don't see an issue, the debate can be on going, not sure it is going anywhere in particular.

     

    Personally I hated both endings (normal and EC). They were just lazy, I hate space child as well - why was space child at the start and end of the game, why was Sheppard dreaming of space child? The indoctrination theory is the only one I would have to explain that personally. I hate that really I think the Leviathan DLC is required to explain the essential question

     

    Personally I think leaving the Reapers motives more unknown would of been better, I do realize of course Achilles for example disagree's with me. I suppose my frustration is best expressed in funny pictures...

     

    yodawgme.jpg

     

    biowarelotr2.png

     

    And finally...

     

    Mass+effect+ending.+me3_0c3d9e_3847613.jpg

     

    1d61845d0adb7c0acbd135453498be0ad3c7c0f599aa64f2cb994727a6813717.jpg

  7. But he's not immortal, invulnerable or unbeatable. He's an alien and hard to kill when compared to humans. And even if he was immortal, that doesn't mean he couldn't be heroic. The mere choice of actually helping people instead of ignoring them is heroic.

     

    Errr - you can't shoot him, hurt him, he's earthquake, space and nuclear proof, I'm not really sure what else he has to do to qualify for invulnerable save for his own severe lack of intelligence vs Lex Luther half the time.

     

    Really? A definition of Heroic;

     

    "having the characteristics of a hero or heroine; admirably brave or determined"

     

    I fail to see if bullets cannot hurt you, how it is brave to confront a gunman. Being brave necessitates risk and over coming fear - Superman is never at risk and therefore has no fear he has to overcome. Therefore he isn't brave.

     

    What's heroic about acting as you should? I think many/most people will help people rather than ignoring them if it costs them nothing. What does being Superman really cost Superman? Nothing, ergo, he's not being heroic. The Clark Kent persona in some respects is more of a hero than Superman... Choosing to limmit himself.

     

    On the definition of a "hero" "a person, who is admired for their courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities". If you can lift anything, is it really an outstanding achievement when you do? Since how good a achievement is can only come through comparison with someone of equal abilities there isn't too much that can be said. As I've already argued he isn't courageous...

  8. I don't consider Superman overpowered because I think he works best as the superhero who you know is always going to win.

     

    Disagree, I think Superman shouldn't even be classed as a hero. If you cannot die, are invulnerable and unbeatable it is not possible to be heroic, brave or courageous. It also sucks any dramatic tension out of the films. Martha Nussbaum is undoubtedly correct that the biggest tragedies in drama consists of impossible choices posed by inalterable circumstances. (Think Batman, with Harvey Dent and Rachel in TDK, or what to do about the Nuclear bomb in TDKR).

     

    Superman doesn't face those decisions because apparently when his girlfriend dies he can spin the world backwards to reverse time and save her. His only real weakness isn't cryptonite it's that he's freaking stupid. "What's in that led-lined safe Lex? It has to be my birthday cake, cause you'd never try and get cryptonite close to me would you..."

     

    Another problem with his character is he doesn't have any normal human faults. He's "perfect", which in some senses is his whole problem, but it renders any thing he could teach us redundant; because while all the other superhero's have superpowers they still retain weaknesses. Superman has none, you can't even hurt the people he loves as he will just reverse time or some such other crap.

     

    Also - "The difference between Superman and Batman"

     

    (This BBCode requires its accompanying plugin to work properly.)

     

    So yeah, Superman is too overpowered it's ridiculous, he's also a dork.

  9. We are damaging the planet, surely everyone can see that regardless of global warming, pumping bad gasses into the atmosphere is damaging ourselves and nature; and therefore we want to reduce that chemicals we are pumping into the atmosphere to look after the planet. Afterall as far as we know Earth is unique, and we should urge on the side of caution with regards looking after it as if we mess the planet up we as a species are screwed.

  10. Purely speaking from an SW:K perspective, I don't really venture out of here too much, I think partly the success of SW:K was/has/is the modding community, back in the hey day many posters were modders or aspiring modders. I think in some respects the biggest killer of the forum has been the lack of new titles and the lack of any new titles really being modable - TOR being an example in that it is quite limited as to any mods you can make.

     

    One suggestion I would have is any games which are very easy to mod - make offers to communities, that if they are making a TC of that game to say Star Wars or Indiana Jones they would get their own forum hosted by us to support their project.

     

    Other idea's - the Let's Play one I think is certainly a good one; some seem to have gone missing certainly KotOR'2s one seems to have gone missing, it was excellent - perhaps a Let's Play of all the various LA games we can.

     

    Additionally could we to a LA review style show - possibly broaden it, and go for a Zero Punctuation style review - or something unique that could draw people into a cult following?

  11. To be fair, I think one of those bans was voluntary and another was a long time coming.

     

    Some observations...

     

    For any part I may have played in any injustice anyone feels they have suffered at my hands, I am very sorry, I have always sought to be fair and just, but when I have failed you do have my apologies.

     

    Personally I'd be happy to post why an individual member has been banned, in fact I think it in hindsight it would of been a good idea to have a banned member list and why and how long the ban was to clarify what had happened.

     

    Often how a member posts in forum can be very different to private correspondence, I've never banned anyone for how they have spoken to me in PM's but have had a number of very nasty messages sent. Usually those members would eventually do something nasty in forum to another member.

     

    With regards Kavars, people forget why it was formed which is mainly we kept getting serious topics started here in Ahto, and so to keep Ahto light we created Kavars for the more serious discussion, so it was something at least a section of the SWK community wanted for they were the ones who started political and philosophical threads.

     

    As for Drama, my favourite thread ever! - http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=174418

  12. As far as I know there isn't a current modification allowing the Romance of Mira; Shem often makes video's and screenshots that aren't actually mods for the game, i.e. putting in dialog to a screenshot via photoshop. As for why this mod doesn't exist - the answer is simple no-one has made it (yet).

     

    Nor do I understand why you are attacking, say me as a Moderator for pointing out the mod doesn't exist. I have no say over what mods are made in the community or not. Nor do I know if any modders will take this request up or not. -- j7

  13. Yes, but you also must keep in mind the context of those words. They are the very foundation of our great country, yes, but they were also written directed towards a country that felt that it could impose on the most basic rights of the people from thousands of miles away.

     

    Err, and that's different to America these days how? Honestly the founding fathers would turn in their Graves seeing American foreign policy over the last 60 years. Not that I think British foreign policy is any better, but I'm not the one in self denial of this fact.

     

    BX5_pLSIQAA94dD.jpg

  14. The reason we interrogate terrorists with certain methods in other countries and at sea is so that we don't have to give them rights and follow The Constitution. We barely get enough info from terrorists as is with different methods of torture. Who knows where we would be if we just asked them nicely to answer questions that could save lives. We have done this for years and the only reason people think we started after 9/11 is because that's when the information was leaked and it was more of a big news story since the terrorists we had in custody at the time were high value targets. We do what we have to do to protect the country as a whole. Petty crimes and even serious ones such as murder are nothing compared to terrorists that could bring an entire country to their knees if we let our guard down. So no Bin Laden didn't win.

     

    You NEVER get reliable intelligence from Torture, if people don't break before Torture, when they finally break they will say whatever they think you want to hear. Psychological studies and evidence show that evidence gained from torture is unreliable, as people just become desperate to end the pain so will do whatever they think will end it.

     

    Example, after the first nuclear bomb was dropped on Japan, they tortured a captured American pilot for information, he knew nothing of the Manhattan project, and said he knew nothing about the bombs. However having been tortured he confessed that the US had 100 Nuclear Bombs, and then told the Japanese where the next target was (Tokyo).

     

    Some of your arguments are total logic fails, just because something has gone on for years does not make it right. Was Slavery right? Was the oppression of Blacks right? Was Apartheid right? Was the Holocaust right? On the grounds they went on for years...

     

    That's aside from the moral obligations, and I'm pretty sure given the "Declaration of Independence" against tyranny and the fact the Constitution itself states unfair, unusual and un-judged imprisonment is not to be allowed in US territory - which I think means that say Guantanamo Bay, does in-fact come under the Constitution. Not that I really see any point in having the Constitution if you just ignore it or use technicalities to get out of it when it prooves inconvenient.

  15. you want what? All the different creation stories that are around there. Go and fetch them. I took the one that influences my culture the most.

     

    I don't need to. You stated;

     

    That is a contradiction. You can NOT believe in both.

    Evolution states clearly that we are descendants of apes (hell...we are apes).

    Creation states clearly that God made Adam out of dirt/clay and Eve of one of Adams ribs. Quite a contradiction.

     

    It is NOT a contradiction to believe both, as they are entirely different questions... But despite that, the Roman Catholic Church adopted into it's beliefs an acceptance in 1947 that Evolution is correct - so that's a belief that God created the Universe and everything in it, and then life evolved on this planet.

     

    Mind to explain natural design?

     

    Why? I don't believe it; I was just pointing out it was one of many other theories... More than your 3 options.

  16. Creation I believe is just being used to mean either a supreme being who created life on Earth in its present form (option 2) or one who created the universe, but then left it up to the evolutionary process to create the diversity in life we see now (option 3).

     

    I find it strange we are only left with 3 options... Regardless it's things such as "natural design" which go "up" against evolution usually -certainly the OP seems to only be taking into account Christian creation myths and disregarding all the other religions... Incidentally the Roman Catholic Church accepted into Dogma evolution in 1947.

  17. Creation states clearly that God made Adam out of dirt/clay and Eve of one of Adams ribs. Quite a contradiction.

     

    Actually the Bible states the above. Creation merely is the term for someone of a religious belief that Supreme being created the universe. Your claim also ignores the fact many Christians don't take then first chapters of Genesis literally, indeed whatever else maybe said it is written in the form of a Hebrew poem.

     

    As for the matter at hand, I would argue that "Creation" is an entirely different matter to Evolution. Evolution being true neither confirms nor denies if there is a Contingent being who created the universe.

  18. Several observations.

     

    Some individuals seem to be taking Canderis question as a soapbox to preach their particular beliefs, rather than answering his question.

     

    Telling someone not to be afraid is a rather silly thing, I would argue, given that fear is irrational and is an emotion. Personally I can be logically aware of one thing and feel something else.

     

    As others have said Canderis whatever you believe is a matter of searching, really whatever is true is what we should wish to believe, be that Christianity, Islam, Atheism or something else. The most logical starting point would seem to me to be Agnosticism.

     

    Canderis, if I may, here are a few quotes which may well help you on your way;

     

    "While spiritual insight or faith is one valid measure in spiritual matters, true spiritual insight never directly contradicts valid intellectual insight or facts in the physical world. Faith may go beyond reason, but does not go against it. It never blatantly contradicts the facts which we perceive with our God-given common sense. Faith and fact point in a single direction. When they do not, something is seriously wrong…A willingness to accept facts as they exist, and to learn to use them to test the views one holds rather than falling back on subjective experience or rationalizations, is the first step towards discovering genuine truth." (Charles Larson, By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus, pp. 177-178)

     

    ‘Science cannot answer the questions that philosophers – or children – ask: why are we here, what is the point in being alive, how ought we to behave? Genetics has almost nothing to say about what makes us more than machines driven by biology, about what makes us human. These questions maybe interesting, but scientists are no more qualified to comment on them than anyone else.’ 'Language of the Genes', HarperCollins, p.xi.

     

    In answer to something Me_Who_Else said;

     

    “I think all the great religions of the world-Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam and Communism-both untrue and harmful. It is evident as a matter of logic that, since they disagree, not more than one of them can be true” preface to 'Why I am not a Christian', emphasis mine

     

    Of course for me, I love the following quote most;

     

    "Before he leaves, you will permit an old man to pontificate. Alors, mademoiselle, there is nothing in the world so damaged that it cannot be repaired by the hand of Almighty God. I encourage you to know this because without this certainty, we should all of us... be mad. Je vous salue, mademoiselle. Au revoir" ‘Appointment with Death’ ITV (a televised version the quote is not in the book, I would presume given that David Suchet is a Christian he added it)
×
×
  • Create New...